Cinematic achievement = entertaining movie? Not necessarily

Rating: Null/10 (4 January 2009)

A film, first and foremost, should be good storytelling. It should be entertaining - and entertaining doesn't necessarily mean "laughs", and it doesn't necessarily mean "light". It basically means you're not bored while watching it.
As brilliant as 2001 may be, it is a difficult film to watch, especially for the current (video-game-playing/iPod fumbling) generation. Its slow pace and the sometimes intolerable amount of time it takes for an actor to perform a single action (e.g. the attempt to rescue the crew member floating in space) will stretch your patience. On the other hand, the cinematography is brilliant, the film cleverly directed, the ending thought-provoking and the score...the score is chilling, especially as the crew in the transporter approaches the artifact on the moon. Boy, I had goose bumps, big time. This doesn't happen often when I watch films, and is a testament to Kubrick's directing skills.
It IS considered a classic, and many people consider it the best science-fiction film of all time. That alone is a good reason to watch it if you haven't done so yet. However, just because everybody else thinks it's a brilliant film doesn't mean you have to force yourself to like it. You either will (like it) or you won't. Perhaps the slow pace isn't such a bad thing, after all. Directing your attention to something rather static and slow-paced for 2 1/2 hours might teach you a lesson. It will certainly be a different experience to all these fast-moving, fast-paced images we are subjected to these days (whether commercials, music videos or video games).
I myself think it's a "memorable" film. But not one I'm eager to watch again anytime soon (unless I'm in a particular mood for slow-paced films).
Hence, 7 stars out of 10 from me.