Rating: 
Summary: Kubrick¿s visual masterpiece.
Review: To view "2001: A Space Odyssey" on the small screen is a total injustice to this magnificent film. It should only be seen in theaters, and those that can run it in cinerama (three projectors). Cold and dispassionate, "2001" was far ahead of its time, and has a similar affect on people today as it did when it was first released. People love this movie, and people hate this movie. So do the professional critics. Based on Arthur C. Clarke's 1950 short story "The Sentinel", Clarke and Kubrick spent two years expanding this story into a screenplay. BTW, Clarke's novel is based upon that screenplay. Original set for a 1966 release, "2001" finally came to the big screen in 1968. The story is about first contact, and is unlike anything that came before or since. Scientifically accurate and sparse on dialogue, this movie is a visual treat, and still holds up rather well today (31 years after its initial release). Between 1 and 10, "2001" gets a solid 9. I will sorely miss Stanley Kubrick and the genius of his creations.
Rating:
Summary: Extraordinary!!!
Review: I have seen this film several times over, and I never fail to come away inspired, and filled with wonderful questions, answer's and possibilites surrounding its structure, its form as a visual tone poem, its music, its acting, the surreal depiction of aliens, w/o in fact showing them, and its honest desire to present the viewer with a means to viscerally feel and think through a picture. You can see why Clarke, and Kubrick and his team took four years to put this together from his original short story, The Sentinel. Nearly everything in this picture is exquisite from the depiction of special effects, space flight in three dimensional rather than two dimensional form, the metaphorical storyline combining the relationship between humanity and its tools, to the depiction of evolution and the possibility of aliens seeding solar systems with inteligence, to the ingenious finale that forces you to think deeply, and thoughtfully about humanity and what makes something alien-a french King Louis XVI style drawing room was just genius! This movie rests alongside Casablanca, The Godfather, Apocalype Now, and Dr. Strangelove as my favorites of all time...as for the people that compared it to Star Wars-please dont they are entirely different films, genre's and ways of dealing with Science Fiction-Star Wars being a Space Opera Wild West in Space Fantasy that was executed well, while 2001 is a traditionally Hard Science, SF film dealing with First Contact, our place in the universe, and so much more. And as for the people who found it slow and boring-well, lets face it, this movie wasn't made for you, this movie asks you to sit back and think, absorb and feel, to contemplate, and consider, it doesnt just blow junk up in your face for 120 minutes, and tack on a moralist ending usually incongruent with the previous 100 minutes of the film. It doesnt throw space jokes at you, crustacean like aliens wanted to implant their seeds in your, or ridiculous Freddy Prinze Jr. Top Gun in space garbage, it asks a lot more of you, and if your not willing to work with it as all great movies require you to do (compare the banal, shoot em up Untouchables, with the Genius, boiling under the surface, leisurely approach of The Godfather) you simply wont appreciate it. For those who think Kubrick is a sick man and point to the Shining and A Clockwork Orange, I find your arguments strangely lacking. He didnt write either story, he merely adapted them-and each approached certain concepts-Humanity and whether morality should be a choice or imposed forcefully, and the haunted house/native american curse/shining from a mature fashion and presented them honestly and forcefully. Maybe they are too intense for you, but in the end you have to ask yourself if A Clockwork Orange is sick because people get stomped, killed and raped, just as they do in far greater #'s in most action films today, or is it sick, because A clockwork and Kubrick's work forces you to confront the more ugly sides of human nature by making you care about the individuals being plunged into such desperate straights. Whatever you may say about Kubrick, and 2001, you cant say you left one of his films, and especially this masterpiece, with a feeling of ambivalence.
Rating: 
Summary: let's have a little honesty, here
Review: This is the worst movie I have ever seen. There's just two hours of dated special effects, spaceships, a picture of a baby at the end, and NO action. This movie WILL make you fall asleep, I can assure you of that. I mean, let's be honest. People will want to appear smart and "cool" by saying they like this movie (even though they really hate it and can't understand what's going on). They'll claim that they "get it" just to avoid ridicule and scorn. But the truth is that this movie is a hot turkey. Nobody has the guts to say it, so I will. For a groundbreaking masterpiece in science fiction, there is only ONE movie to see: "Battlefield Earth."
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.
Rating:
Summary: What is Kubrick trying to tell us?
Review: Recently I had the immense pleasure of seeing the remastered 70mm version of "2001: A Space Odyssey" on a huge screen in a New York City theater. There may never have been a more awe-inspiring and magnificent movie. This was my first viewing of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece since I became familiar with the transhumanist movement and the concept of a technological Singularity Previously, I'd never known quite what to make of the dreamlike, possibly hallucinatory sequence that comprises the final portion of the film. But this time, for the first time, it made a lot of sense to me. The bizarre psychedelic trip that introduces it can be seen to symbolize the dizzying technological ascent we are soon to experience as we approach the Spike. The surreal aging and eventual rebirth of astronaut Dave Bowman can be viewed as a representation of the time when humans fully merge with machines and break away from all physical, spatial, and biological limits. As far as I know, Kubrick never claimed this interpretation. Of course, back in 1968 the concept was hardly well known. However, Alan Turing, John Von Neumann, Richard Feynman and a few others had already started speculating in this direction, and it is certainly possible that Arthur C. Clarke (who worked closely with Kubrick in planning the film) was aware of their ideas. At any rate, I would highly recommend catching this spectacular work of art on the big screen if you get the chance. Happy viewing!
Rating:
Summary: A Sci-Fi Milestone Indeed
Review: It's incredible to see how a 1969 sci-fi movie has influenced audiences through the years. Fantastic how the visual effects used at that time are still great-looking until this day. Great plot, great performances...I mean, everything on this film is great. And we all thank only one person...the late great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick.
