Not many films ask so much of an audience. You're never told a narrative arc explicitly. You're never told what the mission really is. You're shown it and it still makes no easy sense: temporal paradoxes, psychedelic journey, starchild, symbolism stacked into stunning imagery without any narrative intrusion... Not many film makers were (or are) so cavalier about breaking so many narrative and cinematic conventions, let alone capable of pulling it off. That's the singular genius of Kubrick, right there.
If you may mean few film-makers creating work in big budget mainstream and commercial art-house cinema are permitted by their backers to indulge their every whim I would agree with you. In any case Kubrick's work was uneven. Later in his career Federico Fellini was permitted to indulge his every whim. To my mind, as irritating as Fellini may have been to work with, his idiosyncratic flourishes were infinitely more consistent and successful than Stanley Kubrick's work. Putting aside the gee-whizz technological optics, "2001" wears its bloated budget and metaphysical pretensions on its sleeve. Moreover, "Eyes Wide Shut", which should have been the summation of a glorious feted career, ambitiously reaches for the grand statement on privileged modern man, but fizzes out in a mess of inconsequential detail.
the närräTiFF is (joust?) the pictüre$ v v suFFicient -:- ? maybee vve känt ´lööt like 4114 ´hüntäirce änymöhr ^?^ every dayz petal a vizzität wörLD v??v - jäjä ök. büt vv Fän in 78 mr myers missed ön the gräss... zinnemä just göt reFölötiöneiß´D vRv Föggy innüitt ^ ^ a super perp... evadink büllitz... did kubrick ´cöpy it in the $hin€ ^?^ (ever figuered the is special ´#$´ in assäult vNv??)
An anecdote...Kubrick apparently brought his mother to the premiere of 2001 in New York. He was from the Bronx, from Arthur Avenue.... Anyway, the story goes that Kubrick and his mother were sitting and watching the end of the film. As the Star-Child appeared, with Richard Strauss' music, Kubrick's mother looked at him and said, "Oh Stanley, really!"
The best film ever made in my opinion. I don't see it as 'cold', but as the closest thing possible in any artform to the human soul. Then again, it acts on many levels. But when you go really deep it's pure alchemy in its references and mythology. When you don't it's either boring or the way it is reviewed here by Mark. That's okay. It can be enjoyed or dismissed in many ways.
Hard to believe this was released in 1968, have actually seen the real bone in this film when I went to see a screening at the Cambridge arts picturehouse and watched a talk with stanley kubricks daughter afterwards.
Rohan Narain True. Hal is one of the most iconic characters in Kubricks filmography, he is not even human and he is like 40 minutes in the movie with very little dialogues. Creepy, intense, strange, claustrophobic
I am so grateful to have got the chance to see this on a big screen at Manchester Cornerhouse I can only watch it ever 4-5 years as the distance makes me revisit it completely. It is my favourite film by an astronomical distance and I don’t see that ever changing. It’s also the time of year to remember the extraordinary Doug Trumbull and his remarkable work on the effects. A work of astonishing genius, across the board
+Mohammad Nass Tarantino is often criticized for his indulgently movie lengths, often going on for close to 3 hours with simple scenes stretched out to their absolute limit. 2001 is also close to 3 hours and yet it manages to tell the story of the evolution of mankind from apes to sentient beings across millenniums in the same amount of time. Mark made a jab at Tarantino that 2001 goes through the entire evolution of mankind in the same time Quentin gets out of bed because even though 2001 is a slow movie as well, it travels through so many significant events whereas the overall plots of Tarantino's film might not go much of anywhere
I saw 2001 in CinemaScope and surround sound in a huge Art Deco cinema. I was 13 and was completely spellbound from start to finish. This unique, wholly unexpected experience inspired me to become a photographer for the rest of my life. Every time I watch 2001 it gets better and better. It reminds me of a world of wonderment we have lost forever.
I just saw 2001 during a limited run in 70mm format and the movie still looks gorgeous, even by today's standards. 2001 is possibly the greatest film ever made. There are only a few movies I consider "perfect", and 2001 is definitely on that short list.
I saw it on my own, when it first came out. It came to our local cinema (in the days when cinemas only had one massive screen) , I was 11 years old. Afternoon performance, so there were only about 10 other people in there. It started my love affair with film. What an experience, I still remember it 50 years latter.
In theory, I should hate this movie. It's incredibly slow-paced and the last 30 minutes of the film makes absolutely zero sense. However, this is one of the most compelling and intriguing movies I've ever seen. It's definitely an experience. I can't imagine what it's like experiencing this masterpiece on the big screen.
You have to interpret the entire film for yourself. If you looked at a piece of art and your main complaint was "It doesn't make any sense" then you're not fulfilling your role as an observer.
>the last 30 minutes of the film makes absolutely zero sense. I wouldn't say it's simple but people over think the ending. It's Bowman, with the assistance of the monolith (an alien being, technology,god?) transcending Bowman into something greater, into the other, a rebirth into the star child
MyHerpderp I see it as contrast and the next stage in relation to the beginning. In the beginning it depicts evolution with the monolith guiding mankind to using the first tool. It then contrasts this with a spinning bone to a spinning spaceship - progress. With all this in mind the ending is the monolith guiding mankind into the next stage of evolution. The ambiguity factor is the monolith (as you mentioned) is the film's strength; as no matter what you believe anyone can have the same experience from the film.
Definitely! Watching the last 20 minutes felt like an out of body experience to me and it was an incredible feeling! An experience in every sense of the word.
Olle Rönn I saw 2001 in a SF cinema in Lund in the autumn of 2017, and they were only showing it for that day, so I thought “I have to go and see it, because I have such admiration for Kubrick”. And I watched it, and although I had seen the film once before (which was on an iPad mind you), I was still blown away by this film and it just felt like it was pure cinema. I absolutely loved it!
That cut, from the bone club to the satellite (possibly a space nuke platform) is indeed amazing. However, in the opening of Powell and Pressburger’s A Canterbury Tale is a very similar looking cut forward over many centuries. A knight on pilgrimage to Canterbury releases a falcon, which soars, and becomes a Spitfire fighter in the middle of the Second World War. And I forget the name, but at least one member of the cinematography crew on A Canterbury Tale also worked on 2001.
Went and saw it at GFT a couple nights ago......Every time I've seen I've noticed something I hadn't before This time: Leonard Rossiter - never realized he was in it before ha This BFI season's been great, I unfortunately won't be able to see Blade Runner [one of my favourite films ever....and I've seen it on the big screen before] but I'll be seeing Alien this weekend, can't wait :)
I always thought 2010 was underrated as a sequel. Sure its not even close visually and thematically as 2001 but its still a great movie with great performances. 2001 is indeed demanding attention from its viewer with a broad message and vision that will live on and inspire generations to come, 2010 is more of a distant cousin that essentially captured or wanted to capture the zeitgeist of the 80s of nuclear war and issues of communism. I still think if lived up to 2001 since it moved the story forward, HAL and Bowman's journey in an interesting way. Also, great performances as expected by the cast.
