Rating: 
Summary: matrix lover? yes, but desperately wanting to be won round
Review: Wow. I was moved by this movie in a way I have never been before by anything on the silver screen, simply because I didn't have a clue what any of it meant but I was truly certain that it meant something, and that something was big. I belong, for good or ill, to the generation that my fellow viewer of 2001 described as wasted (for good reason; I am painfully aware of this fact), being 16. Wowed by the matrix and, dare I say it, amused by love actually, a film that could be at best described as good natured paff and requiring the kind of thinking usually achieved by the organisms that amoeba evolved from you wouldn't think I would get much out of the kind of film that 2001 is renowned for being: slow paced, very arty and devoid of any snappy lines or explosions, and neither did I. To my surprise (and, later, relief at perhaps being a bit more intellectual than I had thought) I got the same feeling of entranced exhilaration watching the scenes of pirouetting spacecraft and the smashing of the beast's bones by the believable apes as I did watching Neo dodge those bullets a couple of years ago. I found Hal's death as touching and real as any dying WWII soldier's in Saving Private Ryan. Perhaps there may be some hope for my generation yet. If you are thinking of not buying this film because it's slow or your mate says its rubbish please think again, try it, and we can make a start turning this generation round. Buy it, rent it, steal it - trade in that old gladiator dvd and you may find yourself immersed in a new world of films with layers and deep meanings that you will never see enough times to understand - but you just won't care.
Rating: 
Summary: I'm defending one of the greatest films of all time
Review: I'll admit the first time I saw 2001 I WAS BORED AND ALMOST FELL A SLEEP BUT AN HOUR AFTER I SAW THE FILM I STARTED TO THINK ABOUT IT A LOT AND WATCHED IT AGAIN. AFTER SEEING IT AGAIN I STARTED TO GET OBSSESED WITH IT AND NOW IVE PROBEBLY SEEN IT TWENTEY TIMES. THE MOVIE IS SLOW PACED AND ON PERPUS BECAUSE DIRECTER STANLEY KUBRICK DOESN'T TRY TO ENTERTAIN YOU BUT TO DAZZLE YOUR MIND. HE NEVER TRIES TO EXPLAIN WHATS HAPPENING HE LEAVES IT TO YOUR IMAGINATION.SADDLY DVD HAS KNOW FEATURES
Rating:
Summary: Trancendent to Some...Boring for others...
Review: While I cannot possibly see why someone might think this is a boring movie, it has been called this by some of my freinds who are more into Matrix-style SciFi. Fair enough. It does tax the modern attention span-and, unlike, say the Matrix, requires one to think a bit (full disclosure-I am one of those rare Americans who did not think the Matrix lived up to the hype). The fabulous thing about 2001 is that, while dated, it presents a world that we might actually want to live in. The mysterious "other beings" in this critic's eyes, are there to present a "new age" (cringe-it's the only term I could think of) to Humankind. What a wonderful, mysterious, and uplifting cinematic conceit. Much, much more positive than the facile Post-Modernism of the Matrix (and more positive than Ridley Scott's masterpiece, Blade Runner). It has dated wonderfully, and as noted by other posters, still continues to amaze . For those who remain unconvinced, trek to your local art-house cinema and watch it on the big screen. I have been privileged to see it twice on a actual Cinerama screen. Wow! Btw-for the younger set, this is the movie that convinced George Lucas that he could actually create realistic Sci Fi movies. Star Wars owes a major debt to this movie and it's director. So, before you trash it, just think what Sci Fi cinema would be without 2001...
