Great review, Jack, as always. And some great comments too. My favourite is the guy who criticises your Movie Review for not also being a Book Review. Hilarious! 🤣🤣🤣
A good review I'd say. Yes, the film is more of an experience. I saw the film in 1968 and remember arguing with a philosophy major about the meaning of the film for hours. Later I read the book by Arthur C. Clarke. The film presents oppositions at different times: one group of hominids vs. another, Americans vs. Russians, Dave and the {superior} aliens. The technology change from bone-clubs to space also causes the predator to change from cougar to HAL. Why is that final room where Dave arrives at ~1800 AD ? It certainly wouldn't be Dave's idea of an interior---so is that what the aliens think of Dave? There's very little dialog and you can't kill the enemies with a gun---but the film is tense.
At last you've seen it! 😅. Completely agree with your assessment here. I got more out of it when watching it as an adult, to be honest; I saw it first as a teenager on the big screen and despite being blown away by it, I did feel the time dragging in parts! That was in 1977 I think, and 2001 seemed so far in the future! Looking back, I realise that a lot of the themes went over my head first time round too. I'd be interested to hear what you make of the sequel, 2010.
@@IKP1000 yes if I’d seen this 20 years ago I may have felt the same way! Haha I like their prediction of the future, we weren’t that close to this in 2001 🤣 I’ve actually heard the sequel is quite interesting, I will probably check it out over the Christmas break!
@@jackpetriereviewsGreat, I remember being very excited when 2010 came out. I'll say no more till you've seen it 😊. I should say, despite a lot going over my head, 2001 was an amazing experience on the big screen back in the day, as I'd never seen anything remotely like it.
@@IKP1000 I heard there was a cinema re release of it 15 years or so ago now that the BFI did and apparently it was amazing! Would loved to have seen it
ive had the advantage to have watched 2001 and even 2010 a few dozen times over 40 years or so since the 80s, so yeah you do see things differently over time, and even then, the more you watch it, the more details you find
I watched this as a teenager and just never connected with it. I watch clips and lore about stuff but have never had a wish to return to it. I am actually listening to the audiobook right now so I'm returning to it in a fashion. Clockwork Orange and The Shining are both amazing movies. I don't always get every subtlety from the things I watch but I do get a lot of layers from things. Nice presentation though.
@@jamesabernethy7896 I can definitely understand why some people wouldn’t get into it. The Shining is one of my favourite films of all time, I need to revisit clockwork orange as I go through these as I haven’t seen it in a long time but remember really liking it
I think a large portion of the people who call this movie slow, may not understand the notion of nonverbal/visual story telling. Even in the scenes where nothing is said, so much information is conveyed by visual or audio cues. I see the whole opening sequence being brought up a lot for example with the apes. They don't say anything of course but the whole thing that they 'learn' and evolve because of the Monolith is told purely through non-verbal visual ways. The way they act and invent things changes throughout the whole bit and drives the thing forward.
I can understand to an extent, especially for younger viewers used to more modern cinema, that you have to be more patient and get used to this type of storytelling. Kubrick did it here in a beautiful way though and as you rightly say, conveying so much through just visual techniques. I think the meticulous pacing of 2001 is what makes it so special
2001 is one of those ageless movies, you also have to remember... that the Space Race was still underway, they did not know much about how space works or much about how people act in space or in near weightless conditions, so they did really great job And... I just cannot believe that there are still people that have never seen 2001... 2001 should be a very high priority for any Sci-Fi Fan.... The other thing is... you really need to watch 2001 a few times over a year or so... you learn new little details or figure out things for your self every time you go back to it... one suggestion is, once you have watched it, watch a few UA-cam vids that have fully analyzed what the story is about, and then watch 2001 again, you will find a lot of things click into place... some of them may not very accurate, but there are some really good ones that know what they are talking about... I must have seen 2001 dozens of times now since the 80s...
Yes watching it now from that perspective re the space effects- it doesn't look dated at all, it's very impressive. It's definitely a must watch, it's certainly taken me too long to get to it. I feel like it's a proper film fans movie though, not the sort of movie you'd just stumble into. I didn't grow up being introduced to it either. That's interesting, it's definitely a movie that I will be going back to again.
The ending is open to interpretation. Not if you've done your due diligence. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke (the original author of the short story that inspired the film) worked together on both the screen lay and the book. *Both* are necessary for a full understanding of the story. Read the book and get answers missed by *everyone* who hasn't. Until then, please stop acting highbrow about half of a work of art.
Give him a break... he only watched it once... as with all works of Art, you need to view it from many angles, and or like my self have watched the move a few dozen times over 40 years... this is his first time....
@paulfelix5849 a) there is nothing highbrow in this review, and b) it is completely legitimate to review a movie based on what is in the movie, not what is in the book, and to insist otherwise is IMO "acting highbrow"
Fair enough if you've delved into the story deeper by studying both the film and the book. I'm only reviewing the film here and it seems to me, seemingly as well as 99% of people, that the ending is left to interpretation. Kubrick obviously didn't mind this fact as he knew he was adapting source material and knew that many people would be watching the film who hadn't read the book. I don't understand how I'm acting highbrow? I'm stating the fact that the film has an ambiguous ending that I did not understand, but that the film could still be enjoyed despite that. Perhaps the fact you take yourself far too seriously is the issue here.
