I was just lucky I found this movie. I've been taking advantage of Walmart's $5.50 DVDs, because I watch a lot of movies (and very seldom watch television). I graduated from high school in 1968 - so I have family and many friends who served in Vietnam. This movie really illustrates the pain I've seen in my friends in dealing with what happened to them over there. I wish more people would see this movie - I think maybe more people could understand what happened to our Vietnam vets by watching these excellent actors in the portrayal of one family damaged by that war. The story felt realistic - it isn't mushy, but made me feel what they were going through. I think it helped that Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez were playing father and son - it made their relationship more believable,


Not being a movie aficionado, I am not familiar with the names of leading Directors, Scriptwriters, Producers and the like, but I can tell an outstanding movie when I see one.

The makers of this fine movie could well be now at the top of their fields, or may well get there pretty soon. I know that the actors are already there.

It takes talent closer to genius to show with such realism how a national tragedy like Vietnam has impacted the everyday life of a typically average American family, and make us see at close range why there are so many homeless Vietnam veterans.

Without getting into gratuitous scenes of gore and bloodshed, it makes us understand why so many youg men had flashbacks of what they had been thru.

The dialog is particularly gripping, and gives us an idea of what went on in so many families in the aftermath of Vietnam.

I wish there were more good movies like this one, not just about Vietnam, but about other social conditions as well.


The connection with James Dean?In a short plan ,we see Emilio Estevez toying with a teddy bear(remember the first scene of Ray's "rebel without a cause").Moreover,the main conflict is Estevez versus Sheen,father against son,as in "East of Eden".The soldier has come home,and nobody has been able to communicate with him, even his sister (a psychology student,what a derision).The mother,a crude matron (a superb Kathy Bates),gets bogged down in nougatine ,she 's not able to understand that her values (religion,family) have become a thing of the past,specially for someone like his son whose innocence was betrayed. The father ,an irresolute man ,under his wife's thumb,although he tries hard to play the macho,wanted to make up for the mediocrity of his life .So he saved his "honor" by forcing his son to do his duty.The scene in which Estevez's hatred for his father explodes is very intense.The actor-director gives a restrained performance,interiorized,as Lee Strasberg's students used to do,and his final burst of anger is increased tenfold so.


Emilio Estevez actually directed a good movie--who woulda thought? I sat through two previous films Estevez directed--"Wisdom" (with then girlfriend Demi Moore) and "Men at Work" (with brother Charlie Sheen). They are lousy films---badly acted, directed, stupid and offensive. Estevez is a good actor but lousy as a director. I turned this on in pure curiousity--it has a great cast and I had nothing else to do. Damned if it didn't pull me in.

It concerns Estevez coming home from Vietnam permanently scarred by what happened over there. His parents (Kathy Bates, Martin Sheen) and sister (Kimberly Williams) try to reach him but can't. Something in Vietnam has affected him deeply...and he's about to explode...

A bit overlong but still very good. A lot of the material is familar but the cast is so good that they make it seem new. Estevez is good, Sheen is terrific (and Estevezs' real life father), Williams is touching and Bates is just extraordinary--trying to hold the family together. It all leads up to a powerful ending which REALLY surprised me.

Well worth catching.


This movie is on cable sporadically, and I never really watched it, thinking it would be similar to the Bruce Willis film "Ïn America", with the usual trite story about American freedom, etc. But it was not; it was so much more!.

Of course, Martin Sheen is excellent; (I have never seen him in a movie I haven't loved, even if the script is bad, because he is so talented). Kathy Bates is the overbearing mom, and does a great job. The real surprise is Emilio Estevez, who has not always been in the greatest films, but also directed this movie. Please don't stereotype him from the "Breakfast Club" movie; he is so much better in this, and I wish he would do more non-commercial, atypical Hollywood movies.

The film is realistic, as we see Emilio home from Vietnam, during Thanksgiving. Kimberly Williams is passable as the sister, who feels she is "disgraced and embarrassed" by the returning soldier, her brother; he is quite alienated from the family, and, especially at this time in US history, this story is VERY relevant.

I learned a great deal about post-traumatic stress, and you will genuinely empathize with this character; This is not a violent, journalistic portrayal, like "Platoon" for example, it is more of a character study, which leaves us even more intrigued and concerned about the effects of war, especially when one considers the young age of the soldiers who are victims. With today's violence, it is rare that a movie causes one to genuinely feel sad, and shed a tear; this does it, and deserves recognition.


One of my desires is to be a film-maker, and I just have to say there's no way I will be able to compete with the powerful drama The War at Home. The reason is because the acting is perfect, and when you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. All I can suggest is watching it, I got so involved in it and was extremely impressed.

Estevez's and Sheen's relationship on the screen was absolutely amazing.

And so was his relationship with his mother (Kathy Bates). Some of the best scenes include these 2.

As well as the relationship between Sheen and his daughter, Estevez's sister in the film.

10/10, and definitely in my top 10. I want the DVD!


The Vietnam War era is certainly far before my time, but it has always interested me, and I have seen many films about it. All of the others I'd seen had dealt strictly with the front-line of battle. When I read a description of "The War At Home," I found the concept intriguing. No Vietnam War movie I'd ever heard of talked about what happens to a soldier once the fighting is over with.

One night, while flipping through channels, the movie aired on The Sundance Channel. I set down the remote and settled back to watch it. I did not move from my seat during the entire two hours; it's one of those movies that keeps you very interested because there is no way to predict what is going to happen next.

This movie made me a huge fan of Emilio Estevez. I had enjoyed him very much as Billy the Kid in the "Young Guns" movies, but I never saw anything he did afterward. Emilio proved to be very talented at writing and directing as well as acting.

The pacing of the movie is done extremely well. I am hard-pressed to think of a point where it drags.

What amazes me is that it didn't get an Oscar or any real recognition when it came out. It is a dramatic story about parents trying to cope with the fact that their son is not who he used to be and probably will never be as they remembered him again. Definitely worth seeing.


This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of "12 Angry Men". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.

I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as the some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.

The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her characters in "At Play In The Fields Of The Lord". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.

There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.


This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of "12 Angry Men". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.

I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.

The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her character in "At Play In The Fields Of The Lord". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.

There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.


Emilio Estevez takes the wonderful play HOMEFRONT and makes it into an engaging movie.

THE WAR AT HOME has an exceptionally strong cast -- all seemingly digging deep into their characters. The acting here is TOP NOTCH!

Credit must also go to director Emilio Estevez. The visual transitions between past and present were ultra smooth. The sound effects during the battle scenes were chilling and effectively added to the tension.

Remove all of the Viet Nam elements from the story, and still left would be interesting characters wrestling with the good and bad of the full range of family dynamics. (A viewer might see this point more clearly by keeping in mind the "discovering the old photo" scene from the beginning as the rest of the movie is watched).

As a movie, I found THE WAR AT HOME to be more direct and to the point than BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY. A fine effort -- almost a 10.


An under-appreciated, unseen gem. Estevez does a remarkable job of illustrating in poignant, heartbreaking fashion, the tension that arises between a son who's been to hell and back, and his parents, who can't begin to understand the emotional scarring left behind. It's not unlike Born on the Fourth of July, in that it deals with a soldiers' emotional and mental breakdown after serving in Vietnam, but while that one focused more on the politics of post-Vietnam (anti-war speeches, etc.), this one deals with a much more personal topic: Family. One man's struggle to return to normalcy after a life-altering experience, and his parents' failure to see the change that has occurred.

Estevez delivers a smoldering performance as Jeremy Collier. You can sense the pain and frustration bubbling beneath surface. There to match him inch for inch is his real-life father, Martin Sheen. It's a trip watching these two act off of each other, as you get the sense that they're constantly trying to one-up one another. It's like the presence of each other inspired the pair to do their best, and their performances triumph because of it.

Recommended to anyone who appreciates solid acting, writing and directing. And to any Vietnam war buff.

****/***** (8/10)


This movie is powerful. I watched this movie at 3:00 am and I was suppose to be at work at 6:00 am, needless to say I was late to work. I could not bring myself to get up off my bed to go to work. This is the most powerful movie that I have seen in a long time. And that made me cry and feel the pain of the family. I think Emilo did a wonderful job of directing this film. I agree with the previous comments from other views that this is the only movie that I have seen that has brought the war home and showed what a family had to go through, what a veteran went through. It is almost heart breaking to think that back then people just thought you could come home from a life changing experience and be the same person you were before you left. Kathy Bates reminded me of my mother in a way. I believe she really showed how women felt and acted back then. I am surprised that this film wasn't up for more awards.


Estevez, Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates are superb in this portrayal of a Vietnam vet home from the war but still haunted by it. Bates plays a clueless mother who just wants the family to be a "family." Sheen is terrific as the father who tries to understand what his son is going through but is too wrapped up in his principles to really empathize. The setting is Thanksgiving Day and the relatives are coming for dinner. Estevez, who plays the returning vet, wants no part of family tradition and insists on wearing his combat fatigues to dinner, explaining "This is what I wore last Thanksgiving." The bickering and family arguments are priceless, particularly the "peanut brittle crisis," but the ending is both gripping and terrifying. It has to be seen to be appreciated.

