Arthur Clarke's original novel is very illuminating on some of the more complex aspects of the story. Where Kubrick leaves you to work it out for yourself, the book goes more into the idea of the monolith triggering advances in species and reporting back to its creators. Such a great film!
I wonder if that's why Kubrick left out some of the details, you see it, experience it, and learn from it - making the film itself a monolith of sorts.
@@lmazz6776 I believe the movie script and the novel developed separately. Not to say the book is novelization of movie, but it contained parts that Movie FX couldn't provide yet. Example: last monolith was meant to orbit Saturn's moon Iapetus. Possibly the Saturn scenes in Interstellar were a nod to that.
Great Reaction! It so refreshing to see a reaction youtuber that doesn't just joke all through out the movie, but actually thinks about it and makes stimulating commentary about it. Keep it up!
Your reaction is pretty much everyone's 1st reaction -- delighted and perplexed. The cut from bone to spaceship is my favorite cut and shot. Sci-fi films pre-2001 tended to suffer from insufficient special effects. 2001 is perfect. It looks as good today as it did in 68 -- an incredible achievement.
When I first saw it, I didn't know anything about it. I just knew it was famous and it was scifi and that's all I needed. Outside in the display window of the cinema, there were only pictures of space and space ships, so imagine my surprise when it started and I saw a bunch of apes. I really thought I mistakingly went to the wrong movie. I didn't understand much of what was going on most of the movie, but I was completely hooked and in awe to this auditory and visual magic that I was treated on, definitely in my top 5 of all time.
i watched this film for the first time when I was in seventh grade and it was probably the first time I had ever had an existential crisis after watching something. I started it late at night, fell asleep somewhere in the middle, and I finished it the next morning before school and I went the rest of the day awestruck. I remember going to gym class and my friends were genuinely concerned for my well-being when I just kept staring at nothing for long periods of time. I kept trying to figure out what the ending meant but I also felt strangely comforted by what I was introduced to. This film will always be special to me for that reason.
The fact that this movie was made before humans stepped on the moon is just mind-blowing to me. So ahead of its time in every metric. 7:23 also my favorite cut in a movie ever
I just watched the movie and finally put together why people think Kubrick filmed and faked the moon landing. It wad prob because he made outer space look so real.
@@eefeeman no i think it was a back-up film for the moonlanding. If there were problems they could show the film. What do you think about seeing yhe film for the first time ???
@@petermulder7480 i watched the first half hour a few months ago but was kinda thrown for a loop by the apes. But after finally finishing it, i totally understand why so many consider this to be the best film of all time. I especially loved the long stretches with minimal to no sound or dialogue.
Don't forget to give credit where it is due. The central concept of the film was by sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke, but the final result was truly a collaborative effort by these two highly intelligent and talented men. For some answers, such as why HAL turned on the crew, check out the sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, based on Clarke's novel, 2010: Odyssey Two. It tells the story a bit more straightforward than 2001. Very entertaining.
2010 is a worthy sequel, one of the best sequels in my mind. That said, 2010 is more a tribute to Clarke's vision than to Kubrick's. Still, a strong outing.
@@MassOverkill I don't disagree, but 2001 is on such a high level that any sequel will pale in comparison. Such a comparison will never be a piece of pie or as easy as cake.
2010 is a much more conventional movie, very dumbed down compared to 2001 that is much more of an interpretation of symbolism with very little exposition or explanation. It does however offer explanations to events of 2001.
Kubrick treats the audience like adults and allows them to decide for themselves what happens and what it means. Clarke treats the audience like children and spells out in details what is happening and what it means. In my opinion people should ignore both Clarke's novelization of 2001 and both the book and movie 2010. Act like an adult.
The scene with Dave blowing the hatch on his pod into the vacuum of space is my favorite depiction of such an action in all of cinema and television. Not just because of its realism, but also because of the palpable fear coming from Dave. All other depictions had fear from the characters involved, but I think this one was the best because there was no need for music or words from the character. Just the sounds as he prepared the explosive bolts and the expression of growing fear and hesitation on Daves face. Chefs kiss perfection.
From memory, Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman) was dropped 2 stories into the air lock. It was vertical in reality, not horizontal as shown in the film. The only protection he had was a harness with a rope attached, and a guy holding onto the rope acting as a brake. So probably not too difficult to show a bit of fear. Fortunately they got it on the first take. Practical effects for you.
The only mistake was Dave taking in and holding a deep breath before the pod door is blown off. That is the opposite of actual rapid decompression response astronauts are trained to do (expel air from the lungs as pressure expansion would rupture lung lining and probably kill him).
That bone to space station transition you loved is considered one of the best match cuts in film history, perhaps second only to the match flame to sunrise cut in Lawrence of Arabia. The cut here has a deeper resonace that was referred to in the shooting script and the book, but not kept in the final film cut. The orbiting space station is intended to be a launch platform for nuclear missiles, so the cut goes thematically from man's first weapon (the bone-club) to man's latest most advanced weapon.
It’s not a space station. It’s a nuclear space weapon. It was meant to be a transition between mankind’s earliest weapon to its most recent and deadly weapon.
So we can conclude that the spark that the monolith gave to humanity was courage and, consequently, violence. Without these characteristics, we would still be those fearful monkeys that lived hiding in rocks, afraid of everything. Weapons were the fundamental tools for evolution, allowing protection and at the same time subduing other animals and other groups of pre-humans. The beginning of the film introduces us to the artificial evolution of the intellect of our ancestors. Then it cuts to the present, immediately surprising us with several orbital nuclear cannons, (from different countries, as suggested by the flags painted on the hulls of these devices) the apex of the destructive power that humanity has developed. And it ends with a new step in evolution artificially induced by the Monolith: a post-human returning to Earth. What he/she/it carries, nobody knows. Even greater destructive power? Is this the key for us to continue to evolve and expand into the stars? Or knowledge that allows us to evolve without the ever-present and "necessary" violence? Could we leave the primitive phase of evolution behind and become citizens of the stars at last?
@@88wildcat Yes, also that the camera people were taking hours trying to get the shot right and Kubrick was not satisfied. Finally he said give the camera to me and mounting the camera on his shoulders, he got the shot he wanted in one take.
As a very senior citizen, I saw this movie when it first came out when I was in my twenties, and it was on the giant, curved Cinerama screen. It was just mind-blowing. I had to go and see it again the following week. I saw the 50th anniversary release on IMAX, but because of the ratio of the original it couldn't take up all of the screen, which was not as impactful. When I re-view the film, it's always that Cinerama experience I'm re-living.
The theater lights go off, the screen remains black, and you're just listening to music in the dark for quite a while, an unsettling feeling. That's your first contact with 2001, a glimpse of what's to come.
I saw it in Cinerama five times, and I wish I had seen it five more. I was always jealous of my older sisters, who got to see "This Is Cinerama" when it was first released in the early fifties, but was later incredibly grateful that "2001" was my first Cinerama experience. If I ever get a chance to see it again on the curved screen, I won't miss it.
@@TPOrchestra I saw "This Is Cinerama", and it wasn't that good as a film, but worse was the technology. Early Cinerama used three projectors aimed at different areas of the screen, so it was possible to see lines between the images. The projectors needed to be co-ordinated but there was always a slight wobble exacerbating the disjoint, and it was rather disconcerting. By "How the West Was Won" the wobbles had been overcome but the lines remained. I saw it recently on TV on quite a large screen and the lines, though made fainter by technology, could still be seen. Finally they developed a lens that could produce one seamless image and likewise required only one projector. I'm almost certain that Kubrick would have shunned Cinerama for his film if it had required the old technology.
You were very fortunate to experience the film in that form, it sounds very interesting. I only saw it on TV-screens of different sizes, but to see it in a movie theater would be mindblowing. Even in an IMAX-room or in a normal screening room. I hope I will have the opportunity one day. I wish you all the best!
Nominated for 4 Oscars Best Director Best Original Screenplay Best Production Design Best Visual Effects It won Best Visual Effects. It was a box office and critical success, making $150 million dollars against a $10 million dollar budget. All the VFX were done in camera, and Kubrick had used forced perspective photography to make the ships appear bigger on screen. When the movie premiered, Actor Rock Hudson, 1925-1985, walked out of the theater 10 minutes before the movie was over and said, "Could someone please tell me what the $&_@ that was all about!?" A sequel was released, without Kubrick being involved, and after filming had wrapped on 2001, he had all the model ships destroyed to prevent a second film from being made, but thankfully, the original blueprints and still photos survived. Peter Hyams wrote and directed 2010: The Year We Make Contact in 1984.
Yeah, but a lot of critics didn't like the movie, as with many Kubrick movies, they often need some time to sink in into the public's conscious to be truly appreciated. This was no exception.
