I have seen this film many many times, last night on my hd tv in blu ray, and looked absolutely amazing, this is a masterpiece, this is cinema's mona lisa, absolutely spellbound watching it, gets better with every viewing
Even my 6-year-old son watches it in complete silence.. There are no words to describe it.
The slowest movie in the history of the cinema...
I got this movie recently when it came out on Ultra HD Blu-ray simply because it was missing in my collection and, being a Sci-Fi fan, missing 2001 in my collection simply would not do. It is a movie that was made to rely almost entirely on the visuals. It could be said that it is a visual symphony if that makes sense. Thus it was filmed on 70 mm film and in 6 channel stereo which, at the time was a huge thing. Thanks to this it actually made some sense to transfer this movie to Ultra HD Blu-ray since the originals were really good enough even though the movie was made in 1968.
I remember watching this movie as a kid and was profoundly disappointed. I thought come on, where’s the adventure, not to mention any form of action? Today I can more appreciate it for what it is. A visually stunning movie. I also can more appreciate the fact that the movie is trying to be scientifically accurate instead of going all out on the fiction part. The parts where gravity, or rather the lack thereof, was portrayed, that was really high tech movie making at the time. I also noticed now, when re-watching it, that all the screens are actually flat which also was really far in the future at the time. Actually it was still pretty much in the future back in 2001.
However, even today, I have to say that I find the movie excruciatingly boring. It is two and a half hour long and it moves very, very slowly. It takes 50 minutes of movie time before we actually get to the main part of the movie and get onto the Discovery for instance. No matter how great the visuals are, there’s only so much boredom I can stand before it starts to get to me.
In the last 30 minutes or so the movie starts to become very psychedelic. The part where Bowman is pulled into the vortex, the stargate, is going on forever and in the end it just becomes a blur of headache inducing color effects. The final parts of the movie with the three Bowmans of different ages is just weird.
So,as this is a non-professional and personal take on the movie I cannot really motivate more than 3 out of 5 stars.
I hadn’t actually planned to review this movie. Everything has really already been said about it but I could not refrain after having read this crap at Rotten Tomatoes:
"Critics Consensus: One of the most influential of all sci-fi films — and one of the most controversial — Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 is a delicate, poetic meditation on the ingenuity — and folly — of mankind."
It’s pretty well known that Rotten Tomatoes is the absolutely worst movie rating site around and the so called “critics” are useless culture elite morons with an over-inflated opinion about themselves at best and politically motivated SJW asswipes at worst but still.
What the hell is controversial about it? Reality check, there’s really nothing controversial about it at all. It is just a fictional story in the future. Then we have that crap “the folly”. What bloody folly? If anything the movie shows a much better future than what we got. A future where the politicians apparently promoted advancement of science and space exploration which is the direct opposite to the money and oxygen wasters we have today.
Sure, if you indulge too much in smoking funny mushrooms or are politically motivated you can probably “interpret” the hell out of any movie and “find” whatever message you want but it is still bullshit.
Well, that was my (controversial?) take on 2001.
The most overrated movie I have ever seen. A movie shouldn't live up to visuals only.
I only recently watched this movie, and was scared about the possibility that it'd be too old to watch anymore. It didn't matter one bit. This movie is still stunning. Brilliant piece of art. It's now one of my favorite movies ever
I usually "get" weird movies with deeper meaning, but this one was completely lost on me. How this is considered a classic is beyond me.
Groundbreaking? Yes. A good movie? Not really.
There is a great short film buried here, though. I'd love to see that fan edit.
What a damn drag of a movie
A science fiction classic and a cinematic masterpiece. Or so they say.
I have no problem admitting I didn't understand it the first two times I saw it. I was in my teenage years then. I just watched it again but this time I read some interpretations, explanations and quotes from Kubrick. While I still think it is a masterpiece in technical terms considering the time it was filmed I now feel the plot is not so great at all. The movie suddenly became very mediocre to me.
I like the ideas behind the movie but I think it's blown out of proportion. Just my point of view, I know a lot of people think different.
Never been a fan of this one. Visually it's stunning, but that's all it has to offer. I'd say I just don't "get" it, but I'm not sure there's anything to "get".
What to say that hasn’t already been said? A film to be experienced rather than explained notwithstanding its plot centred around the appearance of a black monolith. Kubrick’s attention to detail and focus on realism means that some 50 years after its release with all the advancements in special effects, this still stands the test of time. The ideas explored of evolution, technology, artificial intelligence and alien life remain open to interpretation, but therein lies the film’s central strength, with Kubrick, stripping down much of the dialogue and providing little in the way of explanation, having created a film that purposefully generates discussion and debate over its meaning. Still the most influential science-fiction film of all time and unlikely to be bettered.
Update: I requested a refund from the Google play store and I got my money back. Hahaha.
I'm just gonna say it. I think Kubrick is highly overrated.
After watching a bunch of his movies, because people keep telling me they're classics, I've come to the conclusion his movies are just loud self indulgent pieces of trash. Especially A Clockwork Orange. But this is up there.
Long shots of nothing where you get to see a model of a spaceship slowly pass by. Only to be broken by ear piercing sounds and screeching. The only good thing about this is the score, which I don't need this movie for to listen to since I have a record player. It may have been groundbreaking in its day but with pretty much no story, there's not much to keep my interest. And yes, I do understand the underlying narratives and themes. But there are films that do it much better than this. Maybe being one of the first movies like this it didn't have much to build on. No president was really set.
