2001: A Space Odyssey

• 
  
  October 12, 2009

  xXxHarleyxQuinnxXx

  WHAT IS THIS MOVIE ACCUALLY ABOUT!!! I will not lie...this is one of those movie where i had no idea what the heck was going on!!! Where do i start! how about the music! I swear this soundtrack will haunt me for the rest of my days!! with the doo doo doo doo ahhh ahhh. It was a ...( read more)horror movie soundtrack.
  Next is the story...The first 20 min win the monkeys is bull. and the BLACK SLATE thing...WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT!??!!!
  This could have been a movie with an accual story if they would have kept with the HAL 9000 going crazy. That might have been a movie i would have enjoyed...but this! Im all for arts movies but the timetraveling/space flight sequences got drawn out FAAARR TOOOO LLLOOONNNGGGG.
  I truthfully could not find a credible story in this movie...Iike I said im all for art house pictures but this was rediculous!
  p,s. the LAST 20 min. is bull as well and makes ABSOLUETLY NOOO SENSE!!!!
  
  I will say the Kubrick was truley a director at least 10 yrs ahead of anyone else of his time...The style and cinnematography was brillient.
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  If i would have not just went on IMDB and looked up the plot sumery, i would never have have figured out what was going on...what the heck is a Monalith anywhy?? and why is David turned into a creepy baby thing!~?! !

  Share This Review
• 
  
  September 4, 2009

  SirPant

  There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest film ever made. every time I watch it (and I've watched it quite a few times) I find something new, new meaning, new metaphors. Kubrick made very few films but with him the phrase 'Quality over quantity' rings very true. Bril...( read more)liant.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  June 14, 2009

  jplong39

  One of the great cinematic experiences of all time. A spiritual/philosophical journey tracing the history of man from a primate, to a slave of technology, and, once freeing himself of it, moves on to a new birth.
  
  This is pure cinema where the viewer isn't spoon-fed a story, bu...( read more)t is left to experience a visual thought-provoking feast and allowed to interpret it for him or herself.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  May 16, 2009

  ohagankieran

  The genius is not in how much Stanley Kubrick does in ``2001: A Space Odyssey,'' but in how little. This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on scre...( read more)en long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, ``2001'' is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.
  
  No little part of his effect comes from the music. Although Kubrick originally commissioned an original score from Alex North, he used classical recordings as a temporary track while editing the film, and they worked so well that he kept them. This was a crucial decision. North's score, which is available on a recording, is a good job of film composition, but would have been wrong for ``2001'' because, like all scores, it attempts to underline the action--to give us emotional cues. The classical music chosen by Kubrick exists *outside* the action. It uplifts. It wants to be sublime; it brings a seriousness and transcendence to the visuals.
  
  Consider two examples. The Johann Strauss waltz ``Blue Danube,'' which accompanies the docking of the space shuttle and the space station, is deliberately slow, and so is the action. Obviously such a docking process would have to take place with extreme caution (as we now know from experience), but other directors might have found the space ballet too slow, and punched it up with thrilling music, which would have been wrong.
  
  We are asked in the scene to contemplate the process, to stand in space and watch. We know the music. It proceeds as it must. And so, through a peculiar logic, the space hardware moves slowly because it's keeping the tempo of the waltz. At the same time, there is an exaltation in the music that helps us feel the majesty of the process.
  
  Now consider Kubrick's famous use of Richard Strauss' ``Thus Spake Zarathustra.'' Inspired by the words of Nietzsche, its five bold opening notes embody the ascension of man into spheres reserved for the gods. It is cold, frightening, magnificent.
  
  The music is associated in the film with the first entry of man's consciousness into the universe--and with the eventual passage of that consciousness onto a new level, symbolized by the Star Child at the end of the film. When classical music is associated with popular entertainment, the result is usually to trivialize it (who can listen to the ``William Tell Overture'' without thinking of the Lone Ranger?). Kubrick's film is almost unique in *enhancing* the music by its association with his images.
  
  I attended the Los Angeles premiere of the film, in 1968, at the Pantages Theater. It is impossible to describe the anticipation in the audience adequately. Kubrick had been working on the film in secrecy for some years, in collaboration, the audience knew, with author Arthur C. Clarke, special-effects expert Douglas Trumbull and consultants who advised him on the specific details of his imaginary future--everything from space station design to corporate logos. Fearing to fly and facing a deadline, Kubrick had sailed from England on the Queen Elizabeth, doing the editing while on board, and had continued to edit the film during a cross-country train journey. Now it finally was ready to be seen.
  