James, I really appreciated how you didn't try to go for a literal explanation of the ending, but instead talked off the top of ypur head about the themes and ideas the film is presenting. Excellent take on my all-time favourite film.
@@TB_2006 There was going to be narration for the whole movie, explaining the thought processes and actions of the characters like the prose in the book, but leaving all that unsaid is a much stronger choice.
@@TB_2006 The proposed narration was planned to be from various scientists commenting on the possibility of extraterrestrial life. It was ultimately scrapped. I agree that, while it would have lent an air of "legitimacy" to the topic, the end result would probably have been unnecessary. The final product is as close to a perfect movie-going experience as you can get.
i love this movie so much. i remember showing it to my son at 11 and having hours of conversation with him about it. it was a catalyst for discussion and was the start of movie fridays. it knew he’d like it because he had an excitement for building and architecture and spaceships. i feel the movie brought us together at a time when kids emotionally start to pull away from parents. he got such a kick out of homicidal hal and especially the space ship. he’s an engineer now and i will always treasure that time spent with him that summer bonding over movies.
The most spiritual experience I've had as a film watcher. You can dive into all the crazy theories and analyses, but nothing beats the existential horror and awe that this work of art makes you FEEL
For the "Star Child" scene at the end, I think this quote from the novel by Arthur C. Clarke sums it up pretty well: "Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something."
I saw 2001 in the theater as a double feature with Close Encounters when I was 11. By the time Dave's psychedelic transit happened - I was delirious and that tipped me over the edge. The whole movie blew my mind.
I got to see 2001 in theaters in 2018 for the 50 year anniversary. It was my first watch of the movie and became my favorite ever movie experience. And first movie with an intermission
I've seen this movie several times but I had the opportunity to watch it in an IMAX theater. The cinematography and sound design with the huge screen and massive sound system during the scene where HAL deactivates the crews life support systems was incredible.
I got to see this in theaters for its 50th anniversary and it was glorious. It's definitely meant to be viewed on a big screen. I noticed so many details that I had never seen before simply because it was too small on a TV or computer screen. I also realized that "the Dawn of Man" includes both the ancient apes and the first space scenes and doesnt go to the next chapter until after they encounter the monolith on the moon.
The novel suggests that the 2nd monolith on the moon is a kind of cosmic trip wire. Until humanity has developed to the point of space travel they are not worthy of further consideration of the creators of the monolith.
Hey James, love your reactions. Got some cool info about how they filmed this “wormhole” sequence 27:36. The begging was Kubrick simply pointing a camera at its own monitor, same trick used for the first early intro sequences for doctor who. Also, funny you say the next camera shots “liquify the universe” as this was achieved by Kubrick when he filmed himself pouring milk in his coffee. Keep creating man👊👊💙
@@nairsheasterling9457 Agreed. Interstellar is a spiritual sequel. The look at a different AI where they are noble and the humans evil, the wormhole shots, the Tesseract.
There are also some of the stargate scenes not shown here that were filmed (with added colour effects) in the Flow Country bog and lake scenery of Sutherland in Northern Scotland.
the trippy colors also took an extremely long time to make, they went into details on corridor crew. They had a nice episode going into several of the visual effects used. The floating pen was a great trick.
When I first found this film, I thought 2001 was when it was made and still couldn't believe the visuals were that good. The fact the effects and visuals hold up today, is amazing
This movie shows just how amazing practical effects are. Cgi will always at some point look outdated, but the fact that a 55 year old movie still completely holds up is incredible.
15:47 Tablets! This scene with the two tablets was the basis of the lawsuit Apple vs Samsung. Samsung brought up this scene at trial countering Apple’s claim they invented the technology when Samsung claimed this scene proved otherwise. Apple lost the court case!
Be sure to check out 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It's the sequel to this film done by a different Director. It's an incredibly underrated film and it's just as mind blowing.
It explains HALs actions which is good, 2010 is like Aliens to Alien, a different type of film altogether and should not be judged with the same criteria as 2001
It is not a Kubrick classic, but it is a solid bit of science fiction on its own terms. I very much enjoy both movies in their own ways. In my opinion it was also quite respectful of the original film in its references to the events of the original.
HAL being shut down is one of the best sequences in cinematic history, IMO. The depth and emotion are incredible, especially when you consider how much this film has made us personify a computer.
The computer was also depicted as a man, using nothing more than a deliberately toneless voice (implying a breadth of emotion) and a little red camera. HAL is a triumph of dialogue.
Preservation of life, even in AI… especially in AI… is a powerful motivation. Loved your reaction to this, especially the third act. Can you imagine the logistics of some of these shots and sets?! All practical elements. And the sound design just grips your freakin chest! Glad you finally got to see this masterpiece.
HAL had a mental breakdown from having to follow two different sets of orders at once. 1: Be honest and helpful to the crew 2: Keep the Monolith secret So he decided the only solution was to kill all his colleagues. See also: Jamie Lannister Heathers, Office Space.
The thing to remember is this is all practical effects. Kubrick built giant rotating sets to make it all work. Like Barry Lyndon, Kubrick frames scenes like paintings in this movie.
This film reminds me of one of my all time favorites that hardly anyone knows anymore, 1979s The Black Hole. It has a fantastic cast and the movie should have easily won the Oscars for cinematography and special effects that year. I saw it in theaters when I was 11 and I still enjoy it just as much today.
The Black Hole had two problems that hurt people thinking of it seriously: o) Disney o) The accent of the robot (unless I'm remembering something else as it's been prolly 15-20 years since the last time I've watched it)
@@GeraldWalls I'd add a third point. The end is absolutely horrific. Really nasty. A family sci fi adventure movie with cute robots that takes you to hell?
James! This is THE reaction I've been waiting for from you. It is in my top three favorite films and has changed many lives over the decades -- it has influenced thought, filmmaking, philosophies, emotions, inventions...I agree with the many critics who consider this to be the greatest motion picture ever made. That assessment took me a while to get there, as I first saw the film when I was 6 years old and the final image of the baby - known as the Star Child in the novel - scared the bejeebers out of me for years afterwards. My favorite shot would have to be any of the rotating space station with the earth in the background, or the shot of Dave in the red "brain room" of Hal disconnecting him with the reflection of the white brain "cells" reflected in his helmet. One of the publicity tag lines during one re-release of this film was: "2001 - the more you see it, the more you see in it". And the film definitely holds up to multiple viewings, studies, and interpretations, just as much if not more so than The Shining. I like that this film was chosen to highlight cinematography - an excellent choice as it has influenced so many subsequent filmmakers like Nolan and Lucas. Great reaction!
30:35: Other people, many years ago, commented on the ending: man meets alien monolith, human consciousness uploaded into the monolith supercomputer, star child representing humanity reborn in the womb of outer space.
The scene will HAL is “put down” by Dave is heartbreaking. And it’s telling that the song HAL sings includes the lyric “I’m half crazy all for the love of you.”
Remember, this was a Cinerama film (Super Panavision 70, three projectors seamlessly joined, a curved giant screen, state of the art sound). As a kid, I was lucky enough to see a brand new film print in July 1968 at the Casino Cinerama film theatre in London. It blew me away. I've never forgotten the experience. If you ever get a chance to see this film in Cinerama, don't miss it!
I love how Kubrick establishes the circular control room with the jogging scene, almost inviting you to figure out how they did it. And just as the more mechanically minded have pieced it together, he has Dave climb "down" to the floor from the central column and walk 180 degrees to where Frank has been sitting, having his meal, the whole time.
That set was the most expensive one ever made till that time. Its cost was 1 million dollars which would be around 15 million 2024 dollars. The set was built by Hawker-Siddeley aircraft company.
The thing I love about your channel man, is how much you just flat out, Love. Movies. All aspects of them. Your genuine enthusiasm for the craft and the experience is hella contagious.
Keir Dullea ( key ear doo lay) the actor playing the one who shuts down Hal is 86 years old,has several youtube videos where he is talking about how special effects were created back in the day for 2001.You should give them a look.I think you would really find them remarkable.
Saw the 1968 debut of this film in Cinerama at Glendale Theater in Toronto. Being a fan of Clarke's novels and Kubrick's films, I was filled with anticipation. The lights dimmed to dark in the packed house. You could almost sense the audience holding its collective breath. Then the low rumble of sound started, almost at the lowest threshold of hearing. ( It's worth noting that not many people were familiar with the Strauss composition, " Also Sprach Zarathustra. " ) The horns entered as an image of a distant planet or star appeared. The crescendo of the orchestra to the tympani entrance. We all sat enthralled, experiencing the most extraordinary introduction to a film ever conceived. I have since seen the movie over thirty times but nothing compares to the awe and wonderment of that initial viewing.
