Comments on: ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’: 5 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About The Film

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

Pauline was the best critic in America while Gillian was a pretentious bore who also did hack work as a screenwriter (Sunday bloody sunday)

By: Christopher Sorensen

Christopher Sorensen — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

For the most part 2001 A Space Oddessy was visioned as cerebral to show the pinpointed stress in both Poole, and Bowman wile on board the Discovery. Stanley Kubrik who directed this film gave the audience something to think about by way of evolution towards a more glorified future laced with technology. Do we really need it? Why do we want to go into space? What lies out there? The unknown has always been the constant drive for scientists all over the world on the need to know. Bowman himself did not know about the power of the monolith nor did he want to. But for argument\’s sake his curious nature drove him to the point of stepping into the unknown without a life boat, and that was his risk. Kubrik was a sheer genius into showing us the darker side of man when it comes to secrets. I think this movie is one of the most influential films of our time. The special effects done by Douglas Trumbull was awe inspiring with flight scenes to the space walks while doing repairs to the discovery\’s communications array and on to the ultimate step into the next dimension. Whatever there is out in the cold void is perhaps just a warning. Are we prepared enough? Can we overcome obstacles like Bowman did, and becoming a prisoner of time? The monolith itself to me is kind of like a tool to use. A language barrier or a teaching tool to mar the inhabitants of earth. Or perhaps it\’s an embassy of a sort to our distant future self. In any event 2001 is revered as the most detailed in scope, as well as interwoven with subtle messages from a hidden voice reaching to the inner depths of Bowman. Space is definitely a dangerous place to wander around in, but man who stood up on two feet first must take that final step. Stanley Kubrik has shown us how to move forward even if its in the face of certain death. I call this movie the greatest achievement of film making. Other than Close Ecounters Of The Third Kind, which Douglas Trumbull did the special effects as well.

By: Cos

Cos — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

Can't be too critical of Kael. As Sidney Pollack said in the documentary "Kubrick A Life in Pictures", all of Kubrick's films opened to mixed reviews; then 10 years later they're all classics. Woody Allen says in the same doco that it took him 3 viewings to realise 2001 was a masterpiece.

By: Larry Russo

Larry Russo — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

Even the controls and displays in 2001 (on Discovery) were visionary. As flat screen monitors didn't yet exist, they used rear projection film to simulate futuristic computer displays (rather than using rounded tv tubes, insert fx shots or static graphic displays). For her to use the word "unimaginative" in describing this movie, Pauline Kael only proved herself shamefully useless.

By: walt milos

walt milos — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

H.A.L was chosen as the name for the Computer because each letter was one letter away from I.B.M!

By: Huffy

Huffy — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

Does anyone know how Kubrick managed to secure basically complete creative freedom so early in his career? I know it wasn't unusual in the 70's but Kubrick had final cut all the way back in the early 60's, when Hollywood was still very much studio-driven. To deliver a film that late and that over-budget, especially a film as unconventional and experimental as 2001, would have been a death sentence to most careers. So how did Kubrick become so trusted?

By: Miles

Miles — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

Seventeen Minutes Of Footage – hope we get to see this someday.

By: Terry

Terry — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

The only major critic at the time who came out swinging for the film was Penelope Gilliatt, Pauline Kael's cotenant for many years at The New Yorker. Gilliatt, as always, was prescient whereas Kael wanted nothing to do with the film, couldn't understand it, and went behind Gilliatt's back to complain to others regarding Gilliatt's review. Thank the gods that Gilliatt was there, since Kael had an appetite only for junk and could not understand films of any complexity. Kael was the junk queen at the New Yorker, whereas Gilliatt got to the core of films' deepest meanings, something Kael couldn't have done if her life depended on it.

By: a

Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

Well, Pauline Kael disliked a lot of generally acclaimed films. Polarizing is a better word for the critical reaction, and a good modern analogy would be, well… The Tree of Life.

By: Gian

Gian — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

Thanks for this. I had the film in my Netflix queue and had been planning to rewatch at some point so I now have a great excuse. I actually live 3 blocks from the Uptown here in DC and I supposed I could even head to the coffee shop across the street from there and at least recreate the geographic experience! LOL.

By: Nik Grape

Nik Grape — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:56 +0000

Forget just the genre, this is one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time, period.