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

[Thorgalaeg]

In my opinion, everyone finds it pretty straightforward. To their point of view. Because, as Kaiserguard very well said, everybody has different criteria to what makes a movie good or bad. I don't even know mine. I just know that this movie is awesome to me. And The Godfather and Citizen Kane, and Apocalypse Now, etc. then there are movies I liked, like Inception, Scarface, The Life of Brian, UP,... some which were just entertaining, not good nor bad to me (most of the films I watched) and pure crap, which is basically Transformers 3 (especially) and the Scary Movie saga (plus derivations).

It is not about liking it or not but about the plot itself. I would say that 2001 is not a complex movie with several different readings, but a very straightforward one with only a meaning. And you will see it reading the book. In fact most if not all Clarke novels are very simple and go around a very simple idea. He does not care about complexities of characters nor about metaphysical ideas. He is a hard scifi writer interested only in science and in the future of humanity, which makes him one of the last real sci-fi writers alive (is he still alive btw?) who speaks about SCI-fi. And the movie is very loyal to Clarke's approach, but narrated trought Kubrik magnificient images instead of words making any further explanation unnecesary and even undesirable.

 

[warpus]

I meant it in two ways:

First, the collective sum of subjective opinions yields about as objective of an opinion as you're gonna get. So look at 2001 on Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic.

Second, the influence the movie has had on other movies means that directors and writers what to emulate its ways is, again, about as objective of a value determination as you can get.

I totally disagree.

 

[JohannaK]

It is not about liking it or not but about the plot itself. I would say that 2001 is not a complex movie with several different readings, but a very straightforward one with only a meaning. And you will see it reading the book. In fact most if not all Clarke novels are very simple and go around a very simple idea. He does not care about complexities of characters nor about metaphysical ideas. He is a hard scifi writer interested only in science and in the future of humanity, which makes him one of the last real sci-fi writers alive (is he still alive btw?) who speaks about SCI-fi. And the movie is very loyal to Clarke's approach, but narrated trought Kubrik magnificient images instead of words making any further explanation unnecesary and even undesirable.

Then it looks like it was Kubrick's interpretation kept me from seeing this unique pure truth of Clarke. Anyway, are we talking about the plot? I'm not. I just talked about the movie as a whole. I don't really care about the plot. It's just an excuse to make the movie. In my opinion this is a movie that had to exist if it didn't. Not because of the plot, but because of how it is explained. Every shot is poetry and power, all as a whole, which summed up gives one of the best movies ever (for me). Don't say "Then you just take cinematography into account" No, hell, it's the movie I care about. The plot is just a safeline to drive us through the movie, and gives place to very good scenes, all-time referents.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I agree with you. Clarke's plot was an excuse for Kubrik to create his images. IMO Kubrik is that sort of movie-maker more interested in image itself than in narrating a history. He is more a painter that a writer. BTW i recommend you Tarkovsky movies if you dont know them.There every photogram is a work of art..

 

[warpus]

Every shot is poetry

I really like this comparison

 

[betazed]

I just saw this critically acclaimed sci-fi masterpiece last night with a bunch of friends and we all concluded this movie is cr*p. I must give the film some high regards for its musical score, carefully done space animation and cool special effect (amazing given that it was filed in the 70's).
The movie however, is tedious, confusing, boring and overly slow-paced, not to mention it didn't even have an engaging plot. The acting was awful. The best performance was actually by the computer HAL whereas all of the human characters were bland and uninteresting. I thought the first part with the apes was not only too long but also stupid. A bunch of apes jumping, shrieking around a monolith, yeah that's very profound! Very other scenes in the movie were extensively long and drawn-out. Who wants to spend 5 minutes seeing moon shuttle in transit or the guy going through star-gate (or wormhole)? Maybe the director was trying to communicate a sense of the grandeur and hugeness of space, but he failed to do so.

I read the book - loved it - and saw the movie too - meh.

But just because I did not like the movie does not mean it is a bad movie. (I do not like chocolates but plenty of people like it). Liking any movie depends on a large part on personal preferences. I think the reason I did not like the movie was that the movie did not have for me anything that I did not read in the book. The special effects are only mediocre compared to what you come to expect from later movies. I found the score annoying too.

So why did I sit thru the whole movie? In the fear that if I tell other people that I have not seen this movie I may have to turn in my geek card.

 

[Tahuti]

First, the collective sum of subjective opinions yields about as objective of an opinion as you're gonna get. So look at 2001 on Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic.

That still may mean the movie sucks for you. I only use RT, MC or IMDB for ideas on what to watch, not as the be-all-end-all guide to how you rate movies. IMO, many movies are overrated and underrated in the way they are judged on these sites.