But in the end, a movie should entertain, inform and/or evoke thoughts and emotions. Of which this movie does none.
2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of film, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is undoubtedly a landmark in the history of cinema with its incredible visuals and ambitious storytelling. Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece is a visually stunning journey through the vastness of space and a hauntingly evocative soundtrack. The film's depiction of artificial intelligence, particularly the iconic HAL 9000, is deeply embedded in popular culture. Also, with its meticulous pacing and deliberate ambiguity, 2001 may alienate some viewers who prefer a more traditional and easily digestible narrative. Also, while the grandeur of the movie is undeniably awe-inspiring, it can feel distant and emotionally disconnected, leaving some characters lacking depth and connection. Nevertheless, 2001: A Space Odyssey will remain a cinematic achievement that continues to influence and challenge the sci-fi genre, appealing to those seeking intellectual stimulation and cinematic innovation. Viewed from today's perspective, it will probably leave many unsatisfied.
Started off pretty good and as it went on kinda lost my interest. A bit too slow for my liking.
I saw it for the first time when I was in middle school. I thought it was the worst movie ever. Then, some time later, as an adult, I rewatched it and was amazed at how wonderful it was. It was so beautiful and magnificent that I could not believe it was made in 1968, and I thought it was an unprecedented and solemn historical work, like Goethe's "Faust" in literature, one of the greatest masterpieces of cinema that mankind has ever possessed. First of all, it is a film in which dialogue is reduced to the utmost limit, and even if it had been in black and white, I could have watched it ten times without getting tired of it, regardless of whether I could have endured the "silence. It's Kubrick's magic that you can watch this film without any annoying sound effects like in "Jaws" but with classical music and with your heart rate regulated like in Charlie Chaplin's silent films. I don't know how well this film was received in the U.S. at the time, but in Japan, many people shy away from it, saying it is difficult to understand.
"2001" is probably the most visually stunning science fiction movie ever made. In fact it is one of the most influential movies of all time. I appreciate the respect Kubrick has for his audience. "2001" requires an attention span and for it you are rewarded with an experience that really pulls you in. The use of music throughout this film is as important to the success of it as the dialogue is. The special effects do not look dated and appear as though they could have been created today. This is a very special movie.
Absolutely incredible. I have no other words.
Geezus this is a slog. I should like this movie, right? WTF is wrong with me?
Sci-fi, groundbreaking special effects, Kubrick, Strauss...even fucking monkeys.
Nope.
I saw the rating on IMDb and thought it was a great movie, I bought the 4K movie on sale. After dinner I put the movie on my blue ray player, but I thought the movie was broken, solid black background for the first 3 minutes , then the movie starts, wow, some actors dressed as monkeys making noises for solid 15 minutes, then some boring space scenes and the movie ended, what happened? I feel asleep. So I guess it's a nice movie to fall asleep, I used to watch ancient aliens to do this but I think o found a new candidate.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" was one of those movies that I wanted to see for a long time, but, for some reason, I never got to see. So, when last week one of my university teachers said that in the next class we would watch this movie, I was quite excited.
And after seeing this film, I can only saw: wow. This movie is formidable. However, the experience of watching him in class was very bad. It enerves me to hear people say "What a shitty movie", making fun of the film, or say sarcastically "That's so well done". These people think what, that cinema only exist since 2010? Do you really think that the technology in the 60's is the same of these days? Really? Do they think that only blockbusters are films? Honestly, I also like blockbusters. But let's be honest, most of them are just to entertain and eat popcorn. Movies like "2001: A Space Odyssey" are culture, and teach something. Just because a movie is from 1968 is bad? Seriously, never imagined that there's still people who say this stuff.
If they at least presented me with valid arguments on why they didn't like the movie, I would understand them. But that's not what happened. Instead, I spent most time of the session hearing people whispering and making fun of the film. This attitude doesn't make any sense. If they had no interest in seeing the movie, at least they weren't silent and respected who wanted to see him. Sorry for the outburst, I'm really upset with this situation.
So, let's finally talk about the movie. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of the most incredible films I ever saw in my life. Stanley Kubrick was a visionary. This movie was very advanced for its time, that predicted many things about nowadays and the future.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" it's a little ambiguous, what I like, but for me, is not only about the evolution of mankind and how the advancement of technology affects us, sometimes leading us to ignorance.
This movie is incredible. The story is fascinating. The soundtrack is very good, although I also liked a lot the way Kubrick worked with the silence to build suspense. And the cinematography, my goshm the cinematography. The best I have ever saw. The symmetry of each plan is mesmerizing. Beautiful.
This film is one of the greatest masterpieces in cinema history.
This is not a good movie. This is not a great movie. This is a movie that is a flat out amazing art piece that everyone abosluetly needs to see in their lifetime. Every single time I watch it, I think I pick up on something new. The theme is important to human life, the plot is both simple and deeply complex when analyzed, the acting is subtle yet amazing, and the visuals are just fucking beautiful.
Seriously, I am not a big fan of most abstract art. Yet this film shows how to use "abstract" looking art to push your thought process to the max. The end visuals on their own might not have been as interesting to me, but since they follow what we've been learning the whole time they work so well. We are on this mysterious ride along with the protagonist.
