2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Full Length Reaction
Added 2024-07-07 03:20:32 +0000 UTCI was 100% intimidated to watch this movie. Bit of an extended intro and outro on this one, I had manyyyyy thoughts!! Should we check out 2010: The Year We Make Contact?
Movie runtime: 2:28:51
Direct link
**Note: You can change the quality of the video by clicking the settings icon (little cog) and making it a higher resolution!**
Find options for downloading video HERE
Have you checked out my MOVIE REQUEST SITE ?
Every Patron can submit movie requests there and have unlimited upvotes. I use this site to make schedule decisions and polls so make sure you go upvote what you want to see!
Comments
I was able to see this in IMAX a few years ago (not for my first time; but the first time on the big screen) and I was thoroughly mesmerized. Probably helped that I was on edibles.
Zack Parks
2024-07-27 03:45:20 +0000 UTCI'm ready to see your reaction to 2010. Truth be told I honestly like 2010 more than 2001, don't get me wrong 2001 deserves it's praise but there's something about 2010 that I can't put my finger on about it.
Robert Durant
2024-07-18 01:36:43 +0000 UTCKind of have to see the second one. You get a fuller tableau, let's say. This movie was more of an artistic spectacle than it was plot and resolution.
Constantine
2024-07-16 01:30:04 +0000 UTCI'm afraid to even hope for more Kubrick. I'd personally recommend Barry Lyndon, I think you specifically would really like that one. But from what else you haven't seen, Spartacus would also be really good too. Kirk Douglas is something else.
Astraeos
2024-07-11 04:37:14 +0000 UTCThanks John! I enjoyed all of the context and your perspective as someone who watched this movie when it came out, with a wonderfully encouraging Mom as a role model to respect the movie, and then who grew up with it by revisiting in future years.
Paul Hess
2024-07-11 00:31:45 +0000 UTCJen, I was never worried that you wouldn't like this film, I also knew that you'd understand it too, for me it's a masterpiece. I love films which challenge you and make you think, it never talks down to the viewer, it treats the watcher with respect.
Adam Davis
2024-07-09 13:06:04 +0000 UTCI love this post! Great info.
PIG
2024-07-09 06:09:06 +0000 UTCTerrific reaction, Jen, as usual. :) My interpretation: this is the story of a four-million-year experiment: can we take an animal and turn into (for want of a better word) a god? The experimenter's tools all looked the same: a monolith with dimensions 1:4:9 (the squares of the first three integers, and (we learn in the novel), additional dimensions continue, 1:4:9:16:25:...)). The first tool was a teacher; the second was an alarm/transmitter (designed to send an alert when sunlight touched it); the third was a star gate; the fourth was an "evolver" that converted Dave Bowman into his final form. (I'm cheating, of course, because I've read the novel. :) ) Fun facts about actors: Gary Lockwood, who played Frank Poole (the first astronaut killed by HAL), you've seen before: he played Lt. Cmdr. Gary Mitchell in the Star Trek: TOS episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before," just a year or two before he did this film. Two of the actors, Douglas Rain (who played the voice of HAL), and Margaret Tyzack (who played one of the Russian scientists on the space station) were great Shakespearean actors, both of whom I saw perform in Stratford, Ontario (!) in the 1970s: I saw Rain as Iago in "Othello", and I saw Tyzack as Mrs. Alving in "Ghosts" by Henrik Ibsen. She also played a major role in the TV series "I, Claudius". All of the hominid apes were played by human dancers, except for the babies, who were chimps. I first saw this film when it was in the theaters; I was a child of eight, and I saw it with my dad. (Later, when "2010" came out, I insisted that my dad go with me. :)) It did totally blow my mind. I've probably seen it ten times, and it's structurally perfect. Yes, pretty much all the effects were practical, except for the light-show during the stargate trip, which was done with various experimental film-printing techniques. For both the flight attendant going upside-down and the jogging sequence on the Discovery, in fact they built giant rotating sets. To my mind, the special effects match anything we've got today. To this day, I think the Adagio from Khatchaturian's Gayne Ballet Suite (the theme played during the opening sequences on the Discovery) is the *loneliest* piece of music I have ever heard. E.V.A. is Extra-Vehicular Activity. :) "2010" is a very different kind of movie (and a very different kind of novel), and it's probably best *not* to think of it as a sequel, although technically it is exactly that. But it's written and shot in a completely different style, and has more in common with, say, "Interstellar" or "Alien" or "Star Trek" than it does with "2001". However, I enjoyed it, and it has a phenomenal cast including Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, and Bob Balaban. In the case of "2001", I saw the film before I read the novel; in the case of "2010", I read the novel before I saw the film.
