besleybean wrote:

Oh wow...isn't it funny how we see things differently?

I suppose the biggest difference is that some have read the books and others haven't. I am convinced that if you know the source material you automatically see the show in a different light, simply because you already know far more about the character than someone who doesn't know the books. However a tv show has to work as a tv show (as we all know from "Sherlock"), and I have to say that this first episode very much felt like the 'Benedict Cumberbatch Show' to me. Which isn't a bad thing, it's just that in my opinion this didn't carry a whole hour.
But it's all fine. Like I said, I'm sure there's more to come storywise, and I'll certainly watch all of it eventually. It just didn't blow me away.

Well, from what I've heard Princess Diana will be in the picture in S3, but they haven't cast anynone for the role yet.
And then of course there's Margaret Thatcher, although I'm not sure whether or not she will play such a big part in S3 already. After all, she only became PM in 1979. But she was Leader of the Conservative Party before that, so we might get some Thatcher in some of the episodes.

My husband and I (haha, sorry, couldn't help myself!) started watching The Crown last friday and we're in the middle of S2 now. So we still have a couple of episodes to go until the end of the season, but I can already say that I like the series very, very much.
I have to admit that I only became really interested in The Crown when I read that Olivia Colman will replace Claire Foy after S2 - I absolutely adore Olivia. The way I understand it, it's part of the concept of the show to replace actors after two seasons respectively because of the age factor. So Matt Smith will be replaced as well, and I suppose the same goes for the actress who plays Margaret. 

That being said, I love everybody's performance so far. Claire is wonderful, so is Matt Smith. I'm not a huge fan of his Doctor, but he's definitely a great Philip. And John Lithgow's Churchill is right up there for me with Gary Oldman's Churchill in "The Darkest Hour" (which I saw last friday as well, so a perfect fit).
I also like the mixture of drama and politics. Having part of the show revolve around the personal lives of Elizabeth and Margaret (with probably a lot of fiction involved) and another part of the show around real events like The Great Smog works perfectly. 

So I already can't wait for S3, but I suppose it'll take a while until we'll get it.

 

Yitzock, your two cents have been very interesting to read. And great that you had the chance to watch the film on the big screen, I found this to be a very different experience from watching it at home. Because yes, the rotation of the space station, outside and inside, is really a whole different thing on the big cinema screen. I did a Kubrick class at university and was lucky enough to see practically all of this films in a movie theatre. "2001" definitely needs the big screen - and I suppose since this year it's the 50th anniversary of the film, there will be a lot of special screenings. Our film museum will even have an exhibition solely dedicated to "2001".

Having said all that, there are Kubrick films I like much better than "2001". I like the first half of the movie (the same goes for "Full Metal Jacket"), the second half is just too esoteric and cryptic for my taste. Great visuals and all that, but it just leaves me completely clueless. 

I think "Dr. Strangelove" is a masterpiece, Peter Sellers is just stunning in it. The film is so wonderfully absurd and has some of the best dialogue in film history, if you ask me. 

"Paths of Glory" is a totally underrated Kubrick film, undeservedly so. I think everyone who is remotely interested in Stanley Kubrick should watch it. It's without a doubt one of the best anti-war movies I have ever seen.

"Barry Lyndon"... oh my, don't get me started. It's the one Kubrick film I don't like at all. Yitzock, in my opinion this is the film where nothing much happens and you can go outside and then come back and you will have missed nothing. (My boyfriend would tell you a completey different story though, because he loves the film... we watched it together once, bad idea... )

And I think I'll just stop now. I don't like "Eyes Wide Shut" very much, but I think "The Shining" is a must-see (and to me it's not important what Stephen King thinks about it, as a film it defini

Liberty,

In my opinion this works perfectly in the context of the movie. When she mentioned that the memory was real, it at first didn't really register with me that this doesn't mean it's HIS memory. I only realized this a while later (and when I leaned over to my spouse saying "She only said it was real, not that it was his memory", it turned out that it hadn't registered with him, either). I suppose that for K it works the same way it worked for us: He heard what he wanted to hear and so he didn't really listen to what she actually told him and what this might actually mean.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with this scene. It's actually intended that K only thinks he got some new information when he actually hasn't. I think he is so intrigued by what is going on and what this might mean for his life (or what he thought was his life), that he only sees but doesn't fully observe. He wants this to be his memory and that's the reason why he doesn't work it out.

Liberty, why don't you just post it in here? After all, this thread is also for discussion, if I'm not very much mistaken. I'd love to hear what you have to say about the film. 

And I totally agree. I would even say that it's the best movie I've seen so far this year. It's visually stunning and pays homage to Ridley Scott's original "Blade Runner" on so many levels... it left me quite breathless. This is the kind of movie you definitely need to see at the cinema.

gently69 wrote:

You make me really curious. Usually I'm not keen on this kind of movies (if there isn't an actor in it  I'm longing to see) but your opinions will lure me into the cinema.

What "kind of movies" do you mean exactly? Movies about war? Then I can assure you that this is not your typical kind of war movie. There is not much dialogue. And it's not a movie about heroism (or maybe it is, but a very different kind of heroism). No "lockere Sprüche" (casual jokes). No heroic soundtrack. Do go and see it. 
 

Make sure to leave a link to your blog entry once you've seen the movie and written about the music, I'd love to read it.
After I saw the film I tried to find out as much as possible about the music. I actually ordered a CD with Elgar's Enigma Variations. The one that Zimmer used for the score, "Nimrod", has actually been used in other movies before. It really is a wonderful piece of music, just listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aXFH47Jbqk

And here is the version from the Dunkirk score:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5UtTotrCOs


 

Exactly. Andrew is so adorable...!