I rewatched Silent Running recently and I think it's not even remotely on the same level as 2001. It's so clumsy and naive, it's lovely, but it's not very good overall.
On BBC2 tonight. I implore people to watch it but so many people need a narrative and a concise setting in the first 5 mins which you obviously don't get but this film set the standard for all Sci-fi films that followed.
My favourite film, probably because it was the first major film I saw that made a huge impact. A few years ago I went to see it again at the Royal Festival Hall with a live orchestra and choir providing the soundtrack. Some of the younger members of the audience who have been brought up on modern formula written, fast cut films, were starting to show signs of fatigue during some of the longer drawn out scenes, where Dave or Frank went out in the pod. At the end of the film I got really annoyed because when the titles came up, most of those same people started talking loudly or getting up to leave, even though a live orchestra were playing the end of the Blue Danube. Amazing experiencing it in that form and on a big screen again.
Critical attempts to dismiss '2001', and there are many including those listed below, don't quite ring true. Accusations of it being 'boring' are entirely subjective (I'm sure there's a new 'Expendables' film that'll tickle some of those people) whilst the critique of plot/lack of plot is daft - it is thematic (the development of intelligence and it's intrinsic relation to survival, anyone?) and, I know some of you hate to hear this, it is 'art' in the sense that is visually and aurally gorgeous. The worst put-downs I have come across seemingly always come from those who adore sci-fi films, perhaps because it is so oblique and unknowable... maybe it's because I don't care for sci-fi that I love this film. Either way: always gets a good argument started and that can only be a good thing. Guilt and Death.
"The computer is arguably the most sympathetic character" - yes, that was exactly the point - Kubrick stripped away the human characters' dialogue to make them seem less human than Hal.
Yes, and actually Hal's pleas for mercy when Bowman is turning him off is more affecting than the scene where Hal turns off the life support systems of the hibernating crewmembers.
I love cinema, and I'm saying this with the utmost respect for the film, but I didn't really enjoy 2001. I am a Sci-Fi fan, but I only watched this for the first time recently. It's a bit before my time. I invite people to reply to this and tell me I'm an idiot (politely) and tell me what I'm missing, and what you loved about it. I loved the cinematography, and the effects. I found myself exclaiming "how the hell did they shoot that?" several times while watching it. But I also found myself wondering why some scenes were taking so long to get through. I think the reason I was disappointed with it was because of how much attention the HAL segments got, I felt like the entire film was going to be about D. Bowman vs HAL 9000, but in actuality it was two scenes accounting for only 20 mins of the runtime. And then I had the common reaction of "what the hell just happened" for the last 40 minutes. Am I just too expectant of more structured narratives for my own good?
I can imagine it gets oversold as a film about HAL when that is only a part. Also your reaction to the final part is appropriate. Like Mark says it is a film you experience more than you understand. Just think of all the different sorts of films there are. Some are about relationships, friendship, marriages. Some about life experience; childhood, war, creativity. Some are are about the emotions of life, fear, love, angst. 2001 tries to be about the biggest, most grandiose theme possible - humanity and what it means to be a human. Many films are about that in a metaphorical way but this film is *literally* about those themes.
One obvious point not quite brought up enough in Mark's review: if you could see both ends of the screen at the same time when you viewed _2001_, you weren't sitting in the right place.
I love it but I can understand someone not liking it. First time I watched it I couldn't get to the end because of its slow pacing and lack of narrative, but my second time I fell in love with it and it completely gripped me. The cinematography is fantastic, HAL is both terrifying and sympathetic at the same time and the score is overwhelming. I adore the film.
Different strokes, brother.. We all have our own particular taste, which is a good thing.. If you give it another try, there are a couple things that I always get a kick out of when I watch the movie.. Sur, Hal is great, but I was always fascinated by the unseen forces driving the narrative.. Whomever left the dual monoliths, one on the moon and one on the earth.. The idea of knowing the time involved in completing their plan, from the first awakening to leaving the bonds of earth.. A 4 million year plan.. That always fascinates me.. One scene I have a different take on is when the monolith appears before the ape-men.. Most people believe a transference of knowledge happens between the monolith and the ape-men.. But I disagree.. I think the fact the monolith is forged, with right angles, and smooth, sparks the idea that it is not of nature.. It is nothing like anything they've known, and later that spark ignites the chain reaction.. Then protein is introduced into the diet, which makes them stronger.. They walk on 2 feet because they are carrying tool/weapons.. Then they take what they want, no matter the cost, sending them on the path to being human.. Then, we see what happens after 4 million years.. I get a kick out of that, and I don't mind ambiguous endings..
I agree! _Silent Running_ is far more satisfying of a cinematic story than _2001: A Space Odyssey._ What it lacked was the depth & impact of _2001_ which it never intended to rival anyway.
You didn't show Keir Dullea's performance in that scene. I don't think people appreciate what a good performance it was. He was playing an engineer. Bowman begins to get angry and then clamps down on it because it's pointless... then he thinks his way out of it.
Interstellar is one of my favorite movies and so I decided to watch 2001 since people tend to compare and contrast both of the films with each other. Besides 2001 being one of the most highly regarded films, I just figured I would love it as much as Interstellar, maybe even more... But boy was I wrong. Thought provoking and mindfucking movies are what I am in love with and I feel like 2001 didn't give me that mind-blowing conclusion. So many hardcore 2001 fans HATE Interstellar but I feel like it hit everything It should have. Maybe its just Kubrick's style? I don't know. It felt like it was lacking closure or something. Was Dave supposed to be (or the same race as) the alien that planted the first monolith on Earth? Definitely a clever movie with all of its symbols but hmm... maybe just not my cup of tea. :( I really wanted to love it.
zomber wombie 2001 is completely different, i know Nolan loves this film (it was like an inspiration) but they have nothing in common. 2001 is a very natural film, is more philosophical, it's way slower, it's very abstract, it's more an experience than a movie with characters, theres barely dialogues, it's more visual and the film tells the story from that point of view. I prefer this movie over Interstellar for sure but its a good film as well.