Overall, one of the best movies I've ever seen.


This movie has a very deep look at the relationships between a mother who was raised in a Christian environment and learned that appearance is everything. She and her son, who just recently returned from Vietnam collide in some very tense issues. The relationship has no connections intimately and is a great accurate portrayal of what it is like to live with someone who is false and only looks at the surface of issues. Kathy Bates does an excellent job of portraying a woman of false faith who is either oblivious to her cruelty, forgetful or just doesn't want to be confronted. Jeremy's wrath is never feared and it leads to a very disturbing conflict between him and his feelings about his fathers love for him. This is a very honest look at some family dynamics after a traumatic event leads one to despair.


I had never heard of this film and only got it because I am a Martin Sheen fan. Now I am stunned as to why it did not receive the praise and recognition that it truly deserves. The four characters all make you feel for them, the father trying to assert his authority, the mother still clinging to traditional family values and both trying to keep up appearances despite the total fragmentation of their family, the daughter wanting her own life and the son haunted by his experiences in Vietnam. One felt that this was a scenario that must have been played out in thousands of 'ordinary' families after Vietnam. Emilio Estevez as Jeremy was superb - totally unhinged by his war experience which none of his family could relate to. The screen chemistry between him and his real-life father Martin Sheen was amazing. And there were times when Emilio's anguished face was so like Martin's in "Apocalypse Now". I feel sure that just as Martin has counted Apocalype as one of his best films, Emilio will count this one as one of his best too. The scene with the gun was totally mind-blowing, as all the emotions were there on the family's faces. Brilliant acting by Estevez, Sheen and Kathy Bates. I watched the film for the first time last night - and today the lead story in the news was about a Gulf War veteran who had shot several members of his family. How many more young men are going to have their lives destroyed by war?


This is a little-seen anti-war film that has been ignored for too long. The time is Thanksgiving of 1972. The place is a typical suburban home somewhere in Texas. The oldest son has just comeback from Vietnam and he is having a hell of time readjusting to the life he had left behind. And the family does not know how to handle the problem. I honestly don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is one the most heart-wrenching war films I've seen. The funny thing is that there are only a handful of combat sequences in the entire movie. Most of the story takes place inside a house over a period of a couple of days. But the kind of war that takes place in this home is as intense as any real battlefield action. The film does something that is difficult to accomplish; somehow, Estevez and his team have created a film that embodies the entire Vietnam experience. And considering the similarities between Vietnam and the current invasion of Iraq, the film is surprisingly relevant. Estevez does a magnificent job with material. He gets a lot of help from a hand-picked cast. Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates in particular are superb as the parents. A truly moving film. Highly recommended


Not for those adrenaline maniacs etc It's a good movie, looking at after war, psychical problem, from the other point of view.

Emilio Estevez is great as a young man, haunted by the demons of Vietnam war, causing problem in family.

Marin Sheen is also good as a conservative father.

It all comes down to the problem how to deal with the past, with whom

Emilion Estevez's character can't seem to deal, and Martin Sheen's character don't want do deal with.

Protective mother looks at this problem with warm , and open heart but with her mind closed for the obvious reasons.


I have to agree with the previous author's comments about the excellent performances and plot. Started watching this movie by accident...(lazy Sunday afternoon clicking channels to see if anything good was on)...and was mesmerized by Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Wow! Gut wrenching! Kudos to everyone (have always admired Martin Sheen) but was particularly impressed with Emilio! Excellent job of acting and directing...simply superb! So why have I never heard of this movie before? I'll have to spread the news.


The movie shows many feelings and emotions that are very strong and personal. The atmosphere in the movie is very tense and sad. You can really get a clear picture of what the main character is going through, and how he is responding to the world around him. I think it is a great movie, and that everybody should see it.


I feel privileged to have accidentally seen this movie. I actually ran across this movie by accident. I was taping another movie on Showtime one night, overnight and this movie came on afterward. So I sat and watched it and boy was I blown away. The acting is absolutely superb. Kathy Bates...who has been my favorite actress since Misery and Fried Green Tomatoes gave an amazing performance as a domineering mother who tries desperately to hold on to her old school values (religion, family) at the risk of alienating her family. Martin Sheen is superb as the "tough" patriarch who is really not in control of anything in his life or family. The one thing I really loved about this movie is how it tells what happens when the heroes come home. It shows the true damage that is done to our soldiers after they fight pointless wars for political and financial gain. This movie just blew me away and I feel blessed to have accidentally taped this movie and seen it. This is a must-see for anyone who wants a true drama, this is not too melodramatic and preachy, but pulls at your heartstrings like none other


There have been many movies about people returning home from wars and having to cope, but "The War at Home" is worth seeing. Portraying Vietnam vet Jeremy Collier (Emilio Estevez) having trouble connecting with his Texas family, much of the movie is very likely to tense you up. But nothing can prepare you for what ends up getting revealed.

Part of what makes this movie so good is how it gives the viewer the feeling of both Texas and of the generation gap. Jeremy's parents Bob (Martin Sheen) and Maurine (Kathy Bates) clearly have a problem with their son's attitude, both about the war and his rejection of Americanism. His sister Karen (Kimberly Williams) is uncertain with whom to side. But after the dinner, there can be no neutrality.

So, we as Americans may never be able to fully get over the Vietnam War, but this movie can probably help us look seriously at how it affected so many people. Emilio Estevez certainly did a good job directing. Also starring Corin Nemec and Carla Gugino.


This movie was well done. It covers the difficulties a returning Vietnam veteran has in dealing with the horrors of war. Unfortunately the writers chose to focus on a Vet who had been involved in an act of atrocity. I was in Vietnam and only once heard of such an act by one who witnessed it. The offender was prosecuted and sentenced to many years in Leavenworth.

The notion that only vets involved in atrocities had emotional problems is a disservice to all who served. All of the soldiers I knew personally or knew of by word of mouth were honorable soldiers who respected even the enemy and believed they were there to halt the spread of Communism. The biggest problem was coming home to learn that many Americans were opposed to the war. That is what caused many Veterans to feel they had taken part in something less than honorable. Not the manner in which they served.

The ending depicted the father acting more as a belligerent bully than a loving, caring father. For that I gave it a 7 out of 10. Had the ending allowed for a degree of acceptance I could have rated it a 9.

Most decent men will come home from war with guilt and emotional scars. They need acceptance and understanding to overcome that. I pray that the public is more understanding of our present day Veterans than it was in the the Vietnam era.


I would like to know if "The Outsiders" (Australian TV series) will ever be released on DVD sometime in the future? And is the music (Title Theme) available on CD?

There was only one series of 13 episodes of this drama and should have gone on to at least three or even four series in total.

The Young German Actor in the series was also in a German TV series called "Black Forest Clinic" which aired here in the UK with English dialogue superimposed with the lip-sync.

I look forward to hearing any comments from TV Industry personnel on the above questions, thank you in advance.


The Outsiders is undoubtedly a classic Australian TV series. Well defined characters, tight scripts, varied and interesting locales, great guest stars and a filmic ambiance all combined to make this series a special one.

Sadly, Andrew Keir has passed on & Sascha Hehn from Germany does not appear (unfortunately) to have enjoyed small screen success in his native country. The ABC has repeated the series many times yet a DVD release is yet to happen.

The series is one which is timeless. It is as likely to strike a resonant chord with viewers today as it did in its own day. Come on ABC...release The Outsiders on DVD!!!!!


Watched this when it was first screened and then missed it when it disappeared of British screens. It showed a different side of Old Australia that we need to see more of. Good juxtaposition of old hand and young turk. Then the realism of the hard out back was fantastic. It was sadly missed. This show was a cold look at the old way of looking at Australia. Hard living and hard working. The young idealist clashing with the old practical head. Real Politicka fighting with the young upstarts of New Labour. To add modern political vernacular.

This show was the first of its type that I came across that did not try to do a tourist job on Australia. It was a great showing of the realistic

come documentary realistic type of show. Some good films were out at the time doing a similar job. It would be great to see more of this type of TV come from Australia for it has been sadly missing this last twenty years. for all we have been fed is the soap pulp of varying quality.


Yeah great cult TV series. Great atmosphere, top script and good performances make this a class A candidate for DVD release.

This is a seminal tour de force of Australian TV history and has that unforgettable groovy period piece soundtrack with Doug Parkinson's gravel and phlegm voice spewing 70's Australiana all over your cathode ray box as a amazingly long camera zoom out reveals the religion of the open road in all its Antipodean glory. This is a memento from another and not too distant era, and has the proud stamp of the land mighty Down Under from start to finish in all its raw freedom and gritty grandeur.

Come on ABC! Get with the program and release this cool 70's cult baby for all to enjoy - or re-enjoy if you're lucky enough to have lived the dream at the time.


This is the Australian TV series. It is a classic. The stories and actors are excellent. Who can forget Picker and his gramophone or Chet being ambushed? This is cult TV. The Australian actors in the series were the best of their day and have immortality in The Outsiders. What can I say timeless adventure. The music and song just fantastic. The closing credits starting with the close up of the wheel, then Keir sleeping n being jostled around and then the long shot just cannot get much better than that. All 13 episodes are equally solid in the portrayal of the Australian myth and I think this is what this series has.It does not matter that the two main characters were from overseas, I think that is the key to the series and why it is so good.


