Granted, it puts me to sleep every time I watch it, the only time I got through it is because I checked the time as I was nodding off, but to call it garbage with the obvious skills behind it is very shortsighted.
Not every film is for every person.
I know hyperbole to the greatest flavor on blogs and threads and even the news media, but there is a lot to be said for well thought out critiques of things. Hyperbole is easy, a film like 2001 is not, is a discussion piece.
Have you seen The Shining, Josh? I also consider Kubrick to have 4 masterpieces, replacing EWS with The Shining while including the same other 3 that you hold (i have yet to see EWS).
Full Metal Jacket is my favorite Kubrick film, the biggest problem with it is that the Parirs Island section was brilliant and the Vietnam section was really, really good.
Kubrick was my first “complete”—I watched all his films in the span of a week (none of which before Dr. Strangelove had I seen prior to that).
But I grew up on Kubrick, and I think The Shining is one of the most terrifying films ever made. I love it, but on my scale, against those others, I put it in the next tier. The next tier is very respectable, but still.
See EWS and let me know what you think.
See Weerasethakul and Tarkovsky for why I disagree with your last point. And HHH. And Tsai.
And Benning. And Snow.
But seeing MY last point will broaden your horizons to the possibility of film. You may not like it, but you should check it out just in case.
Ackerman, too.
Kubrik is using film as his language there are long, excruciating pauses {Tarkovsky did the same thing in his Solaris} the pictures lull you, the lack of dialogue forces you to accept image as dialogue. and then the alarm clocks going off just as you are drifting off… the noise you hear on the moon is meant to disrupt your brain pattern… it is a selected combination of frequencies… some Kubrik fan out there might know the exact frequencies used in that scene… but still, Kubrik is using film as language & dialogue… what’s going on inside YOUR HEAD at that time is just as significant as the scene at the beginning with early man becoming aware of something that was hidden inside, a latent potential, unleashed.
I could go on but I wouldn’t want to bore you.
…and Jancso and Angelopoulos…..
Angelopoulos, YES!
And Haneke.
How many of you have actually experienced (and it IS an experience) “2001” on the big screen? I’ve done so several times. Unless you’ve experienced it on a superscreen, you’ve no right to trash the movie. Kubrick made the film for the cinema house.
Watch it on television if you like, but it DOES lose an incredible amount of impact on television (and if you watch this film on your mobile telephone, I’ll find you and glue your eyes closed). I attend a screening of “2001” at the Astor (Melbourne) a few nights ago. More than 500 people on a chilly Sunday night for a film more than 40 years old. Those people don’t just go because it’s “trendy” or “intelligent”, they go because they appreciate the movie, or understand the potential cinemaitc value of experiencing it in the cinema.
Sean said:
“Praising this movie has become some sort of status symbol, as though you’re showing off how patient you can be by watching the most slow-paced movie rated >3/10 on IMDb.”
Praising self-indulgent films in a language other than English or European/Asian films is a status symbol for movie snobs. Don’t believe me? Hey, if someone loves “Breathless”, so be it, I just wish people could come up with decent reasons for liking it. I’m well-versed in identifying when people love and can explain a movie, and when people just nod and follow the beret wearing, neckerchief clad sheep.
Sean, try watching Pedro Costa. I counted at least 20 walkouts from “Colossal Youth” (a.k.a “Colossal Bore”). 155 minutes of sheer tedium, no storyline, little dialogue, dull visuals, crap editing, no intrigue, et cetera.
Sean, I’ve seen “Playtime” and several other Jacques Tati films at the cinema. They’re okay for what they are, but they hardly match “2001” (and if you want to talk about slow movies with little to no storyline, et cetera, that sounds a lot like “Playtime”).
When I saw “2001” again a few nights ago, I was amazed how quick it felt this time: it’s like that long walk home, it gets quicker the more times you take the same route. “2001” also has a gentle sense of humour and HAL is one terrifying computer. Just imagine being stuck in space with HIM! I’ll be the first to say certain so-called “classics” (e.g. several Fellini films I’ve seen) is massively overrated, but “2001” isn’t one of them: not overrated. It stands up remarkably well after four decades. Take it or leave it, but I can find many other films less fascinating and much slower with a rating above three from ten on IMDB. Ever see “The Regular Lovers”? You may like or it loathe it, but it’s extremely slow. Then there are films under two hours that say little at all. I know “Picnic at Hanging Rock” was a dreadfully slow and empty film.
I’m a Sci-Fi junkie and I can imagine why someone might not like it, but I have always found it brilliant. It never seems slow to me, but that’s just because I love watching spaceships move. I’ve always thought that it was made to be more of an essay on the cycle of life than anything else.
If you really don’t get the film, I must suggest you read Clarke’s novel. He gets bogged down in explaining everything and while that makes everything make sense, I think the fact that Kubrick doesn’t feel a need to explain everything is the brilliance of the film.
This leads to why I really, REALLY love this film. It’s so open-ended to any interpretation that you can think of and I always feel that I come up with a different one every time I watch it (which is about every three months or so – I like to remind myself about how great some films are). Clarke’s novel seems to distill it to a simple Cold War-in-Space, but with the film, he and Kubrick make it completely about anything but that.
…I hope I made sense there…I’m always afraid of not making sense when talking about film.
JOSH: Haneke doesn’t use that many long shots now does he? At least not compared to guys like Angelopoulos. who is one of THE masters of this style.
“I attend a screening of “2001” at the Astor (Melbourne) a few nights ago. More than 500 people on a chilly Sunday night for a film more than 40 years old.”
