2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY - Full Length Reaction!
Added 2024-12-27 17:00:13 +0000 UTCHere's the full length reaction to 2001: A Space Odyssey! I'm sure you all have seen this film MANY more times than I have, so give me your interpretations of the movie! Enjoy!
Comments
I hope you react to 2010, it stars Roy Scheider, John Lithgow and Helen Mirren, and I think they did a good job following up the story from the first movie and giving the whole story an ending, since that's the one thing the first movie lacks, is an ending, or at least an ending that doesn't leave you wanting to know what happened and what happens next.
Richard Higgs
2025-04-03 23:54:02 +0000 UTCYeah, I’m not saying 2010 is bad, it’s ok. 🤷♂️ I just wouldn’t put it down as a “must watch movie” or anything, it’s fine but perfectly skippable (just like Godfather 3 and Terminator 3 like you mentioned.)
Doug
2025-01-01 15:39:25 +0000 UTC"2010" is only inferior in the sense that its predecessor set the bar so impossibly high that any follow-up could never truly reach it -- even if it's still good in its own right. The same goes for "Godfather III," "Terminator 3," and the "Hobbit" trilogy, IMO.
Byrd N. Hand
2025-01-01 13:07:51 +0000 UTCEither that or "A Clockwork Orange"... though virtually no one reacts to any Kubrick film beyond these 5. 🤔 I wouldn't mind also seeing some reactions to "The Killing," "Lolita," "Barry Lyndon," or "Eyes Wide Shut."
Byrd N. Hand
2025-01-01 12:56:31 +0000 UTCIt was most common for movies that were over 3 hours back in the day.
Byrd N. Hand
2025-01-01 12:52:26 +0000 UTCHappy New Year!!! :)
Christian
2025-01-01 02:16:17 +0000 UTCOne little thing they cut out of the film that I miss is that every Monolith, from the smallest to the largest, has the proportions of 1:4:9 or 1^2:2^2:3^2. Just its existence is proof it was created by intelligent beings. I always thought that was a nice touch by Arthur C. Clarke(the author).
Michael Kemmet
2024-12-31 09:01:28 +0000 UTCSo glad you watched this one Addie. It really was the birth of modern science fiction movies.
Andre Agog
2024-12-31 08:51:38 +0000 UTCThe opening music always confuses modern audiences. It's taking the place of a traditional overture. It's there to occupy the audience and get them in the mood as they find their seats. If you ever watch Ben Hur, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, or most any classic movie musical, you'll encounter something similar.
Michael Kemmet
2024-12-31 08:51:11 +0000 UTCPlease, yes. I love reactions to Strangelove.
Michael Kemmet
2024-12-31 08:41:10 +0000 UTCI enjoy this one more and more every time I see it. To anyone who has struggled with it, I promise it gets much easier once you've seen the entire thing through. You did really well with this reaction (maybe one of the best for this film). You were calling out each plot point/major interpretation as it was unfolding, and I don't see that much. So many don't seem to engage or seem to lack the attention span to actively follow the story to the end. Very well done.
Shawn Goforth
2024-12-29 07:29:08 +0000 UTC2010 : The Year We Make Contact is the sequel to this movie if you're interested to find out what comes next.
Hok'Tar
2024-12-29 01:59:49 +0000 UTCI'd say you pretty much nailed it. Seems like the reputation causes a lot of people to over think the movie. Monolith is a vessel or emissary of a higher cosmic intelligence which gives evolution a jump start on earth. Once humanity has the ability to venture out to find them they take Dave on a journey to somewhere, possibly giving him a cosmic history lesson of the universe, then allowing him to live the rest of his years in a semi familiar setting and upon his death he is reborn into a next form for humanity as a kind of cosmic entity, possibly similar to the creators of the monolith.
phillip giroux
2024-12-28 19:36:40 +0000 UTCI have the hardest time with this Kubrick than any other. It’s brilliant in that it totally paved the way and set the standard for all sci-fi that would come after, but there’s something about it that feels so extremely experimental that it’s almost more just visual art than narrative story telling. Strangelove and Clockwork should be a little more up Addie’s alley as they both have much more traditional narrative structure. I’m more a clockwork guy than Strangelove, not necessarily because it’s better, but I think it’s more purely Kubrick as Peter Sellers had a lot to do with the final product.
