2001 in NYC: Intermission and Entr'acte missing! (1 Viewer)

[Richard Kim]

Just saw 2001 in 70mm at the Astor Plaza in New York. What was strange was that the Intermission and Entr'acte were omitted from the presentation and went straight to the second act! Did this also happen at the Washington or San Francisco presenations as well?

 

[KDHM]

When 2001 was shown in Berlin at the begining of this year the Intermission and Entr'acte were included.

kd

 

[Bill Huelbig]

I was surprised by the lack of Intermission too - at the very least, it would have been a good way for the theater to make more concession-stand money. The Intermission was used in Washington, DC but they only showed the film three times a day. Maybe cutting it was the only way New York could squeeze in a fourth daily showing.

I was upset for a minute or two when the second act started after that abrupt, awkward splice, but that's the only complaint I could come up with about this presentation. The color and sharpness of the print are even better than they were in DC (although the curved screen is sorely missed). And the sound is really cranked up for one of the best HEARINGS of the film I've ever had. The theater floor and the seats were actually shaking during the Star Gate sequence!

I'm going back again today ...

--Bill

 

[Paul Linfesty]

Well the showings at the Egyptian in LA are scheduled for 4 a day (three hours apart) I hope they respect the intermnission.

 

[Holadem]

I just came out of there about an hour ago. I have to say that the "you need to watch this film on the big screen" rethoric is right on in this case. Before 12:10 today I was one of the detractors of this movie. Will it will probably never become my favorite, I have to say I am impressed enough to want to go back and watch it again. It was quite an experience.

--

Holadem

 

[teapot2001]

Egyptian will show the movie 3-5 times a day.

~T

 

[Jack Briggs]

I see that Holadem's training is coming along just fine.

 

[Paul Linfesty]

at three-hour intervals.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I see that Holadem's training is coming along just fine.

Throw him a bone. Maybe he'll learn something..... :p)

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I'm almost afraid to show this review to Jack....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...27508-2001Nov1

 

[Anthony Hom]

I saw it in San Francisco, and they did have the intermission and entre-act.

It was great because they put several broad spotlights on the stage area at the screen. When the music came on, they took each light away slowly, then the side lights, until it was dark.

During intermission, they did the same thing. It really added to the whole movie experience, making it more than just watching a good film.

 

[RogerB]

What did that idiot from The Post think he was watching? A movie or a news broadcast from the future?

Good grief! Go see "Shrek" again.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I had already read that "review" from the Post. When I finished it, I wondered to myself, "And this is the paper that broke the Watergate scandal?"

Why did such a prestigious newspaper let a philistine into their pages? The review doesn't even rate as a basic review; it's mostly a soap box from which the man can vent. That's not how one should write a review.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I'd really like to read the late Pauline Kael's original dunning notice. I've never read her stuff, but know she panned 2001 and Apocalypse Now while giving rave reviews to Last Tango In Paris.....

 

[Jack Briggs]

She sure did. And, so help me, I find much of Pauline Kael's writing obfuscatory and pretentious. The woman was so damn full of herself--and I don't think that way just because of her nonsense piece about this film in 1968. I know Kael is celebrated, but I've never been one of the celebrants.

 

[Rain]

Agreed about Kael.
I believe she is of the school of film critics who believe that they will appear more knowledgeable and intellectual than they actually are by disliking virtually everything.
As for Mr. Hunter's ridiculous and narrow-minded "review," I could not resist sending him a little email, wherein I presented my case for the fact that he is a buffoon.

 

[Bill Huelbig]

As bad as the Washington Post review was, at least they reviewed "2001" when it came to their town. None of the New York papers posted a review, a feature story or even a blurb. There was only one ad, in the New York Times, and a small one at that. I wouldn't have known that it was playing in New York if it wasn't for Peter Apruzzese and all you guys in Home Theater Forum.

--Bill

 

[Bill Huelbig]

My two cents on Pauline Kael: the phrase I remember most from her original review is: "It's a monumentally unimaginative movie". Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even critics, but THIS movie? Unimaginative? It's as if she got stuck in traffic on the way to the theater, had to write the review on deadline and just made the whole thing up without ever seeing the film.

--Bill

 

[Ted Todorov]

If Kael did review it without actually seeing it, she would hardly be the only one. There have been more recent notorius incidents of a French critic reviewing Undergound without seeing it (there was even a movie made making fun of the said critic). And in NYC one dance critic wrote about a Bill T. Jones show at BAM without having seen it.
Then of course you have all the critics who attend screenings but pay no attention to what's on screen. It is ceratinly evident from major factual errors in reviews, not to mention eyewitness reports, like a friend who saw Jeffrey Lyons looking at his TV Watchman during a screening.
I'm really looking forward to seeing 2001 over the holidays.
Ted

 

[Jack Briggs]

Though I doubt Kael would ever have stooped that low--write a review without having seen the film--I could tell you horror stories about local "rock critics" and reviewers having written concert reviews without having attended the shows.

I know. I was responsible for getting a couple of these liars booted from music magazines I worked with back in the early '90s.

So it does happen.

But that philistine from the Post? You really have to wonder.

Also, the 2001 run here in L.A. has received nothing more than a small editorial blurb in last Sunday's Times, under "Openings."

No ads, no nothing. (Talk about studio support. Another good reason for MGM to try to wrest control of this film back from evil Warner.)