16. i rewatched it and liked it significantly more the 2nd time around. Maybe i was just in a bad mindset but regardless it's outstanding and waaaay ahead of its time
Arch Stanton maybe... I don't know though. It's not that I don't understand the movie it's just that it isn't cup of tea. What also ruined the movie are the pretentious people who talk about 2001 as if they are Kubrick. But yeah it wasn't horrible or anything, just tedious. And I know that was on purpose just not my cup of tea
@@groovyzombietingz4804 I'm in total agreement with you man. I found it impressive in one sense, and tedious in the other. It reminded me of listening to a classical music masterpiece, in that I for sure can appreciate that it's a work of art, but it just isn't my cup of tea.
Oh Mark, you gave the most cliche-laden critique of 2001's supposed flaws -- that HAL is more human than the humans; I think MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, that was Kubrick's point -- and I'm aware that my "apologia" is ALSO a cliche. But, the observation/supposition that HAL is the most human character neglects that Dave starts reacting with much more human emotive responses starting with his trapped-in-the-pod verbal confrontation with HAL, and really awakening in his face during the Stargate sequence. In defeating HAL with emotive HUMAN wiles, Dave qualified to meet his maker and ascend in the form of the Starchild, to a level not only beyond human 1.0 but way beyond HAL. But I like Mark -- he's always very animated in his critiques, not dry or cold -- and it strikes me that most critiques of 2001 of similar sentiment to Mark's, have been by similarly emotive "animated" personalities. Reminds me of a UA-cam video by a real 30ish astronomer/astrophysicist (can't remember his name) who said he "respects" 2001 but that "it's SOOOOO boring" through most of it's running time: what, did he expect that realistic space travel would be depicted as in Star Trek? I personally think that the fact that 2001's viewing time feels LONGER than it is -- usually a fatal cinematic flaw -- is one of Kubrick's greatest achievements: HOW ELSE to depict "deep time" on a cosmic scale but with unflinching SLOWNESS of event-progression...makes you truly feel you've been on an odyssey!
Guess I'll never get to see this in 70mm :(, so I guess if this DCP comes around, I'll have to do. Alas, all of celluloid screenings, lost to me. It sounds like this is doing the rounds in the UK though, wonder if it'll come to the US? The new DCP, I mean
I remember the BBC broadcast Mark mentioned there. Was thinking WTF is this? Apparently Kubrick had it on too and was not a happy bunny. Could be bullshit. Don't know.
It was the first time BBC had showed "2001" (it was in 1981 or 1982). I actually still have my VHS recording of that broadcast. The idea to fill the black parts of the black letterbox format sections with stars was a totally boneheaded idea - and there were loads of letters of complaint to the BBC magazine "Radio Times" a few weeks later. The BBC actually apologised and admitted it had been an error of judgement.
At first couldn't get in to it. But the second time I realized how amazing it was with their themes of evolution, aliens, robots, ai, space, god, humanity. Sometimes it loses me. But those quiet moments with the ships and traveling through Jupiter at the end are an amazing experience.
It would be nice if Mark Kermode would have talked about my Great Uncle as well - www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b9f03f5c8 - George Pollock was Special Effect Coordinator on 2001 (but uncredited). It wasn't all down to Douglas Trumbull.
Which central thesis would that be? The film is about the dehumanization of humans due to technology/technical progress. The fact that HAL is an emotional character while most of the human beings are so cold and restrained only makes that theme even more appropriate. The humans have become so cold, analytical and so emotionally unresponsive that even a freaking computer is more sympathetic. That's (imo) just wonderfully twisted social commentary, you could almost say that shows Kubrick's (often) dark sense of humour. Of course at the same time it shows the dangers of a (sentient) A.I.
Tom Waits To my view the unresolved question of why HAL sabotaged the mission raises more intriguing possibilities than Dave Bowman's journey through the Stargate. Given the latter is meant to be the movie's thematic spine, that strikes me as a minor flaw. Also there is a fine line between ambiguity and simply leaving a bunch of loose ends saying, I dunno, you figure it out.
@@andrewpragasam i infer the hal and the astronauts confrontation from the opening battle between the two apemen tribes over water pool resource. except the waterpool for hal is the next step in survival for conscience life forms. kubrick uses knowledge as a symbol of superiority . hal believes itself more knowledgeable than the astronauts? thats my opinion on basically kubricks spiritual belief as a film. difficult film.a work of beautiful faith.
They showed 2001 in the Arts Centre a few months before this recent re-issue. It was my 3rd viewing and, while I still can't really stand it for its bloated sense of self-importance, it was an incredible experience to see those visuals on a big screen. As much as I hate the sequence in principle, Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite is breathtaking to watch.
I saw 2001 this afternoon (12th or so time, 3rd on big screen). If I had to sum it up in one word I would pick “seeing”. In my opinion it is a meditation on (and also perhaps a love letter to) our sense of sight. It asks what it means to see an object or landscape and feel inspired or changed by it.
I did my Uni dissertation on 2001 - I looked at the visual metaphor and images of life within the film, and also about the narrative element. If you want any advice/ideas feel free to PM me.
kly45 That's what I was hoping to do, however, I don't think the tutors advocate merging the questions because they suspect it might ruin the coherence of the essay.
Kermode is not much older than me and I can sympathize with his memories of the hippy sentimentality of Silent Running but it is dated in effects and story, glib in story not at all profound in the same way that 2001 will always will be. Also far more damning the effects are not as good as 2001. 2001 isn't dated in effect Trumbull learnt from Kubrick, the patience of the process to use stills and ensure that space is black is something that Kubrick insisted upon and you don't see in Silent running AFAIR
2001 re-release was announced in March. That's a good 8 months before Interstellar came out. I don't think Interstellar had anything to do with this decision.
PauLtus B What does that have to do with anything? It's not just 2001, several other classic films are also being re-released in the UK. I don't get how Interstellar has anything to do with these re-releases.
Nameless Paladin I didn't know that. First thing I saw was 2001 rerelease around the release of Intersteller, didn't seem like a coincedence. But it is all sci fi right?
I want to become a film director when I'm older and I don't understand all of the love for this film. I really like watching movies, but when I saw this I thought it sucked. There is hardly a story and that is what I look for in a movie.
Director Stanley Kubrick delivers one of the most iconic sci-fi films in history as the film’s masterfully acted, stylish, effective, terrifically scored & is one of the best films I’ve seen. (100%) (5/5 stars) (positive)
What a spoiler that was.They showed half the dialog from the film.The cinematography and the effects are superb and can stand up to the modern films but the lack of any story and dialog makes the film incredibly boring.If you like watching random things for 2 and a half hours without a word, then you will like that film.
I urge everyone to re visit this masterpiece with this underlying meaning in their mind that I am about to share. Go watch this film knowing the true meaning hidden underneath the surface so well, it has gone over our heads for over 40 years. The monolith is the cinema screen itself. At the end of the film Dave is met with the terrifying realization that he is a character in a film.