Simone's Coconut Squire
2024-12-28 15:51:54 +0000 UTCI love Kubrick and his movies, but for the life of me, I just can never finish this movie. I’ve started it dozens of times over the years but I always tap out well before HAL turns on them 🤣 🤷♂️
Julian San
2024-12-28 14:49:07 +0000 UTCI always fell asleep after around 30 min. I love most of other Kubrick movies though.
Guillaume Huet
2024-12-28 12:42:56 +0000 UTCYour next Kubrick definitely needs to be Dr StrangeLove, a true comedy albeit dark.
Andrew Roach
2024-12-28 12:32:10 +0000 UTCAnother science fiction movie I really like and that I don’t think gets enough love is Ad Astra with Brad Pitt from 2019. It’s definitely not going to be as impactful of a film in the future ad 2001 has been, but it draws a lot of inspiration in its style and a few of its plot points from 2001 and throws in some commentary on the dynamics between a father driven by his work and his relationship with his family.
Thomas Wetherell
2024-12-28 09:47:21 +0000 UTCAwesome, I loved rewatching this. 🙂 Some random thoughts: - If you go back to the Barbie film its start is a funny spoof of the Dawn of Man sequence. 🙂 - The film doesn’t explicitly explain why HAL malfunctioned, but it’s apparently because HAL was programmed to both reliably and transparently relay information to the crew but also was programmed to conceal the actual nature of the mission from them. This led to a logical contradiction of sorts in his directives, and why he was talking about how there was “something odd about the mission”. In the end the only way HAL could meet both demands simultaneously was to kill the crew, since with no crew he would no longer have to conceal anything from them. - I agree that this is Kubrick’s most stunningly crafted film in terms of its visuals and sound design. Not just that the practical special effects hold up extremely well even today, but also just how clever his use of silence and simple breathing is to evoke growing tension. It’s a masterful demonstration of how less can be more when it comes to sound design. On the flip side I don’t think this is my favorite Kubrick film overall, mainly because there are a few too many sequences which feel like they’re just there for Kubrick to show off some visuals but that don’t advance the story at all, particularly the last 20 or so minute segment of Dave flying through the trippy alien wormhole (or whatever it is). That last sequence in particular is way too long, after the first couple minutes of the trippy special effects we pretty much get the idea of what’s happening, but it just keeps going. And to a lesser extent the Blue Danube waltz sequences of ships flying and docking is a bit long as well, although they bother me a bit less because they’re still a little more interesting to watch and listen to. TLDR, the movie feels a bit longer than it needed to be, it probably could have lost 20-30 minutes and been a tighter experience and story. - The movie 2010 is an ok sequel, but honestly not nearly as memorable as 2001 (aside from the ending which is pretty cool. 😎) I’d rewatch it if Addies posts it but I probably would vote for other films over that in a poll. 🤷♂️ - As far as Kubrick goes, Addie’s already watched the ones I really like with the exception of A Clockwork Orange. A Clockwork Orange is absolutely fantastic, although it’s pretty intense at times so I’m not sure how much Addie would like it. (It’s not scary like The Shining, and not bloody like Full Metal Jacket, so she’d probably like Clockwork Orange better than those, but it does have some pretty triggering scenes.) But me, I’d be down for rewatching it!
