1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars the movie that set the standard in sci fi
in 68,this movie was the best sci fi film ever.in it there is this force referred to as the monolith.it shows up at different points in time.finaly,a space crew goes to check it out.it is too intellectual for children.stanley kubrik directs so you know-since hes the greatest directer ever and all-that this movie is a classic!it is better than the sequel.thinkers will like...
Published on July 18 2004 by abe
3.0 out of 5 stars It's an influential movie, but it's got its flaws.
2001: A Space Odyssey is worth seeing, because you'll understand references and be able to make conversation about it. However, you might not enjoy watching it. There were a few things I really liked about it, but I wouldn't say that I had a good time watching the film.
That's not to say that I particularly regret spending the time (it is a bit lengthy) to watch it...
Published on Feb. 10 2003 by Eric Anderson
Most Helpful First | Newest First
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars the movie that set the standard in sci fi,
This review is from: 2001: A Space Odyssey (VHS Tape)
in 68,this movie was the best sci fi film ever.in it there is this force referred to as the monolith.it shows up at different points in time.finaly,a space crew goes to check it out.it is too intellectual for children.stanley kubrik directs so you know-since hes the greatest directer ever and all-that this movie is a classic!it is better than the sequel.thinkers will like it.in 68 there wasnt a computer paranoia like today.in this film,kubrik explores what would happen if the computer decided to just take the hell over.an idea not toyed with for years to come.he was a visionary.the music in it is very good too.for you wrestling fans,ric flairs theme song begins it.an abselute must for sci fi fans.
5.0 out of 5 stars Impressive feat regardless of personal philosophy,
2001: A Space Odyssey Very few films deal with humanity in an abstract
verb very well, often despite trying to give a universal message about
humans they end up giving a message about individuals. This is
perfectly fine, and many of the truly great films deal with people this
way, it is natural because we relate more deeply with individuals.
However, Stanley Kubrick's crowning achievement is one of the
best-regarded films at showing humans not in an individual sense, but
rather as a species.
The film basically comes down to the core philosophy of evolution,
about our need as a species to keep going, despite where we get
ourselves. A short cut scene at the beginning of the film shows us as
apes, wherein a black monolith (possible God allegory) reveals itself
to us as we first begin to comprehend tools as hunting mechanisms. We
proceed to separate ourselves from the apes that don't comprehend tools
through harassing them and ultimately separate ourselves as unique. We
then jump many years later to a theoretical 2001, wherein people have
become lazy; they lack emotion and have mechanical usages for almost
any regular job. What's implied is that we have evolved to a point of
slothfulness due to a lack of this theoretical God. Most of the
conventional story isn't the point; it is put in largely to begin the
plot where the truly insightful message on human beings is revealed. An
alien signal is picked up and a crew with a computer (Hal 9000) is sent
to investigate. What is shown is that Hal 9000 is more human then the
human beings, a creature stuck in a world void of life in a
metaphysical sense. Ultimately he destroys all but one crewmember in an
attempt to keep things safe, through his own poorly figured sense of
the situation. When the last member finally succeeds in unplugging him,
he regains what it means to be human and what follows is one of the
most impressive sequences ever revealed in any film.
What struck me at first with 2001 was its cold lifeless nature; though
this comes off as the films nature it truly is only the coldness of
space that gives it the sense. 2001 is a life affirming film because it
shows that humans will keep going, we are still evolving and we will
never really die. I don't connect with it like some individuals,
because as a believer my theology is different, but the film is a
moving sense of life and color, and it is affirming in many ways to
know that were not done. We as a species have a long way to go, but we
will ultimately make it.
2001 often lacks the philosophical qualities that make people connect
with the cinema. It isn't easy relating to an abstract verb as oppose
to an individual, but this quality alone separates 2001 as a truly
significant piece of the cinema. Regardless as to how deeply anybody
relates to the plot, the use of sound and color is unrivalled in any
film, and lovers of the cinema will inherently appreciate this aspect
alone. Truly nothing has ever surpassed it in terms of raw energy and
beauty and any admirer of film will be impressed with this aspect
regardless of philosophical merit to one's personal life.