Don't let anyone make you think you're a moron because the film didn't work for you. People get SO bent out of shape when you don't like something as universally hailed as this film. It's my favourite film, but if one of my friends says it put them to sleep, I don't argue with them or try to convert them. It's like saying, "You don't like Mahler's 10th Symphony? Sorry, but get the Hell out of here, loser!" :)
Anyone favouring the Hippy-dippy 'Silent Running' over the masterpiece '2001- A Space Odyssey' doesn't know what he is talking about. Which film looks and feels dated now?
2001: seminal, inspiring, a masterpiece. Also one of the most boring films I’ve ever tried to watch. I say ‘tried’ because I’ve now made three attempts to watch it and failed to do it without skipping forward. Not that these things are mutually exclusive - great films can be boring i suppose.
For you to call this a masterpiece, then in your next breath say it`s boring is both...................... that some people at times indulge in............................granted, but that goes without saying.
If you have any appreciation for quality filmmaking then this should be one of the farthest things from 'boring' ever. Then again it's nothing compared to Transformers 7 Rise of the Dawn of the Fall of the Extinction of the Fallen though
Tom A it’s a logical fallacy to imply that only people with good taste (presumably like you) can appreciate this film. I’m sorry (not sorry really) but in my opinion it’s boring. I can understand why people love it but I don’t. It’s also another logical fallacy to imply that anyone who doesn’t like this film must like really terrible films. Try and think about what you are saying before you reply.
@@kevinsoutham Fair enough, I've heard many people call it boring but for me the opposite kind of film (eg one with really fast cutting that allows you no time to see or appreciate the image) is what I'd call boring
Overrated film. Great work form Douglas Trumbull though. It makes absolutely no sense. I actually like slow paced movies if they make any sense at all, but 2001 is probably the most boring movie ever made. I fall asleep every single time.
Unless you're a special effects buff or just watch the plot with HAL 9000, 2001 A Space Odyssey is a BORING film with no plot whatsoever. I don't know why people like this film, it's a terrible film. People desperately want this film to be good by coming up with all kinds of interpretation but there's very little to get from this film. Calling it a masterpiece is over praising the film again the only the only thing genius about it was the special effects and nothing else.
Memoquin If by that you mean people add their ideas to the film in a desperate attempt to make the film good . People desperately want this film to be something it clearly isn't should it receive some praise ?, Sure the special effects are great and the plot of HAL 9000 is well done, but the film as whole is horrid. Its almost as if the film concentrates so much on special effects they forgot about the plot of the film.
oh and the boring argument is an entirely subjective one, unless you can provide a reason for the boringness (which in my view you haven't) you're point holds no water. The plot is slow and oblique but it is there, the links between all the monoliths and the characters of HAL, Bowman and the other guys on the ship for me hold the plot going and even if they didn't they don't need to, in my view a brilliant film doesn't even need a plot, the non-verbal documentaries of Godfrey Reggio and the like as well as some of Herzog's early stuff and Fellini's Satyricon show, basically I feel the plot's adequate to support the film, even a good plot and even if you disagree I would say that a film needs no plot to be great, a masterpiece or even a near perfect film.
Wilf Shaw oh and the "it's not boring" argument is an entirely subjective one, unless you can provide a reason for the why it isn't boring (which in my view you haven't) your point holds no water.
I think its a masterpiece and still the best scifi movie ever made. I freely admit that the dawn of man and him travelling through the monolith scenes that bookend the film are a probably too long for my tastes but that doesn't take much away from the movies huge ideals and amazing special effects. No story line? its only only about the evolution of man and the battle between technology and man
If you say the film doesnt have any plot i guess you didnt get it. It's just that easy. And from reading your comments I think inception would be a better film for you or maybe Transformers. There you will be spoon-fed with exposition unitl the climactic explosion-porn ending.
![Kubrick Season - Christopher Nolan Introduces 2001: A Space Odyssey [2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kbbkHW0wR3M/mqdefault.jpg)
Count on Mark Kermode to talk more about Douglas Trumbull than Stanley Kubrick.
Not many films ask so much of an audience. You're never told a narrative arc explicitly. You're never told what the mission really is. You're shown it and it still makes no easy sense: temporal paradoxes, psychedelic journey, starchild, symbolism stacked into stunning imagery without any narrative intrusion... Not many film makers were (or are) so cavalier about breaking so many narrative and cinematic conventions, let alone capable of pulling it off. That's the singular genius of Kubrick, right there.
Sounds like Micheal Bay
If you may mean few film-makers creating work in big budget mainstream and commercial art-house cinema are permitted by their backers to indulge their every whim I would agree with you. In any case Kubrick's work was uneven.
Later in his career Federico Fellini was permitted to indulge his every whim. To my mind, as irritating as Fellini may have been to work with, his idiosyncratic flourishes were infinitely more consistent and successful than Stanley Kubrick's work. Putting aside the gee-whizz technological optics, "2001" wears its bloated budget and metaphysical pretensions on its sleeve. Moreover, "Eyes Wide Shut", which should have been the summation of a glorious feted career, ambitiously reaches for the grand statement on privileged modern man, but fizzes out in a mess of inconsequential detail.
the närräTiFF is (joust?) the pictüre$ v v suFFicient -:- ?
maybee vve känt ´lööt like 4114 ´hüntäirce änymöhr ^?^
every dayz petal a vizzität wörLD v??v - jäjä ök. büt vv Fän in 78 mr myers missed ön the gräss... zinnemä just göt reFölötiöneiß´D vRv Föggy innüitt ^ ^
a super perp... evadink büllitz... did kubrick ´cöpy it in the $hin€ ^?^ (ever figuered the is special ´#$´ in assäult vNv??)
'2001: A Space Odyssey' is not just a great film... It's one of the greatest art pieces of all time.
What a meaningless statement.
***** ... Explain?
it's nothing compared to Caddy Shack
Hyperbole does tend to cheapen great cinema. And that’s what it is “great cinema”.
Yes Yes, and Yes, it's still a Masterpiece and always will be.
An anecdote...Kubrick apparently brought his mother to the premiere of 2001 in New York. He was from the Bronx, from Arthur Avenue.... Anyway, the story goes that Kubrick and his mother were sitting and watching the end of the film. As the Star-Child appeared, with Richard Strauss' music, Kubrick's mother looked at him and said, "Oh Stanley, really!"
The best film ever made in my opinion. I don't see it as 'cold', but as the closest thing possible in any artform to the human soul.
Then again, it acts on many levels. But when you go really deep it's pure alchemy in its references and mythology. When you don't it's either boring or the way it is reviewed here by Mark. That's okay. It can be enjoyed or dismissed in many ways.
