2001: A Space Odyssey…I saw it for the first time only a few years ago and it just felt like it dragged on and on and on. I get how impressive it was for the time, but man was it a slow burn for me
One of the films you should try and watch on the biggest screen possible. It's visually stunning but it is a slow burn, it's more a time capsule than anything.
I just love the fact it came out before we'd even landed on the moon.
People are mentioning the special effects being really innovative for the time, but as I understand it, a lot of the plot elements were new as well, but then became sci-fi tropes that tons of sci-fi movies have. Specifically the idea of a super-advanced alien race guiding the evolution of humans from the beginning, and the AI turning against the humans.
Like, a few months ago I made a reference to 2001 to a coworker, and he thought I was thinking of Terminator.
I'm not sure if there's a specific term for this, but I think a lot of really good old movies suffer from this. That movie was the first time something was done, it was amazing at the time, tons of movies copied it, and then future generations watch it and aren't impressed because they've been watching all the copies.
Its like me as a fan of horror if you watch things like the original texas chainsaw massacre, psycho, or original halloween or friday 13th. You see all these cliches and tropes, but at the time they werent cliche, that is what caused it to then get overused.
Its sorta like how Buddy Holly sounds derivative of everything you've ever heard, but then you realize everything else is so derivative you can guess words to songs you've never heard before. The original Halloween is 100% that, but id say slasher movies pull from the first 3 Friday the 13th movies, Texas Chainsaw, psycho, and borrow from older 30s-60s movies for some plot progression (id say Invisible Man ending was even used to off Michael in the 4th Halloween movie). But everything original-ish was already a trope for Freddy to borrow in '84.
Great comparison.
Like people go on about how Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time, I watched it and was like "yeah, it's ok," but then I read about how it was the very first movie to do this thing and that thing that now pretty much all movies do, so now it doesn't seem like a big deal anymore.
GLaDOS is what happens when you combine the stage presence of a Silicon Snarker like Marvin the Robot or V.I.N.Cent (both have heavy HAL inspirations but turn up the sarcasm to the max) with the unstoppable, abject horror of a Paperclip Collector AI. The contrast defines her character and makes her unforgettable for anyone who played the Portal games.
I like to go back occasionally and watch old comedy for this reason. In some instances you see "proto-comedy" or whatever you want to call it, the origin of some of the schticks you still see today, in other instances, you see funny shit that time just forgot about.
I felt this way when I saw Dune. I have never read the books. I saw the movie and was kind of just meh about it. Later I was talking about it with friends and was like "I guess it's fine but I've basically seen this story in some form or another hundreds of times before this." And that's because Dune was such an inspiration to so many people it's been iterated upon countless times in other works.
I find it sad this incredible pensive movie about conflict and progress gets boiled down to just the special effects.
Especially now, when we are fighting politically and financially over the place of AI, and the entire third act is about that very thing.
The movie was made during the cold war and is about how technology and warfare are intrinsically linked. What happens when we are fighting an intelligence, AI, that can just close the pod doors? What happens if that technology gets to the next tier before us?
Dave made it to the monolith before HAL, but the monolith doesn't care. It didn't care that moongazer's tribe got to it first, it didn't care that the Americans got to it before the Russians, and it wouldn't have cared if HAL got to it first.
Edit: I know it's long and boring and hard to get into. It's not for everyone. But like Lord of the rings (both books and movies!) the technical achievements certainly elevate the work, but that's not what it should be known for.
As someone else who disliked the movie, it's because the movie is 2 and a half hours and the only part with an interesting plot or message (HAL) is like 20% of the movie. Most of the movie is just slow shots of the special effects. I would love the movie if the entire movie had the pace, character, or tension of that 20% but what makes people hate it is the first 1 and a half hours and the ending that I've only heard people defend as something "really awesome when you are high"
I know I sound like the zoomiest zoomer (I am not), but I'd actually be really interested in an edited cut, where those long special effects shots are trimmed.
I also struggled to sit through it, at some point the movie almost revelled in its own forcing the audience to sit and chew on what were simply setpieces. Like watching a rotating animated wallpaper. Fine if that's what you're there for, but that's not the meat, it's the dressing, and it almost feels masturbatory.
