HHoffman-2
Joined Jun 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
HHoffman-2's rating
2001: A Space Odyssey is a difficult film to review due to the fact that (even now) it's an unconventional piece of cinema.
The script, written by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, features little to no dialog (all of which is superfluous) and provides virtually no exposition for the audience. And while the companion novel by Arthur C. Clarke provides more depth and stimulation into the story, the film itself suffers from lacking these things on its own.
The acting is standard fare, if only because the focus of the story is on the odyssey rather than the characters. Douglas Rain stands out as providing the voice of HAL 9000, a chilling supercomputer supervising the progress of the mission.
Where the film gets most of its acclaim is in the visuals, and deservedly so. From the monolith to the starport to the transformation into starchild, the film is stunning. And it is for this reason that masterpieces such as the Star Wars saga and Blade Runner have come to existence. Coincidentally, Douglas Trumbull provided his special effects talent to all three of these films.
The biggest complaint given to 2001: A Space Odyssey is its lethargic pace. Again, this is deservedly so. But to Stanley Kubrick's credit, it was his intent to make the audience truly *use* their senses to appreciate the film. Not on a superficial level, but to truly invest one's self in the film's atmosphere.
In the end, it's perhaps best to classify 2001 in a league of its own. That is, a film that experiments with the laws of cinema and its relationship to the audience.
The script, written by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, features little to no dialog (all of which is superfluous) and provides virtually no exposition for the audience. And while the companion novel by Arthur C. Clarke provides more depth and stimulation into the story, the film itself suffers from lacking these things on its own.
The acting is standard fare, if only because the focus of the story is on the odyssey rather than the characters. Douglas Rain stands out as providing the voice of HAL 9000, a chilling supercomputer supervising the progress of the mission.
Where the film gets most of its acclaim is in the visuals, and deservedly so. From the monolith to the starport to the transformation into starchild, the film is stunning. And it is for this reason that masterpieces such as the Star Wars saga and Blade Runner have come to existence. Coincidentally, Douglas Trumbull provided his special effects talent to all three of these films.
The biggest complaint given to 2001: A Space Odyssey is its lethargic pace. Again, this is deservedly so. But to Stanley Kubrick's credit, it was his intent to make the audience truly *use* their senses to appreciate the film. Not on a superficial level, but to truly invest one's self in the film's atmosphere.
In the end, it's perhaps best to classify 2001 in a league of its own. That is, a film that experiments with the laws of cinema and its relationship to the audience.
Before Francis Ford Coppola brought us the lush colors and atmospheric music of his film, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Dark Shadows' creator, Dan Curtis, treated us to his own film of the same title.
Based moderately close to the novel from which its based, Bram Stoker's Dracula stars the late Jack Palance as the vampire count. Having a very Slavic-looking physique and powerful presence, Palance fits the role of a Romanian aristocrat perfectly. His mixture of emotions are acted appropriately, without much overacting (though he cringes a little too much).
The acting in general, however, is only standard fare; nothing phenomenal. Nigel Davenport's performance as Van Helsing is nowhere near as distinct as the acting of Peter Cushing, Anthony Hopkins, or Edward Van Sloan.
The production values reflect the quality of the film a great deal, and I'm happy to say that this film has quality. The sets look appropriate, rivaling that of Hammer Studios'. Robert Cobert's score effectively highlights the anguish of Dracula as well as showing the horror of vampirism and its effect on other characters.
There is little more I can say about this film other than it should be viewed for Jack Palance's excellent performance as Count Dracula and the haunting environment that the character inhabits.
Based moderately close to the novel from which its based, Bram Stoker's Dracula stars the late Jack Palance as the vampire count. Having a very Slavic-looking physique and powerful presence, Palance fits the role of a Romanian aristocrat perfectly. His mixture of emotions are acted appropriately, without much overacting (though he cringes a little too much).
The acting in general, however, is only standard fare; nothing phenomenal. Nigel Davenport's performance as Van Helsing is nowhere near as distinct as the acting of Peter Cushing, Anthony Hopkins, or Edward Van Sloan.
The production values reflect the quality of the film a great deal, and I'm happy to say that this film has quality. The sets look appropriate, rivaling that of Hammer Studios'. Robert Cobert's score effectively highlights the anguish of Dracula as well as showing the horror of vampirism and its effect on other characters.
There is little more I can say about this film other than it should be viewed for Jack Palance's excellent performance as Count Dracula and the haunting environment that the character inhabits.