Rating: 
Summary: Painfully boring and sexist.
Review: I have a feeling there are fewer women who love this movie than there are men, since women are almost completely absent from the entire movie, and since it's supposed to be deep but is actually just about OBJECTS. Which is no different from most sci-fi films, but good sci-fi films manage to deal with relationships to some extent, and this one doesn't. At any rate, this is one woman who hates this film more than words can express. Another note about gender: many people have used the term "mankind" in their positive reviews of this movie. If you don't understand why that is a sexist term, a "false generic" which supposedly refers to both sexes but actually refers mostly or only to men, you probably won't be aware of the sexist aspects of the movie.. like the term, the movie supposedly deals with humanity, and actually only deals with the male side of it.
How anyone can stay awake with that music and those endless, mind-numbing images of space is beyond me. Personally I prefer movies in which there is actually something of interest (something to look at, music which actually changes occasionally, interesting dialogue..)!! If I feel like sitting around being in awe of space or the mystery of life, I don't need Beethoven's fifth (over and over and over again) and images of things floating in space to do it! To me this film has the emotional power of a screen-saver.
Rating: 
Summary: The Greatest Science Fiction Movie Thus Far
Review: 2001 may not appeal to everyone.... some of us want tidy little stories with a plot that appeals to the conscious mind. Well... eat your popcorn and watch "Independence Day". This is THE science fiction movie that appeals to the subconscious, the superconcious and the thinkers. Just like REAL space, this one will raise more questions than it answers. Just like REAL life, there is no plot... only a series of experiences.... all so magificently photographed, the movie would be better described as a "MOVING PAINTING"... and in fact, I feel that way about most of Kubrick's films, most notably "Barry Lyndon". Sit back, experience, and allow your eyes to shift into that other part of your mind... the part that cannot predict what will happen next... that part that is filled with awe, mystery, fear, lonliness, fascination, wonder, and view a universe that will never have narration to explain it all to you in neat little sentences.This film is a masterpiece to anyone who truly understands the true art of the medium... visually stunning, sonically mesmerizing, and frame after frame of magnificent beauty.
Rating:
Summary: An Odyssey, indeed!
Review: I can not add anything to the review of this film many already haven't. Is 2001 a perfect movie? No. But when people ask me what is your all time favorite film...it is Kubrik's space odyssey that springs to mind. The film's message is so universal and powerfull that it will always resonate, regardless of times and current events. In this age of "primitive tribal warfare" masquerading as "nationalism with high tech weapons", the openning ape-man sequence seems so poignant. One may argue that Kubrik's film is too optimistic about the human condition, but maybe not. In any case, this DVD captures all the special effects glory the director managed to acheive without the aid of computers. It is a lasting tribute to a great visionary of our time.
Rating:
Summary: In a lifetime of achievement, this is Kubrick's masterpiece
Review: THE DVD
This film is definitely worth checking out if you are a fan of thoughtful, reflective science fiction, Stanley Kubrick or simply quality filmmaking. With a reference quality transfer and audio mix, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is easy to recommend. THE MEANING
The meaning of 2001 reveals itself in the context. 2001's pace is purposely slow. Man emerges as a species slowly, over tens of thousands of years, man explores the stars slowly and actual space travel is very slow. The deliberately mannered tempo of the first 90% of the film reflects the unhurried pace of man's progress. Dave's passage through the star gate is the only time 2001 really breaks loose: a passage meant to imply that the evolution of humankind was about to take a quantum leap forward, courtesy of the monoliths. The monoliths take the human race through each of its next radical jumps in evolution. The last monolith took David from human-Homo sapiens--to the next stage in human evolution...the first Star Child.
Rating:
Summary: A REAL sci-fi movie
Review: 2001 is a realistic and intriguing film. It is a Real Sci-Fi movie. Most films are based on the "fiction" part of this genre but this film touches on both. I for one would not care if this movie was 24 hours long. People who have watched an actual space walk in its entirety would understand the true nature of this film. For those who say this movie is boreing are overlooking the REAL scientific understanding Kubrick put into it. Movies like Star Wars (though exciting) lack all logical explanations for the way they were filmed. 2001 is a realistcaly portrayed future. If this movie is boreing, then I guess life is boreing as well. (Do not compare the movie to the book. Books are always better and everyone should know that by now.)
Rating:
Summary: Raise this film up!!please!
Review: I like this film. Man! I don't know what to say about this. I'm scientificly minded about this film. I like films that deprive you of human emotions. I like all the characters including David Pool, Hal 9000, and of course! Frank Pool. I saw this film inmy science fiction class when I was back in high school. I also like how the characters are made. This is the best sci-fi movie ever made. I highly recommend this movie to future fans.
