Rating: 
Summary: A Space Odyssey
Review: Greetings to 2001 fans. I'm just 15, but, I gotta admit that, putting together the whole sci-fi movies of 20TH CENTURY doesn't even come close to '2001'. The first time i saw it, on year 2000, I stayed astonished, amazed. it changed my perception about sci- fi movies. It breakes by itself the wrong perception command-and-conquer-the-space, and space-full-of- monsters stablished by hollywood, without any philosophical contents about time and spiritual potential. When it was released, in 1968, changed forever the way to make space movies. We see that spaceships, besides EVERYTHING,look pretty real. you think that future is just as that. but don't be disappointed if you think is 'old', it was in fact 30 years ahead of it's time, nothing like star trek or others so old fashioned in the 60's. Now,in 2004, I'm certainly sure that 2001 is the best sci-fi movie of all 20th century, and my opinion grew bigger knowing that it's the twenty-second best movie, according to AFI . So, the bet is opened in this new century, and I think it'll be difficult to overshadow it. is it necesary, by the moment, the three Lord of the ring films (laugh). The thing is that almost everything can be done in commercial movies, and that makes them to have no sense. 2001's director, Stanley Kubrick, achieved a high level describing in a new language wich would be the relation between humans an artificial technology, doted of intelligence and reasoning. I invite to everybody to rent it, and discover an excellent gift to mankind. A possible answer to some unanswered questions. and a inseparable marriage between music and the outer space
Rating:
Summary: The genius of Clarke and Kubrick
Review: Clarke wrote an excellent book, and Kubrick brought his story to life beautifully. Rather than elaborating on my positive thoughts, I feel compelled to respond to the people who simply don't "get it". Some of you think the movie is too slow. Here are my responses: 1. So many people today have a "fast-food" mentality that prevents them from appreciating the sheer intellect and craft involved in the storytelling and filmmaking process. How hard is it to sit still for a couple of hours? It is refreshing to see directors take their time when appropriate. Which brings me to my second point: 2. A key idea of the story is that traveling through time and space is a slow process. We don't just get on a spacecraft and arrive at our destination the next day. More over, evolution is an even longer process, spanning millions of years. Having short scenes and fast edits like many other films would have robbed this story of the overall mood and pace that was essential. Some of you think the film lacks any sort of logic. Again, here are my thoughts: 1. I first saw this film as an adolescent child, and even at that young age it made sense to me. If anyone out there has half a brain, they can figure it out. So many people are accustomed to being spoon-fed answers, and are unable to comprehend something truly profound. I won't go into detail about the philosophical meaning of this film, because there are many resources out there that discuss this subject in a much better way than I can. Even thought this film makes sense to me, I have come to realize a very comforting idea. Many things in life do not make sense, and are not meant to be understood. That is what makes life so interesting and mysterious.
Rating:
Summary: Quintessential Kubrick
Review: 2001 isn't "about" anything. This is a good thing. 2001 far transcends the ordinary limitations of typical plot driven narratives and takes the viewer into a world of wonder and possibility. Arguably Kubrick's most personal work. An early systhesis of every idea, emotion & understanding he was trying to convey through his art. 2001 is easily his most Kubrickian work. His usage of colors, shapes, styles, arrangements, textures, sounds and music is daring, unique and possibly brilliant. The plot is little more than a frame on which to hang his concepts. Few movies are so emotionally and intellectually challenging. Kubrick forces the viewer to keep up and offers niether simplistic explanations nor sealed and delivered conclusions. Its all food for thought and its a five star feast.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie, but poor DVD.....
Review: Iam rather surprised that a movie as successful as this one has not been given a better DVD release. The good news is that the movie itself is presented in widescreen and has a great picture and sound quality to it. But there are no bonus features. No interview with Arthur C. Clarke, no interviews on how this movie influanced later movie makers, no making of featurette, Nothing. Certainly a movie of this quality should have that kind of a DVD release, and make it a two disk set, while they are at it. Cmon Warners, do this movie some justice.
Rating:
Summary: 2001: A Space Odyssey
Review: This iconic, 5-star film has never been equaled, but the film transfer on this DVD is as poorly engineered as any DVD I have ever seen. Video compression artifacts abound, and the disc is a literal museum of DVD technology problems. Exposure errors litter the transfer, along with strange grids and patterns in high-contrast scenes, color smears, and false color modeling of objects (see the monolith in orbit around Jupiter). Save your money on this fancily-packaged product and buy an old-fashioned Criterion laserdisc if you want to see this movie as Kubrick intended (he personally approved the Criterion laserdisc transfer).