  To describe that first screening as a disaster would be wrong, for many of those who remained until the end knew they had seen one of the greatest films ever made. But not everyone remained. Rock Hudson stalked down the aisle, complaining, ``Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?'' There were many other walkouts, and some restlessness at the film's slow pace (Kubrick immediately cut about 17 minutes, including a pod sequence that essentially repeated another one).
  
  The film did not provide the clear narrative and easy entertainment cues the audience expected. The closing sequences, with the astronaut inexplicably finding himself in a bedroom somewhere beyond Jupiter, were baffling. The overnight Hollywood judgment was that Kubrick had become derailed, that in his obsession with effects and set pieces, he had failed to make a movie.
  
  What he had actually done was make a philosophical statement about man's place in the universe, using images as those before him had used words, music or prayer. And he had made it in a way that invited us to contemplate it--not to experience it vicariously as entertainment, as we might in a good conventional science-fiction film, but to stand outside it as a philosopher might, and think about it.
  
  The film falls into several movements. In the first, prehistoric apes, confronted by a mysterious black monolith, teach themselves that bones can be used as weapons, and thus discover their first tools. I have always felt that the smooth artificial surfaces and right angles of the monolith, which was obviously *made* by intelligent beings, triggered the realization in an ape brain that intelligence could be used to shape the objects of the world.
  
  The bone is thrown into the air and dissolves into a space shuttle (this has been called the longest flash-forward in the history of the cinema). We meet Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester), en route to a space station and the moon. This section is willfully anti-narrative; there are no breathless dialogue passages to tell us of his mission. Instead, Kubrick shows us the minutiae of the flight: the design of the cabin, the details of in-flight service, the effects of zero gravity.
  
  Then comes the docking sequence, with its waltz, and for a time even the restless in the audience are silenced, I imagine, by the sheer wonder of the visuals. On board, we see familiar brand names, we participate in an enigmatic conference among the scientists of several nations, we see such gimmicks as a videophone and a zero-gravity toilet.
  
  The sequence on the moon (which looks as real as the actual video of the moon landing a year later) is a variation on the film's opening sequence. Man is confronted with a monolith, just as the apes were, and is drawn to a similar conclusion: *This must have been made.* And as the first monolith led to the discovery of tools, so the second leads to the employment of man's most elaborate tool: the spaceship Discovery, employed by man in partnership with the artificial intelligence of the onboard computer, named HAL 9000.
  
  Life onboard the Discovery is presented as a long, eventless routine of exercise, maintenance checks and chess games with HAL. Only when the astronauts fear that HAL's programming has failed does a level of suspense emerge; their challenge is somehow to get around HAL, which has been programmed to believe, ``This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.'' Their efforts lead to one of the great shots in the cinema, as the men attempt to have a private conversation in a space pod, and HAL reads their lips. The way Kubrick edits this scene so that we can discover what HAL is doing is masterful in its restraint: He makes it clear, but doesn't insist on it. He trusts our intelligence.
  
  Later comes the famous ``star gate'' sequence, a sound and light journey in which astronaut Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) travels through what we might now call a wormhole into another place, or dimension, that is unexplained. At journey's end is the comfortable bedroom suite in which he grows old, eating his meals quietly, napping, living the life (I imagine) of a zoo animal who has been placed in a familiar environment. And then the Star Child.
  
  There is never an explanation of the other race that presumably left the monoliths and provided the star gate and the bedroom. ``2001'' lore suggests Kubrick and Clarke tried and failed to create plausible aliens. It is just as well. The alien race exists more effectively in negative space: We react to its invisible presence more strongly than we possibly could to any actual representation.
  
  ``2001: A Space Odyssey'' is in many respects a silent film. There are few conversations that could not be handled with title cards. Much of the dialogue exists only to *show* people talking to one another, without much regard to content (this is true of the conference on the space station). Ironically, the dialogue containing the most feeling comes from HAL, as it pleads for its ``life'' and sings ``Daisy.''
  
  The film creates its effects essentially out of visuals and music. It is meditative. It does not cater to us, but wants to inspire us, enlarge us. Nearly 30 years after it was made, it has not dated in any important detail, and although special effects have become more versatile in the computer age, Trumbull's work remains completely convincing--more convincing, perhaps, than more sophisticated effects in later films, because it looks more plausible, more like documentary footage than like elements in a story.
  
  Only a few films are transcendent, and work upon our minds and imaginations like music or prayer or a vast belittling landscape. Most movies are about characters with a goal in mind, who obtain it after difficulties either comic or dramatic. ``2001: A Space Odyssey'' is not about a goal but about a quest, a need. It does not hook its effects on specific plot points, nor does it ask us to identify with Dave Bowman or any other character. It says to us: We became men when we learned to think. Our minds have given us the tools to understand where we live and who we are. Now it is time to move on to the next step, to know that we live not on a planet but among the stars, and that we are not flesh but intelligence.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  February 22, 2009

  her69eyes

  I very much had reservations about writing anything about "2001". What could I contribute to the vast analysis' of the film that has been heralded as an all time great for 40 years? Cinema's most iconic and defining moments are here full on display - from the Dawn of Man, to HAL'...( read more)s neglectance to open the pod doors. Well, to be honest, I have nothing to contribute. Everything i'll say from here on serves no purpose as it's been said and it's been said better. It's only to self-satisfy my compulsive behavior that i'll complete a review for this.
  