This film has not been seen by me in quite a few years. It came on the Disney Channel in the wee hours of the morning. I stayed up to watch it, and found it even more entertaining than the first time. The story, the scenery and the characters are as good as they come. I know that if anyone takes the time to view this film, they will find it definitely worth seeing a second time. It's very memorable in more ways than one. I would recommend this film to anyone because it is both entertaining and educational for all concerned.

s


A lumberman finds a young cougar in need of help. To young to be on his own the cat soon takes up with the rugged camp workers. Nicknamed "Good Time Charlie' his antics amuse everyone at first. His wild nature eventually begins to cause trouble and reintroducing him into his natural habitat becomes an issue. This film is among those wonderful Disney nature films that were common in the 50's and 60's Lots of action, beautiful scenery and some endearing animal to charm you. These films were not long but included fascinating glimpses into wildlife and the effects of human contact. Unlike Disney's animated talking animals the animals in these films remained true to their own nature. They also make great travel films for seeing the western states.


this is one of my favorite movies ever! along with casablanca and cannibal holocaust, this is near perfect cinema. rex allen narrates this wonderful tale of a cougar who just needs a little loving. contains action, adventure, suspense, comedy, and riverbed chaos! SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE TO KILL TO DO IT!!! you will not find a better cat picture anywhere, with "cat from outer space" coming in as a not so close second. charlie's performance is magnificent. even includes animal cruelty and intense logging! gotta love disney, for all moral failures!


Well I don't know much about anything, but I sure liked this film. In short, it was creative, humorous, simple, and heartwarming. In other words, it was everything it set out to be.

The story is set around a girl's first love, (as the title suggests) and I certainly should warn you: expect nothing challenging or provocative in terms of the subject matter here. I mean, it is a children's cartoon. It's really just a simple story, but it's told well, and it holds your attention well.

In the end: it's short, it's funny, it's cute, it's simple, it's good.


It was a sweet, intro for the most intelegent Sailor Soldier, Sailor Mercury. It consisted with a new "in croud", Merciurios. He, at the beganing wrote a love letter to Ami, which would be starltling (of course) and, now, Ami thiks he is a chibi-Einstien, and he is attractive (He ended up looking like Umino (Melvin)). This was a halarios (expesialy Minako's "It's no skin off my neck" scene (HOT!)) Well, I really like the Bishojo Senshi Sailor Moon Series, I personally think its the best anime ever!, But, this movie was nice, funny, but not as adventurios as Sailor Moon R- It was more like the "S" movie. I saw this @ Sailor Moon Univewrse, with real Player, and it was pretty good. (Over all)


Almost missed it. While visiting friends in Philadelphia sometime in the early 1980`s, I was channel surfing after everyone else went to bed. It wasn`t just Bogart he was obsessed with; but rather the entire era of those old flicks those of my age know so well. Add to that a plot liken to The Maltese Falcon - where so many different characters were interacting with Sacchi - and you have a piece of art as far as I`m concerned. About ten years later it appeared on TV and I taped it. >


This amusing, sometimes poignant look at the Hollywood detective genre of the 1940's and 1950's stars Robert Sacci as an unnamed former cop who retires, uses his life savings to pay for plastic surgery to transform his image into that of his idol, Humphrey Bogart, then sets up shop as a private eye under the name "Sam Marlowe". Robert Sacchi, incidentally, is one of the rare few Bogart impersonators who got the lisp exactly right; more to the point, the body and facial language are there. For awhile, "Sam"'s only client is his landlady, who wants him to find her undersized boyfriend, and his only conversational foil is his secretary, simply called "Dutchess" (Misty Rowe), who in his own words, "looked like Marilyn Monroe and made about as much sense as Gracie Allen", and has a passion for banana splits. Then he encounters Elsa (Olivia Hussey), the plain, sweet, virginal daughter of a retired props-master who has been murdered for no discernible reason. In the process of investigating the murder, Sam shortly runs across: the Gene Tierney lookalike daughter (Michelle Phillips) of Anastas, an avaricious, obscenely wealthy Greek shipping tycoon (Victor Buono, turning in a creditable Sidney Greenstreet), his hapless, long-suffering second wife (Yvonne deCarlo, who manages to play a variety of put-upon emotions without saying a word), his two smarmy henchmen (Herbert Lom, channelling Peter Lorre, and Jay Robinson, doing a reasonably accurate Lionel Atwill), and Anastas' vicious, amoral Middle-Eastern potentate (Franco Nero) who comes complete with a glamorus and bafflingly loyal mistress (Sybil Danning), all of whom would give anything to acquire the "Eyes of Alexander", two huge, perfectly matched star sapphires. When Elsa is murdered, Marlowe's interest in solving the case becomes personal, and he sets out through a labyrinth of Los Angeles landmarks, including the Hollywood Bowl, the scatological and esoteric attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Catalina Island in pursuit of the rocks, determined to get at them before either of the two wealthy competitors. Throw in cameos by Mike Mazurki and assorted others, the traditional dumb-but-sympathetic ally on the police force, and a plethora of nicely drawn character turns that provide dimension to practically all players, and despite an unfortunate title song, you have, to my mind, a thoroughly enjoyable movie experience.


Sacchi is the best Bogart impersonator ever... dry and droll as Sam Marlowe. The music from award winning composer George Duning [From Here To Eternity, Picnic, The World of Suzie Wong], the cinematography of perfect locations [including the famous Ambassador Hotel] are all right on target as famous tv director Robert Day [Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, The Avengers] guides the most endearing group of well-known character actors through a spoof of every dark detective film every made. See this if you loved all the old serious flicks and have a sense of humor... this one is a hoot.


Making this short and to the point. This movie was great! I loved it! I actually picked this up at a Hollywood Video for 3 bucks on VHS and watched it about 5 times in the last couple weeks. I'm a big Bogart fan and I just latched onto this movie. I thought the song was funny and now have it as a ring tone on my phone. Robert Sacchi is great and pulls off a good Bogart. His nose is a little big, his voice is a Bogart-Columbo mix, and he does a few things that are awkward but otherwise, he was fantastic and this film was wonderful. No one can be a perfect Bogart but he was great. Remember, Sam Marlow is a fan of Bogart and isn't going to do everything he did. He mentions a lot of other movies and does some things that were never part of the real Bogart's character's. But, it's so funny and hilarious and has a great cast, including some beautiful women. Watch it and have fun!


This movie is a very enjoyable homage to the Bogart and other detective films of old. Robert Sacchi nails it as Bogie and Michelle Phillips is a truly timeless beauty as Gena Anastas.

However, the most noteworthy portion of this film involves the longest belly dancing scene ever produced in a Hollywood film. One well-known professional instructor commented that nothing else in cinema comes close for dance excitement.

The scene, which ends up being an important part of the plot, occurs in a lushly beautiful Middle Eastern nightclub and is by all accounts mesmerizing. The pulsating music, the swirling veils and ringing finger cymbals, free-flowing undulations and beautiful costumes - and a surprise twist involving the seductive Sybil Danning - build tension and excitement until the very end.

The three talented and beautiful professional nightclub dancers are led by exotic brunette beauty Kamala Almanzar, one of the US' leading belly dancers since the mid-1970s. She was hand-picked by famed Armenian musician Guy Chookoorian to travel with his orchestra on the road. Guy's ensemble is the live band that the dancers perform to in the scene. If you watch the trailer on this site, you will see a glimpse of Kamala (playing the finger cymbals behind Sybil Danning).

If you're not yet a fan of belly dancing, you will be after watching this movie, and if you're an aficionado, it holds up very well after repeated viewing.


As over the past ten years or even longer the whole world is flooded with so-called sitcoms (actually only very few deserve this title 'cause they're so predictable), King of Queens is a very original, unique and astoundingly funny alternation. It's about the daily life of a deliveryman and his wife who works as an attorney's assistant in Manhattan in Queens, NY. With them lives Carrie's father Arthur, a picture-book extrovert, who is played by the fantastic Jerry Stiller and who steals the show from all the others every time he appears. Other important people are their best friends Deacon and Kelly, a married couple, and their other friend Spence who's almost 30 and still lives with his mother. What makes this show so unique and funny is, above all, that every single character seems so real and Carrie's cynical, sarcastic attitude is the total opposite of Doug's good-natured, slightly dumb optimism.And Arthur's the one who makes it absolutely unpredictable with his strange ideas and habits. He often gets himself into trouble and Doug and Carrie have to drag him out of the mud. Even if in my opinion the quality of the show decreased a little within the last years it's still one of the best daily sitcoms ever made. It takes a little time to get into the characters and relate to them, but after that's done, you get some unstoppable laughs from it. Although I think I couldn't survive one day with Arthur in a closed room without beating the guts out of him, I really adore him in this show. Watch and have fun, I give it a 9 out of 10.


This show is brilliantly hilarious! I started watching in 2007, and had never heard of it before then. After one episode, I was hooked. I'm never home to watch it, so my wife bought me the entire series on DVD. Non stop laughs, need I say more? I wish it was still on TV, because it is definitely worthy and a whole lot better of crap on currently on TV.