The lenses and film Kubrick used for this produced some of the best looking and most detail heavy shots I've ever seen in a film. I believe he used a super panavision 70 system. "Apollo 11", "Close encounters of the Third Kind", "West Side Story", and "Tron" are some of the other films using this system.
I saw this movie when it opened in a theatre when I was in college. It was a such a complex and amazing experience providing months of discussion and analysis. Over the years its beauty and scope remained and is still awesome. Your reaction returned me to that day and time just like Bowman who journeyed on his own odyssey. I loved hearing your own thoughts and insight. Thank you for sharing. ❤
@@GeraldWalls Not all CGI ages poorly to be honest. It really depends on how it is used and on what. If you try to animate some sort of fictional character (like She-Hulk), people will react strongly. It's not real and we know it's not real. If you instead animate a current day space rocket or an airplane, we could easily be tricked into believing it's real.
@@harold3165 In the morning when I look into the mirror blandishing a hangover and look like I was an extra on The Walking Dead, I look better than She-Hulk
Everything was a practical effect/in-camera, there was no CGI. There are two great books, The Making Of Kubrik’s 2001 by Jerome Agel (mostly about the special effects, not easy to get hold of a copy) and Space Odyssey by Micheal Benson (covers the production and development).
14:35 This set was a couple of stories high and revolved, with the camera rolling around while the actor ran in place. There were so many lights inside which burst, so when they did a take, everyone could heard the glass of shattered bulbs crashing around inside the two halves of the revolving set. The book SPACE ODYSSEY is one of the best making-of film books I've read.
Truly one of the greatest films ever made. I remember watching it when I was around ten years old and it changed everything. Wonderful reaction as always. Would love to see you watch Barry Lyndon in the future, another one of his masterpieces.
I think Dave became one with time and space by entering the monolith. Every moment existed for him at the same time. That's why he could see himself at different ages. He eventually accepted it and left his corporeal form behind and became the Star Child. You should watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It is a worthy sequel.
What a great observation. I always thought the Stargate sequence had Dave see the birth of the universe, its galaxies and stars but I think you are closer to the mark.
As for why that happened: It's canon that the Monolith-makers built him a 'hotel room'/'doghouse' with almost-but-not-quite-accurate Human stylings to make him comfortable. From that we can also assume that the Monolith-builders don't experience time A to Z, because their condo doesn't. Comfortable for what? We don't know. The remainder of his life? Acclimating to 4D time? Could they make a condo that worked only in linear time? Or are they just doing what they can for Dave with what they've got? (implied by the condo not _quite_ looking Human) Either way, the result is the same. Dave becomes acclimated to non-linear time, exists at all his ages at once, and gets dumped back out into the vacuum of space (and linear time), completely fine. This implies 4D Dave has achieved _something._ Immortality through time weirdness? Some technosorcery he learned from the Monoliths? [Other stuff]? Either way, he's back on Earth bearing gifts!
Dave isn't watching himself. You the viewer are watching Dave in the 4th dimension. All time points exist at the same time and you as the viewer are taken to different time points. To Dave it's all happened. Some of the sounds you hear are the aliens outside the room observing him.
You'll notice the music @14:29 was the same music used at the very beginning of Aliens 1986 movie when Ripley's escape shuttle is drifting in space before being found by a deep space salvage team.
I had seen the sequel 2010 first when I was a kid and when I saw the AFI's top 100 movies list from 1998, 2001 stuck out to me like a sore thumb and I had to watch it. My friend's dad did not allow me to influence us renting it from Blockbuster during a sleepover which was a bummer, but later I finally saw it on a local TV station and then dubbed it on a VHS a week or so later and then watched it obsessively at 12 years old. Kind of goes back to when I first saw The Shining and Kubrick's name rolling in the title credits somehow branded itself into my brain; for some reason, I felt drawn to his movies. Oh yeah, 2001 made me love movies like I do.
I am so thrilled you saw this. 2001 is my #1 movie of all time. Writing, directing, lighting, cinematography, editing, performances, I have seen many movies draw upon this for inspiration but I have yet to see anything which transports me like this does. It is a very high concept movie but at the same time each element of the movie is simple enough to understand, I believe anyone could draw inspiration and joy from this movie. It astounds me no end how ahead of it's time this movie was. The effect this movie has on me is not unlike me seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time. Awe and amazement, reverence, wonder, and even some healthy fear of what I am seeing, what I am not seeing and how small and insignificant to any of this. The story being told by the imagery alone juxtaposed with the more surface level story being told never doesn't send me over the edge. Thank you for joining me with my favorite movie of all time.
They were all film loops rear projected onto tiny screens. This resulted in one of many ways 2001 has aged much better than its 2010. Kubrick destroyed the sets, so they had to be rebuilt for 2010 and they used CRTs instead, which of course were rounded. This is given away by glare all over the place and the quality of what's displayed is noticeably lower.
Watching this you can spot how many films nicked their ideas from it. From the effects to how shots were framed. Imo talent doesn't age and this certainly doesn't. A film way ahead of it's time.
@@GeraldWalls You're not kidding. Even those technical spec screens for the pilots and the screens on the Discovery weren't computer generated. All those were done as hand drawn animation.
@@les4767 The flat panel video pads that Poole and Bowman watched laying on the desk (simple iPads today) were fixed-in-place props that had a TV tube (maybe it was a projection screen) behind them.
The whole movie itself is a journey. A space odyssey journey. Towards the end, it gets confusing, I still have no idea what the heck just happened. lol
After watching this film, a few times, I figured I had to read the book because I needed to know what it all meant. once you read it, it all makes sense. I honestly believe of Kubrick left one sentence from the book in the movie, it would’ve made more sense to people.
I hope you check out 2010: The Year we Make Contact which is the sequel and helps to bring closure to the story Arthur Clarke wrote to try and explain 2001.
13:13 One of the subtle touches of this scene is the sunshine gradually sweeping over the lunar landscape in the longshots (that is, approaching), which culminates in the sun being directly overhead 14:14, thereby triggering the signal of the monolith. (The signal would not be triggered until the monolith was uncovered after being buried for four million years.)
Several years ago my local independent theater (The Loft, Tucson, AZ) had a showing of 2001 in 70mm and it was absolutely stunning. In terms of cinematography I honestly have a hard time thinking of any contemporary movie that can top it. Interstellar comes close but still doesn't beat it.
I watched this for the first time the other day. It has stuck with me like no other film has, It's so hard to find the right words to convey how it made and makes me feel. So masterfully done, every shot I was glued to the screen, could not take my eyes or ears away from what I was experiencing.
When I finished my BSc in Computer Science in 1992, one of the things that was in Scientific American was a story about computing with light and crystals made of semi-conductors. The scene with Dave dismantling HAL portraying rectangular prisms just blew my mind! Kubrick was so far ahead of his time!!!
As an old man who watched this on the big screen in a theater when it first came out there are quotes from the movie that we all understood what they meant. This is your first time watching it so you did not get the importance of the statement "Open the pod bay doors HAL". In the early days of the IBM PC a Communications program, which loaded from floppy disk used to put up quotes as it was loading the program, and this was one of them. Always loved this one along with "Technology only shows you how powerful it is" . . . . "When it fails". Daisy Bell is the earliest song sung using computer speech synthesis by the IBM 7094 in 1961, a feat that was referenced in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).
2001:A Space Odyssey and The Wizard Of Oz are my two favourite movies of…all…time. Both ‘groundbreaking’ in their own eras. Absolutely brilliant. And both well before any CGI! I loved watching your reaction whilst seeing this for the first time. I must have seen this film a couple of dozen times over the years, and I’m still flabbergasted. I watched this in the cinema originally at the age of 12. It had such a profound effect. And then 50 years later, it was shown again in the cinemas where I took my son to see it. Hopefully take my grandkids sometime in the next twenty years!
My two favorites, too! I always wanted to do a mashup video...they are both MGM films, both have a journey to a fantastic place, both have characters floating around in a bubble, etc. etc...😁
@@davidfox5383 that’s absolutely true! Never really thought about that. But a really good insight. Now I’m gonna think about one film whilst watching the other. So is the Wizard then, the monolith??
LOVE your reactions James! This one was long overdue... guess what else is overdue? SORCERER and THE DEER HUNTER!! Watch them!! Both will blow you away.. They are a master class in filmmaking...
Finally, a movie is being reacted to that I was NOT old enough to have seen in the theater! This movie came out in the year I was born. I'm curious how you will interpret the ending. I think it was the third time I watched it that I finally figured most of it out.
First time, let's go. I always say that if I had a time machine, I'd go to 1968 to see the cinema audience reactions to it. It was so far ahead of its time, it must've been a phenomenal experience.