Oh, and how the hell did they pull off all the visual effects in here in 1968? Space ships where people run around on all the walls? WHAT!? So subtle, yet so amazing. Each time they have this, they also play the best possible music.
I'm not sure if you're picking up on this yet, but 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the greatest films ever made, and one of my favorite of all time as well. If you haven't seen it, stop what you're doing and go buy this immediately for viewing.
This was not really my kind of movie. I had no expectations going into it, except knowing that it had something to do with space. Instead, I endured almost 3 hours of a numbingly slow-paced movie that I never really understood. It wasn't until after the end when I read other people's interpretations of the movie that I had a better sense of what Kubrick was trying to convey. Yet even so, the story is too abstract for me to appreciate. Nevertheless, it had a very riveting soundtrack and I was surprised to see how much of the futuristic technology we see present-day.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" is a sci-fi epic that takes viewers on a mind-bending journey through time and space. It explores humanity's evolution, from our ape-like ancestors to the possibility of transcending our physical limitations. The film is divided into distinct chapters, each marked by the appearance of a mysterious black monolith that acts as a catalyst for change.
The first chapter depicts the dawn of humanity, showing how the monolith empowers early hominids to use tools and weapons. Millions of years later, in the year 2001, another monolith is discovered on the moon, leading to a mission to Jupiter to investigate its origins. Onboard the spacecraft Discovery, a sentient computer named HAL 9000 takes control, posing a threat to the astronauts. The film's climax is a psychedelic and enigmatic sequence that leaves viewers to interpret its meaning.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" is more than just a sci-fi film; it's a philosophical exploration of humanity's place in the universe, the nature of intelligence, and the potential for our future evolution.
Can't believe this movie was made in 1968 .. even before the first moon landing
I watched this film now in 2024 for the first time and wow, what an amazing visual experience. It‘s stunning how good this film looks even after almost 50 years. I really get why this is such an iconic and beloved film.
If you watch this movie from the perspective of the time in which it was made, then you can appreciate it for what it is - an absolutely spectacular cinematic achievement. The shots of the space station, shuttles and space in general are visually stunning especially if watched on a big screen in 4K and HDR. But, unfortunately it seems that the movie relies heavily just on that - visuals. The story itself drags on forever, and even the docking to the space station or flying out in shuttle takes more than ten minutes. As gorgeous as those shots are, one can get easily bored after watching a ship docking indefinitely. At one point I felt like watching some documentary instead of a Sci-Fi movie. The plot picks up a bit after Hal 9000 turns against the crew, but that is quickly resolved, and then there's a half an hour of (as someone here said) psychedelic scenes which are not properly explained. I could only assume Dave went through some kind of black hole or wormhole and saw his future. The main plot point - the monolith - remained unresolved. It's unknown what it is and does, and who sent it, and you are left wondering why you wasted two and a half hours.
Of course, I went online afterwards to read some interpretations and I guess it makes sense, but the story should have been handled better.
Either way, the fact that this is cinematic achievement still stands regardless of the negative things. And I believe that everyone should watch it at least once in their lifetime. But for me, the movie does not have a re-watch value.
P.S. It bothered me a lot when the astronaut jumped from the shuttle untethered. That was a big mistake. The jump like that would be impossible, he would just float away, never to be seen again.
Despite this being my 3rd watch, I somehow understood it less than I did before. Visually and cinematographically it's amazing. To have done this in the 60s is wild. But it's really difficult to even start thinking about what's going on, or why.
30 minutes of monke, how the fuck is this from 1968 and space baby.
Theme- 9.5/10
Rewatchibility- 7.5/10
Acting- 8.5/10
Kinematography- 10/10
Time- 8.5/10
Total - 44/5 = 8.8
Richard Strauss... cue the music. I have known parts of the movie going on 20+ years without ever having watched it. Now having watched it I can say that it's probably gonna be a decisive watch for most. There is not a lot of fence-sitting with 2001 you'll either like it or you'll find it difficult to understand why people do. It's visually brilliant and technically marvelous but you already know that because that's a predetermined fact. But what may not be as quickly determined is the great story told with that cinematography. Now even if you strip away the Kubrick interpretative style plot that a lot of detractors scoff at, within it still lies a story of humanity from two perspectives: observer and participant. Now most will have the complaint of 2001 being slow and that is justified. It has deliberate pacing for sure and I even saw a couple of parts where I thought trimming that down would do wonders for that boisterous two-and-a-half-hour runtime and do nothing to hurt the movie in any way. Whichever side of the fence you'll find yourself standing, this movie has become cinematic-required viewing. Watch; Then decide.
Only good thing was the music and the impressive practical effect and visual trickery for such an old movie
What on earth is this? I have never seen a movie that get’s on my nerves like this. Yes, it looks good, but how is this considered one of the best movies of all time? It’s so slow and boring, god damn…
It's an extremely slow movie with great visuals and interesting camera shots, the story it's out of the box but don't expect any explanation at all, you can imagine what's going on and that's it. It feels that are missing pieces on purpose too make you wondering, if you are patient and don't mind staring to the void for a while you could like it but probably you will not because obviously it's boring.
most boring movie with good ratings
Honestly incredibly boring even though I wish it wasn't. I really struggled to get through the whole movie.
