On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 12:49:21 PM UTC-10, wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> >> I saw the film in 1970 in a London cinema and regretted the waste of
> >> admission to see it.
> >
> >Your reaction was not dissimilar to a lot of people's. I had mixed feelings about it when I saw it with my mom back in 68. What made the film memorable for me was that I saw it with my mom. My mom hardly ever took me to movies. I saw three movies with her. "Thunderball", "2001: A Space Odyssey", and "Bonnie and Clyde." Beats me why she took me to see those flicks. As far as I know, our family was not big on going to the movies. We actually kinda lived like monks.
>
>
> I dont think that graham is taking the movie for what it is. It is
> more like an artistic film that represents what people thought the
> year 2001 would be like. The movie is way to long has so much unneeded
> video. But you always have to consider when it was made... There were
> no computers to edit film. That crap had to be hand cut and taped.
>
> --
>
> ____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

IT was a brilliant technical achievement although, in the end, it had a serious lack of heart and humanity. OTOH, my guess is that was purely intentional.

This flick had more heart than usual for its genre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU26EseuDoI