  Stanley Kubrick's "2001" immediately thrusts us into an unfamiliar environment which he entitles "The Dawn of Man". For about 15 minutes, we observe unevolved humans, ape-like beings, and in film's most iconic jump cut we're sent thousands of years into the future. It's in "The Dawn of Man" that we see a giant black monolith that teaches the apes to use bones as tools, and another black monolith has appeared thousands of years later under the surface of the moon. This one has a signal directing to Jupiter, and Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester) is the man in charge of examining and exploring this strange occurrence.
  
  The third segment of the film, the longest and perhaps most iconic, is set aboard the "Discovery", a space ship on it's way to Jupiter to investigate the monolith's signal. Two humans are onboard, David Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), and three other crew members are frozen. The brain of the ship is a HAL 9000 computer (Douglas Rain), perhaps one of the most famous film "villains" in history. When we're introduced to HAL, we know it's vastly superior to humans in brain power, however we know little about it's emotional capabilities. Eventually, HAL finds out about Bowman and Poole's plans to disable HAL under suspicions that it is faulty, and under no circumstances will HAL let them go through with the procedure. At the end of the segment, when HAL is in the process of being shut down, and it's only response is a rendition of "Daisy" and pleas of "I'm scared, Dave", perhaps we're clued into just how much HAL is capable of feeling.
  
  The fourth segment is certainly the most ambiguous and challenging to movie goers. We follow Bowman through a sort of wormhole into a bedroom, where he ages, dies, and is reborn. It's clear that humanity isn't as significant as we may think, as a larger life force is almost "guiding" us through evolution. Kubrick never says anything about the aliens in his picture, although the intimidating monoliths alone are some of the most frightening and compelling "creatures" ever put in a science fiction film.
  
  "2001: A Space Odyssey" is undisputably one of the great films of all time. It's endlessly engrossing and challenging, however it's imagination has led even the most casual audiences to seek deep analysis about the material. "2001", as a science fiction film, and perhaps as a film in general, is unrivaled in history.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  November 20, 2009

  hamm1365

  2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is turly the best scinece fiction film ever made by Stanley Kubrick's wonderful vision of human evolution, space travel, technology, artificial intelligence, and extraterrestrial life.
  
  But still, the mystery of 2001 is still a mystery to this day.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  November 18, 2009

  CurtisoftheDead

  Kubrick's masterpiece. There is almost no dialog in this film, but it is so visually stunning and interpretational that it almost sends one's mind into overload. Words can't do the film justice.
  
  Who Should See this?
  1) People who have eyes
  2) Kubrick Fans
  3) Apes and Monoli...( read more)ths
  4) Sci Fi Nerds
  5) Really anyone who enjoys film

  Share This Review
• 
  
  November 15, 2009

  lf39

  The next step in man's evolution...
  Transcendental...

  Share This Review
• 
  
  November 12, 2009

  AtheneSchmidt

  there should be a 'I wasted 2 whole hours of my life on this movie' rating. this is the most boring movie I've ever seen.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  November 12, 2009

  blackheart218

  woo dude that some far out shit maann...

  Share This Review

View more 2001: A Space Odyssey reviews at RottenTomatoes.com

• 
  June 29, 2009

  R0L0D3X

  The best part is where Hal 9000 is singing that song Daisy to Dave
  
  8/10
  
• 
  June 15, 2009

  kanokaan

  Every movie-fan must "suffer" this movie:)
• 
  May 7, 2009

  lightwizard

  What I can add is that I owned the VHS, donated it after buying the first restoration on DVD and now, I'm astounded at seeing what is the closest to what I experienced at the Hollywood Cinedome in a re-release in the 70's, the new Blu-Ray restored edition. It's perfection - even the sound is a 100% improvement. Many people do not realize that this film was re-released into theaters four or five times, the last time at selected theaters in big cities (naturally, with big screens). The Panavision 70 on the Cinerama screen is still the most impressive but my big screen TV, since I'm now in the audio/visual design, is the right size for my room so it's a second choice. Actually, by memory, this DVD might have an edge on detail to the projected image.
• 
  October 4, 2008

