2,689 reviews
- jacknorwood2002
- Sep 2, 2015
- Permalink
There's a monolith that seeks to influence, the evolution of the simian confluence, teaching apes how to compete, how to kill to get their meat, all leading to, a lunar revolution. On the moon, another block has been discovered, the apes now have the means to open wings and smother, it's to Jupiter they go, what they'll find nobody knows, but it doesn't seem to fill primates with dread. To protect they have a powerful A. I., it misses nothing, and nothing passes by, everything will not be fine, if you rely on an airline, as it watches with satanic, evil eye. At Jupiter, Darwin gets dispatched, down kaleidoscopic, psychedelic hatch, death brings birth and birth brings earth, a giant foetus wants to berth, I'm not sure hominins will make much of a match.
A perpetually engrossing film that offers more conundrums than conclusions, your interpretations uniquely your own, but the scale, cinematography and concepts are truly out of this world.
A perpetually engrossing film that offers more conundrums than conclusions, your interpretations uniquely your own, but the scale, cinematography and concepts are truly out of this world.
- Wesley-Wang
- Apr 13, 2018
- Permalink
Sometimes reading the user comments on IMDB fills me with despair for the species. For anybody to dismiss 2001: A Space Odyssey as "boring" they must have no interest in science, technology, philosophy, history or the art of film-making. Finally I understand why most Hollywood productions are so shallow and vacuous - they understand their audience.
Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.
2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.
Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.
I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10.
Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.
2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.
Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.
I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10.
- simon_booth
- Jun 16, 2003
- Permalink
There are two schools of thought about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. One, is that it is the greatest science-fiction epic ever made. This is supported by those who claim to understand the complexities involved and leading up the Star Child ending. The others, like myself, find it as absorbing as watching paint dry on woodwork.
The musical background is glorious, the colors are dazzling, and there's an interesting use of HAL as a villainous computer. Beyond that, there is nothing the least bit interesting about the human characters (trite dialogue and no personality or warmth to any of the individuals), the pace is unbelievably slow (so the intellectually gifted can philosophize on the mysteries of space), and the payoff at the end leaves you either breathless with enlightenment or convinced that you have watched three hours of nothingness.
I had the same letdown feeling when I watched THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE, so your like or dislike of this movie is purely dependent on personal taste. Intellectuals will take the position that you are a mentally challenged clod if you dare disagree with their elevated opinion of the movie--so be aware that this is not conventional story-telling in any sense whatsoever and only for those who admire Stanley Kubrick's way with unlikely cinematic material.
The musical background is glorious, the colors are dazzling, and there's an interesting use of HAL as a villainous computer. Beyond that, there is nothing the least bit interesting about the human characters (trite dialogue and no personality or warmth to any of the individuals), the pace is unbelievably slow (so the intellectually gifted can philosophize on the mysteries of space), and the payoff at the end leaves you either breathless with enlightenment or convinced that you have watched three hours of nothingness.
I had the same letdown feeling when I watched THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE, so your like or dislike of this movie is purely dependent on personal taste. Intellectuals will take the position that you are a mentally challenged clod if you dare disagree with their elevated opinion of the movie--so be aware that this is not conventional story-telling in any sense whatsoever and only for those who admire Stanley Kubrick's way with unlikely cinematic material.
I'm always surprised, given that the famous title track of 2001 is called "Also sprach Zarathustra", that nobody (nobody I've read, anyway) has noted the parallels between the movie and Nietzsche's famous work, "Also sprach Zarathustra". The idea of man's rebirth into a star child; an infant form of an indescribably more advanced being, is an explicit part of N.'s "Zarathustra"; there is a prominent passage called "On how a camel becomes a lion, and a lion becomes a child", in which N. describes the first incarnation of the overman as a child, transcending both the ascetic, altruistic side of man (the camel; always asking to bear more weight) and the rapacious, brutish, will-to-power side of man (the lion). The fact that the song plays during the star child sequence can hardly be coincidence. And also, Zarathustra said that "man is a rope tied between beasts and the overman." The structure of the movie fits that description: a brief history of man as beast, until we become truly man by mastering weapons and acquiring reason, then a long sequence about man (the rope, as it were), and then a brief glimpse of the overman. The inscrutability of how these transformations occurred, and the suggestion that an external force caused them, is also Nietzschean; in "Zarathustra", he makes it pretty clear that he doesn't have a clue how people are going to be able to enact these changes themselves and suggests that we will have to depend on an outsider (Zarathustra) to show us how to "go under". Bowman's psychedelic sequence at the near-end could be seen as Kubrick's best 1960's-style attempt at depicting the mystical "going under".
