The problem with reception

Rating: 3/10 (2 April 2020)

Truely great things remain great throughout the eras. That is the very definition of greatness. And, in some form, this is true for space odyssey. The cinematographic effects were years ahead of their time and it was the first somewhat realistic uptake on what space travel would actually be like. But if that is all it can be called great for it doesn't make a great movie. And it certainly can't be called entertaining, at least by today's standarts.
For all the claims of how game-changing and high spirited and dreaming of the impossible there were, all of those claims are removed from one simple truth: these things are not all you need to make a movie and they certainly are not what qualifies a movie as great.
I've seen this happening on this platform many times and many times elsewere: claims to greatness because even if the movie is not entertaining or graced with good acting it can still be a glorious piece of cinema because of art, depht, sophistication or style. I'm sorry but that is not how movies work. They have to be entertaining, it's their whole reason to exist. And while I'm fully aware of arthouse and advangarde cinema this movie does not qualify. It was an big production, huge budget (1968, at least), large showroom cinema event. When it was first published.
Today it is an 140 minute tedium, without plot, dialogue or any sufficient acting.
It is the film equivalent of a kid showing of to it's parents it's ability to ride a bike without using it's hands. "Look what I can do!"
Well, riding a bike that way is impressive, but you won't win a race with it. You need to have a whole skillset for doing so. This movie does not. And no effects, no realistic aproach and not even a director as prolific as Kubrick can mask that crucial fact.