Hard to believe this was released in 1968, have actually seen the real bone in this film when I went to see a screening at the Cambridge arts picturehouse and watched a talk with stanley kubricks daughter afterwards.
I've watched a lot of horror movies in my life. No single character has scared me to my bones as much as HAL9000.
Rohan Narain True. Hal is one of the most iconic characters in Kubricks filmography, he is not even human and he is like 40 minutes in the movie with very little dialogues. Creepy, intense, strange, claustrophobic
I found the ageing sequence at the end frightening too.
@@TheVibeDetective I found it so different with how how there is very little dialogue throughout
I am so grateful to have got the chance to see this on a big screen at Manchester Cornerhouse
I can only watch it ever 4-5 years as the distance makes me revisit it completely. It is my favourite film by an astronomical distance and I don’t see that ever changing.
It’s also the time of year to remember the extraordinary Doug Trumbull and his remarkable work on the effects.
A work of astonishing genius, across the board
That Quentin Tarantino reference came out of nowhere lol - Kermode makes Gordon Ramsayesque analogies
The kind of time Quintin Tarantino wouldn't get out of his bedroom. LMAO!
Can you explain this pun to me? :$
+Mohammad Nass Tarantino is often criticized for his indulgently movie lengths, often going on for close to 3 hours with simple scenes stretched out to their absolute limit. 2001 is also close to 3 hours and yet it manages to tell the story of the evolution of mankind from apes to sentient beings across millenniums in the same amount of time. Mark made a jab at Tarantino that 2001 goes through the entire evolution of mankind in the same time Quentin gets out of bed because even though 2001 is a slow movie as well, it travels through so many significant events whereas the overall plots of Tarantino's film might not go much of anywhere
I saw 2001 in CinemaScope and surround sound in a huge Art Deco cinema. I was 13 and was completely spellbound from start to finish. This unique, wholly unexpected experience inspired me to become a photographer for the rest of my life. Every time I watch 2001 it gets better and better. It reminds me of a world of wonderment we have lost forever.
I just saw 2001 during a limited run in 70mm format and the movie still looks gorgeous, even by today's standards. 2001 is possibly the greatest film ever made. There are only a few movies I consider "perfect", and 2001 is definitely on that short list.
And the champ starring Jon Voight and star wars new hope. And batman begins are perfect for me
I saw it on my own, when it first came out. It came to our local cinema (in the days when cinemas only had one massive screen) , I was 11 years old. Afternoon performance, so there were only about 10 other people in there. It started my love affair with film. What an experience, I still remember it 50 years latter.
There's something about the ending that's so strange and unsettling it haunts you for a long time after.
In theory, I should hate this movie. It's incredibly slow-paced and the last 30 minutes of the film makes absolutely zero sense. However, this is one of the most compelling and intriguing movies I've ever seen. It's definitely an experience. I can't imagine what it's like experiencing this masterpiece on the big screen.
You have to interpret the entire film for yourself. If you looked at a piece of art and your main complaint was "It doesn't make any sense" then you're not fulfilling your role as an observer.
>the last 30 minutes of the film makes absolutely zero sense.
I wouldn't say it's simple but people over think the ending. It's Bowman, with the assistance of the monolith (an alien being, technology,god?) transcending Bowman into something greater, into the other, a rebirth into the star child
MyHerpderp I see it as contrast and the next stage in relation to the beginning. In the beginning it depicts evolution with the monolith guiding mankind to using the first tool. It then contrasts this with a spinning bone to a spinning spaceship - progress. With all this in mind the ending is the monolith guiding mankind into the next stage of evolution. The ambiguity factor is the monolith (as you mentioned) is the film's strength; as no matter what you believe anyone can have the same experience from the film.
Definitely! Watching the last 20 minutes felt like an out of body experience to me and it was an incredible feeling! An experience in every sense of the word.
Check William Cooper. He does explain the movie.
Seeing it on Sunday, bloody hell I'm pumped, my favorite film of all time.
What a great reviewer you are, Sir. Keep up the good work!!
"2001 is great but I love silent running more"
"The shining is great but I love the exorcist more"
Wish it would be shown in Sweden. This movie is one of the more important ones in cinema history.
Olle Rönn I saw 2001 in a SF cinema in Lund in the autumn of 2017, and they were only showing it for that day, so I thought “I have to go and see it, because I have such admiration for Kubrick”. And I watched it, and although I had seen the film once before (which was on an iPad mind you), I was still blown away by this film and it just felt like it was pure cinema. I absolutely loved it!
That cut, from the bone club to the satellite (possibly a space nuke platform) is indeed amazing.
However, in the opening of Powell and Pressburger’s A Canterbury Tale is a very similar looking cut forward over many centuries. A knight on pilgrimage to Canterbury releases a falcon, which soars, and becomes a Spitfire fighter in the middle of the Second World War.
And I forget the name, but at least one member of the cinematography crew on A Canterbury Tale also worked on 2001.
My Mam and Dad hated it when i showed it to them.... I've lost faith in humanity
Went and saw it at GFT a couple nights ago......Every time I've seen I've noticed something I hadn't before
This time: Leonard Rossiter - never realized he was in it before ha
This BFI season's been great, I unfortunately won't be able to see Blade Runner [one of my favourite films ever....and I've seen it on the big screen before] but I'll be seeing Alien this weekend, can't wait
:)
I always thought 2010 was underrated as a sequel. Sure its not even close visually and thematically as 2001 but its still a great movie with great performances. 2001 is indeed demanding attention from its viewer with a broad message and vision that will live on and inspire generations to come, 2010 is more of a distant cousin that essentially captured or wanted to capture the zeitgeist of the 80s of nuclear war and issues of communism. I still think if lived up to 2001 since it moved the story forward, HAL and Bowman's journey in an interesting way. Also, great performances as expected by the cast.
I've had a similar opinion of 2010 over the years which I've always enjoyed. It would be interesting to hear what Mark Kermode thinks about that film.
Certificate U for a film more disturbing than a lot of horror films. Love it.
I rewatched Silent Running recently and I think it's not even remotely on the same level as 2001. It's so clumsy and naive, it's lovely, but it's not very good overall.
I love how this is the movie Mark Kermode compares every bad movie with.
Utkarsh Raj It writes the book on how to make a long film.
On BBC2 tonight. I implore people to watch it but so many people need a narrative and a concise setting in the first 5 mins which you obviously don't get but this film set the standard for all Sci-fi films that followed.
One of my favorite movies and one of the greatest movies ever made.
My favourite film, probably because it was the first major film I saw that made a huge impact.
A few years ago I went to see it again at the Royal Festival Hall with a live orchestra and choir providing the soundtrack. Some of the younger members of the audience who have been brought up on modern formula written, fast cut films, were starting to show signs of fatigue during some of the longer drawn out scenes, where Dave or Frank went out in the pod.
