Lamborghini Aventador Reviews

2001: A Space Odyssey is incredible mess of movie, the writers Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke obviously felt that a lot of random uninteresting long scenes make a whole film. It has a plot which doesn't go anywhere: In the opening scene monkeys learn the use of the bone as a weapon, it then suddenly cuts to a man on a spaceship who we follow for about an hour and then disappears totally from the film. However the middle part the film gets more interesting as we follow a different character who is held captive by a crazy machine called HAL, but that story slowly becomes more incomprehensible and uninteresting and we are introduced to the giant space baby. In conclusion, the film goes absolutely nowhere. The film is only worth it for the brilliant special effects (the spaceships look really real, as opposed to nowadays CGI) and the one hour HAL segment.

This film gives the pretence of saying something profound or deep but does not. Just because a film doesn't make sense or we don't understand what is happening, it doesn't make it a classic. All this film does is be pretentious: a giant space baby is shown and we're supposed to be awed and thought provoked, a monolith appears a few times and we're supposed to say "what does mean?" or "I don't understand it must be intelligent!" none of it means anything. There's a difference when a film genuinely has something to say or a message and when it likes to pretend it does, 2001 A Space Odyssey pretends it does with it's long-winded running time that boasts grandiose music and a long tedious scenes yet if you love style over substance or films that have no intelligence yet fool the audience into believing they do (Shawshank Redemption) then this film certainly is for you; yet if you want an intelligent plot- based film avoid this pretentious mess and you'll save 2hrs and half of your life; spend it on a Kubrick film that deserves the praise: "Paths of Glory" "The Killing" "Barry Lyndon" or "Dr Strangelove."

When you go to Google and write 2001, the first suggestion to pop up will be this film's name. Well, even 200 will do! What I am trying to do is introduce you to a marvelous science fiction film, a milestone and virtuoso cinematic achievement that has not yet been outdone by any film in the same genre. There are some people who find Kubrick's vision far out of the world but I bet no one can get away with out being a little curious. But what is it about? 2001 is the journey or more appropriately it's the story of evolution. Yes, of course Humans are primarily involved in this. Arthur Clarke wrote this wonderful story but Kubrick made the story more indirect. That's the thing about 2001. It's this artistic approach, rather than the story itself, that has made this film ingenious. The look of the film itself is so incredible that you forget it's a film, and try to go with the flow. 2001 has pretty impressive visual effects and impossible-to-explain shots that still drop my jaw, and it's better than Computer generated visual effects. The attention to detail is undeniable even for the most casual person.

Kubrick and Clarke's 2001 is so ahead of it's time that people never understood it in 1968 and not even now! It's because just like I said the artistic approach is quite complex equipped with extreme slow pace and a confusing conclusion. But that's my point, the film isn't for those audiences that forget a film right after watching it, Kubrick wanted to make his audiences think and for that he gives us time even after the reel had ended. If you are willing to think over what message Kubrick has secretly concealed in 2001, you won't be disappointed. The film shows us where we have been, where we are and where we might be in the future, from Clarke's and Kubrick's perspective of course. The problem is that our 2001 hasn't turned out what Kubrick imagined it would be. If you notice, man had still not landed on the Moon when 2001 came out, but the film still showed giant space stations and stations on Moon's surface. Kubrick's epic starting scene made the piece of music called "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" extremely famous and is frequently used to capture the same feeling, whether the scale is small or large. I got serious goosebumps myself.

I know that opinions differ and not every one likes the same thing in this case that thing is a movie. But at least give this film one chance. In conclusion, sometimes it's important to respect a director's perspective, his vision and his achievement. Kubrick possesses all these three factors very richly. So, Escape into the world of Kubrick's interpretation of the human evolution, whether it's fact or fiction, the result of which is so dazzling that missing this film will be idiotic.

Visit my facebook page: www.facebook.com/filmsthemostbeautifulart

(British voice) *fingering a scone* Oh, yes, it was *terribly* well done....perhaps a bit of a bore though. I mean, a *tad* hardboiled...wouldn't you agree?

