Movies that aren't as great as they are hyped to be

[Kirby101]

2001: A Space Odyssey.

When nothing at all happens for like 30 minutes, i kinda lose interest in a movie. It's awfully pretentious, boring to a level seldom reached before and just a terrible movie to watch.

Never understood the cult around that stuff.

Now ladies and gentlemen, you can grab your pitch forks.

This just came up in Last Movie Watched. I will quote what I said there.

Probably my favorite movie , I have watched it about 20 times. Among the best films in the history of cinema. Visually unprecedented. Multi-layered story telling and truly awe inspiring. A science fiction movie that could rival literature.

[Vinsanity]

I'm gonna add Mean Girls to this.

Clueless was so much better.

[Powerboy]

This just came up in Last Movie Watched. I will quote what I said there.

I'd agree with that though I've only watched it maybe four times. I can understand how someone can watch it and feel like "nothing happened" during the first 30 minutes yet, in fact, so much was happening during that time.

However, I read the book about ten years before I saw the movie. Clarke and Kubrick had diametrically opposed styles. In the book, Clarke explains everything. In the movie, Kubrick shows it visually without explanation.

In the book, my favorite character was Moonwatcher. He's the main prehistoric man. In the book, the prehistoric part is five or six chapters though they are short chapters and he is an actual character and we get to know what his thoughts are.

[ChrisIII]

The book also explains more of Bowman's "trip", explaining it as more of "a star gate" which drops him off at an alien space station, various other planets etc. that are really only implied in the film's visuals.


The phrase "My god, it's full of stars!" also is never said in the first film, just the novel, although it does show up quite a few times in the sequel, which is a more generic sci-fi film.

[stargazer01]

2001: A Space Odyssey

Not a bad film, and the visuals are impressive really, but the story just bores me to tears. Not my kind of space movie for sure.

I prefer CONTACT with Jodie Foster so much more. I love that movie and the story. It moves me deeply. 2001 is a chore to watch.

[Steamroller]

The Matrix trilogy and Fury Road. Overrated and boring.

[Powerboy]

2001: A Space Odyssey

Not a bad film, and the visuals are impressive really, but the story just bores me to tears. Not my kind of space movie for sure.

I prefer CONTACT with Jodie Foster so much more. I love that movie and the story. It moves me deeply. 2001 is a chore to watch.

It's hard for me to judge it having read the book years before seeing it and essentially already knowing what was going on.

[Midvillian1322]

The Matrix trilogy and Fury Road. Overrated and boring.

Fury road had some beautiful action but when it got a Oscar nom but Creed, concussion and Straight out of Compton didnt i was confused. Given the outrage that year alot of people were confused aswell. Thought not about those specific movies

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

I REALLY don't think Thor Ragnarok and GOTG 2 was that good.

[stargazer01]

It's hard for me to judge it having read the book years before seeing it and essentially already knowing what was going on.

what book? Contact? I never read it.

[Joker]

However, I read the book about ten years before I saw the movie. Clarke and Kubrick had diametrically opposed styles. In the book, Clarke explains everything. In the movie, Kubrick shows it visually without explanation.

The book was written at the same time the movie was mad, and Kubrick worked on the book as well.

I read the book after seeing the movie a few times and it definitely elaborates on what’s happening, but I never felt like I didn’t understand the movie before having read the book.

[ChrisIII]

There's a few differences in addition to those listed above.

-The Monolith is transparent instead of black

-There's more of a cold war subtext (In the movie we only see a little bit of this with Floyd on the space station). Also the Star child destroys nukes at the end. The movie sequel however definitely had a lot of cold war stuff though.

-In the novel the giant monolith is orbiting Saturn and her moons, not Jupiter. Like Michael Crichton with the Lost World, the next three novels follow the movie's example and use Jupiter.

[Midvillian1322]

Harry Potter films, all of them. Could just never get into it and I had read the first 3 books prior to watching any. So it's not the material more the movies and cast. Though what I did watch Alan rickman was always enjoyable to bad he wasnt the star. But I get they are beloved, so clearly it's a me thing.

[Powerboy]

what book? Contact? I never read it.

The novel version of 2001. It is correct to say the novel can not be called a novelization of the movie and the movie cannot be said to be based on the novel because they were written concurrently.

[Soubhagya]

2001: A Space Odyssey.

When nothing at all happens for like 30 minutes, i kinda lose interest in a movie. It's awfully pretentious, boring to a level seldom reached before and just a terrible movie to watch.

Never understood the cult around that stuff.

Now ladies and gentlemen, you can grab your pitch forks.

That is my favorite movie. At least when those pesky two Godfathers aren't bothering me.

Generally, in films the themes take a secondary place to plot and character. For example, one can see Logan and think its a sad action movie. Someone else may say its about family. Themes are secondary to plot and character development. 2001 is however experimental. Plot and character go to the background. And the themes take the center stage. I think the only time when there is a conventional plot is when they try to disconnect HAL. And HAL 2000 is its most memorable character.

I can say that its truly an immersive film. The music. The visuals. The painstakingly created details. And we can use our brains while watching a movie for once. A rare thing. And when i say using brains, its not only the ending. But its throughout the movie. For example the 'space waltz' scene ends with a fade to black, as it moves towards the vast space. The idea conveyed: "Space ships and satellites dance in the heavens. Impressive. But the stars lay beyond."

I don't mind if anyone says, i don't like it. Its not needed. Its a so called 'art' movie whose reputation has grown to be one of the greatest sci-fi films. But its not without reason that it has something of a cult following.