Gay Movie Reviews
 |
James Joyner | Wednesday, December 6, 2006 |
Andrew Sullivan watched “Superman Returns” on DVD and says of Kate Bosworth’s Lois Lane “She was bland and dreadful. But who can rival Margot Kidder? Or is that the gayest sentence I’ve written in a long while?”
That didn’t strike me as particularly “gay,” frankly. This comment about “2001: A Space Odyssey” from the following paragraph, might qualify, however: “Kubrick’s vision remains ravishing, untainted by the passage of time, the most spiritually absorbing movie I have seen in ages.”
(Not, I hasten to add, that there’s anything wrong with that.)
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Bitsblog linked with Nightly Ramble: The Birds, the cats, and other things
2001, a huge let down for a sci-fi fan who watched Star Wars and the (very cheesy) Flash Gordon. It was Kubric pretending to be a Russian film maker. The flick was slow, slow, slow.
Yeah, "2001" is one of several movies--"Shane," "Gone With the Wind," and "High Noon" come immediately to mind--that are widely considered classics and yet I either disliked or found rather underwhelming even though I typically like films in those genres.
For a long movie that is still engaging try Giant. Although it's silly how bad James Dean's make up is as an old man.
Oh, come on James. Sure, by today's standards, 2001 isn't much to look at. But when it was made in 1968, it was way ahead of its time in terms of the visuals. Yeah, it was slow, but then again Clarke and Kubrick never said it was an action movie. Speaking of Russian sci-fi, I must be the only one that liked Solaris.
I think that 2001 is still absolutely visually brilliant today.
I think that 2001 is still absolutely visually brilliant today.
Yes, and the catch is, that's all Kubrick meant for it to be. It absolutely doesn't work as a "movie"; as a poem on film, it's splendid.
Those who don't care for poems on film, however, are free to dislike it.
I have to throw my lot in with DCL on 2001. Watching this movie in the theater in 1968 was absolutely riveting. OTOH, watching it today is, at best, tedious.
I don't care what anyone says, I still think 2001 is a brilliant cinematic achievement, and a spellbinding movie. For those who feel differently, there are many car chase movies to watch. As for Shane--it is one of my all time favorites, and I will have to agree to disagree vehemently with James Joyner. Now, if you want to talk highly praised movies whose charms elude me, then we can talk--E.T., Chicago, Crash, Titanic, American Beauty, and so on.
DBrooks: I dunno, I just saw "Shane" the other day and thought it pretty much a B-Western. Almost any random John Wayne movie made after 1939 was better.
I liked "Crash." I never bothered to see "Chicago" or "Titanic," not being a fan of the genres. Didn't much care for "American Beauty," although I've only seen it once. "E.T." was very enjoyable the one time I saw it but that was in the theaters in 1982 (?) and I was in my teens.
Comments are Closed
