Who did it better?

Literally nothing wrong with clooney's solaris

I refuse to believe that anyone enjoyed watching 2001.

I only watched it once, and it was on a plane's entertainment display. I remember the beginning being slow, but once it picked up I liked it. Not sure how I feel about the ending though. Definitely have to rewatch it a better setting.

>I remember the beginning being slow
The monkeys are the only good part.

2001 is a film so perfect that it almost feels artificial, while Solaris has more natural aesthetic to it. I personally like Solaris more, because it feels personal and close compared to 2001's almost objective look on the human condition from a bird's eye view.

2001

Tarkovski it's too boring. Don't reply me.

You have a bad opinion

2001 is the finest film ever constructed.

Attached: 2001-70mm-film.jpg (1000x627, 566.3K)

he doesn't have rythm in any of his movies, maybe Ivan Childhood

Kubrick

This scene alone has more layers than all of Solaris combined
>Russian scientists tell the American about Moon virus outbreak (interesting sub plot)
>the American goes into a meeting telling all the government officials that the virus outbreak was a fabricated story
>if you watch the scene closely, the Russian (or Soviet) man was a spy trying to lure the American into spilling the beans
>the film was released in the thick of the Cold War tension between Soviet Union and the US
>it also represents the beginning of the film when the primates discover that the bone can also be used as a weapon

Attached: 6F4252FB-5934-488A-9027-60FDA8D939CC.jpg (1086x564, 69.74K)

did what?

You don't bingewatch movies on 3x speed? Hahaha what a fag

you think that drivel counts as layered?

>major plot point
>layered subtle storytelling
The whole act on the moon was about human conflict and an allegory for the space race. The moon monolith was about erasing human conflict. There's nothing subtle about, during the whole act you are drilled in the head with the same point.

Meanwhile the hunters in the snow scene in Solaris has bigger artistic merit than the entire filmography of Kubrick.

solaris is a masterpiece

2001 has terrible pace and a shit ending

Attached: comfy.jpg (1916x808, 126.86K)

You are out of your mind.

Oh no! Godzilla!

it

2001 is only good at the end 75 percent of the movie is crap

No way, the monkeys part is so terrible looking back now, also the movie is ruined because the soundtrack has been parodied to death

It's a decent film.

I don't know what Kubrick was going for but he should have taken a little classical advice and cut the long parts. It's a great example of the typical 70's sci-fi, where they moved away from the camp and into the more hard science fiction so of course it's longer and much more contemplative.

The reason the film did so well is because while the in-and-outs of space travel is boring and tedious to us, these were essentially documentaries for a nation almost completely unfamiliar with space travel.

Parts of 2001 don't even have the physics correct.

In context, 2001 is a great film. Out of context it feels long and overdrawn.

Maybe but the look of the film was poorly thought out also, they have advanced AI but still talk to home on radio tv???

That’s what happens when you watch too much capeshit, dialogue = layered

They are an interesting counterpoint to each other in the sense that 2001 is a great example of maximalist big budget filmmaking (was the most expensive movie for a long time) while Solaris is a great example of making the best out of an absolute shoestring budget.

Hey, nice post.