People in Melbourne rush out to see this movie in droves yet ignore so many other films. fuck the Melbourne filim community imo ;-)
And Picnic At Hanging Rock was a good movie.
2001 is an incredible movie all made in studios and of course it’s minimal, but it’s an aesthetic choice made by the author. It’s like you’d criticize Mondrian or Malevitch about being minimalists…
“I even see people claiming it’s the first, or even a good, art film” this point is stupid, it’s like ignoring half a century of cinema before it. But yes, 2001 is good cinema, it’s very close to the roots of the medium, nearly silent with music but made with all the late technologies studios could offer at this time, this movie is pure magic, knowing that everything is fake even the prehistoric scenes when it looks so “real”… i think it was a little miracle in achievement for 1968, and it still looks great nowadays.
And if you open your hears and eyes, this movie won’t be boring.
Ulicain has a point about hyperbole. Personally, I find Kubrick’s sensibility unappealing (though I find much to like in Barry Lyndon, Lolita, and The Killing), but he is undeniably a major artist, and none of his films are worthy of being trashed.
Much like Stalker everything happens in 2001. People go in looking for an in depth, tell all science fiction film. This isn’t the case. This film however is almost impossible to defend if your opponent is of another opinion than you.
Joks: I was referring more to Haneke’s use of distanciation than long shots.
It has too many beautiful and iconic moments to be garbage, sure it is overrated, how could it not be with the raves it gets but it was from an artist who would decline afterward
I move to vote: worst OP ever?
1) utterly redundant next to the COUNTLESS “2001 sux” threads. Search function please
2) cliched sentiment
3) vague argument of the classic “It sucks because….uh…IT SUCKY SLOWNESS SUCKS! DUH!” variety
If you’re going to put yourself out there boldly hating a canonical film, please actually then talk about the film with more specifics than you have provided herein. (And let it be known, I’m not 2001’s biggest fan, so I’m not whining about you hating my favorite movie or anything). As far as I’m concerned, you have yet to say anything about the film itself. Let’s get some examples and a good ol’ thesis from you.
Thread fail.
“It has too many beautiful and iconic moments to be garbage:
this.
Thank you Mr. Simington for the above post. We cannot defend films from everything or attack them from all fronts either. Please just write a review of the film explaining your sentiments.
‘Extremely overrated garbage film?’
Extremely obnoxious, hyperbolic way to start a discussion?
“There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact.” – Gene Siskel
JOKS (CAPITAL LETTERS!):
“2001: A Space Odyssey” is quite different from “Twilight” and “Avatar” in the sense it’s stood the test of time and is a genuinely influential film. So I don’t feel you can build an argument that it’s bad people rush out to see it. If "2001: is playing ONCE per year at the Astor, and it’s a film that virtually demands to be experienced on the big screen, thus making the DVD option moot for many people, why WOULDN’T they rush to see it rather than the latest Euro Drivel about a piano whiz?
My point is there are many films that are some 40 years old and nowhere nearly so attractive to Melbourne crowds. “2001” draws a huge crowd for a reason.
JOKS (STILL CAPITAL LETTERS!): You know fully well my opinion of the Neckerchief Nazis and Beret Bolsheviks patrolling the Cinemateque (and to a lesser extent, the Astor), foot long cigarette holder in one finely manicured hand, caffeinated frothy beverage in the other. However, that wasn’t the case with “2001” a few nights ago: not the usual crowd, and I would dare say some people missed the point, even the obvious moments, and some inappropriate laughter (the bit where HAL first “goes into business for himself” was tarnished by some inexplicable giggles) showed me this wasn’t the usual ACMI folks. I didn’t here much chattering afterwards in the foyer…I think it perplexed a lot of folks, but the film has such a huge reputation, and it plays seldomly,hence you can’t blame people for picking it over whatever unappetising crap Meryl Streep has on down the road at the Como.
Anyway, I’ll be at the Astor watching “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, which coincides with the Supernova weekend. So if you wish to complain about the Melbourne film community, just tell yourself, Joks: thousands of people getting autographs from a bunch of third-rate “Twilight” non-actors versus one of the greatest films ever made in “I.O.B.T.S.” I just can’t wait until those first timers get hit with THAT final scene from “Invasion”!
Lol. 2001 is ‘extremely overrated garbage’ awesome.
Also, this reminds me of the time I had lunch with some of the management here at work and we were discussing films and they were all praising Transformers 2…I said it was a rotten piece of shit.
One of them (we’ll call her Jane) piped up and said "well then what kind of film do you like? I said 2001. She says “oh I saw that years ago, my husband fast forwarded through most of it…I asked him at one point to fast forward…and he said I already am!”
2001: A space odyssey is definitely one of my favourite films (amongst my top 25) that I’ve loved since I first saw it on VHS as a 6 year old. I’ve aways found it quite fascinating and truly different from anything that has ever been filmed; there is no denying that it is ground breaking on many levels. I’ve never understood why people say it is “boring” or “slow” because even as a child, I was totally captivated by this film. If you didn’t like this move, fine, but to call it “garbage” is ridiculous.
“This movie is so shallow, slow, pathetically boring and pointless that pseudo-intellectuals everywhere seem to have collectively mistaken it for some deep revelation, or something.”
You just don’t get it.
House of Leaves
Look, opinions are opinions, but I REALLY think you’re missing the point.
Film doesn’t need dialog to be great. And long shots are ballsy.
I find this film to be one of Kubrick’s four masterpieces, among:
Eyes Wide Shut
Paths of Glory
Dr. Strangelove
Of course, that’s just my opinion.