2001: A Space Odyssey

I wonder if anybody will understand this without reading the book. Kubrick created something really weird from Clarke’s pure-blooded sci-fi. OK, it starts more or less the same, then it sort of jumps chapters and the ending of the book that I had considered important is somehow missing in this movie. The movie lacks the purpose that is quite well described in the book. The journey through space is presented differently. Instead of Saturn’s moons, we fly toward Jupiter instead. There are lots of differences that annoy me, but lots of things that exceeded my expectations. The black monolith and the nice-guy computer HAL 9000 remained the same. I have more or less arrived at the conclusion that it’s almost impossible to compare them due to certain characteristics that each media has. I think that what bothered me in places was the unnecessary drawn-outness, probably due to Kubrick’s fascination with the emptiness of space. It loses a star for a certain vividness in the first half that is due to the fact that the “future" occasionally comes across like the 1970s, on the other hand the movie is incredibly advanced and well-thought out. This is my purely subjective view of the movie and oldsters probably won’t share my view, but I’m just rather particular about this sort of thing. This is because the movie was years before its time. But this then meant that it set certain standards for the genre, so there you go... hrmph. (12/07/2009)

There’s no point writing anything. Space Odyssey is insanely underrated, because its genius and timelessness lies in the fact that it laughs at common genre conventions in a way most of us regular folks will never allow, which is the very reason why I adore it. If we were trying to defend film as true art (which we certainly want to do), we should use Kubrick's masterpiece as an example. Welles may have his Citizen Kane, Fritz his Metropolis, and Coppola his flawless The Godfather..., but this is the only film that manages to evoke unadulterated viewer ecstasy and a sense of amazement through the imaginative use of basic filmmaking devices such as music, cinematography, sets, and now a dose of high quality visual effects (which are, by the way, utterly captivating for their time). Strauss's Waltz seems to have been composed just to underscore the amazing harmony of the weightless state, and the universe seems to really exist for the sole purpose of allowing Clarke and Kubrick to think about it and create their own and, in terms of filmmaking, the most epic human vision in history, in space, time and thought – at least that’s how I felt during those 140 minutes, although that big message doesn't seem incomprehensible after two screenings (unless I'm terribly mistaken, which perhaps the next screening will reveal). What I've realised for sure, though, is that the HAL computer is a beautiful caricature of Kubrick's work – except that Stanley never makes a mistake. (31/08/2022)

An extraordinary space ballet, mixed with a psychedelic trip to the galaxy's edges. Why is Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey a great film? Because it resisted the lure of the book and instead of parroting Clark's text, it became a kind of bizarre visual essay on the future, the universe and people. Kubrick's brilliance is also evidenced by the fact that today, when film is taking the path of "perfect imitation," its riveting game of shapes, colors and sounds does not lose any of its concern or suggestiveness. In my opinion, that is why A Space Odyssey does not age, because it is not a copy of a sci-fi original, but a supreme work of art that transcends the boundaries of the sci-fi genre. To today's viewer it may seem lazy, peaceful, anti-dramatic, but its real charm is toiling beneath the surface of the action. Bravo! This work walks in the footsteps of the best tradition of artistic fantasy... (30/03/2004)

A visionary’s life-view expressed through film images and music in a sci-fi environment. The thematic scope is absolute, from the birth of thought and awareness of one’s own personality at the very beginning of humanity to the threat of the dominance of artificial intelligence over advanced civilization in the future. The patience-requiring pace of the film aptly symbolizes the human life span and, in conjunction with the depth and mystery of the universe, also the distant-nature of the answers to our existential questions. Except for the old-fashioned inverse filters in the final fly-overs over the land, it’s an amazingly timeless movie. The picture quality of the restored version shown in cinemas in 2014 is perfect. (03/04/2014)

This is a terrible movie. I don't mean in terms of quality, but I simply always have a problem with it. I love Kubrick's films, but "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the only one that just never clicked with me. I have seen it three times already and I still can't tune into it. Visually, this is a perfect masterpiece, especially when you consider the era it was made in. There are tricks that wouldn't look any better even with digital technology nowadays. Unbelievable. However, there is a storytelling style that simply doesn't sit well with me. Every time, I feel like I've been sitting in front of the movie for at least four hours, and yet, not even two have passed. There are scenes that are absolutely mesmerizing, but as a whole, it just didn't reach me. It's a film that you have to watch multiple times to realize how brilliant the individual scenes are and how innovative their interconnection is, but it still doesn't change the fact that the whole thing simply doesn't work. It doesn't want to reach the viewer, and it's as if the viewer can't reach it either. 100% for the details, but I have to give it less for the whole, because if I couldn't digest the film even on the third try, it just won't work. However, visually, it is something absolutely incredible and the impressions can only be compared to "Gravity," although "2001: A Space Odyssey" has a much more complex concept and the visual variability is stunning. (11/04/2014)