2001: A Space Odyssey is not a good film

Rating: 1/10 (26 March 2020)

2001: A Space Odyssey is a bad film. Its cultural importance notwithstanding, I might even go so far as to say that it is one of the worst films I have ever watched.
Of course, I understand and appreciate the groundbreaking elements the film displays, i.e. the (then-)futuristic displays of space age technology, and the concept of AIs turning on humanity, etc. All that has had a lot of impact on cinema and all science fiction that came after it. But while I can appreciate that, that is where all my appreciation for the film ends.
The most glaringly painful shortcoming is its pacing, of course. I did *not* need to watch apes sit around learning how to use tools for half an hour, nor did I need to watch a waitress take a full minute to walk through a circular room, to name a few things.
The plot is also disjointed and incoherent, and mostly outright absent - which fans of the film tell me is because "it's metaphorical" - but I absolutely 100% refuse to believe that anyone understood those "metaphors" before someone told them what it was supposed to be, or without reading the book the film is based on. A plot is not a plot if it's impossible to understand without an explanation. The film is divided into four sections (prehistoric humans, the future tech showcase in earth's orbit, the actual central part of the film, and the gibberish acid trip at the end), that are barely connected at all and mostly have no relevance to each other. The entire second section could have been completely removed, and it would not have impacted the plot in the slightest.
The acting is also garbage. Everyone is completely monotone and emotionless. I have been told that that is intentional, to "make the future seem cold and dull", but intentional bad acting is still bad acting and any supposed artistic value it would somehow gain from that is completely outweighed by the fact that it makes the film painful to sit through. Watching Dave warn Hal by repeating the exact same sentence four times with the exact same droning intonation made me cringe in my seat.
Then, finally, you have the big finale: the five straight minutes of Windows Media Player visualisations, followed by *actual nonsense*. This entire section is a metaphor for rebirth and transcendence, but the fact of the matter is that it's just fifteen minutes of nonsense, and any higher meaning has to be drawn from it by reading the book, in which this part is somewhat less nonsensical. When it comes down to it, there is **no** way **anyone** understood the "poetry" behind this section without prior knowledge. It is terribly conveyed, no matter how much fans of the film will defend it for being "poetic". It's not poetic. It's incoherent. And what's more, the entire core of the film (the plot about the AI rebelling against humans) is *completely* unrelated to this "transcendence" business.
What is the monolith? Why is it on earth? Why is it on the moon? Why is it in deep space? Why does Dave transcend, and what does he transcend into? Literally none of it is explained. "It doesn't need to be explained," defendants tell me, to which I say, " yes it does." Leaving all the driving factors behind the plot unresolved is not "poetic" and "existential", it's pretentious and unsatisfying.