Review 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Is 2001 Actually a Bit Boring?

  • No

    Votes: 4 50.0%

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 50.0%

  • I'm on the fence

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    8
duzit

duzit

Member: Rank 6
Hoping I am among friends here, because with the possibility of making myself sound like a complete idiot I need help when it comes to this film.. If someone could take the time to please explain this movie, using Spoilers alert. I have watched it about 4 times and still do not "get it". I can be a bit "thick" @ times, but I'm at a loss when it comes to understanding this film. Visually, I get that it is stunning, but that's as far as my understanding goes. Please, any info would be helpful, send me a convo if u don't want to post here. Thanks◆◆◆♡♡♡ :emoji_disappointed_relieved:
 
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter

The Drifter
VIP
Sad to say it, but I kinda think it's a bore.

I know it's scenery shots are nice. The monkeys/ape/gorilla with the bones is ummmm ugh what was that?.The simpson did a good version of that I never been able to sit through the movie. I have only been able to watch it in sections. I even dozed off to watching this. Maybe I'm in the group that just don't care for it.

That robot HAL 9000 was just creepy as hell. Reminded me of the robot in Demon Seed.
 
Last edited:
ant-mac

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
An absolute masterpiece. It simply cannot be overstated how good this film is.

This is the science fiction film by which all other science fiction films - and perhaps films in general - are measured. And very few measure up to it in full.

By the way, I happen to be a bit of a fan of this film - and its sequel. Not to mention Stanley Kubrick films in general. And the short story it was based on, not to mention the book series related to this film - and the works of Arthur C Clarke. So for me, there was never any doubt about it.
 
elanor

elanor

Member: Rank 3
I'm a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey. For me it's not boring. But I can understand why people might find it boring. No-one felt helped by my IMDb review http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/reviews-1911

For me the film is totally fascinating:
treatise about humanness and evolution visualised by a master director

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film is for me the most perfect film I have seen and it is my second most favourite. Nevertheless, it is not a film I watched as many times as other easier films.

I don't watch the film as a science fiction action film. I watch 2001: A Space Odyssey as a philosophical, spiritual, enigmatic, and mystic treatise about humanness and evolution visualised by a master director.

For me the scenes with the apes are especially fascinating. And the bone-shattering scene "dawning of man" is for me the most iconic scene I have ever seen in film. The transition from bone to space-station is nearly as iconic. Both visualise human evolution, from vegetarian ape to tool-using meat-hunting human, from stone-age to space-faring modernity. It symbolises the rising abilities of mankind. And the final scenes even reach further than the current state of man-kind.

Moreover, in this film the selection of music for each scene is just perfect for me. I love the chorus music for the black "stone". The choice of the opening fanfare of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Strauss is goosebumps-rising perfect for me. Or the waltz "The Blue Danube" for the rotating space station and the space voyage.

Yes, there are some parts which need patience, but those just symbolise the slow life of earlier times and the vast land our few ancestors roamed. I'm reminded of Koyaanisqatsi (1982) there.
 
ant-mac

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
duzit said:
Hoping I am among friends here, because with the possibility of making myself sound like a complete idiot I need help when it comes to this film.. If someone could take the time to please explain this movie, using Spoilers alert. I have watched it about 4 times and still do not "get it". I can be a bit "thick" @ times, but I'm at a loss when it comes to understanding this film. Visually, I get that it is stunning, but that's as far as my understanding goes. Please, any info would be helpful, send me a convo if u don't want to post here. Thanks◆◆◆♡♡♡ :emoji_disappointed_relieved:
Click to expand...
Don't worry, if you're having trouble coming to grips with it, you're not alone.

When it first premiered, Arthur C Clarke famously said: "If you understand this film, then we have failed." - or words to that effect.
 
ant-mac

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
Heeeeey said:
It's an allegory of how computers or AI could one day turn on humans like HAL did.
Click to expand...
That's certainly one possibility, but if it comes to pass, then it's more than likely that it will still be the fault of Humans - their progenitors.

The reason HAL appeared to turn on the Human crew was explained in the sequel. It was the fault of the Human mission planners. They entered two separate - and contradictory - commands into its programming. If a small child is told one thing by one parent and the opposite thing by the other parent, do you then blame that child for becoming confused and making mistakes? HAL was basically so advanced that its education and programming had more than a passing similarity to that of a Human child.

However, that was all a fairly small, almost irrelevant side-issue in the film. The main thrust of it seemed to deal with the evolution and development - both through natural processes and artificial intervention - of Human and extra-terrestrial intelligent life and its ultimate place in the Cosmos. Stanley Kubrick also seemed to favour people making up their own mind as to what the ultimate message - or messages - of that film were. The four novels in the series by Arthur C Clarke help to clarify some - but not all - of the mystery surrounding the events in the original film.
 
Heeeeey

Heeeeey

Member: Rank 2
Did you notice how the monolith looks just like the iPhone? Steve Jobs claimed to have been inspired by it, but I read on a comment on YouTube that they've had the technology they have now for decades, and that they put it in movies to slowly 'acclimate' the population to the idea of all this technology so that they wouldn't find it unusual and start to question where it came from.
 
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
I am not sure what to make of it to be honest.

While I am certain that 2001 is wildly a better cinematic work of art, I do sometimes feel that, in comparison, 2010 is an average space adventure masquerading as a great masterpiece.

Or it could just be me missing something.

I will have to watch it again.
 
Last edited:
alpha128

alpha128

Member: Rank 3
Actually, I prefer this film because it is closer in spirit to Arthur C. Clarke's writing.

I got to see 2010 in a theater in 70mm with surround sound and it was impressive. I remember the escape launch scene when the Discovery's engines were fired. HAL said "full thrust", we see the back of the Discovery, and then BOOM! It was like being at a real rocket launch!
 
ant-mac

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
It may not be in the same category as 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY - but then few films are - but it is still miles ahead of many other entries into the field of science fiction. It provides a few possible explanations for some of the many mysteries that were present in the original and then it carries the overall story forwards.

I also like many of the cast members in this film - especially Roy Scheider.
 
alpha128

alpha128

Member: Rank 3
ant-mac said:
Are you referring to ACC's writing in general, or his two novels based on this film series?
Click to expand...
Both I guess. For example, the 2001 novel actually explains what the heck is going on at the end. Kubrick wasn't interesting in explaining much of anything. He deliberately cut expository dialog from the film. Good luck trying to figure out that TMA-1 stands for Tycho Magnetic Anomaly One from simply viewing the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top