This is movie as art in its fullest and most stunning format. How Kubrick made this look so futuristic in the year of 1968 it beyond me and probably most people on this planet. How much is covered in the short span of this film. It might just be the only film that seems to cover the whole history of the universe in a film. Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, KUBRICK.

Acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick's SF masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a conservative movie, asking the audience not to be amazed by the extraordinary visuals but the maturity and growth of a universal subject. The climax of the movie speeds up consistently and precisely with the breath taking cinematography of silence,and in the end....the movie itself becomes the universal subject.

I think this is the first and last time that cinema escaped the theater and became part of our mythological collective unconscious.

This movie is in a league of it's own. No movie throughout the history of film can come close to this. By far the most intense drama ever. A movie that comments on evolution, technology, time and space. Oh yeah, after 40 years, still as fresh as the day it was released.

This movie is one of the most intellectually stimulating films i've ever seen. Kubrick actually trusts the audience's intelligence and ability to ascertain the films ideals--a refreshing departure from most modern films. This element is essential in this film because its main point is the evolution of human intelligence--Arthur C. Clarke merely uses science-fiction aspects such as space travel and alien discoveries as a vehicle to drive these ideas. Beautifully directed--the best Sci-fi film ever created. … Expand

This movie was good.. anyone who thinks otherwise does not know a good movie.I think if you watched it at the time it should of gotten a 8 but for the modern generation i will be giving it a 7.

Stanley Kubrick's epic sci-fi tale involving monkeys, space, monoliths & a Russian Leonard Rossiter. The first two hours of the film are fine, yes it does drag a little here & there, but builds the story up nicely. The parts with HAL & Dave & Frank are, for me, just fantastic. You get a great sense of claustrophobia with the space suit scenes & the breathing being the only soundtrack. There's also something very sinister about HAL singing Daisy Daisy, with his voice getting lower & lower. Then the last half hour. I watched it again just to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Looking at some of the other reviews, it seems I'm not alone in missing the point of it. Total nonsense. Anyway, aside from that, it is still a good film which has stood the test of time 40 years on. Great visuals, brilliant soundtrack & very influential in the way sci-fi films were made afterwards.… Expand

A Classic that still holds up after 40+ years. One of my favorites however, I had read the book before seeing the film, so the story makes sense.

This is one of the greatest of all time!

Kubrick tossed the bones of sci-fi conventions into the air, liberating cinema from the formula of genre demands and from highminded subservience to other arts considered innately superior. one of the quantum leaps in film history, where with a single film kubrick advanced filmic potential across an eon.

Although a classic, the way 2001 looks and plays out is hopelessly dated by today's standards. While it definitely doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence, this becomes it's undoing as Stanley Kubrick overestimates his ability to hold the audiences attention. After halfway through, the backdrop becomes erratic and convoluted as if to match the increasing, but jumpy plot. The audience is left bored and confused. This is a film to see only once to honor the milestone that it once was.… Expand

Even if you don't understand it, just enjoy the wonderful imagery.

This movie is probably the only of its kind. It is the kind of movie that combines wacky ideas with serious and realistic scenes. An incredible picture. Nobody could have done this better than Stanley Kubrick. One of the things I liked best was the slowness, and how there were 5-minute scenes just of a space pod departing from the ship. Kubrick is able to realistically portray outer space, and to create a beautiful film.… Expand

Finally saw this flick and finally understand what all the fuss is about, from those who love it and from those who hate it. For my part, I mostly appreciated this as one is apt to appreciate an awe inspiring work of art. I liked it more after doing some reading on it, guess I'm not smart enough to figure everything out by myself. Perhaps that is the point of the movie, and the best advice I can give: don't try to figure it out too much. In time things will sink in and bring different meanings to different people, the way all great art does.… Expand

After hearing all this acclaim for this movie I thought it was going to be a spectacular movie. Instead I was submitted to 25 minutes of monkeys screaming at eachother, over an hour total of scenes of space with just music or breathing, and and a sparse half hour total of actual dialogue. The concept is great, the execution is painfully slow and boring.