I know these parallels are pretty broad, and almost certainly have been noted elsewhere despite the fact that I have not personally seen it. But I just wanted to mention them, if for no other reason than to try to dispel the myth that Nietzsche was ultimately a gloomy philosopher. Few people find the ending of 2001 to be gloomy, and it is in my opinion, explicitly and unmistakeably Nietzschean. The case could certainly be made that 2001 is above all a dramatization of "Zarathustra" updated for the modern age. Feel free to disregard the outright snobbishness of my tying everything to Nietzsche.
I know these parallels are pretty broad, and almost certainly have been noted elsewhere despite the fact that I have not personally seen it. But I just wanted to mention them, if for no other reason than to try to dispel the myth that Nietzsche was ultimately a gloomy philosopher. Few people find the ending of 2001 to be gloomy, and it is in my opinion, explicitly and unmistakeably Nietzschean. The case could certainly be made that 2001 is above all a dramatization of "Zarathustra" updated for the modern age. Feel free to disregard the outright snobbishness of my tying everything to Nietzsche.
Instead of writing a paragraph, I'll give four good reasons why 2001 is the greatest cinema experience of all time: 1) It is a visual Odyssey that could only be told on the big screen. The special effects that won Kubrick his only Oscar are the most stunning effects before that age of Jurassic Park and T2. They allow Kubrick to give an accurate (or at least are the most accurate) depiction of space travel to date. The silence that fills the space scenes not only serves its purpose as accurate science, but also adds to the mood of the film (to be discussed in a later point with HAL). The fact that Kubrick shot the moon scenes before the Apollo landing is a gutsy yet fulfilling move. Many have said that upon its original release, it was a favorite "trip" movie. I can think of no other movie that has such amazing visuals for its time and even of all time (sorry Phantom Menace fans!) 2) Kubrick's directing style is terrific. As in all his films, Kubrick likes to use his camera as means to delve into the psychology of his characters and plots. His camera is not as mobile as other greats, such as Scorsese, but instead sits and watches the narrative unfold. Faces are the key element of a Kubrick film. Like classic movies, such as M and Touch of Evil, Kubrick focuses on the characters' faces to give the audience a psychological view-point. Even he uses extreme close-ups of HAL's glowing red "eye" to show the coldness and determination of the computerizd villain. I could go on, but in summation Kubrick is at the hieght of his style. 3) HAL 9000 is one of the most villainous characters in film history. I whole-heartedly agree with the late Gene Siskle's opinion of HAL 9000. Most of this film takes place in space. Through the use of silence and the darkness of space itself, a mood of isolation is created. Dave and his crewmen are isolated between earth and jupiter, with nowhere to escape. Combine this mood with the cold, calculated actions of HAL 9000 and you have the most fearful villain imaginable. I still, although having see this film several times, feel my chest tighten in a particular scene. 4) The controversial ending of 2001 always turns people away from this film. Instead of trying to give my opinion of the what it means and what my idea of 2001's meaning in general is, I'd like to discuss the fact that the ending serves to leave the movie open-ended. Kubrick has stated that he inteded to make 2001 open for discussion. He left its meaning in the hands of the viewer. By respecting the audience's intelligence, Kubrick allowed his movie to be the beginning, not the end, of a meaningful discussion on man's past, present, and future. The beauty of 2001 is that the ending need not mean anything deep, it can just be a purely plot driven explanation and the entire movie can be viewed as an entertaining journey through space. No other movie, save the great Citizen Kane, leaves itself open to discussion like 2001. It is truly meant to be a surreal journey that involves not only the eye but the mind. Instead of waiting in long lines for the Phantom Menace, rent a widescreen edition of 2001 and enjoy the greatest cinematic experience.
