Rating: 
Summary: The most beautiful thing I have ever seen.
Review: This is the most beautiful movie I have ever seen. Some times I wonder if the main objective of Kubrik was to show beauty at its best. The treatment of colour is outstanding and better than in all other Kubrik movies. The camera is still and rooms ussually showed in symetry, and the music simply brilliant, from "Thus Spake Saratustra" to "The Blue Danube".I tend to get over excited with it, so I will now stick to the factual. The dialogues are by no means difficult to follow. Yet, the story as a whole is. Bear in mind that you do not need to interpret the movie as a linear structure. The three main parts are not totally divorced but are different enough to make you aware of the similies between them. The Science Fiction issue puts down some people, and Star Trek and Trekies is to blame. However, I have never seen a Sci-Fi movie which resembles so much the year 2001. The story was the combined effort of Stanley Kubrik and Arthur C. Clarke and is thus accurate - there are no lame computer-freak dialogues or high-tech cloathes. Furthermore, it is also accurate in the sense that the Cold War seems to be a thing of the past. Finally, expect the finest science-fiction movie ever made, and of course, the most aesthetical and profound.
Rating:
Summary: An underrated movie
Review: this is definitely one of the best movies of all time. It was not a movie that was made a novelty to those living in the 60's,
knowing Kubrick's work, that is a fact. It is a smart film, probably more intelligent than the book itself. And besides, it is dazzling us today...the 70mm print on the widescreen makes your knees shake. I first saw this movie when i was 12 on thanksgiving day on HBO, and I didn't know what to expect. When I was 6, I watched the begginning because i heard there were monkeys in it. I stopped whatching as soon as the Blue Danube kicked in. But this was the first time I saw it the whole way through, and the first time had me captured in the movie. I will admit that Stanley may have been a little crazy about this movie, and you can laugh at parts that you're not supossed to laugh at, but thats not because its bad, its because Kubrick's vision was so odd. Ill stop now annd just say that this movie's ending might dissapoint, but just know that
it isnt suppossed to be explicit. Be sure to pay attention, and
if you don't like it, sorry...
Rating: 
Summary: boring movie
Review: This movie is just a bunch of special effects to dazzle the people back in the 1960's. The story line is not presented clearly and I found myself fastforwarding a lot to get to the point of the story. The point never became clear so I am going to read the book. This movie maybe a classic but its just a bunch of hype!
Rating:
Summary: Weird, but very interesting
Review: Before I start the review, I want to say this: Those people calling those who don't like this movie "morons," I think you are way out of line. I think this is a great movie, but if someone doesn't agree with that, you don't have any right to judge them. Even in Roger Ebert's review of this film, he says at the first showing when it came out several people walked out before the ending. If they couldn't stand this movie, or if they couldn't stand Citizen Kane, live with it. There is not some book saying which movies ARE good, and which ones are not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I can see how some people wouldn't like this movie, as it takes quite a while to figure out what's going on. And it is quite slow paced. There is nothing wrong if you don't realy enjoy movies like this. Anyways, 2001: A Space Oddysey is a great movie. And yes, it is quite weird too. I won't go into the plot, since that has already been covered by many reviewers. The movie is slow-paced, but to me, I rather liked that. Yes, I do like shows like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, relatively fast-paced movies, but I do enjoy some movies like this also. The music was excellent, and the scenes with no lines gave me time to stop and think about what was going on. The ending had me confused at first, but I got it after awhile. There was just something about this movie that very intriguing. The cinematography and special effects were great for their time. There wasn't a moment of the film that I was really bored. It is weird, it has a very interesting plot, good acting and a great soundtrack. I'll definitely be adding this DVD to my collection soon.
Rating: 
Summary: Need direct answer from positive reviewers..
Review: Need several direct answers from positive reviewers, especially the people who think themselves are super smart, art-sensitive, and called negative reviewers "m***". Dont you understand movie (and any form of art) is supposed to be reflection of real life, not "direct copy" of real life? Yes it takes 5 to 10 min (maybe even 30) to dock a ship, but does a movie need to show all that??!! Not to mention it's showing the similar thing, if not exactly the same, over and over, and over again, which really made me sick.
If a movie wants show you somebody goes to work, does it need to show how he walks out, starts the car, shifts gear, backs out, passes every traffic light ...all that meaningless details? Of course not!! All it takes is showing the guy leaves home, and if nothing special (related to the story line) happened, the next should be walking into the office, that it!
Showing all that details (like in this so called "masterpiece") basically means:
-- those details are needed for illustrate the technology (especially in SCI-FI movies). A good reason but ...DONT abuse it!
-- the director wants to pretend himself is wearing "Emperor's New Cloth"
-- the film is made to this way covering the fact how empty it is. Yes you can argue the monoliths, apes, star gates ...they do, more or less need to be there, although not clear enough.
