2001: A Space Odyssey

Brought to us from legendary director Stanley Kubrick. Anyone who has seen this, would you care to rate it and tell me how it is? I'm going to get around to watching it I think after hearing nothing but possitive reviews. I did watch bits of the follow-up 2010, but it wasn't very interesting and I was lost having not seen 2001.

Just read up on the plot via IMDB and it sounds like a film I would like.

It's a must see. Aside from the fact that it re-invented science fiction, it's a thought-provoking epic. Utterly compelling, despite only having something like nineteen lines of dialogue!

Jim

Cheers Jim. Going to look for it on DVD when I get time.

Morgannwg - I think if you're a strong sci-fi enthusiast (and it sounds like you are), you'll really enjoy it.

I like my sci-fi with a heavy human element and story (Alien, Village of the Damned, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, even First Men in the Moon). For me, 2001 was too long, over rated and never got me involved with the story or rooting for characters. I found it came close to being pretentious although for others it was and remains a work of art.

Very unfairly, I also couldn't take Leonard Rossiter seriously as a scientist given his subsequent and highly sucessful comedic tv performances with which I always associate him.

I think my criticisms have some validity although I acknowledge they're very personal. I'm not trying to put you off, merely show a different preference. As I say, I think and hope you will enjoy it although don't expect me to join you.

Its a slow movie but deals with human evolution unlike any movie I have seen since. The ending baffeled me for years but I now know what it all means.

I know exactly where guildford is coming from on this...seems like heresy in a way to utter criticism of the movie since it more or less paved the way for modern big budget science fiction films as opposed to the often ludicrous robot/monster/alien invasion flicks which (some honorable exceptions aside) largely characterized the genre in previous years ; but...

Characters were wooden. Dialogue generally stiff and un-natural. ( The sequel had a lot more humanity ) In truth the film would be best watched with the sound turned down if it were not for the excellent score

However the sheer poetry of some of the images and the breathtaking scale of the whole story means it has to be included on everyone's "to be seen" list , even if I don't have it on my personal top five science fiction list.

How do you rate the sequel, 2010?

2010 is an interesting watch. It's not as groundbreaking as 2001, but is still immensely watchable. It's more of a traditional film with an easier narrative focus that the first outing and continues the story well.

Just move with it but don't expect an easy narrative story or to be fully satisfied with the conclusions

It's really a stylistic piece that kinda takes you on a trip given that it was using quite new methods of portraying space. Just immerse yourself in it.

HAL is quite entertaining...especially given that he's the classic logical computer but in reality adds most colour and humanity characterwise. For him alone, the movie is certainly worth...the trip!

I have to admit that I haven't seen it for probably 20 years, but my recollection definitely puts me in the same school of thought as Guildfordbat and Alfie - it's the sort of film critics love, very arty and image-driven, but somehow it just seemed cold and unnecessarily convoluted and confusing.

Maybe I should try and watch it again to see if it makes more sense now I'm older and perhaps more thoughtful. Still suspect I'd find it a load of pretentious twaddle though...

I'm in the 'pretentious twaddle' camp too.

It was interesting that the book and film were created simultaneously. I found the book even less enjoyable than the film and I've generally enjoyed a lot of Arthur C. Clarke's stuff.

Morgannwg wrote:How do you rate the sequel, 2010?

These days it's best remembered as Helen Mirren's introduction to American audiences.

However, at the time it was a marvel how they rebuilt the "Discovery" sets, considering that the originals were destroyed with no blueprints kept. According to an interview with Keir Dullea which I saw when the movie was first released, the producers of 2010 used blow-up frame prints from the original movie and, with a compass, pencil and paper, calculated the proportions of the set.

I found 2001 a bit cold (something that can be said to a certain extent about almost all of Kubrick's films) and having seen it all the way through one, it's not necessairly something I would want to see again. It's beautiful to look at, but like has been suggested above, it lacks any real form of humanity and leaves you feeling a bit empty.

Still, it's infinitely more watchable that Tarvosky's original Russian version of Solaris which has been cited as Russia's answer to 2001. I gave up towards the end of a scene which comprised solely of lights blinking on a space helmet for the best part of 10 minutes.

superflyweight wrote:I found 2001 a bit cold (something that can be said to a certain extent about almost all of Kubrick's films) and having seen it all the way through one, it's not necessairly something I would want to see again. It's beautiful to look at, but like has been suggested above, it lacks any real form of humanity and leaves you feeling a bit empty.

Still, it's infinitely more watchable that Tarvosky's original Russian version of Solaris which has been cited as Russia's answer to 2001. I gave up towards the end of a scene which comprised solely of lights blinking on a space helmet for the best part of 10 minutes.

Aargh ! Sacrilege

You can say what you like about 2001 , but please , never be unkind about Solaris ...OK personal bias , but this is one of my all time favourite films ...and Tarkovsky has a similar position in my pantheon of Great Film Makers...

True. , it moves very slowly , and I guess won't please everyone , but anyone with the patience to stay with it should be rewarded ...ah well , I think so anyway

Certainly it has the humanity that 2001 lacks , and the "Russian 2001" advertising was actually pretty inaccurate , though understandable at the time for publicists trying to sell a foreign language film in the 1970s...It is a very different type of film (and in truth the science fiction setting takes a bit of a back seat to the director's own ideas , so much so that author Stanislaw Lem was a bit annoyed )but one I'd recommend to anyone.

