Rating: 
Summary: Just a wonderful trip
Review: Hey, what's the big deal with this film and why does it seem to upset everyone? Some reading deep philosphical statements into it, others falling asleep in the first 30 minutes. Man, just take it easy. It's just simply a big wonderful trip. Lean back and enjoy it. If sleeping is the way you enjoy a film (?), then do it. The best way to expierence the film, is to light up a joint before you start to watch it. A further tip (though this doesn't help sell the DVD): you have to see it "on the big screen". There is nothing like sitting in a big cinema with the light smell of pot in the air and watching Space Odyssey. The music, the silence, the black screen, the funny ape-persons, wondering what the obelisk is all about, feeling kind of sorry for HAL "Dave, I'm afraid." (the only figure with feelings in the film), the feeling of helplessness at the end of the film - there are so many stations on the trip, much more engaging than the Orient Express. By they way that's also the best way to watch Disneys Fantasia - another film where the question of sense and non-sense makes no sense. That's the way things are - beyond Jupiter.
Rating: 
Summary: Still don't know...
Review: I've watched this movie thre times and I still don't understand what is going on in the second half of the movie. Because of this I have no desire to read the book. I gave it two stars because of the second half of the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Keep This Film In Perspective...If You Can
Review: There are many arguments both praising and minimizing the artistic quality of this film. I imagine that I have heard or read most of them. None are wrong, just as none are necessarily correct. Nevertheless, in order to attempt an educated and well-informed analysis of 2001, one should keep in mind that it will mean something different to each viewer depending upon his or her own individual frame of reference. Accordingly, to make a blanket statement such as "this movie is worthless", or even "this movie is the best ever", does nothing but demonstrate one's failure to grasp what is perhaps the most important characteristic of the film...it's uncertainty. True, the overall entertainment value of the movie is purely subjective, which is why I state that there are no right or wrong observations in that department, however, we must remember that this is not a film about an individual(s) per se, but about the human race. In this sense the film takes on more objective issues than first realized, and instead of attempting to answer them for you, Kubrick leaves us with the freedom to imagine and create our own answers. In essence, he is constantly pulling us between the subjective and objective, hoping to leave us stranded somewhere in the interim of thought. Perhaps this is our true and only intended destination as viewers of this film. The question is, can you allow yourself to be taken there? I hope that no one out there is under the illusion that the human race, like the film, can simply be praised as "good" or condemned as "worthless". To do so would underscore both the range of our species and the film itself. Life is not black and white; it is gray, as is the nature of the film. To demonstrate this Kubrick leaves ambiguous many parts, enabling us to examine the result of his decisions while unhindered by pretextual certainties. The specific reasons for revealing to us some things, and not others, we may never know. Perhaps to focus on that part of his direction would be missing the point. And what exactly is the point? I believe to create a mystery that becomes more trivial the closer it is examined, and less of a mystery when simplified. Like life, the meaning(s) of 2001 grow and breathe each time it is viewed. On the other hand, in many ways it remains the same. In this respect, the film becomes a living examination of the human race...a truly timeless observation that will intrigue viewers for generations to come. It is hard to deny that this film is the granddaddy of modern science fiction as applied to the mysteries of the universe. The special effects were unprecedented for it's time, and the presentation patently Kubrick. In recent years we have seen such films as "Mission to Mars", "Red Planet", "Contact", "Stargate", and numerous others attempt to raise in similar fashion, and in some cases successfully, the question "why are we here"? This is an intellectual question, and whether you draw your opinions (they are opinions, not answers) from the metaphysical or tangible, simple or elaborate, you must leave room for the variable. The constant of change. The unknown. This is why 2001 is such a masterpiece, it leaves open those channels of information for the viewer to interpret, and Kubrick does not feel the need to overwhelm us with his own interpretations (at least up to a point). In short, this film is what you make of it, which is a lot like life itself (seeing any themes here yet?). I believe many interpretations is what Mr. Kubrick wanted the audience to provide, not one single concrete answer. Ambiguity is the reason some people will always view this film as the project where Kubrick bit off more than he could chew, because in their mind, something cannot have meaning unless people agree. This is shortsighted and remedial thinking, something that Kubrick has probably never been accused of. To declare that 2001 is a muddled work, the only purpose of which is to afford pretentious people like myself the opportunity to proffer up far-fetched ideas and theories is just plain...well, then again, maybe those people are right after all. I mean, aren't we intellectual dreamers the ones who have been trying to figure out the universe since the dawn of thought, only to fail in the sense that we are no closer now to unlocking it's secrets than a thousand years ago? Is this failure? Or are we successful simply because we try? Now, what was this movie about again?!!!
Rating:
Summary: The movie is a true gift
Review: An excellent film to watch if you're in the mood for something intellectually challenging. Why would Stanley Kubrick make a "science fiction" film and why is it unlike any other genre film? Because in contemplating "where did we come from", his vision takes the film into outer space where the story remains the focal point in spite of the the groundbreaking special effects. Those who check their brain at the box office before seeing a movie will not be able to follow what Kubrick wants us to ponder. As an aside, I must also recommend reading the earlier review by Rob from somewhere in New York. Whether intended or not, this is true comedy. After stating that he's only watched about 20 percent of the movie's beginning, he concludes that people who have watched the entire movie like to act as though they're smarter than him. You can draw your own conclusions, but I will say that I watched the entire movie before offering my opinion here.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, morons have opinions too
Review: Sure, everyone has a right to their own opinion. The question is, whose opionion should be taken seriously: the opinion of those who can appreciate artistry and depth, or the opinion of a moron.
Rating:
Summary: Best film ever made
Review: 2001 has been my favorite film since the day I saw it. It's hard to explain to people that don't like it or haven't seen it why it is so good. It obviously doesn't follow today's sci-fi formulas. I think the main reason is because of the soundtrack. Though many of the scenes have been parodied to death, they are still breathtaking to watch. The film can be deceitful as it seems so simple and lethargic at times even though it is dealing with complex ideas. Kubrick doesn't hurry the plot or tell us what is going on as less skilled directors do. He doesn't need John Williams to write the score. He knows that at times silence can be more powerful than music and words. 2001 challenges the audience; it doesn't give anything away. That makes it worthy of being true art. Plus, like any good movie, it is enjoyable.
Rating: 
Summary: Hello...action? Where are you?
Review: This may very well be the most boring film I have ever seen. Well, to be fair, I have never actually seen the whole thing. I have attempted to watch it several times, but have never made it more than 30 minutes. As such, I have come to the conclusion that this is a film that people talk about to try and show how smart they are. When I ask people why it's so brilliant, they rarely give me any good reasons. They throw out phrases like "triple allegory" even though they have no idea what they mean. To recap, this is a boring film that pretentious people discuss in hopes of showing how smart they are.
Rating: 
Summary: what a shame!
Review: First of all, those who use "moron" to attack others are really revealing what kind of person himself is.
Doesn't everyone have right to have their own opinion? Second I don't like the movie, and please face the fact, if it were not made by the big name "Kubrick", would it still get soo many positive reviews? Are you watching film itself or simply following the name and assuming a famous guy is supposed to make a great movie? And if someone does not like it, that must be their fault not the problem with the film?
All these made me remember the old story of "Emperor's new cloth".
Rating:
Summary: Morons don't understand! Kubrick's a GENIUS!
Review: Truly the most visual and most interesting movie ever! most people who say things bad about this movie aren't in actually reality and face with all the hollywood filmmaking glamour! and can't face movies that could be see through real-life!Kungenius filmmaking brought out space in the world! these long space segments are based in the fact that space is large and long! If dumb people see that! they understand it sometime! the opening scene is absolutely breathtaking!!!
Rating:
Summary: some big big problems in it
Review: Considering the movie was made in 1968, I have to admit the visual effect is rather astonishing even from today's point of view, but the painfully slow plot development as well as unnecessary details basically ruined the enjoyment of watching it.
Prob #1, it's not uncommon that in early SCI-FI movies (probably some modern ones), the directors tend show the audiences "that's the way it will be in the future" by focusing on routine activities such as making phone calls or simply walking around, but this movie surely goes too far. For example, it spent more than 20 minutes on Dr Lloyd's call to his daughter and Frank's parents to him. One of the two should be removed completely and the other one significantly shortened, as they have nothing to do with the storyline.
Prob #2, it takes about 40 minutes, to carry out a very simple plot -- some astronauts find the same thing unknown on the Moon. Those long talks between Dr Lloyd and special agents and his colleagues are really nonsense, and distracting audience from the story line. I would assume a real master such as Steven Spielberg, or Alfred Hitchcock, could have handled it in a much much better and graceful way.
Prob #3, I agree with others that the story line is only semi-developed, and the ending is severely unfinished. Yes if you read the book you know the story better. BUT, that's the problem, a good movie should be a self-contained artwork itself, not force people to read another book to understand it. All in all, the movie just pretends to be "deep" and should be embarrassed in front of a real masterpiece.
|