Kubrick has left us with a masterpiece I think we will all grow to
further appreciate in time, just as we will further evolve, our tastes
will as well, and I see further recognition ahead of 2001. A true
masterpiece and the film that defined a genius, I give 2001: A Space
Odyssey a deserving 10/10.
4.0 out of 5 stars Look at the far future with optimism.,
Look at the far future with optimism.
This review contains possibly a spoiler. I explain what happens at the end of the film. I do this because the end is confusing if you don't know something about the ideas of Arthur C.Clarke, an English scientist and SF writer who wrote the script for this movie along with Stanley Kubrick.
The basic idea of the film is that the 'Homo Sapiens' evolved from the apes (Darwin) and the 'Homo Cosmos' will in time evolve from the 'Homo Sapiens'(A.C.Clarke). The 'Homo Cosmos' will be a human creature that is able to live in outer space like we are able to live on Earth. Space will be his natural environment.
Arthur C.Clarke writes about this idea ( and many other scientific speculations ) in his book 'Profiles of the Future', first published in 1962 - he calls it 'An inquiry into the limits of the possible' - and revised in 1999 for millennial edition published by Indigo.
Before I carry on I have to say that the characters in this film are very cold and distant (all of them with perhaps the exception of the six year old daughter of one of the scientists.)They are polite but they could be mindless robots. I don't know if this was on purpose or that the scriptwriters didn't care about human psychology.
The movie has four parts.
First is the long winded part where you can witness the daily life of large apes. I presume that stunt men crawled almost literally in the skin of those apes. The special make-up must have cost a fortune. I give the film 4 stars because this first part is extremely slow-paced and is of very little importance for the rest of the film.
You start wondering if you are watching the wrong movie but at the end of that first part, you understand that the basic idea was that the apes are climbing up the ladder of evolution by using large bones as a tool or a weapon.
In the second part some scientists travel to the moon (there are already several colonies on the moon), to visit a mysterious artifact dug up in the vicinity of one of the colonies. We are told that the artifact points toward Jupiter where possibly another artifact can be found, floating like a satellite around the giant planet.
The third part is the mission to Jupiter. Something happens and the only survivor of the mission takes one of the space-capsules. He uses the gravity of Jupiter to gain speed and he makes a discovery voyage beyond Jupiter. The enormous speed he has is one of the most impressive scenes of the film.
In the fourth and last part of the movie, we witness the decay of the Homo Sapiens and we look at the foetus of the Homo Cosmos, floating in outer space.
A professional reviewer called The Space Odyssey a movie with a pessimistic vision. He apparently didn't read 'Profiles of the Future' because if there is one SF movie that is optimistic and welcomes the future with open arms (so to speak) it's The Space Odyssey.
After all, a whole new kind of humans with different and powerful possibilities is about to be born.
5.0 out of 5 stars science fiction classic,
By A Customer
I am writing this review for those who claimed this movie has parts that are incomprehensible. Let me begin saying that you are right. The thing is this. There are movies wich are so successful, that a book is written afterwards based on it, like Star Wars. There are books so great that someone attempts to make a film of them, like The Lord of the Rings. Neither of these is the case of 2001. This a very peculiar situation in wich movie and book were developed simultaneously and were released within only a couple of months of difference. And even though there are some slights differences between book and movie, both belong together as a unit. Each one explains the other, so you can't read the book wihout the movie or watch the movie without having read the book. If you like good science fiction, that is science fiction wich is not like Star Trek or the Chronicles of Riddick, you should buy the movie and the book. 2001 is the proof that it is possible to make great science fiction: a story that portraits extraordinary events wich allow to explore the human condition and at the same time give entertainment.