Ken Schneyer
2024-07-09 05:10:31 +0000 UTCJenn, I'm just elated you had the same reaction I had the first time I sat it...and frankly, the same reaction every time I watch it... Hopefully, there's a theater that shows 70mm movies within driving distance near you. Absolutely a thrill to see it on a giant screen. I could go on about 2OO1 forever, but I'm past my bedtime. Great, great reaction, perhaps your best. (Hal, you are the worst.)
To Wa
2024-07-09 05:01:32 +0000 UTCYeah, but that's like saying a fish can't compete with a mountain climber. The films are so different you really can't compare them, even though it continues the story. It's much more of a "conventional" film than the "experience" of 2001.
John
2024-07-08 21:28:46 +0000 UTCI rejoined to watch your full-length reaction, but I haven't seen it yet. I have a couple of points to add to the discussion here. 1) The opening music is "Dawn" from the tone poem "Also Sprack Zarathustra". There is a book by the same name written by Friedrich Nietzsche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra) where he discusses the evolution of Man into the Superman (the " Übermensch", not the superhero). The movie is a definite callback to the book. 2) Recall the ending of "Interstellar" where Cooper is in the library inside the black hole. Notice how he moves through time as he moves around through the library. Something similar is happening with Dave as he moves around the hotel room at the end of "2001", though Kubrick's version is more abstract and ambiguous.
Java Man
2024-07-08 18:17:40 +0000 UTCYes if it's ever playing in theaters near me I'm going to go see it on the big screen
Jen M
2024-07-08 15:31:29 +0000 UTCFantastic reaction, Jen. Count me among those who saw this in theatre in 1968. I was 14. Blew my mind, for sure. I was way into the American space program, as much as a kid could be, maybe. So of course I watched every launch and landing, and whatever I could get. My friend & I were just slack-jawed after seeing this movie in 1968. My personal opinion -others dis-agree, but after living with this in my head for 50+ years, I watched 2010, and although it does in some ways attempt to fill out the story, I’d say no. After Kubrik’s 2001, 2010 was a sad piece of mediocrity, a so-so sci-fi with standard Hollywood elements aimed at a low level, plot wise, character wise, cinematically. I could have left well enough alone and been the happier for it. But your reaction here was fantastic, and not surprisingly so. You ARE my fave reactor, and your reaction here was spot-on. Thank you for taking this trip!
TC53
2024-07-08 06:06:04 +0000 UTCOne other comment about Oscars... This came out the same year as Planet of the Apes, and THAT movie won for Best Costume Design for their apes. That pissed off Kubrick, who spent a ton of time on getting the apes right in this film - to the point that many people who saw it believed that he actually used trained apes instead of actors giving incredible performances in incredible costumes and makeup. That book I recommended talks a ton about that, too. Again, the link is: https://www.amazon.com/Space-Odyssey-Stanley-Kubrick-Masterpiece/dp/1501163949
John DiGiantomasso
2024-07-08 05:27:52 +0000 UTCJen - AMAZING reaction. I have so much to say, so I will break it up. YOUR REACTION Your reaction is EXACTLY what Stanley Kubrick wanted you to feel. You said it at the end: "I'm thinkin' all kinds of things..." That is EXACTLY the point of the movie, and the reaction that was wanted by Kubrick from the audience. And you abso-frickin'-lutely nailed it. And your insights with the apes was perfect. "They are eating meat." "They are walking upright now, to carry their weapons." Well done. You got all of that, too. You are very smart and perceptive. The "snap cut" from bone to satellite - one thing that you could not see were that those satellites that they showed were actually orbiting nuclear missile platforms - something that the world of 1968 was worried would be coming to space soon. If you look closely on the big screen you can see military markings of the United States, Germany, China, the USSR, etc. on the various designs. So the movie went from "first weapon to kill an