MUBI

(Sunday / March 21, 2010 / 2:20am)

Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” is one of the most visualizing films ever made. The silent-esque film captivates the beauty of the open world. With its crisp and clean cinematography and the brilliance of Kubrick, this film can very well be called the most beautiful film ever made. The techniques used in this film were insanely precise that will blow your mind while watching it and your eyes will take all the out of this world ravishing scenes. Applaud Mr. Kubrick for this masterwork!

I first experienced 2001 at its premiere in Los Angeles when I was in the US Navy. You have to see 2001 on the big screen! Awesome! The small screen does not do it justice. Not only visually, but in sound. The opening of that black screen with that eclectic music (in those days we would have called it psychedelic) and then the first measure of “Also Sprach Zarathustra”….. The best opening sound/music for a film, EVER! I was and still am, disappointed the film was not re-released to more theaters, and for longer running times, for the big screen (70mm) in “2001”. To quote Roger Ebert – “"It disturbs me that 2001 is not getting a proper national release," Ebert said. “For a while, Warners was even wondering whether to re-release it at all.”” Then, twice again in New York after my discharge from the Navy. There were lines of people around the block of the theatre for months and months. Having seen three previous Kubrick films before 2001, Paths of Glory, Lolita and Dr. Strangelove, I knew I would be in for a treat. His films (notice I avoid the word “movies”) are unique among the great film directors and producers. Each is individual in its own right. He never followed a general “theme” or “format”. Well, that’s not entirely true. If one has seen all, if not most of his films, you will pick up on the Kubrick “theme”. The weakness (sometimes the strength), cruelty, frailty and foolishness of mankind. This may be true for a majority of films, but Kubrick had a unique view of his own. Much has been written, by hundreds if not thousands, by critics and fans of 2001 as to the “meaning” of the film. I have often heard, “I didn’t get it” or “What was that all about?”. At the Pantages Theater premiere in LA the actor Rock Hudson was seen walking out early in the film muttering to himself and others, “Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?”. Some witnesses claim it was the “F” word, not “hell”. What does 2001 “mean”? First of all, it “means” different things to different viewers. One does not “see” 2001. One has to open one’s mind and experience the journey. Then come to your own conclusions. This is what Kubrick wanted. He had his own interpretation of the film, but would not reveal or share it with others. He wanted you, the viewer, to come to your interpretation of the journey. The average “movie” goer feels that everything they see on the screen has to be explained to them. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a companion novel to the film so people would, “understand the film”. One book critic – “The novel is much more detailed and intimate, and definitely easier to comprehend.” I’m not sure if Kubrick liked that idea or not. I have never read it, nor will I ever. As for myself, I have my own interpretation. But I will not share. It’s mine and mine alone. It even changed after viewing the film again. But, a hint. Keyword, “re-birth”. I won’t go on and on, although I could. Last thought. The one thing that almost all agree. 2001 significantly raised the benchmark in film special effects. From then on, the viewing public were not going to go for a flying saucer hung from a fishing pole on monofilament line any more. Thank you Stanley. For that and for the experience of one of your masterpieces, “2001: A Space Odyssey”

Amazing……… no seriously….. just amazing. This film was way ahead of its time when it was made. it is a epic and a massive inspiration for ALL future sci-fi / space films. its amazing imagery and special effects make it stand out above all other space films, the story is somewhat confusing the first time i watched it, it made no sense to me but i loved it. after watching it a few more times i finally understood the film and the messages it conveys about the future and humanity. it really is a shock to the mental system, (but it is a welcome one.) with its bright clours and mind boggling themes and special effects. its so good its beyond words. you just have to wacth it yourself.

when i see this film for the first time, it was great. for the second time, it was an experience. for the third time, it was perfection. this is the kind of film that if you see it over and over again, it becomes better and better.

it is at the same time the most real and surreal sci-fi film of all time. i still can’t believe that this kind of film has already existed since the year of 1968. well, it is stanley kubrick’s after all.