5.0 out of 5 stars very influencial piece of artwork history,
By A Customer
This review is from: 2001: A Space Odyssey [Import] (DVD)
the opinions and reviews I encounter reguarding this film are always ones of love or hate. For those who have seen and have hated it, I have one thing to say and that's... everyone has their own opinion, so it is crazy to chastize you for disagreeing with me. with that said, I think it is arogance on both parts to tell the other half that they suck for liking it or disliking it when the fact is, they don't understand it themselves. I love this movie for a number of reasons, the compositions and colors chosen for each and every scene were not from impulse or what might look 'cool', instead, the way each scene is set up visually tells the story better than any dialogue could. True, the special effects are very well done and makes one wonder how they were made, but more importantly is how they help tell the story. You can agree or disagree with me on that one, but when I watch the movie, I see how the spinning rooms bring us into a world of technology that we understand but so unlike everyday living. Throughout the movie, one can't help but notice the fact that "man, where's the dialogue?", that's just it. Dialogue, narraration, and captions can (it CAN, but doesn't always) make a story less interresting as it is likely to be used as a substitute for creativity and laziness on the filmmakers part. At the beginning, it tells us, "The Dawn of Man", an that is all we need to know. So with that in mind, mankind becomes the main character, since there is no single person that the film follows. We see its past, its present and imagine the future. it shows us that tools are what makes man "man" and how the very tools we make can become smarter than us and may bite us in the ass. This movie is not for everyone, for those who like it because of its philosophical aspects, cool. For those who like it for its special effects, sure. I choose to like this movie because of the challenge. The challenge to show a story instead of telling, to have the special effects be apart of the story instead of a gimick, and to keep a person's (like me) interrest during a mundane or routine activity or journey. I understand the overall Philosophies involved, but i chose not to write about that. I like the movie for reasons I have written about and for me to write about why it is a "celebration of mankind" would be more of a book report than anything else, in fact I don't agree with the overall message. If you want the movie explained, look for essays. I recomend this movie for those who enjoy watching a story that trusts the viewer and does not have to spoonfeed information.
2.0 out of 5 stars One Giant Yawn,
This is surely one of the most overrated films of all time. I really wanted to like this, I tried hard but I just found myself struggling to stay awake. The plot is virtually incomprehensible, it's got something to do with evolution apparently but the different strands of the movie are not linked together in any meaningful way. The first 30 minutes or so are excruciatingly dull - these scenes with the apes are pretty pointless. So they discover that they can use bones as weapons. Wow. They find the black monolith and go nuts. Double Wow. Then we get a bunch of painfully long space landing sequences set to music, boring dialogue (when there actually is any), and a bunch of characters who you just don't care about. I can admire Kubrick's direction here, he obviously has a wonderful talent for visuals (though they are dated now), but the whole film just leaves you feeling empty. The best thing in the film is actually Hal, the computer on the Jupiter mission, who is genuinely creepy and at least interesting. But the ending is just ridiculous and I'm tired of reading reviews by these self-proclaimed film experts who say that if you don't "get it", then it's just a demonstration of your lack of intelligence. I'm not stupid and I didn't know what the hell was going on, much less how it related to the rest of the movie. I read one review on here that interpreted the ending as a rebirth of man as the superman (hence the foetus overlooking earth), based on Nietzche's philosophy. Having read a lot of Nietzsche's philosophy, at least this made some sense and would somehow join the different strands of the story together as a path of human evolution from the dawn of man to the superman. But most of these reviewers don't actually give any suggestions about what this film means, what the point of it might be. If you guys are so supremely intelligent, then maybe you would be kind enough to explain to the rest of us philistines what exactly you got out of it (or even just what the monolith is). But no, they're happy to go along saying that's it's too profound to pinpoint a single meaning blah blah blah. In other words, they don't have a clue. Hey, the movie could have meant something profound but the point is that by the end you just don't care. The fact is that truly great movies engage audiences. This movie never does that, it always feels like you're on the outside looking in. It feels like a technical exercise from start to finish - there is no emotion, no suspense, barely a hint of a coherent story - it may be a film that many people can admire, but I can't imagine how anyone could truly love it and want to watch it more than once. So, all in all, a colossal bore. One star for Kubrick's direction and one for Hal.