individual" to "next weapon to kill everybody." Pretty crazy when you think about that. Last thing - the music. The long black screens at the beginning and end were a callout to theater (stage) productions, where the performance would start with an overture that would play as the audience walked in and took their seats. The closing would be big numbers from the score that would play as the audience walked out. Plus the intermission, for much needed potty-breaks in the theater. That was to give the film a more "old-school classic theater" sort of vibe. (Totally unrelated to 2001, but another one of my favorite films that does the Overture, Intermission and Closing Medley is "THE GREAT RACE" - a fantastic 1965 comedy starring Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon leading an all-star cast, and directed by Blake Edwards of Pink Panther fame! Very highly recommended!) HOW DID THEY FILM THAT? You asked a ton of, "How did they film that" questions. There is no better resource than this, which I ordered and read when it first came out. Read it - you'll love it. https://www.amazon.com/Space-Odyssey-Stanley-Kubrick-Masterpiece/dp/1501163949 MY EXPERIENCE OF THE FILM This is one of my all-time favorite movies. Back when I was nine years old, my mom took me to downtown Detroit so we could see this on the "big screen" which was the 70mm Cinerama version of the film. We went down to see it several times. She was a big Sci-Fi fan, and read Clarke, Ellison, Asimov, and all the other biggies. She adored this film. My reaction as a kid was that I was bored with the apes and could not wait to get to space, the music scared the crap out of me, and I had no idea what the ending was all about. As a much older man now, I get it. And I adore it. Yes, this was released in 1968. We had not yet landed on the moon. In fact, the famous photograph of the Earth taken from space had not occurred yet. So this was incredibly amazing to see. Over the previous seven years we had gone from the first Mercury Mission that put a man in space to building rockets to go to the moon. We would achieve that goal about a year after this film came out. If we had continued at that pace, there is no doubt we would have achieved these things around about 2001, but the space program funding was brutally slashed in the 1970s, and we've only done the Space Shuttle, Skylab, the International Space Station and some really impressive unmanned probes since then. We're way behind in the actual space stuff that this movie predicted. That is a pity. I tend to watch this movie about once a year to really unlock my mind into creativity. PREDICTING THE FUTURE You caught some cool predictions, like the "iPad" and "AI" and some other stuff. But things in the movie that I see now as commonplace were CRAZY ideas back in 1968. Like a TV screen on the back of a "spaceliner" seat! Or wall-sized monitors and displays. And on the shuttle to the Moon, the two flight attendants were watching a Women's Judo match (you said it was "Karate", but it was more like Olympic Women's Judo.) In 1968, there were no women's Judo competitions, but there are now. So many perfect little details in there that make the film still look "right" more than 50 years later. Oh, the song "Daisy" that HAL sang was actually sung by one of the very first computers, so that was a nice callback to the past, too. 2010 I am sure you are going to get a lot of advice about 2010. 2010 is "a good movie," versus 2001 which is "An Epic Motion Picture" if you get what I mean. 2010 has a great story, an easy to follow plot, and it does a REALLY good job of answering so many open questions from 2001. It really is the "answer key" for 2001 that provides so much of the "what was THAT all about" of this film. Well worth your time. I would recommend you watch it as a "Jen's Gotta See It" selection as soon as you can. It really will make you appreciate this film even more. And to close, 2001 is really "An Epic Motion Picture." It is a piece of art, like a fine painting - with motion. It is meant to have you get lost in the visuals - which I think you really did. Well done on your reaction. It was EPIC - which seems totally appropriate for this film. Thank you!
