Read Mixed User Reviews for 2001: A Space Odyssey

6

AtomicjackMay 16, 2018

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film is... interesting. i personally can not argue with the impact this movie had and its heavy symbolism (most of which i do not understand) but this film was over hyped for me as people called it the best film of all time. And do not even get me started on the acid trip sequence near the end of the film, i got a splitting head ache from watching it. overall its fine but way too over hyped and personally confusing.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

4

jonslowDec 15, 2018

I must say I don't get the hype of this movie. I could not even see the whole thing in one sitting because i was having trouble staying awake.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

lagendofdoomFeb 6, 2020

I have a really mixed feelings about the movie,
on one had the visuals and the shots are simply outstanding very impressive and mind blowing, the carefully planned shots, the way the characters move in the spaceship the composition and miseI have a really mixed feelings about the movie,
on one had the visuals and the shots are simply outstanding very impressive and mind blowing, the carefully planned shots, the way the characters move in the spaceship the composition and mise en scene is just phenomenal.
On the other hand the characters are forgetful, the story in the beginning and the ending is nonexistent, nothing makes sense, you can try and interpret it however you want which is something that is both positive and negative I took it the negative way for the simple reason that I laughed at those scenes of how it doesn't make any sense.
The worst of all is the pacing oh god the pacing... you could shorten the movie by 1 hour and it still would be the same.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

LaskeudeungJan 28, 2017

Ya film ini dari awal sampai akhir nonjolin satu aspek doang, artisitik. Kenapa jadi lagendari ? Dikeluarin tahun 1968 tapi teknologi nyatanya baru kita temuin di abad 22. Jenius , tapi ya sekali lagi film artistik yang penonton blockbustersYa film ini dari awal sampai akhir nonjolin satu aspek doang, artisitik. Kenapa jadi lagendari ? Dikeluarin tahun 1968 tapi teknologi nyatanya baru kita temuin di abad 22. Jenius , tapi ya sekali lagi film artistik yang penonton blockbusters 100% bilang "aneh". Legend… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

ahmedaiman9999Jun 7, 2018

To be honest, I hate 2001, because I think it tells its relies so heavily on its message that there's almost no story to tell. It keeps repeating its messages, that we have already recognized from the get-go, throughout its running time.To be honest, I hate 2001, because I think it tells its relies so heavily on its message that there's almost no story to tell. It keeps repeating its messages, that we have already recognized from the get-go, throughout its running time. Adding insult to injury, it tries to be riveting by showing how wonderful the camera work is,how mesmerizing the cinematography is, how fascinating the production design is, how masterful the editing is, etc. While all these technical points made this movie the most beautiful movie I've ever seen, instead of relying on the technical aspect, I think it should have engaged us with the use of narrative elements, such as a dramatic plot, well-wrought and fleshed-out characters, or in a worst-case scenario, a mysterious event or even character. Also, this movie is the most boring movie I've ever watched.

(5.5/10)… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

beeanadouAug 31, 2019

The beginning was great, music was fine but really not get getting what the ending is about.....

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

TheApplegnomeAug 14, 2015

A spectacular and metaphorically masterpiece. But unfortunately slow and boring.

The first thing you notice while watching 2001: A Space Odyssey are the incredible visuals, that's so incredible. This movie is from the 60s, and I'm stunnedA spectacular and metaphorically masterpiece. But unfortunately slow and boring.

The first thing you notice while watching 2001: A Space Odyssey are the incredible visuals, that's so incredible. This movie is from the 60s, and I'm stunned by how awesome they made the film. We see astronauts in zero-gravity, spinning space ships and a lot more that I didn't think was possible in the 1960s. It's a deep and meaningful movie, that gives the audience a lot to think of, that's worth a lot! That, in combination with a mysterious feeling and much metaphorical scenes that means a lot makes this movie really unique. Those are the most important aspects of the film, but there are also many bad things. The worst thing is the second act, where nothing really happens and I was overall very bored. The space scenes in the second act are great but they're just too slow. It's the same with the characters, they are a bit vague and the conversations are boring. Even though the film is in my taste a bit too boring, is every scene important if you want to understand the bigger picture.

