Ambiguity Doesn't mean Greatness

Rating: 7/10 (21 March 2015)

Don't get me wrong, 2001 is a good movie, but in my opinion a lot of philosophical "content" doesn't mean a film is a masterpiece.
I actually believe the film lacks content. In the penultimate sequence of this film, Dave travels through hyperspace which makes for some very cool visuals. But that seems to be the purpose behind it: just to portray space in a visually stunning way.
Let's go back to earlier in the film. The sequence with the apes discovering the monolith is amazing, and sets the tone for looking at the monolith in relation to using tools and the progression of technology. At the monolith's third appearance the "progression" seems to be of Dave becoming a star child. Is that a progression of technology? Is it a progression of mankind? I mean, I guess those are the questions we are meant to ask at the conclusion, but does ambiguity really mean greatness? Even if these questions are answered, I don't really see the significance of these answers.
Also, the film is structured in a way that doesn't really get resolved - at least on the A plot line. In middle of the film, Dave and his partners are on a mission to Jupiter, and they never even get there; Dave is the only one left and happens to travel into a wormhole of sorts. By the way, before coming the star child, where is David? What is this room and how did he get here? I don't get why these questions get ignored, just because the film is supposed to be philosophical?
This is a good film with great ambition, but I don't see it as one of the most important films of all time.
I think the best aspect of this film is Hal-9000.