Rating:
Summary: To my fellow readers...Please disregard the one star reviews
Review: I say this because it's simply ghoulish and downright silly to dismiss this film as "boring" or whatever else you can dream up. Those who give this film low marks are sad creatures indeed and should be regarded as so. To give such a classic low ratings is a cry for help and to be "different" for the sake of being, well, different. Forget about free speech and all that jazz. For chrissakes, even if you HATE the film as much as these peole say they do, then for the love of god show the decency afforded of such a film to at least give it more than one star! What's the point people? Is our generation THAT wasted on crap films like "the medallion" or the countless remakes and CGI infested films that plague our google-plexes? This generation is wasted. Period. To all the little creeps that take so much glee in giving this film a low rating: I feel so sorry for you. To not like this film is to NOT like movies at ALL. Everything has a beginning. In my opinion, the sci-fi genre began with 2001. The movie is like a poem devoid of obvious meanings. Practically all film-makers worth their salt call upon the works of kubrick as an inspiration in their works. So, if you have not seen this movie, then rent it. It may lull you at first. But when you consider that it was made over a span of FOUR years and finally released in 1968 then you can finally appreciate the film from a technical standpoint. No CGI at all. Heck, even the readouts on the ships were done by painstaking animation and cut and paste methods. Judge this film by at LEAST those merits. Like I said before, hate the film for whatever reason you like. But see the film as a triumph in movie magic. Watch it and be dazzled by the ambiguous storyline and wonderous end sequence. Trust me, as soon as the movie is over you'll find yourself BACK on the internet, digging for clues and opinions only to find that it's up to YOU to come to your own conclusions. And that, my friends, is the whole meaning of this film. It's a music video for your senses. Enjoy. You'll watch it again and again ....and again. Don't say I did'nt warn you. And if you need anymore coaxing, just remember what John Lennon of the beatles said himself when asked about 2001: A Space Odyssey: "2001? I watch it every day" That's all I have to say about that.
Rating:
Summary: Still a masterpiece
Review: Regardless of how "bored" some (probably adolescent) viewers may become (forced to maintain their attention span over vast minutes of time on something other than sex, car chases and dripping blood), this is obviously a great movie. At least for the rest of us. Rated in the top 250 (#66) at IMDb, and the subject of innumerable articles and reviews, Stanley Kubrick's much studied and admired visual, artistic and thematic masterpiece, based on the novel by Arthur C. Clarke, is still--remarkably, after all these years--a mesmerizing motion picture experience even on a television screen. This is no mean accomplishment when you realize that Kubrick made his film before humans actually walked on the moon in 1969, and furthermore, when you consider how much more we now know about space travel and how much more advanced special effects have become. What I think contemporary movie makers might learn from Kubrick's work is (1) special effects without rhyme or reason may titillate first time viewers and the very young, but quickly grow meaningless; and (2) even in a movie that relies heavily upon special effects and ideas--which 2001: A Space Odyssey certainly does--it helps a whole lot to have a story to tell. The story begins in the prehistory and ends in the future. It begins with a pre-human consciousness and ends in mystery. (Note that the last sequence in the movie is labeled in part as being "beyond the infinite"--whatever that metaphysical notion may mean.) Along the way we have a creditable hero (Astronaut Dave Bowman played by Keir Dullea, whom I also recall from David and Lisa, 1962) and a very cold and merciless villain (HAL 9000, the computer as megalomaniac--apparently his makers never heard of Issac Asimov's rules for robots!). Today we know more about pre-humans and more about computers, artificial intelligence and space exploration, and with such knowledge today's movie makers would avoid some of Kubrick's mistakes. For example, the space craft was far too roomy (ask the astronauts!). Real space ships must be as small as possible to save fuel and they are incredibly cramped. Also, the year 2001 has come and passed, and we are nowhere near the practical capability of providing artificial gravity in space. And of course computers (or robots) don't have emotions unless such emotions are built or programmed into them. Yet the visual sense of space and the terrible isolation of being alone in the vast vacuum has never been conveyed so well. Using music synchronized with visual effects laden with meaning for our earth-bound minds and bodies, Kubrick managed to depict the Pythagorean "music of the spheres" in a most splendiferous and awe-inspiring way. However, the opening sequence with the hairy apes is probably what Kubrick would most like to redo if he had the opportunity. In the first place, the terrain, which is semi-arid, is all wrong. No hairy, long-armed, bent-legged creature would occupy such a landscape. The "foraging" they were supposed to be doing was ludicrous since there was obviously next to nothing to forage. The tapirs (forest-dwelling animals native to South America and Southeast Asia, by the way, and not to the savannas of Africa, which should have been the terrain depicted) were almost comedically fat for the ecosystem. And the apes themselves, looking and acting a lot like chimpanzees (no doubt the model that Kubrick used), are in conflict with the fossil record as we know it. Our primordial ancestors, the australopithecines, were upright walking apes and probably not exceedingly hairy since they needed to sweat as they walked and ran over the savannas and grasslands of East Africa. As for using bones as weapons, yes, there can be little doubt that that is what our ancestors learned to do, followed by using hard wood and stones and then shaped stones. And the idea that a bone tool is a proto-type for all the tools to come is also correct, most saliently in the form of the space ship and HAL. An interpretation of the ending would necessarily include the idea of time as being something other than we think it is. We see Dave as an astronaut in his thirties, and then as a middle-aged man dining in something like a very expensive Parisian apartment, and then on his death bed, and finally as a soon-to-be-born fetus returning to earth. I think it was wise of Kubrick not to attempt to explain what he clearly points to as unexplainable, as "beyond the infinite." Perhaps the most haunting image of all, at least for me, is the red and yellow "eye" of the HAL 9000 computer as it coldly viewed the two astronauts talking. Therein was expressed, long before it became fashionable, the coming inexorable conflict between us and our machines, between our culture and our biological nature, between natural and artificial intelligence. Never in the history of cinema has that tension been so concisely conveyed as in that scene and in this movie. See this for Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest film makers of all time.