The way I see it, this wonderful movie best describes the development of man from the moment he is born, through his growth, until the time when he dies, thus completing some sort of life cycle. The "Dawn Of Man" segment is fantastic at conveying how man -here in the form of apes - evolves, developing certain skills, like killing for their food and staying alive. The Jupiter mission continues describing that evolution with man traveling in outer space. Finally we see how Commander David Bowman (Keir Dullea) travels through some sort of passageway to growing old and dying, and then being reborn. All those moments are well united thanks to the use of a monolyth as a unifying device. Many people would say I'm nuts, but this film is open to many interpretations, and that's where its magnificence lies.
Definitely Stanley Kubrick created the quintessential science-fiction classic that has undoubtedly become one of my favorite movies ever.
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: A DVD treatment for Kubrick's masterpiece.
Review: It's remarkable that a sci-fi film from the late 1960s can stand on it's on among big budget motion pictures over 30 years later. Indeed, most of today's attempts - Mission To Mars for one - fall flat with no real sense of wonder (even 2001's product placement is more sutle...love the Howard Johnson's aboard the space station). Imagine a movie maker trying to pitch a 2001-type film in today's brain dead sci-fi market. There are very little explosions. No alien dogfights. No loud rock music. No hordes of green-blooded aliens being slaughtered. No computer-generated effects (although effects that are still just as stunning as they were in 1968). Many people say it's a big long bore. They simply don't get it. And I feel sorry for them. If you're happy with what is in front of you, what you can see and touch, then that's fine. But many of us like to wonder about things. Meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything (was that Douglas Adams or Monty Python that I just quoted?). Odyssey does that to us. Instead of bored, we are mesmerized. When the early man starts beating on the pile of bones, when the astonauts inspect the monolith on the moon, when Dave Bowman takes the long trip across alien landscapes...we are captivated. I hope the day never comes when I understand everything presented in this movie. As for the DVD treatment, I was not disappointed. The picture is great for a film over 30 years old. The sound was also robust. Kubrick always knew how to use video and audio to create a desired effect in the viewer. The heavy breathing of the astronaut lets you know how agitated he is. The silence in the vacume of space. The high-pitched tones re-create the tension the characters are feeling in the viewer. There are many masterful camera shots that put Kubrick alongside Hitchcock. It's a delight for the eyes and the ears. The DVD includes an interesting press conferance from when the movie came out. Arthur C. Clarke proves how educated he is. The trailers are also nice (2001 and 2010). Here's a triple feature for you: 2001, 2010, and Contact! Buy the BIG DRUM of popcorn.
Rating: 
Summary: Very good, but calling it great is a stretch.
Review: 2001 is indeed a movie for the thinking person, which is something we could definitely use much more of. Many people complain about the slowness of many of the scenes, but fail to realize Kubrick did this for a reason. I do indeed find this movie intellectually stimulating to a large extent, but the problem I have is that Kubrick was a little too obscure for my taste. I would have respected this movie much more if he had actually made some clear points and not left so much to the imagination. For example, what in the world is going on with the whole alien concept? What is he trying to say? The answer to that is that he isn't trying to say anything according to interviews I have read. This, I believe, is a weak and "cop out" approach. Aside from the movies pitfalls, Kubrick has left us one of the very few movies that actually provoke thought.
Rating:
Summary: An immortal , and mythical film
Review: This film was the greatest work made by the master Stanley Kubrick.
This movie is built like a Symphony in four movements.
Introduction: the dawn of man; we watch in the first thirty minutes , two apes society ; with unsaid rules and a certain perception of the landness. When a monolyte suddenly appears, the sparkilng light of the intelligence enlights them. The aspects concerned with violence, sense of possesion, cruelty, and the taste for meat are visible shown; this step ahead in the evolution is one of the most powerful and extraordinary take ever filmed; the use of a bone as a lethal weapon is linked with the Second movement; we are now in XX century and we are witness of the purpose of the mission to Jupiter.
The journey would be the third movement; more specifically depicted as the Adagio , think in the Ninth Synphony's Beethoven; and this long sequence of the experience in the planet will carry us to the Fourth and last movement in which the relativity theory appears: this is the real meaning of the calelidoscopic journey beutifully depicted by a wide and dynamical spectral color frequency ; the concepts of time and space are broken and our hero; (after the epic struggle fight with HAL 900)will land in other dimension in a twilight zone; , a simmetry hall watching himself in a bed surrounded by a barroque style, with the monolyte as silent witness, in which he will reborn in that unforgettable ending sequence.
Inmediatly after Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick engaged literal and really with this tale of Arthur Clark, and five years were spent to get that challenging work.
And finally Kubrick shocked the whole world with a movie out of its time ; one legendary cult movie ; a real artistic and cinematographic winner; but the complex lines that support the film easily would surpass the limits of this review.
I've always thought since I watched it in 1968 , that Michael Collins in one of his countless thoughts when he turned around the dark side of the moon; the journey sequence certainly would be a leit motive when he faced this vertigo sensation in front the huge universe and the infiniteness sense he felt.
The musical employed were another genius touch; from Ligetti to Kachaturian and from Strauss Johann to Strauss Richard 's Zarathustra as a smart link motive between the first and second movement and the end sequence.
The special effects are worthy even today. The loneliness in which Dullea is involved when he talks with his family, is suggeted with a dark poetry , visual and musically speaking.
You don't have any excuse for not watching this major film.
A must in your DVD collection.
This film remained until 1972 as the major scifi achievement, but when Tarkovsky filmed Solaris , this one became in a second place.
|