I had never seen it in its entirety and it surprised me. now I see that interstellar has a clear reference
Visually stunning and with an amazing score but I couldn't enjoy it to the fullest because of the plot. It is just 2 different timelines linked by a fcking rectangle. To be fair, all the part of Hal was better than the rest but it didn't have the right closing. Sad, i was so hyped up.
"Daisy."
So I just saw "2001" at a film festival and it was kinda incredible. Why do I feel like I just ticked off my bucket list of things to die before you die. I've been waiting a long time to watch this on the big screen. I already seen the movie about 3 or 4 years ago, but my memory of the film isn't that strong. So when I was picking what movies I wanted to see at (LIFF), and this was on the list, as the festival also shows classic movies.
Re-watching this movie was quite the experience. Nothing like a massive screen and loud speakers blasting off beautiful music while drifting in space. From the dawn of man till the end of human life. The cycle repeats.
But seriously, what can I honestly say about "2001" that hasn't been said already. It's one of the greatest Sci-Fi films of all time. It's groundbreaking and pure genius. Even at the slower pace parts, I was still engaged. After it was over, I was contemplating on it.
For a 1968 film, it's visual effects still hold up today and looks way more convincing than today. Well, there was a couple of effects that was noticeable, but the rest (which is mostly practical) still looks amazing. The "Star Gate" sequence is one example of a trippy and a breathtaking effect that it owned Kubrick an Oscar.
Every shot in this movie is like something you would hang up on your wall. Kubrick has been known for being a perfectionist of his work. This is a work of an artist that doesn't just get praised for how much he dose, but how little. Three years of making this - you can get easily attached to your work that after awhile you find the hidden beauty of the story. Do it 40 or 127 times until you get what you want and exactly how you wanted. A similar method that Chaplin use for "City Lights". But it isn't just images that kept me attention and I don't think Stanley was intending on that. There's plenty of scenes that goes on forever, not for spectacle, but more of use to inhabit everything that's going on.
It also helps that music in this is so beautiful, but very eerie at the right moments. I can take the monolith on the moon scene as a great example of the bone chilling music. It may be scary for some, because of "Requiem for Soprano" playing in the background, but I kinda see like this:
Man discovers a 4 million year old structure buried under the surface of the moon. Perfect angles and a disturbingly flawless complexion. imagine if this event actually occurred in reality and you were sitting in front of your TV when a breaking news bulletin interrupts your program. Just imagine the weight of the emotions you feel. There is no explanation for how this structure could even exist. its impossible! It will be the most reality-shattering event in the history of the world.
It's one of my favorite scenes of all time, because the scene alone perfectly captures that feeling. No explanation. No answers. No reason.
Overall: Films like "Space Odyssey" is why I love movies. Extraordinary and beautiful work of art. "2001" isn't just a classic for it's effects or the show stealer Hal9000, but how it wants to inspire and enlarge us. A space voyage that evokes questions and kept the audience in awe for 48 years.
I'm not sure if I had watched this movie before and just forgot about it.
It reminds me of Star Trek The Motion Picture, just without the good parts.
It is slooooooooow, even for the 60ies.
A single Episode of Raumpatrouille Orion (A german scifi show which aired 1966) has more story than this 2.5h long "masterpiece".
Yes, the Visuals hold their ground, but thats about it.
There are a two minute long blackscreens in which literally nothing but Music happens.
It even begins with a seemingly endless blackscreen.
I get a few seconds for dramatic effect, but 2 minutes? Be real, thats just plain boring.
And to round it all up we have Stewardesses in 0g who appear to be nearly stumbling, carrying around food which isn't protected against Newtons laws (floating around) and someone who uses running as training in 0g.
I could forgive that in a cheap 60ies TV show or a 50ies movie, but 0g physics were already known in '66
This movie is about as good as Gravity: Great Visuals but boring.
Btw: Holding your breath in space is a really bad idea - but I'll forgive that, since that isn't common knowledge...
This timeless collaboration between Stanley Kubrick (the progressive filmmaker) and Arthur C. Clarke (the conceptual novelist) is more of a thoughtful anthology, three distinct but connected stories, than a single cohesive whole. It might even be argued that the tripped-out last act, technically a coda to the HAL 9000 arc, makes for a surplus fourth chapter, but we don't need to get too in-depth on that point. There's almost too much to laud.
Stylistic mash-ups like this one, pairings of intrinsically unique mediums, don't always go well, but 2001 manages to harvest the best of both worlds without losing the innate qualities that make each so successful. We share the heady, scientific honesty, deep intellectual enigmas and pinpoint social forecasts of a great science fiction novel (or several, as it were), plus the majestic visual effects, tangible characterization and meticulous timing of a top-shelf motion picture. In other words, Kubrick stuns us with artistry, dramatic proficiency and general ingenuity, while Clarke sees to it that everything still feels human and tickles our brains with limitless abstract possibilities. What a perfect partnership.
Inconceivably influential, too, as the stark point of transition from the hammy Flash Gordon tinfoil swashbucklers of the 50s and early 60s to the more intelligent, considered space operas of the forthcoming decade. This is a film that was released before we set foot on the moon, but already seems to know how a prolonged life amongst the stars will feel. There's so much to love, from the magnificent cinematography (my GOD, such photography) to the deliberate pacing (allowing us to step inside this world and appreciate its nuances). The sweeping symphonic score (which sees to it that we scarcely notice the EIGHTY COMBINED MINUTES without dialogue) to the haunting, perplexing thematic storytelling (loaded with smart, understated performances).
