2001 – A Space Odyssey Review

A few minutes before I began writing this review, my computer hangs. I try clicking the mouse button repeatedly, press random keys of my keyboard and hope something happens. Nothing does happen. I swear at my computer and give the monitor a few hits here and there. Nothing happens. I begin requesting the computer to start and let me write, for there are too many points treading through the expanse of my mind right now and if I don’t jot down them right now, I won’t ever be able to write this review, EVER. The screen flashes. The computer has regained its normal functionality. I begin wondering. Did it hear my pleads ? Did my computer just sense my feelings, my anguish ? I will never know.

These events are trivial, but if considered in a wider expanse hold an uncanny resemblance to the problems faced by the astronauts who are traveling to Jupiter on Discovery One. The computer system that governs the functioning of Discovery One, HAL 9000, has gone rogue. Catch is HAL 9000 presumably has feelings. The astronauts have planned to disconnect HAL’s logical thinking capabilities, his emotions. But unfortunately, HAL has another plans.

Stanley Kubrick, more than a genius, was a visionary. Towards the end of the movie, Kubrick is naked in front of his audience, a man who has lost all track of any limitations he might hold in his thoughts. Here he is, in front of his audience, a man unable to conceal the unimaginable depths of his vision. In 1968, two events concurred, one in the literary field while other in the cinematic field. The event in the literary field was the publication of Erich Von Daniken’s Chariots Of Gods and the event in the cinematic field was the release of 2001. These events coincide due to their purpose. Understanding human existence.

2001 and The Tree Of Life are the only movies which have attempted to put in a nutshell, the whole human existence. Maybe my polarized approach towards The Tree of Life is due to clash of ideologies of mine and Malick’s. The Tree Of Life is an ode, an affirmation to God and how he governs us. I personally relate more to 2001. People have often criticized 2001 for being impossible to comprehend in its end. I personally prefer that ending. I feel as if Kubrick, like me, is agnostic. The ending signifies that the very existence of our realm is inaccessible to us. So obviously, it is not for everyone !

The movie ventures through two time lines : The Dawn Of The Man and 2001. The only connecting thread is a mysterious black monolith. What does it do ? Absolutely nothing. It drives human curiosity is all. It remains beyond comprehension for humans and drives them towards other discoveries. If to symbolize anything, it might suggest a warp of time itself, where it flows seamlessly. That probably explains the movie’s slow pace. It is basically the fastest paced movie ever made. It traverses through the entire human existence within 142 minutes. What more can Kubrick do ?

2001 is less a movie, more an experience. The classical music draws you in and the slow pace puts you with these characters. Seriously, I felt a downward pull when the Moonbus lands. It lets you inhibit its astounding world. And the meticulous amount of detail given to the whole surroundings is astounding. For example, consider the scene where the space shuttle carrying Dr.Heywood lands on the Clavius Base. Kubrick very well knows the visual effects are sloppy and that the audience may find it cartoonish. But to project an image of an enormous spacecraft, he lets the background do the work, which is filled with projections of people, minuscule in their sizes which gives us an idea about the astounding size the shuttle may have, which is similar to the effect Jonathan Swift gave us about Lilliputians dealing with Gulliver, a giant in their eyes, in Gulliver’s Travels.

I had mentioned Chariots Of Gods before. Why ? Because here, in this paragraph, I tend to explain my analysis of 2001. So, for those who haven’t watched 2001 yet, SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH. SKIP TO THE NEXT ONE. So, the movie ends with David finding himself in a pod. Here he experiences a surreal experience by viewing himself in different stages, his present age, his old age and his birth. The monolith has been constructed and laid out by extraterrestrial beings. In the book Chariots of Gods, Erich had stated that the Gods that we worship, whom we attribute and thank for our intelligence, who seem to have laid out the very expanses of our planet are actually aliens. Erich Von Daniken says that aliens must have visited our Earth, millions of years ago, reproduced with the attractive females of our species, and in turn produced us, a combination of beauty and intelligence. 2001 seems like an ode to that idea. Kubrick has contemplated the aliens of higher intelligence as the God here and the encounter with monoliths are spiritual encounters in the scientific way. They are similar in nature to tesseracts and help to travel seamlessly through the expanse of time and lets David experience the universe in its full splendor, right from its inception to its present state.

2001 : A Space Odyssey may put some to sleep, but if you are one of those lovable, patient viewers who do not look at cinema just as moving images which flash on the screen for entertaining its viewers, you are in for an experience. Jean Luc Godard once said ,’Cinema is truth twenty-four times per second’. 2001 : A Space Odyssey doesn’t attempt to entertain its viewers at any point. It only attempts to enlighten.

Rating : 9.5 / 10

IF YOU HAVE WATCHED THIS MOVIE, WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT ? DO LET ME KNOW IN COMMENTS BELOW. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hl YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

 

 

Advertisements

The F-Word Review

Thanks to all those wonderful (IRRITATING!) people on Facebook, many you you may also have got numerous reposts of a photo with a cute girl and a boy(depressing) stating ‘Can A Boy And A Girl Be Best Friends Without Falling In Love ?’ What If examines the same question. It is about Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) who falls in love with Chantry (Zoe Kazan), his best friend and has to choose one of these options – Tell her and potentially cause collateral damage to their friendship or shut up and regret not telling her rest of her life.

Often touted as Toronto’s (500) Days Of Summer, What If is an adorable romantic comedy. Is it relatable ? Well, to some portions (unless you have gone skimpy-dipping with your best friend who is a girl) Is it cheesy ? Well, not in most the portions (except for the fact that anyone can predict the ending) But, to be really honest, Kazan and Radcliffe make up for all that and more.

The chemistry is undoubtedly the movie’s MVP because there is a certain breeziness to it. For a fact, all the actors seem to be enjoying themselves. The dialogue presentation is fabulous. Best example may be a conversation between Wallace and Chantry where they discuss the amount of feces in the intestines of celebrities when they died. Every dialogue of that scene looks improvised on spot and the way the actors carry themselves is commendable.

I like movies which think out-of-box. Isn’t that what art is all about ? A mirror to our own personal lives. And that is where this movie errs. As much as I hate to admit it, I have faced the same dilemma Wallace faced a long time ago and to be honest, it isn’t this much fun. I love that the director gives prominence to conversations between Allan (Adam Driver) and Wallace. However, they are sparse in length.

What If struggles with a lot of things. First is the lack of humor. The humor works only because Kazan and Radcliffe are comedic gold here, otherwise the writing isn’t strong at all. What If struggles with its core from inception, of whether it should be a comedy or a drama. And it appears to have become a dramedy, and I do love dramedys, but only when they are meant to be one. The whole plot is structured for a comedy, but the dampening humor result in it being kind of lost.

However, we knew exactly what to expect from this movie. A romance. We get that. I still have many faults I can state but is it necessary to do so ? Not at all. Do I recommend this movie ? Yes, I definitely do. I think too will re-watch it. Being a critic isn’t making a pro and cons list. Being a critic is to determine whether the audience will have a good time at the cinema hall. And from what I saw, I think hell yeah, you will. This is one of the romantic comedies where the characters are not entirely governed by their genitals, they seem to care for each other. That’s pretty much enough, ain’t it ?

P.S. The soundtrack is beautiful

 Rating : 7.9 / 10

IF YOU HAVE WATCHED THIS MOVIE, WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT ? DO LET ME KNOW IN COMMENTS BELOW. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hl YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.