p r e f e r r e d r e v i e w e r s :
 |
 |
|
You haven't selected any preferred reviewers. To learn more about customizing your experience, click here.
|
|
|
 |
 |
o t h e r r e v i e w e r s :
|
|
|
Dancing_P [ 10.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Another masterpiece. True, this one is slow in spots, but every single shot looks like some sort of New Age painting. Every single scene is achingly beautiful. The opening and closing "chapters" , if you will, are almost dialogue-less and yet there's a magnetic quality to them. HAL is a superb character. A total classic, although it might not be in my top 20.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Franc28 [ 10.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
2001:ASO is a masterpiece of science-fiction. Like a symphony, it deploys slowly but powerfully, spectacular image after spectacular image. Its stunningly rich subtext and dramatic soundtrack is sure to rivet everyone to the screen.
Yes, there is one big longueur which makes no sense to people who do not take drugs, and an obvious realism flaw. But these do not detract from the masterpiece. Anyone who likes science-fiction owes it to himself to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hitchcockian [ 9.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
One of Kubrick's most well-known and fantastical films, 2001: A Space Odyssey is certianly an excellent film choice. Though the movie is a long one and is a bit tedious and stagnant at times, the cinematography is almost always breath-taking and the mood that it provides is a whimsical, fantastical sensation. A must-see for any sci-fi or Kubrick fan who doesn't mind slow-paced, breathtaking movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kcremer [ 7.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
There's no doubt that this was a ground-breaking and influential movie for its' time, with remarkable visual effects. I just feel that Stanley Kubrick was too self-indulgent and a bit anal retentive with his movies. Some scenes from his movies just seem to drag and take way too long to get to the point long after we understand what's going on. That is why I didn't rate this movie higher. Sorry. I will say, though, that I've never disliked any of his movies which I saw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slothrop [ 10.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Sublime.
At once both structurally rigorous and playful, the landmark 1968 film is less science fiction than metaphysical exploration. No, not that kind of metaphysical exploration! This is not a philosophical essay. The film is a metaphysical exploration insofar as its ideas converge with its images to create a wholly cinematic ontology of the nexus between image and representation. Here the movement of the image is from solidity (the banality of human interaction, man's total instrumentalization--the death of spontaneity) to entropy (instrumental revolt, the breakdown of binary systems--spontaneity turning towards death) to eventually a new kind of solidity (beyond the infinite, beyond communication--Star Child's pure gaze). Representation thus slides from the banal (60's mod furniture and clothing--the triumph of "radical" interior decorating and runway fashion) to the schizophrenic (L'Avventura in color at lightspeed--the stargate) to the revelatory (dying, death, rebirth--rebirth beyond death...pure consciousness). "There and Beyond Back Again", a tale of consiousness by Stanley Kubrick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrCNTower [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
This is a flick you really have to understand symbolism as well as the mind of Stanley Kubrick to understand what the fuck the flick really means.
I love the late 60's effervescene that takes us into that era when the whole space shuttle experience was done as well as the HAL computer killing the crew on board who were hibernating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brandon [ 10.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
commonly known as perhaps stanley kubrick's greatest film, and that's saying a lot .. though, the film has more than a small handful of its detractors, who claim it's slow, and unintelligible. i happen to believe in the first statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eric [ 3.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
I can't recommend this movie even though it was great for its time. It is just too slow (~3 hrs) to sit through. I t probably would have helped if I had read the book, because I got lost (especially near the end). Stanley Kubrick is still great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mohawk [ 7.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Takes the question of the existence of intelligent life.... The music is stunning... the visuals are breathtaking....2001 is a great tribute to all works of Science fiction.
One can not ignore the fact that a genius is at work. A visionary movie, which won't appeal to everyone...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corto [ 10.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
The greatest sci-fi film ever made. It's also the first film that shows space like it is, so Kubrick created a totally new artform of filming space, so there probably wouldn't be no Star Wars without him and this film.
Also unique as one of the most philosophical films made in English language. And it is darn beautiful too.
[Update 9/22/2002 - After seeing it on big screen as a perfect restored copy there is only one conclusion: 2001 is the greatest film ever made.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SciGuy [ 8.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
A lot of people turned into science fiction fans because of this movie. Aside from the Star Wars trilogy, I can't think of any movie that has been as influential to the science fiction genre as 2001.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
drew95 [ 10.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Someone tell me what these people mean. Three hours? Not nearly. "2001" clocks in at about 2 hours 18 minutes. Must have been cool for its time? What's that mean? This implies that movies from that period were inferior to current movies, a woefully false statement.
