Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: Recensione anti-2001

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27508-2001Nov1.html
Lo so che sono noioso, ma posteresti l'articolo che citi, cosi' lo
possono leggere anche i poracci con un computer lento come me (e i
posteri che seguiranno questo interessante thread dal futuro grazie alla
magia di Googlegroups)?

 magia di Googlegroups)?
Scaricati Opera va velocissimo :).
Cmq, anche se non l'ho citato io, eseguo il quote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27508-2001Nov1.html
A Space Idiocy: '2001' Revisited
I'm Sorry, Dave, but I'm Afraid It's Just Stupid
By Stephen Hunter
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 2, 2001; Page C05
What a widiculous movie!
Over time, has any film veered more toward kitsch than Stanley Kubrick's
"2001: A Space Odyssey" of 1968? Now, seen in the actual 2001, it's less a
visionary masterpiece than a crackpot Looney Tune, pretentious, abysmally
slow, amateurishly acted and, above all, wrong.
Earth to Stanley Kubrick: Gee, Stanley, up there in movie god heaven, you
know what, Pan Am didn't get the space shuttle franchise and zoom us up to
the orbiting wagon-wheel stations in sleek ships complete with stewardesses
in
super beehive hats and Velcro slippers so the zero grav wouldn't set them
afloat. Here's who got the franchise: nobody. Stanley, read my lips:
Commercial space flight is dead, unless you're a zany dot-com millionaire.
And, Stanley, guess what else: You know, aliens probably didn't plant
electronic devices on earth 4 million years ago that emitted a beam that
tickled
our clumsy ape brains into mutating toward cognition, self-awareness and
irony. But that's really what the movie ever so earnestly argues, and what
was
an amusing trope in a minor Arthur C. Clarke short story seems portentous
misanthropy when blown out to epic length.
Or maybe it's just that I wasn't high this time when I watched it.
At any event, Kubrick's film, thankfully only reprinted and not reinflated
with
any kind of "director's cut," is on view on the Uptown's giant curvy screen,
and kids, don't try this at home. Sit in the second half of the house, not
the
first, elsewise the action will bend through your peripheral vision and give
you
a bellyache.
The movie is an annoyance wrapped inside of an enigma as constructed by a
cosmic ego that had been praised so much he believed it. "Dr. Strangelove"
was his great film, and "Paths of Glory," "A Clockwork Orange" and "Full
Metal Jacket" his near-great ones. The rest were overblown, self-indulgent
and silly, but "2001" has to be the stupidest.
The monkey stuff is okay, if you buy the premise, which I don't, and if you
like
seeing people in hair suits jump around going uck-uck and, yes, that
wondrous
moment when a million years of human history is summed up in the
nanosecond transfiguration of a thrown bone into a spacecraft. The second
stage of the story - in which stiffs who would never act professionally
again
pretend to deal with the emergency of the discovery of a new sentinel on the
moon - is endlessly dreary, with its obsession for showing what were then
spectacular special effects and today seem only cheesy. Kubrick overdosed
on people walking upside down, which isn't that interesting after the first
two
steps. At least when Fred Astaire went upside down, he danced.
The third part is by far the best: Heroic if underacted astronauts Keir
Dullea
and Gary Lockwood deal with a rebelliously neurotic computer. It has actual
narrative gripping power, instead of inert spectacle.
The final part remains visually stunning if intellectually vaporous.
Evidently
astronaut Dullea finds, beyond a Jovian moon, a stargate, by which he short-
circuits the universe and discovers an unknowable and superior alien life
form.
So, er, Stanley, are you sure you want to stand on this one? The space
beings,
having listened to too much German music by too many composers who had
themselves read too much Nietzsche, send him back to Earth, born again, as a
planet-size embryo. What's he going to do when he reaches 15th and K: drip
amniotic fluid on everyone? If he's that big, how's he going to get into
Morton's?
Oh, kids, go ahead and see it, if for no other reason to learn how silly
your
parents were at your age.

 Cmq, anche se non l'ho citato io, eseguo il quote.
Grazie. :-)
(Articolo pessimo, in effetti: liberissimo di non amare 2001, ma e'
abbastanza chiaro l'intento di farsi notare attaccando il mostro sacro e
per far cose del genere ci vuole ben altro che quattro battutine).

 per far cose del genere ci vuole ben altro che quattro battutine).
Concordo e mi domando: ma esistono critici "seri" che non amano 2001 e che
l'hanno criticato argomentando non con puttanate?
Sebastiano

per far cose del genere ci vuole ben altro che quattro battutine).
Esattamente quanto affermavo anch'io all'inizio :)

l'hanno criticato argomentando non con puttanate?
In effetti me lo chiedo anch'io, mi piacerebbe leggere una qualche
critica 'costruttiva' ma ho la strana sensazione che non andremo molto
al di la' del 'gusto personale, poi spero di essere smentito.