In fact, I do like this movie, but everyone knows that a boring and slow film might not work with every individual. Especially not with me. The opening scene is fantastic, but it's too slow, but interesting. The best parts of the film is actually the beginning and the ending, they are both spectacular and fascinating. They should on the other hand have laid much more focus on the middle of the movie, it's to slow there. Of course, imagine seeing this film in the 60s, a time when most people haven't seen our Earth from above, it must have been something extraordinary! Well; it's a new generation now, and we want more action, but I bet I would have loved this Kubrick-movie it in the 70s! The best aspect of the film I forgot to mention is the soundtrack, so incredible! The sad thing is that it disappeared in the second act.

2001: A Space Odyssey is overall a great film, but the boring scenes are just too much for me. I recommend everyone to see this film twice, because there're many fundamental aspects of the film that you don't perceive the first time. The boring scenes does unfortunately lower my rating considerably.

6.8/10… Expand

5 of 7 users found this helpful52

All this user's reviews

6

WalkingDead5640Apr 2, 2014

A well crafted piece of art. Incredibly unusual last act! From "Open the pod bay doors, HAL" unleash the thrills and mystery of an influential, mind blowing adventure unlike any other, from prehistoric ape-ancestry into uncharted realms ofA well crafted piece of art. Incredibly unusual last act! From "Open the pod bay doors, HAL" unleash the thrills and mystery of an influential, mind blowing adventure unlike any other, from prehistoric ape-ancestry into uncharted realms of space. Personally, I loved the middle, HAL was terrifying and unpredictable villain. Not everyones type of movie. The film ends leaving more questions than answers.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

SmagsFeb 23, 2014

Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is often claimed to be the greatest and most influential Sci-Fi classic of all-time. Cases have been made for and against it, mainly whether the film is brilliant or boring. Which is it? Is it aStanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is often claimed to be the greatest and most influential Sci-Fi classic of all-time. Cases have been made for and against it, mainly whether the film is brilliant or boring. Which is it? Is it a brilliant, sacred jewel of cinema, or is it a dull, lifeless bore? In this case, it's not a matter of OR, but rather, a case of AND. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is both brilliant and boing, however not necessarily at the same time.

Before an examination of both sides, a few points must be made Crystal clear. There are two absolutely essential qualities that must be exhibited to attain enjoyment: A persistent patience, and a clear, conscious open mind. If neither of these two factors are present upon viewing, the film will come off as an instant failure, thus remaining as a frail, distant memory.

As I conclude this introduction, it must be noted that this movie is not any way, shape, or form a "bad" movie. There are spurts and shines of both brilliance and bore; however, it is up to the viewer to decide where and how these victories and faults outweigh the other. Now, onward to the actual review. Let's take a look at the cons first.

CONS:

Pace. Pace. Pace. Paint drying on a wall is faster than the pace that is demonstrated in this film. The momentum is excrutionally painful and abysmally slow, which serves as the prime reason for its downgrades. For those who require a constant, accelerated speed for pace, this would be an ill-suited movie. For those who don't mind a slower progressing, trance inducing plot, this is the quintessential film.

No emotional connection with any of the characters. At no point throughout the course of the film does the viewer feel any sort of liking, disliking, sympathy, suspicion, or annoyance for any character. They are all bland, with no exceptional quality. Kubrick should've known this, and it's an unfortunate shame that a movie as potentially great as this has this undeniable flaw.

PROS:

Excellency of 'Style over Substance': Despite the cons, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a beautifully and wonderfully constructed movie. It is the pinnacle of movies that was able to escape the grasp of the basic fundamental concept of substance over style. Where it lacks in substance, it makes up for - plus more - in style. The effects? To say these effects were way past its time would be an understatement.

The Famous Match-Cut: This, in my purest opinion, is the strongest suit for this movie's credentials. If unclear on what a Match-Cut is, Wikipedia defines it as "a cut in film editing between either two different objects, spaces, or compositions in which an object in the two shots graphically match" (this is often done to link a strong parallel between the two objects). Although the effects are seen by the general public as the film's greatest accolade, this Match-Cut can't be denied as the best in cinema history. The appraisal this sequence could receive should be endless, an even that wouldn't be enough. Starting with the opening of "The Dawn of Man" (literally), the segment spirals through the events of a tribe of apes being ruled by another, discovering the use of bones, and overcoming the tribe through the use of those bones. As the leader of the victorious tribe throws the bone in the air, it rotates in a clockwise rotation. Upon its coming down, the scene shifts from the falling bone to a satellite in outer space, 4 million years later. The scene that transpires is one that truly can not be put into words. The segment, along with the music implemented, unquestionably makes this one of the most appraised and memorable segments in all of cinema. Just that 5 minute work of art will make every viewer indulge deeply in thought to realize how far the human race has truly come.