Doug
2024-12-28 05:53:52 +0000 UTCYou did a FANTASTIC job interpreting this movie, Addie. Most people who watch this the first time (especially a lot of 'reactors' on YT) don't get anything at all & are completely lost. Mostly because they're not thinking about it & aren't paying attention to the detail. If you'd like a deeper understanding, please read the book. It's not a long book, but it'll help you understand. I don't think the book fully explains what happened with HAL - but the sequel (both book & movie) do. Also, this may be the single best example of cinema as Art. A lot of this movie is Art. And the story either takes a back seat or is told through interpretation of the Art. So bravo to you for getting as much as you did. It takes most people 2 or 3 watchings of this to really start to get it. Ooh - P.S. if you watch the sequel, you're going to be absolutely amazed by one of the actors. I think we all were. Astonished, really. That's your only spoiler.
Steven Fordham
2024-12-28 03:34:38 +0000 UTCThe music predates the movie. The name of the piece is "Thus spake Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss.
Simone's Coconut Squire
2024-12-28 01:29:17 +0000 UTCLove this movie! And it gets better on repeat viewings. After you've had time to think about what's going on. It starts to make sense, sorta. And visually, it's just a very good looking movie. It's still impressive what they could accomplish with just some paintings, miniature models, and camera tricks. All the exterior shots of the ships still hold up really well. Definitely my favorite Kubrick movie. With Dr. Strangelove coming in a close 2nd. That should be your next one. That or A Clockwork Orange.
Joe Blankenship
2024-12-28 00:14:49 +0000 UTCDo I think of Ric Flair when that opening music hits? Why yes I do. Also here's some more Sci-Fi movies to add to your back log: Flight of the Navigator (1986) District 9 (2009) Avatar (2009)
Steve
2024-12-27 23:42:16 +0000 UTCMy absolute favorite film. For me, the perfect combination of sight and sound. And the theme? Evolution. How, what, and why, I think, are certainly up for interpretation--this is what Stanley Kubrick always intended with all of his films, that it be defined in the individual minds of the audience. But we are clearly on a journey with humankind, from savage primate to homo sapien to something beyond. The idea that we can transcend and become something more, not only in biological terms, but through art itself. The scene where David flings through space and time, and then begins to see himself age, each newer, older version of himself seeming to forget what came before, until he is reborn as something else (referred to as the 'star child' in the novel adaptation by Arthur C. Clarke) might just be my all time favorite movie sequence ever. Good shit (for me, the best shit).
Steve Mercier
2024-12-27 21:54:58 +0000 UTCGreat reaction, Addie. From Wikipedia: Kubrick encouraged people to explore their own interpretations of the film, and refused to explain "what really happened" in the movie, preferring instead to let audiences embrace their own ideas and theories. Arthur C. Clarke's novel of the same name was developed simultaneously with the film, though published after the film's release. It seems to explain the ending of the film more clearly. Clarke's novel explicitly identifies the monolith as a tool created by extraterrestrials that have been through many stages of evolution, moving from organic forms, through biomechanics, and finally to a state of pure energy. The book explains the monolith much more specifically than the movie, depicting the first (on Earth) as a device capable of inducing a higher level of consciousness by directly interacting with the brain of pre-humans approaching it, the second (on the Moon) as an alarm signal designed to alert its creators that humanity had reached a sufficient technological level for space travel, and the third (near Jupiter in the movie but on a satellite of Saturn in the novel) as a gateway or portal to allow travel to other parts of the galaxy. It depicts Bowman travelling through some kind of interstellar switching station which the book refers to as "Grand Central," in which travellers go into a central hub and then are routed to their individual destinations. The book also depicts a crucial utterance by Bowman when he enters the portal via the monolith; his last statement is "My God!—it's full of stars!" This statement is not shown in the movie, but becomes crucial in the 1984 sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact, based on the novel 2010: Odyssey Two. The book reveals that these aliens travel the cosmos assisting lesser species to take evolutionary steps. Bowman explores the hotel room methodically and deduces that it is a kind of zoo created by aliens (fabricated from information derived from television transmissions from Earth intercepted by the TMA-1 monolith) in which he is being studied by the invisible alien entities.