Oh, here, take another English muffin, lad, cheer up....

*reverses from British to American accent, like a reverse Jamie Bamber*

Yeah, I mean, if you *like* the old-school, hard-boiled stuff, then this is totes the movie for you....

But, that's not my thang.

I mean, you can talk about how it was all technically NASA-grade (or BBC-grade) back in 1968, but, that brings up the point: 1968 is a long time ago. And if anybody ever tells you that anything labelled as a "classic" will never decline in its popularity or suddenly have its flaws and defects come out in a way that they didn't before, just because it's "classic", well....that's just a deluded false belief.

And yeah, I know that this director has done some stuff which I really do think is excellent....but I just don't think that this movie, is that.

And, in a genre already taken with drama, dry drama, and technical detail, and dull technical detail of the technical specs of imaginary robots and quotes from imaginary documentaries...(and encyclopedias, maybe?)...because it *was* already like that, back then--no, it was way *more* like that back then, *before* Star Wars...or Star Trek, even....

"It's like throwing gasoline on a flame."

And, you know, it's also a great example of this sort of, basically, snobby sci-fi, even worse than Patrick Stewart's campy Shakespearean Trek, this sort of "hard", hard-boiled, *way* harder than RDM, even, who, let's face it, is kinda hard.....and yeah, I'm sorry I'm being a bit of a Revan here, guys.....but, yeah, it's just this let's-win-awards, lets-show-the-NY-Times-that-were-real-hardcore-nerds-and-real-snobs....and, you know, the guys at the NY Times, or BBC, or whatever, are *never* going to respect you guys or think that you're "real" snobs....that's why they got their fancy uni job, or paper job, *or whatever it was*, so that they could be the "real" snobs, whereas you guys are just the "wannabe" snobs.

And, you know, to me, and a lot of other average "average", "normal" people...or, okay, sometimes wannabe-average, wannabe-normal....you're uh....still snobs.

*British voice* But cheep up, Yank, if you can't muster together the sterling to go on the Grand Tour, you can still go see Shakespeare in Plays in the Park, eh?

*British voice de-activated*

And, yeah, if you get all the way to the end, you get the funny line... about the door.

And, you know....if you're *really* clever, you might find a way to connect the "theme" (basically: "the thing it's really about", the thing, basically), of betrayal (via the robot), with, uh....well, certainly not with what I just did to you, eh?

*British voice* Here, have a scone and some jam, Junior....

....although, actually, I think that that movie was somewhat better. And it was also *not* sci-fi....kinda.

P.S. I suppose it's also as good of an example as any of the sort of sci-fi guy who thinks he's destined to become "a sort of minor prophet", but, I don't know. Really? I mean....

Really?

(6/10)

I am certain that I watched this film as a child or growing up, but watching it at 35 was a different experience. The technical achievement Kubrick made is undeniable, especially considering this was made in 1968. But what is really stunning is the intrepid artistic risks Kubrick makes. The metaphysical allegories that are not explained help ensure the piece will be timeless. That said, it's not the easiest film to watch these days. Two-and a half hours of unapologetic slowness - while artistically make sense, as he ensures the audience is part of this real world. Kubrick is not going for Monet, he's going to the realism of a portrait artist. He's not interested in flashing stuff by your retinas quickly so that you get the 'sense' of what has happened. Because of this, we buy into the fantastical happenings later in the film. But let's be honest, much like a symphony (perhaps something Kubrick is echoing with the films four parts) it takes patience, and maturity to appreciate.