Cinematography: Time and time again, Stanley Kubrick is able to achieve perfection when it comes to cinematography. Every shot and every angle is executed perfectly without any sort of fault. What else should we expect? There's a reason why he's often labeled as a perfectionist.

These are the pros and cons of the movie as I saw fit. This movie will not be viewed as awe-inspiring by all, but is definitely a journey that everyone must experience. As stated in the beginning of this review, "2001: A Space Odyssey" will be remembered either as a life-changing endeavor, or a time-wasting, disappointing tease of what could have been. 6.25/10… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

drlowdonJan 11, 2014

I like to think that I'm pretty open minded when it comes to different film genre's but 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those critically acclaimed films that has just never connected with me. Yes, I understand that there is hiding depth andI like to think that I'm pretty open minded when it comes to different film genre's but 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those critically acclaimed films that has just never connected with me. Yes, I understand that there is hiding depth and meaning behind the (especially at the time) beautifully crafted scenes but the slow pace, and running time of over two and a half hours, made it a chore to sit through. I'm all for cinema that does something different but I watch movies to be entertained and in that regard 2001: A Space Odyssey just doesn't work for me.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

4

vikesh2206Nov 12, 2014

Too abstract to provide anything, Stanley Kubrick's "masterpiece" is an overlong, lifeless adventure with one dimensional characters and a terribly disjointed plot (if there is any).

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

5

billrullerApr 14, 2012

Honestly, I couldn't handle this movie at all. I only watched about 15 minutes of it, and after the second time I couldn't handle it. It just seemed very very boring. All I saw were monkeys going abe sh*t because there's a giant black...IHonestly, I couldn't handle this movie at all. I only watched about 15 minutes of it, and after the second time I couldn't handle it. It just seemed very very boring. All I saw were monkeys going abe sh*t because there's a giant black...I don't know. A Bar? A Box? I don't know and I don't care. If this whole movie is gonna be quiet and weird than I don't think this is the movie for me. I'm just amazed that this was critically the best movie by Stanley Kubrick. I've seen some of his weird movies that I don't get and understand how people would actually like it. Like 'A Clockwork Orange' and 'The Shining'. The only movie I found very decent was Full Metal Jacket. I'm just gonna give this movie half credit for the popularity for the viewers and reviewers.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

4

BradySmithNov 8, 2015

I'm going to get a lot of flack for saying this, but 2001 is probably the most overrated movie of all time. Sure, the effects are serviceable in 2015, the camerawork is stunning, and there are a few moments of transcendent beauty, but thatI'm going to get a lot of flack for saying this, but 2001 is probably the most overrated movie of all time. Sure, the effects are serviceable in 2015, the camerawork is stunning, and there are a few moments of transcendent beauty, but that amounts to like 15 good minutes total if I'm being generous. The rest of the movie is a meticulously constructed boredom. There were times when I wanted to scream with boredom. Kubrick seems to think holding shots on absolutely nothing interesting happening makes him a master, and apparently everyone else thinks this too, but it doesn't. I had moral objections to a clockwork orange and the second half was pretty slow, but overall that was a movie that could entertain, shock and fascinate. I also thought The Shining was one of the creepiest movies ever made. But this? As artful and visionary as it occasionally is, I could barely stand to finish it. I know I'm in the minority, but I have to call out pretension when I see it. Interstellar may have taken much inspiration from this movie, but that one was awe inspiring, heartbreaking and exciting. Gravity was also 1000 times more engaging than this while still containing moments of jaw dropping beauty. I love atmosphere and when a film is drenched in it I encourage slow pacing, but 2001 only has glimpses of atmosphere. 2001 may not be the worst movie ever, but it's one of the most boring.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