It was, I was 14 when I saw this at the movies and it just blew my mind. The special effects still stand up today ( I think). Seems more ‘real’ than CGI
Unfortunately, if you time traveled back to the premiere, you would have to strain your neck to see around all the people who got up and left in the middle of the film. Like many great works of art, it did not receive universal praise during its first run, but it found its audience among younger adults and deep thinkers. I always am amazed that my parents, who were conservative Texans, loved this movie as much as they did - even going to see it a second time with 6-year old me and my little brother sitting in the back seat of the car at the drive-in mesmerized (and terrified) by the images on the screen!
I was in my twenties and saw it in Cinerama which is its natural home. Phenominal is almost an inadequate word, because nothing like this had ever been seen before, it was a total game changer.
Your analysis of this film was really spot on. I enjoyed your perspective. I've been a fan of this film since the 70s when I saw it the first time as a kid. My mother actually turned me on to it because she was a fan of the book. I've seen this film several times over the decades & try to derive any extra insight through every viewing that I can. Still an amazing film. Thanks for your take.
What a treat sharing your first time with this film. As blown away as you are imagine seeing this in 35mm at a theatre. In 1968. We hadn't even gone to the moon yet. So much technology was foreshadowed - i pads, AI, even humans surviving in a vacuum for a brief period of time. Yes, it is 100% practical, including the cosmic voyage. There is an underlying theme here with the food. When people are not being told the truth/reality they are eating artificial food (moon). When characters are being told the truth/learning they are eating real food (dawn of man/end room).
You were on the right track when you picked up on HAL's infallibility. HAL was programmed to always state fact without error or distortion, and then ordered to withhold the true mission from the crew. HAL could not handle the conflicting instructions.
I'm happy you reacted to it always enjoy your videos. I was grateful enough to watch 2001 A Space Odyssey in cinema for the first time and its one of the only films I'd never watch outside a cinema. Just a very immersive and mesmerising experience especially the stargate sequence.
I feel so lucky that I was able to watched it during the 50th anniversary at no other than The Cinerama Dome on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. I was totally blown away on indica !!!
The floating pen on the space plane was one of the simplest yet cleverest pieces of sfx. The pen was stuck to a perfectly clear piece of glass with a light adhesive, and the pane of glass was large enough to cover the camera's field of vision.
Oh wow this is a classic, I think anyone that can look beyond the slow paced style can definitely appreciate this movie but definitely not for everyone
Hands down, my favorite part of this video, which I've now watched at least a half-dozen times, is the end sequence when Dave is literally observing himself age. I just love watching your brain explode over and over and over.
This is the perfect example of how great art can be when it meets a good budget. The epitome of sci-fi and it's probably easy to call it as one of the greatest Sci-fi movie (although I prefer Stalker cause I'm a fan of philosophical poetry kinda movies) but yeah... Every shot has that sense of magical realism to it. My favourite sequence in the movie is the crafting of the first weapon of mankind sequence. The cuts are too smooth and perfectly fit into a sci-fi movie. The movie also touches different topics which is very good. One of the greatest American movies ever made and arguably one of the greatest movies ever made too.
It's about tools and human advancement. In the opening scene, primitive man learns how to use the bone as a tool and uses it as a weapon of war. The tool allowed us control over the environment. The monolith takes note. We get to the moon and another monolith. Our tools took us that far. The monolith takes note. In the space scenes, HAL, our tool has now outgrown our control. Man must now advance beyond the simple use of tools. The last bit is about man reaching that next level since we hit the third monolith marker. Man becomes the space child and is reborn.
. . .and the last scene with the room. He takes the wormhole and essentially ends up in a human-zoo built by the aliens who built the monoliths. He rapidly ages and dies in there so he can be reborn.
I saw this movie when it came out, it was at a drive-in theater in the late 60s. I was just a small child, maybe about 5. It was actually rated G, which is why they took us, but I don't think it's what they expected. When it was over, my mom asked me how I liked it--I will never forget this: I told her it was okay, but I didn't understand it. Her response: "That's okay, we didn't understand it either." But I think you nailed it when you realized out loud when you were thinking about it--that it's NOT MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD. That makes it a rare beast of a film. As you observe, Kubrick likes to challenge our perspectives. He doesn't give you answers, but makes you ask questions. And if you accept the challenge, it makes you think a lot, about a lot of things, even years and years after you watch it for the first time. This film received mixed reviews when it was released. It is now recognized as a cinematic and artistic masterpiece. Famous film critic Gene Siskel rated it as the greatest film of all time, and it has been enormously influential with film makers of all genres, but especially sci fi, and also with sci fi literature.
It helps if you've read the book. The first monolith accelerates the evolution of the hominids and eventually they become Men capable of journeying into space. The second monolith drawns our attention with the magnetic anomaly and sunlight causes it to point us to the third monolith. The third monolith causes Bowman to be reborn as the 'Star-Child' and invites us to join the galactic community.
I actually kind of like the sequel to this movie too, 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1982). For me, it answered a lot of the questions this movie posed, and I don't think it is a bad sequel.
2010 is less artistic, but it’s a lot less confusing, and having a metric ton of talent (Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, and Bob Balaban) helps a lot.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
It is amazing how well the special effects have held up.
That 70mm print really paid off.
The magic of masterfully executed practical effects.
And made before we even landed on the moon.
I have yet to see a film's special effects that could match what they accomplished in this film. They are absolutely perfect and photo realistic.
@@Stravinsky75 they would have been pretty far into production before the first colored photo of earth from space was even taken! 👏😮
Arthur Clarke's original novel is very illuminating on some of the more complex aspects of the story. Where Kubrick leaves you to work it out for yourself, the book goes more into the idea of the monolith triggering advances in species and reporting back to its creators. Such a great film!
Same about Hal's motivation.
Spoiler:
Apparently the directive to keep the monolith a secret from the 2 astronauts drove Hal ... mad.
I wonder if that's why Kubrick left out some of the details, you see it, experience it, and learn from it - making the film itself a monolith of sorts.
@@lmazz6776 I believe the movie script and the novel developed separately. Not to say the book is novelization of movie, but it contained parts that Movie FX couldn't provide yet.
Example: last monolith was meant to orbit Saturn's moon Iapetus.
Possibly the Saturn scenes in Interstellar were a nod to that.
@@zvimur That's interesting. I mistakenly assumed the movie came after the book. Thanks for the info.
@@zvimur No, the book and movie were written together. There is an entire book on the subject. I believe it is “The Lost Worlds of 2001” by Clarke.
The Stargate sequence by far is still one of the most breathtaking scenes in film history.
Agreed
Trumbull was an absolute master, no doubt.
Leading to the biggest WTF half hour in movie history.
I can only imagine watching it in a theater in '68, when NOTHING like this had ever been done!
For real, idk how anyone can watch that scene and not find it absolutely mesmerizing, beautiful, and overall mind blowing
Great Reaction! It so refreshing to see a reaction youtuber that doesn't just joke all through out the movie, but actually thinks about it and makes stimulating commentary about it. Keep it up!
omg yes!
Your reaction is pretty much everyone's 1st reaction -- delighted and perplexed. The cut from bone to spaceship is my favorite cut and shot. Sci-fi films pre-2001 tended to suffer from insufficient special effects. 2001 is perfect. It looks as good today as it did in 68 -- an incredible achievement.
When I first saw it, I didn't know anything about it. I just knew it was famous and it was scifi and that's all I needed. Outside in the display window of the cinema, there were only pictures of space and space ships, so imagine my surprise when it started and I saw a bunch of apes. I really thought I mistakingly went to the wrong movie. I didn't understand much of what was going on most of the movie, but I was completely hooked and in awe to this auditory and visual magic that I was treated on, definitely in my top 5 of all time.
I don't think it is possible to overstate the impact this movie has had on movies/films/games since its release.
Technology….
i watched this film for the first time when I was in seventh grade and it was probably the first time I had ever had an existential crisis after watching something. I started it late at night, fell asleep somewhere in the middle, and I finished it the next morning before school and I went the rest of the day awestruck. I remember going to gym class and my friends were genuinely concerned for my well-being when I just kept staring at nothing for long periods of time. I kept trying to figure out what the ending meant but I also felt strangely comforted by what I was introduced to. This film will always be special to me for that reason.
I had a similar experience once with Waking Life. Definitely not a movie to watch before breakfast.
The fact that this movie was made before humans stepped on the moon is just mind-blowing to me. So ahead of its time in every metric. 7:23 also my favorite cut in a movie ever
....some theories say that it happend at the same time in the same studio..
@@petermulder7480 XD
I just watched the movie and finally put together why people think Kubrick filmed and faked the moon landing. It wad prob because he made outer space look so real.
@@eefeeman no i think it was a back-up film for the moonlanding. If there were problems they could show the film.
