2001 - A Space Odyssey Details

The 1984 of films

A fundamental film. The computer HAL (one letter removed from IBM) is the villain, and is masterfully chilling. Very much ahead of its time and one of those films that it is a cultural necessity to see.

[Highly rated reviewer]

A Response to all the haters...

As the title above suggests, I feel compelled to write this review to counter some of the faintly ridiculous claims of the people who have written bad reviews about this film.

Most of the criticsms levelled at this film tend to neatly divide into three camps: 'OMG!?! Like, its sooo like, long, and like, nothing like, happens OMG!?!', 'Well, of course, its beautiful and well directed but...' or 'Its old, therefore rubbish'.

For those who voiced arguments along the lines of the first point - have you ever heard of an attention span? Yes it is long and deliberate - thats the point! Since when has this been considered a crime? To explain the plot simply - its a film where nothing and everything happens. Together, Kubrick and Clarke wrote a screenplay which requires - wait for it - patience and concentration! OMG!?! Like, burn them like, at the like, stake! OMG !?!... A lot of people who voice that opinion also include various mea culpas along the lines of 'OMG I'm like, so used to like, fast-paced movies, I just can't like, deal with umm...not-fast-paces OMG!?!' as if thats a perfectly reasonable excuse to be a cretin. Why not sit down, put your PS3 controller down, read a book, take less caffine and actually aquire some concentration. It'll do you good!

As for the second argument, you damm it with faint praise such as 'its lovely to look at but...' as if that somehow makes the film worse. Why can't a film be appreciated for being beautiful, graceful and atmospheric, without being filled to the gunnels with superfluous 'content' (I hate that word). Compare this with convoluted, overly-complicated nonsense like 'Miami Vice' or any John Grisham adaptation. Can I ask you: have you ever heard of the concept 'Less is More'?

For example, the exquisite transition between the 'Dawn of Man' section and The earth from space - the summation of all human civilisation in a single, simple visual motif - is utterly breathtaking; I find it hard to visualise a single moment in cinema history that even comes close to its brevity and absoluteness. Its full of these kinds of moments. THAT is one of many reasons people still revere this film - again, get a brain and try again.

On that point, why do you require that everything in the film is immediately explained with expositional dialogue or colour diagrams? Yes the ending sequence is spectacular and its meaning is at first obscure - so what? Kubrick doesn't just hold your hand and gently lead you down the path of simple narrative, whispering easy, pat explanations into your simple little noggin as you go. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film that requires, nay, DEMANDS repeated viewing to uncover its deeper themes; sometimes in life you won't have it handed to you on a plate - you have to work for it dammit!

As for the last argument - 'newer' does not necessarily equate to 'better'. 2001 is THE 'hard' SF film par excellence - it has never been topped and probably never will be, to the extent that later films like 'Star Wars' ran in an entirely different direction.

Put simply, the acid test for this film is: the terminally imaginationophobic and braindead need not apply - leave it for the rest of us to enjoy.