Beautiful...but nearly totally vapid

Rating: 4/10 (1 December 2006)

My father picked up the DVD, thinking this would be a good science fiction movie. I didn't look at the IMDb reviews before watching the movie, and I knew next to nothing about it - I thought it would be a good way to spend a couple of hours. Well, it turned out to be less than a couple of hours, since my father and I fast forwarded our way like crazy through the film.
Not that we missed much, though. If your idea of a movie is a visual depiction of a story, this is not a movie. It's an interesting and pretty slideshow with a compelling (but in the end disappointing) story thrown in. Much of the film consists of a completely black screen, and dialogue-free scenes which do little to advance the plot, and in more than a few instances, serve no real purpose.
Now, that is not to say I can't and/or don't appreciate the beauty of this movie. I'm a fan of classical music, and if I'd been in the mood to just sit and contemplate, I probably would not have fast forwarded through many of the beautiful (but utterly pointless, and mostly meaningless) scenes. Other people who dislike this film cite things like the opening scene of Earth from space and HAL's rendition of "Daisy" as irritating, but I found them haunting and truly beautiful.
Alas, 15 minutes of haunting beauty is not enough to salvage the rest of this sad piece of "art". Many establishing scenes in the African savanna serve no real purpose - they do not provide any of that vaunted "detail" which lovers of this movie harp on. Kubrick hits us on the head with a sledgehammer several times, apparently thinking we need to have the point (whatever it may be) of a particular scene driven home.
Although much of the detail given to futurism serves no purpose at all plot-wise, it does not detract from the movie (thankfully). The film would be nearly completely the same if we did not know what sandwich Floyd had, or the scene of him at the lunar briefing had been cut, but the little details in these scenes of how the future was thought to look like helps to spice up an otherwise rather boring movie.
People have criticised the acting of the protagonist, Bowman, but I thought he did a rather decent job, considering the shabby plot he was handed. It may be true that the film would not change very much if he had been played by a house plant, but that is not the fault of the actor - it is the fault of the directionless movie makers.
There may or may not be a philosophical bent to this film. I don't know - if there was one, I didn't see it. But if the only people whose lives and thoughts have been altered by this movie are the contemplative, philosophical type, I don't see why it is such an important film. Surely what would make a thinking movie great is the ability to make even the average Joe contemplate his place in the universe - and this is a talent that 2001: A Space Odyssey clearly lacks, given the response of casual viewers.
I am a bit ambivalent about whether to recommend this movie or not. I am very confident that those with an intellectual bent, given the right (i.e. contemplative) mood will be able to get something out of this movie. The important thing is not to expect a traditional movie, i.e. that with a storyline. This movie is more like a therapeutic slideshow for those intent on meditation, rather than a medium for communicating a particular story.
Ultimately, my verdict is to avoid this movie, unless you ever really feel like just sitting down and philosophising, in which case, you'll truly get the best bang for your buck. But otherwise, just don't bother. The few scenes of beauty and the peripheral plot won't keep you focused, and ultimately it'll be a self-defeating exercise.
As for me, I don't think I'll ever be watching this again.