  arleya

  omg!! i just finish to see this amazing movie on TCM yesterday for first time, thanks to that channel really, and I love the amazing special efects and photography on the movie, kubrick make a really great job on the direction, and also is an excellent story, i cant belive this was from '68, totally advance efects, great movie!!
• 
  September 26, 2008

  rayman0071

  Commenting on the 40th Anniversary of this cinematic masterpiece. A pinnacle of cinema.
  A pinnacle of science-fiction as brilliant as never before seen,even to those who never seen it...experience it!!! No wonder it is one of AFI's top 100 movies of all time. This should be re-released in theatres with the original musical score from composer Alex North. See this in the theatres on a widescreen in full 70MM and Dolby Stereo!!!
• 
  September 18, 2008

  daiquiriframboise

  The Jules Verne Festival's EXTRAORDINAIRE Series of screenings at the Edison will celebrate the 40th Anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
  It will be held Sunday, October 12, 6PM, in Los Angeles, at the Edison. Starring Vivien Kubrick, Keir Dullea, Dan Richter.
  The JULES VERNE LEGENDAIRE AWARD will be presented to the film and accepted by Stanley Kubrick's daughter and the cast of the film.
  Tickets on sales: www.jvaff.org
  
• 
  June 25, 2008

  TobiasXimenez

  With this film, Kubrick changed the cinematic "form" forever.The way films were scripted, photographed,edited,designed,the use of music,etc..the list goes on and on. Without a doubt the most audacious and influential shift in cinematic history alongside "Citizen Kane"(1941) & in my opinion the finest motion-picture EVER made.This enigmatic movie continues to cause incredible culture shock.Controversy still erupts over the meanings of the film's many metaphysical symbols.Does the black monolith represent an ever present higher being? Is the star child a prenatal Christ or meditation on reincarnation?Does the film deconstruct Darwinism or propose an ambitious new spin on creative design?Is it possible for A.I. to genuinely feel human emotions?etc,etc...This film, ultimately, is about mankind needing to transcend his limited logic & move into dimensions that are greater than its narrow aims.It is in no way a pessimistic film as many have suggested, it's a work based in self discovery
• 
  March 18, 2008

  sononothing

  I remember Arthur Clarke saying that if you understood 2001 then they (Clarke and Kubrick) failed.
• 
  February 11, 2008

  magicalmystery

  I think this is a great great movie, but most people don't understand it :S
• 
  December 6, 2007

  oksijen

  Well, I havent seen the movie but now reading the book. 250 pages are over; the movie's story is over yet there are 750 more pages to go. (Book contains all Odysseies)

• Alan Gifford
• Arthur C. Clarke
• Daniel Richter
• Douglas Rain
• Frank A Miller
• Gary Lockwood
• John Ashley
• Keir Dullea
• Leonard Rossiter

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

• 
  Planet of the Apes (65%)
• 
  WALL-E (66%)
• 
  The Fountain (67%)
• 
  Aliens (64%)

No facts approved yet. Be the first

• The first line of dialogue isn't spoken until 25 minutes into this Stanley Kubrick movie.  Answer »
• "Just what do you think you're doing Dave?" Is a quote from which classic film?   Answer »
• After the hard work in making 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick decided to make his next film as simple as possible, small budget, crew and lighting equipment. It was the the fastest film Kubrick shot, edited and released.  Answer »
• This amazing Stanley Kubrick film was so realistic in its depiction of outer space, despite no one having ever been there at the time, that it had a great deal of influence on the proceedings of the American Space Program in the following years.  Answer »

• 
  2001 (A Space Odyssey) Quiz
  by fb1431169974

  37 taken
• 
  Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey
  by annvanhaeken1

  138 taken
• 
  2001: a space odyssey
  by fb1390481970

  45 taken
• 
  Are you a '2001 Space Odyssey' geek?
  by fb596558173

  4 taken
• 
  2001:A Space Odyssey
  by EddieC9

  3 taken

• 2001: A Space Odyssey with Pink Floyd, "One of These Days"
• 1 - A space odd.
• 2001
• 2001: A Space Odyssey opening credits
• 2001: a space odDiTy
• Heywood Floyd's Flight Simulation

• Luciustheb...
• Morfin
• leninzac
• pedronafct
• mdek2112
• alireza64ir
• caradelia
• CubeALibre

• 

  Why HAL 9000 Sings "Daisy Bell" in 2001: A Space Odyssey

  Posted by kelliott15
  14 days ago

• 

  Dir: Stanley Kubrick

  by Agustin1986
  16 Movies
• 

  my pics

  by venus104
  21 Movies
• 

  Original Scores

  by SkywalkerJones
  31 Movies
• 

  My Personal Collection - Feature Films

  by neopol313
  169 Movies
• 

  Films I Own (A-M)

  by Agustin1986
  167 Movies