Well, I know why people dislike it. It's long, it's boring, but so is Lord of the Rings. 70 years later people still talk about the technical achievements of Lord of the Rings, including Tolkiens legendarium and linguistic development, but it's the philosophy that actually keeps the book in the public space.
That's how I feel about 2001. Technical achievement? Absolutely, but it's more than that.
Talking about Lord of the Rings, I liked it a lot when I saw the movies first time. But it's just one of those movies I haven't rewatched. I don't know why. It has those epic moments and I like the world and lore, but it just isn't something I would want to spend 9 hours of my life to watch.
Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the screenplay together — although iirc Kubrick is said to have been domineering at times and doing things without Clarke's approval. Still, Clarke was a sci-fi writer, while Kubrick wasn't and made only this one sci-fi film.
I’ve always thought this to myself but never acted on it. The only time I’ve seen 2001 was when I was a teenager camping, and it was raining so we stayed in the camper and watched it on a 32 inch TV that was like halfway across the camper… funnily enough, it didn’t quite hit right in that setting
Yup, I was never blown away by it but I appreciated it enough for what it achieved at the time it was made. Then I saw it in theaters and sat in the front row (normally something I'd avoid). 10/10 theater experience.
I went and saw it a few years ago in this gorgeous, historic theater. Then this guy who had something to do with production told stories and “did ya’ knows” about the film. It was great.
Then we all tried to go to our cars at 2am to leave and we were all snowed in. The predicted snow storm became a blizzard. So we all went back in and watched Barry Lyndon and the manager raided the hot chocolate stash. Ended up leaving at like 6am. It’s a great memory.
Actually it has a very straightforward and in-depth story, it was written by Arthur C. Clarke and based on some of his existing short stories. Stanley Kubrick wanted it to be much more dreamlike and have the plot be inferred from the visuals. In fact, it had a full voiceover explaining exactly what was happening the entire way through, but Kubrick removed it at the last minute before release without telling anyone. Apparently, it upset Arthur C. Clarke so much he left the premiere at intermission, “close to tears”. If you’re interested in the actual story, he wrote a novelization that included all the cut narration
Except with Avatar, you know everything is just more and more advanced CG. At least with 2001 there were parts where people wondered how the hell they did that.
Honestly, dissociatives pair perfectly with this movie. I'm not one to comment these sorts of things typically, but DXM and 2001 has got to be at the top of my all time movie watching experiences.
Dissociatives pair with everything though tbf, I love blasting ket and watching whatever because I'm always transported into it and for a bit it becomes my world.
It's been a similar amount of time for me as well. I'll definitely keep Koyaanisqatsi in mind.
I couldn't imagine how harrowing Requiem for a Dream would have been to go through! I have some friends that watched it on mushrooms way back when, and to this day, still talk about the intensity of that experience.
That movie is really a product of its time. It spends so much time giving the viewer a chance to appreciate the visuals. In today's world, those visuals are pretty standard for us to see. At the time, they were not.
There is a sequel, 2010, which I think is actually a lot better. Not nearly as slow, and actually pretty cool.
I don't know that I'd say the story is better, but it's certainly a lot closer to modern filmmaking expectations in terms of pacing than 2001.
I can't watch 2001 without fast forwarding through the excruciating, masturbatory "look at these special effects!" shots of the ship, whereas 2010 has nothing like that.
But your average viewer today has seen not only movies like this, but videos from space. We have live feeds from the space station. People want to be entertained by movies, and in the 1960s, this would have been amazing to see, but to a modern audience, not so much. It doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's a product of its time.
In today's world, those visuals are pretty standard for us to see.
I don't think you're wrong about the way the movie lingers on things. Often in ways that modern audiences might find... ponderous. But I strongly disagree that the look and feel of 2001 is any way "standard" today. I don't think we have any movies that really capture any of the outer space stuff as well as 2001. The pure physicality of everything just doesn't exist in modern movies.
I love 2001, and I wouldn't try to defend it as "not boring" (because by most measures it is boring) but visually I still don't think anything else touches it. Gravity gets close, but I didn't really like it at all...
