Rating: 
Summary: MGM and Warners create lousy DVDs.
Review: The fault lies not with 2001, the film itself, it's great, but the MGM/Warners DVD makers really do not package or create all that great DVDs. There's very litte offered beyound the movie itself and the theater trailer, and sometimes they don't even have that on some of their DVDs. The package is a cheap looking snap open case,and you can't even store it in your DVD library because the snap open case as a sharp edge to it and it could damage the other DVD cases you already have. I give the manufacturing of the MGM/Warners DVDs a big thumbs down, and reccomand that you stay with DVDs made by other film studios like Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios, 20th Century Fox, and Colombia Pictures.
Rating:
Summary: I hated this.
Review: I hated "2001:A Space Odyssey". I don't know why every one says it is so good. I mean it was just some dumb. It was silent. The acting was bad. The story line & plot are dumb. I would not say to see this movie becuase of the fact that it made on scence. The music was okay though.
2/10
Rating:
Summary: Why?
Review: Okay, I can watch 20 minutes of a film without dialogue or fight scenes, but I can not watch 20 minutes of film without human emotion, and that is what this movie lacks entirely.If you find special effects entertaining then I feel very sorry for you, but I also warn you to avoid this film--its "special effects" are nothing more than flashing lights, [inexpensive] gorilla costumes, and model spaceships moving across a starry cosmos at an unbelievably slow speed. If you seek a story, I once again warn you to stay away. The film is a series of 4 or 5 loosely related tales, each outstaying its welcome. The attempt at a moral or philosophical message is overshadowed by the pseudo-innovative display of cinematic techniques. These techniques seem to take precedence over the film as a whole. For example, the film opens with over 40 minutes of monkeys being monkeys. Only the last minute or so of this act contributes anything to the film or to the viewer; rather, it is like watching a documentary without the narration. Likewise the struggle of mankind and the grand journey that we are all on is portrayed through the 360-degree vertical rotation of the camera, as opposed to the portrayal of personal emotional issues or universal socio-political issues. Also, apparently the improvement of the human race has something to do with multi-colored landscapes and black stones . . . I'm still trying to figure out that convoluted (if even existent) symbolism. Overall, the film is nothing more than a two and a half hour endorsement of the faulty theory of evolution-which has since been disproved-and it somehow managed to gain critical favor and suddenly a bandwagon formed for those seeking to profess themselves as fans of "art cinema," when in actuality the film is as artistic as an Andy Warhol exhibit or a Yoko Ono album.
Rating: 
Summary: Uh ... Spare Me The Backlash
Review: Kubrick was a cinema visionary, but this tale just dragged on and on and on for too long with predictable results to several plotlines. A visual sedative. Use only as directed.
Rating: 
Summary: just about the best piece of cinema there is
Review: If you look at 2001 : A SPACE ODYSSEY from a craftman's point of view, then there's no denying that Kubrick was able to direct one of the finest films ever put together. It ranks right up there with Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION, Eisenstein's POTEMKIN, and Orson Welle's CITIZEN KANE. Each shot in the film is manipulated down to the tiniest element. The lighting is perfect. The scene with Dave and Frank plotting against HAL 9000, inside the spacepod, with the inserted shots of HAL 9000's "red eye" and the lipmoving of the two astronauts, is brilliant. And how many directors can manage to insert a cut that skips about four million years of evolution and at the same time comments on the time that passed? Actually, the four-million-years-cut (supposedly the longest "fast forward" cut in filmhistory) is a fascinating part of the film, and it illustrates the different takes that Clarke and Kubrick had on the story. Arthur C. Clarke is a man that believes in evolution. He feels that progress and technology will introduce better times ahead. Stanley Kubrick is the complete opposite, a notorious evolution-pessimist. When we see the ape-man toss the bone up in the air, after that violent dispute over the waterwhole, Kubrick speeds forward and cuts to a spacecraft which in shape and form resembles the bone. I think it's likely that Clarke intended this to be a positive comment on evolution. The bone is thrown high up in the air (illustrating man rising upwards, which is positive) and then we cut to the spaceship, which becomes an hommeage to the spaceage (and man's brilliance). But Kubrick has managed to flip the coin and turn it around; As the film is, man may have technologically evolved light-years beyond the ape-stage, but in a sense we're still there. People often complain that the symbology of the black monolith isn't