I feel left out of the 2001 love-fest.

Rating: 4/10 (23 January 1999)

I wish I could appreciate this movie as much as most film buffs seem to. I do admire some of its imagery--the cut between the bone and the space vehicle, the star child, etc. The use of music is very effective. And I suppose some of the special effects were impressive at the time. But from the standpoint of storytelling, 2001 really leaves me cold.
(1) The pace, at times. . .actually the whole time. . .is excruciatingly slow. This includes several endless minutes of ugly and gratuitous special effects that start immediately after going into the monolith near Jupiter. When people talk about the the movie's technical superiority, they never seem to mention this part. I guess I don't mind a movie taking its time to get to a good payoff, but this crawling progression is ridiculous. Additionally, no payoff ever really comes, which leads to my next complaint.. .
(2) I don't care for the way the film fails to explain itself. I truly defy anybody to understand what the monoliths are, or what happens in the end, without having read the novel. I read the book several years after first seeing the movie, and was filled with much more wonder by it. If Clarke did not mind revealing what his story meant, why did Kubrick have to be so stubborn in making it all so mysterious? It's one thing to be ambiguous or suggestive. It's another to make no sense at all.
(3) There are no characters that can be identified with. While others say this is part of the film's genius, I heartily disagree. The expressionless humans are actually more creepy than HAL.
I met an aspiring director once who told me he thought 2001 was the best movie ever made. When I asked him to explain why, one thing he mentioned was that it was great to watch in the 70s with a room full of people who were stoned. Maybe I was born too late.