Second, the influence the movie has had on other movies means that directors and writers what to emulate its ways is, again, about as objective of a value determination as you can get.

Problem is, you can't know for sure where these influences are derived from. Kubrick himself borrowed extensively from Soviet and Expressionist German cinema, so many elements of 2001 could be very well be attributed to films from Eistenstein, Pudovkin, Lang and Ophüls I have not yet seen (carefully enough). While Kubrick certainly came with some original inventions of his to film 2001, I wouldn't be suprised it mostly became influential by bundling all influences to Kubrick's into one box.

 

[Ajidica]

Do you have any examples of how Kubrick borrowed from Lang and Eisenstein?

 

[JohannaK]

I agree with you. Clarke's plot was an excuse for Kubrik to create his images. IMO Kubrik is that sort of movie-maker more interested in image itself than in narrating a history. He is more a painter that a writer. BTW i recommend you Tarkovsky movies if you dont know them.There every photogram is a work of art..

Taking down notes. I'll have to watch this one.

Thank you, Warpus, for liking the comparison I feel deeply proud of myself when someone remarks something I just said... my vanity is there.

 

[warpus]

Taking down notes. I'll have to watch this one.

Thank you, Warpus, for liking the comparison I feel deeply proud of myself when someone remarks something I just said... my vanity is there.

Tarkovsky's take on Solaris is supposed to be really good.. That might be a good start But I'll of course have to point out that Lem's novel has to be read no matter what

 

[peter grimes]

Now I'm going to have to watch Solaris soon - many people are mentioning it...

edit:
Netflix shows two movies - the Russian one from 1972 and a George Clooney clone from 200?. I'm assuming people are talking about the Sovietskyi flick?

 

[Dida]

Originally Posted by JoanK
Every shot is poetry

This is probably exactly the reason why this movie sucked. Maybe it's good poetry, but it is certainly not a good movie.

I found the score annoying too.

So why did I sit thru the whole movie? In the fear that if I tell other people that I have not seen this movie I may have to turn in my geek card.

The music score is decent, but it can be over the top and too pretentious at times.

 

[Old Hippy]

@ peter grimes

Try to catch it on the big screen, where like 2001 it was intended to be watched, both films really are not that good on the TV (or the computer), kind of like watching the opening scences to Civ IV on your phone

 

[warpus]

Now I'm going to have to watch Solaris soon - many people are mentioning it...

edit:
Netflix shows two movies - the Russian one from 1972 and a George Clooney clone from 200?. I'm assuming people are talking about the Sovietskyi flick?

The George Clooney version is a bastardised/hollywoodised version and not really that great, but still an ok movie. The Russian version is supposed to be amazing, even though I've never seen it. The novel is a must read.

 

[JohannaK]

I have a book of short stories by Lem. Haven't read much, but they are good. Pretty good.

 

[warpus]

I have a book of short stories by Lem. Haven't read much, but they are good. Pretty good.

Not to make this even more off topic, but which one is it?

 

[JohannaK]

More tales of pilot Pirx (I have it in Spanish, and so this is an approximate translation)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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

Thanks. I actively tried (reminiscence intended) to take a "neutral" shot ("neutral" not meaning beyond subjective judgment, but judgment taking into account different subjective judgments), and such kind of valuation was my hope. So thanks, I feel rewarded

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Taking down notes. I'll have to watch this one.

The images are really beautiful. The shots of the underwater grass at Solaris (which Tarkovski seems obsesionated with) are famous remembering some pictures from Monet, and some of the B&N shots at Stalker (for instance the very first one) are also impressive. But you have to take it with calm. Particularly with Stalker, which is 100 times slower than 2001.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I liked 2001, so it's a good movie.
I didn't like 2001, so it's not a good movie.

Subjectiveness, meet objectiveness. You'll have very little in common, not much to talk about amongst yourself, so best to keep you separated as much as possible.

edit [subjectiveness]: By the way, about the last scene. So what if it isn't clear what's happening? I liked having to interpret my way through that scene. Sure, my interpretation might not be what Kubrick intended, but who cares? I thought it was pretty amusing to be confused by it. I sure as heck don't get a lot of David Bowie's lyrics, but that doesn't mean they're crap.

It's a shame to see that when things are pre-chewed and crystal clear people won't try to get it, but rather throw their hands in the air and go, ef this![/subjectiveness]

[objectiveness]Whatever. To each his or her own. Enjoy what kind of entertainment you enjoy.[/objectiveness]

And anyone who played C64 Elite will appreciate

Link to video.