clear enough (curse your average Hollywood film for creating an audience that feels it has to understand all things at all times). I believe that's just the point. Stanley Kubrick rarely made comments on his films, but he did say this about 2001 : A SPACE ODYSSEY; "How can you describe a supirior intelligence with an infirior intelligence?" Clearly the monolith is somewhat of a "gift" from an alien entity. It imbues man with intelligence and allows him to progress unto the next level of evolution. But 2001... never shows man at the final stage - the "star child" is just another step further up the ladder (or possibly down, if you're a pessimist) - because in evolution there can be no final stage, and how can we then possibly know what the black monolith is? People often deem 2001... of being pretentious. How can that be? Wouldn't pretentious be to attempt to explain what the monolith is? Obviously, there are numerous references to Friedrich Nietzche. This is sort of a personal theory of mine, but the film can be seen as an analogy to the German philosopher's most famous work, THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA (after all, the famous theme of the film, by Johan Strauss, is titled ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA). Nietzche saw man as being in a constant state of evolution. The primal level is the beast, which in the film could be the ape-men. The final level (it's inaccurate to describe it as the final level, but it's what comes closest) is the "ubermench" (or "superman"), which could be the "star child". Here, man has finally broken free from his environment, represented in the film as the final demise of technology, with the disconnection of HAL 9000. I would like to point out a tiny detail at this time, to show how well thought through the film really is; One of the famous scenes of the film is where Frank plays a game of chess against HAL 9000; A classic battle of human intellect versus artificial intellect. HAL 9000 check-mates Frank by moving "Queen to Bishop three. Bishop takes Queen. Knights takes Bishop," Without hardly a glance at the chessboard, Frank resigns. But HAL 9000 has actually made an error. He should have said Queen to Bishop six, and not three. He used the wrong notational viewpoint. Then later in the film, when the calculations of HAL 9000 aren't compatible with the calulations of a twin HAL 9000 on earth, Frank asks HAL 9000 whether there has ever been a computer error with the 9000 series, "even the most insignificant computer error?" HAL 9000 confidentely replies, "None, whatsoever, Frank," 2001 : A SPACE ODYSSEY is a film that asks more questions than it answers. But that's exactly what makes it so fascinating. It's no fun to watch a film that tells you everything (that's certainly the sure sign of a pretentious film). By only asking the questions, 2001... becomes one of the few films that are truly thought provoking. It forces you to think simply because you have to. I always get a bit frustrated about people who shrug their shoulders and complain that "they didn't understand a thing". Well, think, damn it! Do you like it when people feed you the answers they claim are right? I'm tired of films that proposes to have the answer to everything. 2001 : A SPACE ODYSSEY is Stanley Kubrick's finest moment. It's a landmark in all aspects of filmmaking. I've seen it more times than I know (I spendt my last two and a half hours of 2001 watching it; It was a beautiful moment when the camera zoomed in on the black monolith at the end, Johan Strauss' ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA started playing, and I saw the "star child" floating through the galaxy, and then we went from 2001 to 2002). I will never tire of this film. Luckily a local cinema is going to put it up in the theatres next month, and I will finally get to experience it on the big screen! 2001... is just about the best piece of cinematic expirience there is!
Rating: 
Summary: Wow! Not what I was expecting- Interesting and flawed
Review: Just watched this for the first time. Absolutely fantastic photography. I say that because most of the frames are much superior to many great photographers. They are made more interesting with the slow movement and weightless camera work. There were some intereting concepts, and many of the scenes provided an actionless (or at least practically motionless) tension that is hard to describe.
On the down side, many of the conceptual ideas are very dated. This feels like an art student film in many places, and the ending is really just pseudointellectual .... (at least as far as I can tell). This works as a vehicle for showing off many techniques that later filmmakers used to put to a more useful effect.
Worth seeing for its history (and ,although I say dated above, the filming of space is fantastic). As far as a smarter sceience fiction film- this appears to me to be a technically impressive (probably revolutionary) film, but it seems like a film where guys are trying to show you how deep they are by throwing in a lot of bizarre, unexplained things. Tell me if I am just an .....