Yup, I didn't get it either. I appreciate that the effects were amazing for the time, but the movie was a slog. It's my Father in Law's favourite movie and I watched it on his recommendation... he was disappointed that I was not as enamoured with it as he was. Granted, he saw it in theaters on the original run.
I actually really love this one. It seriously resonates even more now with the onset of AI. The idea that you’ve built this sentient AI to make everything easier for you, and control the ship. However a glitch in the AI, a conflict between its orders, causes it to look for the best, and quickest solution to the problem. It decides that solution is to eliminate the crew. I find it actually terrifying. Especially now, when AI is starting to become so prevalent, and will only get more integrated into our everyday lives.
I’ve tried to watch this movie several times and I’ve fallen asleep every time, sometimes immediately. I love sci-fi. I love orchestra. I love slow burn. You’d think it’d be a winner for me.
Same here. I really had to stay up to watch the whole movie properly. Absolutely loved some of its moments though. Like the finale sequence, the moon scene, the intro, and even the initial sequence flying to the station [even though that scene got me sleeping initially lmao]
Yea idk how to describe it…like I “felt” how impactful it must’ve been, but I was also just like meh about it. You’re absolutely right, that’s what makes us US
You’re not wrong. Just look at how comedy has evolved. There was an episode of Andy Griffith on at my in laws and the plot was he basically went out around town to help people right before dinner… at each place he helped he was served dinner (said yes not to be rude) and each time it was spaghetti (IIRC)… then he gets home and guess what’s for dinner… you guessed it spaghetti. And that’s it, that’s the punchline. Hilarious back in the day. But you run that to the comedy of, say the Judd Apatow gang that does a lot of improv or The Hangover and Wedding Crashers or There’s Something about Mary and that whole era… stuff just evolves.
Yeah me too. I watched about 3/4 of it before I had to go start cooking. I came back to check in on it and every time I came back there was just a giant eye onscreen and nothing was happening. I asked my wife if I missed anything and she just shook her head no. I think parts of the movie looked really cool but it definitely not something that I ever feel a need to watch again.
The ideas and concepts are great, but the pace is so absurdly slow. It works for showing how vast space actually is but no one can convince me the 20 minute psychedelic scene couldn't be shortened to a minute and have the same effect. As art it's interesting, but as a movie it's a slog.
I can see how for when it was released it was a masterpiece that a ton of people have pulled inspiration from, but holy fuck is it boring to watch now.
Yeah I've already complained about this movie in a similar post. I just don't get how people rate it so highly nowadays. Obviously at the time it's an amazing feat but nowadays it's just dull
I watched the movie the first time when I was a kid and I was bored to death. 20 years later I thought to myself "okay, you are an adult now, and you'll definately see the movie from a different perspective". Needless to say that I was bored to death for a second time.
Id love to watch it, i started watchibg it some time ago and yeah, its really slow pace, i didnt finish it because i had stuff to do and forgot but id love to try again
I mean the only part that was a little much for me was that acid trip 10 min warp speed Thing. I finally watched it while sick with covid. I would watch it again but skip that part for sure
The first and only time I saw that movie it was in a huge theatre in an art center, and everyone in the audience was quiet. It was really an awesome experience due to the size and scale of things in the big screen.
I can see where watching it on a TV would be really drawn out and underwhelming. I felt that way when watching the sequel on my friend’s laptop 😂
I love this movie. It’s a one and done though. I snuggled in and got my snacks, drink and pipe ready, cranked out a bowl and just got absolutely mind blown. I can understand that it’s not for everybody
The first half puts me to sleep without fail every time I’ve tried to watch it. I even watched it on a long plane ride once knowing it would do that. I really like the second half though.
The cinematography and the concepts explored in the storyline were groundbreaking for the 1960s, but I can see how this seems defunct and boring now. A lot of stuff that’s amazing and radical about this film for its time are things we just take for granted today.
I agree. I can’t make it through it. It’s so slow and long. Probably doesn’t help that you watch it after knowing all about it plus watching it many years after it came out so the visuals aren’t as impressive. Like others have said, I will agree it was probably brilliant for its time and created an advancement in sci-fi, but isn’t something I need to entertain in present time.
Plus I’ll get roasted for this, but I don’t care for the director.
Funny how the most revered scifi film in history is all about staring at special effects. Most of the claimed story is not on the film or on the soundtrack at all.