This movie made me so mad I went on the internet and searched for worst movie ever so I could vote for it.

A beautiful and mesmerizing film. I'm surprised by the two comments suggesting it's outdated. 40 years after release the special effects and settings hold up better then most newer films and certainly better then any of it's contemporaries. It's biggest failures were not predicting the demise of Ma Bell and Pan Am and believing that landing on the moon actually was just a "small step".… Expand

Pink Floyd in movie form.

Like Kubrick's own A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey is striking, hypnotic and masterfully directed. Unlike that film, however, 2001 is less direct and allows it's true motives to slowly unfold. As each amazing event is revealed, the moon landing, HAL, the incredible and ambiguous conclusion, the viewer feels increasingly amazed and stunned. Few other films create the same haunting effect that 2001 achieves, and I do not think there is a single more philosophical film in existance. 2001 must be seen by everyone. Whether you may find it slow, tedious or pretentious, 2001 succeeds in making something bigger of our existances than the day to day lives we currently live. Films simply do not get any better.… Expand

Visually, no one can deny this film. It is the reason they invented Widescreen. When you see this film, and consider it in the context of it's visuals, it's hard to imagine what all the hub-bub was about almost *ten years* later, when STAR WARS came out. That said, the film itself is about human progression (or, evolution, if you please), and "crawls" at it's pace deliberately for effect. But in each moment of advancement, man is met with the Monolith. Understanding human nature, and this film, isn't an instant, to be brushed off with a first or second attempt. I laughed when the film finished, upon my first viewing, but couldn't get it out of my head until I had it figured out. Years later, I'm still discovering elements and implications -- once man reaches each new stage, high powers egg us on, until finally.... we evolve. Starchild. It's a great film, visually, and intellectually.… Expand

When a prehistoric ape, having used a bone as a primitive tool, tosses it in the air, and suddenly it changes into a white spacecraft in Earth orbit, one of cinema's greatest movie moments has struck you square. This movie has many more unforgetable images. As a movie bad guy, compare Hal to, say, Darth Vader. Isn't Hal a profoundly more chilling character? Do you, like me, find yourself in difficult situations where the first thing entering your mind is, "Open the pod bay door, Hal." After 25 years of advances in movie special effects, space flight has still never been more beautifully portrayed. Yup, I like thlis flick.… Expand

Fantastic! The best cinematic and visual experience in the history of cinema.

This is without a doubt one of the best films ever made. Stephen Hunter from the Washington Post is a complete idiot if he rates this film with 10 out of 100. A timeless classic.

A presentation without conclusions where the viewer must do all the thinking, and a solid reassurance that man's ultimate place in the universe is, at least for a time, a very lonely one. But for every level it attempts, no film excels better.

Timeless masterpiece!

I must have seen a different 2001: A Space Odyssey than everyone else. Mine was a two hours long screen saver. I watched it a week ago and I'm still furious about how mind-numbingly boring it was. Critics, if this was an elaborate practical joke, you win.

Aside from a couple nagging technical things, the tech and atmosphere depicted in the film is among the best in any movie ever. Extremely deep, enjoyable and uplifting. 11/10.

Watched it as a young kid, obviously thought it was just about the most tedious thing I'd ever sat through (ok I only got a third of the way through)......watched it again when I was 24, and haven't looked back since. Simply put it's one of those movies you almost feel obliged to pay homage to once a year. You hunker down in your armchair with a cup of tea, sandwiches, crisps a choco bar or two (it is a long film), dim the lights, lock the door and just devour the imagery. Its a wonderful movie, but I completely understand those who claim it's more like watching a screen saver than a movie, but that's what the cup of tea's for. There are moments when you just feel so completely at ease watching what is essentially artwork, others when you're provoked into thought's like no other movie can provide. It's a journey, sorry to be melodramatic, not a movie watching experience. And one everyone should make, it's not dated, despite it being, what? 40+ years old.… Expand

If you fast forward through all non-dialogue portions of this 130 minute movie, it distills down to a mediocre 20 minute sci-fi story. If you don't fast forward, you're guaranteed to fall asleep.

A movie for the ages. Gets your attention early and never lets go. A movie I can watch a hundred times and still get fascinated by. The Best movie of All Time.

Slowest movie ever made and of course its outdated, hence the title.

The best audio-visual mediation on the origins, the now and the future of man. The depth of this movie is only revealed over successive viewings. Still waiting for kubrick's successor in the celluloid format.

Recently, I stayed at a hotel that had a very interesting art style. They had flatscreen TV's running nonstop with strange, enigmatic videos, as a sort of "moving art." This movie would fit perfectly on to one of those screens. Where it does not fit is in a movie theater. As a movie, it is horrible. Immensely boring and repetitive, it lacks character development, relevance between scenes, and any respectable acting. It gives no explanation for any of its many random plot changes, leaving the interpretation up to the viewer, a cop-out way of passing off what was not even artistic as deep and meaningful. I give it a 1 because, for its time, the special effects are wholly impressive. But other than that, this movie is excruciating.… Expand

If I were a US soldier who held a terrorist captive and wanted to receive valuable or any source of information from him, but the sergent refuses to give me any, make him watch this horrible film in a dark chamber. He'll be pleading for mercy to get him out of there.

Is there a rating greater than 10? This movie would have it. A work of true genius. And much more, a spiritual journey. Kubrick went for it and hit a home run, for all time.

I'm always fascinated by the mixed reviews of this film. There's basically no middle ground. You either love it or hate it. Not surprisingly, most of the works of Stanley Kubrick receive similar treatment. Such is the price of true artistic genius and I believe the term aptly applies to him. Film is our most modern form of art. It is a learned craft in the same vein as painting or music composition. Yes, I'm saying a film can be on the same level as a Debussy symphony or a Dostoevsky novel, for examples. The operative word is "can" or "may." Its collaborative nature doesn't exclude it as an art form. When Michaelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, he couldn't have done it without carpenters and assistants. But, it was his vision, and a film can be the spawn of one person's imagination and efforts and that person is the director. A director free from the control of a studio, who involves him or herself in every aspect of the filmmaking process, particularly the script, photography and the editting, is just like a painter or composer. There are few filmmakers with this level of power, skill and knowledge. Stanley Kubrick was one of the few. And, 2001: A Space Odyssey is truly a work of art. Time, the true measure by which these things are judged, will tell. When historians of the future analyze the accomplishments of man (of this epoch) from an artistic perspective, this film will be an example of our capabilities, and I'm not sure we could present a better one.… Expand

This is the greatest film ever made. Kubrick's masterpiece and one of the great works of art of the 20th century. A phenomenal testament to creative genius.

Masterfully done. Every aspect of the film, from the slow build up of anticipation, the overtone of visual and audio, to the audacious and hypnotic ending, adds to the overall depiction of mans inability to manipulate the unstoppable force of time and the transitional stages it brings. The director tacitly demonstrates the central concept of this allegorical film with a combination of elements uncommon in modern film making. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.… Expand

No science fiction film has ever come close to this. Haters: go watch Transformers and stop criticizing something you don't understand.

This film is simply just art. The film includes phemomenal use of music; mankind's best music played against the backdrop of outer space where there is no mankind, the acting present is flawless while never shining, nor does it have to be as this film focuses more on machines and the beauty and mystery of space which is shown beautifully and mysteriously here. The plot may be hard to follow by a lot of viewers but there is no denying that is cinematic art at it's very best and most probably the best film of kubrick's career and possibly the best film ever made. Prepare to be amazed.… Expand

This is, quite simply, among the greatest of films. What it does is to seamlessly and brilliantly mesh science fiction, philosophy, religion, and political and social commentary and satire into one grand design. I have seen it numerous times in theatres with variously sized screens and on video and still maintain there has never been anything like it. (And it was made by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, not Warner Brothers, despite what the Metacritic people say!)… Expand

The worst film I've ever seen. What does the film want to be? This is no art it's only crap. Please dont see this film, every euro you would spend on it is lost, lost, lost.

An amazing film, a masterpiece, and easily the best science-fiction film of alltime. Kubrick never did any better than this unbelievable film, which does a rare thing; it looks as if it was made yesterday, but it challenges you intellectually like the rarest films from the distant past. This is my personal favorite film of alltime, and I would argue that it might be THE greatest film of alltime.

This movie is so bad I can't even explain it, I was shocked when I saw it, people told me it was a masterpiece but it's one of the most overrated movies ever because it's just terrible, there is nothing in this movie that actually makes it a movie. The monkeys scene is the most epic fail scene in the history of cinematography.

A film way ahead of it's time, it's scarcely beleivable it was made in 1968. The pace is slow and there is an excess of kubrickian unease, but for originality and visual impact this is a winner. There is a lot of thought-povoking material here

Kubrick is undoubtedly one of the masters who made cinema with this classic film. The professionalism of the special effects note that what was used in 1968 could make something seem amateur even in 2011 (note that is a long 43 years after). Anyone who does not like this movie truly has an attention span so high that it could, alone, make them seem ridiculously immature. It is also worth noting that the film was so scientifically accurate. This is still an amazing film today, one of the best of all time. But it could still be very modern. If someone even had seen portions of this film before they knew the title, he/she would predict its initial release as probably somewhat recent because of how advanced every detail in it is. Genius.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A random, slow movie with no definite plot, the twenty minute screensaver at the end was, and is, not a necessary part of any movie. I don't want to insult anyone's love for sci-fi movies, but it was a terrible movie. The only positive thing was the science behind spinning to create gravity with several other scientific ideas and the digital animation for it's period.… Expand

Honestly, I couldn't handle this movie at all. I only watched about 15 minutes of it, and after the second time I couldn't handle it. It just seemed very very boring. All I saw were monkeys going abe sh*t because there's a giant black...I don't know. A Bar? A Box? I don't know and I don't care. If this whole movie is gonna be quiet and weird than I don't think this is the movie for me. I'm just amazed that this was critically the best movie by Stanley Kubrick. I've seen some of his weird movies that I don't get and understand how people would actually like it. Like 'A Clockwork Orange' and 'The Shining'. The only movie I found very decent was Full Metal Jacket. I'm just gonna give this movie half credit for the popularity for the viewers and reviewers.… Expand

2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction film by Stanley Kubrick (who happens to be my favourite director as well). Being my favorite film, I have recommended this it to almost everyone I know. This review is more like an answer to those who found this film slow-paced, and for those yet to watch it, you may continue to read this as a disclaimer to the film- I’ll give you a word- Beauty Beauty is an under-rated concept. Sure, you’ll often see nice photography and so on in films. But when did you last see a film that contains beauty purely for the sake of it? There is a weird belief among cinemagoers that anything which is not plot or character related must be removed. This is depressing hogwash. There is nothing wrong with creating a beautiful sequence that has nothing to do with the film’s plot. A director can show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, and it is neither illegal nor evil to do so. ’2001′ requires you to watch it, in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don’t get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they’re not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different kinds of film (this being the best of all), and to enjoy ’2001′ you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films. ’2001′ is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes including an amazing jump cut sequence). The film’s greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn’t made it out to the moon… but there it is in 2001, and that’s just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief – I still can’t work out how some of the shots were done. The film uses invisible but powerful forces to manipulate the plot but perhaps the most overwhelming one is the picture’s vision of man… In Kubrick’s fantasy, the Golden Age of man was a neglected instant between a man-ape’s exaltation at discovering the first weapon and a nuclear-powered spaceship floating in a graceful orbit around the Earth. Man has indeed evolved As a spectacle “2001″ assaults the mind, eye and ear, with stimulating images and suggestions. We are surrounded by a totally believable futuristic environment.The film is filled with brilliant sequences and extraordinary moments: The first interesting minutes in which the story of the apes is told visually, without a single line of dialog; the zero-gravity toilet with its great list of instructions; the stewardess defying gravity by walking the walls calmly upside down; the frightening moment when we realize that HAL is reading the astronauts lips; the magical alignments of Sun, Moon, and Earth; the “Starchildâ€� returning home to charm the orb. “2001″ is filled with poetic imagery: the view of the Sun rising over the Earth; the tossing of the bone into the air in slow motion; the slow images of the giant spaceship revolving in a cosmic ballet. “2001″ is also a work of great visual acuity. It allows us to view more than the mystery of existence and destiny implicit in every man. Its end troubles many viewers as they demand clarity where there can only be mystery. They insist upon an answer where there can only be a question. Every viewer had a different explanation of the mysterious end of Kubrick’s film. But for those who can accept mysticism, the climax is deeply moving. “2001″ is unique among films in content and scope. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, the special and visual effects are breathtaking, and the classical music is sublime. Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odysseyâ€� is art in the highest sense, like Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisaâ€�, or Van Gogh’s “The Starry Nightâ€�. It is actually more than that!… Expand

Stanley has proved that no other director can stand next to him by this movie.The greatest epiphany? That the monolith represents the film screen itself, with its black rectangular appearance. And that the monolith is also depicted as the catalyst for change only encourages the notion that we actually evolve as we watch ourselves on the screen, and furthermore, BECOME what we see. And that's what 2001 is ultimately about; becoming. Constant becoming.… Expand

It is way to long and drawn out. I suggest you read the book. There is no reason to sit through the process when you can curl up with a good read. It actually is like watching paint dry.

A masterpiece unlike any other movie. The multiple stories and themes combine to make an experience that really does feel like an odyssey. This is a movie about evolution, progression and existence, although it may fly over some viewers heads. The beginning and ending sequences were particularly impressive due to the reliance on imagery to tell the story in the absence of dialogue. The brilliant cinematography beautifully captures the grace and majesty of traveling in space but also of the vast nothingness that fills it. Anyone with even a vague interest in cinema should see this movie.… Expand

I had the good fortune of seeing 2001 in its first release at a fully decked-out cinerama theater when I was 11 years old --really the perfect age of wonder for such an imagination inspiring movie. It blew my mind along with everyone else's, and even at that young age I knew that with this film everything about motion picture storytelling had suddenly changed. Amazingly, the movie still holds up, particularly visually. It doesn't suffer the fate of most science fiction films --2001 will never be seen as "retro".… Expand

Kubrics epic masterpiece is one of the Greatest films of all time. It examines humanity's insignificance in the vastness of the universe. If you haven't seen this film, do so immediately. My advise? watch it in a dark room, on a big screen, with the volume up loud.

Best philosophical sci-fi movie ever ! It's amazing how it isn't outdated yet (except from some cloth-designs and haircuts); the slowness of the film is perfectly justified here (the pace of it reminds me of "Moon" ), and not a trick to mask the complete lack of ideas like in "Monsters" for instance..I saw it when I was 17, and was blasted away, and I still am.

This movie is simply an excuse to play Blue Danube in full, twice. The beginning and ending are utter tripe - just because something is confusing, that doesn't mean it's a masterpiece. It more likely is nonsense. Kubrick has done much better.

Very much one of the best Sci-Fi movies of the past decades. Amazing film and mind boggling ending. Definitely a must see film for every self-proclaimed film lover.

This is by far, the greatest film ever created. It is not even a film as much as it is a work of art. It is the classic Sc-Fi masterpiece. Far superior to other films said to have started Sci-Fi such as Star Wars, 2001 actually did it. Timeless, and great, 2001 is a masterpiece. It is like the Mona Lisa of movies.

Kubrick is a real genius. He has a movie so meaningful with hardly any dialogue. He find's ways to make long scenes in space interesting and plus the effects are unreal for 1968. However some will find it slow and pretentious.

I would just like to comment on the amount of dumbasses out there. I just watched this movie tonight which was made in 1968 by the way, and I am so blown away by this movie, that I am just really in awe of the amount of people that gave bad reviews. They just dont get it. Its probably not the best movie made in terms of effects but the message,captivation, the perspective , and intrigue of this movie by the best director who has ever lived (in my opinion) is so awesome, that Im still crapping my pants about it. To all of you idiots out there open your freaking eyes! Thanks Stanley..… Expand

Its tempting to consider 2001 a companion piece to Arthur C. Clarke's novel only, as its visual narrative can be hard to grasp for many. Is it boring? Yes, but will it blow your mind? Probably.

A cool film that I very much enjoyed watching. Exeptional directing from Stanley Kubrick and also exellent acting from Kier Dullela. It is very real considering in the scenes in space it is completely silent and the spacesuits are brilliant.

Such a Interesting idea, Jupiter and the infinite, and the mission and all those segments, unfortunately, when this was passed to a movie, it got a little bit boring and without action, I mean don't get me wrong i liked the movie, for that time, this was a very big step into the industry, but it should have been more interesting, like not only showing a lot of images and stuff, but like a little bit more action . I though the dialogues between Bowman & Hal were very well written, the idea of a automatically computer was awesome and very well structured. So once again Stanley Kubrick did a very good job, and this time he did the whole thing, not only the writing and the directing, but also the special effects, like wow.… Expand

kubrick's 2001 is a film that when i first saw it, i hated it. i think it's the kind of film that you have to... speak it's language to understand what the hell is going on. having said that, watching the film now i have to say it's one of my favorite films. it's utterly hypnotic and that tremendous sense of everything that is unfathomable is all through the film. i really liked hal, the artificial intelligence and found it profoundly disturbing when they "killed" him. as far as the ending goes, i have my own interpretation of it, but a definite answer as to what it "means", i have no idea. but i'm not sure i want to know. it's as mysterious as the universe.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I recently rewatched 2001 to reassess it. Give it another fair shake. It's still just... not good. The pace is still excruciatingly slow, and that 15-20 minute MP3 visualizer sequence still looks dumb. You can tell that by the end, they aren't even trying anymore, and just started showing footage of the Grand Canyon with loopy colors. The monkey sequence at the beginning's probably the best part of the film, it's not quite as bad. It's not quite as slow and dull. The makeup work they did on those apesuits was great, you can stand back a bit from the television and if you didn't know it was a film, you might actually think it was documentary footage. I've read all four 2001 novels by Arthur C. Clarke. The 2001 novel's great. The story's very well told in that book. But Kubrick's storytelling just kills this story. Just kills it. It's an epic journey, a literal Space Odyssey. I just don't think Kubrick's storytelling conveys that in a satisfying manner. And again, nobody needs to sit in a theater and stare at a visualizer sequence for 15 minutes. That's just torture. It was just aimless, tedious and boring. Whereas I think a human being traveling through a stargate and observing the wonders of the universe, stars being birthed, supernovas exploding, interstellar exchange systems, etc, would be awed and amazed. I was not awed and amazed by what they showed me. It did not look like the wonders of the universe while traveling at a high speed. It looked like colorful garbage. Followed by some footage of the Grand Canyon and an ocean with color substitution. That's not the majesty of the universe. Wearing the audience down with tedious rubbish is not the same as wearing Bowman down with amazing galactic sights. The latter is what's supposed to be going on in the story. Some might argue that the rubbish is supposed to be rubbish because what Bowman is going through can't actually be processed, his mind won't accept it, and so it has to be shown as a jumble of rubbish. Well, that's just not good film-making. You can't just throw up your arms and declare it unfilmable, and show us a lot of **** onscreen. Film is a visual medium, we need to see stuff. That stuff should generally be interesting to watch. Showing us really awful visuals and declaring it to be the point and that it's supposed to be really awful visuals, well... that might be the intent, but it doesn't change the fact that the viewer has just seen really awful visuals. That's not fair to the audience. If your whole concept is to have something that's unimaginable and incomprehensible and unknowable, just stop right there. Don't make the **** film, at all. There's nothing to be done with that, just don't go on the endeavor.… Expand

This movie is a real piece of art, every movie director should watch this movie and realize that, make a movie is more than special effects or great actors

This film is one of the cinema masterpieces. The soundtrack is sublime and besides the plot has a significance that few films have. Good special effects too.

To **** JamesB - "I must have seen a different 2001: A Space Odyssey than everyone else. Mine was a two hour long screen saver". Well, JamesB, you'll be happy to know the one I watched, was also a two hour long **** screensaver. I cannot fathom the amount of positive reviews this thing gets. This is not a film; it is either a two hour long screen saver, or a special effects demo reel. It lacks so many basic elements that films are held to - plot, story threads, characters, dialogue. This is the only film I know of - bar No Country For Old Men - that has managed to use style over substance, and gotten away with it among the vast majority of professional critics and directors. The editing in this movie is non existent, the pace is excruciatingly slow. If you just play the film's important parts, where we get characters, dialogue and explanations of what the hell is happening, you get a 20 minute ok science fiction film. If you play through the whole thing, you get a 2 hour tranquiliser, that is guaranteed to send you off. Honestly, half of the **** scenes in this film we do not need to watch. Did we really need to watch monkeys for 16 minutes? No. Did we need to watch a space station above Earth for 4 minutes? No. The first 40 minutes of this film, you could cut, and you would not miss anything important, as it is 40 minutes into the film where we FINALLY get to some sort of plot development. This film in fact, has no plot. I have been told time and again by fans of this movie that it is dependent on the audience's subjective interpretations, that its deep and meaningful because you can go and talk to someone else and have two completely differing viewpoints on what it means. The truth is guys, the only reason that will happen is because this film is so empty and devoid of any kind of content, that anyone could come up with almost anything to explain this film, and it would be just as valid, because the film its self never actually makes any attempt to explain what is actually going on. And don't try and tell me "you just don't get it" or that I'm a mentally challenged lackie who only wants to watch 300 and Independence Day, or that this film is so open ended it makes you think, whereas other films don't, you just lap up what's on screen. Wrong again guys, the truth is, a film such as Blade Runner and Pan's Labyrinth have POINTS to think about, whereas this movie is just incoherent imagery dumped on screen to music, which is the most random and unguided of all thinking. This movie is no different than if I were to give you a painting, which consisted of three lines on a white canvas, one black, one white, one orange, each of them jagged, but at different points and said "there's a meaning in there somewhere, figure it out for yourself. Aren't I a genius?" For those of you observant enough to notice three lines do not constitute a painting, well done. Two hours of special effects and ships docking does not constitute a film either. Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Matrix Sequels tried to get away with exactly the same **** Kubrick did with this film; TMP in particular has excruciatingly long scenes of starships docking, of lots of colourful things on screen, and that film was the one that was slated? The only positive thing I can say about this, is that it can be enjoyed on a level of special effects, but that is all.… Expand

What I found wrong with this film? Absolutely nothing. Everything was very well produced. The acting, directing, writing they where all perfect. I rarely give a film a perfect five star rating. This film deserves the stars and maybe even more. I fell in love with HAL 9000. He(it) had a rather dull feel to his personality. The film did mention that HAL 9000 had feelings. Which was perfect for building up the plot. Did anyone else notice that technology was predicted in this film? Technology such as video phone, and ipads. The whole time I was viewing this film I was confused. I should have read the book. But after watching the film I did some reading online. I was like, now I get it. Genius pure genius. The monolith made me think very hard, especially at the end. My favorite part had to be the colors at the end, very artistic. With a very slow paced plot and no flaws I recommend this to anyone that is a movie literate.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Some parts were extremely interesting, some were hard to sit through. The color sequence that lasted ten minutes and the long first stage of evolution with the primates were definitely both my favorite parts of the film. The ending was confusing and awful, in my opinion. It left me wondering why they would end a film with that much potential like a premature fetus.… Expand