I admire its theatrical scope but it has not aged well at all

Rating: 10/10 (19 January 2004)

I bought Stanley Kubrick's "2001" on DVD along with the (far superior) "Clockwork Orange." I have watched it since I was a child and admire this movie for its theatrical scope - as a movie buff, this is a milestone for me and my viewing experience because it is a breakthrough in narrative and for that reason alone I am thankful. I will always remember it and always take it into mind as one of the best examples of a director holding an audience and controlling them in his grip.
But (and this is a huge "but") it has not aged well over the years. Many of its scenes that depict space travel had audiences sprawled in awe - it was the first feature film to really depict outer space as something realistic (and man hadn't even landed on the moon yet!).
But compared to today's films, it is not very good. It is corny, overlong and unrealistic. Back then, it was a reason to see the film. Now, it's not impressive at all. This may seem ignorant, but think about it for a minute - why should we praise a film for being "the first of its kind" when other films have come along and done the same thing, much better?
I understand doing this to a certain extent - but to say "2001" is great solely because of its effects and for being "the first" is silly, as far as I see it, because much of it now just isn't very good. Cinema elitists enjoy explaining the reason it is still "great" because of its effects. The point they seem to always bring up is "...at the time of its release...". I understand this but _now_ it is no longer fascinating as it's been done many times since.
Kubrick is too fascinated with long empty passages of nothingness. It's like some self-indulgent ego-trip - take the opening for example. Four minutes (!) of absolutely nothing occurring on screen, just eerie music. Finally it opens, like some sort of epic opera and we are shown the planet's eclipse with the famous soundtrack, etc.
I find this incredibly poor storytelling, not because I think it's "boring" or "too slow" but because it is pointless. I admire long movies ("Once Upon a Time in America" 4-hour version is wonderful) but "2001" has many scenes that go on endlessly, needlessly. There's a difference between slowness (any Leone film will be) but at least Leone uses this as a canvass for exploring something - Kubrick, many times in this particular film (and maybe only this film), doesn't really "show" us anything meaningful. It's like we're staring at a moving spacecraft for two minutes. I check my watch at three minutes when the music is starting to tell us it may be over soon and I think, "Did that in any way actually improve the story itself, or show us anything useful?"
No. It's basically bragging to the audience - "look how good it looks." Problem is it looks like crap nowadays.
The critics tend to love this long nothingness because of its artistic merits. And I somewhat understand this - I can understand praising "2001" for its uniqueness, its powerful narrative. But the fact of the matter is that as a movie it's simply not very good because of this! It has dated very poorly. E.g. the space station segments - they are one of the only moments in the film with extensive dialogue. The "futuristic" suits are laughably '60s-ish and some of the ideas in the movie about communication via video, etc. are ludicrous.
That happens in any movie after a certain amount of time, but "2001" almost entirely depends upon this. I feel the actual story itself is weak. Kubrick is at a loss for anything useful so he delays it by continually showing us exterior shots of spacecraft and planets in tune with classical pieces.
It just gets to be too much after a while.
This all said, please understand I am not putting down this movie. I still admire it very much for what it is and will watch it for years to come. But as a piece of entertainment, as a movie...I find it poor and self-indulgent on Kubrick's behalf. It lacks the satirical bite of "A Clockwork Orange." The end sequence is horribly outdated with drug-trip visuals (it was rumored to have been one of the movies stoners would go see on a regular basis!). Like everything in this movie, it goes on too long - look at "Easy Rider" and "Midnight Cowboy." Both have '60s/'70s druggie sequences but both end before becoming intolerable - "2001" goes on too long...
My review may seem very incomplete, ignorant and contradictory but if I had to explain it all in summary I'd just say this: "2001" is a piece of art, but it is not a good movie in any way. I have seen art house films with better plots ("Punch-Drunk Love," "Magnolia") and more involving stories. "2001" is a showcase for special effects and directorial styles - but now it is very outdated and alienating and this is my biggest problem with it.
I can't rate this movie because I would rate it 5/5 in some ways, but very low in others. As a movie it's simply not very good - as a breakthrough/unique art-house type picture it's a great example of how a director can control a movie to the fullest.