Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: why 2001 is one of the best films ever made
Message-ID: <290@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 12:22:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.290
Posted: Mon Oct 10 12:22:40 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Oct-83 00:06:25 EDT
References: <37@astrovax.UUCP> <5929@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 23

>  ...the main reason I post this is to disagree with the statement that
> 2001 fails in execution and production quality.  This is far from the truth.
> People are hard put to find errors of any kind in 2001.  There may be some,
> like liquid going down in a straw, but they are very minor.  Just about
> every other movie you can name is full of major flaws, technical mistakes
> and other such errors.  2001 leaves no such taste in the mouth.  Whatever
> you thought of the story, dialogue etc., it is one of the greatest bits
> of film production ever.

Saying that a film is great because it has no technical flaws?  "The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre" had no technical flaws either.  (Well, one; the blood
that spurted out of the forty-ninth victim should have been bright red and not
dark red, since the killer was cutting into an artery and not a vein...)

Technical wizardry alone does not a great film make.  Despite what everyone
has said about the great (which it was) technical production of the film,
the acting was stale, the action was virtually stagnated (one doesn't impart
boredom and routine in a work of art by boring the audience).  But some people
are impressed by flash for its own sake.  That's what makes horse races (and
movie polls)...					Rich

[I did NOT see "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", so no flames about my (in)accuracy
here, please.  This was an attempt at humor, albeit a feeble one.  OK?]