Falling in and out of love with "2001"

Rating: 8/10 (30 November 2008)

Two things I will never say for any movie: a) "this movie is a masterpiece, anyone that doesn't like it just didn't get it" b) "this movie is a piece of crap, I want my six dollars/two hours of my life back". Both are pretty arrogant/stupid and (need I mention?) generic things to say. I wish people just stopped using those when reviewing movies, but that's just me being arrogant.
Be that as it may, would "2001" qualify for either a) or b) anyhow? The answer is no. I was in love with that movie for bigger part of my life (ever since I was 6 years old). I fell out of it in the recent years but I still try not to miss it on TV (hell, I bought it on DVD but I forgot where I put it).
Here be my sincerest attempt on reviewing it.
I was absolutely immersed in the world of "2001". Not only did it leave a lasting impression, it also prompted me to see more Kubrick movies, read more Clarke's books, to find out more about how and why it was made. It also had its part in having me enter the world of real science. I always appreciated the slow pace and calm tone and the most worthy attempt to put actual science in science-fiction. I also appreciated how the story required very little self explaining (while most other movies suffer from over-explanation). I liked how it boldly took to predict a very near future and I was looking forward to see how much it got right.
All these things are from today's standpoint pretty much the movie's undoing. Come 2001 and the story lost momentum. Never mind that it's a timeless one and that human kind might eventually reach outer planets and whatever unknown is lurking out there is still lurking. The authors clearly and distinctly chose 2001 and they... well... failed. Whether you are naive or not this takes away the aura of prophecy and relegates the movie to yet another sign of times. Let's see what remained.
The most problematic part of the movie, the second act, is even more problematic. Most of the dialogue and the explaining takes place there, as well as most of the bad acting, silly set and costume design (decidedly 60's). Nowadays it's just a comedy on how people of the 60's imagined life would be in 21st century. (Remember goofy bob hairdos from "Time Machine"? This is just as bad).
Next there is the prologue. The apes. This is what was the eye opener for me as a kid. How human civilization began. No movie before or after dared to get into the subject (unless you count idiotic "10000 BC"). Nowadays I see it as a silly take on evolution (or theory of it if you like), even a parody. It didn't take place over night but over tens of thousands of years, but because of this movie a lot of people nowadays think some aliens had something to do with it. Hardly a service to science, don't you think?
Slow pace. Yes, the slow pace was indeed necessary to portray a long journey to revelation (and astronautical voyages). Is it a stroke of genius on part of Kubrick? I though it was until I saw many more of his movies. That man is indeed a very good director but is also a champion of tediousness (if you don't count "Dr. Strangelove").
Ending. Let me first say that I still get the shakes from the sight of the Starchild. It's one of the most chilling sequences I can ever remember. Did I "get the ending". Of course, but I had to read the book first. And it is not only bad for the movie, it didn't have anything to do with it in the first place! The ending is either left vague so any viewer could derive what he wants from it, or it is vague because Kubrick and Clarke couldn't actually wrap it up properly. I left this vague so you're free to decide for yourself.
Final item is question of "Why?". Why was this movie made? To "make a proverbially good sci-fi movie" as Kubrick once said? That statement of his is a bit misleading. Another statement of his reveals his belief in (at least possibility of) superior alien civilizations and how he wanted to bring this to the audience. Compared to what various people have written about the movie this comes off a bit trivial. Of course, the movie took four years to make, Kubrick and Clarke had ample time to put a lot of other ideas in it as well. But I'm not seeing it anymore. All I see is an attempt to "reconcile" scientific and religious explanations of human origins by finding a "middle ground" - supreme alien race. That subject doesn't interest me anymore. I still owe a lot to the movie (as mentioned before) but I did take it off the pedestal.