I wish they would make a movie, seriously, who wouldn't go see it. Kevin James's name alone will bring a huge fanbase to any movie, the guy is (make your stomach hurt) funny.

Just a really good, down to earth, believable show. If you have the chance to buy it on DVD, do it, its worth it.


This is by far the funniest sitcom that has ever aired on TV. I own all 9 seasons on DVD and literally could watch them over and over. Anyone who does not find this show hilarious, heartwarming, entertaining, and laugh out loud hysterical, is crazy! Kevin James is absolutely one of the most talented comedians out there. My boyfriend and I love going to stand up comedy shows in Boston (where we live) and have seen Kevin James twice and his brother Gary Valentine (Danny) once. They are both so unbelievably talented and just plan smart with their work. There are so many comedians out there that are just awful and Kevin and Gary really show the true side of real comedy. Leah Remini, although a snob and bitch in real life (so I have read) is an amazing actress and deserves more credit than any other woman in sitcoms. She truly makes the show...along with Jerry Stiller! This show is a must see and you will get addicted within one to two episodes!


This is the best comedy period. It is so underrated! Clever witty humor, Great casting! Jerry Stiller is the jewel in the show, he is so incredibly funny and quirky, simply a comical genius! Doug and Carrie have great chemistry! I so do not see what the hype is about when it comes to Everybody loves Raymond it is SO overrated with lame jokes mostly forced humor and just not the witty show, I can't remember laughing in more than 1 episode. King of Queens is a rare comedy that has all the right ingredients to give you serious belly laughs which is normally caused by Arthur Spooner, I think its about time this comedy gets the hype it deserves and not the lame Raymond & CO.


This is,in short,the TV comedy series with the best cast ever;and the most likable also.Each one of them is a firsthand comedy actor.I know only one TV series which was better (i.e., "Moonlighting")that one had Willis as a leadyet it had Willis only,while The King of Queens has a pocketful of actors that are as fine as one can enjoy--Kevin James, Leah Remini, Jerry Stiller, Patton Oswalt, Nicole Sullivan, Victor Williams, Gary Valentine,and even all the rest of them .I spontaneously and continually and promptly liked it.Advancing age didn't spoil the fun,anyway.

In a few words,the series is intelligent and original,miraculously spared of the current TV stupidity and garbage. It is politically incorrect and doesn't court the minorities in the usual disgusting way.

The comic is very palatable and savory.

I read, mostly approvingly, a few IMDb writers, and sometimes they write about their favorite showsyet, though these writers are several, I did not encountered, at any of them, the slightest mention of my favorite TV shows (--but it's true that the critics one likes are not those with whom he finds himself in complete approvalbut those who at least offer a common basis for disapproval)which are, mainly, WILD WILD WEST, MOONLIGHTING, QUEENS, FANTOMAS, the '80s TWILIGHT ZONE, Bradbury's TV show and SANDOKAN. Most of them I have seen when I was 1314 yrs; about a few of them I have written, and execrably.


I cant believe how many excellent actors can be on one show. It's the realism and fine acting that makes it look real. This has got to be the best comedy ever created to this day and I love Seinfeld and Everyone Loves Ramond. It is just fabulous and it seems everyone in my family agrees. Thats no isolated opinion of mine. The whole world seems to talk about different incidents and they try to reenact them. My hat off to the crew. Some shows have an actor that makes the whole show. This plot comedy has a slew (8) of them . That's what makes it so amazing. Some people pray for Health , Wealth or fame. I pray that the show never ends. Sicerely John. LKHUBBLE2@talkamerica.net


If you put Seinfeld aside, this is The Best Comedy ever, no doubt! Just Great!

"The King Of Queens" just finished its eighth season of domestic bliss. Set in the working-class suburb of Queens, New York, the show follows Doug Heffernan (Kevin James), an amiable delivery man, and his wife, spitfire legal secretary Carrie Heffernan (Leah Remini), as they explore the everyday challenges of love, life, family and marriage.

Doug and Carrie deal with day-to-day domestic realities that reflect our times and enable us to laugh at ourselves. Their love for each other ultimately carries them through each dilemma they face, whether it's Doug's fixation with food or Carrie's obsession with expensive clothing.

Doug and Carrie also have to deal with the third, high-maintenance member of the Heffernan household  Carrie's twice-widowed father, Arthur Spooner (Jerry Stiller), who lives in their basement. His constant presence and often bizarre behavior add to their daily adventures. Doug and Carrie have stumbled upon an unorthodox solution to reduce their burden and keep Arthur happy  his regular excursions with gullible dog walker Holly (Nicole Sullivan). Doug's friends Deacon Palmer (Victor Williams), Spence Olchin (Patton Oswalt) and cousin Danny Heffernan (Gary Valentine) round out the cast with their "guy" humor and diverse perspectives.

In a manner that evokes "The Honeymooners," THE KING OF QUEENS finds inspiration in life's everyday situations. Last season alone saw Doug "loaning" Carrie to a wifeless Deacon for help with Thanksgiving dinner; the Heffernans suffering through the annoyance and financial strain of mold damage to their house; and Doug and Carrie striving to copy a couple whose photos  of a more adventurous life than Doug and Carrie's  they accidentally took home. We also watched Arthur grow jealous of a new dog that Holly added to her route, and Doug finding out that his overprotective parents replaced his childhood dog Rocky three times behind his back. Throughout, the series showcases James' incredible physical comedy, Remini's hard-edged wit, and Stiller's unique comic presence.

You can't... You shoulden't Miss it!


"THE KING OF QUEENS," in my opinion, is a pure CBS hit! Despite the fact that I've never seen every episode, I still enjoy it very much. For that reason, it's hard for me to say which episode is my favorite. Even so, I must say that CBS really knows how to make a good sitcom. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gives a good performance, the production design is spectacular, the costumes are well-designed, and the writing is always very strong. In conclusion, if this show lives on in syndication after it goes off CBS, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.


I have just started watching this show. Its airing in Ireland at the moment on the Irish television station RTE1 at 12.30pm in the Afternoon (as of 26th July 2006).

This program literally makes me laugh out aloud and I cannot boast that on most sitcom's (apart from UK's 'The Office' with Ricky Gervais in it).

Todays episode of TKoQ (26 July 2006)was the one where Carrie starts a new job and invites her friends home and goes off to make some coffee and Doug wants Carrie to have no 'outside' friends so he lifts up his top and shows off his 'belly hair!' and licks plates when he goes out to dinner! But another funny episode was the other week when the old fella (carries Dad) won on the Bingo and that episode creased me up with laughter especially when they went out and got a replacement fridge and Carries father stood there looking at it and thought it was new.

So I don't know how much longer this has got to run on Irish TV or at which stage (year recorded) we are at but I hope it don't end soon because I am really enjoying it.

To sum up there is some great writing, some great characters and comedy acting (namely by Carrie, Doug and Carries father) some great punchlines and delivered well - a bit saucy and near the mark sometimes (send the kids out the room!) but i think this US Sitcom is a winner and very funny.


Wow,this is in my opinion the best sitcom since Friends. If you have had a crap day just sit yourself down with a beer (if you are old enough that is.if not a root beer will have to do.) and watch a couple of episodes,it's the perfect recipe for happiness.

The thing I like most is that everybody in the show is very funny and they all have fantastic comedy timing. After a while you become attached to the characters and really care about them. I think the secret to the shows success is that they have an enviable life. Doug is fat but still happy with it,he loves his wife his job and his friends. The father in law is the fly in the ointment but hey nothings perfect.


This show is amazing! I love each and every episode. Carrie is a spitfire and Doug is a lovable and at times a moron. Arthur, Spence, Danny, Deacon and Carrie's Boss add just a nice end touch to the show, tying up all of the funny, pee in your pants moments. In one of the seasons, Doug tries to get Carrie drunk, because she is nicer when she is drunk. Nice husband right? Carrie isn't much better, when her boss needs a IPS driver to testify in a small case at her job, Carrie hesitates, because she views Doug as a slob and doesn't want him to embarrass her, so she hires Doug's friend instead. Wife of the year. But, who i believe to be funniest is yell-at-random Arthur. He is drop-dead hilarious, and angry. Hey, you would be too if you had to live in a basement where the mold has a funny smell and makes you dizzy. This show is hilarious, and if you haven't seen it yet, then you haven't lived!


this show is the best it is full of laughs and Kevin James is the best so if you want a good show i recommend the king of queens and its a letdown that they canceled it so in the end this show will make you forget your worries and troubles cause if you have a cast with Kevin James and jerry stiller you cant go wrong. so i don't know why the canceled the show if any one knows please tell me.now a days you cant find a lot of shows that fulfill your needs as an audience.after Seinfeld and king of queens the only show worth watching is prison break and if that stops i don't know what to do. in the end if i had to recommend a show it will be king of queens.


Just want to inform you guys that this movie was actually pretty good !!!

Thought it was a lame ass movie, but not at all, many moments in this movie wore pretty horrifying.

This movie has enough blood, gore, and some sexy make out scenes of course, to keep any horror buff like me 100% satisfied! The cast was also pretty good IMO.