What do you think about seeing yhe film for the first time ???
@@petermulder7480 i watched the first half hour a few months ago but was kinda thrown for a loop by the apes. But after finally finishing it, i totally understand why so many consider this to be the best film of all time. I especially loved the long stretches with minimal to no sound or dialogue.
Don't forget to give credit where it is due. The central concept of the film was by sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke, but the final result was truly a collaborative effort by these two highly intelligent and talented men.
For some answers, such as why HAL turned on the crew, check out the sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, based on Clarke's novel, 2010: Odyssey Two. It tells the story a bit more straightforward than 2001. Very entertaining.
The reason for HAL's schizophrenia was, in my opinion, one of the best parts of 2010. That movie wasn't nearly as deep as this one.
2010 is a worthy sequel, one of the best sequels in my mind. That said, 2010 is more a tribute to Clarke's vision than to Kubrick's. Still, a strong outing.
@@MassOverkill I don't disagree, but 2001 is on such a high level that any sequel will pale in comparison. Such a comparison will never be a piece of pie or as easy as cake.
2010 is a much more conventional movie, very dumbed down compared to 2001 that is much more of an interpretation of symbolism with very little exposition or explanation. It does however offer explanations to events of 2001.
Kubrick treats the audience like adults and allows them to decide for themselves what happens and what it means. Clarke treats the audience like children and spells out in details what is happening and what it means. In my opinion people should ignore both Clarke's novelization of 2001 and both the book and movie 2010. Act like an adult.
The scene with Dave blowing the hatch on his pod into the vacuum of space is my favorite depiction of such an action in all of cinema and television. Not just because of its realism, but also because of the palpable fear coming from Dave. All other depictions had fear from the characters involved, but I think this one was the best because there was no need for music or words from the character. Just the sounds as he prepared the explosive bolts and the expression of growing fear and hesitation on Daves face. Chefs kiss perfection.
From memory, Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman) was dropped 2 stories into the air lock. It was vertical in reality, not horizontal as shown in the film. The only protection he had was a harness with a rope attached, and a guy holding onto the rope acting as a brake. So probably not too difficult to show a bit of fear. Fortunately they got it on the first take. Practical effects for you.
The only mistake was Dave taking in and holding a deep breath before the pod door is blown off. That is the opposite of actual rapid decompression response astronauts are trained to do (expel air from the lungs as pressure expansion would rupture lung lining and probably kill him).
That bone to space station transition you loved is considered one of the best match cuts in film history, perhaps second only to the match flame to sunrise cut in Lawrence of Arabia.
The cut here has a deeper resonace that was referred to in the shooting script and the book, but not kept in the final film cut. The orbiting space station is intended to be a launch platform for nuclear missiles, so the cut goes thematically from man's first weapon (the bone-club) to man's latest most advanced weapon.
It’s not a space station. It’s a nuclear space weapon. It was meant to be a transition between mankind’s earliest weapon to its most recent and deadly weapon.
So we can conclude that the spark that the monolith gave to humanity was courage and, consequently, violence. Without these characteristics, we would still be those fearful monkeys that lived hiding in rocks, afraid of everything. Weapons were the fundamental tools for evolution, allowing protection and at the same time subduing other animals and other groups of pre-humans.
The beginning of the film introduces us to the artificial evolution of the intellect of our ancestors. Then it cuts to the present, immediately surprising us with several orbital nuclear cannons, (from different countries, as suggested by the flags painted on the hulls of these devices) the apex of the destructive power that humanity has developed.
And it ends with a new step in evolution artificially induced by the Monolith: a post-human returning to Earth.
What he/she/it carries, nobody knows. Even greater destructive power? Is this the key for us to continue to evolve and expand into the stars? Or knowledge that allows us to evolve without the ever-present and "necessary" violence? Could we leave the primitive phase of evolution behind and become citizens of the stars at last?
Yeah, semantic nuances aside, I kinda feel like thats exactly what I said.
Kubrick got the idea for that cut after throwing a broom in the air and seeing how it looked.
@@88wildcat Yes, also that the camera people were taking hours trying to get the shot right and Kubrick was not satisfied. Finally he said give the camera to me and mounting the camera on his shoulders, he got the shot he wanted in one take.
As a very senior citizen, I saw this movie when it first came out when I was in my twenties, and it was on the giant, curved Cinerama screen. It was just mind-blowing. I had to go and see it again the following week. I saw the 50th anniversary release on IMAX, but because of the ratio of the original it couldn't take up all of the screen, which was not as impactful. When I re-view the film, it's always that Cinerama experience I'm re-living.
The theater lights go off, the screen remains black, and you're just listening to music in the dark for quite a while, an unsettling feeling. That's your first contact with 2001, a glimpse of what's to come.
I saw it in Cinerama five times, and I wish I had seen it five more. I was always jealous of my older sisters, who got to see "This Is Cinerama" when it was first released in the early fifties, but was later incredibly grateful that "2001" was my first Cinerama experience. If I ever get a chance to see it again on the curved screen, I won't miss it.
@@TPOrchestra I saw "This Is Cinerama", and it wasn't that good as a film, but worse was the technology. Early Cinerama used three projectors aimed at different areas of the screen, so it was possible to see lines between the images. The projectors needed to be co-ordinated but there was always a slight wobble exacerbating the disjoint, and it was rather disconcerting. By "How the West Was Won" the wobbles had been overcome but the lines remained. I saw it recently on TV on quite a large screen and the lines, though made fainter by technology, could still be seen.
Finally they developed a lens that could produce one seamless image and likewise required only one projector. I'm almost certain that Kubrick would have shunned Cinerama for his film if it had required the old technology.
You were very fortunate to experience the film in that form, it sounds very interesting. I only saw it on TV-screens of different sizes, but to see it in a movie theater would be mindblowing. Even in an IMAX-room or in a normal screening room. I hope I will have the opportunity one day. I wish you all the best!
@@adambazso9207 I've seen it on a normal widescreen and it holds up pretty well.
Nominated for 4 Oscars
Best Director
Best Original Screenplay
Best Production Design
Best Visual Effects
It won Best Visual Effects.
It was a box office and critical success, making $150 million dollars against a $10 million dollar budget.
All the VFX were done in camera, and Kubrick had used forced perspective photography to make the ships appear bigger on screen.
When the movie premiered, Actor Rock Hudson, 1925-1985, walked out of the theater 10 minutes before the movie was over and said, "Could someone please tell me what the $&_@ that was all about!?"
A sequel was released, without Kubrick being involved, and after filming had wrapped on 2001, he had all the model ships destroyed to prevent a second film from being made, but thankfully, the original blueprints and still photos survived.
Peter Hyams wrote and directed 2010: The Year We Make Contact in 1984.
Yeah, but a lot of critics didn't like the movie, as with many Kubrick movies, they often need some time to sink in into the public's conscious to be truly appreciated. This was no exception.
@@voiceover2191 critic's didn't liked they don't know what are they talking about but 2001 is top 1 in sight and sound director's list
Is this an exercise proving the limitations of intellectual development.
James, I really appreciated how you didn't try to go for a literal explanation of the ending, but instead talked off the top of ypur head about the themes and ideas the film is presenting. Excellent take on my all-time favourite film.
Opening of this movie is so great. A huge jump to the future, just perfection.
Loved how we’re just thrown into it..no narration or anything.
@@JamesVSCinema I heard something that there was originally plans to put narration in that sequence at first. I'm glad they didn't put any in though.
@@TB_2006 There was going to be narration for the whole movie, explaining the thought processes and actions of the characters like the prose in the book, but leaving all that unsaid is a much stronger choice.
@@TB_2006 The proposed narration was planned to be from various scientists commenting on the possibility of extraterrestrial life. It was ultimately scrapped. I agree that, while it would have lent an air of "legitimacy" to the topic, the end result would probably have been unnecessary. The final product is as close to a perfect movie-going experience as you can get.
@@TB_2006 Yes, that's true, also they originally had a score done by Alex North, check it out, it's fun to compare.
i love this movie so much. i remember showing it to my son at 11 and having hours of conversation with him about it. it was a catalyst for discussion and was the start of movie fridays. it knew he’d like it because he had an excitement for building and architecture and spaceships. i feel the movie brought us together at a time when kids emotionally start to pull away from parents. he got such a kick out of homicidal hal and especially the space ship. he’s an engineer now and i will always treasure that time spent with him that summer bonding over movies.
Greatest movie ever. Kubrick is on another level here. Every frame is a work of art.
Agreed!
One of the greatest as greatest is not well defined.
Hes ahead of his time. True visionary.
Kubrick is the most overrated director of all time. This movie is trash.
@@EstebanAlvarez_ I actually do. Its my opinion.
