2001: A Space Odyssey

Very difficult to rate because it is virtually impossible to apply generally valid and established standards to it. This film needs to be judged in the context of the time it was made, judged as the first science fiction film to be made in this area and viewed as an iconic, original, and utterly timeless work that was years ahead of its time. Kubrick's cult gem is rightly described as such: the work with the visuals, the music (the Strauss waltz is absolutely brilliant), and the overall technical execution is truly magnificent. What I personally find most fascinating (and this is of course A.C. Clark's original idea) is the overall concept. Philosophical science-fiction that outlines the possible future evolution of humanity in a very imaginative way and gives a properly "psycho" and shocking impression. A fabulous affair, the fourth film I've seen from Kubrick and the fourth time with full marks. (09/10/2011)

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... (03/30/2004)

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. (07/12/2009)

This is a terrible movie. I don't mean in terms of quality, but I just still have issues with it. I love Kubrick movies, but 2001: A Space Odyssey is one that just never sat right with me. This is the third time I've seen it and I still can't get into it. Visually, it is a perfect work, especially when you consider the time it was created. There are special effects here that wouldn't look any better even with today's digital technology. Unreal. However, the storytelling style just doesn't sit well with me. Every time I watch the movie, it feels like I've been sitting there for at least four hours, and yet not even two have passed. Some scenes are absolutely captivating, but as a whole, it didn't engage me. It's a film that you have to see multiple times to appreciate how brilliant individual scenes are and how innovative their interconnection is. However, it still doesn't change the fact that the overall experience doesn't quite work. It doesn't seem to reach out to the audience, and it's like the audience can't connect with it either. It deserves 100% for the individual aspects, but I have to give it less for the whole because if I can’t warm up to the film even on the third try, it just won't happen. Visually, it's something absolutely incredible, and the impressions can only be compared to Gravity, even though 2001: A Space Odyssey has a much more complex narrative and stunning visual variability. (04/11/2014)

A film that gives you the impression that while you were watching it, you managed to have dinner, take several work calls and watch another film at the same time, because, strictly speaking, Space Odyssey has about 15 minutes of story stretched to two and a half hours. But that’d be a big mistake, because you’ll actually have to give the film at lot more time than its duration. This time, Kubrick didn’t disappoint me, maybe because before the screening I thought I would turn the film off because it’d be boring. I still can’t explain how it could entertain me so much, let alone make me feel like watching it again :) After A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket, I didn’t get Kubrick’s reputation of a genius filmmaker, now I do. That said, I can’t imagine how I could persuade someone who cares less than a lot about cinema to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. (08/10/2009)