Rating: 
Summary: "Beyond the Infinite"
Review: 4.5 stars. I watched this again recently and I am still astounded at how fresh and altogether excellent the visual effects still are. The visual effects in this film are comparable to anything being done today, surpassing most. If for no other reason, watch this film with a particular eye for stunning visuals. Now, that's the best thing about this movie. Now, for the not so great. There are a couple of ideas that look and are dated, such as wearing "grip shoes" to walk around any given spacecraft. With all that we now know about being in space, in zero gravity, walking around is very impractical. Why not just kick off a wall in whatever direction you want to go? Why not pull yourself along a wall-pipe or handles? What Stanley Kubrick does with the camera angles in those shots are interesting and memorable, such as having one character standing on a "wall" while another is sitting on the "floor," but it makes more sense these days just to have them floating around. If there was artificial gravity, the ship would have to be spinning...ah, the hindsight of The Information Age! But at the time this film was released in theaters I couldn't possibly imagine what a fantastic effect it must have had on audiences of the time. It was an unprecedented achievement, and except for a few moments where I thought, "That wouldn't be that way in reality.," the rest of the film is outstanding. The last section of the film is simply amazing, filled with astounding visual effects, eerie symbolism, and some inspired direction from Stanley Kubrick. It is truly a haunting sequence. Overall, except for the occassional dated idea, this film shines. This is Science Fiction at its finest.
Rating: 
Summary: Read the Book(s)
Review: I've read all four books in the Odyssey series, and I must say I found them very enjoyable and provacative (well, not 2061, but that's another review). This movie has it's interesting moments, but over all I think it is too long, and slow. The special effects are pretty good, from a pre-Star Wars perspective, but the final sequence of flashing colors looks cheap. The ending does not follow the book, and makes no sense. If you enjoyed the books, then you should definitley see this, but otherwise it will probably just confuse you.
Rating:
Summary: I never fully appreciated it until I took Art History...
Review: First off, let me warn you about this film. This isn't a film you rent to watch with a few buddies over pizza and beer. This is the type of film you show a History of Film class, or any group of people who are together solely to observe deeply meaningful art. Yes, I know parts are very boring and tend to drag, but that's only if you watch it a certain way. It wasn't until recently that I suddenly realized HOW to watch it. For those reviewers who claim we who like the film cannot back up our love with any facts, I give you the following: Arthur C. Clarke, the author of the original novel and also co-writer with Kubrick on this film, admired the Russian artist Malevich. Malevich was a deeply spiritual man who meditated through his artwork, and one of his themes was squares floating through space - sound familiar yet? In his work "Suprematist Composition: White on White" we see a tilted blue-white square inside a tan-white square. The smaller square represents our soul, and it is moving out of the composition and off into the empty space, going deeper and deeper until it finally meets our maker. It was also believed that that maker was ourselves. The Russian artist was inspired by Nietzsche, who also spoke of spiritualism and "evolution." His poem "Thus Spoke Zarthustra" was about man's continuing development spiritually and physically until finally all that stood atop the world was a tall, Aryan man who was now the new god to rule over humanity. Does the title of the poem sound familiar? That is because the composer Strauss was so overwhelmed by the poem that he wrote a musical homage to it by the same name...and then a certain Stanley Kubrick used it as the theme to his space movie. So what am I getting here? What we see in the movie is man's ascension through space. The blocky shapes represent our very essense and how we continue to advance through time. Think about it: first we are cavemen, then we move on to the moon, then into deep space until, finally, we have become the superhuman at the end of the movie. This makes the ending all the more powerful - I never fully realized the baby and the music until now. The fact the baby is looking upon the world - and the passion behind the music - is even more effective. The new god has emerged, and he is none other than mankind himself, achieving the highest level possible. The baby cannot talk, but Strauss' "Thus Spoke Zarthustra" does for him. If you ask me, the fact Clarke was able to put this into a novel, and then Kubrick was able to capture that exact meaning from the novel into film, makes them both geniuses of their own time.
Rating:
Summary: A GREAT PIECE OF ART!!!!
Review: I just wanna say my 2 cents about 2001.1. The one star posters are right about the humans being emotionaly 'shallow' that's the way Mr. Kubrick thought of us.Hal is the most likable entity.2.Space is boring.It's vast and cold and quiet.3.The monolith is to help us cope with our reality.We need symbols or we go mad.4.This movie can't be explained,everyone takes something from it. The ape to superman.Man vs. Machine.Are we really all alone,a grain of sand in a ocean of nothingness,or is the universe teeming with life and us earthlings are so backward were ignorant?5.NO WAY IN HELL WOULD A MODERN FILM STUDIO MAKE THIS FILM!WERE MINDLESS CATTLE AND FEED ON ACTION WITH GULPS OF POPCORN.5.Lastly,open your eyes.The world is a sad and beautiful place.
A great film that's art.See it.
Rating:
Summary: Horse Crap
Review: The most sorry piece of "work" i had the misfortune of comming across. This movie is pure nonsense and simplest scenes take TOO long! i wasted 2 frikin hours. i was suprised to come here and see how most people here give it the best rating. you can go ahead and convince yourself that it is a "master piece"... yeh right. WE KNOW IT TAKES LONG TO DO THIS AND THAT, so why bore people with that nonsense. i have read many reviews and they all sound like religious buffs, they just have no clue. this movie does not have logic and thats why people are pondering forever. only a fool would ponder about nonsense. but they fail to recognise that and just try to be mister i-know-something-you-dont-know. when someone pukes on a stage people are going to call it art (like Dobel said in "Anything Else"). that is stupidity and deep down they know it well (or not). i think it takes a much greater man to not just go with the croud, but to judge with his own eyes. I speak my mind when asked, and i recognise rubish when i see it. i am normaly a decently nice guy but words cannot describe how much i hate this repulsive film. the person that made this film is a very sick man. he is not well.
|