On similar theme of slow pacing, I recall a journalist (German I think) at a press conference for Sodebergh's Solaris remake saying that he found the film boring (as preamble to a question he was asking George Clooney).

Clooney was not amused - think he insulted the guy back and possibly had him ejected.

Sorry, Alfie. Always struggle a little with Tarvosky's films - although Andrei Rublev is fantastic. I have similar issues with Bela Tar films. I know I should like them but I sometimes want to switch them off to watch Weekend at Bernies.

Loved the music but it went on too long the film......Like most Kubrick films not enough is done in way of explanation of events!!!

Kubrick always seem to overrate his audiences IQ.....(even if he underrated mine )

Kubrick always had these problems though I admire his work....and his love of subject...

Especially in today's just direct it and get it over with slap-dash age!!!!

His last film with Cruise Eyes wide shut was interesting but ended up dragging.......

All his films like Full Metal Jacket, Strangelove, Clockwork orange, lolita were decent and had style but could have done with half an hour at least... of periphery churned out!!!!

Probably The Shining is his best "cut" movie..If not his best!!!!

Full Metal is my favorite bit of Kubrick......However Kubrick and I both had in common a love for Peter Sellers work....

True comic genius....

I find most of Kubrick................. wait for it! wait for it!!!! ................. childish.

I actually think he tries to project the notion that you need a high IQ (like mine ) but when you actually do break it all down - it's all so very nursery-rhyme simple. I don't find his movies complex at all - just pseudo art-house posturing carrying some very blunt and elementary observations.

I'm not downing him - my definition of 'childish' is not to belittle his film-making but to strongly suggest he doesn't really stretch your imagination but merely uses smart devices to suggest he is doing so.

Eyes Wide Shut - it has a very uneasy yet alluring quality to it. It is beautifully shot and with its character intricacies and long conversations and suggested dark and decadent mood, it appears to be one of the most complex examinations of the human condition, most especially in terms of relationships and sexuality - and yet I've seen many, many French movies, and indeed English speaking ones, that challenge those themes much more potently.
John Huston's The Dead - is virtually just normal chat and singsongs for most of the movie and then the hit - and it becomes a growling masterpiece of skeletons in the closet and the emotions they leave lurking under the surface.
Kubrick overpaints to suggest depth, Huston underpaints and knows the true deal

Full Metal Jacket - again - for me, a very simple and frustratingly elementary morality play on how war changes nature. But I felt it was oh so crude in telling that tale - I found the recruit who is turned from timid giant to bloody madman particularly funny. It just wasn't needed...oh yeah?, so that's what GI bootcamp turned Vietnam recruits into? Them bad men! Yeah - could have been done with far fewer overt direction signs! I find the day to day slog of Platoon to be a much more convincing slice of what Vietnam 'did to young men'.

Nicholson isn't mad in The Shining - he's acting mad, and Kubrick allows him to over-act all the way through - killing the horror stone dead for me. I laughed too much at Nicholson's 'Here's Johnny' manic clown.

My favourite Kubrick film is actually one of my favourite movies period - Dr Strangeglove. Yes, it has its themes of cold war logic gone mad - but for me, it's just a very funny film and Kubrick executes the fun better than he's ever executed the 'deep' stuff. Maybe he's the world's best comedy director who never made a comic movie.

You make some good points......Fly..

Nicholson did over-act and the fact it was Nicholson made it okay!!!!..Certainly his character came close to laughable rather than the more scary portrait of the book...

Then again the Wife in it let the film down more than Nicholson..(she was dreadful!!)....

As for Full Metal Jacket I liked the Private Pyle bit...not to outlandish to suggest severe bullying can turn a mild man with low self esteem over the edge....

There is a childish quality in some of Kubrick's work you're right and I also come back to the bit where I said Kubrick takes it for granted you know what he's meaning in his movies.. a habit he had that lended itself to irritation!!

But his love of detail and love of subject (Being big enough to choose his films) does usually produce something of quality..

and in this slap dash age his style is much missed!!

superflyweight wrote:Sorry, Alfie. Always struggle a little with Tarvosky's films - although Andrei Rublev is fantastic. I have similar issues with Bela Tar films. I know I should like them but I sometimes want to switch them off to watch Weekend at Bernies.

Since you found Andrei Rublev fantastic you are totally forgiven , super flyweight

Even I had difficulties with his later films , after he left the Soviet Union.

2001, incredible visuals, mind-numbingly boring film.



emancipator

Well I've finally got around to watching it. I caved in and decided to download it. I buy a lot of DVD's that I don't watch. I'm considering putting all of them on e-bay now we have things like Netflix and Lovefilm.

I watched this on YouTube before watching 2001. A guy goes out of his way to explain a few unexplained things in the film, but not all of the unexplained things, probably because they can not be explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P95NWAHWLrc

I enjoyed the film. I'm really into this part of sci-fi. Which is why I was very let down by Prometheus. Loved the idea that they found clues in ancient structures to the origins of humanity coming from outer space. The retelling of Alien was not good though, neither was the ending. But enough of that. 2001: A Space Odyssey is for me, a work of art. People can complain about the music and bright lights all they want. I think Kubrick got it spot on. This along with A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket are my favourite Kubrick films. Didn't enjoy Eyes Wide Shut or the Shining. I haven't seen much else of his work.