Luís Oliveira

2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite film of all time. It stands as a testament to finest of film making, with groundbreaking set designs and costumes. And 1968 practical effects still look competent, even by today's CGI standards. Its minimalist approach in story telling is certainly polarizing, but I find Stanley Kubrick's audacity astounding. 2001 is the benchmark of pure science fiction film.

2010: The Year We Made Contact is not a pure sci-fi. It looks and feels like Ridley Scott's Alien (minus horror elements). It's more of a sci-fi thriller. The look and feel of the movie, not to mention sound, take a radical departure from hyper realistic 2001. Computers in 2010 haven't evolved at all from 1980s Apple IIe and Commodore 64. There's sound in space. Newton's laws of motion are rarely observed. Heck, even "Also sprach Zarathustra" fanfare is poorly timed and the performance lacks the grandeur.

No doubt about it. 2010 looks very dated. This is an 80s movie but the film embraces it by wearing that badge proudly. The only exception is the depiction of outer space. Using newer telemetry images from NASA and other space missions, Jupiter and its moons look spectacular, especially in comparison to 2001 made more than 16 years earlier.

So a terrible sequel, right? If you watch 2010 soon after 2001 as I originally did, yes, 2010 may be terrible. But watching it with an open mind, you might find yourself enjoying it a lot more than many 2001 fans give credits for.

For one thing, 2010 dismisses all the pretense of its prequel. It aims for three goals: (1) explain the mysteries of its prequel, (2) entertain, and most of all, (3) make a strong case for science and humanity rising above politics. To me, the film succeeds in achieving all 3 goals.

One of the most remarkable things about the film is the cast. The film features who's-who of Hollywood. Roy Scheider may be a poor doppelgänger of William Sylvester. Yet it works. He is the prototypical stand-in for conflicted and righteous everyday man. He is just so personable and easy to sympathize. And we have John Lithgow, a master of expression, amazing Helen Mirren, who just fills the role perfectly even though it's essentially a bit part, and Bob Balaban, always lovable (even though he is playing a part that should've been played by Indian/Pakistan). The only misfire is Dana Elcar, whom I personally respect a great deal, but his terrible Russian accent is just too distracting. And there are a couple of standout cameos later in the film.

Most sci-fi films with transcendental climax often demand repeated viewings, as to shed its initial shock so that viewers can digest its intents more rationally. 2001 and Contact are prime examples and 2010 falls into this category as well. (Close Encounters of the Third Kind is perhaps one of few that immediately captivates and succeeds.) My initial impression of its climax was highly negative. But over time, its simplicity and earnestness won me over and 2010 became a worthy companion to understanding and appreciating 2001.

it definitely needs a second rewatch is what i strongly think and need to say;

since the first second this movie started, the sound design was out of this world, and its one of the main things i loved about this movie

i felt like i couldn't clearly understand half the stuff Robert Downey Jr's character kept saying, and i feel like i missed out on a big part of the movie because of it, that's why i strongly feel like i need a second rewatch of the movie, then i'll truly know if i ended up loving, or Loving loving my first ever Christopher Nolan movie on the big screen;

when that explosion finally went off, it literally gave me a scare, they did an incredible job with the movie's sound design

it had some g o r g e o u s shots as well, especially the last one, where it slowly zooms on Oppenheimer's face;

the anticipation & suspense as they're slowly completing the Project, (with the subtle nuclei reactions SFX that is happening in the background) showing it getting assembled piece by piece.. having the countdown... then it finally going off... it truly immerses you into the experience, and leaves you speechless afterwards, and that, that is only the beginning of it all, because the aftermath, and what follows, is the true horrifying stuff, as Oppenheimer slowly realizes what these events and discoveries are truly leading to;
& the way Nolan depicts Oppenheimer's regret, and all the other emotions he's going through, visually and through sound design, was perfect

After I thoroughly enjoyed "Bumblebee", "Transformers: Rise of the Beasts" is a small step backwards for me. In its predecessor, I loved the approach of telling a simple coming-of-age story that wasn't about saving the entire world for once. This time around, it's back to the latter, though thankfully sticking more to the tone of "Bumblebee" than the Bayformers films.

Overall, "Rise of the Beasts" is solid throughout, but I wasn't particularly enthralled at any point. The film is once again way too long, and some of the lines are really shallow. The subplot with the human characters starts strong but quickly loses momentum as soon as the Transformers show up. Overall, though, Anthony Ramos is quite effective as the lead.

In general the action is well-staged, if a little generic. The finale certainly packs a punch, but I was already a bit bored at this point. The hunt for a doomsday macguffin is only entertaining for a short period of time. At least the film ends on an interesting note. Should it be a success, I'll be curious to see exactly what the future franchise plans are. Overall, I can recommend the seventh Transformers movie, but you shouldn't go in with too high expectations.

This is quite the strange ending to my Kubrick watch through. A lot of people really forget about this one, or hate it. I have to say, it is a good movie but not even close to Kubrick's previous 11 films. I really wish he had started on A.I. before this one, and ended on that kind of note instead.

The first 45 or so minutes I really like. We open with seeing their marriage status, and how it can be influenced easily by their actions. I think this is the main goal of the film; to show us the complexity of marriage. What will they do to please each other? Anger each other? We find out, but certainly in a crazier way than you'd anticipate.

The story is not the problem. The main problem is pacing. After that first act, the film slows down tremendously. Not just in plot movement, but in dialogue. The people I watched with and I started making the joke early about how people always repeat each other in this film. "I think they talk too slow." "You think they talk too slow?" "I think they do." Oh, but I didn't put enough spacing between those quotes to really get you to understand the time.

This is all summed up strongly in climax scene. The dialogue is sooo slow with major spaces of silence. The actions of the characters is sooo boring and repetitive. People move just to move. It feels like a high school play. It makes no sense to me that this was shot by Kubrick. Most of the film feels like him, but this one scene really bothers me.

Hell, maybe I'm supposed to feel what Tom Cruise is feeling. I mean, I do feel like joining Scientology now.