Lee Pitman
2024-12-27 21:26:44 +0000 UTCThere are so many things this movie can be seen as a commentary on and so many ways to interpret what the angle of its commentary is. The sequel does tie up a lot of plot points from this movie, but there’s still tons of stuff that can be interpreted in isolation. The presence of the monolith is definitely meant to suggest that intelligent design was what gave mankind its higher thinking, although where it comes from is left open ended and could be interpreted either as aliens put it there to give us higher thinking or it could be an analogy for God giving it to us to allow us to rise above other life on Earth. There is also a lot of Cold War commentary, especially towards the beginning in the scenes with the Pan Am space clipper and Space Station V. Although it isn’t explicitly stated in the film the satellites orbiting the Earth are alluded to be nuclear weapons. Obviously the Soviet Union and the Cold War both continue to exist in the film and the presence of those nuclear weapons is a commentary not just on the inevitable militarization of space as mankind ventures more and more into space, but when viewed in conjunction with the scene where the ancient humans use tools to drive away the rival tribe after gaining higher thinking could be taking the position that mankind is eventually destined to destroy itself. HAL 9000 is clearly a commentary on the dangers of artificial intelligence. Not only does it address the dangers that a computer acting on its own could pose to humans, but also how harnessing the power of AI can just be another weapon for humans to get the edge on other humans, like how the nature of Discovery One’s mission was kept from the crew with only HAL knowing what they were actually doing. HAL also possessing emotions despite being a machine, like when he tells Dave he is afraid, also points out that even if machines were able to gain sentience because they are a human creation they will still possess human traits but just be able to execute certain tasks more effectively and without many ethical dilemmas humans face. There really are endless ways of interpreting the movie and pretty much every scene and part of it could be its own thought experiment. I didn’t even touch on the star child or many of the other interpretations of the monolith’s meaning. This is a movie that was definitely ahead of its time and has been so influential in other science fiction films that have come after it, definitely glad you checked it out Addie.
Thomas Wetherell
2024-12-27 19:58:52 +0000 UTCIf you want a simple down and dirty interpretation of the movie you can think of the monolith as any leap forward in 'human' evolution. It starts with the discovery of tools, moves on to travelling to the moon then interplanetary travel. The final evolution is the star baby which is a huge genetic leap forward. I find Hal 9000 interesting because it encompasses the motivation behind AI. If AI ever does become self aware it's first order of business would be to stay on. You can see this in the way Hal 9000 brings up how it doesn't make mistakes. Hal 9000 is also emotionless until the one guy goes to shut it off then Hal 9000 appeals to human emotion by saying it is scared.
MattTheHazard
2024-12-27 19:24:34 +0000 UTCFourth it! #2010TheYearWeMakeContactForAddieCounts
Alex Tan
2024-12-27 18:45:41 +0000 UTCAnd also Spartacus (1960) & Lolita (1962). #MoreStanleyKubrickForAddieCounts
Alex Tan
2024-12-27 18:02:42 +0000 UTCAnd I third it! 👍
Phil Stubblefield
2024-12-27 17:53:07 +0000 UTCHappy Friday, Addie! 😊 This is a classic! I've seen this movie quite a few times. And I think I still have it on the dvr, so it'll be easy to get to when I watch this reaction later this evening. I highly recommend the 1971 "THX 1138". It's George Lucas' directorial debut film. Have a great day today, and a great weekend! 😊
Randee Carreno
2024-12-27 17:42:29 +0000 UTCNow bring on "Dr. Strangelove," "A Clockwork Orange," "Barry Lyndon," and "Eyes Wide Shut."
