You could argue that this film was an accomplishment of special effects in 1968. So What?

Rating: 4/10 (28 June 2010)

Sure, the special effects of this movie were pretty good, even in the year 1968, but c'mon, what else is there to give it praise for? The movie was overlong, boring and made absolutely no sense. I didn't find myself caring for any of the characters, it was horribly directed by Stanley Kubrik and was a poor execution. Call me contemporary, but I like a film where there is a little dialogue, not a complete hour of total silence. I have lots of patience when it comes to film (I enjoyed Citizen Kane, Casablanca and There Will be Blood) but I found this film to be super overrated and shouldn't even be on IMDb's Top 250 List. The Even if they cut an hour, this movie would've and could've been way better. I also heard that Stanley Kubrik cut about 20-30 minutes to make the pacing faster. What pace? It took 2 and a half hours to tell an hour long story. I would sometimes fast forward and I would find that I missed nothing. You'll notice I didn't mention anything about the acting. That's because there was little acting. The only thing we see is actor's expression and small amount of dialogue. The only reason I gave this movie 3 stars is for the HAL storyline. That is the only interesting part of the film. And if you're going to give this film a 10 simply because it has great special effects, then give a 10 to Avatar and Star Wars (OK Star Wars may deserve it, but you get the idea). This film proves that special effects cannot save a film that has horrible directing and a painfully slow story. If any, this is a film that is only for hard core Sci-Fi buffs. Anyone else will be bored completely out of there heads without a fast forward button handy.