It is probably the most highly regarded movie directed by Stanley Kubrick and you could argue about the fact this flick might be or not the best movie he has made but you can't argue the fact that this movie is the mother of all Sci-Fi movies that came afterwards. Indeed, even if you think it's slow and boring, you can't deny it has visually inspired all the Sci-Fi movies that came afterwards. Recently, I have seen 'Prometheus' which was a decent SF flick but also so disappointing in the sense that they tried to add some metaphysical elements but failed miserably. Here, Kubrick made a visually spellbinding SF feature and went metaphysical and it completely worked. I mean, the last 15 minutes are probably the most exhilarating piece of cinema I have seen in my entire life. As a viewer, it was a defining moment that I will never forget. I always find it rather amusing when the fans of 'The Matrix' argue about the great 'philosphy' behind this so-called 'masterpiece'. '2001' doesn't give you any answer, you have to look for them, you have to think the whole thing for yourself to make something of it, whereas in 'The Matrix', the meaning of life is that we are basically batteries and our brains are getting sucked out by some machine.... Give me a break! The only small critic I would have concerning this real masterpiece is that the pacing is rather sluggish but it is something marginal compared to the greatness of the whole endeavour. Anyway, to conclude, I think it is a great and very thoughtfull movie, a great landmark in motion picture history and it is a must see for any movie lover.

Before you crucify me I wish to clarify that my modest 6-star rating simply means I didn't personally enjoy this film to any great extent. It doesn't mean I don't recognize 2001 as an important film, or as a work of visionary genius. I'll emphatically admit that it is both of those things. It only means that while watching it I couldn't get over feeling that Kubrick is a pretentious a**hole enough to ever truly enjoy this movie. Which is fine. I can be a dick too, and I've never made any AFI lists. But c'mon dude! Stop reminding us every chance you get that you're making a "Great Film" and just make a great film. Ah well. The guy is a genius. He successfully, and nearly inextricably, married some of the greatest classical compositions ever recorded to HIS sci-fi opus, to HIS semi-profound excercise in cinematic, arm-chair philosophy. And managed to charm and intrigue enough critics, film-students, and civilians in the process to permanently cannonize 2001: A Space Odyssey as a benchmark in cinema history. Whatever. I can live with that. Just don't punch me in the face for not liking it. But please do feel free to bludgeon me with whatever blunt object is at hand if you ever catch me trying to impress someone by claiming to like 2001 more than Alien.

Cheers everyone. Enjoy the movie.

When a film, sixty years after it was made, still makes you wonder "How did they do that?" You know you're watching something of a technical masterstroke. But is 2001 also a fantastic showcase of content mixing with the presentation? Actually, it is. The story is a seemingly simplistic one, but the thing is we are never explained what is going on exactly. We are given hints and then we're allowed to use our own little brains to figure it out, and that's the best way to go with a story like this. And you know there is very little wrong with this film, because if you ask me there is about 10 minutes of footage here that should be removed. But of that time, about 2 minutes of stuff is spread out evenly throughout the film, and it doesn't work very well. First of all, the majority of the stuff I think should be cut is from the beginning, as I hate the fucking monkeys. I like the ape-scene, but when those things start screaming I hate it. I think Kubric easily could've trimmed several minutes out of all this without harming it as a whole, as to me atleast the point of the scene is made very clear in five minutes instead of the twenty it goes on for. The other bad stuff isn't necessarily bad, but mediocre or average. You see, with a film in which every shot is more beautiful than the one before it, when a bad or mediocre shot comes along it really breaks the mood and takes you out of the film. A good example of this are the extremely boring shots from within the cockpit early on in the movie. They're just plain dull to watch and always seem to take me out of the whole every time I see it. Shots like this are all over the movie, so it really does bother to me. I enjoy the movie regardless of this and it is a feast for the eye, the ear and the mind for most of the time. When it is, it's absolutely fantastic.

''I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.''

Mankind finds a mysterious, obviously artificial, artefact buried on the moon and, with the intelligent computer HAL, sets off on a quest.

Keir Dullea: Dr. Dave Bowman

''Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?''

