I watched 2001 the first time when I was 15, I fell asleep. It was part of a double feature, with the first movie being an Eddie Murphy-flic, IIRC. The contrast must have been too stressful, I guess :lol
2001: A Space Odyssey... Am I the only one that...
- Thread starter dfrey79
- Start date
"2001" is one of the few films I've owned in every media incarnation; at the moment, it is one of perhaps 12 Blu-Rays I decided to spend the cash to upconvert.
That being understood, yes - you need to be in a fairly specific frame of mind to watch this sucker, or it will drain the life out of you faster than Dracula with a crazy straw.
There's a lot of really amazing things to watch that are not especially easy to watch; if you have an iron constitution, Wagner's Ring Cycle is fifteen hours of German Opera - it's an endurance test. "2001" is not an easy film to watch - it's more art than entertainment, and best approached that way.
The sterility is off-putting, but it's intentional; the people are as bland and featureless as the sets, equating that emotional disconnection and cold alienation with scientific advancement - contrast the human characters even in their most tense moments - "I can't do that, Dave..." - with the monkeys flipping out at the beginning of the film. The actual difference between the Jupiter crew and HAL seems to be that HAL, of the three, sounds the most 'human.'
There are only 47 minutes of dialogue in the 148-minute film; it's desolate of human contact. That's part and parcel of the overall intention of the film. Kubrick was an excellent filmmaker, and a chameleon of style; he was kind of the (early) Di Niro of the camera. The way you're feeling watching 2001 is the way you're Meant to feel. It's engineered in. When you get to the Jupiter mission, there's (yet another) long introduction to the two astronauts. Notice the malaise and languor. Those are the guys you're supposed to be relating to.
I can't say enough about this film. But I can't watch it more than once every seven years or so.
That being understood, yes - you need to be in a fairly specific frame of mind to watch this sucker, or it will drain the life out of you faster than Dracula with a crazy straw.
There's a lot of really amazing things to watch that are not especially easy to watch; if you have an iron constitution, Wagner's Ring Cycle is fifteen hours of German Opera - it's an endurance test. "2001" is not an easy film to watch - it's more art than entertainment, and best approached that way.
The sterility is off-putting, but it's intentional; the people are as bland and featureless as the sets, equating that emotional disconnection and cold alienation with scientific advancement - contrast the human characters even in their most tense moments - "I can't do that, Dave..." - with the monkeys flipping out at the beginning of the film. The actual difference between the Jupiter crew and HAL seems to be that HAL, of the three, sounds the most 'human.'
There are only 47 minutes of dialogue in the 148-minute film; it's desolate of human contact. That's part and parcel of the overall intention of the film. Kubrick was an excellent filmmaker, and a chameleon of style; he was kind of the (early) Di Niro of the camera. The way you're feeling watching 2001 is the way you're Meant to feel. It's engineered in. When you get to the Jupiter mission, there's (yet another) long introduction to the two astronauts. Notice the malaise and languor. Those are the guys you're supposed to be relating to.
I can't say enough about this film. But I can't watch it more than once every seven years or so.
Larry Young
Master Member
On the other hand, I have it on my iPhone and watch a scene or two every day while I'm in line at the bank or at the grocery store or waiting for my car to get new tires or whatever. I'm particularly fixated on Frank's happy birthday message from his parents and the BBC 12 interview. This whole movie is like a Buddhist chant to me. Very soothing.
Contec
Master Member
My Dad caught me watching the movie on tv a few years ago and i was amazed that he remembered a movie, It's mostly me my parents asks if they have seen a movie before. Dad asked why i was watching it and summed up the movie for me "First nothing happens, Then there is monkeys and nothing happens and then there is space and nothing happens...." (sound like a line from seinfeldt) I could not tell him why i like the movie because he sums it up perfectly
franz bolo
Sr Member
You have to put that movie in perspective. It was done in 1968. Things were very different back then. If you're used to Transformers and Star Trek type movies then this will not be a fun experience.
FB
Contec
Master Member
What if....
Stanley Kubrick Presents TRANSFORMERS....
Michael Bay Presents 2001: A Space Odyssey with BAYSPLOTIONS!!!!!
Solo4114
Master Member
Some films, I think, are meant to be viewed as primarily sensory experiences. Turn off your brain (to a degree) and let the experience just sort of wash over you. I feel this way about action films and many David Lynch films. Other films, I think, are rife with symbolism and message. 2001, from the descriptions here, sounds more like the latter. I saw it once as a teenager and really did NOT get it. Mostly because I was expecting a far more literal experience with a lot more exposition, and Kubrik just wasn't playing along. I'm 32, grew up as a "child of Star Wars" when it came to sci-fi, so to me, sci-fi was about epic myth and spaceships shooting lasers. That ain't 2001. 2001 is more of an art film, I think.