Rating:
Summary: Simply amazing
Review: This film does not get the credit it deserves. Stanley Kubrick's style of direction is simply amazing, and the special effects shots are even more so; the scenes in which directions become skewed as a waitress climbs up the wall in zero-gee is simply breathtaking. Considering that this film was originaly made in 1968, it further solidifies it's genius in the technical aspects. Kubrick was a notorious perfectionist, and that quality definitely shows through in this film. Loosely based on Arthur C. Clarke's excellent short story, "The Sentinel" (recommended reading) Kubrick and Clarke then teamed up to write the screenplay, which Clarke then turned into a novel. While the screenplay is in no way completely based on "The Sentinel," neither is the book a novelization of the screenplay. All three of the aforementioned works compliment each other, adding further insight into the development of plot and subtext. This film is not for the intellectually challenged, though I must indeed recommend it to those who may appreciate it. The book, while not essential in the enjoyment of the film, is certainly something to read; it explains certain aspects of the film that the film did not explain in full detail. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: OK, yes its slow, but wait just a minute.
Review: OK, I'd like to refute all the negative reviews of this film. Alright first of all, yes its a slow film and quite weird at times, but this film is not about the cinematics, visuals, or even plot for that matter. To enjoy this film, you must take it in context from when it was made. 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968. It was a time when space travel was in its infancy. Hell, we hadn't even gone to the moon yet. Also it was made in a fashion that used *real* space physics, as opposed to the cheesey sci-fi movies of the 50s and early 60s. Every space shot, whether it was in a spaceship or the space station exhibited the way things are (or actually will be when we actually achieve this level of technology, ie, we've passed 2001 and we're pretty far behind). This movie was not made to tell an exemplarary story, but to show Arthur C. Clarke's vision of the future. If you want to watch it for the story, watch its sequal 2010 first and then watch 2001 to fill in the back story. This movie was made with loads of symbolism. For example starting below... The monkey scene at the beginning was necessary to show the evolution of primitive man. From extremely primitive to learning how to use tools (the bones) as weapons to kill animals for food and to fight off agressors. The shot where the ape throws the bone into the air and it comes back down as a satelite shows that the time it took for man to advance that far has been a drop in the bucket in galactic time. As far as the monoliths, that's a bit of a puzzle, because even 2010 doesn't really answer where they have come from. But nonetheless, they are there saying that there is a greater power out there than us humans. For instance the monolith on the moon was buried, suggesting that it was put there a LONG time ago. As far as the whole HAL thing, that shows that computers have become so advanced that they are capable of killing humans (through conflicting orders from the Doctor as we later find out in 2010). But this movie is the first to accurately portray the physics of space that there is no sound in space. ie. No air in space, no way for sound waves to travel. To fully enjoy this film you have to be somewhat scientifically minded. And to realize that this was the first true sci-fi film that used true space physics. I first saw this movie back in the late 80's and was mentored through it by my folks who had seen it back in '68 and therefore was given the symbolism directly firsthand. So...in the meantime check out 2010 and then come back to this one.
Rating:
Summary: boring
Review: a lot of critics like to say that 2001 a space odyssesy is a good film b/c they feel that this staterment will validate thier position as real critics and b/c the top critics in the game list this as thier favourite movie.for example, the renowned film critic roger ebert puts this film as one of his greatest film. this film receives the highest rating possible from the leonard maltin filmbooks. but the truth is that this film is not good. it is boring, it has no plot whatsoever and all this film is is kubrick showing off and telling everyone how good technically he is.i love kubrick films, but i hated this. there is a scene in this film that shows an astronaut running around in the spaceship at . this scene is cool at first as it shows him running upside down in the spinning spaceship at zero gravity. but when kubrick decides to show this paticuler scene for about 15 minutes with no words, it gets boring. if you want some shut-eye, then this movie is for you. otherwise avoid at all cost.
Rating: 
Summary: Another great book made into a second rate movie
Review: I think a clear seperation should be made between 2001 the book and 2001 the movie. I've read the book over 15 years ago, and loved it from first reading. The more I read about it (e.g. the ideas behind it and the original "The Sentinel" short story) the more I liked the book. Even though the movie and the book were created together, they are both based on Clark's short story mentioned above. Like many other movies (such as King Rat and Birdy), the movie simply doesnt stand up to the book's (or, in this case, story's) standard. Even though I am a sci-fi fan and dont lack patient for long movies, I dislike this movie for reasons mentioned by other reviewers. The acting is mediocre, the special effects are unimpressive (not to say disappointing in today's standards), the scenes do not evoke the emotions that the book does (e.g. how depressing the monkeys' lifes are or how awe inspiring is Bowman's trip through the star gate), etc. The movie does injustice to the book and story and is long winded, not to say boring. I warmly recommend to read the book and skip the movie.
| 
