Very bad film, very good 1960's experimental arty-cinema!

Rating: Null/10 (18 August 2003)

I saw this film when I was very young. Obviously, I didn't have a clue what was going on and I hated it. A couple of weeks ago I read Arthur C. Clarke's superb book (and the sequels) and felt I had to give the film another chance.
My opinion of the film has not changed since my first viewing, I still hate it. I can appreciate it on other levels now, but to me, as a film, this does not work. The reason there are no other films even remotely like this is because this is not how films are supposed to be. This is more art than film (in a bad way).
I cannot understand how ANYBODY could watch this film (without reading the book) and know what is going on, but in my opinion, you should never have to read the book to understand a film.
Some people might say it transcends film, cinema and traditional storytelling, but whilst I can't say whether or not it actually transcends all that stuff, it certainly isn't any of that stuff. It is like one of those weird pieces of experimental video-art you get in trendy art galleries, only two hours long.
The magic of the book lies in it's narrative, and on the descriptions of cosmic events. I'm sure Mr Kubrick did the best he could in '68, but SFX technology was NOWHERE NEAR advanced enough to get across some of the things that were meant to be happening, so they used stuff like false colour on sped up clouds, which may have dazzled audiences then, but cannot remotely compare to how your imagination pictures it whilst reading the book.
(As a side note, the bits where they were supposed to moving around in zero-G actually had me in tears they were so bad! But I'm sure they couldn't have done it any better at the time) To anyone who didn't like this film, please read the book, because it is amazing, and if anything it will explain the story so you can watch the "film" for sheer cinematographical appreciation.