Rating: 
Summary: EMOTIONALLY HOLLOW
Review: Along with the films of Lars Von Trier, I think that Stanley Kubrick's films are among the most soulless that I've ever had the misfortune to see, and 2001 and Clockwork Orange are probably the most soulless of them all. I really don't understand what the big deal is with him. Yes he is technically great, but so what? See stuff by Ozu or Bresson or Jarmusch or Lynch or Kaurismaki or anybody else instead!
Rating:
Summary: Very Bad Movie
Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey is the worst movie that I have ever seen. It is two and a half hours long and there is only a half hour of talking in the middle of it. The rest of the movie is lame visual affects and weird sounds. The first half hour of the movie is just a bunch of apes leaping about and screaming because of the monolith.
Rating:
Summary: Open the pod bay doors, HAL
Review: To those reviewers who did not have the patience to appreciate this film, or who were so bored they fast forwarded through many scenes, I can only say that there is a lot in life that you will miss out on. This is the quintessential sci-fi film because it deals purely and explicitly with science fiction. The film is valid because, from its 1968 perspective, it portrays a plausible vision of where Kennedy's fledgeling space innitiative could take us. The film is daring and bold because Kubrick, again in 1968, had the audacity and vision to portray space exploration as something that had become altogether routine, mundane and boring. The film is disturbing because, in this future, the computer is more warm and likeable than the cold, distant and emotionless humans. The film is true to science. It is one of the few in the genre that accurately portray the environment of space; weightlessness, silent, cold, dark and empty. Metaphor and symbolism are the poetry of this film. The "Dawn of Man" sequence offers the monolith as the catalyst for technological advancement. The bone becomes a tool, but tools can be used for good or bad - duality. The Stargazer uses the bone to kill Tapirs for sustainance, but he also uses the bone to kill his rival/threat. HAL is the bone. HAL is used to sustain the crew of the Discovery, but HAL is also used to kill the same crew because they appear to threaten the mission. As for those who did not understand the ending, The film ends just like it begins - with speculation. As of now, we can only speculate as to the earliest origins of the human race; and in 2001 we can only speculate as to what we can become. For those of you who don't know, not all film is meant for entertainment. This one is meant for reflection. This is the kind of film we need to ballance the Armageddons and Independance Day's. Not all films conform to the popular format that draws blockbuster crowds. Not all films give up their answers in tidy little packages. Some films have no answers at all, but rely on the intellect of the viewer to interpolate their own subjectivity. Film is an extremely versatile medium, and this one proves the point brilliantly.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Sci-Fi Film... Ever!
Review: I read somewhere that 2001 is the perfect blend of music and imagery, and its true, this film is beautiful. Its intelligent plot is deep and thought provoking. It reminds me of the classic silent films of the 1920's. This is the most realistic film about space travel ever made. Highly recommended to lovers of Kubric, silent film, and sci-fi!
Rating:
Summary: Required viewing...
Review: I can't believe the number of MTV generation viewers who rate this movie low because they don't have the patience, intellectual curiosity or attention span to watch this film. Man, I remember between glued to the set when I first watched 2001, and I was 10 years old! I'm also amazed at how many people clamor for a neat and tidy hollywood ending. I think one of the legacy of 2001 is its sobriety: not everything is answered or should be; gorgeous camera angles and the brilliant stroke of making space so utterly silent. Instead of filling the screen with lasers and music and nonsensical violence, Kubrick lets our minds travel and our brains work. I recommend the novel, as well.
|