Even though its not a high budget movie, the effects wore definitely kinda creepy sometimes.

Worth watching if u like a kick ass horror movie thats for sure!!

- Tom


As far as Christian film goes,it's typical.Lacking of a mega-budget they try their best.Some times falling short,sometimes hitting the mark.This one almost hit, great acting can only carry a movie so far.A combining of H.P. Lovecraft,and Frank Peretti was a good idea.All's it needed was better back story, and better character development to make it great movie.The visuals are not that bad,also smart holding off the demons till the last few minutes helped keep the suspense at a good pace.Could of used a better ending though.Not a bad premise having terrorists experiments go wrong.Much better than typical Hollywood treatment about the demonic realm.Maybe someone will finally do "This present darkness" as a movie.


When the movie first started I thought cheesy. The first ten minutes were really boring. After the slow beginning and some of the soap opera antics, I started liking it. The plot was different than anything I had ever seen. Now, was it a horror? Not really. It shouldn't have been classied as a horror or the producers should have put more money into the movie to make it scary. As it was, the creatures where only there for a short time. I can only assume this was for money reason.

The good side was that the movie was very entertaining. It held my interest (after the start) and did make me wonder about creatures from another dimension.

It was obvious that this was a first time movie for the director, but there were a couple of highlights. By the end, I was hooked. Too bad Hollywood didn't put more money behind this.


An RKO Short Subject.

A group of rowdy little bullies are given a lesson in tolerance by crooner Frank Sinatra, who compares America to THE HOUSE I LIVE IN.

This little film delivers a pertinent message about the evils of prejudice & bias. Sinatra is an absolute natural in front of the camera; intense & sincere, he is the perfect spokesperson for the values espoused here.

Sinatra sings The House I Live In,' by Lewis Allan & Earl Robinson. This fine tune, with a solid, pro-American message, is being given something of a comeback since the horrendous events of September 11, 2001.

After Pearl Harbor, Hollywood went to war totally against the Axis. Not only did many of the stars join up or do home front service, but the output of the Studios was largely turned to the war effort. The newsreels, of course, brought the latest war news into the neighborhood theater every week. The features showcased battle stories or war related themes. Even the short subjects & cartoons were used as a quick means of spreading Allied propaganda, the boosting of morale or information dissemination. Together, Uncle Sam, the American People & Hollywood proved to be an unbeatable combination.


It's sometimes difficult to watch such self-avowed "message films" from an earlier, seemingly-simpler era without a certain degree of cynicism. The issue of racism and religious tolerance is one that has been drummed into us from an early age, and, as we've grown, teachers and authority figures have sought out less blatant yet equally-effective means of getting the message across. 'The House I Live In (1945)' is about as unsubtle as "message films" come, and Frank Sinatra seems to be treating his audience like a child  indeed, perhaps this was the point, as the short was no doubt intended primarily to influence younger film-goers. Even so, I found myself curiously affected when Sinatra launched into that sincere patriotic speech about what it really means to be an American and I'm not even an American! Released just two months after the end of WWII, director Mervyn LeRoy greeted war-weary audiences with a message of tolerance, togetherness and, above all else, hope. The music ain't bad, either.

Fresh-faced Frank Sinatra  already a star, but not yet the superstar he'd become  opens the film in a recording studio, booming out "If You Are But a Dream" with a full orchestral accompaniment. When, between songs, Frank goes outside for a smoko, he observes a large group of kids bullying a young Jewish boy, their taunts provoked purely by his differing religion. Ol' Blue Eyes quickly puts a stop to this childish behaviour, delicately branding the bullies "Nazi werewolves" and scolding their irrational prejudice. He then earnestly and good-naturely lectures the group on the plain silliness of racial and religious discrimination, assuring them that every American culture, however it differs from our own, is still American at heart unless, of course, you're one of those bloody "Japs." There's a hint of hypocrisy in pleading for racial tolerance while presenting one nation as the collective enemy, though you could hardly blame Hollywood for being less than enthusiastic about the plight of the Japanese in 1945.

Sinatra drives his point home with a wonderfully heartwarming rendition of "The House I Live In," which was written in 1943 by Abel Meeropol. When the songwriter first heard the song on film, he was furious that the filmmakers had completely excluded three of his verses, which he considered crucial to the message. These omissions were most likely due to time restraints, but Meeropol understandably didn't take too kindly to them, and reportedly had to be ejected from the cinema. When it was first released, 'The House I Live In' was deemed such an important short film that it won a Golden Globe for "Best Film for Promoting International Good Will" and a Honorary Oscar for all involved. In 2007, it was judged to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and added to the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, which is how I came to hear of it. While its approach may seem a little hokey sixty years later, this film remains quite watchable thanks to a young fella named Frank Sinatra.


This short subject gathered kudos from all kinds of places for its plea for religious toleration.

After a session at a recording studio Frank Sinatra leaves and comes upon a group of kids beating up on another because he was Jewish. He lectured them as only an American icon could about the meaning of prejudice and what we had just fought for against the Nazis. The meaning could not be clearer.

Both songs from this short subject were recorded and sold big for Columbia records. If You Are But A Dream and the song written for the film, The House I Live In. The latter is one of the best songs about an idealized version of America, we'd all like to strive for.

Sinatra in fact recorded The House I Live In again during the Sixties for a joint album he did for his Reprise record label. The album is now a rarity and it shouldn't be. His collaborators were Bing Crosby and Fred Waring and his Pennsylvanians with the orchestra conducted by Nelson Riddle.

Axel Stordahl was Sinatra's primary music conductor and arranger during the forties. When he died that position eventually fell to Nelson Riddle. Stordahl does the orchestration for the short and the Columbia record, Riddle for the Reprise record.

Sinatra aficionados and others should listen to both back to back and compare. And catch this worthwhile film whenever it is shown.


Frank Sinatra starred in this odd little short from RKO that is now in the public domain. The film came out at about the same time the war ended and is a nice plea for religious tolerance.

The film begins with Sinatra on stage singing. After leaving the stage, he walks out into the alley and finds a group of kids picking on another because of his religion. Instead of yelling at the boys (or helping them for that matter), Sinatra delivers a nice civics lesson on religious toleration and equates prejudice with fascism. The kids seem to get the lesson but then, out of the blue, Sinatra begins singing a song that, frankly (get it?), kids would have hated. He had a lovely voice but unfortunately I think this detracted from the excellent message he gave to the kids about tolerance. It's a case of a good message with too much singing--even if the guy singing is Frank Sinatra. It's also an interesting curio--a nice historical piece that is often overlooked...plus it's quite touching even if it seems a bit schmaltzy.


Sometimes reading the user comments on IMDB fills me with despair for the species. For anybody to dismiss 2001: A Space Odyssey as "boring" they must have no interest in science, technology, philosophy, history or the art of film-making. Finally I understand why most Hollywood productions are so shallow and vacuous - they understand their audience.

Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.

2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.

Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.

I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10.


For all those bewildered by the length and pace of this film ("like, why does he show spaceships docking for, like, 15 minutes?"), here's a word you might want to think about:

Beauty.

 Beauty is an under-rated concept. Sure, you'll often see nice photography and so on in films. But when did you last see a film that contains beauty purely for the sake of it? There is a weird belief among cinemagoers that anything which is not plot or character related must be removed. This is depressing hogwash. There is nothing wrong with creating a beautiful sequence that has nothing to do with the film's plot. A director can show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, and it is neither illegal nor evil to do so.

 '2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of film, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films.

 "All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde.


Instead of writing a paragraph, I'll give four good reasons why 2001 is the greatest cinema experience of all time: 1) It is a visual Odyssey that could only be told on the big screen. The special effects that won Kubrick his only Oscar are the most stunning effects before that age of Jurassic Park and T2. They allow Kubrick to give an accurate (or at least are the most accurate) depiction of space travel to date. The silence that fills the space scenes not only serves its purpose as accurate science, but also adds to the mood of the film (to be discussed in a later point with HAL). The fact that Kubrick shot the moon scenes before the Apollo landing is a gutsy yet fulfilling move. Many have said that upon its original release, it was a favorite "trip" movie. I can think of no other movie that has such amazing visuals for its time and even of all time (sorry Phantom Menace fans!) 2) Kubrick's directing style is terrific. As in all his films, Kubrick likes to use his camera as means to delve into the psychology of his characters and plots. His camera is not as mobile as other greats, such as Scorsese, but instead sits and watches the narrative unfold. Faces are the key element of a Kubrick film. Like classic movies, such as M and Touch of Evil, Kubrick focuses on the characters' faces to give the audience a psychological view-point. Even he uses extreme close-ups of HAL's glowing red "eye" to show the coldness and determination of the computerizd villain. I could go on, but in summation Kubrick is at the hieght of his style. 3) HAL 9000 is one of the most villainous characters in film history. I whole-heartedly agree with the late Gene Siskle's opinion of HAL 9000. Most of this film takes place in space. Through the use of silence and the darkness of space itself, a mood of isolation is created. Dave and his crewmen are isolated between earth and jupiter, with nowhere to escape. Combine this mood with the cold, calculated actions of HAL 9000 and you have the most fearful villain imaginable. I still, although having see this film several times, feel my chest tighten in a particular scene. 4) The controversial ending of 2001 always turns people away from this film. Instead of trying to give my opinion of the what it means and what my idea of 2001's meaning in general is, I'd like to discuss the fact that the ending serves to leave the movie open-ended. Kubrick has stated that he inteded to make 2001 open for discussion. He left its meaning in the hands of the viewer. By respecting the audience's intelligence, Kubrick allowed his movie to be the beginning, not the end, of a meaningful discussion on man's past, present, and future. The beauty of 2001 is that the ending need not mean anything deep, it can just be a purely plot driven explanation and the entire movie can be viewed as an entertaining journey through space. No other movie, save the great Citizen Kane, leaves itself open to discussion like 2001. It is truly meant to be a surreal journey that involves not only the eye but the mind. Instead of waiting in long lines for the Phantom Menace, rent a widescreen edition of 2001 and enjoy the greatest cinematic experience.


