Quote:
Originally Posted by Frazod
Funny you should mention 2001. That's another perpetually overrated piece of crap starring groundbreaking special effects and little else. The story, as presented, was largely incomprehensible (although at least it was original), and the lead actors' performances were so wooden that their noses would have grown had they lied. And that interminable final sequence - hey, look a bunch of long helicopter shots over barren landscapes with the colors skewed - woohoo isn't this neat? I remember getting flashbacks of that while watching the equally bad first Star Trek movie.
I did enjoy the book, though. And I loved the sequel, 2010, which featured a solid, understandable plot and world class actors.
|
2010 was a much better movie that closed a lot of the plot holes in the first one. Lithgow was a bit over the top though. Enjoyed them giving HAL another chance and explaining why he went insane. 2001 had a very good sound track and a lot of models getting plenty of screen time. It was really hard to understand WTF was going on most of the time.
The first ST movie was such a disappointment; I remember getting tickets and being so excited and got stoned to see it and after about 20 minutes we fell asleep in the theater.
The third book wasn't very good from what I recall.