Movie1997Jul 21, 2015

Stanley Kubrick really likes to throw us for a loop. However, it doesn't work like I would have hoped. First off, there is no denying that this movie is straight up beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous to look at. The effects still hold up to thisStanley Kubrick really likes to throw us for a loop. However, it doesn't work like I would have hoped. First off, there is no denying that this movie is straight up beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous to look at. The effects still hold up to this day. The musical score is also beautifully orchestrated and unforgettable. I doubt that anyone will deny that. But the biggest problem with "2001: A Space Odyssey" is that it is excruciatingly slow. It pains me to say it, but this is the first Kubrick movie that got me bored at parts. There are sections in this movie that drag on for so long. And in those moments they really rely on the visual spectacle and beautiful score to cover up the progression of the story (at least I thought). At one point near the end when it was suppose to be super intense, I was trying to keep my eyes open. This movie could have easily been cut 30-40 minutes shorter.And honestly, you don't care about the characters. They seem kind of emotionless. The character you care about is the HAL - 9000. It was such an interesting antagonist and it really is what carries the weight of the movie on its shoulders. This is a hard movie to understand on a first viewing. It's not really a fault of the movie, however with the slow pace, it can distract you from what's going on in the story. Overall, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a masterpiece on a technical and orchestral level, but sadly nothing more than a painfully slow burn to endure with not so memorable characters. I give this a C!… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

RobertOBrienJul 9, 2015

With it's tediously long shots of people floating around space, obnoxious music, distracting intermissions, lack of flowing narrative, little character development, and the conflict of the story only appearing in the last 35 minutes and theWith it's tediously long shots of people floating around space, obnoxious music, distracting intermissions, lack of flowing narrative, little character development, and the conflict of the story only appearing in the last 35 minutes and the ending being a severe case of too much, too late, I simply did not enjoy this film.

But with it's groundbreaking special effects, beautiful cinematography and genuinely disturbing antagonist, I get why the film is remembered.

It tries to be more of an experience than a story, but my personal music and film preferences kept me from enjoying it. The film just constantly felt like a pat on the back followed by a slap in the face. Recommended, but only because I'm sure lots of people will like it, even though I don't.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

JanKrevatinAug 13, 2015

Great philosophy inside the movie itself,. I wouldn`t reccomend it to people that cannot stand a movie without tension happening all the time. There is approximately 25 minutes of two and a half hour film that are really tense. Yet I`m notGreat philosophy inside the movie itself,. I wouldn`t reccomend it to people that cannot stand a movie without tension happening all the time. There is approximately 25 minutes of two and a half hour film that are really tense. Yet I`m not that kind of person but I still found that movie way too long. The movie portrays bunch of interesting topics such as technology, time, space, human evolution, human behaviour which is pretty cool and presented in a good way. But the thing missing were the characters. After the movie was finished I didn`t know almost nothing about persons in the movie.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

CinemassacreMar 13, 2016

When Stanley Kubrick and sci-fi specialist Arthur C. Clarke first conceived the idea of making a Cinerama film, neither had any idea that it would run into a project of several years. Shooting actually began late December, 1965, in EnglandWhen Stanley Kubrick and sci-fi specialist Arthur C. Clarke first conceived the idea of making a Cinerama film, neither had any idea that it would run into a project of several years. Shooting actually began late December, 1965, in England and continued, if one counts added footage and retakes, until early this year. Much of the lengthy shooting time, of course, is attributable to the detailed special effects the story made necessary. Keir Dullea, for instance, completed another film (“The Fox”) and did a Broadway play (“Dr Cook’s Garden”) between completion of his role in “2001” and its current release.

Was all this painstaking research and work worthwhile? There will be many filmgoers, fortunately for Metro, who’ll think it was; there’ll be others who won’t see this in the finished handiwork of Kubrick and his staff. A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, “2001” lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark. Despite the enormous technical staff involved in making the film, it is almost entirely one man’s conception and Kubrick must receive all the praise – and take all the blame.

The plot, so-called, uses up almost two hours in exposition of scientific advances in space travel and communications, before anything happens. The surprisingly dull prolog deals with the “advancement of man,” centering on a group of apes (the makeup is amateurish compared to that in “Planet of the Apes”). An important prop is also introduced but so sketchily that many viewers will scarcely note, and promptly forget it–a huge black monolith is shown briefly (to reappear light years later as the key to possible life on planets other than Earth).

