Why is 2001: A Space Odyssey such a highly regarded movie?

[Earthling]

Here's the answer to your question, Dida: it's highly regarded because it lets you make grand, sweeping generalisations about anything you feel like.

It's understandable to not like 2001, even within the context of other science fiction.

At the same time folks like contre are right that almost the entirety of criticism you hear is just people being people who don't appreciate cinema techniques and its history and would probably find any old movies boring. If you want to dismiss any sort of "classic" work as boring and terrible in the modern day then you at least know what you're doing, and 2001 is then not unique at all compared to any old movie you could choose to complain about. I think you could say objectively that 2001 still holds up far better than many others - something like Gone with the Wind is awful racist trash by modern sensibilities though is viewed as a "classic." As for the first part, disliking the various science fiction elements presented in the movie, there are acceptable other opinions:

Solaris is a better film because it's the only visionary movie unfettered by corrupt capitalist influences.

You prefer some other abstract science fiction movie (typically Blade Runner) because you strongly prefer a specific subgenre (e.g. cyberpunk)

Any other opinion: You don't get sci fi.

 

[Atlas14]

Someone mentioned earlier that it's best watched while consuming/using some sort of drug, even if it's just alcohol.

But if you didn't like the ape/monolith part, you obviously didn't fully "get it". That's my guess anyway.

 

[jtb1127]

That's like saying we shouldn't consider a car to be bad because it can't move. A car's purpose is to get from point A to point B; a movie's purpose is to entertain. Now a movie may entertain in many ways, some are funny, others may be epic, but in the end a movie that doesn't entertain, or that is downright boring as in the case of 2001, is definitely bad.

Your inability to be entertained by that movie does not mean it didn't entertain the millions of people (including a lot of people on this forum) who were entertained by it. Furthermore, there are more purposes to a film besides entertainment. I think, and I'm certain a great many movie lovers would agree, that films should appreciated in the same respect as books. If you thought A Tale of Two Cities was boring does that mean it is a bad book? No, it merely demonstrates your incapacity to appreciate good literature. Likewise, this thread does the same for movies. Adding on to "movies are good if they entertain" rebuttle, is Transformers 2 a good movie because the explosions are entertaining? No. Again, I thought 2001 was very entertaining so it passes both tests.

 

[Joecoolyo]

It's not the special effects. If you judge 2001 by that standard, and ignore it was filmed in the late 60s, then your opinion on film is completely irrelevant.

Hell, even the special effects are damn good. I only watched the movie a year ago, and I was stunned by how good it looked.

Especially for a movie made that long ago.

 

[Tahuti]

a movie's purpose is to entertain

Yeah, Schindler's List is a real popcorn flick...

 

[Quackers]

I definitely take stock with what the viewer puts in.
The first time I watched it, I had read the book and was for a few months fascinated by SCI-FI and space and all that kind of thing - so when I watched it I thought it was an incredible film.
The second time I watched it, I could not muster the interest nor the excitement which held me throughout the first viewing and by the time I got to the second part of the film I was incredibly bored (i was with a hot woman who bought it for me, true story) so that may have distracted me! However! I did feel quite bored by the end of the film.

I think one of the crucial lessons to learn for a proper viewing of a film on a critical level is to focus and properly immerse yourself in it. If you still dislike it after that, it's fine.

1st viewing vs 2nd viewing = I think the film is excellent overall and encourage anybody to see it.

 

[emzie]

That's like saying we shouldn't consider a car to be bad because it can't move. A car's purpose is to get from point A to point B; a movie's purpose is to entertain. Now a movie may entertain in many ways, some are funny, others may be epic, but in the end a movie that doesn't entertain, or that is downright boring as in the case of 2001, is definitely bad.

For starters, no. Film is an art medium. Sure it can be entertaining, like LMFAO might be entertaining to some. But just because someone finds LMFAO entertaining and doesn't find Bach entertaining doesn't make Bach bad.

Second, the fact that you don't think film can be anything but entertainment explains why you hate 2001. You have been conditioned by modern film that is special-effects driven, that doesn't engage, that doesn't require any introspection. A film that requires thinking will be disappointing for you. That doesn't make it bad, it's just not your thing. Stick to Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

How about the sequel with the granite jawed Roy Scheider ?

 

[Old Hippy]

considering Kubrick made it in 1968, its cinematic history of the finest, even NASA thought it good ... they chose him to make their moon landing movies if i recall

for those that say it useless ...well just name a better 1968 film
there are classics of their time Seven Samurai 1954, good bad and ugly 1966(whole franchise) even 8 1/2, 1963.... these films have an influence that continues to this day regularly appearing on directors greatest film lists

 

[MagisterCultuum]

How is a scene ******ed?