Myself? I love the film. See it in Widescreen, as I did -- real treat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JD [ 0.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Maybe I'm missing the point on this one, but it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I look at all these reviews which give it a 10 and I wonder.....are you being serious? Did you actually like those silly monkeys jumping around? This is just late 70's trash. Stanley Kubrick was the worst director to ever achieve stardom, period! Somebody please, send this movie out to SPACE and leave it there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love_Spoon [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Space Odyssey was an all right film-- there really wasn't anything WRONG with it. I liked how they put the music and the film together, escpecially the now-famous theme by Strauss. I got goosebumps when I saw the astronaut being spit out by HAL (kind of cool), but I kind of lost interest (zzzzzz) through all the psychedelic light scenes. It's worth seeing on video-- I'm sure it would be more of an experience on the big screen, but don't see it late at night when you're already sleepy. ; )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards [ 9.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Intense meditation on human evolution, the nature of artificial intelligence in relation to what is supposed to natural, realistic intelligence, and how it's all growing tantamount to our ever fading humanity. Until it starts anew, that is. That's just babbling: of course there are several (endless) additional and varying meanings, but it would be cumbersome to expound on them all. Suffice to say this is Kubrick's greatest accomplishment. He knows exactly what he is doing with every shot, angle, sound device, and even the performances, which many have critically accused of being wooden and trivial. 'Tis the point, my friends, 'tis the point
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eagleeye [ 7.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
An impressive film, especially considering its age. The special effects are entertaining, and
some of the scenes are unforgettable. Unfortunately, the film loses coherence toward the end. Still well worth watching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tomcat [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
I know that alot of people like this movie but I have one question, what's the plot? No doubt the visuals are fantasic and my favorite scene is the opening one with the gorillas before time. At times it is very hard to follow. Kubrick probably focuses to much on look and not enough on plot. I guess you either love or hate 2001. I just thought it was ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeadCanadian [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
"2001: A Space Odyssey" is a very, very, very slow moving movie. The first hour (it's a 3 hour movie) is a bit boring, but it gets better once the movie focuses on the Jupiter mission. The relationship between HAL and the human crew members was interesting, and HAL makes a very good villian (although he wasn't really a villian, but he seemed like one) and the scene where he (it?) sings "Daisy" is oddly poignant. The movie completely lost me during the surreal, psychidelic scenes at the end, though, but it's still a very good, and beautifully directed movie, and this is probably the only movie I'll say that about and then give it a bad rating, but that's just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crreig [ 9.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
"One of the greatest films ever made." Yes, we all hear such declarations too often but, in the case of 2001:A Space Odyssey, the description is fitting.
I grow tired of hearing people complain that the film is too slow or boring. I can only imagine that these are the same people who relied on Cliff's Notes through college. The pace of 2001 is purposeful and hypnotic. This pacing is one of Stanley Kubrick's signatures. Every scene is ripe with details that should not go unnoticed.
Many people also complain that the ending makes no sense. Admittedly, the first time I watched 2001, I was confused...but, then again, I was eight years old!! For the record, the film is a cycle; the beginning is the end. As Shakepeare wrote, "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in their petty pace until the last syllable of recorded time."
The film is a stunner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KIL [ 4.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Finally had to see for myself. Reccommend it? No. I got the feeling toward the end that Kubrick had no idea of a good way to end the film. There is so little audio in the movie, and it is so slow-paced. Therefore, I used my fast forward button A LOT, and did not feel as if I missed a thing. The book: MEAT by Mark Kilgore, is far superior and intelligible. I guarantee that it has answers to some questions you always were curious about. Based on a 'divine contact' experience, MEAT is available on amazon.com & in bookstores (request it to be ordered-in with no obligation to buy). Thanks!!!
P.S. to what's his face about 3 reviews below: 7.0 is not a 'bad rating'. The scale is 0 to 10, so 5 is supposed to be average, according to most normal people. Shame that most rate movies skewed about 2 numbers above what they should in theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A_Ratliff [ 9.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
What more can I say about "2001: A Space Odyssey"? It's simply a classic. Brilliant in a way that no sci-fi movie since has been able to pull off. Stanley Kubrick was simply a brilliant director, who, ironically, died before we reached the year 2001. The use of classical music, the striking visuals, everything in this movie screams "great!" It gets docked .5 for the slow pace, which approaches "plodding" at times, but for the most part, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is worth checking out--in fact, any film fan needs to check out this movie. Oh, and Widescreen viewing is a must.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Weighted Rating | : 6.6 |
| No. Ratings | : 232 | |
| No. Reviews | : 31 | |
|
|
|
|