I recently saw 2001: a space odyssey film. I had in mind that it is directed by Kubrick and that the film has a very iconic status.

But what a load of bullcrap this film was! Extremely slow and extremely boring (like showing the spaceship drifting into space for 10min, or a spaceship docking for 15min!). Halfway in the movie the ship's computer gets a bit crazy, and interesting and thought provoking stuff happens, but we're given a quick solution to the problem. Then the last part starts with some visuals like you've been a complete lsd casualty with mashed frontal cortex and then an ambiguous nonsensical end happens.

I wonder what others think of this film and why it might be good in its whole. What is this film wort of? I'd be happy to be given interpretations re this film as I am not the deep thinking type of guy. I love deep films (Ingmar Bergman being one of my favorite directors), but I much prefer like Conan the Destroyer (not Conan the Barbarian as it has slower pace).

It is one of my favorite films. I find it to be visually stunning in a way that has not been bested even by more modern techniques and a truly visionary statement. The pacing is a large part of what makes it great. It is not an action/adventure film.

If you simply don't 'get it' than I recommend that you read the book. It clears up the narrative quite nicely.

I think ultimately it is about the limitlessness of a universe of possibilities and speculation on our place within. That seems a pretty good story to me.

I saw it just over a year ago infund..and I had it all built up in my mind based on what others had said about it..

Sure it is interesting..but it was definatly not what I at least personally had it hyped up to be in my mind. I dunno it was not some like mind blowing movie to me or anything. I think it could have benifited from better writers or something. That whole plot could have been way cooler.

If agile pacing is a requirement for you, 2001 might not be your movie... But the fact you like Bergman is a nice twist.

I saw 2001 when I was 12, and it blew my mind. I've seen it again several times and it's a film you will keep enjoying if you liked it the first time as I did, but I can understand why some people won't see the point in it.

Kubrick made a visual experience, with a visual reading and interpretation. At the same time, he was trying cutting edge film technology back in 1968. Arthur C. Clarke's story was actually written along with the screenplay (a project involving both Kubrick and Clarke) and in a way the more classical narrative was left in the book and the movie became more a rendering of what the book couldn't express, rather than a classic adaptation of the novel.

The story in the 2001 novel goes around a hidden alien race that somehow is able to intervene in human evolution. The monolith is some device that inspires intelligence, or a leap in the species (the hominids start using tools, man launches a distant exploration mission, and finally acquires some transcendental knowledge). The scenes with the docking spaceships were staged as a waltz (Kubrick loved his classical music), and back then the visual effects were mind-blowing. The final scene "beyond Jupiter" is a psychedelic trip, a sort of breakthrough of intelligence. No wonder that would work in the end of the 60s.

To me it was a hell of a dive, food for thought, and a great experience in a theater, and it's a key movie in my life. But I totally get it can be a boring movie to some.

very nice points and posting Vodsel, i enjoy reading it.

I absolutely loved that movie as a kid, and devoured everything that Clarke wrote (bear in mind that he's the guy that conceived of the geosynchronous satellite belt that today bears his name and makes modern telecommunication possible- no dummy in other words). Played it a hundred times, mostly in the background while I was drawing. But I have to confess that when I finally dropped acid and went to watch a midnight screening of it, I actually fell asleep.

It's a very meditative movie, and the pacing is unlike anything else you'll see. I doubt very much that a film like this could be made today and accorded the budget that it had. But for anyone who is able to fall Ito its unusual pace, it really does have a lot to offer in terms of deep metaphor about learning, evolution, transcendence. It's all there and you don't even have to dig too deeply, provided you can stay awake.

It's easy to get jaded about special effects with all that is possible these days, but you have to remember that all of that stuff was absolutely cutting edge at the time. I read a feature in Cinefex magazine about how they did it, and the creativity behind the solutions is almost as interesting as the film. The long trip-zoom sequence was done with lights, mirrors and rollers. Lunar landscape made by dropping blobs of clay from a scaffold to create real craters...

I'm also a big fan of the soundtrack, in particular four pieces written by Georgy Ligeti at the time the film was produced (Atmospheres, Lontano, Lux Aeterna, Requiem:Introitus) which are some of the most psychedelic pieces of classical music ever written. I've put on the headphones and blasted that stuff on milligram doses of a acid and... Holy shit.

The sequel, 2010, is a great film and much faster paced. It's solid sci-fi with a lot of attention on getting the science right- pretty rare in cinema.

watching that film for the first time happened to coincide with my first mushroom trip!

For anyone watching this film for the first time in the 21st century I personally feel that it is imperative to first read the book, then watch the film. The two work together in synergy with each other. It does not work that well the other way around (film then book) but it will at least answer any questions and fill in many blanks. The film was a major accomplishment when it first came put and holds up well in many ways even today. Kubric was a master cinematographer so many of the shots are pretty spectacular. Bear in mind that digital effects were decades away from being invented so almost all the effects are either in camera or through a camera and projector setup. The first Star Wars benefited in many ways from the visual achievements created in 2001. Read the book. If you like it, perhaps watch the film again and see if you do not enjoy and appreciate it more the second time around.

I guess one could also say that A Clockwork Orange is a boring action adventure film by today's standards. It is another one of my favorites and seems to keep finding an audience of young people as long as they are open to it.

Peace!

You might like 2010 better, seems like I remember it being a little faster paced. It's a different director and he doesn't go for the long drawn out scenes where nothing much happens. And it answers some of the questions brought up in the first one.

Much like many maritime books/movies (like das boot), the slowness of the movie is essential to convey the feeling of what space travel/travel at sea is really all about.

2001, was a movie that was created in 1968, at that point it was WAY beyond the other movies of the time. In the year 2012, I can understand the film not being appreciated, especially by people that are stimulation junkies, strung out on fast paced television and iphones.