A review I have put off for far too long....

Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.

Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.

The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.

While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.

Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.

All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.

Very highly recommended.


I spent many a sleepless night after watching 2001. Not only because of the psychological horror (of which 2001 is a masterpiece) but also because of the way it brought me (a restless soul) some clarity to the way I observe the universe. It changed my way of thinking in a very profound way. And after reading the novel (by Arthur C. Clarke) I found myself once again inspired (a writer as I am) by the level of imagination.

The Space Odyssey is not something one can just "go and see". One has to be ready for it, or it cannot be understood. In fact I don't think it can be understood at all, at least not all of it at once. It is a philosophical journey to the infinite and beyond, a masterpiece of it's genre and still after 32 years technically quite impressive all the way to the powerful musical soundtrack featuring 'Also spracht Zarathustra' by Richard Strauss and 'Blue Danube' by Johann Strauss.

Take all the time you want, but eventually you are going to have to see this film. If it can bring some order and understanding to the universe of a struggling artist like me, it can certainly do it for you as well.

Or maybe I'm just plain crazy...


I write this review just after hearing of Stanley Kubrick's death. It's a great loss, and I write about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, because I feel it is the consummate Kubrick film, the one he will be most remembered for. It is a picture like no other, not only revolutionizing science fiction, but changing the way films are conceptualized. It was probably America's first 'art' film and has inspired the likes of George Lucas and countless other writers and directors.

Aside from its visual greatness, the reason the film spawns so much discussion and analysis is because so many people have so many different interpretations of it. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, his co-writer, had a vision, but we have never really found out what was going through their minds. Of course, the skinny on its 'message' is how technology of the future will take over humanity and decide the course of our lives unless we are careful. 2001's ending is one of hope, a version of our rebirth through the star-child's flight back to earth. It is meaningless to many, but discerning filmgoers will understand.

Although 2001 does not have the wicked, dark humor of DR. STRANGELOVE or CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or contain strong, eccentric characters that filled his earlier works like PATHS OF GLORY or SPARTACUS, I still feel he would've liked to be remembered most for this. If anything, HAL will be his most memorable character, dangerous, murderous, and artificial. It was a half-decade in the making at a time when Hollywood was still churning out dull musicals and just waking up to the New Wave of French and Italian cinema. Kubrick was a maverick director who made great films on his own terms, his own time, and for everyone else to marvel at. He will be missed.


This movie is certainly one of the greatest films ever made. It is a story told in a steady pace, told mostly not by words but by cinematic means of expression. Perfect blend of spectacular special effects and classical music bring to life creations of human imagination in both realistic and poetical way. The story itself is quite simple at a first glance. As the title implies, there is an archetypal journey, a motive repeated for thousands of years. This motive was always used not only to depict a trip in space and time, and beyond, but also had rich philosophic meaning. The film is a poetical contemplation of most exciting eternal questions. It is not just an odyssey of a person; it is an odyssey of our species. The film is great by itself, yet, in my case, the impression from it will always be mingled with that from the book. I've read it at the age of 10, really not thinking about problems like 'what is the relationship between evolution of humankind and development of human morality'. But the impression was great enough to make me fall for entire genre of science fiction.

The day I learned '2001' got only special effects Oscar and was not even nominated for the Best Picture was the day when 'Academy Award' completely became two words meaning nothing to me.


Mankind's Self awakening is the theme of "2001: A Space Odyssey", a process that unfolds along a space-time continuum. We "see" our primordial past, and we "infer" a cosmic future. The powers of intuition thus become the doors of perception, in our ongoing collective journey.

From this transcendental perspective, a conventional, egocentric plot seems superfluous. Our frenzied conflicts and self-important dialogue are consumed in evolutionary change, and are irrelevant in a cosmos that is vast beyond comprehension. It's a tough lesson for a vain and aggressive species. Not surprising then that some of us huff and puff about the film's slowness and minimal story. For perceptive viewers, the remuneration is an inspirational sense of wonder and awe.

In this film, which is mostly visual, geometric symbols guide our intuition. Circles and arcs represent nature. Right angles represent conscious intelligence. Some people think the sleek, black monolith is a Von Neumann probe. Maybe. Without doubt, the monolith is a visual metaphor for an extraterrestrial intelligence whose physical form is never shown. Mystery is more profound than explanation.

"2001 ... " is unique among films in content and scope. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, the special and visual effects are breathtaking, and the classical music is sublime. I rarely use the word "masterpiece" to describe a movie. But Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is art in the highest sense, like Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", or Vincent Van Gogh's "The Starry Night".


"200l: A Space Odyssey" is a supremely intriguing space-travel journey with a profound look at mankind's future... It is one of the very few great films of our times... It gives us something to think, talk and argue... It wonders about our importance in the universe and ignites our imagination and curiosity... It inspires us to dig for insights...

As a science fiction fantasy, it is one of the most original films ever made... Kubrick's camera dances to the "Blue Danube" with planets floating exuberantly through the light years... It's an experience in the poetry of motion, a rich statement to the power of cinema...

But "2001" reveals that it's not really a science fiction film after all... It's, instead, a philosophical enigma, a magnificent meditation on man's place in the grand scheme of things, and a quest to understand ourselves by knowing all else...

"2001" is a unique film about man's evolution told in almost subliminal terms... The people in this classic science-fiction epic hardly matter... Kubrick relates a chronology in images of thingsthe mountains, the desert, the technology, the space capsule, the computer named HAL (who is more interesting than the humans), and the time warp... The final landing scene is the very hallmark of cinematic genius...

As a terror story, too, it is a towering achievement (not on the same scream-inducing level as Hitchcock's "Psycho"), but in an innocent and far more haunting way...The film uses invisible but powerful forces to manipulate the plot but perhaps the most overwhelming one is the picture's vision of man... In Kubrick's fantasy, the Golden Age of man was a neglected instant between a man-ape's exaltation at discovering the first weapon and a nuclear-powered spaceship floating in a graceful orbit around the Earth... Man has indeed evolved!

As a spectacle "2001" assaults the mind, eye and ear, with stimulating images and suggestions... We are surrounded by a totally believable futuristic environment... The film is filled with brilliant sequences and extraordinary moments: The first interesting minutes in which the story of the apes is told visually, without a single line of dialog; the zero-gravity toilet with its great list of instructions; the stewardess defying gravity by walking the walls calmly upside down; the frightening moment when we realize that HAL is reading the astronauts lips; the magical alignments of Sun, Moon, and Earth; the "Starchild" returning home to charm the orb...

"2001" is filled with poetic imagery: the view of the Sun rising over the Earth; the tossing of the bone into the air in slow motion; the slow images of the giant spaceship revolving in a cosmic ballet...

"2001" is also a work of great visual acuity... It allows us to view more than the mystery of existence and destiny implicit in every man... Its end troubles many viewers as they demand clarity where there can only be mystery... They insist upon an answer where there can only be a question... Every viewer had a different explanation of the mysterious end of Kubrick's film But for those who can accept mysticism, the climax is deeply moving...


Like a Circle around the human condition, 2001 starts at the beginning, skips the middle, and proceeds to the ending, right back where we started. Noting the weakness of words compared to image(s), Kubrick wisely dispenses with dialogue, preferring the power and essence of the scenery, and allowing the intelligence of the audience to do the deciphering. Or not, depending on the audience.

A monolith in cinematic history, 2001 is a high water mark of direction, execution, and achievement. If one considers the ambition of the film (a film about everything), and the measure of success the film achieved to that end, a very sound argument for this being the greatest of all films can be made.


I'm always surprised, given that the famous title track of 2001 is called "Also sprach Zarathustra", that nobody (nobody I've read, anyway) has noted the parallels between the movie and Nietzsche's famous work, "Also sprach Zarathustra". The idea of man's rebirth into a star child; an infant form of an indescribably more advanced being, is an explicit part of N.'s "Zarathustra"; there is a prominent passage called "On how a camel becomes a lion, and a lion becomes a child", in which N. describes the first incarnation of the overman as a child, transcending both the ascetic, altruistic side of man (the camel; always asking to bear more weight) and the rapacious, brutish, will-to-power side of man (the lion). The fact that the song plays during the star child sequence can hardly be coincidence. And also, Zarathustra said that "man is a rope tied between beasts and the overman." The structure of the movie fits that description: a brief history of man as beast, until we become truly man by mastering weapons and acquiring reason, then a long sequence about man (the rope, as it were), and then a brief glimpse of the overman. The inscrutability of how these transformations occurred, and the suggestion that an external force caused them, is also Nietzschean; in "Zarathustra", he makes it pretty clear that he doesn't have a clue how people are going to be able to enact these changes themselves and suggests that we will have to depend on an outsider (Zarathustra) to show us how to "go under". Bowman's psychedelic sequence at the near-end could be seen as Kubrick's best 1960's-style attempt at depicting the mystical "going under".