If anything gives me pause, it's the deep sense of impenetrability that often settles over long stretches of screen time, particularly that daring (and baffling) climactic sequence. But then, as Clarke said so succinctly just after its release, "If you understand 2001 on the first viewing, then we've failed." This is one nut that's worth the effort of cracking. A certifiable masterpiece that still leaves me asking, “How did they do that in 1968?"
Wha the fuck have i just watched?
Despite it being visually and conceptually stunning, the film turned out to be extremely slow and actionless for my taste.
Many people think that the aforementioned positive qualities outweight the negative, but personally, I think that narrative must prevail over visuals,soundtracks, effects or symbolisms.
Slow, boring and overrated movie.
Maybe someday I'll find something about this that makes me appreciate it but right now after watching it once I wanna burn every single copy of this and erase every mention of it anywhere, including people's memories. Y'all who think this is a masterpiece can get fucked. I want my time back.
this film is the definition of overrated
Me before watching: Well, should i watch the original english or the german dubbed version? Just start with english and lock how it will work out:
After 15 Minutes: Nevermind.
After 25 Minutes: No word spoken yet.
This was....interesting. I'm not going to call this a bad movie but my god does it know how to drag on and on and on. I'd also like to bring up the fact that this time complaint is coming from someone who's favorite live-action movie is The Shawshank Redemption which runs for 142 mins. Some parts are exceedingly long for seemingly no reason, did we really need around 10 mins just to see someone fix a piece of equipment? Or 2 instances of a pure black screen that runs for about 3 mins? (Which actually made me think the streaming service I used was glitching.) Having so many scenes drag on just ended up making the rest of the film boring to me.
In my honest opinion the only thing that saves this movie is its use of visuals, it really feels as if it was simply meant to just be eye-candy. Nothing will change my mind when I say that I honestly believe you could bring this movie's length from 149 mins. to just 90 mins. without missing much, it was clearly dragged on just to show off the effects as much as possible. It has groundbreaking special effects and it is incredibly easy to see how much influence it ended up having on future media.
While I found it boring I will give the movie props for actually making me think heavily about the themes it tries to convey such as humanity's heavy dependence on machines and the eternal "Thou shall not mess with creating A.I" rule, along with other themes that I'm still thinking about as I type this out. I suppose this is meant to be seen as interpretive art instead of a regular run of the mill movie. The most interesting thing to me was HAL 9000, which left me with a bunch of questions that ended up unanswered.
Movies today don't take their time anymore. Take for example the scene where Bowman leaves the ship to replace the "broken" antenna. It's like 10 minutes long for a simple task.
Add to that an ending that makes people look online for an explanation and I'm not surprised young people would think it's slow and boring.
6 - Fair
It's a good movie, but it simply has too many boring moments. You can just skip the first hour or so of the movie and it wouldn't matter at all
Amazing how something like this commands such acclaim. Boring + devoid of any storyline.
Everytime I watch this movie, I am filled with a sense of wonder and awe. Even though the pace of the movie is slow, I was never bored once. I usually have a short attention span, but this movie kept me hooked from start to finish. The greater concepts about the origins of humanity, evolution, the next stage of intelligence, etc. were explored so well. Every rewatch reveals something new to me. Stanley Kubrick is a master of his craft and this is one of the greatest movies ever made.
Stanley Kubrick made two great movies Full metal jacket & Spartacus, and the Shining was good but the rest of his movies just suck. Does anyone get clockwork Orange?
I found the first twenty minutes with the apes oddly thought provoking and philisophical. Possibly due to what I was thinking beforehand. The origins of behaviours, knowledge, beliefs and awareness interested me. When the rest of the movie played out, it wasn't so interesting to me. I gained more from the 20 minutes of apes. I didn't think about anything I haven't already thought about in life. So was it now about plot? Didn't seem like it.
Obviously enough can't be said about how good it looks. Even today it stands above modern effects. It's a long movie but it didn't feel a complete drain, although it did feel slow for the sake of being arty slow. My views on Kubrick are still the. He makes movies that I sometimes enjoy. He empathises camerwork and detail over story. I won't watch 2001 again.
"Daisy."
So I just saw "2001" at a film festival and it was kinda incredible. Why do I feel like I just ticked off my bucket list of things to die before you die. I've been waiting a long time to watch this on the big screen. I already seen the movie about 3 or 4 years ago, but my memory of the film isn't that strong. So when I was picking what movies I wanted to see at (LIFF), and this was on the list, as the festival also shows classic movies.
Re-watching this movie was quite the experience. Nothing like a massive screen and loud speakers blasting off beautiful music while drifting in space. From the dawn of man till the end of human life. The cycle repeats.
But seriously, what can I honestly say about "2001" that hasn't been said already. It's one of the greatest Sci-Fi films of all time. It's groundbreaking and pure genius. Even at the slower pace parts, I was still engaged. After it was over, I was contemplating on it.
For a 1968 film, it's visual effects still hold up today and looks way more convincing than today. Well, there was a couple of effects that was noticeable, but the rest (which is mostly practical) still looks amazing. The "Star Gate" sequence is one example of a trippy and a breathtaking effect that it owned Kubrick an Oscar.