Count me as one of the philistines who is too simple-minded to appreciate this so-called masterpiece. Actually, I have a degree in media studies and a great interest in science, science fiction and anything thought-provoking (the technical term is "need for cognition"). But I am just baffled by this film and why it is so esteemed. It is simply slow, empty and lifeless. When absolutely nothing is happening on screen, am I supposed to feel or think something profound? Even when my professor explicitly explained to me why this film is so great, I still cannot convince myself that it is so.
- briancham1994
- Aug 9, 2020
- Permalink
A review I have put off for far too long....
Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.
Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.
The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.
While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.
Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.
All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.
Very highly recommended.
Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.
Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.
The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.
While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.
Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.
All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.
Very highly recommended.
Humanity finds a mysterious, obviously artificial, object buried beneath the Lunar surface and, with the intelligent computer H.A.L. 9000, sets off on a quest.
Saying that "2001" is overrated is the sort of statement that can bring down hatred and vitriol from science fiction fans, Kubrick fans and more. Of course, it is possible to be a Kubrick fan and still generally dislike this film.
Nobody can deny that this film is visually stunning, and a landmark in imagery. It also has the advantage of being the last film about space travel to be released before the moon landing, making it somewhat prescient in a way.
But yet, does it need to be so long, so grand, with the music and long shots? Perhaps not quite "pretentious", but the film presents itself as being more important than it really is. Critics at the time (1968) denounced the film, and perhaps they were right. At the very least, two cuts could be made: a longer one for die-hard fans, and a shorter one for casual viewers.
Saying that "2001" is overrated is the sort of statement that can bring down hatred and vitriol from science fiction fans, Kubrick fans and more. Of course, it is possible to be a Kubrick fan and still generally dislike this film.
Nobody can deny that this film is visually stunning, and a landmark in imagery. It also has the advantage of being the last film about space travel to be released before the moon landing, making it somewhat prescient in a way.
But yet, does it need to be so long, so grand, with the music and long shots? Perhaps not quite "pretentious", but the film presents itself as being more important than it really is. Critics at the time (1968) denounced the film, and perhaps they were right. At the very least, two cuts could be made: a longer one for die-hard fans, and a shorter one for casual viewers.
I decided to give this movie a shot since it's supposed to be an amazing piece of filmmaking and a classic. If you've read any other negative reviews then you've heard other people complain about how boring, slow paced and pretentious it is. The plot is a big question mark and there are scenes that draw on for an eternity. Add in numerous scenes with ear piercing noice and sound effects, it's just a really unenjoyable movie. Isn't the point of watching a movie to be entertained and enjoy ourselves?? I forced myself to sit through this and it felt like work, like I should be getting paid.
I can't completely trash it though. It's incredibly beautiful visually. I can't believe a movie this old has such good effects and looks this good. The sets are also very impressive.
All in all though, I can't ever recommend this to anyone. I wish I hadn't wasted 2+ hours on it. The first 15 minutes is either black screen, silence, or apes screeching at each other for god sakes. This is a movie that "deep" people claim to like to make themselves seem more cultured. Deuce Bigalo is 100 times more enjoyable. But to each their own I guess.
I can't completely trash it though. It's incredibly beautiful visually. I can't believe a movie this old has such good effects and looks this good. The sets are also very impressive.
All in all though, I can't ever recommend this to anyone. I wish I hadn't wasted 2+ hours on it. The first 15 minutes is either black screen, silence, or apes screeching at each other for god sakes. This is a movie that "deep" people claim to like to make themselves seem more cultured. Deuce Bigalo is 100 times more enjoyable. But to each their own I guess.