I know these parallels are pretty broad, and almost certainly have been noted elsewhere despite the fact that I have not personally seen it. But I just wanted to mention them, if for no other reason than to try to dispel the myth that Nietzsche was ultimately a gloomy philosopher. Few people find the ending of 2001 to be gloomy, and it is in my opinion, explicitly and unmistakeably Nietzschean. The case could certainly be made that 2001 is above all a dramatization of "Zarathustra" updated for the modern age. Feel free to disregard the outright snobbishness of my tying everything to Nietzsche.


This movie is not just good, its amazing. Besides providing us with good performances, original plot, fantastic special effects, thoughtful messages and a lot more, it was an, until then, completely unseen world to the public. This is the first sci-fi movie that takes us out into the unknown space of our galaxy with such splendid effects and mind bursting reality that the audience is left without words. I am only 16 years old, and therefore I was raised into a world of modern effects and 3D animations in the movies. But nonetheless I was really, and I mean completely, blown away by the quality of these effects, even after almost 40 years. The visual effects was just one of the merits of this movie, the camera was in true Kubrick style amazing and enchanting. It feels like you are consumed by the screen and sucked into this surreal world (especially in the round control room or whatever you call it). The effects, the camera and the sheer size of this movie caught me of my guards even though I had seen the rating before I bought it. But this movie has more to it than this. The meaning of this movie can also be interpreted as you wish yourself, even though I think there are some clear points concerning humanity (also true Kubrick style). How humanity on top of its evolution is just maintenance on board, and therefore not needed by the computer, one of humanities tools. How we in space appear like babies, learning to walk once more, losing control of our tools in zero-gravity, breathing through equipment as fish out of water. On the peak of evolution, we set out into the never-ending adventure as simple primates. Many might think that the length and slow pace of this movie is, boring? ridicules? or just a waste of time. But before you can jump to those conclusions, think about why Kubrick spends time with calm music and a spaceship in the middle of space for several minutes. This is to illustrate the beauty of it. Beauty, beauty is in many cases not granted the rightful respect by viewers. Kubrick wants to show us beauty, and if we do not succumb to it and relax, we can not enjoy this film as it was intended. This is not an ordinary movie, we can not just sit and watch as we can with some other movies, this requires time, thoughts and above all commitment and feelings to watch. All of this together, makes this one of the greatest achievements in the world of moving pictures. 10/10 Let me know if you agree with me.


Spoilers ahead.

2001: a Space Odyssey is without a doubt the most challenging and successful film by the late Stanley Kubrick. This is not a film that you watch in order to be entertained or amused. Instead it provides you with a banquet of food for thought, images that linger in the mind's eye long after the movie itself is over. It is a film that you could meditate on.

 The film intentionally offers us more questions then it can answer, it is made to puzzle and mystify, but leaves the viewer nevertheless with a sense of awe and reverence (that is allowing that he has engaged himself in the process of viewing it, enjoyment of this film requires some effort on the viewers part) the questions that it does pose are large and ominous, concerning the genesis and destiny of the human race, it's ultimate place in the cosmic design and the existence or lack of some creative intelligence behind the structure of the universe itself.

 The first of the films Four Quartets gives us a distinct view of the species past. We see our distant ancestors, half-ape half human, in a state of near starvation. The climate has destroyed most of the plant life and the vegetarian beasts are near starvation. An extra-terestial object, a perfectly smooth and angular black monolith, appears and the animals are simultaneously inspired by it's presence to tool-making and violence. They are transformed overnight into carnevores, and when two tribes encounter each other near a water source, the tribe that has developed tool making capacity, as well as beligerence, soundly destroys the neighboring tribe. The new chief of the winning tribe, empowered by the first vestiges of technology triumphantly throws the bone that he used as a weapon in the air. We see the bone transformed into a floating satellite, which contains nuclear weapons. We soon learn that the world is torn apart by nuclear paranoia. The characteristics inspired by the monument's appearance that once helped us to survive now threaten our very existence.

 Once again humanity is in crisis, once again the unearthly presence represented by the black monolith will step in to aid humanity in the next step in it's development. On an exploration of the Moon a monolith identical to the earlier one we have seen is discovered. The governments of the world, normally mortal enemies, have come together in secret to discuss the implications. A mission is arranged. the monument has been engaged in some kind of radio communication with Jupiter. A few men will travel to the destination of the transmission. Most of them will, for most of the time, be kept in a state of suspended animation. The pilot of the spacecraft will be HAL a super computer who has been programmed to imitate all of the traits of human beings.

 The film has many outstanding sequences. As usual for Kubrick the use of classical music is outstanding. Most memorable are "Blue Danube" and "Also Spake Zarathustra" (particularly appropriate given the film's theme of transcending ordinary consciousness.) The cinematography is particularly excellent as well, after a single viewing the film's final 30 minutes will haunt you for the rest of your life.

 The character of HAL is the most important from the view of the film's central thesis. In imitating all the characteristics of human beings he comes to have their negative traits as well. The paranoia he develops which almost leads to the mission' s ruin is an exact mirror of the paranoia that has allowed the political situation back on earth to reach a point of desperate crisis. The film suggests that these are the traits that we must leave behind if we are to proceed to the next phase in our evolution.

 The architecture of the film is also meaningful. The designs of many of the spacecraft are intended to suggest reproductive organs and the process of birth and rebirth, the central motif of the movie. The ending of 2001 is the most spectacular and triumphant ever filmed.

 This movie takes a view of life similar to that presented in the poetry of William Butler Yeats and James Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake. It posits a pattern to history and human evolution that is cyclic, yet progressive, repeating the same events at large intervals, yet with the human race as developing according to the will of a being with a larger purpose in mind. Though we never learn what this purpose is, the film assures us that the human race is not meant for failure, it's destiny is grand beyond it's capacity to imagine. It continues to amaze me that in spite of this film many people continue to regard Kubrick as a misanthrope.

 This is a religious film, not in the conventional sense of adhering to any specific creed, but because of it's invocation of wonder at the vast panorama of existence and it's involvement with the deepest and most vital questions of purpose and truth.

 In the hands of any other director, this would all be perhaps a little too much. Hollywood's view of life is too puny, usually to encompass the grandeur and intensity of a vision such as this one. But Kubrick was a visionary, he directs with utter confidence, not only that he can handle material of this kind, but that he is the only one to do it. The process of making this film used all of his creative resources. The writing partnership with Arthur C Clarke is the most fruitful in cinematic history. Kubrick had to invent some of the special effects that were used in the movie's astounding climax. The resources to bring his vision to life did not exist at the time, so he brought them into existence.

 2001 is a absolutely unique movie experience. Those who miss out on it do so at the detriment of their own intellectual and imaginative capacities.


2001: A Space Odyssey

Is it a sermon? An account of the history of mankind? An exploration of man's futile attempts to advance technology only to have technology destroy him? Is it about the fragile balance of time and space? A lesson in evolution? Or is it just a spectacular effects show; a film Kubrick made only to show us the limitless possibilities of the motion picture and present to us the truth that images are exceedingly more powerful than words?

2001: A Space Odyssey is all of these things. One of the most interpretable films ever created, it's almost more fun to dissect and discuss the ambiguous plot design and events of the film, than it is to actually watch. But it's left open to discussion intentionally; if Kubrick had explained the meaning to his wondrous 1968 classic (ranked #22 on AFI's list of the greatest 100 films ever made, my personal 21st favorite filmcurrently--, and nominated for 4 Academy Awards: Director, Original Screenplay, Art Direction, and Visual Effects which it won for) it would have lost half its fascination, all of its complexity, and a good portion of its cinematic worth. We would only be left with the technical ingenuity; which in itself is worth praising.

Because every shot is worth taking the time to look. And there is plenty of time. 2001 is very elegiac, and also coolly distant; detached. The emotional remoteness and slow pace pay perfect tribute however to the unique visual experience; 2001 begins with mankind's ape ancestors, who upgrade from scavengers of the planet to hunters and toolmakers after discovering a giant monolith in the midst of their desert home, then (in one of motion picture history's most inspired jump-cut edits) as a bone is tossed into the air and becomes a satellite, jumping forward a couple thousand years into space, where astronauts have discovered a similar object on the moon, and next the film following a crew of space traveler's mission as they follow the monolith's signal through space, accompanied by their untrustworthy computer HAL, who attempts to sabotage the shuttle and kill the crew, before finally the lone survivor is launched through space and time (in a flurry of drug-induced colors that probably gave hippies an epileptic shock back in the day) to grow old, die, and be reborn a "Star-child". Whew.