With only 40 minutes of dialogue and nearly 2 hours of silent and symphony filled scenes, this masterpiece is truly jaw-dropping. Boring for anyone who does not quite understand modern art, 2001 is a gorgeous film of evolution, betrayal, and the Great Unknown.

There is undeniable consistencies with Nietzsche’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” with the dawn of man, to Heywood Floyd being man as we are now, and Bowman as the fetus, the overman. Not to mention the choice of Strauss’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” as one of the main pieces of the film. Even such small consistencies like the star gate, where Nietzsche has a gate to where man can enter the next status of overman, or ubermansch.

Seeing the film two days ago in an awe-inspiring 70 mm screening, it struck me just how aural a picture “2001” is. Viewers have spent the last 40 years trying to decipher the meaning of the evocative images a noble goal but there is so much in the film that cannot be said with visuals. Scenes such as the one where the scientists inspect the monolith on the moon were ferociously presented, with the high-pitched scream of the structure litterally shaking the theatre and its inhabitants to their cores. That is an effect that you will never get on DVD, no matter how fancy your surround sound system. Kubrick clearly did not intend for his film to be watched on anything smaller than a theatre screen. I feel priveleged and blessed to have been able to see this masterpiece all these years after its release, still in its full glory.

Breathtaking cinematography!! Kubrick’s sci-fi opus is a great brain teaser, who sparks wonder and confusion in patient viewers. Hardly anything in the film is definite. The authoritarian thousand of years old idea of the “humanist” society is getting exposed and criticized. But what truly makes it special, except of the philosophical approach, are the visualizations that are incomparable to any other movie I’ve seen until now. All the shots of the outer space; long, slow with a classical musical background that gives not just the eye but also the ear a new, grabbing experience, are made to show the power of the sublime. As Immanuel Kant described the sublime as the feeling of satisfaction that is mixed with horror, we can percept it as the pleasurable experience of representing something that would be terrifying and unpleasant in reality. And in reality the big unknown outer space is frightening and beautiful at the same time, and that’s the two feelings Kubrick focuses on. To fully experience this movie go to a movie theater (cinematheque) or have a good home cinema system;)

Did anyone else catch the connections with The Odyssey? Bowman = The Bow that Odysseus is given in the Iliad and gets back at the end of The Odyssey!
Hal = The cyclops!
I know there are a few other things and I also know there are a million things I don’t know about it.

I also heard that it follows some of the philosophies of Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra”.

I think there are so many layers to this (the greatest film) and that Kubrick made it vague enough that we’ll never put it together, I don’t think there is one answer and I think Kubrick did this on purpose.

American film has often had a problem in making films that deal with great human themes. Whereas other countries have often tackled the great philosophical questions, American film has mostly concerned itself with entertainment, or at the very least, smuggling great themes within entertainment. 2001 is an exception. It’s about spirituality without being at all religious. It’s about the history and future of humanity, our capacity for greatness and almost infinite adaptability. It’s about the danger of allowing technology to overwhelm what connects us to each other. It’s the best science fiction film ever made, but it is so much more than a science fiction film. It’s a film made by an artist who had finally stopped caring at all about what audiences conventionally “like” and instead wanted to give them his vision.

There is no way shape or form to describe the impact of this movie. It’s all the great things you have heard about this film and more. It is a important piece of film history and amazingly insightful.

When you look at the effects and camerawork it’s hard not to be astonished and impressed keep in mind the film was made in 1968 years before special effects had really made a breakthrough or would be seen as majorly important to a film and entertainment.