John DiGiantomasso
2024-07-08 04:36:29 +0000 UTCA couple comments on your intro: when I first saw the movie in 1968 (a 70mm screening in Houston, home of NASA's MSC) there was no novel, only Clarke's short story and his screenplay. If memory serves, Clarke rushed out his novelization to address concerns critics of the movie had about the ending. (And the sequel '2010' attempts to address some of these too.) As for some saying there's nothing going on, MY GOD! Are we so bereft of imagination and art that everything must be explained to us, or a movie only has merit if there is gratuitous violence or wall-to-wall explosions? I love artistic carnage when appropriate; Conan is one of my favorite films with an unforgettable score by Poledouris, but let's expand our horizons! Even today, I love scenes like the 'shuttle' docking/dancing with the rotating space station to the Blue Danube Waltz. As a Pan Am employee at the time, my oldest sister loved it too! [HA! HA! As I type this, I just heard Jen address that she thinks patrons feel she is 'super naïve'!! lol!! Never! But maybe a little innocent at times! ;-)] I like how Jen remarked on the silent stretches in the film, especially when Dave returns to the ship. I enjoyed this because it was realistic--no air, no sound! Remember the tagline for the first ‘Alien’ film: “In space, no one can hear you scream.” For anyone who thinks Jen is ‘super naïve,’ listen to her outro again; I found her comments insightful and probing. BTW, regarding AI and humans, I’m reminded of a Star Trek: TOS episode where a super computer is put in charge of the Enterprise as part of a test. When the computer starts to go awry, it connects to a power source via an energy beam, vaporizing a crewman in the process. The computer’s inventor states the crewman simply got in the way! I too love Dr. Strangelove, perhaps the ultimate black comedy. And some years earlier Kubrick directed a powerful antiwar film, Paths of Glory, starring Kirk Douglas. It is on the list. Computers and operating systems minutiae: It’s well known that HAL is taken from IBM by shifting the letters back by one. I think less well known is that Windows/New Technology (W/NT) is similarly taken from the Virtual Memory System (VMS) OS for VAX computers by a one letter shift forward. The connection is that Dave Cutler was the chief architect for both operating systems. (A movie-related anecdote from 1968: my Dad, brother, and I were spending a guys’ summer in Houston, and we rented an apartment with my Dad’s colleague, both college professors. Planet of the Apes was also out, and newspapers had large ads for Planet which had the actors’ faces in their ape makeup bordering the ads. Well the badges my Dad and his friend wore at the MSC had no photos, just a cardboard badge with their names and the NASA logo slipped into a plastic holder. So my Dad cut out one of the ape faces from the newspaper ad and taped it over the NASA logo on his friend’s badge. Well the guy worked for a couple days with this altered badge until their boss pointed at the badge and just burst out laughing! My older brother also enjoyed movies, and got his hands on a couple silent, B&W 8mm films in which the players wore Zorro masks and little else, but that is a story for another day!)
Georgius Agricola
2024-07-08 04:32:45 +0000 UTCThe apes were played by professional mimes.
To Wa
2024-07-08 04:17:36 +0000 UTCOh wow! I love that.
PIG
2024-07-08 02:51:47 +0000 UTC2010 is a good movie not 2001 but what is? The sequel does give some answers to why HAL did what it did so worth checking out.
Edward korstanje
2024-07-08 02:24:57 +0000 UTCOf the Kubrick movies I've seen, "Eyes Wide Shut" is the most "wtf did I just watch". And talk about some eerie, unsettling music!
Joe Blankenship
2024-07-08 00:42:29 +0000 UTCOne of the more interesting stories to come out of 2001 is that when Voyager went by Saturn, (the original movie was supposed to be set around Saturn and not Jupiter). IN the novel version, Arthur C. Clarke described the moon of Saturn named Iapetus. When Voyager passed by Iapetus, the moon was exactly as described by Clarke in his novel. Carl Sagan sent a copy of a picture of the moon to Clarke with the cryptic notation "Thinking of you."
Stephen Koehler
2024-07-08 00:15:08 +0000 UTC2010 is ok but can't compete with this on any level.
Batguano
2024-07-07 23:17:25 +0000 UTC2001: The Cliff's Notes The Dawn of Man The Peak of Man The Transcendence of Man
John
2024-07-07 22:44:21 +0000 UTCAwesome, can't wait to watch this again, and yes, you should watch '2010: The Year We Make Contact', it's a great film if not compared to this.
JPDotCom23
2024-07-07 22:26:17 +0000 UTCThe song HAL sang while being shut down was Daisy Bell, the first song ever played by a computer in 1961 by an IBM 7094. (HAL are the 3 letters in the alphabet immediately preceeding I, B, and M) https://youtu.be/41U78QP8nBk?si=AquK_eofAG2UKDYU
John
2024-07-07 22:20:19 +0000 UTCThanks for braving into this one! It takes courage so we appreciate you
Anthony Picard
2024-07-07 22:03:44 +0000 UTCFascinating movie, way ahead of it's time and unique. I also thoroughly enjoyed and recommend 2010, a belated sequel. Not quite the same tone (we already have 2001 for that) but excellent sci-fi in it's own right.