At the end of the film I got really annoyed because when the titles came up, most of those same people started talking loudly or getting up to leave, even though a live orchestra were playing the end of the Blue Danube.
Amazing experiencing it in that form and on a big screen again.
Critical attempts to dismiss '2001', and there are many including those listed below, don't quite ring true. Accusations of it being 'boring' are entirely subjective (I'm sure there's a new 'Expendables' film that'll tickle some of those people) whilst the critique of plot/lack of plot is daft - it is thematic (the development of intelligence and it's intrinsic relation to survival, anyone?) and, I know some of you hate to hear this, it is 'art' in the sense that is visually and aurally gorgeous. The worst put-downs I have come across seemingly always come from those who adore sci-fi films, perhaps because it is so oblique and unknowable... maybe it's because I don't care for sci-fi that I love this film. Either way: always gets a good argument started and that can only be a good thing. Guilt and Death.
"The computer is arguably the most sympathetic character" - yes, that was exactly the point - Kubrick stripped away the human characters' dialogue to make them seem less human than Hal.
Yes, and actually Hal's pleas for mercy when Bowman is turning him off is more affecting than the scene where Hal turns off the life support systems of the hibernating crewmembers.
I love cinema, and I'm saying this with the utmost respect for the film, but I didn't really enjoy 2001. I am a Sci-Fi fan, but I only watched this for the first time recently. It's a bit before my time. I invite people to reply to this and tell me I'm an idiot (politely) and tell me what I'm missing, and what you loved about it.
I loved the cinematography, and the effects. I found myself exclaiming "how the hell did they shoot that?" several times while watching it. But I also found myself wondering why some scenes were taking so long to get through. I think the reason I was disappointed with it was because of how much attention the HAL segments got, I felt like the entire film was going to be about D. Bowman vs HAL 9000, but in actuality it was two scenes accounting for only 20 mins of the runtime. And then I had the common reaction of "what the hell just happened" for the last 40 minutes.
Am I just too expectant of more structured narratives for my own good?
I can imagine it gets oversold as a film about HAL when that is only a part. Also your reaction to the final part is appropriate. Like Mark says it is a film you experience more than you understand.
Just think of all the different sorts of films there are. Some are about relationships, friendship, marriages. Some about life experience; childhood, war, creativity. Some are are about the emotions of life, fear, love, angst. 2001 tries to be about the biggest, most grandiose theme possible - humanity and what it means to be a human. Many films are about that in a metaphorical way but this film is *literally* about those themes.
One obvious point not quite brought up enough in Mark's review:
if you could see both ends of the screen at the same time when you viewed _2001_, you weren't sitting in the right place.
I love it but I can understand someone not liking it. First time I watched it I couldn't get to the end because of its slow pacing and lack of narrative, but my second time I fell in love with it and it completely gripped me. The cinematography is fantastic, HAL is both terrifying and sympathetic at the same time and the score is overwhelming. I adore the film.
"I love cinema", "I loved the cinematography", "I didn't really enjoy" That doesn't make much sense?
Different strokes, brother.. We all have our own particular taste, which is a good thing.. If you give it another try, there are a couple things that I always get a kick out of when I watch the movie.. Sur, Hal is great, but I was always fascinated by the unseen forces driving the narrative.. Whomever left the dual monoliths, one on the moon and one on the earth.. The idea of knowing the time involved in completing their plan, from the first awakening to leaving the bonds of earth.. A 4 million year plan.. That always fascinates me..
One scene I have a different take on is when the monolith appears before the ape-men.. Most people believe a transference of knowledge happens between the monolith and the ape-men.. But I disagree.. I think the fact the monolith is forged, with right angles, and smooth, sparks the idea that it is not of nature.. It is nothing like anything they've known, and later that spark ignites the chain reaction.. Then protein is introduced into the diet, which makes them stronger.. They walk on 2 feet because they are carrying tool/weapons.. Then they take what they want, no matter the cost, sending them on the path to being human.. Then, we see what happens after 4 million years.. I get a kick out of that, and I don't mind ambiguous endings..
Come on Mark. Kubrick is king when it comes to cinema. SAY HIS NAME!
No, Hitchcock is King.
Is it true that when the screen is in complete blackness, it's the audience staring at the rectangular monolith?
I agree! _Silent Running_ is far more satisfying of a cinematic story than _2001: A Space Odyssey._ What it lacked was the depth & impact of _2001_ which it never intended to rival anyway.
I saw the BBC transmission with the added strips of stars, which was a terrible idea and I always wondered what was going on with the print.
It literally changed my life after I watched it. Possibly the greatest film of all time along with Citizen Kane.
How?
You didn't show Keir Dullea's performance in that scene. I don't think people appreciate what a good performance it was. He was playing an engineer. Bowman begins to get angry and then clamps down on it because it's pointless... then he thinks his way out of it.
Pretty sure this is the one I went to. It was my first time seeing it and it blew me away.
Interstellar is one of my favorite movies and so I decided to watch 2001 since people tend to compare and contrast both of the films with each other. Besides 2001 being one of the most highly regarded films, I just figured I would love it as much as Interstellar, maybe even more... But boy was I wrong. Thought provoking and mindfucking movies are what I am in love with and I feel like 2001 didn't give me that mind-blowing conclusion. So many hardcore 2001 fans HATE Interstellar but I feel like it hit everything It should have. Maybe its just Kubrick's style? I don't know. It felt like it was lacking closure or something. Was Dave supposed to be (or the same race as) the alien that planted the first monolith on Earth? Definitely a clever movie with all of its symbols but hmm... maybe just not my cup of tea. :( I really wanted to love it.
zomber wombie 2001 is completely different, i know Nolan loves this film (it was like an inspiration) but they have nothing in common.
2001 is a very natural film, is more philosophical, it's way slower, it's very abstract, it's more an experience than a movie with characters, theres barely dialogues, it's more visual and the film tells the story from that point of view. I prefer this movie over Interstellar for sure but its a good film as well.
zomber wombie Just curiosity... How old are you?
16. i rewatched it and liked it significantly more the 2nd time around. Maybe i was just in a bad mindset but regardless it's outstanding and waaaay ahead of its time
Arch Stanton maybe... I don't know though. It's not that I don't understand the movie it's just that it isn't cup of tea. What also ruined the movie are the pretentious people who talk about 2001 as if they are Kubrick. But yeah it wasn't horrible or anything, just tedious. And I know that was on purpose just not my cup of tea
@@groovyzombietingz4804 I'm in total agreement with you man. I found it impressive in one sense, and tedious in the other. It reminded me of listening to a classical music masterpiece, in that I for sure can appreciate that it's a work of art, but it just isn't my cup of tea.
