Profundity doesn't always equal the Bruckheimer pacing

Rating: 10/10 (12 August 2006)

For those who don't get this film and decided to post your angry thoughts because others have correctly commented on why you "don't get it". Being angry at this film because you weren't bright enough to "get it", just illustrates that anger/violence goes hand in hand with limited (self-imposed or not) comprehension.
It is very true that this film requires an intellect that is probing in nature. Kubrick and Clarke said on many occasions that this film was more about asking questions, not answering them.
The questions were profound indeed.
Why are we here? How did we get here? Is the Universe self-aware? Is the Universe a "clock" like Einstein implied? Or is it a "gaming table" like Stephen Hawking implied? Do we have the ingredients to stay around? (Remember, the dinosaurs were around for hundreds of millions of years). Is technology in and of itself a moral good? Or is it like everything else, dependent on the use it is put to by sentient beings. Why are we curious? What is the definition of intelligence? Does being curious lead to ultimate answers or just more questions? Why can we not see the paradox of our own nature? Is humility a sign of greatness or weakness? etc.
For those complaining about the pacing, or how bored you were, or how the dialogue didn't impress you, or how you were just confused instead of entertained I've got some help for you. The movie in fact isn't lacking. It's your ADD/MTV definition of what entertainment should be that is lacking.
Sometimes profundity is more entertaining than a playstation or a 3 minute music video. In order to "get" that, you must have brain matter that is more complex than the remnants in a soap dish.
Kubrick = entertainment on too many levels for some folks. I give this film a 10.