But, tell me what kind of mysterious deep inspirations you got from these scenes, and particularly why they need to be so long:
-- The doctor (Lloyd) spent 10+ min talking with the special agents. (IMO: cut this to 1 min is more than enough)
-- Lloyd spent about 5 min talking to his daughter. (IMO: cut to 1 min)
-- The boring meeting (another 5+ min? dont remember the exact time) between Lloyd and his co-workers. (IMO: cut to 2 min)
-- Our spaceman's running (workout?) on the ship (about 5+ min). (IMO: cut this to 30 sec)
-- Frank's call to his family (about 5+ min). (IMO: cut this to 1 min) There are still others, but too many to list here.
Don't give me wrong, I am not saying these scenes are completely meaningless, they just need to be shortened significantly.
You can tell me the first 5 sec of watching a man running alone on spaceship is interesting; next 15 sec could be educational; and next 10 sec ...well maybe for whatever reasons ...but more than 5 min??!! Gosh, how slow your brain works? In general this is not a bad movie, but does have some obvious flaws prevent it to become 5 star rated.
Rating:
Summary: OUTSTANDING CLASSIC........
Review: ARTHUR C. CLARKE IS A GENIUS WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE AND WHAT LIES BEYOND. SOME MAY NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS MR. CLARKE WHO FIRST DISCUSSED THE NOTION OF FIXED SATELLITES FOR COMMUNICATION THAT ARE SO COMMON TODAY. ALSO HIS VIEW OF POSSIBLE LIFE ON IO WHERE THERE IS ICE. THIS IS A GREAT MOVIE AND ONE EVERYONE MUST HAVE FOR HISTORICAL VALUE AS WELL AS ENTERTAINMENT.
Rating:
Summary: I was there!
Review: I was there, in 1968, when 2001 was in the theatre's.
My brother, father, and I, were all fans of both the novel, and of Arthur C. Clarke's works.
Kubrick's Masterpiece, and what else could it be called, took the novel beyond reality. My family and I watched the movie, and had to re-read the novel to clarify points in the movie. And then we re-watched the movie to clarify points in the novel. In the month and a half that the movie was bouncing from theater to theater, we saw it about 7 times, and re-read the novel at least a dozens times.
And while it was an enjoyable family experience, it's one I've never felt compelled to repeat. It should also explain the differance of opinions about the movie: It was made to augment the novel, not to replace it.
If anyone has read "The Lord of the Rings," and seen the films, you'll understand what I'm saying. The LOTR films are meant to be seen as a complete story, by themselves. But they don't even come close to the depth, or detail, or even the accuracy of the novel.
The 2001 Movie is an EXACT audio/visual representation of the novel, but it lacks the novel's insight, and guidance.
If you want a "complete" story in a movie, without having to read the novel it was based on...
Try the sequel to 2001, 2010!
Rating:
Summary: 2001 the real blast
Review: When I first went to see 2001, back in the early 70's, on entry to the picture house (as it was known then) you were given a one page outline explaining the story. It never did justice to the following film. A mind blowing experience of special effects and classical music so perfectly meshed that you thought that the music was written for the film. Even today, now after watching it I can't remember how many times and that I have the limited DVD edition I still sit in awe of it's magnificence. Kubrick was a genius, make no mistake about it. Added to the brilliance is that 30+ years on, no sci-fi film comes close. The film, the story is as entirely believable today as it was when it first was released. Can I give it 10 out of 5?
Rating:
Summary: Not a Movie, an Experience
Review: This film really can't be compared to an other film, mostly because it is so different and unique. I have to say I haven't always been a fan of this movie. Just recently a had a chance to watch it again and fully appreciate it. This is definately not a film for everyone. Some viewers, especially younger viewers might find the slow pacing discouraging. You have to hand it to Kubrick, he made a film like no other, and no one will ever make a film like this. He really took a big chance here. The visuals are astonishing and mindblowing. Every time I watch it I find it hard to take my eyes off it. I would suggest watching it when you have a few hours of free time, I would recomend renting or purchasing the dvd, the picture and sound quality are very good, I would watch it in a dark room with the volume up rather loud to get the full effect. I would really like to see it on the big screen. If you haven't seen it in awhile I would recomend you take another look.
Rating: 
Summary: THE THINKING MAN'S SCI-FI EPIC
Review: It's incorrect to say that Keir Dullea stars in director, Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey". He's just not in the film very much. Perhaps the only real constant is the HAL computer, a diabolical monitoring system that will do anything for its own self preservation and that includes killing the humans who built it. There's no simple way to sum up all of the parts that make this movie the ultimate sci-fi classic. Special effects are so many light years ahead of their time that nearly a half a century later this film continues to visually hold up. The end (no, for those who've never seen it, I won't ruin it) will provoke endless discussion around your dinner table. WARNING: Those of you expecting something along the lines of either "Star Wars" or "The Day The Earth Stood Still" will be bitterly disappointed. For all those with open minds, step forward and be amazed.
Warner Home Video previously issued this disc in a really disappointing transfer. I am pleased to say that oversight has been rectified. The newly remastered edition is something of a revelation, with stark contrast levels, color fidelity and soundtrack remastering all exhibiting exemplary clarity, fidelity and pristine qualities. Still, we don't get a documentary on the making of this classic or any other extra features for that matter. If Warner ever decides to give us that, this will be one hell of a trip!
|
