A Clarification

Rating: Null/10 (8 January 2004)

Okay, I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or anything, but it's hard for me to read some of your comments (and take them as being intellectual or insightful) with all the grammatical and spelling errors. That being said, I agree with everything everyone said, but I also disagree. I have taken an interest in film in my senior year in high school (being born in 1985), so I'm not even close to being as experienced as most of you who already commented. But I don't see 2001 as boring at all. It's impossible for it to be boring in the fact that it is art. Stanley Kubrick is an artist, and he makes all his movies detailed and intricate. It's really no big deal if you don't like his style, but his style should be the only determining factor (excluding religious beliefs) of a person's liking of ANY of his movies...not counting Eyes Wide Shut because I think we can all agree that that was a low point for Kubrick. To sum up what I'm trying to get across, Kubrick makes art. If you're not a big fan of art, you're probably not a big fan of Kubrick. Also, 2001 is in my top five favorite movies (also including A Clockwork Orange, Amelie, Donnie Darko, and Requiem for a Dream).