5.0 out of 5 stars An immortal , and mythical film,
This film was the greatest work made by the master Stanley Kubrick.
This movie is built like a Symphony in four movements.
Introduction: the dawn of man; we watch in the first thirty minutes , two apes society ; with unsaid rules and a certain perception of the landness. When a monolyte suddenly appears, the sparkilng light of the intelligence enlights them. The aspects concerned with violence, sense of possesion, cruelty, and the taste for meat are visible shown; this step ahead in the evolution is one of the most powerful and extraordinary take ever filmed; the use of a bone as a lethal weapon is linked with the Second movement; we are now in XX century and we are witness of the purpose of the mission to Jupiter.
The journey would be the third movement; more specifically depicted as the Adagio , think in the Ninth Synphony's Beethoven; and this long sequence of the experience in the planet will carry us to the Fourth and last movement in which the relativity theory appears: this is the real meaning of the calelidoscopic journey beutifully depicted by a wide and dynamical spectral color frequency ; the concepts of time and space are broken and our hero; (after the epic struggle fight with HAL 900)will land in other dimension in a twilight zone; , a simmetry hall watching himself in a bed surrounded by a barroque style, with the monolyte as silent witness, in which he will reborn in that unforgettable ending sequence.
Inmediatly after Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick engaged literal and really with this tale of Arthur Clark, and five years were spent to get that challenging work.
And finally Kubrick shocked the whole world with a movie out of its time ; one legendary cult movie ; a real artistic and cinematographic winner; but the complex lines that support the film easily would surpass the limits of this review.
I've always thought since I watched it in 1968 , that Michael Collins in one of his countless thoughts when he turned around the dark side of the moon; the journey sequence certainly would be a leit motive when he faced this vertigo sensation in front the huge universe and the infiniteness sense he felt.
The musical employed were another genius touch; from Ligetti to Kachaturian and from Strauss Johann to Strauss Richard 's Zarathustra as a smart link motive between the first and second movement and the end sequence.
The special effects are worthy even today. The loneliness in which Dullea is involved when he talks with his family, is suggeted with a dark poetry , visual and musically speaking.
You don't have any excuse for not watching this major film.
A must in your DVD collection.
This film remained until 1972 as the major scifi achievement, but when Tarkovsky filmed Solaris , this one became in a second place.
5.0 out of 5 stars The genius of Clarke and Kubrick,
By A Customer
This review is from: 2001: A Space Odyssey (VHS Tape)
Clarke wrote an excellent book, and Kubrick brought his story to life beautifully. Rather than elaborating on my positive thoughts, I feel compelled to respond to the people who simply don't "get it".
Some of you think the movie is too slow. Here are my responses:
1. So many people today have a "fast-food" mentality that prevents them from appreciating the sheer intellect and craft involved in the storytelling and filmmaking process. How hard is it to sit still for a couple of hours? It is refreshing to see directors take their time when appropriate. Which brings me to my second point:
2. A key idea of the story is that traveling through time and space is a slow process. We don't just get on a spacecraft and arrive at our destination the next day. More over, evolution is an even longer process, spanning millions of years. Having short scenes and fast edits like many other films would have robbed this story of the overall mood and pace that was essential.
Some of you think the film lacks any sort of logic. Again, here are my thoughts:
1. I first saw this film as an adolescent child, and even at that young age it made sense to me. If anyone out there has half a brain, they can figure it out. So many people are accustomed to being spoon-fed answers, and are unable to comprehend something truly profound. I won't go into detail about the philosophical meaning of this film, because there are many resources out there that discuss this subject in a much better way than I can.
