I just watched this for the first time today. Things to consider: I’m only 18 so I can’t truly understand the context of this movie since it came out 23 years before I was born. Also, ideas and events in this movie have been recycled 100 times over through inferior films which I’ve seen…
So now, my reaction: I found it to be sooooo boring and outdated. I honestly was struggling to pay attention through it. Anyone else agree? disagree? anyone think I should give it another shot maybe I was just tired or something? Another thing to consider is I lovedddd Dr. Strangelove so I definitely already have a positive bias for Stanley Kubrick. I found a lot of the film unnecessary but maybe I was missing something because I already know he can write brilliantly b/c the Strangelove screenplay was complete and total genius in my opinion.
2001 fanatics, be gentle if you decide to bash me haha
It has a lot to do with personal perception and viewing experience, which means that 2001 may rather seem boring to someone used to faster paced movies and expecting an usual science fiction film. You may certainly appreciate 2001 more after having watched a certain amount of slow moving films like Solyaris, and may come back to it when you feel that you´ve been getting used to it.
Well said, i think the MTV generation has spoiled young movie goers from films that revolutionized storytelling and also visual effects! If you enjoyed Dr.Strangelove then take another look at 2001 in a couple months. Kubrick films were made for multiple viewings.
Luis “Missy” Alguera: Hey, don’t assume the worst for all of us! :D
Luis, Indeed, MTV has helped to destroy film, music and TV.
In some ways. It’s 2009 and we don’t live on the moon. PAN AM died decades ago.
MTV has nothing to do with the destruction of cinema. People who appreciate class always will, MTV or not.
Wait wait wait if you dislike 2001 fine, Brandon, but don’t blame it on your age. Same to Luis, don’t assume that all younger audiences won’t appreciate the film.
One thing that impresses me most about the film is how the effects still amaze me….today…..in 2009. That on its own is a feat.
Honestly, as David said, the only things outdated are we live in a year past 2001 and those things have not happened, and PAN AM is no longer in existence.
[ adding to Drew ] Being a science fiction film, I guess it’s not right to think all that was foretold at the time will come true and happen exactly as shown, I think we need to give it some slack for its sheer power to entertain even to this day.
Also I will take the Stargate sequence and strange astronomical phenomena from 2001 to windows media/winamp visualizations anyday :)
What amazes me is how much they did predict! TVs on the back of chairs, iChating, drinkable carrots!
It pisses me off when people blame the status quo pop culture for the degradation of cinematic progression. Everyone has a choice of either pledging to that modish, du jour lifestyle or of immersing one’s self in the patina of cinematic triumph. It has always been a matter of choice.
If for no other reason, I’d love to see 2001 just based on this. ;)
Haha it is clearly the best part! Have you not seen it???
I think it’s aged well
Drew: I plead the Fifth.
You have exactly 96 hours to see it, or else.
2001 happens to be one of my favorite movies. I think the first time I saw it many years ago, I don’t know if I got it. Now I love it. I think HAL is one of the greatest movie villians of all time such as talking calmly to David Bowman as Bowman slowly murders him. The set inside the Discovery where you see someone walking upside down was truly innovative for it’s time and the star gate scene blows me away. I think the stargate is supposed to be a hole in the universe or some kind of way of going at light speed that leads to this room at the end where these aliens have been waiting for man to come and I think David Bowman is that symbol for humankind. The film is sort of like a poem. I think the monolith is something that gives intelligence to the apemen at the start of the film and turns David Bowman into the starchild at the end of the film. It’s sort of like an evolution of early man to modern man to man as energy or god or however you want to interpret it. Those are just some theories I have. Also, it showed the moon and was fairly accurate a year before man actually walked upon the moon. I think the film is great because it allows a lot of leeway for interpretation, sort of like Eraserhead by David Lynch. Like mentioned above, a lot of Kubrick movie require repeat viewings. The movie was way ahead of it’s time and special effects did not really advance until probably when Star Wars kicked it up a notch. There are plenty of essays that go into interpreting the film. For me, it is not outdated but still way ahead of it’s time and works beautifully.
Drew: Technically, I neither stated that I ‘did’ or ‘did not’ see it. You cannot prove it either way. ;)
The reason I am pointing out my age as a problem with my enjoyment or lack there of for the film is that there are moments or visuals or inventions meant to shock you in 1968 that mean nothing to me. It’s cool that they predicted iChatting but I’m not amazed by the fact that that happens. In 1968 I’d prob be like OMG IMAGINE THAT. But now..I’m just like whatever let’s move on please?
The thing is the visuals still blow me away. I think the effects beat a lot of what you see today, and the look of the film is not dated in any way shape or form (in my opinion).
Josh S, Don’t make excuses just see the film. You know have 95 hours. tick tick.
Drew: Who’s making excuses? lol
Brandon… I think you’re right to suspect your age is holding you back for the appreciation of the masterpice it is. I also think you focus on the look and effects too much which as you point out is no longer amazing but merely commonplace. It’s the meat of the story you’ll find rewards with as you get more experience… it’s a treatise on existentialism and what it means to be human… that’s where it’s true magnificence lies, the rest is gloss.
Wait, wait, wait… it’s not age, it’s experience. One needs to be somewhat aware of existentialism to understand the film, but that’s not something that just magically happens with age.
yeah, don’t blame it on age.
you have to be pretty immature to like 2001.
Lord knows that I’ve tried to like 2001. And I have always been found wanting. I have now resigned myself to the idea that I will never fully understand the appeal, even if I do appreciate some of the artistry.
theres nothing wrong with that. i dont like “2001” either. but i do appreciate its innovativeness, artistic/cinematic qualities and its importance to the history of cinema. but i mostly think with the mind of a historian anyway. basically, i respect “2001”.
but do i like it on a personal level, or enjoy watching it? no. thats a difficult 3 hours. give me “the killing” instead.
Ridiculous (sorry CAZ).
Rich Uncle Skelton, you’ve got to be incalculably immature to say something like "you have to be pretty immature to like 2001.’ Grow the f up, dude.
And I’m not even a real fan of the film.
Disagree. 2001 is a timeless classic, profound beyond belief. Actually, every time I watch it (not too often, maybe once every three years or so) it seems even greater than I’d thought before, and I’ve always loved it. Genius filmmaking.