This is a philosophical movie that is truly awesome to behold it it was that will keep you thinking and in awe of the themes and visions you are seeing

The less you know about this film the better it is truly something to behold. It takes you from the dawn of evolution to the future of space travel. The score is immaculate which makes it almost a silent film but you don’t mind the lack of dialogue. The first line of dialogue isn’t uttered until 25 minutes into the film. You don’t even mind the fact that everything is more shown then explained leaving you to come up with your own theories. You could even play this movie with the volume off and still follow the film and mostly understand it. I believe this and for many other reasons is why people love to watch this film high it expands your mind sober I can only imagine what it does while you may be under the influence of certain substances.

You don’t even mind the slight oversight of the early monkey scenes where it is obvious that it is men in animal suits though there movements are believable it is a bit distracting but it doesn’t matter the scenes you will see soon are so impressive it brings the early scenes up in performance just by association.

The film and novel on which it was based were written at the same time Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke informed each other of there developments while writing. At first Clarke wanted kubrick to use a short story he had written before because Kubrick’s original contention was to make the most proper science fiction film ever made. In fact Kubrick was going to be listed as co-author of the novel of the film, but he did not feel like giving permission as he thought it would hurt the film.

This is a must see in fact why don’t you own it yet if you don’t go out right now and get it trust me you won’t be sorry. This is a film I give my highest recommendation to it would be on my top100, 50, 25 list of greatest movies of all time

A movie that exists within its own world, separate from Kubrick and its filmmakers. In under 3 hours, 2001 BECOMES the world it exists in. However long the film is, that is short for such a feat. Such as life, what you put into this odyssey is what you receive- and everyone seems to get something so strikingly different in their own experience. What’s it REALLY about? Decide for yourself. But a discussion is waiting to be pounced on as the credits roll. 2001 takes some patience, but the payoff is one of the most unique, visually stunning, and deeply conceptual films ever made.

I recently saw a documentary called ‘Stanley Kubrick’s Boxes’ and it shed even more light on the kind of filmmaker he was. If you haven’t seen it, you need to find it. I think its even available to stream on the Web somewhere. His attention to detail and how he related to his family have helped me sharpen my skills as well as find the right kind of balance between my hobby (and someday career) and my family life. Kubrick was a genius. I just wish I knew just what he was thinking when he made “Eyes Wide Shut.”

This is Kubrick and Clarke’s meditation on the meaning of life no less, set within the Darwinian precepts of evolution and virtually rejecting religious or supernatural explanations. The film establishes the link between our ancestors using technology to learn to kill for survival and our future generations having to ‘kill’ technology to survive. The intellectual ideas are bold and supported by cinema advances that created a new language of how we view a ‘space’ film, so much so that virtually without exception (okay, Tarkovsky) every film since has used the Kubrick/ Doug Trumball standard look in order to appear ‘authentic’.

The monolith is a true Hitchcockian ‘McGuffin’, a relic from another civilsation perhaps with no deliberate meaning attached. Clarke had an idea of what finding other intelligent life would mean to humans, but he leaves the mystery hanging, and it’s the device by which Kubrick propels the narrative. The attention to detail visually is stunning, the result of years of work, and it’s aided and abetted by quite intricate use of music, as much of the film is dialogue free.
Kubrick uses two different Strauss’ to counterpoint his visuals. The fact that he uses Johan so soon after Ricard is almost certainly an aural joke. It would be like following a Led Zepplin epic with Barry Manilow in a modern sense. The humour in the mating manouveres to the Blue Danube waltz, where the circular space station has a definite similarity to female genitalia about to receive the phallic ship could only be intentional.

In the early scenes the music is a cacophany of sound, but voices are detectable, humans making codes out of the chaos, learning to control their random, indifferent environment. Once the apes learn to use tools to kill for survival, a key development in the ability to control your environment, the relentless thrust to push out into the Cosmos begins. A famous jump cut and we’re there already, with vague hints of what the discovery of a monolith on the moon will mean to mankind.
Clarke was a famous atheist and it’s easy to see HAL as GOD. HAL is perfect, can’t make an error, remind you of anyone?
HAL is omnipresent on the ship, in control of everything and seemingly benevolent, but if God makes an error, he cannot be God, the lie is revealed. HAL makes a mistake and seems just as capable of killing as the astronaut-apes he shepherds through the
heavens. Human reason and ingenuity overcomes the ‘god’ figure and man continues his search for meaning, leaving god behind. Clarke ends up indicating that the meaning of life is in the continuation of life, man goes in search of meaning and in this case literally finds himself. The starchild is as much a part of the stardust as were the first human apes that negotiated their way through the wild African plains.