The little humor is provided by introducing well-known commercial names which are presumably still operational during the space age: the Orbiter Hilton hotel, refreshments by Howard Johnson, picture phones by Bell, and Pan Am space ships (although one shown is carrying only a single passenger). A computer named Hal that can talk is, initially, good for a laugh but when it turns out to be the villain, this attitude quickly changes. Hal (voiced by Douglas Rain, although originally done by Martin Balsam) is one of the film’s best effects and surprisingly acceptable, considering reaction to it is based on the use of a voice.

Dullea and Gary Lockwood, as the two principal astronauts, are not introduced until well along in the film. Their complete lack of emotion becomes rather implausible during scenes where they discover, and discuss, the villainy of the computer. Except for William Sylvester, as the scientist who reveals the project to investigate possibility of life on another planet, the other human roles are little more than walkons.

Kubrick and Clarke have kept dialog to a minimum, frequently inserting lengthy passages where everything is told visually. One inside joke is the remark by a femme Russian scientist that her husband is busy elsewhere doing underwater exploration (Clarke’s real-life hobby). Scientific advances appear much further along than would seem possible for the 33 intervening years until 2001. The only earth shots shown are interiors transmitted over picture phones or closed-circuit TV but, incongruously, Earth citizens are shown dressed and acting 1968 while the scientists (even in their casual attire) wear stylized space-age garb.

Film ends on a confused note, never really tackling the “other life” situation and evidently leaving interpretation up to the individual viewer. To many this will smack of indecision or hasty scripting. Dullea, after being subjected to a wild celestial ride through a series of galaxies that create a psychedelic effort on both him and the audience, finds himself in a room decorated in a style familiar to Earth although the implication is that he’s on Jupiter. After confronting himself in various advance stages of age, he finally succumbs to the power generated by the black monolith (still unexplained) which has reappeared. The ending shot blends a planet with an orb-shaped view of an embryo, possibly suggesting the rebirth of civilization in another universe.

Ray Lovejoy’s editing, generally good, too often holds views to the point of losing interest while other scenes are chopped abruptly, sometimes with no explanation. This suggests some wholesale and rather hasty cutting decisions on the part of Kubrick. The 160-minute running time, still overlong, could be shortened sufficiently by some slicing in the lengthy introduction to make the intermission unnecessary.

But “2001” is not a cinematic landmark. It compares with, but does not best, previous efforts at science fiction; lacking the humanity of “Forbidden Planet,” the imagination of “Things to Come” and the simplicity of “Of Stars and Men,” it actually belongs to the technically-slick group previously dominated by George Pal and the Japanese.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

DoctorFilmMar 31, 2016

Stanley Kubrick is alive and well and living in Outer Space. Those filmgoers who have wondered what happened to the man who gave screen birth to "Lolita" and "Dr. Strangelove" can stop worrying. He's taken up a new hobby--science-fiction--andStanley Kubrick is alive and well and living in Outer Space. Those filmgoers who have wondered what happened to the man who gave screen birth to "Lolita" and "Dr. Strangelove" can stop worrying. He's taken up a new hobby--science-fiction--and his first effort comes close to running away with itself. One criticism that will be raised is that film cost too much for so "personal" (i.e. Kubrick) a film.

When Stanley Kubrick and sci-fi specialist Arthur C. Clarke first conceived the idea of making a Cinerama film, neither had any idea that it would run into a project of several years. Shooting actually began late December, 1965, in England and continued, if one counts added footage and retakes, until early this year. Much of the lengthy shooting time, of course, is attributable to the detailed special effects the story made necessary. Keir Dullea, for instance, completed another film (“The Fox”) and did a Broadway play (“Dr Cook’s Garden”) between completion of his role in “2001” and its current release.

Was all this painstaking research and work worthwhile? There will be many filmgoers, fortunately for Metro, who’ll think it was; there’ll be others who won’t see this in the finished handiwork of Kubrick and his staff. A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, “2001” lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark. Despite the enormous technical staff involved in making the film, it is almost entirely one man’s conception and Kubrick must receive all the praise – and take all the blame.