- aaronjohn-caudill
- Aug 18, 2022
- Permalink
Putting the science in science-fiction, 2001: A Space Odyssey is an unprecedented, undisputed & unparalleled achievement, and a landmark moment in cinema history, for it nearly killed its genre by setting the bar so high that it hasn't been equalled or challenged ever since. Universally & unanimously hailed as one of the greatest & most influential films ever made, it is without a doubt Stanley Kubrick's magnum opus.
- CinemaClown
- Sep 1, 2013
- Permalink
I write this review just after hearing of Stanley Kubrick's death. It's a great loss, and I write about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, because I feel it is the consummate Kubrick film, the one he will be most remembered for. It is a picture like no other, not only revolutionizing science fiction, but changing the way films are conceptualized. It was probably America's first 'art' film and has inspired the likes of George Lucas and countless other writers and directors.
Aside from its visual greatness, the reason the film spawns so much discussion and analysis is because so many people have so many different interpretations of it. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, his co-writer, had a vision, but we have never really found out what was going through their minds. Of course, the skinny on its 'message' is how technology of the future will take over humanity and decide the course of our lives unless we are careful. 2001's ending is one of hope, a version of our rebirth through the star-child's flight back to earth. It is meaningless to many, but discerning filmgoers will understand.
Although 2001 does not have the wicked, dark humor of DR. STRANGELOVE or CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or contain strong, eccentric characters that filled his earlier works like PATHS OF GLORY or SPARTACUS, I still feel he would've liked to be remembered most for this. If anything, HAL will be his most memorable character, dangerous, murderous, and artificial. It was a half-decade in the making at a time when Hollywood was still churning out dull musicals and just waking up to the New Wave of French and Italian cinema. Kubrick was a maverick director who made great films on his own terms, his own time, and for everyone else to marvel at. He will be missed.
Aside from its visual greatness, the reason the film spawns so much discussion and analysis is because so many people have so many different interpretations of it. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, his co-writer, had a vision, but we have never really found out what was going through their minds. Of course, the skinny on its 'message' is how technology of the future will take over humanity and decide the course of our lives unless we are careful. 2001's ending is one of hope, a version of our rebirth through the star-child's flight back to earth. It is meaningless to many, but discerning filmgoers will understand.
Although 2001 does not have the wicked, dark humor of DR. STRANGELOVE or CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or contain strong, eccentric characters that filled his earlier works like PATHS OF GLORY or SPARTACUS, I still feel he would've liked to be remembered most for this. If anything, HAL will be his most memorable character, dangerous, murderous, and artificial. It was a half-decade in the making at a time when Hollywood was still churning out dull musicals and just waking up to the New Wave of French and Italian cinema. Kubrick was a maverick director who made great films on his own terms, his own time, and for everyone else to marvel at. He will be missed.
I spent many a sleepless night after watching 2001. Not only because of the psychological horror (of which 2001 is a masterpiece) but also because of the way it brought me (a restless soul) some clarity to the way I observe the universe. It changed my way of thinking in a very profound way. And after reading the novel (by Arthur C. Clarke) I found myself once again inspired (a writer as I am) by the level of imagination.
The Space Odyssey is not something one can just "go and see". One has to be ready for it, or it cannot be understood. In fact I don't think it can be understood at all, at least not all of it at once. It is a philosophical journey to the infinite and beyond, a masterpiece of it's genre and still after 32 years technically quite impressive all the way to the powerful musical soundtrack featuring 'Also spracht Zarathustra' by Richard Strauss and 'Blue Danube' by Johann Strauss.
Take all the time you want, but eventually you are going to have to see this film. If it can bring some order and understanding to the universe of a struggling artist like me, it can certainly do it for you as well.
Or maybe I'm just plain crazy...
The Space Odyssey is not something one can just "go and see". One has to be ready for it, or it cannot be understood. In fact I don't think it can be understood at all, at least not all of it at once. It is a philosophical journey to the infinite and beyond, a masterpiece of it's genre and still after 32 years technically quite impressive all the way to the powerful musical soundtrack featuring 'Also spracht Zarathustra' by Richard Strauss and 'Blue Danube' by Johann Strauss.