Saw it in 4K in 2019 and one of my favourite movies by Stanley Kubrick
Oh Mark, you gave the most cliche-laden critique of 2001's supposed flaws -- that HAL is more human than the humans; I think MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, that was Kubrick's point -- and I'm aware that my "apologia" is ALSO a cliche. But, the observation/supposition that HAL is the most human character neglects that Dave starts reacting with much more human emotive responses starting with his trapped-in-the-pod verbal confrontation with HAL, and really awakening in his face during the Stargate sequence. In defeating HAL with emotive HUMAN wiles, Dave qualified to meet his maker and ascend in the form of the Starchild, to a level not only beyond human 1.0 but way beyond HAL.
But I like Mark -- he's always very animated in his critiques, not dry or cold -- and it strikes me that most critiques of 2001 of similar sentiment to Mark's, have been by similarly emotive "animated" personalities. Reminds me of a UA-cam video by a real 30ish astronomer/astrophysicist (can't remember his name) who said he "respects" 2001 but that "it's SOOOOO boring" through most of it's running time: what, did he expect that realistic space travel would be depicted as in Star Trek? I personally think that the fact that 2001's viewing time feels LONGER than it is -- usually a fatal cinematic flaw -- is one of Kubrick's greatest achievements: HOW ELSE to depict "deep time" on a cosmic scale but with unflinching SLOWNESS of event-progression...makes you truly feel you've been on an odyssey!
IMHO the most important movie of all times... Too cinema beyond its time and still so
This is not a film. It's an experience. Brilliant.
Films are experiences
Coming of age when you finally understand enjoy this movie to its fullest.
Look up:
Hidden Meaning of the Monolith Revealed
by
Collative Learning's Rob Ager
Of course, with a digital recording, slowing down Daisy would not have lowered the pitch. Swing and a miss on that plot point.
Guess I'll never get to see this in 70mm :(, so I guess if this DCP comes around, I'll have to do. Alas, all of celluloid screenings, lost to me. It sounds like this is doing the rounds in the UK though, wonder if it'll come to the US? The new DCP, I mean
I remember the BBC broadcast Mark mentioned there. Was thinking WTF is this? Apparently Kubrick had it on too and was not a happy bunny. Could be bullshit. Don't know.
It was the first time BBC had showed "2001" (it was in 1981 or 1982). I actually still have my VHS recording of that broadcast. The idea to fill the black parts of the black letterbox format sections with stars was a totally boneheaded idea - and there were loads of letters of complaint to the BBC magazine "Radio Times" a few weeks later. The BBC actually apologised and admitted it had been an error of judgement.
Incredible film.
We need more Kubrick's in the world at the moment.
At first couldn't get in to it. But the second time I realized how amazing it was with their themes of evolution, aliens, robots, ai, space, god, humanity. Sometimes it loses me. But those quiet moments with the ships and traveling through Jupiter at the end are an amazing experience.
the division of weather this is a masterpiece is similar to under the skin
I wonder if John Carpenters Dark Star was a comedic homage to this film? Just a thought
I loved Silent Running but to compare that to 2001 is totally unrealistic. 2001 is one of the GREAT movies.
"Work of art." Judging from the comments, that's the most apt and best description. The interpretations are legion...
It would be nice if Mark Kermode would have talked about my Great Uncle as well - www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b9f03f5c8 - George Pollock was Special Effect Coordinator on 2001 (but uncredited). It wasn't all down to Douglas Trumbull.
You don't have to like this film. But if you have any brains at all you will see that it's a work of genius.
I can't open the doors until you pay the Ransom
My favourite film 2001 a space odyssey and also the original blade runner too
That the most compelling and sympathetic character is a machine rather scuppers the film's central thesis.
Which central thesis would that be? The film is about the dehumanization of humans due to technology/technical progress. The fact that HAL is an emotional character while most of the human beings are so cold and restrained only makes that theme even more appropriate. The humans have become so cold, analytical and so emotionally unresponsive that even a freaking computer is more sympathetic. That's (imo) just wonderfully twisted social commentary, you could almost say that shows Kubrick's (often) dark sense of humour. Of course at the same time it shows the dangers of a (sentient) A.I.
Tom Waits To my view the unresolved question of why HAL sabotaged the mission raises more intriguing possibilities than Dave Bowman's journey through the Stargate. Given the latter is meant to be the movie's thematic spine, that strikes me as a minor flaw. Also there is a fine line between ambiguity and simply leaving a bunch of loose ends saying, I dunno, you figure it out.
@@andrewpragasam i infer the hal and the astronauts confrontation from the opening battle between the two apemen tribes over water pool resource. except the waterpool for hal is the next step in survival for conscience life forms. kubrick uses knowledge as a symbol of superiority . hal believes itself more knowledgeable than the astronauts? thats my opinion on basically kubricks spiritual belief as a film. difficult film.a work of beautiful faith.
Kermode + 2001 = :-)
isn't that clip a spoiler for those that haven't seen it? I know loads of people clearly have, but there will be those that haven't,
all my hard drive icons are HAL
They showed 2001 in the Arts Centre a few months before this recent re-issue. It was my 3rd viewing and, while I still can't really stand it for its bloated sense of self-importance, it was an incredible experience to see those visuals on a big screen. As much as I hate the sequence in principle, Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite is breathtaking to watch.
I saw 2001 this afternoon (12th or so time, 3rd on big screen). If I had to sum it up in one word I would pick “seeing”. In my opinion it is a meditation on (and also perhaps a love letter to) our sense of sight. It asks what it means to see an object or landscape and feel inspired or changed by it.
That closing scene - good God. Just remarkable.
I'm doing 2001 for my uni essay right now :D Not sure whether to focus on semiology/myths or audience reception.
whichever will get you the biggest bang
I did my Uni dissertation on 2001 - I looked at the visual metaphor and images of life within the film, and also about the narrative element. If you want any advice/ideas feel free to PM me.
Depends what you think will keep your interest more. Maybe you could tie them together - semiology and the audience reception of that semiology?
kly45 That's what I was hoping to do, however, I don't think the tutors advocate merging the questions because they suspect it might ruin the coherence of the essay.
chrisjhart221138 Thanks! Will do
I love the film
HAL playing a calmer more duplitious Paul Lynde...
Kermode is not much older than me and I can sympathize with his memories of the hippy sentimentality of Silent Running but it is dated in effects and story, glib in story not at all profound in the same way that 2001 will always will be. Also far more damning the effects are not as good as 2001. 2001 isn't dated in effect Trumbull learnt from Kubrick, the patience of the process to use stills and ensure that space is black is something that Kubrick insisted upon and you don't see in Silent running AFAIR
Thanks to Interstellar we're now getting these re-releases. Thank you to Chris Nolan then.