2001: A Space Odyssey(often referred to as simply 2001) is a 1968 epic science fiction film directed by Stanley Kubrick released by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. The film deals with thematic elements of human evolution, technology, artificial intelligence, and extraterrestrial life, and is notable for its scientific realism, pioneering special effects, ambiguous imagery that is open-ended to a point approaching surrealism, sound in place of traditional narrative techniques, and minimal use of dialogue.
The film has a memorable soundtrack—the result of the association that Kubrick made between the spinning motion of the satellites and the dancers of waltzes, which led him to use the The Blue Danube waltz by Johann Strauss II, and the famous symphonic poem Also sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss, to portray the philosophical evolution of Man theorized in Nietzsche's homonymous work.



Upon seeing a few years ago I certainly had very high expectations for this film. Minimalist performances and a strong visual style makes this interesting if somewhat bizarre, I can assuredly say I've never seen anything quite like it.
What can I say? With 2001: A Space Odyssey it's best to start at the beginning, like the film begins with the surreal primitive origins of Man, with the first ape-like beings, especially focusing upon the one who figures out how to use handed tools/weapons represented by the bones.
The intelligent computer HAL, with a crazed nature to preserve itself was also clever and reflects every existing consciousnesses need for self preservation, anyone can sympathize or feel sorry for it when his memory banks are slowly erased.
The Monoliths/Domino-shaped monuments representation perhaps is the scariest aspect of 2001: A Space Odyssey because it is the perception of death or the void of nothingness. Is it an extraterrestrial relic or a starting point for life itself. Who knows? My interpretation would also be a constant, like space, which humanity or life itself can never escape. It is infinite, black and unexplainable, similar to the space and study upon which the film dwells.
While most audiences 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 questions 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 conclusion.
Simply put, 2001: A Space Odyssey is certainly among the best science-fiction films in history thanks to these elements. Stanley Kubrick was a genius, a devout film maker and this is one of his very best, very highest achievements.

Although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is now 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 special effects back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvellous after almost half a century!
Take note CGI people from today. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put upon 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 special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, harmonically classical and thriving, compliment what the eyes are perceiving, thus making you feel the significance of man's journey; His evolution from the Dawn of Man to a futuristic space traveller, to the Higher-Being Star Child guarding the Earth, creator and creation coming full circle.

Interestingly enough Stanley Kubrick initially approached Arthur C. Clarke by saying that he wanted to make "the proverbial good science-fiction movie". Clarke suggested that The Sentinel, a short story he wrote in 1948, story would provide a suitable premise. Clarke had written the story for a BBC competition, but sadly had evaded shortlist. The Sentinel corresponds only to the relatively short part of the movie that takes place on the moon.
The screenplay was written primarily by Stanley Kubrick and the novel primarily by Arthur C. Clarke, each working simultaneously and also providing feedback to the other. As the story went through many revisions, changes in the novel were taken over into the screenplay and vice versa. It was also unclear whether film or novel would be released first; So in the end it was the film which won the race. Kubrick was to have been credited as second author of the novel, but in the end was not. It is believed that Kubrick deliberately withheld his approval of the novel as to not hurt the release of the film.
Stanley Kubrick planned to have Alex North (who wrote the score for Kubrick's Spartacus(1960) write a musical score especially for the film. During filming, Kubrick played classical music on the set to create the right mood. Delighted with the effect, he decided to use classical music in the finished product. North's score has subsequently been released as "Alex North's 2001" (Varese/Sarabande 5400).
While it is indeed a long film, and sometimes grinds to a halt, it has to be done to accurately portray the journey of Man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter project, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply here.