Rating:
Summary: Well maybee if you are really high on drugs
Review: This is a film which in its time was seen as rather earth shattering. Its main draw card was the special effects in the first half of the film. These played with a background of music that somehow fitted. The problem is that special effects have improved out of sight since this film and it now seems rather dated. What you see on viewing it now is a film that is rather lacking in anything else but special effects. The "plot" of the film if it can be called that concerns the role of black monoliths in human history. The suggestion is that they trigger an evolutionary leap in human conciousness. The first scene involves some actors dressed in monkey suits. One of them touches the mysterious black monolith and suddenly he is able to use tools. Switch to 2001 and another monolith is found on the moon pointing to a moon of Jupiter. A space ship is sent off to find it. The film has almost no dialogue. (Which fits in with the almost total lack of plot). An uppity computer causes some problems on the mission and then our hero is drops into a confused set of images. It was generally thought that Kubrick ran out of money half way through the film and had to use flashing lights and funny wavey lines to pad out the last 40 minutes. During the 60's and 70's this last 40 minutes was thought somehow to be "deep". However in reality it is simply tiresome. In the end we see that the screne is filled with a gigantic fetus. Symbolism meaning that man is about to be "reborn" and to move up the evolutionary table again. Wow. Star Wars is in reality a more interlectual film as it at least was one of the first films to break with the old notion of women just being sex objects, and that they could join in the action.
Rating:
Summary: Defiantely One of the Top 10 Films
Review: Kubrick's 2001 is not for everyone. But anyone with a little bit of insight and imagination will not be able to help being captivated by this wonderful and powerful film. 2001 is not only a realistic space epic, it is a commentary on the past, present, and future of mankind. It shows how small humanity is in the grand scheme of the universe and how we hold our destiny in our own hands. This film prompted a lifelong interest in science, space exploration, and technology. It's effect was similar to that of another great sci-fi epic, Star Wars, but it is by far a much deeper and overall, really, a technically better film. It remains the only movie to accurately depict human spaceflight, though Arthur C. Clarke got the timeframe for space colonization off the mark by a few years. But keep in mind that at the time, no one was predicting, as Clarke did, the tremendous potential and impact that computers and artificial intelligence would have on future society. Take a look around today and , though we don't have HAL yet, see how much of he did get right, and how our technology and computers have permeated our entire planet. This represents the hope, and the danger, facing all mankind. So much of this film has been absorbed by pop culture it is amazing..."What are you doing Dave?"...The Star Child...HAL...The Blue Danube...it truly stands as a monument to cinema and it is a film that I cannot recommend highly enough.
Rating:
Summary: Not for the faint of heart or imagination.
Review: 2001 walks the fine line between triumph and tragedy. I consider it a triumph for just about the same reasons as all of favorable reviewers do: imaginative storytelling, special effects, atmosphere, subtlety, etc. However, I also consider it a tragedy because nothing, at least in the science fiction realm, that involves the viewer like 2001 has been made since. It truly saddens me to see that we have to put with Lost in Space(1998), Armageddon, ID4, etc. instead. Make no mistake about it, 2001 offers the viewer a lot. But it also demands a lot. Once you begin to watch, you will be asked to muster every bit of imagination, patience, brain power, and the little part of you that doesn't fear the unknown you have. There is no wasted dialogue. Heck, almost two hours are spent where there is no talking at all. There are no unnecessary characters doing unnnecessary things, which is a welcome change of pace from the cocky heroes who are all attitude and no personality (are you reading Will Smith?). Every thing you see and hear you really have to watch and listen. Once you are able to handle the meticulous plot details, you then have to adjust to the cold, humorless atmosphere that belies the film's G rating. 2001 brilliantly plays on our fear of the unknown, be it death or the mysteries of the universe in general. And as for the plot meaning, I refuse to give spoilers in my reviews even if 100+ reviewers did so before. I freely admit that I went to the local book store and bought a $.95 dogeared copy of the novelization two days after watching the movie because I simply was at a loss for understanding. Don't expect this to be a fun, thrill-a-minute movie like Star Wars or anything with Indiana Jones (don't get wrong, I love those movies). And definitely don't expect it to be a braindead Jerry Bruckheimer production where you have the whole thing figured out in the first 10 minutes. Forgive my crappy classic rock analogy, but if I had to compare this to another work of art, then it would be Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. DSotM is not a good album if you only want something that rocks or provides a harmless little thrill (unless you like the song "Money"). However, it is great album that can best be enjoyed by throwing your mind into it. Overall rating: Drive out to the country on the clearest night possible. Look up at the sky. That's how many stars I give 2001.
Rating:
Summary: Lethargic and Weird
Review: I waited 15 days after the year 2001 was over before finally seeing this movie. The only really charming scene in it was a father's video conference with his daughter, who was about to celebrate her birthday.
The imagery was rather bland when it wasn't alienating (no pun intended), and while the film provided a great showcase for music by the Strausses, I had trouble staying awake during most of it. I would have preferred more dialogue from the characters as well.
Generally, it's a fine film to watch for those who have trouble getting to sleep.
| 