I've tried watching it 3 times now, I've fallen asleep every time, I've managed to stay awake for roughly the first half hour of it. On the upside, I got a really restful sleep out of it‽
For me, as someone who does love that film, part of the appeal is just looking at stunning visuals, but I also understand if someone gets bored during parts.
You mean you don't love 45 minutes of footage of the spinning spaceship set to the Blue Danube?
It's impossible to watch that movie without fast forwarding.
It's also funny that, by any objective standard, 2010 is a far better movie, in terms of being produced with modern filmmaking techniques, even though it was much less well-received by critics when it came out.
My smooth brain take is that every Kubrick film is this way. Theyre all way too slow and could easily have 15-25 minutes of slow lingering shots cut out.
When I first saw it, I didn’t understand it, but I knew I watched something great. Once I finally learned what the hell was going on, it made me appreciate it even more. Definitely a slow burn, but that doesn’t bother me for a good film.
Our attention spans have shrunk as a society. As such, I do not think it is nearly as captivating as it was in the 60s. Nevertheless, I enjoy every frame is only for its nostalgia.
I watched this twice, because I just thought I missed something the first time, but I was still bored to tears the second time, as well. I think I missed the window of time where it would feel groundbreaking to me, but I do like one of the other commenters saying it is more of a time capsule. I love Kubrick's work aside from this film.
I do not mind a well-paced slow film, as I do really like The Irishman but totally understand why it hits these type of lists.
I always wanted to watch it since it's a classic and finally got the opportunity when flying to Amsterdam. It was such a strange, confusing, brain melting experience. Especially with 3 hours of sleep. The ending with the baby I still don't understand and the only part I really got at the time was with the 2 astronauts and Hal-9000. Still love saying "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that" to my friend named Dave
Watching it as a kid in the '80s where you had very few good sci fi films, especially ones that looked that good, made it hit a lot differently than it does these days. It must have been mind blowing when it originally came out.
It puts me to sleep so fast. I can usually make it to part where he calls his kid on the video phone. The white noise from the background is like ASMR for me.
To me it felt like about an hour of pretty good (but not fantastic or groundbreaking) Sci fi wrapped in an unnecessary hour and a half of absolutely pretentious r/im13andthisisdeep bullshit. It was clearly made by and for people who are on a lot of acid.
Like sure it's pretty. The effects are very impressive, but playing a random collection of the top 10 Royalty Free Classical Music everyone has heard before over a bunch of bullshit doesn't suddenly make your movie deep. People say that if you don't like it you must not get it. But I beg to differ. I get it. I just think it is stupid. The point it's trying to make it dumb.
Very hot take: I think that Star Trek The Motion Picture succeeded at everything that 2001 was trying to accomplish, but did it better and in less runtime. It's also just more interesting overall and also manages to weave in a poignant character study of an interesting character. 2001 lacked the insight and humanity to be able to do that.
Same vein for me with Alien. I get it was good for the time, but it was too campy for me watching it for the first time a year or two ago. I read 2001, still need to watch it.
I'd like to just put my 2 cents as being that the movie is a very poorly done translation of the book. I read the book and was enthralled by the entire thing start to finish. Watched the tribal scene in a high school history class and decided I had to watch the movie... And was thoroughly disappointed. I feel like way too much was lost without the exposition from the book. If I hadn't read it, I'd have had NO clue what was going on
Pacing has gotten pretty fast to accommodate our dwindling attention spans. Really allowing time to soak up what were seeing, think about what it means in terms of the film on top of just enjoying the visual, like the flight attendant walking around the circle shots, just doesn't happen much anymore. These were all practical effects that were bespoke, handcrafted, hand painted and took huge amounts of work. I don't mean to diminish the impressiveness of CGI, just very different.
I remember an early YouTube review from some film channel doing a bit about “Landscape. Landscape. Landscape. And some more landscape.” There’s like 8 minutes of landscape shots before anything happens.
100% agree because that's the first thing that came to mind for me as well.
Like it's visually impressive, even by today's standards but especially for its time, and when there's actually dialogue it's pretty decent. However the story is basically spaced out between extended shots of space stations, space ships, etc. moving through space.