This pacing and emotional blankness, is also in sharp contrast with the film's most ironic scene; the destruction of HAL. As the crew's final explorer shuts the machine down, bathed in the holy aura of red light Kubrick has always used as a repeat motif, HAL singing a lovely tune, it is a strangely emotional experience. And it's all genius.

Other notable aspects of Kubrick's masterpiece is the memorable voice of HAL (a calm, somehow sinister, Douglas Rain), the minimal use of dialogue (Kubrick was wisely trusting of his images to propel the film; giving only banal, unhelpful lines to his actors. The most famous being "Open the pod bay doors HAL"), satellites dancing around in orbit to unorthodox music, and that first, awe-inspiring shot of earth; slowly revealing the glare of the sun in front of it, played to the sound of blasting, triumphant horns.

2001 shall always remain a mystery, and will forever be a testament to the cinema's strongest point: visuals are more powerful than writing. It's all from one of film history's most legendary and best directors, whose unique vision, was always his own. 10/10

"Open the pod bay doors HAL"-2001: A Space Odyssey


"2001: A Space Odyssey" is set in 2001 and the main character is HAL. A computer. That's right, a computer who talks and thinks entirely on its own. This was made in 1968 and to think by 2001 it would be conceivable that computers would talk is a joke. If this was in 3064, a talking computer that had emotions and made its own decisions would be considered just as moronic as this. There is nothing in this film that provokes any kind of emotion. It provokes two reactions and one is called: sleep. It starts with nothing, but a pitch black shot for well over two minutes. Then, the first shot we see that has some kind of lighting is "The Dawn of Man" sequence. So, if it's in chronological order, the blackness prior to this, is the birth of the world?

During "The Dawn of Man" sequence out of no where, a huge monolith comes from out of the ground, from the sky, we'll never know where it comes from, but for one reason or another it's there. The monkeys go Apesh!t once they find this monolith that only man could have made, but that's the catch man hasn't evolved yet. So, who made it and where did it come from? What is its purpose? The monkeys find a tool. The monkeys use bones to fight an opposing group of monkeys. The monkeys with the weapons are now the dominating group because they have used their mind to gain an advantage. The more advanced monkeys, and more importantly smarter and more innovative monkeys, are the dominate group as they have taken over the watering hole.

We quickly jump into space, millions of years later, where we see a bunch of spaceships floating around to classical music. We can see the earth, the moon, the sun, the universe and for a film made in 1968 the visual effects are stunning, but outdated. The score is legendary. The cinematography is spectacular. The editing is atrocious. There are countless shots of boxy looking space ships floating in outer space for, what feels like, an infinite amount of time. Once we board the ship there isn't much to talk about. For the next hour Kubrick shows various shots of life in outer space. Kubrick shows us the life of an astronaut, which is very boring, and we completely get the message. The spaceships interior and exterior are bulky and outdated looking. Remember what the first cell phone looked like? Me neither, but that's what the future looks like in 2001. All the characters have clothes and hairdos that resemble 1968. The chairs are decorated in bright red colors and oddly shaped because we all know, in the future, we're going to be sitting in weird looking chairs. The computer screens are hideous looking and this is obviously prior to HDTV because the clarity is atrocious. All the TV sets look like they're from 1968, so it's not all that futuristic. Like all films set more than 20 years in advance, they look terrible and unconvincing. Just because this is Kubrick, we shouldn't say, "Well, that's how you would think it looks." No, I wouldn't. Just, like I wouldn't think a computer would be talking to me in the year 2047. It's not going to happen and if someone made a film right now, set 30 years in time and had a talking, self thinking computer, I would laugh at the stupidity of it. Just like I did with "2001".

HAL is the liveliest person, shoot I just called him a person. HAL is a computer, but he has more life than any of the muted characters in the film and he actually thinks he's alive. HAL is the only thing that's lively and he sees the humans as his maintenance men taking care of him while he does all the work. HAL "reads" the lips, of one of the very few conversations between Dave and Frank, and he "sees" that they are planning to turn him off. This is where the only dramatic part of the film enters- An ensuing battle between a red light and a guy in a spaceship trying to get into the bigger spaceship. Oh, the drama. Once HAL thinks he has the upper hand, Dave makes his way back into the spaceship, proving mans ingenuity. Dave proceeds to terminate HAL. HAL, pleads for his life as he slowly fades away, which, like everything else, seems to take forever.

The final act is just as tedious as the first two. Once again, the monolith that the Apes found appears at the end. It comes out of nowhere, again. Then, an infant is born in a placenta-like shield overlooking the earth from space. What is Kubrick saying? Is it about transformation? Dave to an infant? Is man evolving again? Is Kubrick saying this is the end of man and the start of whatever that alien looking thing is? Maybe I'm going crazy trying figure out what this crazy director is trying to say, but the more I think about the more the beginning and the ending make sense. There are so many questions left unanswered, especially for the purpose of the monolith. If you can make it through the film it should spark some thought.

In the end the film struggles with getting to where it wants go. The first act and the third acts are strong, but the second act meanders around, hovering in one place for what seems like eternity. There is some intriguing stuff in the film that will provoke some thought if you give it a chance. Once the start of the film makes sense the ending works much better, even if you still don't what Kubrick is trying to say, which I don't.


There is really no way to compare this motion picture to any other movie because no one has ever made anything like it and no one ever will. And it really should be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated. At the very least it deserves to be seen with a great sound system.

I saw this movie on the day it opened in 1968, my senior year in high school. I went because I like science-fiction and wanted to see a "space" movie. Remember this film was made before the first moon landing.

There we sat, waiting for it to begin. But, SURPRISE! There was no cartoon, no coming attractions. The theater owner at the Cooper Theatre for some reason chose to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the lights still up so we all stood, never did that at a movie before or since and then sat down again as it ended. Then the theatre went completely DARK and the strange overture began with the blank screen barely visible.

The overture ended and my seat began to VIBRATE as the blue screen with the MGM lion appeared, along with the first deep bass notes, and then my senses were overwhelmed, hearing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" for the first time in my life. The ride had just begun.

(I highly recommend you watch this opening, this film, in a DARK room with your subwoofer turned up as high as possible to get the effect I felt in that theatre.) Of course, it took quite awhile before we got to outer space and the movie that followed was anything but a science-fiction movie. INTERMISSION came (a good thing, highly under-rated and unused these days) and we all looked at each other in wonder, caught our breath, and then the ride resumed, wilder than before.

I saw it 7 more times within the next year, always in a real full size theater, like all theaters were before multiplexes. I might have been "high" once but I didn't go to see it again and again because I was "tripping". I went because I knew I was seeing a work of art. It was SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL; the sound that you could feel in your bones followed by terrifying silence; the sights unimagined and unimaginable; the affection for HAL turning to terror. And of, course, WTF was Kubrick really trying to get across to me? Years and years and many more viewings later, I understand it as well, I think, as I ever will. Read someone else's comments if you're looking for someone to explain it to you or search around the web, you'll find "explanations", that's not my purpose in writing these comments.

What I hope to do is encourage you to watch it patiently, enjoy it's beauty the way you would enjoy watching a sunset while listening to the most beautiful music you know of (e.g, Gayne Ballet Suite or the Blue Danube); savor it like you would a wonderful meal, sip it like a fine wine; look and listen for the clues and the hidden symbols that ARE there. And then draw your own conclusions. Stanley Kubrick WANTED to SHARE some things with you that he found beautiful and he wanted you to think about where you. a human, came from and where you're headed.

If that's too much work for your brain, and you can't see and hear and ponder the beauty and mystery of Kubrick's film, then, pardon my bluntness, but your life is about as meaningful as that of a tapir or a pre-monolith ape. If you want mindless escape, this isn't for you.

But if you like sunsets, thunderstorms, harmonies in music, mysteries, and sensuality and can have an open mind this film will add something to your life.


A film, first and foremost, should be good storytelling. It should be entertaining - and entertaining doesn't necessarily mean "laughs", and it doesn't necessarily mean "light". It basically means you're not bored while watching it.

As brilliant as 2001 may be, it is a difficult film to watch, especially for the current (video-game-playing/iPod fumbling) generation. Its slow pace and the sometimes intolerable amount of time it takes for an actor to perform a single action (e.g. the attempt to rescue the crew member floating in space) will stretch your patience. On the other hand, the cinematography is brilliant, the film cleverly directed, the ending thought-provoking and the score...the score is chilling, especially as the crew in the transporter approaches the artifact on the moon. Boy, I had goose bumps, big time. This doesn't happen often when I watch films, and is a testament to Kubrick's directing skills.

It IS considered a classic, and many people consider it the best science-fiction film of all time. That alone is a good reason to watch it if you haven't done so yet. However, just because everybody else thinks it's a brilliant film doesn't mean you have to force yourself to like it. You either will (like it) or you won't. Perhaps the slow pace isn't such a bad thing, after all. Directing your attention to something rather static and slow-paced for 2 1/2 hours might teach you a lesson. It will certainly be a different experience to all these fast-moving, fast-paced images we are subjected to these days (whether commercials, music videos or video games).

I myself think it's a "memorable" film. But not one I'm eager to watch again anytime soon (unless I'm in a particular mood for slow-paced films).

Hence, 7 stars out of 10 from me.