Anyway, I'm thinking I should really revisit this film and give it a shot again, but do so from that perspective.
Anyway, I'm thinking I should really revisit this film and give it a shot again, but do so from that perspective.
Gen Xers were born from the 60s, so yes, we get it.
Well said! It's also from an entire generation of filmmaking in which the pacing was very different from today's hyperkinetic stuff. Look at Lawrence of Arabia. Look at A L I E N. Hell, look at Star Wars!!! They're all painfully slow by 'modern' standards.
Kubrick's pacing was slow-ish even by those standards, but then this was very much an attempt to make SF as art film.
Edit: argh, Solo you beat me to it. And yeah, do that, I think you might get a lot more from it now. I had exactly the same experience as you; I didn't get it as a teen either. Later on - well, it'll never really be a firm favourite for me, but I did recognise it as something special. Give it a chance, see if it works for you now.
Then again I also thought you should see Avatar, so...
Last edited:
Darth Lars
Master Member
The first half of the movie is much about wow-factor. You should imagine the experience of seeing this movie on a big screen in a proper movie theatre ... without having seen lots of action-filled sci-fi movies before. That is how people saw this movie back in 1968.
Imagine also that a lot of this movie was set on the moon -- and the movie came out right before the first moon landing!
However, I think that the first half reminds me a little bit too much like one of those commercials that major corporation create now and again about technology that they imagine existing in the future. Especially the scene where the NASA guy phones his daughter. It has no point in the story, except maybe because Clarke or Kubrik liked bush babies ...
I saw this movie recently because I wanted to get inspiration from the sets and technology shown. It reminds me a great deal of the tech panels in Star Wars ... and also of the exterior design of present-day Apple Macintosh computers. This is the kind of future/sci-fi set design that I like the best!
Imagine also that a lot of this movie was set on the moon -- and the movie came out right before the first moon landing!
However, I think that the first half reminds me a little bit too much like one of those commercials that major corporation create now and again about technology that they imagine existing in the future. Especially the scene where the NASA guy phones his daughter. It has no point in the story, except maybe because Clarke or Kubrik liked bush babies ...
I saw this movie recently because I wanted to get inspiration from the sets and technology shown. It reminds me a great deal of the tech panels in Star Wars ... and also of the exterior design of present-day Apple Macintosh computers. This is the kind of future/sci-fi set design that I like the best!
Alan Cross
Sr Member
Surprised but happy to see so many people defend 2001. I love how the instrument panel design holds up. Even today, it doesn't look cheesy or dated. It's great that a film like this would get made in the Sixties.... it sure as hell couldn't get made today.
darthgordon
Sr Member
Visually, it's a beautiful movie. It's actually hard to believe that it was done in '68. However, yes, I find it slow and boring. I think a great deal of it was what it looked like. Those amazing effects and sets were done when Star Trek was on the air... But yes, it was a very slow movie.
I think it's slow and boring but I still really like it. It's a great story, it's interesting and a fantastic journey, and I think the designs still hold up.
You think watching GIGLI is bad, try working on GIGLI....... :confused
Kubrick wanted to make the ultimate space travel film, using the latest knowledge. He was a detail oriented man, and that is reflected in the film, and one could argue, the whole point of it. Try it again, but look at it from a different perspective. Look at it as an exercise in predicting the future.
Gene
Larry Young
Master Member
Everything in the movie has a point. I always took away from that scene that to Floyd, he's just on a business trip. No different in 1968 for the regional sales director for Vermont Marble having to go to Cleveland because the architects are asking for stone that can't be used on that motel and having to call home and ask his kid if she wants something special for her birthday so he can make it up to himself that he's going to miss the party because of work, than it is in 2001 for the Director of the NCA having to take a specially-commissioned flight (the Pan Am Clipper is empty except for him and the crew) to go brief a bunch of guys about the first evidence of intelligent life off the Earth having to call home and ask his kid if she wants something special for her birthday so he can make it up to himself that he's going to miss the party because of work.
DivineHeresy
Sr Member
I'm 22 and 2001 is one of my favourite movies.
Love it.
I agree with everyone else, give it more than 33 minutes and you'll love it.
Neil
themanwoaname
Sr Member
i liked it the first time i watched it and saw the whole thing, but i havent been able to stay awake watching it for a while. if i were to watch it again, id probably watch it over the course of a couple days.
