Pietro Minchiadura

...well, but far from me the intention of interpreting the film, that would be missing. However, the very personal opinion of not giving an interpretation simultaneously promotes the deliberation of not denying any, not even one that refers to divinity. I'll tell you more: in my opinion, Kubrick did not want to understand his own creation in a clear sense, as most filmmakers of a certain caliber have always done throughout the history of cinema (I think, for example, of Hitchcock and his "Birds," of inscrutable interpretation); therefore, I do not rush to find a meaning that perhaps does not exist and to interpret the scene you are referring to. Your view on Kubrick and his secular thought is, in my opinion, correct and shareable, and in this regard, I would therefore not speak of the metaphysical meaning of the monolith. This is because metaphysics is not the study of being as such in every way: it was the debatable and by me hated Aristotle who circumscribed metaphysics to what is more properly ontology; to be precise, therefore, metaphysics studies the "metà ta fysikà," what is beyond ordinary and natural experience, ontology is instead what you are talking about. I also tend to clarify that I do not identify metaphysics with theology, but by speaking of metaphysics as that which is beyond, I do not exclude the reference to the divine, that’s all. I do not like Nietzsche, you said it well, I find him a literary figure like all philosophers - especially modern ones - of this world except Socrates, one of those usual disturbed personalities capable of projecting the steep slopes of their ego onto the typewritten page. There is no coherence in his writings, just a simple and ordinary life path. Nonetheless, I do not deny that Kubrick may have been quite fascinated by our master's doctrine: the reference through Also Sprach is clear. However, for it to become the doctrinal fulcrum of the film seems too much to me. I do not hope for that, given my little sympathy for the mustachioed man. As for the rest, as mentioned, I agree and disagree, as stated, due to my suspension of judgment.

Wilder's talent is also evident here, in one of those typical American comedies where Hepburn plays the recurring role of the air-headed girl with good intentions (think "Roman Holiday" and "My Fair Lady" for example): the mechanism is perfect, typically fifties' style.

It's nice, overall, at least in the central part. The scene where D'Urso gets involved with a Pozzetto unaware of having been recognized is exceptional. "That whore of my wife is hooking up with a Moroccan!"... It's a shame about the somewhat superficial rhetoric, especially in the unlikely ending. I share Gonzo's thoughts, well done.

In tune with the judgment of the Punisher, think about it. I add: the beauty of the film lies elsewhere, in the dense web of psychological and historical elements to which the film refers, through the skillfully deliberate work of Altman.

The second best Kubrick I know of (I haven't seen, for instance, The Killing and Dr. Strangelove), just behind Full Metal Jacket. It's not a horror film: it doesn't have the ambitions of one, nor does it achieve the result.

The interpretations of 2001 and its monolith are, as we know, manifold. It is therefore not surprising that an open debate arises regarding it. What I can say is that there is no reason to make a certain statement about the interpretation of the meaning: I do not wholly share Iside's opinion, for instance, just as I do not share Vic's. By the way, I ask you: when talking about a supposed metaphysical meaning, how can you exclude divinity? Beyond the physical experience (metà ta fysikà), the "other" reality, "hyperuranic," as you say, is hardly completed in man, as you imply. Perfect solid from another world? Well, tell me what this other world is. You wouldn't suggest that you're pulling the overman card, would you? For Nietzsche, it was rather immanent, not transcendent. My judgment on the film is debated: of invaluable worth, I wouldn’t watch it a second time simply because—simple to say—it bores me quite a lot. Especially during Ligeti's indigestible musings.

A downsizing.

Yes, it falls into rhetoric in the final thank-you sequence, of a typically Spielbergian measure. Nevertheless, I don't think it's possible not to recognize the film with the utmost honors, or thereabouts: too many peaks, too much depth from Fiennes, in my opinion.

In my opinion, you are clearly in the wrong, an absolutely impartial view, eh! So, seen from the outside. I am just, fair, and devoid of excesses, you are moody, unbalanced, full of excesses. So, seen from the outside, eh.

Ah, you didn't understand a thing! It's clear that you're treacherous and obscene: you tend to project onto me the behaviors that characterize your worn-out critical spirit. I'll skip the usual sterile polemics (for me, the inhumanity here is proportional to the fact that it’s a faithful transposition of a brutally real event, unlike other labyrinthine films like Eraserhead, but whatever) and get to the point: 1, 2, 3 star and other delicacies. Well, for me, 2001, I repeat, is worth 4 or 4.5. But what 1 and 2. You see, in films, as in many other artistic expressions, I've always placed great importance on the recognizability of the product, and by this I mean the work's ability to remain etched in the collective memory due to some of its unique and original components, and in this sense, 2001 is unsurpassable. The essence of the monolith, the chilling deadly carousel of Hal, the mentioned analog montages, Johann Strauss are milestones in this regard. Moments in the film that are worth the price of admission, which justify for me a high rating. However, I reserve the right to contextualize my rating, saying that there's quite a bit of boredom, and that in my opinion, Kubrick indulges too much in his aesthetic delays. Thus, the film remains valid for me. Not excellent, but valid. I reserve the ones and twos for other films, even acclaimed ones, of which I appreciate virtually nothing. Let me give you an example: the much-celebrated "The Age of Innocence." To me, it's an unbearable brick; as soon as I catch it here on Debaser, I’ll give it a 2 out of respect. There, I find only boredom, unlike 2001. So, I reserve the courage of my opinions for when a film really makes me feel like crap, not in this case. You’ll see how brave I’ll be.