The plot, so-called, uses up almost two hours in exposition of scientific advances in space travel and communications, before anything happens. The surprisingly dull prolog deals with the “advancement of man,” centering on a group of apes (the makeup is amateurish compared to that in “Planet of the Apes”). An important prop is also introduced but so sketchily that many viewers will scarcely note, and promptly forget it–a huge black monolith is shown briefly (to reappear light years later as the key to possible life on planets other than Earth).

The little humor is provided by introducing well-known commercial names which are presumably still operational during the space age: the Orbiter Hilton hotel, refreshments by Howard Johnson, picture phones by Bell, and Pan Am space ships (although one shown is carrying only a single passenger). A computer named Hal that can talk is, initially, good for a laugh but when it turns out to be the villain, this attitude quickly changes. Hal (voiced by Douglas Rain, although originally done by Martin Balsam) is one of the film’s best effects and surprisingly acceptable, considering reaction to it is based on the use of a voice.

Dullea and Gary Lockwood, as the two principal astronauts, are not introduced until well along in the film. Their complete lack of emotion becomes rather implausible during scenes where they discover, and discuss, the villainy of the computer. Except for William Sylvester, as the scientist who reveals the project to investigate possibility of life on another planet, the other human roles are little more than walkons.

Kubrick and Clarke have kept dialog to a minimum, frequently inserting lengthy passages where everything is told visually. One inside joke is the remark by a femme Russian scientist that her husband is busy elsewhere doing underwater exploration (Clarke’s real-life hobby). Scientific advances appear much further along than would seem possible for the 33 intervening years until 2001. The only earth shots shown are interiors transmitted over picture phones or closed-circuit TV but, incongruously, Earth citizens are shown dressed and acting 1968 while the scientists (even in their casual attire) wear stylized space-age garb.

Film ends on a confused note, never really tackling the “other life” situation and evidently leaving interpretation up to the individual viewer. To many this will smack of indecision or hasty scripting. Dullea, after being subjected to a wild celestial ride through a series of galaxies that create a psychedelic effort on both him and the audience, finds himself in a room decorated in a style familiar to Earth although the implication is that he’s on Jupiter. After confronting himself in various advance stages of age, he finally succumbs to the power generated by the black monolith (still unexplained) which has reappeared. The ending shot blends a planet with an orb-shaped view of an embryo, possibly suggesting the rebirth of civilization in another universe.

Ray Lovejoy’s editing, generally good, too often holds views to the point of losing interest while other scenes are chopped abruptly, sometimes with no explanation. This suggests some wholesale and rather hasty cutting decisions on the part of Kubrick. The 160-minute running time, still overlong, could be shortened sufficiently by some slicing in the lengthy introduction to make the intermission unnecessary.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

ThejodjeremieOct 30, 2020

The movie has nice visuals and great acting for a movie that came out in 1968 but it's very slow and boring at times. I can kinda see how this movie is considered great but for me it just didn't work.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

CritiqueGirlMar 1, 2011

It is way to long and drawn out. I suggest you read the book. There is no reason to sit through the process when you can curl up with a good read. It actually is like watching paint dry.

5 of 13 users found this helpful58

All this user's reviews

5

finfroskDec 18, 2014

Technically and visually good, but boring and long.
Yeah, the visual effects are incredible considering the movie is soon to be 50 years old. The main character's acting is good, but you know what? The movie is incredibly long, and almostTechnically and visually good, but boring and long.
Yeah, the visual effects are incredible considering the movie is soon to be 50 years old. The main character's acting is good, but you know what? The movie is incredibly long, and almost nothing happens at all. Some of the scenes go on and on and on and on. And on. It is supposed to be very artistic, but I found it dull and boring. It's just ok. And don't get your panties in a bunch and say I can't appreciate art, because I can, I am an artist myself, so shush. Go watch The Shining, if you have to watch Kubrick.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

NitishJul 23, 2013

First thing first, this is not a movie; this is a piece of art completely focused on realism, logics and detailing of complicated space science of expected future. Additionally some imaginations are also added in the movie to giveFirst thing first, this is not a movie; this is a piece of art completely focused on realism, logics and detailing of complicated space science of expected future. Additionally some imaginations are also added in the movie to give philosophical and dramatic touch.
Overall this is a combination of Failure and success and both are so much mixed up with each other that one can’t classify them.
Still elements of success and failure are as under:-

SUCCESS POINTS
• Most detailed and realistic picturization of outer space and technology.
• Realistic acting.
• No attempt to create any kind of thrill, a completely different approach for a Sci-Fi movie.
• Beautiful use of Music.