Take all the time you want, but eventually you are going to have to see this film. If it can bring some order and understanding to the universe of a struggling artist like me, it can certainly do it for you as well.
Or maybe I'm just plain crazy...
- tapioylinen
- Feb 6, 2000
- Permalink
2001: A Space Odyssey is my favourite film of all time for simply one reason: the ending. Kubrick's ambiguous finish to this suspenseful trip will leave you debating and theorising its purpose for a long time.
Further positive aspects include its eerie score and music throughout (notably at the beginning), the visually pleasing aesthetic, and contrastingly the use of silence to truly prove that "no one can hear you scream in space."
I strongly recommend watching this film in a dark room with no distractions in order to achieve the full cinematic experience, and hopefully it will not disappoint.
Further positive aspects include its eerie score and music throughout (notably at the beginning), the visually pleasing aesthetic, and contrastingly the use of silence to truly prove that "no one can hear you scream in space."
I strongly recommend watching this film in a dark room with no distractions in order to achieve the full cinematic experience, and hopefully it will not disappoint.
- alexcole10
- Jun 12, 2020
- Permalink
Mankind's Self awakening is the theme of "2001: A Space Odyssey", a process that unfolds along a space-time continuum. We "see" our primordial past, and we "infer" a cosmic future. The powers of intuition thus become the doors of perception, in our ongoing collective journey.
From this transcendental perspective, a conventional, egocentric plot seems superfluous. Our frenzied conflicts and self-important dialogue are consumed in evolutionary change, and are irrelevant in a cosmos that is vast beyond comprehension. It's a tough lesson for a vain and aggressive species. Not surprising then that some of us huff and puff about the film's slowness and minimal story. For perceptive viewers, the remuneration is an inspirational sense of wonder and awe.
In this film, which is mostly visual, geometric symbols guide our intuition. Circles and arcs represent nature. Right angles represent conscious intelligence. Some people think the sleek, black monolith is a Von Neumann probe. Maybe. Without doubt, the monolith is a visual metaphor for an extraterrestrial intelligence whose physical form is never shown. Mystery is more profound than explanation.
"2001 ... " is unique among films in content and scope. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, the special and visual effects are breathtaking, and the classical music is sublime. I rarely use the word "masterpiece" to describe a movie. But Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is art in the highest sense, like Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", or Vincent Van Gogh's "The Starry Night".
From this transcendental perspective, a conventional, egocentric plot seems superfluous. Our frenzied conflicts and self-important dialogue are consumed in evolutionary change, and are irrelevant in a cosmos that is vast beyond comprehension. It's a tough lesson for a vain and aggressive species. Not surprising then that some of us huff and puff about the film's slowness and minimal story. For perceptive viewers, the remuneration is an inspirational sense of wonder and awe.
In this film, which is mostly visual, geometric symbols guide our intuition. Circles and arcs represent nature. Right angles represent conscious intelligence. Some people think the sleek, black monolith is a Von Neumann probe. Maybe. Without doubt, the monolith is a visual metaphor for an extraterrestrial intelligence whose physical form is never shown. Mystery is more profound than explanation.
"2001 ... " is unique among films in content and scope. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, the special and visual effects are breathtaking, and the classical music is sublime. I rarely use the word "masterpiece" to describe a movie. But Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is art in the highest sense, like Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", or Vincent Van Gogh's "The Starry Night".
- Lechuguilla
- Feb 5, 2005
- Permalink
This movie is certainly one of the greatest films ever made. It is a story told in a steady pace, told mostly not by words but by cinematic means of expression. Perfect blend of spectacular special effects and classical music bring to life creations of human imagination in both realistic and poetical way. The story itself is quite simple at a first glance. As the title implies, there is an archetypal journey, a motive repeated for thousands of years. This motive was always used not only to depict a trip in space and time, and beyond, but also had rich philosophic meaning. The film is a poetical contemplation of most exciting eternal questions. It is not just an odyssey of a person; it is an odyssey of our species. The film is great by itself, yet, in my case, the impression from it will always be mingled with that from the book. I've read it at the age of 10, really not thinking about problems like 'what is the relationship between evolution of humankind and development of human morality'. But the impression was great enough to make me fall for entire genre of science fiction.