I saw this film presented at the university of Kentucky several years ago with a full orchestra and vocal chorus. It was awe inspiring.
The most spiritual experience I've had as a film watcher. You can dive into all the crazy theories and analyses, but nothing beats the existential horror and awe that this work of art makes you FEEL
definitely an abstract spiritual precursor to interstellar.
@@samanthanickson6478 Interstellar's good but it doesn't have anything on Space Odyssey
@@bungobaggins01 Agreed. Comparing Interstellar to 2001 is like comparing Coldplay to Radiohead.
@@bungobaggins01 i didn’t say that. they are both completely different products. but there is an obvious inspiration of 2001 to interstellar.
@@mondegreen9709 both are completely different products. but there is an obvious inspiration of 2001 to interstellar.
For the "Star Child" scene at the end, I think this quote from the novel by Arthur C. Clarke sums it up pretty well:
"Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next.
But he would think of something."
is this from the original story or the re-write that Clarke created as a companion for the film?
@@HighlandersWorkshop it's from the novelization, not "The Sentinel".
I saw 2001 in the theater as a double feature with Close Encounters when I was 11. By the time Dave's psychedelic transit happened - I was delirious and that tipped me over the edge. The whole movie blew my mind.
I was just thinking. I saw 2001 in the cinema when I was about 11 or 10. I was awed and perplexed.
Lol damn what a double feature
"Woohow"
I got to see 2001 in theaters in 2018 for the 50 year anniversary. It was my first watch of the movie and became my favorite ever movie experience. And first movie with an intermission
@@karterdude88 The first movie with an intermission......that you saw?
I've seen this movie several times but I had the opportunity to watch it in an IMAX theater. The cinematography and sound design with the huge screen and massive sound system during the scene where HAL deactivates the crews life support systems was incredible.
Oh my i wishhh
The Daisy Bell song sung by HAL was actually the first song sung by a computer in 1961.
For early sci-fi, set design and cinematography I recommend the 1927 movie “Metropolis”. It’s considered the first great science-fiction film.
This film is near-perfect. Genuinely one of the most profound films I've ever seen
I got to see this in theaters for its 50th anniversary and it was glorious. It's definitely meant to be viewed on a big screen. I noticed so many details that I had never seen before simply because it was too small on a TV or computer screen. I also realized that "the Dawn of Man" includes both the ancient apes and the first space scenes and doesnt go to the next chapter until after they encounter the monolith on the moon.
Never thought about the fact that the "dawn of man" was between the monolith appearances. LOL. Good observation!
The novel suggests that the 2nd monolith on the moon is a kind of cosmic trip wire. Until humanity has developed to the point of space travel they are not worthy of further consideration of the creators of the monolith.
never pass up the chance to see it on a big screen if you can. I've seen it in 70MM a few times.
My goodness I just realized that when you pointed it out!
Hey James, love your reactions. Got some cool info about how they filmed this “wormhole” sequence 27:36. The begging was Kubrick simply pointing a camera at its own monitor, same trick used for the first early intro sequences for doctor who. Also, funny you say the next camera shots “liquify the universe” as this was achieved by Kubrick when he filmed himself pouring milk in his coffee. Keep creating man👊👊💙
That’s awesome. Wow it really does remind me of Interstellar and their approach to science fiction!
@@JamesVSCinema Interstellar was very clearly Nolan's love letter to 2001: ASO.
@@nairsheasterling9457 Agreed. Interstellar is a spiritual sequel. The look at a different AI where they are noble and the humans evil, the wormhole shots, the Tesseract.
There are also some of the stargate scenes not shown here that were filmed (with added colour effects) in the Flow Country bog and lake scenery of Sutherland in Northern Scotland.
the trippy colors also took an extremely long time to make, they went into details on corridor crew. They had a nice episode going into several of the visual effects used. The floating pen was a great trick.
When I first found this film, I thought 2001 was when it was made and still couldn't believe the visuals were that good. The fact the effects and visuals hold up today, is amazing
This movie shows just how amazing practical effects are. Cgi will always at some point look outdated, but the fact that a 55 year old movie still completely holds up is incredible.
15:47 Tablets! This scene with the two tablets was the basis of the lawsuit Apple vs Samsung. Samsung brought up this scene at trial countering Apple’s claim they invented the technology when Samsung claimed this scene proved otherwise. Apple lost the court case!
Be sure to check out 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It's the sequel to this film done by a different Director. It's an incredibly underrated film and it's just as mind blowing.
Please do not
It explains HALs actions which is good, 2010 is like Aliens to Alien, a different type of film altogether and should not be judged with the same criteria as 2001
It's more like the CliffsNotes to 2001.
It is not a Kubrick classic, but it is a solid bit of science fiction on its own terms. I very much enjoy both movies in their own ways.
In my opinion it was also quite respectful of the original film in its references to the events of the original.
Nah skip that very mid film
HAL being shut down is one of the best sequences in cinematic history, IMO. The depth and emotion are incredible, especially when you consider how much this film has made us personify a computer.
The computer was also depicted as a man, using nothing more than a deliberately toneless voice (implying a breadth of emotion) and a little red camera.
HAL is a triumph of dialogue.
Preservation of life, even in AI… especially in AI… is a powerful motivation.
Loved your reaction to this, especially the third act.
Can you imagine the logistics of some of these shots and sets?! All practical elements. And the sound design just grips your freakin chest! Glad you finally got to see this masterpiece.
HAL had a mental breakdown from having to follow two different sets of orders at once.
1: Be honest and helpful to the crew
2: Keep the Monolith secret
So he decided the only solution was to kill all his colleagues.
See also: Jamie Lannister
Heathers, Office Space.
11:20 Love that you're talking about the purple redish hue of the film, and it's literary your same ligting setup! Perfection. 👏🙌
The thing to remember is this is all practical effects. Kubrick built giant rotating sets to make it all work. Like Barry Lyndon, Kubrick frames scenes like paintings in this movie.
This film reminds me of one of my all time favorites that hardly anyone knows anymore, 1979s The Black Hole. It has a fantastic cast and the movie should have easily won the Oscars for cinematography and special effects that year. I saw it in theaters when I was 11 and I still enjoy it just as much today.
The Black Hole had two problems that hurt people thinking of it seriously:
o) Disney
o) The accent of the robot (unless I'm remembering something else as it's been prolly 15-20 years since the last time I've watched it)
@@GeraldWalls I'd add a third point. The end is absolutely horrific. Really nasty. A family sci fi adventure movie with cute robots that takes you to hell?
The ultimate "Show, don't tell" movie - amazing, every single time, sheer genius...
James! This is THE reaction I've been waiting for from you. It is in my top three favorite films and has changed many lives over the decades -- it has influenced thought, filmmaking, philosophies, emotions, inventions...I agree with the many critics who consider this to be the greatest motion picture ever made. That assessment took me a while to get there, as I first saw the film when I was 6 years old and the final image of the baby - known as the Star Child in the novel - scared the bejeebers out of me for years afterwards. My favorite shot would have to be any of the rotating space station with the earth in the background, or the shot of Dave in the red "brain room" of Hal disconnecting him with the reflection of the white brain "cells" reflected in his helmet. One of the publicity tag lines during one re-release of this film was: "2001 - the more you see it, the more you see in it". And the film definitely holds up to multiple viewings, studies, and interpretations, just as much if not more so than The Shining. I like that this film was chosen to highlight cinematography - an excellent choice as it has influenced so many subsequent filmmakers like Nolan and Lucas. Great reaction!
30:35: Other people, many years ago, commented on the ending: man meets alien monolith, human consciousness uploaded into the monolith supercomputer, star child representing humanity reborn in the womb of outer space.
The scene will HAL is “put down” by Dave is heartbreaking. And it’s telling that the song HAL sings includes the lyric “I’m half crazy all for the love of you.”
Remember, this was a Cinerama film (Super Panavision 70, three projectors seamlessly joined, a curved giant screen, state of the art sound). As a kid, I was lucky enough to see a brand new film print in July 1968 at the Casino Cinerama film theatre in London. It blew me away. I've never forgotten the experience. If you ever get a chance to see this film in Cinerama, don't miss it!
Jealous
I love how Kubrick establishes the circular control room with the jogging scene, almost inviting you to figure out how they did it. And just as the more mechanically minded have pieced it together, he has Dave climb "down" to the floor from the central column and walk 180 degrees to where Frank has been sitting, having his meal, the whole time.
That set was the most expensive one ever made till that time. Its cost was 1 million dollars which would be around 15 million 2024 dollars. The set was built by Hawker-Siddeley aircraft company.
The thing I love about your channel man, is how much you just flat out, Love. Movies. All aspects of them. Your genuine enthusiasm for the craft and the experience is hella contagious.
"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."