Every shot in this movie is like something you would hang up on your wall. Kubrick has been known for being a perfectionist of his work. This is a work of an artist that doesn't just get praised for how much he dose, but how little. Three years of making this - you can get easily attached to your work that after awhile you find the hidden beauty of the story. Do it 40 or 127 times until you get what you want and exactly how you wanted. A similar method that Chaplin use for "City Lights". But it isn't just images that kept me attention and I don't think Stanley was intending on that. There's plenty of scenes that goes on forever, not for spectacle, but more of use to inhabit everything that's going on.
It also helps that music in this is so beautiful, but very eerie at the right moments. I can take the monolith on the moon scene as a great example of the bone chilling music. It may be scary for some, because of "Requiem for Soprano" playing in the background, but I kinda see like this:
Man discovers a 4 million year old structure buried under the surface of the moon. Perfect angles and a disturbingly flawless complexion. imagine if this event actually occurred in reality and you were sitting in front of your TV when a breaking news bulletin interrupts your program. Just imagine the weight of the emotions you feel. There is no explanation for how this structure could even exist. its impossible! It will be the most reality-shattering event in the history of the world.
It's one of my favorite scenes of all time, because the scene alone perfectly captures that feeling. No explanation. No answers. No reason.
Overall: Films like "Space Odyssey" is why I love movies. Extraordinary and beautiful work of art. "2001" isn't just a classic for it's effects or the show stealer Hal9000, but how it wants to inspire and enlarge us. A space voyage that evokes questions and kept the audience in awe for 48 years.
I need to rewatch this. It's a 5 for me right now though, since the story was just not coming through for me, and it was slow and boring. I know I'm missing something and I should give it a 10, but something just wasn't there for me.
i heard a lot about this movie in pop culture in general, but i actually watched for the first time today. and, i don't know exaclty what the hell i watched. pure brilliance, 10/10. ps: what the actual heck just happened at the ending?
Favored for its focus on the relationship between humans and technology, for the way Hal-9000 murders four men, for its color palette, its use of sound and music, its slow pace, and its ambiguity.
This had so much more music than what I was expecting, I was aware of the movie because the AI having a Caesar "No, Nope, I'm not doing that human ish"moment. I see why ASMR fans are geeked on this film. In my mind space this is the OG timeline of the planet of the apes before the loop is established, dave becoming star baby leads to taylor and subsequent astronauts running into non corporeal form dave the star baby sending them back, thus starting the planet of the apes time spatial loop.
Someone please explain why this movie is good. I absolutely hated it.
Pleasing on a technical level, even with barely anything to grasp story-wise.
'2001: A Space Odyssey' looks and sounds exquisite, it really is seriously impressive in that regard for a film from 1968. That is, however, the only reason that this gets a passing rating from me if I'm to be totally truthful. The plot itself is rather disappointing, with not much meat on the bones.
I get it's evidently going for the more artsy approach, made clear by the lack of dialogue/bona fide narrative alongside plenty of ambiguity. It's a Stanley Kubrick film after all, not that I've seen much of his work (this be the first, in fact); moreso what I've heard through the grapevine down the years. There are also a lot of long held, empty-feeling (as intended, I'd imagine) shots that bothered me throughout. It just didn't entice me, that's all. I can still respect it.
Given the aforementioned, the cast are basically nonentities - as harsh as that may sound. Douglas Rain does a good job, in fairness, and William Sylvester is alright. I can't say I blame those onscreen all that much, as they aren't exactly given much opportunity to showcase themselves.
As has been the case with a couple of other movies down the years, I'm certainly content to file this one with the 'I clearly didn't get it and I'm cool with that' tag. I'm still glad I watched it. I do appreciate it, if only technically, and naturally love that others love it.
The best character in this movie is a computer. This is definitely a classic and super influential movie with very amazing cinematography. You can really see how this movie paved the way for so many other space movies.
Well, I finally watched this classic.
It started slow (the first 40 minutes), and the rest of the movie isn´t exactly fast either, I think it might have been a movie, that concentrated a lot on its visuals because they were groundbreaking at the time, but nowadays we can´t really appreciate it anymore, since Technology and Visuals have evolved a lot. But the "waiting" is definitely worth it, as it addresses a problem that only gets more and more important with time, the rise and danger of technology, and now, with the rise of AI, I think no it is now more relevant than ever before.
Like a monolith: monumental and timeless.
My local cineplex showed the remastered version of this on the biggest screen they have (for the 100 years of Warner celebration) and I was in heaven... and outer space.
Not my cup of tea, but I can certainly appreciate the artistry, the concept, and the technological execution at the time. The first 45 minutes and the last 30 minutes or so could have been cut and made it a much more cohesive and interesting watch. The impacts on pop culture and movie making aside, I feel like I spent most of the film waiting for things to happen. Don't get me wrong, I respect slow builds and stillness and quiet in movies, but this took that to a far extreme. At the time of writing, the only other Kubrick movie I've seen is Dr. Strangelove, which is a fantastic and funny movie, but I also have The Shining and A Clockwork Orange on my watchlist. Here's hoping both of those are more engaging than this.
2001 moves slowly and methodically but does not fail to capture your complete attention. The film is visually impressive and has an amazing score. Unfortunately, the ending was too abstruse to be truly profound.