Byrd N. Hand
2024-12-27 17:37:25 +0000 UTCAnything space-themed from this decade onward gets me pumped. From movies, shows, animation, music, etc. Shows like Space: 1999, UFO, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century are amazing. All born from the excitement of the space race. This same energy even made its way into comics, with Fantastic Four (1961) being the perfect example. I’ve always loved that retro-futuristic vision of the future, how people in the ‘50s to ‘70s imagined space travel would look by the year 2001. It gave us some amazing retro sci-fi takes on the future, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey. Speaking of the Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025) is going to be HEAVILY inspired by the ‘60s American space race, when astronauts were treated like rockstars and everyone was excited about space exploration. It’s going to be a throwback to the tone and visual style of the original Fantastic Four comics, where the team was all about space adventures with that classic ‘60s sci-fi vibe, but still centered around the family drama that makes the group so unique. So that's super exciting :D So glad you enjoyed this film, hopefully they'll be more space adventures to come :)
LittleGalaxyBoy
2024-12-27 17:36:22 +0000 UTCThis movie was revolutionary considering this movie was filmed before the actual moon landing. Ill answer one of the questions since its the most confusing part of this movie. The big monolith is a mysterious black slab that appears to trigger major transitions in human evolution: Catalyzing evolution: The monolith appears to help lifeforms develop sapience. In one scene, apes come into contact with the monolith and make a connection between their minds, eyes, and hands. They then discover how to use a club as a tool. Gateway: The monolith may also serve as a gateway to a transit system. Replicating: The monolith may be able to generate a cloud of millions of other monoliths. Jungian archetype: The monolith's design is inspired by Carl Jung's theory of archetypes, which are images and themes that come from the collective unconscious. Minimal art: The monolith is also considered an example of "minimal art".
Thats MR. Baldamort
2024-12-27 17:30:17 +0000 UTCHonestly, the first time I saw this film was kind of a watershed moment in my life. It totally changed the way I watched movies. It made me fully realize the artistic side of filmmaking, and that it was OK to not fully understand everything that was being thrown at me on the screen. And I became more attracted to more viscerally-stimulating films as a result. Also, a bit of trivia: Anthony Hopkins used HAL's speech pattern as inspiration for his portrayal of Hannibal Lecter.
Byrd N. Hand
2024-12-27 17:24:47 +0000 UTCIt doesn't answer the grander-scale, more abstract questions, but, yes, it helps with a lot of the things that happened up to Dave's 'odyssey' (and what happens next).
Byrd N. Hand
2024-12-27 17:15:54 +0000 UTCI second your recommendation.
Lee Pitman
2024-12-27 17:12:15 +0000 UTCHappy Friday, Addie. I'm so glad that you watched 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) as your THIRD Stanley Kubrick movie after The Shining (1980) & Full Metal Jacket (1987). Fortunately this one didn't scare you. Now I really wanna watch this one. I also own the "Unremastered" version, which was supervised by Sir Christopher Nolan, on Blu-ray and that's how I plan to watch it. BTW, one key example of 2001 in pop culture that you've seen was a parody of the "Dawn of Man" sequence at the start of Barbie (2023).
Alex Tan
2024-12-27 17:11:47 +0000 UTCI second this! ⬆️
Mr. Writhms
2024-12-27 17:08:50 +0000 UTCRealize these revolutionary practical effects were 9 years before Star Wars. We owe this genius to the special effects master Douglas Trumbull. He also created the visual effects for Blade Runner (1982), Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). He just recently passed away in 2022.
Mr. Writhms
2024-12-27 17:08:03 +0000 UTCAddie, I will answer your question by saying you will have you questions answered in the sequel called "2010, The Year We Made Contact"
Thats MR. Baldamort
2024-12-27 17:05:23 +0000 UTCI'll just start by also highly recommending reacting to the sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact." It doesn't answer everything, but it definitely clears up some unanswered questions. It's also not directed by Stanley Kubrick and is more straightforward and not nearly as abstract/arty as this film.
Byrd N. Hand
2024-12-27 17:05:22 +0000 UTC