The day I learned '2001' got only special effects Oscar and was not even nominated for the Best Picture was the day when 'Academy Award' completely became two words meaning nothing to me.
The day I learned '2001' got only special effects Oscar and was not even nominated for the Best Picture was the day when 'Academy Award' completely became two words meaning nothing to me.
Like a Circle around the human condition, 2001 starts at the beginning, skips the middle, and proceeds to the ending, right back where we started. Noting the weakness of words compared to image(s), Kubrick wisely dispenses with dialogue, preferring the power and essence of the scenery, and allowing the intelligence of the audience to do the deciphering. Or not, depending on the audience.
A monolith in cinematic history, 2001 is a high water mark of direction, execution, and achievement. If one considers the ambition of the film (a film about everything), and the measure of success the film achieved to that end, a very sound argument for this being the greatest of all films can be made.
A monolith in cinematic history, 2001 is a high water mark of direction, execution, and achievement. If one considers the ambition of the film (a film about everything), and the measure of success the film achieved to that end, a very sound argument for this being the greatest of all films can be made.
- diamond-31
- Mar 2, 2001
- Permalink
I just saw this again today on TCM, and it still leaves me empty. This movie is very well artistically made, but it's also very slow and boring. The most important part of the movie is HAL, but that's about it. There are other visually stylish movies which don't have great acting, such as Blade Runner, but at least that movie has sort of an interesting story. I must admit that I do like it because it is slow and visually artistic. This is only because it's very cold outside, and watching it in bed allows me to doze off here and there. If one were paying money to sit in a movie theater and expected to stay alert, I think many would have a hard time with it.
- ebloomberg
- Jan 27, 2019
- Permalink
A whimsical, often spectacular view of a future in which advances in technology dominate the world. It is well shot and although slow-moving it is intense and enjoyable throughout. The featuring of classical music to establish atmosphere works brilliantly; it provides a feeling of awe, mystery and intrigue the same aura that Walt Disney worked in creating 'Fantasia'. The special effects, both sound and visual, are still spellbinding by the standards of today's technology. Aside from the technical pluses of the film, it stands strong as it is one of not many films out there that has something important to say about humankind, and where the human race is heading in terms of our increasing reliance on machines and our unquenchable thirst to discover. Despite an ending that is hard to understand, it is even harder to overlook this film a true cinema classic.
'2001: A Space Odyssey' depicts the world from primitive times to the moment computers start thinking for themselves, and becoming superior to Man who invented them. This film will not satisfy every palate, and the ending is like poetry that needs to be analyzed.
The film starts off in prehistoric times, and almost looks like a documentary - without narration. It then jumps ahead to the space era. Here, Dr Floyd from the National Council of Astronautics travels to the Clavius base on the moon. The purpose of his visit is to gather additional information to the possibility of an epidemic at the base.
However, we would never know the results of his investigation, as the film then jumps ahead 18 months and we meet Dave and Frank on a mission to Jupiter. Their ship is controlled by a super computer called HAL. When Dave and Frank become concerned about HAL and plan to disconnect it, HAL takes matters into its own hands.
'2001: A Space Odyssey' is a symphony of beautiful visuals and colourful imagery. Stanley Kubrick's vision of space travel can be considered the pioneer of sci-fi movies. The film also takes its time showcasing these marvelous visuals, accompanied by a classical score. '2001' looks incredible considering it was made almost six decades ago.
However, the film concentrates so much on the visuals that it is insanely slow moving. You can easily use the fast-forward button at times and you won't miss a thing! Every...scene...is...just...so...slow... Apart from this, it also really wasn't all that interesting. The story could have been told in about half the time. And can someone please explain that strange ending? I can't imagine people were satisfied leaving the theatre back in 1968...