Even thought this film makes sense to me, I have come to realize a very comforting idea. Many things in life do not make sense, and are not meant to be understood. That is what makes life so interesting and mysterious.
4.0 out of 5 stars "Beyond the Infinite",
4.5 stars. I watched this again recently and I am still astounded at how fresh and altogether excellent the visual effects still are. The visual effects in this film are comparable to anything being done today, surpassing most. If for no other reason, watch this film with a particular eye for stunning visuals. Now, that's the best thing about this movie. Now, for the not so great. There are a couple of ideas that look and are dated, such as wearing "grip shoes" to walk around any given spacecraft. With all that we now know about being in space, in zero gravity, walking around is very impractical. Why not just kick off a wall in whatever direction you want to go? Why not pull yourself along a wall-pipe or handles? What Stanley Kubrick does with the camera angles in those shots are interesting and memorable, such as having one character standing on a "wall" while another is sitting on the "floor," but it makes more sense these days just to have them floating around. If there was artificial gravity, the ship would have to be spinning...ah, the hindsight of The Information Age! But at the time this film was released in theaters I couldn't possibly imagine what a fantastic effect it must have had on audiences of the time. It was an unprecedented achievement, and except for a few moments where I thought, "That wouldn't be that way in reality.," the rest of the film is outstanding. The last section of the film is simply amazing, filled with astounding visual effects, eerie symbolism, and some inspired direction from Stanley Kubrick. It is truly a haunting sequence. Overall, except for the occassional dated idea, this film shines. This is Science Fiction at its finest.
5.0 out of 5 stars I never fully appreciated it until I took Art History...,
First off, let me warn you about this film. This isn't a film you rent to watch with a few buddies over pizza and beer. This is the type of film you show a History of Film class, or any group of people who are together solely to observe deeply meaningful art. Yes, I know parts are very boring and tend to drag, but that's only if you watch it a certain way. It wasn't until recently that I suddenly realized HOW to watch it. For those reviewers who claim we who like the film cannot back up our love with any facts, I give you the following:
Arthur C. Clarke, the author of the original novel and also co-writer with Kubrick on this film, admired the Russian artist Malevich. Malevich was a deeply spiritual man who meditated through his artwork, and one of his themes was squares floating through space - sound familiar yet? In his work "Suprematist Composition: White on White" we see a tilted blue-white square inside a tan-white square. The smaller square represents our soul, and it is moving out of the composition and off into the empty space, going deeper and deeper until it finally meets our maker. It was also believed that that maker was ourselves.
The Russian artist was inspired by Nietzsche, who also spoke of spiritualism and "evolution." His poem "Thus Spoke Zarthustra" was about man's continuing development spiritually and physically until finally all that stood atop the world was a tall, Aryan man who was now the new god to rule over humanity. Does the title of the poem sound familiar? That is because the composer Strauss was so overwhelmed by the poem that he wrote a musical homage to it by the same name...and then a certain Stanley Kubrick used it as the theme to his space movie.
So what am I getting here? What we see in the movie is man's ascension through space. The blocky shapes represent our very essense and how we continue to advance through time. Think about it: first we are cavemen, then we move on to the moon, then into deep space until, finally, we have become the superhuman at the end of the movie. This makes the ending all the more powerful - I never fully realized the baby and the music until now. The fact the baby is looking upon the world - and the passion behind the music - is even more effective. The new god has emerged, and he is none other than mankind himself, achieving the highest level possible. The baby cannot talk, but Strauss' "Thus Spoke Zarthustra" does for him.
If you ask me, the fact Clarke was able to put this into a novel, and then Kubrick was able to capture that exact meaning from the novel into film, makes them both geniuses of their own time.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
2001: A Space Odyssey (Blu-ray) by Stanley Kubrick (Blu-ray)