2001 re-release was announced in March. That's a good 8 months before Interstellar came out. I don't think Interstellar had anything to do with this decision.
Oh dear.
Nameless Paladin You could be right but it would surprise me. And in March they also knew when Interstellar was coming out so...
PauLtus B What does that have to do with anything? It's not just 2001, several other classic films are also being re-released in the UK. I don't get how Interstellar has anything to do with these re-releases.
Nameless Paladin I didn't know that. First thing I saw was 2001 rerelease around the release of Intersteller, didn't seem like a coincedence. But it is all sci fi right?
Humanity spreads into space like a toxic spill
And there goes another pointless jab at Quentin Tarantino. Real smooth Mark.
I want to become a film director when I'm older and I don't understand all of the love for this film. I really like watching movies, but when I saw this I thought it sucked. There is hardly a story and that is what I look for in a movie.
you should watch more kubrick films. his films tell more from what you see not what you hear.
Director Stanley Kubrick delivers one of the most iconic sci-fi films in history as the film’s masterfully acted, stylish, effective, terrifically scored & is one of the best films I’ve seen. (100%) (5/5 stars) (positive)
What a spoiler that was.They showed half the dialog from the film.The cinematography and the effects are superb and can stand up to the modern films but the lack of any story and dialog makes the film incredibly boring.If you like watching random things for 2 and a half hours without a word, then you will like that film.
HAL = IBM + 1
Good tempo, best cinematic experience ever.
Silent running is good but it ain’t that that good
Experience
I urge everyone to re visit this masterpiece with this underlying meaning in their mind that I am about to share.
Go watch this film knowing the true meaning hidden underneath the surface so well, it has gone over our heads for over 40 years.
The monolith is the cinema screen itself.
At the end of the film Dave is met with the terrifying realization that he is a character in a film.
Idiots hate this movie. Geniuses love it. Average People are indifferent. So what are you?
Greatest film ever
every dayz petal a vizzität wörLD v??v
Silent Running? He's joking,right?
I never got this movie and felt so bored watching it.
Don't let anyone make you think you're a moron because the film didn't work for you. People get SO bent out of shape when you don't like something as universally hailed as this film. It's my favourite film, but if one of my friends says it put them to sleep, I don't argue with them or try to convert them.
It's like saying, "You don't like Mahler's 10th Symphony? Sorry, but get the Hell out of here, loser!" :)
well said.
that's understandable.
Praise the Lord! I find it slow, dull and pretentious. Second worst film ever behind The Shining.
Anyone favouring the Hippy-dippy 'Silent Running' over the masterpiece '2001- A Space Odyssey' doesn't know what he is talking about. Which film looks and feels dated now?
2001... the most bring thing I have ever seen... and believe me, I once had to watch Jean-Luc Godard's films so I know boring
2001: seminal, inspiring, a masterpiece. Also one of the most boring films I’ve ever tried to watch. I say ‘tried’ because I’ve now made three attempts to watch it and failed to do it without skipping forward. Not that these things are mutually exclusive - great films can be boring i suppose.
For you to call this a masterpiece, then in your next breath say it`s boring is both...................... that some people at times indulge in............................granted, but that goes without saying.
If you have any appreciation for quality filmmaking then this should be one of the farthest things from 'boring' ever. Then again it's nothing compared to Transformers 7 Rise of the Dawn of the Fall of the Extinction of the Fallen though
MrValiant61 I didn’t get what you are trying say, sorry.
Tom A it’s a logical fallacy to imply that only people with good taste (presumably like you) can appreciate this film. I’m sorry (not sorry really) but in my opinion it’s boring. I can understand why people love it but I don’t. It’s also another logical fallacy to imply that anyone who doesn’t like this film must like really terrible films. Try and think about what you are saying before you reply.
@@kevinsoutham Fair enough, I've heard many people call it boring but for me the opposite kind of film (eg one with really fast cutting that allows you no time to see or appreciate the image) is what I'd call boring
Overrated film. Great work form Douglas Trumbull though. It makes absolutely no sense. I actually like slow paced movies if they make any sense at all, but 2001 is probably the most boring movie ever made. I fall asleep every single time.
Agree! I save money when i can't sleep at night, just rewatch this and works better than sleeping pills
@Zak Giffgaff You clearly haven't seen Star Trek The Motion Picture, it's slower than 2001.
I couldn’t get through Silent Running. Waaaay to corny and preachy!!
Unless you're a special effects buff or just watch the plot with HAL 9000, 2001 A Space Odyssey is a BORING film with no plot whatsoever. I don't know why people like this film, it's a terrible film. People desperately want this film to be good by coming up with all kinds of interpretation but there's very little to get from this film. Calling it a masterpiece is over praising the film again the only the only thing genius about it was the special effects and nothing else.
Memoquin If by that you mean people add their ideas to the film in a desperate attempt to make the film good . People desperately want this film to be something it clearly isn't should it receive some praise ?, Sure the special effects are great and the plot of HAL 9000 is well done, but the film as whole is horrid. Its almost as if the film concentrates so much on special effects they forgot about the plot of the film.
oh and the boring argument is an entirely subjective one, unless you can provide a reason for the boringness (which in my view you haven't) you're point holds no water. The plot is slow and oblique but it is there, the links between all the monoliths and the characters of HAL, Bowman and the other guys on the ship for me hold the plot going and even if they didn't they don't need to, in my view a brilliant film doesn't even need a plot, the non-verbal documentaries of Godfrey Reggio and the like as well as some of Herzog's early stuff and Fellini's Satyricon show, basically I feel the plot's adequate to support the film, even a good plot and even if you disagree I would say that a film needs no plot to be great, a masterpiece or even a near perfect film.
Wilf Shaw oh and the "it's not boring" argument is an entirely subjective one, unless you can provide a reason for the why it isn't boring (which in my view you haven't) your point holds no water.
I think its a masterpiece and still the best scifi movie ever made. I freely admit that the dawn of man and him travelling through the monolith scenes that bookend the film are a probably too long for my tastes but that doesn't take much away from the movies huge ideals and amazing special effects. No story line? its only only about the evolution of man and the battle between technology and man
If you say the film doesnt have any plot i guess you didnt get it. It's just that easy. And from reading your comments I think inception would be a better film for you or maybe Transformers. There you will be spoon-fed with exposition unitl the climactic explosion-porn ending.
Cocaine??
You talk too damn fast.
its terribly boring
Lol
My friend and I both fell asleep watching this at the movies. What a snore fest if a film.
Silent Running is one of the most annoying films of all time
+vicarious014 Your ignorance is annoying.