******ed technically means slowed, delayed, hindered, or impeded. The ape scene certainly is slow and hinders the rate at which the plot can develop.

 

[Berzerker]

just name a better 1968 film

Planet of the Apes

imo anyway

 

[Old Hippy]

Planet of the Apes

imo anyway

i should have done a search first...

personally I'm inclined to go the other way, but its close...

 

[Dida]

Your inability to be entertained by that movie does not mean it didn't entertain the millions of people (including a lot of people on this forum) who were entertained by it.If you thought A Tale of Two Cities was boring does that mean it is a bad book? No, it merely demonstrates your incapacity to appreciate good literature.

It is not exactly fair to compare 2001 with A Tale of Two Cities. The later has a coherent plot, make some sense and is not boring as hell. I realize something for what it is, you however, may continue to ride your high horse and enjoy eating your turd sandwich, as surely you consider it to be of high gastronomical value. Anyone who can't appreciate turd sandwich surely don't appreciate fine food, they are just ignorant and prefer ordinary stuff like cheeseburger.

For starters, no. Film is an art medium. Sure it can be entertaining, like LMFAO might be entertaining to some. But just because someone finds LMFAO entertaining and doesn't find Bach entertaining doesn't make Bach bad.

The first role of all commercially produced films like 2001 is to entertain its audiences. If it can do so in an intellectual and artful way, all the best. But the most basic requirement is that it entertains its audiences.

 

[Ramius75]

How is a scene ******ed?

I can only remember the scene from the History of the world part 1....

 

[RobAnybody]

Stick to Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich.

This is such an annoying argument. People can like more than one thing. I like Transformers, Memento, Blazing Saddles, Hoosiers, X-Men, Labyrinth, Unforgiven, Toy Story, & Poison Ivy 2 (but not so much Poison Ivy), among others. That's quite a cross-section of genres, & I don't think I'm alone in that. Some even require thinking.

All that said, outside of the HAL parts, which are interesting, 2001 has a lot of long, slow boring parts then tries too hard & gets pretentious at the end.

 

[aelf]

A car's purpose is to get from point A to point B; a movie's purpose is to entertain.

I'm curious as to what you're basing this claim on.

 

[Ajidica]

2001 is an excellent movie, but half of the scenes are slow.
It is really a case of whether you get blown away by the scope or bogged down in the details.

 

[Narz]

No as a general rule it works pretty well.

People I know who don't like sci-fi don't like this movie, and the people who like sci-fi like this movie.

If you find 2001 boring, you're not into film. If you're not looking to be engaged, not looking to think, then please, stick to Transformers.

I'm into sci-fi and film in general. I thought 2001 was a bit overrated though. It was definitely unique but I wasn't particularly moved by it. A few weeks later only a few wisps of what the heck it was about remained, kind of like a dream.

I find the whole "if you don't share my preference you don't like/know x genre" kind of pretentious btw.

Second, the fact that you don't think film can be anything but entertainment explains why you hate 2001. You have been conditioned by modern film that is special-effects driven, that doesn't engage, that doesn't require any introspection. A film that requires thinking will be disappointing for you. That doesn't make it bad, it's just not your thing. Stick to Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich.

I'm not Dida but again, you're judging one preference & basically saying anyone who doesn't appreciate this film the way you do has superficial taste.

I really enjoyed many slow films, Dersu Uzala for one (which my GF found too slow/dull to watch), if I think of some others I'll post them.

 

[bhsup]

It's been some time since I have seen it, but as I remember it, this movie lives and dies with the viewers willingness to actively put effort into appreciating it (for its level of abstraction and at times extraordinary slow-pacedness - which leaves room open for own interpretations and thoughts, or frustration). Some may think that this makes it automatically a bad movie, others argue that once one has made this effort, one will also appreciate it (and that people who don't are bound to be kind of inferior ).

In my personal opinion, this movie is in deed not a master piece, exactly because one has to make said effort to appreciate it. If I try really hard, I think I can appreciate virtually everything, so that to me is a clear deficiency rather than a sign of quality. However, if one does make this effort, I also can see a certain enjoyment and interesting experience this movie has to offer in a rather unique way. And it surely has some interesting and engaging elements. So while not great, it at least is an interesting movie.

That's probably the best explanation/critique of this movie I've ever read. Nailed it pretty much perfectly.

 

[Ramius75]

How about the sequel with the granite jawed Roy Scheider ?

i actually like that more than 2001.