Best villain in movie history, right there.
Keir Dullea ( key ear doo lay) the actor playing the one who shuts down Hal is 86 years old,has several youtube videos where he is talking about how special effects were created back in the day for 2001.You should give them a look.I think you would really find them remarkable.
The sequel, 2010 the year we make contact, is excellent. Highly recommended.
Saw the 1968 debut of this film in Cinerama at Glendale Theater in Toronto. Being a fan of Clarke's novels and Kubrick's films, I was filled with anticipation. The lights dimmed to dark in the packed house. You could almost sense the audience holding its collective breath. Then the low rumble of sound started, almost at the lowest threshold of hearing. ( It's worth noting that not many people were familiar with the Strauss composition, " Also Sprach Zarathustra. " ) The horns entered as an image of a distant planet or star appeared. The crescendo of the orchestra to the tympani entrance. We all sat enthralled, experiencing the most extraordinary introduction to a film ever conceived. I have since seen the movie over thirty times but nothing compares to the awe and wonderment of that initial viewing.
The lenses and film Kubrick used for this produced some of the best looking and most detail heavy shots I've ever seen in a film. I believe he used a super panavision 70 system. "Apollo 11", "Close encounters of the Third Kind", "West Side Story", and "Tron" are some of the other films using this system.
I saw this movie when it opened in a theatre when I was in college. It was a such a complex and amazing experience providing months of discussion and analysis. Over the years its beauty and scope remained and is still awesome. Your reaction returned me to that day and time just like Bowman who journeyed on his own odyssey. I loved hearing your own thoughts and insight. Thank you for sharing. ❤
It’s a masterwork. 50 year old effects shots and model work that still looks amazing.
As I said in another reply, CGI ages poorly. Models are the real thing. And CGI wasn't even a thing in the 60s.
@@GeraldWalls Not all CGI ages poorly to be honest. It really depends on how it is used and on what. If you try to animate some sort of fictional character (like She-Hulk), people will react strongly. It's not real and we know it's not real. If you instead animate a current day space rocket or an airplane, we could easily be tricked into believing it's real.
@@harold3165 In the morning when I look into the mirror blandishing a hangover and look like I was an extra on The Walking Dead, I look better than She-Hulk
2010: The Year We Make Contact, should be your next watch. It expands on the original idea and answers some questions.
100%
Oh hell yeah this is one of my all time favorites! Excited to hear your thoughts on this absolutely incredible cinematic experience!
Everything was a practical effect/in-camera, there was no CGI. There are two great books, The Making Of Kubrik’s 2001 by Jerome Agel (mostly about the special effects, not easy to get hold of a copy) and Space Odyssey by Micheal Benson (covers the production and development).
!! I’m so excited for your thoughts on this. I really believe this is his best movie, I’ll never be bored of it🖤Have a great day James ~!
Hey you too!! 🤘🏽🖤
14:35 This set was a couple of stories high and revolved, with the camera rolling around while the actor ran in place. There were so many lights inside which burst, so when they did a take, everyone could heard the glass of shattered bulbs crashing around inside the two halves of the revolving set.
The book SPACE ODYSSEY is one of the best making-of film books I've read.
Truly one of the greatest films ever made. I remember watching it when I was around ten years old and it changed everything. Wonderful reaction as always. Would love to see you watch Barry Lyndon in the future, another one of his masterpieces.
Saw this on 70mm at midnight on New Years. Highlight of my life for sure
I think Dave became one with time and space by entering the monolith. Every moment existed for him at the same time. That's why he could see himself at different ages. He eventually accepted it and left his corporeal form behind and became the Star Child.
You should watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It is a worthy sequel.
What a great observation. I always thought the Stargate sequence had Dave see the birth of the universe, its galaxies and stars but I think you are closer to the mark.
As for why that happened:
It's canon that the Monolith-makers built him a 'hotel room'/'doghouse' with almost-but-not-quite-accurate Human stylings to make him comfortable.
From that we can also assume that the Monolith-builders don't experience time A to Z, because their condo doesn't.
Comfortable for what? We don't know. The remainder of his life? Acclimating to 4D time? Could they make a condo that worked only in linear time? Or are they just doing what they can for Dave with what they've got? (implied by the condo not _quite_ looking Human)
Either way, the result is the same. Dave becomes acclimated to non-linear time, exists at all his ages at once, and gets dumped back out into the vacuum of space (and linear time), completely fine. This implies 4D Dave has achieved _something._
Immortality through time weirdness? Some technosorcery he learned from the Monoliths? [Other stuff]? Either way, he's back on Earth bearing gifts!
Dave isn't watching himself. You the viewer are watching Dave in the 4th dimension. All time points exist at the same time and you as the viewer are taken to different time points. To Dave it's all happened. Some of the sounds you hear are the aliens outside the room observing him.
You'll notice the music @14:29 was the same music used at the very beginning of Aliens 1986 movie when Ripley's escape shuttle is drifting in space before being found by a deep space salvage team.
I had seen the sequel 2010 first when I was a kid and when I saw the AFI's top 100 movies list from 1998, 2001 stuck out to me like a sore thumb and I had to watch it. My friend's dad did not allow me to influence us renting it from Blockbuster during a sleepover which was a bummer, but later I finally saw it on a local TV station and then dubbed it on a VHS a week or so later and then watched it obsessively at 12 years old. Kind of goes back to when I first saw The Shining and Kubrick's name rolling in the title credits somehow branded itself into my brain; for some reason, I felt drawn to his movies. Oh yeah, 2001 made me love movies like I do.
I am so thrilled you saw this. 2001 is my #1 movie of all time. Writing, directing, lighting, cinematography, editing, performances, I have seen many movies draw upon this for inspiration but I have yet to see anything which transports me like this does. It is a very high concept movie but at the same time each element of the movie is simple enough to understand, I believe anyone could draw inspiration and joy from this movie. It astounds me no end how ahead of it's time this movie was. The effect this movie has on me is not unlike me seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time. Awe and amazement, reverence, wonder, and even some healthy fear of what I am seeing, what I am not seeing and how small and insignificant to any of this. The story being told by the imagery alone juxtaposed with the more surface level story being told never doesn't send me over the edge. Thank you for joining me with my favorite movie of all time.
Fun fact: since CGI didn't exist at the time, all the text and images on the computer screens had to hand animated.
They were all film loops rear projected onto tiny screens. This resulted in one of many ways 2001 has aged much better than its 2010. Kubrick destroyed the sets, so they had to be rebuilt for 2010 and they used CRTs instead, which of course were rounded. This is given away by glare all over the place and the quality of what's displayed is noticeably lower.
Watching this you can spot how many films nicked their ideas from it. From the effects to how shots were framed. Imo talent doesn't age and this certainly doesn't. A film way ahead of it's time.
The special effects on this movie are better than CGI and it feels real .
CGI ages badly. Models are the Real Thing. Also, CGI wasn't even a thing at this time.
@@GeraldWalls You're not kidding. Even those technical spec screens for the pilots and the screens on the Discovery weren't computer generated. All those were done as hand drawn animation.
@@les4767 The flat panel video pads that Poole and Bowman watched laying on the desk (simple iPads today) were fixed-in-place props that had a TV tube (maybe it was a projection screen) behind them.
@@GeraldWalls They were projected behind.
2010: The Year We Make Contact is a fun sequel to this, if your curious about some of the why's.
The whole movie itself is a journey. A space odyssey journey. Towards the end, it gets confusing, I still have no idea what the heck just happened. lol
Hahahaha took me for a whole loop!
A journey into the infinite, beyond space and time. This is why math does not allow you to divide through zero.
After watching this film, a few times, I figured I had to read the book because I needed to know what it all meant. once you read it, it all makes sense. I honestly believe of Kubrick left one sentence from the book in the movie, it would’ve made more sense to people.
Grew up watching this with my father. Watched/discussed in film school and with friends. Watching it with you now. Somethings are timeless
One of the greatest films of all time. A true work of art.
I hope you check out 2010: The Year we Make Contact which is the sequel and helps to bring closure to the story Arthur Clarke wrote to try and explain 2001.
With this movie, the future began
That’s a dope saying >.>
@@JamesVSCinema I think it's profoundly true.
13:13 One of the subtle touches of this scene is the sunshine gradually sweeping over the lunar landscape in the longshots (that is, approaching), which culminates in the sun being directly overhead 14:14, thereby triggering the signal of the monolith. (The signal would not be triggered until the monolith was uncovered after being buried for four million years.)
2010 is a must follow up. clears up many of the abstract concepts of this film. also had excellent cast.
Several years ago my local independent theater (The Loft, Tucson, AZ) had a showing of 2001 in 70mm and it was absolutely stunning. In terms of cinematography I honestly have a hard time thinking of any contemporary movie that can top it. Interstellar comes close but still doesn't beat it.
I watched this for the first time the other day. It has stuck with me like no other film has, It's so hard to find the right words to convey how it made and makes me feel. So masterfully done, every shot I was glued to the screen, could not take my eyes or ears away from what I was experiencing.
This movie is a timeless masterpiece that still holds up incredibly well today.
This is my favorite movie of all time, bar none.
When I finished my BSc in Computer Science in 1992, one of the things that was in Scientific American was a story about computing with light and crystals made of semi-conductors. The scene with Dave dismantling HAL portraying rectangular prisms just blew my mind! Kubrick was so far ahead of his time!!!
As an old man who watched this on the big screen in a theater when it first came out there are quotes from the movie that we all understood what they meant. This is your first time watching it so you did not get the importance of the statement "Open the pod bay doors HAL".
In the early days of the IBM PC a Communications program, which loaded from floppy disk used to put up quotes as it was loading the program, and this was one of them. Always loved this one along with "Technology only shows you how powerful it is" . . . . "When it fails".
Daisy Bell is the earliest song sung using computer speech synthesis by the IBM 7094 in 1961, a feat that was referenced in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).
2001:A Space Odyssey and The Wizard Of Oz are my two favourite movies of…all…time. Both ‘groundbreaking’ in their own eras. Absolutely brilliant. And both well before any CGI! I loved watching your reaction whilst seeing this for the first time. I must have seen this film a couple of dozen times over the years, and I’m still flabbergasted. I watched this in the cinema originally at the age of 12. It had such a profound effect. And then 50 years later, it was shown again in the cinemas where I took my son to see it. Hopefully take my grandkids sometime in the next twenty years!
My two favorites, too! I always wanted to do a mashup video...they are both MGM films, both have a journey to a fantastic place, both have characters floating around in a bubble, etc. etc...😁
@@davidfox5383 that’s absolutely true! Never really thought about that. But a really good insight. Now I’m gonna think about one film whilst watching the other. So is the Wizard then, the monolith??
LOVE your reactions James! This one was long overdue... guess what else is overdue? SORCERER and THE DEER HUNTER!! Watch them!! Both will blow you away.. They are a master class in filmmaking...
Finally, a movie is being reacted to that I was NOT old enough to have seen in the theater! This movie came out in the year I was born. I'm curious how you will interpret the ending. I think it was the third time I watched it that I finally figured most of it out.
I've seen it in 70mm and IMAX in the theatre (70mm was better imo) in my 20s
"Only Kubric can make me watch 5 minutes of The Dawn of Man" oh boy it's a 30 minute sequence
First time, let's go. I always say that if I had a time machine, I'd go to 1968 to see the cinema audience reactions to it. It was so far ahead of its time, it must've been a phenomenal experience.
It was, I was 14 when I saw this at the movies and it just blew my mind. The special effects still stand up today ( I think). Seems more ‘real’ than CGI
Unfortunately, if you time traveled back to the premiere, you would have to strain your neck to see around all the people who got up and left in the middle of the film. Like many great works of art, it did not receive universal praise during its first run, but it found its audience among younger adults and deep thinkers. I always am amazed that my parents, who were conservative Texans, loved this movie as much as they did - even going to see it a second time with 6-year old me and my little brother sitting in the back seat of the car at the drive-in mesmerized (and terrified) by the images on the screen!
I was in my twenties and saw it in Cinerama which is its natural home. Phenominal is almost an inadequate word, because nothing like this had ever been seen before, it was a total game changer.
Your analysis of this film was really spot on. I enjoyed your perspective. I've been a fan of this film since the 70s when I saw it the first time as a kid. My mother actually turned me on to it because she was a fan of the book. I've seen this film several times over the decades & try to derive any extra insight through every viewing that I can. Still an amazing film. Thanks for your take.
It's amazing what he did in 1968. Could you imagine what he could have done with modern technology. His talent was on a different level
Kubrick was supposed to direct AI but died before making it. I wonder what that would have been like.
@@JeshuaSquirrel Less schmalzy than Spielberg's take, that's for sure.
I really enjoyed your reaction to this, and your insight as a filmmaker really helped me enjoy the film even more.
What a treat sharing your first time with this film. As blown away as you are imagine seeing this in 35mm at a theatre. In 1968. We hadn't even gone to the moon yet. So much technology was foreshadowed - i pads, AI, even humans surviving in a vacuum for a brief period of time. Yes, it is 100% practical, including the cosmic voyage. There is an underlying theme here with the food. When people are not being told the truth/reality they are eating artificial food (moon). When characters are being told the truth/learning they are eating real food (dawn of man/end room).
You were on the right track when you picked up on HAL's infallibility. HAL was programmed to always state fact without error or distortion, and then ordered to withhold the true mission from the crew. HAL could not handle the conflicting instructions.
I'm happy you reacted to it always enjoy your videos. I was grateful enough to watch 2001 A Space Odyssey in cinema for the first time and its one of the only films I'd never watch outside a cinema. Just a very immersive and mesmerising experience especially the stargate sequence.
I feel so lucky that I was able to watched it during the 50th anniversary at no other than The Cinerama Dome on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. I was totally blown away on indica !!!
I prefer a good, mind-expanding Sativa, but yeah, this movie was made to watch in an altered state of mind.
The floating pen on the space plane was one of the simplest yet cleverest pieces of sfx. The pen was stuck to a perfectly clear piece of glass with a light adhesive, and the pane of glass was large enough to cover the camera's field of vision.
Oh wow this is a classic, I think anyone that can look beyond the slow paced style can definitely appreciate this movie but definitely not for everyone
Yup, which means I’ll eat it up haha
@@JamesVSCinema We sure know you're a man of culture 😃
Hands down, my favorite part of this video, which I've now watched at least a half-dozen times, is the end sequence when Dave is literally observing himself age. I just love watching your brain explode over and over and over.
This is the perfect example of how great art can be when it meets a good budget. The epitome of sci-fi and it's probably easy to call it as one of the greatest Sci-fi movie (although I prefer Stalker cause I'm a fan of philosophical poetry kinda movies) but yeah... Every shot has that sense of magical realism to it. My favourite sequence in the movie is the crafting of the first weapon of mankind sequence. The cuts are too smooth and perfectly fit into a sci-fi movie. The movie also touches different topics which is very good. One of the greatest American movies ever made and arguably one of the greatest movies ever made too.
It's about tools and human advancement. In the opening scene, primitive man learns how to use the bone as a tool and uses it as a weapon of war. The tool allowed us control over the environment. The monolith takes note. We get to the moon and another monolith. Our tools took us that far. The monolith takes note. In the space scenes, HAL, our tool has now outgrown our control. Man must now advance beyond the simple use of tools. The last bit is about man reaching that next level since we hit the third monolith marker. Man becomes the space child and is reborn.
. . .and the last scene with the room. He takes the wormhole and essentially ends up in a human-zoo built by the aliens who built the monoliths. He rapidly ages and dies in there so he can be reborn.
I love this movie. It bursts with symbolism that is both ubiquitous and incomprehensible. What a masterpiece!
I saw this movie when it came out, it was at a drive-in theater in the late 60s. I was just a small child, maybe about 5. It was actually rated G, which is why they took us, but I don't think it's what they expected. When it was over, my mom asked me how I liked it--I will never forget this: I told her it was okay, but I didn't understand it. Her response: "That's okay, we didn't understand it either."
But I think you nailed it when you realized out loud when you were thinking about it--that it's NOT MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD. That makes it a rare beast of a film. As you observe, Kubrick likes to challenge our perspectives. He doesn't give you answers, but makes you ask questions. And if you accept the challenge, it makes you think a lot, about a lot of things, even years and years after you watch it for the first time.
This film received mixed reviews when it was released. It is now recognized as a cinematic and artistic masterpiece. Famous film critic Gene Siskel rated it as the greatest film of all time, and it has been enormously influential with film makers of all genres, but especially sci fi, and also with sci fi literature.
It helps if you've read the book. The first monolith accelerates the evolution of the hominids and eventually they become Men capable of journeying into space. The second monolith drawns our attention with the magnetic anomaly and sunlight causes it to point us to the third monolith. The third monolith causes Bowman to be reborn as the 'Star-Child' and invites us to join the galactic community.
Don’t know how I missed this upload but this one of my favorite movies, appreciate the reactions man
I actually kind of like the sequel to this movie too, 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1982). For me, it answered a lot of the questions this movie posed, and I don't think it is a bad sequel.
2010 is less artistic, but it’s a lot less confusing, and having a metric ton of talent (Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, and Bob Balaban) helps a lot.
The space walk between the Discovery and Leonov might be the most vertigo-inducing scene I've ever watched.