Importantly left for the conclusion, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine or artificial being held such a chilling screen presence. HAL states at one point, ''It can only be attributable to human error.'' In HALs mind or consciousness, machines never make mistakes, only humans do. The truth remains that organic or artificial lifeforms can not always make perfect rational decisions. The matter of superiority and creation overcoming creator arises yet again. HAL is the representation of technology thinking for itself, and the dangers as well as implications of that realization coming true.
Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue, although it isn't needed or necessary. Indeed, another sign of Kubrick's minimalist genius and electrifying results in film.
Masterful Stanley Kubrick worked for several months with effects technicians to come up with a convincing effect for the floating pen in the shuttle sequence.
This level of dedication and devotion practically shows the level of love, sweat and tears the man has poured into the entire project and story.
Relentlessly, determined, Kubrick was trying many different techniques, without success, in the end Kubrick simply decided to use a pen that was taped to a sheet of glass and suspended in front of the camera. In fact, the shuttle attendant can be seen to pull the pen off the glass when she takes hold of it.
Simplicity through and through, yet achieving the pinnacle of advancement upon execution.
Stanley Kubrick was extremely well read and ahead of his time. It is rumoured that the image of the star-child came to him from the Spirit of the Earth in Percy Bysshe Shelley's Prometheus Unbound: "Within the orb itself, Pillowed upon its alabaster arms, Like to a child o'erwearied with sweet toil, On its own folded wings and wavy hair The Spirit of the Earth is laid asleep..."
An early draft of the script also had narration telling the story but in the end was not needed to tell the story. The visuals and imaginative happenings do that on there own effortlessly.

All in all, 2001: A Space Oddysee is one of the best Sci-Fi's out there and also one about the meaning of life and what happens afterwards. A personal Journey of Man, humanity and intelligence gracing transcendence. Everyone must see this film at least once.

''I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.''

"Good morning, Dave."

Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a truly groundbreaking, unforgettable, incredible science fiction experience unlike any other film you are ever likely to see. Kubrick is a true visionary, and the entire film is a visual feast that will be devoured by the eyes of science fiction fans.

Many filmgoers will look upon 2001 as a load of tripe that is boring beyond belief. While these people are entitled to their own opinion, I still regard the film as a masterpiece of the highest order.

2001 is a vastly unique film that is mysterious, thought-provoking and just immensely fine filmmaking. The special effects won an Oscar for a very good reason, as they present viewers with an astounding vision of the future. The state-of-the-art special effects are still fundamentally impossible to fault; the filmmakers use models, matte paintings and extensive sets. For a film of the 1960's, it most certainly does not feel dated one little bit.

As the movie opens, we are shown the dawn of man; a time when monkeys still occupied the planet. Fast-forward many thousands of years and we are looking at space-crafts in the depths of space. The film mainly centres on the crew aboard a space ship controlled by the advanced HAL 9000 computer (voiced by Rain).

The crew are on a voyage to the moon to investigate a mysterious monolith discovered beneath the surface. The plot is expanded over the film's 140-minute running time, and to be honest I felt that Kubrick wasted no time during the film's duration.

While many will think the pacing is painfully slow, I found the film not slow but fascinating. The visual effects showcase some marvellous special effects that even had me in awe. The effects were created in the pre-CGI days, and yet the effects are still even more effective than much of the CGI we see in modern productions. It's blended seamlessly and Kubrick uses brilliant camera work to further solidify its overwhelming impression. It never seems to be in a hurry to get anywhere; and thus takes its time for maximum impact. Some scenes are merely shots played out to minor voices or heavy breathing. And the conclusion of the movie is simply hypnotic imagery with spellbinding music.

The film was much talked about after its initial release, and it is still widely discussed to this very day. The movie is very mysterious, with multiple layers piled on top of each other to present the audience with the opportunity to make their own interpretation. The magnificence of the filmmaking lies in the fact that the film defies explanation. It's a visual marvel and a groundbreaking achievement in motion picture history because of this very fact.

When I was younger I couldn't understand what on Earth was going on because of how enigmatic the film was. But I've grown to understand that this was the very point of the movie. It was never meant to surround the viewing audience with blatant information, but rather the unfathomable nature lets the audience draw their own conclusions.

The end of the movie leaves a baffling, profound impact on the viewing audience; it's overwhelmingly different, it sets a new genre, it sparks thought. In a nutshell, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a sci-fi masterpiece that cannot be missed. It's provocative, brilliant, fascinating, engrossing, stimulating, enthralling, captivating, influential - and any adjective branching off from those words, as the film wears them all with aplomb. This is by far Kubrick's best work, and is still up there with the best films of all time.