Great review, Jack, as always. And some great comments too. My favourite is the guy who criticises your Movie Review for not also being a Book Review. Hilarious! 🤣🤣🤣
A good review I'd say. Yes, the film is more of an experience. I saw the film in 1968 and remember arguing with a philosophy major about the meaning of the film for hours. Later I read the book by Arthur C. Clarke. The film presents oppositions at different times: one group of hominids vs. another, Americans vs. Russians, Dave and the {superior} aliens. The technology change from bone-clubs to space also causes the predator to change from cougar to HAL. Why is that final room where Dave arrives at ~1800 AD ? It certainly wouldn't be Dave's idea of an interior---so is that what the aliens think of Dave? There's very little dialog and you can't kill the enemies with a gun---but the film is tense.
At last you've seen it! 😅. Completely agree with your assessment here. I got more out of it when watching it as an adult, to be honest; I saw it first as a teenager on the big screen and despite being blown away by it, I did feel the time dragging in parts! That was in 1977 I think, and 2001 seemed so far in the future! Looking back, I realise that a lot of the themes went over my head first time round too. I'd be interested to hear what you make of the sequel, 2010.
@@IKP1000 yes if I’d seen this 20 years ago I may have felt the same way! Haha I like their prediction of the future, we weren’t that close to this in 2001 🤣
I’ve actually heard the sequel is quite interesting, I will probably check it out over the Christmas break!
@@jackpetriereviewsGreat, I remember being very excited when 2010 came out. I'll say no more till you've seen it 😊. I should say, despite a lot going over my head, 2001 was an amazing experience on the big screen back in the day, as I'd never seen anything remotely like it.
@@IKP1000 I heard there was a cinema re release of it 15 years or so ago now that the BFI did and apparently it was amazing! Would loved to have seen it
ive had the advantage to have watched 2001 and even 2010 a few dozen times over 40 years or so since the 80s, so yeah you do see things differently over time, and even then, the more you watch it, the more details you find
I watched this as a teenager and just never connected with it. I watch clips and lore about stuff but have never had a wish to return to it. I am actually listening to the audiobook right now so I'm returning to it in a fashion. Clockwork Orange and The Shining are both amazing movies. I don't always get every subtlety from the things I watch but I do get a lot of layers from things. Nice presentation though.
@@jamesabernethy7896 I can definitely understand why some people wouldn’t get into it. The Shining is one of my favourite films of all time, I need to revisit clockwork orange as I go through these as I haven’t seen it in a long time but remember really liking it
I think a large portion of the people who call this movie slow, may not understand the notion of nonverbal/visual story telling.
Even in the scenes where nothing is said, so much information is conveyed by visual or audio cues.
I see the whole opening sequence being brought up a lot for example with the apes. They don't say anything of course but the whole thing that they 'learn' and evolve because of the Monolith is told purely through non-verbal visual ways. The way they act and invent things changes throughout the whole bit and drives the thing forward.
I can understand to an extent, especially for younger viewers used to more modern cinema, that you have to be more patient and get used to this type of storytelling. Kubrick did it here in a beautiful way though and as you rightly say, conveying so much through just visual techniques. I think the meticulous pacing of 2001 is what makes it so special
2001 is one of those ageless movies, you also have to remember... that the Space Race was still underway, they did not know much about how space works or much about how people act in space or in near weightless conditions, so they did really great job
And... I just cannot believe that there are still people that have never seen 2001... 2001 should be a very high priority for any Sci-Fi Fan....
The other thing is... you really need to watch 2001 a few times over a year or so... you learn new little details or figure out things for your self every time you go back to it...
one suggestion is, once you have watched it, watch a few UA-cam vids that have fully analyzed what the story is about, and then watch 2001 again, you will find a lot of things click into place... some of them may not very accurate, but there are some really good ones that know what they are talking about... I must have seen 2001 dozens of times now since the 80s...
Yes watching it now from that perspective re the space effects- it doesn't look dated at all, it's very impressive.
It's definitely a must watch, it's certainly taken me too long to get to it. I feel like it's a proper film fans movie though, not the sort of movie you'd just stumble into. I didn't grow up being introduced to it either.
That's interesting, it's definitely a movie that I will be going back to again.
The ending is open to interpretation.
Not if you've done your due diligence. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke (the original author of the short story that inspired the film) worked together on both the screen lay and the book. *Both* are necessary for a full understanding of the story. Read the book and get answers missed by *everyone* who hasn't.
Until then, please stop acting highbrow about half of a work of art.
Give him a break... he only watched it once... as with all works of Art, you need to view it from many angles, and or like my self have watched the move a few dozen times over 40 years... this is his first time....
@paulfelix5849 a) there is nothing highbrow in this review, and b) it is completely legitimate to review a movie based on what is in the movie, not what is in the book, and to insist otherwise is IMO "acting highbrow"
Fair enough if you've delved into the story deeper by studying both the film and the book. I'm only reviewing the film here and it seems to me, seemingly as well as 99% of people, that the ending is left to interpretation. Kubrick obviously didn't mind this fact as he knew he was adapting source material and knew that many people would be watching the film who hadn't read the book.
I don't understand how I'm acting highbrow? I'm stating the fact that the film has an ambiguous ending that I did not understand, but that the film could still be enjoyed despite that. Perhaps the fact you take yourself far too seriously is the issue here.
If you're going to be a reviewer, you really need to work on that speaking speech. Impediment
@@alexbilo3579 nah bollocks, you can have a speech impediment and still review movies
WTF is wrong with you..... If you're going to be a commenter, you really need to work on your attitude, and accept people for who they are...
@@jackpetriereviews Never listen to these people... do not let them discourage you, they need to learn some god damn respect...