FAILURES POINTS

• Lack of connectivity through entire movie between the different phases.
• Lack of conclusiveness. (Either thrill or conclusiveness, one is must).
• Poor ending.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

6

RalfbergsDec 1, 2021

This certainly isn't for an average viewer. First of all as for cinematography Kubrick doesn't disappoint just like in all his movie and it really is 10 out of 10. Secondly, the futuristic feel and the fact that so many things where predictThis certainly isn't for an average viewer. First of all as for cinematography Kubrick doesn't disappoint just like in all his movie and it really is 10 out of 10. Secondly, the futuristic feel and the fact that so many things where predict that exists now but in those times didn't really exist, is also insane. So from this aspect I agree, the movie is incredible. As for the plot itself - I do think it could've been better. Yes, now people are guessing what it meant or explaining it etc, but there are many movies which are much less known and also show things ambiguously, but people bash them and say they don't mean nothing. I really enjoy most of other Kubrick's movies, but this is somewhat in the middle - I like the visuals, but I didn't like the ending that much and also I think some shots are too long - like you can watch at 8 times speed and nothing changes really.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

clem666Sep 13, 2021

As my score shows it I have very mixed feelings about this movie. Considered a classic, I only discovered it this week (in 2021), which makes it very difficult to bridge the fifty years-gap between its genesis and my very first look. ThatAs my score shows it I have very mixed feelings about this movie. Considered a classic, I only discovered it this week (in 2021), which makes it very difficult to bridge the fifty years-gap between its genesis and my very first look. That being said I still can (even if partially) comprehend why this feature is so important to the hearts of many. Yet it is not my case.

Of course, "2001: A Space Odyssey" benefits from exceptional visuals, sequences and staging. Yes, the colours, the lighting, the perspective and the montage are outstanding. Obviously the soundtrack is really intense and adds a lot to the story (or what seems to be so), even if such a sound environment reveals quite a lot of Kubrick's megalomania when conceptualizing this movie. It is undeniable that the acting (even if represents so few of the work) is great. To conclude with positive aspects I would say that the messages behind this feature are really interesting.

Despite these assets what ruined the experience for me was (amongst others) the movie length. I totally get that the concepts of space and time are really close and that representing such a fact in a movie requires both silences and very dark sequences. But here it is just too much. If you saw the first ten minutes of it you do know what I mean. The story is way too confusing. Events succeed each other without any obvious link or explanation. If Kubrick manages to make us deduce some symbols and causes of events he also surprisingly manages to make his movie just unintelligible and messy. If you witnessed the twenty last minutes of it you do know what I'm talking about. In overall the third and fourth acts are simply mindnumbing in addition to be punctuated by this endless weird psychedelic sequence. Until the end, I looked for something to hold onto, I looked for meaning in all those silent scenes I saw, but nothing came. It gets weirder and weirder until Kubrick finally lets you out of his indelicate, jerky experience.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

akshatmahajanJun 15, 2021

2001: A Space Odyssey is ahead of it's time. Movie came in 1968 and showed so many things which didn't exist before 90s. This movie is said to be best space movie ever made. I disagree. Yes, it might be best space movie of it's time but not2001: A Space Odyssey is ahead of it's time. Movie came in 1968 and showed so many things which didn't exist before 90s. This movie is said to be best space movie ever made. I disagree. Yes, it might be best space movie of it's time but not of all time.

Movie doesn't make perfect sense to me. The story is normal, the characters don't really get through you and the ending made no sense to me. The movie was unnecessarily slow paced and too long (2½ hours). Movie didn't have any proper explaination. I just think this movie is too much overrated. I liked this movie just because it was ahead of its time wheather you talk about visual effects, general idea of the movie and the idea of what space was like. Overall, I liked the movie for the reasons I told earlier but at the same time I would same that it is overrated and boring.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews