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

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.

Slowest movie ever made and of course its outdated, hence the title.

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

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

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.

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

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 is very slow, and two hours of ships docking, apes and about 4 minutes of the monoliths that the movie is about. If I hadn't read the book first, I wouldn't know what the hell was happening. Read the book, not the movie.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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