Clarke would not be aware that new discoveries in the quantum world would make the idea of time and how we view it quite different from the linear model that was once widely accepted, where time travel still happens in pop culture, but he would have known that it makes redundant the idea of a first cause or creator explanation. Kubricks ‘hippy’ trip at the end of the movie is less forgivable now than in the era of psychedlia, but still visually remarkable. Both are saying we are of the cosmos, and that we are still able to find poetry and depth and meaning. No god required.

A landmark film of great mystery and beauty, embracing science and reason, eschewing the superstitious and supernatural, and obviously still confusing the religionists judging by some of the comments on this site..

It’s a pretty film I’ll admit but it’s not great it’s not even really good. It’s just pretty thanks to the technology that Kubrick used quite well. But story wise Kubrick leaves it a mess there is no real character development, no plot, or real coherent story it’s dull and episodic and really just leaves me wishing for something to happen before the deluge of color at the end. So if you want to see a pretty film this is a good choice just jump to HAL and ignore the first two hours or so of Space Garbage. If you want to see a truly gorgeous, stunning, beautiful, or amazing and brilliant picture then just leave this one on the shelf on the video store. There are plenty better movies out there.
P.S. Not the best visuals in any films ever. Black is not a good visual.

Adapted from a short story be Arthur C. Clarke, this sci-fi epic directed by the legendary Stanley Kubrick starring Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood takes you on a fantastic voyage that you will never forget.
The story tells the evolution of man from apes to humans to star child. The way that the story is told is different from conventional film standards with very few dialogue and extensive use of classical music as well as expertly executed long tracking shots. The film is more a beautiful art portrait open for interpretation than a “movie.” There are clearly four parts to the film. In order they are the dawn of man, a space voyage to a lunar base, a space journey to Saturn, and a sequence entitled “Beyond the Infinite.” Each part is signature Kubrick with perfect cinematography, lighting, and art direction that are linked to give a more or less linear structure to the film by the presence and discussion of a giant black monolith which is left unexplained at the end of the film.
2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the best films I have ever seen. It is beautiful, intriguing, thought-provoking, and overall mind-blowing. I think it is the masterpiece of director Stanley Kubrick and is a timeless classic for the ages. 2001 is a film I can watch time and time again without getting tired of. The special effects in the film are absolutely amazing considering the film was made in 1968, one year before man had landed on the moon and humans knew little what no-gravity transportation may appear to be, but somehow Kubrick got it right. There is no doubt this is one of the most sophisticated films for it’s time or even all time. The only thing else I can say is that you must see this film before you die and if you get the chance, all of Stanley Kubrick’s other films. And I met Keir Dullea, he’s a nice old guy.

Nate recommends these films if you liked 2001: A Space Odyssey:

Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972)
Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982)
Terry Gilliam’s Brazil (1985)

I always point out how when I first saw 2001, I was 8 yrs old in 1968 and my mother for whatever reason, cause 2001 wasn’t the kind of movie she would want to see, took me to The Loews King Theatre over on Fulton Street where it ended near Brooklyn Borough Hall, to see 2001. Back then The Loews King was Brooklyn’s equal to Radio City Music Hall, a very large venue with a very large screen. It screened as most important films did back then, with an overture and an intermission. When it was over, I sat not bewildered but aware what 2001 was about. I stood up and immediately said to my mother that want to be in the film business. Guess what, 40 yrs later, Im still in the business. Thank you Stanley, through 2001 I found myself.