2001: A Space Odyssey

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. (04/04/2014)

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... (31/03/2004)

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. (11/04/2014)

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. (01/09/2022)

I find it really difficult, but I just can’t give this legendary film by Stanley Kubrick more than three stars. Yes, the visuals impressed me with their timelessness. Over half a century has passed since its premiere, but it’s not at all noticeable in the finished film; it’s still breathtaking today (especially considering that the film was made before Apollo 11 landed on the Moon… truly amazing). So how did the story fare? The entire second half captivated me with its unsettling build-up, as the ship’s computer HAL 9000 turns against the crew during the journey to Jupiter. I genuinely enjoyed this part, relishing the uncomfortable experience Kubrick delivered (the whole AI subplot provides deep food for thought). However… The first hour did absolutely nothing for me. The celebrated opening sequence with the apes somehow missed the mark for me. Unfortunately… Thankfully, the ambiguous ending, which can be interpreted in multiple ways, saved it for me. A strong three stars. For me, it’s a 7/10. (11/09/2023)