jasonsurety

Not trying to give this movie an actual review, I just want to say a few things. Yes, this film has some thrilling action sequences and, for the most part, is entertaining. However, similar to the final chapter in The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson seems to drill his points home as if he's making movies for a slow-witted audience. How many moments do we need Naomi Watts to look into the ape's eyes and "see something beautiful." I think we can ascertain what Jackson is trying to convey more quickly than he thinks we can.

I bring up The Return of the King because I thought that was a fine movie with overt flaws of the same kind. I think we realized the Hobbits were happy in the first ten seconds of their celebration after discovering they all had survived. We didn't need two more minutes of it. Peter, do you think we are all stupid? Another example of this kind of thing is when we are learning that Adrien Brody and Watts are falling in love. Instead of a few subtle glances, we are subjected to a scene where they are locked in a stare that borders on foolishness.

Larry David is not your typical television star. When I saw an ad for "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on HBO, I thought the guy was milking his status as Seinfeld co-creator and trying to place himself in the spotlight. I was probably right for the most part. I wasn't right in thinking that this show could not be as good as Seinfeld. CYE is not as overtly funny as its David created predecessor, but its more subtle. As observed by others, it has innate qualities that distinguish it from the forerunner, and make it just as enjoyable, if not more interesting. The most obvious of these being that on HBO, you have much less censorship. CYE also takes from some of the awkwardly funny moments from Seinfeld and amps them up. If Seinfeld used some uncomfortable scenes as segues into sociological banter, CYE gets the comedy directly from these scenes.

It is true that in many episodes, the supporting characters' actions toward Larry seem absurd. Many of these characters are confrontational to the point of complete foolishness. The way that Larry handles these adversaries is where the real hilarity lies. Instead of avoiding these obviously irrational people, he becomes as nutty as them in his retaliations. So, while many of the happenings that result from these conflicts are far-fetched, we must remember, this is still a situational comedy. These situations generate the comedy.

One strength of this show is the improvisational aspect. You get the idea that the characters are performing off-the-cuff and responding more like real people in real situations. While there is an outline that the actors work with, the actual lines are pretty much made up. This, coupled with the documentary type camera work, makes the show feel more unpredictable. Having famous comedians like Richard Lewis and Rob Reiner as well as actors Jason Alexander, Ted Dansen and a host of others play themselves, also gives the show an unusual element. These actors, especially Richard Lewis, are probably playing themselves fairly accurately, while embellishing their quirks to poke fun at themselves as well as the preconceived notions the audience may have of them.

Overall, this is one of the better sitcoms out there. That may not be saying much since, by design, sitcoms are formulaic. It is something to note the transitions these popular programs have made over the years. CYE is a long way from "Leave it to Beaver". Think about 50's television. Almost all the shows concerned a family. Usually a mother and father dealing with the parenting of several children ranging in age. Mostly more of the same in the 60's, with perhaps more emphasis on the lives of the youthful like in "Happy Days". The 70's brought about shows like "Threes Company" focusing on single roommates living an "unconventional" lifestyle. The 80's reverted back to family scenarios such as: "The Cosby Show", "Family Ties", and "Growing Pains." In the 90's we saw the popularity of shows dealing with single people without families rise. "Friends", "Seinfeld", and others garnered the most viewers while family based sitcoms dwindled. Now, in the beginning of the 21st century, family based shows and "alternative lifestyle" shows try hard to keep up with "reality" TV. Of course, in each era, there were exceptions, and these are only a few examples amidst the plethora of television series' throughout history. The history of sitcoms - what an arena. Its actually kind of disconcerting that I can ramble on this topic for so long. Lets end it now before I embarrass myself even more.

*assumes knowledge of film - contains details of plot*

2001: A Space Odyssey is just that: a long wandering voyage of the body and mind. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark collaborated brilliantly. In examining both works, the film and the novel, there are certainly differences, yet the theme and overall idea coincide thoroughly. That this was made in the 1960's augments both accomplishments. The visuals, seen in 2004, are still captivating. What they must've seemed like in 1968! I flout those who received this movie poorly in those days. Would I have received it as well without having a preconceived idea of its greatness? I can only hope I would have known what I was watching.

It is rare a movie inspires me to read the novel it is based on. Here is one occasion. On my first viewing of the film, I was baffled by the special effects so my appreciation was attained. This was done when digital effects did not exist. Scenes of the space station, the moon, Jupiter, Earth from space, and the sun are model works at their finest. However, I thought I did not fully grasp the story. After reading the book and seeing the film again, I realized I comprehended more than I gave myself credit for on that first watch. This is a work that was meant to raise questions rather than give solutions. At any rate, I was extremely pleased with the book, which brought about a need to see the film again.

My second viewing heightened my reverence for Stanley Kubrick. What he chose to include, change and eliminate is crucial to the film's success, as well as a tribute to his discretion. Clarke's novel does disentangle some details. There is no better way to completely realize the ascent to the Star Child than to read Clarke's final chapters. Still, cinematically, with no dialog or voice-over, Kubrick gives enough clues for an intelligent viewer to take in the concept. To a lesser extent, the trek Dave Bowman takes to another dimension/galaxy, which is explained in great detail in the book, cannot be fully construed visually. Still, you know what's happening when Bowman enters the "wormhole". Your eyes are lucky, too. If you ever wanted to experience true psychedelia and haven't the stomach for hallucinogens, here's your chance.

2001 originated from Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel." This, in no way, takes away from the originality of the film. An obvious benediction of the movie is Kubrick's use of music. The classical pieces intensify the sense of awe. From the ape man to the starchild, the music detaches us from the events. We view them as we would events in a documentary. Kubrick deliberately adds, deletes and modifies. Hal never reads the lips of the astronauts in the book. This is a stroke of genius in the motion picture.

We are not as far along in space exploration as 2001 predicts we would be by now. It's eerily accurate nevertheless. With the Hal 9000 computer, we see humans as secondary in astronomical research. In today's actual space missions, humans are rarely even along for the ride. While technology is not capable of the malevolence seen in Hal, it is certainly as, if not more, important to the furthering of our knowledge, as Clarke envisioned in his writings.

The movie, coupled with the novel, awakened my interest in astronomy and particularly astrophysics. It also made me aware of the importance modern media and people in general place on somewhat trivial events, while our planet rotates on its own axis at one thousand miles an hour, and revolves around our sun at around sixty-six thousand miles an hour. These types of facts may seem trivial, but does the latest reality T.V. show, or the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger called some other politician a girly man blow your mind?

Arthur C. Clarke was a forward thinker. His ideas on astronomy were far ahead of his time. Stanley Kubrick was extremely gifted at finding challenging pieces of literature and turning them into spectacular films. The film and the novel are transcendent. They evoke emotions beyond the everyday. Of course, if works of art like this were in abundance, they wouldn't be masterpieces.