Despite being an extremely well made movie, '2001: A Space Odyssey' was just way too slow for my liking, and I became bored. The visuals alone was not enough to keep me interested, and I was relieved when the credits rolled.
The film starts off in prehistoric times, and almost looks like a documentary - without narration. It then jumps ahead to the space era. Here, Dr Floyd from the National Council of Astronautics travels to the Clavius base on the moon. The purpose of his visit is to gather additional information to the possibility of an epidemic at the base.
However, we would never know the results of his investigation, as the film then jumps ahead 18 months and we meet Dave and Frank on a mission to Jupiter. Their ship is controlled by a super computer called HAL. When Dave and Frank become concerned about HAL and plan to disconnect it, HAL takes matters into its own hands.
'2001: A Space Odyssey' is a symphony of beautiful visuals and colourful imagery. Stanley Kubrick's vision of space travel can be considered the pioneer of sci-fi movies. The film also takes its time showcasing these marvelous visuals, accompanied by a classical score. '2001' looks incredible considering it was made almost six decades ago.
However, the film concentrates so much on the visuals that it is insanely slow moving. You can easily use the fast-forward button at times and you won't miss a thing! Every...scene...is...just...so...slow... Apart from this, it also really wasn't all that interesting. The story could have been told in about half the time. And can someone please explain that strange ending? I can't imagine people were satisfied leaving the theatre back in 1968...
Despite being an extremely well made movie, '2001: A Space Odyssey' was just way too slow for my liking, and I became bored. The visuals alone was not enough to keep me interested, and I was relieved when the credits rolled.
- paulclaassen
- May 18, 2024
- Permalink
To me, this is not only Kubrick's best film but also a milestone of the genre. It is quite long at around two and a quarter hours, and it is slow, that I agree with. But it is never boring, well not to me it isn't. Besides, and this is up to interpretation, but I think the slow pacing is deliberate, it adds to the haunting and eerie quality 2001 has and also to assimilate every shot which speak volumes, and also 2001's greatest strength is actually in the details.
The story is somewhat abstract in its structure but is also quite complex, innovative and interesting yet has a simple message, and the screenplay and direction by Kubrick are superb. The acting is not the film's best asset, but it is good enough, with Douglas Rain the standout as the voice of HAL 9000 as he is really quite brilliant. Two things especially make 2001 so good. One are the visuals- even after all those years they are simply outstanding. The cinematography is indeed splendid, as are the colours and settings, but there are so many memorable images. The images of the giant Starchild floating through space and the tribe of apes painfully putting two and two together still resonate considerably even now. The other is the music. Coming from a big classical music enthusiast, I was delighted by the use of Also Sprach Zarathustra and On the Beautiful Blue Danube and how they combined with the visuals were exceedingly clever.
Overall, this is a truly wonderful film that is worth seeing for the visuals and music alone and still continues to intrigue and perplex with the ending. As much as I like Oliver and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, two of my childhood favourites, and the brilliant Lion in Winter to me this is it... the best film of 1968. 10/10 Bethany Cox
The story is somewhat abstract in its structure but is also quite complex, innovative and interesting yet has a simple message, and the screenplay and direction by Kubrick are superb. The acting is not the film's best asset, but it is good enough, with Douglas Rain the standout as the voice of HAL 9000 as he is really quite brilliant. Two things especially make 2001 so good. One are the visuals- even after all those years they are simply outstanding. The cinematography is indeed splendid, as are the colours and settings, but there are so many memorable images. The images of the giant Starchild floating through space and the tribe of apes painfully putting two and two together still resonate considerably even now. The other is the music. Coming from a big classical music enthusiast, I was delighted by the use of Also Sprach Zarathustra and On the Beautiful Blue Danube and how they combined with the visuals were exceedingly clever.
Overall, this is a truly wonderful film that is worth seeing for the visuals and music alone and still continues to intrigue and perplex with the ending. As much as I like Oliver and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, two of my childhood favourites, and the brilliant Lion in Winter to me this is it... the best film of 1968. 10/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Oct 18, 2010
- Permalink