Seminal Visually Impressesive Film - But just for the sake of being so?

Rating: 6/10 (23 July 2005)

There is just no denying that this film has unbelievable scope. Like hundreds of other IMDb reviewers have said, the special effects are momentous. They have a hypnotic affect on you, not because they're exciting, they aren't, but for the reason that they are just so beautiful to watch.
Whenever I view a film the first thing I want to know is when it was made and consequentially there after I can view it in it's proper context. I wasn't born in 1968 in fact it would be another 13 years before I would start my own Odyssey. If I would have seen it back then before man had been to the moon for instance or while the Cold War was raging, people were wondering if there WAS going to be a human race let alone what we would be like in the future. Nuclear Annihilation was a real possibility.... and then this film comes along. Something that people had never seen the likes of before. It must have been what many have said on these pages, 'a real experience'. It is something that makes you stop and think, back then and now. I've just watched it recently after a number of years and there definitely is a enduring quality about it. The questions it raises are still pertinent today and it still looks fantastic. The thing that has changed is the way they make films nowadays and who they are designed for. I mean do you really think Kubrick sat back in his little directors chair on set and thought to himself 'this film is going to be great for 12 year-olds to go and see on a Saturday night...they can leave their brains at the door'. Of course not. This film will only interest people who expect to be challenged by film makers in what they watch. Sure you could re-cut the film and lose 3/4 of the running time and not miss anything important and technically it would be a better film. However that's not the point of this film. The narrative and plotting are irrelevant. It's the questions the film raises about humans, our origins, our future, our strengths and weaknesses that are the key driving themes of this picture. One of my favourite phrases I like to tell myself is this ; "You can't tell where you're going until you know where you've been." This film is a visual adventure through time and space. It does have its problems though.
A lot of the sequences are vastly overindulgent. They are just last too long. You could watch this on DVD on x2 speed and it may be even better who knows. The pacing is a problem but nothing that would be fatal to the viewer. And you have to remember that in 1968 you are meant to be in awe of the space spectacle you are observing and therefore expected to lap up every second of it. After all, if you're doing something pioneering, why have a 10 second shot when you can have a 60 second one I say. It does grate on you severely from time to time though.
Another disturbing aspect to proceedings is the characterisation. At times I felt like I had more empathy with the apes at the start of the film as they clubbed each other over the head compared to some of the supposedly 'evolved' humans we meet later on. They have no human features. They look human, they act human, they even sound human occasionally but I remain unconvinced. It frustrates me that you are meant to be telling the story of evolution of the human race and none of them seem to embody any of the qualities you usually attribute to us. Hal the ships computer had a better acting style and he was just a red light and a guy in a sound booth. And like I say the guys in the ape suits did a better job at the start then anyone else later on.
I can totally understand why people don't like this film. Everyone wants something different from their cinema experience. Unfortunately most people who watch films nowadays seem to want all the questions not only answered but spoon fed to them in the process. 2001 does neither of these things. It just makes you think, a lot of people don't like doing that nowadays.
Having said that, I myself wouldn't rate it highly on my personal list because I find it a bit contrived and self-indulgent. It also lacks any real flow or continuity. Also, for me a good film has to have characters I enjoy relating to. 2001 doesn't have them, it has good ideas and concepts but falls a little short in achieving them. I say again the visuals are superb, for the time and now. It just makes me strengthen by belief that CGI still can't offer the same realism and grounding a good miniature modal can. The better recent films marry CGI and miniatures however, too many solely rely on the power of their CPU chips for effects.
I may not particularly like 2001 but I respect what it wanted to achieve and it definitely was a seminal motion picture. People who disregard it out of hand don't fully realise that without it there would be no films like Star Wars, Star Trek, to The Terminator etc.
Science fiction for nearly 40 years now has had its cinematic roots firmly embedded within 2001: A Space Odyssey and for that this film will always have my firm respect and admiration if not my affection.