The monumental science fiction epic "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of those must-see masterpieces. I wouldn't necessarily call the film entertaining, but it definitely has artistic value. Director Stanley Kubrick was one of the best in his profession, and with 2001, he proved it to everyone. With each minute that passes, it becomes clear how much of an impact this film had on the evolution of cinema as a whole. In terms of special effects, it is also without a doubt outstanding. With numerous scenes, one still wonders today how they were realized with the means available at the time. Furthermore, the production design, the music, and the camera work are also astounding.
So why only 3.5 stars? I honestly don't know either. I really see everything that makes 2001 a special film, and yet I found myself looking at my watch on more than one occasion. Except for the sequence surrounding the HAL 9000 computer, Kubrick almost completely dispenses with a conventional story. And unfortunately, I've never been a fan of science fiction that drifts too far into the esoteric. Nevertheless, I would call the space epic a masterpiece, hands down. Maybe after a rewatch, I'll someday give it a higher rating.
Complicated fable about the origin and future of man
A mind blowing masterpiece that was way ahead of its time. Watch it when you are old enough to understand and appreciate the art of it, even if it seems slow. The underlying themes of life and evolution play out over the movie, and the use of dramatic music added with the stunning visuals make the movie of a lifetime.
Well, I don't get it... Maybe I'll need to watch again. :P
Btw, the visual is stunning, if you think this was made in '68.
If you're a visual learner like me, you'll enjoy this movie. It's a sci-fi masterpiece, because of the visual story telling and the lack of dialog and stunts. Kubrik and co. created this in 1968. Decades before CGI and other special effect technology.
I find some of the brand placement funny given how they drastically changed from 1968 to 2001. Pan Am went bankrupt, IBM doesn't make computers anymore, Hilton hotels won't be able to raise the capital to build space hotels today .... and so on. I'm sure in 1968 all three brands were at their prime.
Now. If only Steven Spielberg would make the final 2 books of Arthur C. Clarke's Odyssey series into movies , that’d be great!
How can someone say this is a boring movie? This is one of the greatest movies that I've already watched. Everything is awesome, specially the special effects and the score.
WTF did I just watch?
Such a beautiful and re-watchable mystery
How can a film that has claim to the title of not just "cinematic masterpiece", but "masterpiece of science fiction" only be "good"?
Unequal competencies.
(And I believe films are most reasonably graded relative to the curve of the type of film they are, and how well they realize their type, weighted against an absolute scale of the tier of the work. This is high art and high concept with a firm foundation, executed well... until it isn't.)
High Art
Kubrick is undoubtedly one of the best filmmakers of prominence in film history, but it just so happens that artistic genius does not equal, or make up for, lack of necessary creativity in special effects, or intellectual genius of the kind necessary to realize a transcendent, and incredibly dense final act of a work of masterful science fiction.
To be explicit, I love and appreciate the tone, pace, and directorial competence and scope of vision to properly realize legitimate, scientifically sound, hard science fiction. It almost never happens. But here, it did happen... all the way up to the final act of this film.
The Misstep
Years after being bewildered in my youth upon viewing the film at the end of a long day in the living room of a friend's parents, I went hard into Arthur C. Clarke's works, eventually getting to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The moment Bowman enters the space monolith, the book becomes a dense, disorienting adventure of hard to visualize events. Then there is the alien contact, which was strange, but comprehensible.
This was the point that the film went completely off the rails, and exactly where the narrative would have profited most from visual storytelling, but Kubrick, and the effects of the day, weren't up to the task, but not just by a little bit. They were woefully not up to the task. The visuals were like going from, well, a masterfully executed, realistic vision of contemporary, near-future (for the 1960s and today, sadly) space exploration to... an unconvincing, schlocky 1970s acid trip scene set in the outskirts of Las Vegas, after which, it becomes a silent play so avant garde and up its own rectum to be intentionally incomprehensible.
I fully acknowledge that this was a very difficult thing to get right, cinematically-- especially as a visual narrative, but the misstep here necessarily ruins the narrative of the film, in my view, and I take no pleasure in criticizing it. Everything before this point still stands as a rare, masterful work of legitimate cinematic SF.
The Score
Still not a fan of Ligeti's avant garde eerie voices portion of the score, though. Might have worked for Hamlet, but it's a bit too "theater arts" for high concept cosmic science fiction. All the Strauss (Richard and Johann) was wonderfully used, though, and gives the film a 'Human Renaissance' quality of sophisticated grandeur.
Performances and Tone
The performances are perfect, and are executed in a calm cinematic tone of a austere urbanity that I know bores many, but in which I find rejuvenation and respite, and it serves to make the major events of the film much more impactful instead of blustering and chaotic, as is the norm, which is fine for some films, as it serves their purposes, but in others it largely serves the purpose of maintaining a breakneck pace that speeds past a network of plot holes and contrivances.
I loved the slow, ominous, and mysterious pacing and langerous, minute-long shots in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and I love it here.
2010 doesn't have the same mythic reverence associated with it, and it doesn't try for the same presentation of "Renaissance Science Fiction Art Film", nevertheless, I do think it's a fine film, with great acting and cinematography, and moments of touching humanity, which Clarke seemed to have an almost singular trademark on in SF back then, and that translate well from the novel, so I'd still say the two films stand as a remarkable triumph of transcendent, speculative fiction art translated to film, and that I treasure.
It finally mercifully ends where it all begins, so watch it backwards.
I don't like movies with apes in it.