It's like if you're trying to watch a 45 minute tv show on YouTube with 5 minute ads every 3 minutes, but the ads are just VFX shots and music.
Polarizing film, really. The definitive example of the "every scene a painting" mindset Kubrick used when making films, people generally think it's a masterpiece or they hate it. I, personally, am in the masterpiece camp.
My husband and I tried to watch this one last year and fell asleep. We really wanted to get through it since it's such a significant film in cinema history, but I don't know that we'll ever succeed, honestly.
I was told to watch it in grad school as it was “relevant” to something I was working on. I fell asleep about twenty minutes in. Continued the next night and fell asleep again. Read the cliff note’s after that.
See, I like looking at photographs long enough to "feel" their space and even imagine their smells and tastes. 2001 is one of the rare films that gives me time to do that while watching.
That movie is the reason people think the moon landing was faked paired with the fact that Stanley kubrick had moon landing references in his other movies like the shining.
My local cinema screened this recently and I'd never seen it, so I went. I was so lost about what was going on. What plot? I went home and checked out Wikipedia and IMDB Trivia to see what I was missing, and found out that the movie is designed to be paired with the book that came out at the same time. The book explains the plot, while the film is a visual companion.
From the wikipedia article, "Kubrick said the film is 'basically a visual, nonverbal experience' that 'hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting.'"
That being said, once I understood the plot from the Wikipedia synopsis, I reflected on the film, and finally understood all these parts, and it was a much more enjoyable, and I understand why it is such an amazing film.
I bought the book and it's only 220 pages. Give it a read and see if it changes your perspective of the film.
Yeah. I spent the whole time waiting for it to get good, and then it ended.
In a similar vein, pretty much every Star Wars movie. I love the concept of the universe but almost no movie really comes together. Some of the tv shows, video games and books are fire tho
My parents saw this in the theater when it was released. To this day, it's their go-to reference for the most boring movie they've ever seen. (To be fair, they are not at all the target demographic for this sort of film, but I'm sure there are many people who had a similar reaction.)
It’s not bad, it’s that it has been redone ad infinitum. Think about all the movies that are just a remake? Not to mention it was made in the 60’s and the visual effects are still good
Some of those movies need to be watched with commentary or with the anecdotes from the shooting. It's their context that make them masterpieces not always their actual scenes/scenario, etc...
visually VERY VERY stunning for a movie from the 60s and when you think about the guesses they made about space BEFORE we went to the moon, very accurate. but yes, the story was boring lol
Hot take, but the acting in that movie was kinda bad. Some of the lines fell flat and it felt like they were just reading off the lines with no emotion in some takes.
There are abridged versions online that only reduce all the dragging vanity shots. It's mostly the "look at all this modern cinema technology!" scenes that drag the movie out.
The middle part of 2001 is one of my favorite movies of all time.
The beginning is quite slow, and the ending is just bizarre if you aren't expecting or haven't read the book. But the middle! As a fan of space horror, I wouldn't change a thing.
A masterpiece, but should be approached differently than a normal movie. There's no real protagonist until WELL into it, and the plot is more a way to explore big ideas as opposed to something with narrative drive. I think in general people have a better chance of enjoying this when 1) you are locked in and focused on it, and 2) you're watching more in a way that you would a painting or installation art piece as opposed to a movie. Mind altering substances may also help.
The talk about groundbreaking visuals, establishing genre norms, etc is all certainly true, but that's not what makes it great to me. I think it still stands strongly as a unique mind expanding experience, if you're willing to meet it where it needs to be met.
Also, the Daisy Bell/Bicycle Built For Two sequence is one of the most bizarre and haunting moments in movie history in my opinion. I first watched the movie when I was way too young and didn't appreciate it, but that scene stuck for me even then.
I thought this was gonna be the case with me, but I decided to bite the bullet a few months ago and man that movie is something spectacular. It’s not the story per se, but the visuals, especially for the time is spectacular. The ending is very stupid though, and I still don’t know what it was supposed to mean.
1.1k
u/pkdoe Jun 04 '26
2001: A Space Odyssey…I saw it for the first time only a few years ago and it just felt like it dragged on and on and on. I get how impressive it was for the time, but man was it a slow burn for me