I'm not an ape
Very interesting. It’s directed almost perfectly it’s only thing keeping it down a rating is that it is sooo slow paced. Overall it is a sci go masterpiece
Visual orchestra in space! What a movie
When the apes were like "RABXSBAUBRAWRAWRASCNAJSCAAOSVFOBGVAOUWBGAOWN", THAT WAS A CLASSIC, THAT WAS A CLASSIC!!
Personally, can't stand the movie, yet I admit it's an exceptional film. Go figure.
Except for a single very powerful radio emission aimed at Jupiter, the four-million-year old black monolith has remained completely inert, its origin and purpose still a total mystery.
I was lucky enough to be able to attend a screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm. There isn't anything worthwhile that I could possibly add to the discourse around the film, so I will simply say that it was one of the most impressive, profound and involving experiences I've ever had in a cinema.
I FILM DI FANTASCIENZA CHE HANNO SEGNATO L'IMMAGINARIO COLLETTIVO
"Buongiorno, signori. Io sono un elaboratore HAL 9000". Da quasi mezzo secolo, diffidiamo delle intelligenze artificiali e vedendo le sfere celesti non sentiamo che valzer.
What can I say about this that has not already been said. This is a film is a masterpiece. Rewatching this made me feel something I haven't felt while watching movies in a long time. I am awestruck that this was made 50 years ago. It is breathtakingly gorgeous. The colors, the cinematography, the way space works and that beautiful 10 minutes near the end. The music is also amazing. It can be mesmerizing. That opening score is just flawless and so iconic. The music here has the power to be soothing or frightening. It is probably more important than all of the dialogue. The sound editing is fantastic here too. The way they cut from silence to breathing to music is incredible. Lastly HAL is an incredible "villain". I cannot think of a movie I want to see more on the big screen than this one. I would love to be completely immersed in this.
EDIT: I got to see this on the big screen today and it was glorious. Just an amazing cinematic experience.
Kubrick was a real visionary! In this film he even invented what would be the actual iPad!
Best Sci-fi Movie Ever Made
Masterpiece!
We spend the first few minutes of 2001 gaping into the void, looking at nothing but a black screen. Much like the apes and the spacemen in the film, we stare at a monolith, unsure what to do.
It’s unclear what Kubrick intended with his film and it seems as though he made it deliberately ambiguous, but a piece of work that still invites new interpretations 47 years after its release is a rare thing.
I tend not to delve too deep into films where others have gone before me with far better analyses. There are always one or two things worth noting though. This time around, it was a small detail that struck me. Right after the legendary match-cut of the bone to the spacecraft, we get shot of a pen floating inside the ship, in the same spot. I know the ship is the ‘real’ tool here, but the pen is a nice nod to the years gone by.
If you haven’t yet seen 2001, then this conversion can serve no purpose any more. You need to go and soak it in on the biggest screen you can find, and draw your own conclusions.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/11/22/2001aspaceodyssey/
Love the details, and the story. it is a little long winded but still very good! Bummed that the quote "my god its full of stars" isnt in the movie.
I'm not hating these movies one bit but wouldn't other groundbreaking movies/other kubrick/gravity be a better check these movies out then iron man and catching fire?
I finally saw this film at the best possible way, at the cinema!
I was for seeing this great piece of cinema very acclaimed by all for so long and as soon as I knew that I could have the opportunity to watch it on the big screen, it was the perfect occasion to see it.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a very complex and metaphoric work, full of great symbolisms about the humanity. Such an admirable work from the fantastic genious that Stanley Kubrick was.
It's hard to rate this movie basing yourself on the year 2013. The special effects used here are nothing new from today's movies, also the plot is incredibily slow for me and it doesn't make any sense. If it was for that, I would give it a 5.
NOW, Stanley Kubrick is an amazing director for his era. This film was made in 1968; a year in which films were starting to use special effects. The amount of effort made in that year to make this movie, and also the weight it had based on the efforts to go to the moon on those years, gave this movie a high importance for its era. There are effects that even in this year I couldn't understand how they made them. And also, kubrick always left part of the plot empty in the movie so you would read the book (which is what I think what he wanted to do). And that makes me give him alot of respect for making people to also read books, which makes me want to give him a 10.
I give it an 8 because of the year I saw it. Maybe if I had seen it 10 years ago, and if it wasn't so weird and slow, I would of given it a 10.
I like the slow tempo of this film and really miss it in more modern movies. If you don't understand it watch it again in 10 years, that's what I did.
To really appreciate this movie and fully understand it you have to read this: http://goo.gl/GXWmq
I have no idea what I just watched. I liked the bit with the monkeys, they were so crazy. Maybe, because the only bit I properly understood was the monkey section, it is telling me that I am a lesser evolved being, unable to comprehend what happened in the rest of the film?
Ground breaking, NASA was on the set advising on this one and gave us a glimpse on how things might be. Don't know how some crap like the Skeleton Key got in the 'check them out' if you like this. Think I may have seen this 12 times.
Mental...
...the benefit of going in to the film with no expectations. Modern films are hyped so much and the trailers give it all away. All I knew was 'this is a classic film', with no preconceptions. It was all the better for it.
Shout by rivageBlockedParent2017-06-21T12:46:46Z
It makes me feel like an unsophisticated swine but this was so incredibly boring. Took me 2 months to watch the first hour, maybe when I am old I'll be able to appreciate it.