Lincynity
2024-07-07 21:47:00 +0000 UTCI just mean like I get lots of messages like "Jen you won't be able to handle this movie"
Jen M
2024-07-07 20:32:55 +0000 UTC2010 is definitely a more "conventional" movie and story. I enjoyed it quite a bit.
John
2024-07-07 20:22:30 +0000 UTCSo awesome that you got to meet and talk with Kier while watching the movie! 😲
Over50Gamer
2024-07-07 19:15:40 +0000 UTCThis is one of my faves. And 2010 the year we made contact! I’m going to enjoy this!
Lord Jeremy
2024-07-07 18:23:35 +0000 UTCThe role of the artist is to ask questions, not answer them. --Anton Chekov
RobertC
2024-07-07 17:55:55 +0000 UTCWatch the sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. They explain in detail what happened with HAL. That movie is much more accessible, less artistic.
Jane Harker
2024-07-07 17:38:54 +0000 UTCI'm so glad you loved this one, it's one of my favorites! I was lucky enough to catch a screening of it a few years ago, it was a great experience.
Daniel Hansen
2024-07-07 17:31:28 +0000 UTCOne of my top-10 movies of all time - very enjoyable to watch someone new discover it. Don't worry, there's no way to "get" all of it in one viewing! I think I first saw this in the 80's sometime, on the "big screen". It's not for everyone, but for those that it is for, it moves you into another dimension. I think it's interesting how prescient it is for so many things, among them AI, and watching it today in 2024 just adds new thoughts that maybe few could have in 1968 - so amazing. I'll finish with a personal story and my one connection here: I screened this movie with Keir Dullea (Dave) in the early 2000's. Sitting next to the man, he was an amazing companion and told me stories of Kubrick and the making of the film from his perspective and how he found himself cast here. Something I will always cherish.
Chris Cebelenski
2024-07-07 17:17:08 +0000 UTC2001 is better 'Art,' but 2010 is a far better Movie, in my humble opinion.
Joanthan Skidmore
2024-07-07 17:10:24 +0000 UTCA wonderful summation of the creation process of this story, and IMHO, 100% yes please continue the saga
Joel
2024-07-07 16:08:06 +0000 UTCIt's crazy how many comments have already been uploaded to this vid, but then 2001 really is one of the great classics of cinema. So I would like to add something and this is more background to the novel vs film issue. The 2001 franchise has one of the most interesting and complex relationships and interactions between the visual and written media I've seen. This is not simply the case of, a novel is written and then adapted into a film or series. What we have is, for lack of a better term, a dialectical process at play here where a shifting back and forth between mediums is taking place, each one influencing the other. The film 2001: A Space Odyssey, is not an adaption of the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey and the film 2010: The Year We Made Contact is not a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, at least in this later case not entirely. Our journey begins all the way back in 1948 when the upcoming science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke, who would go on to become one of the giants of the sub-category, wrote the short story, The Sentinel, that would see publication a few years later in 1951 in one of the several science fiction journals of the time. It was this short story that was the inspiration for the film 2001: A Space Odyssey and inspiration is the correct term rather than an adaption given how much the film brought in completely new ideas and themes. The film as you well know, was a landmark of science fiction, completely shattering the cheesy B movie strait jacket science fiction films had been had been restrained by since the 50's, with the early groundbreaking, experimental and contemplative science fiction films of the earlier 20's and 30's largely forgotten. There were outliers of course, especially outside of the US Hollywood industry, but they failed to break into mass public discourse to fundamentally reshape the narrative. Arthur C Clarke was heavily involved in the development of the film and wrote the novel alongside it, there being a collaborative process with the film and novel both influencing each other. The main difference with the novel and film is that Arthur C Clarke wished to fully explain everything and provide definitive answers while Stanley Kubrick wanted to shroud much of it deliberately in ambiguity and leaving it open to audience interpretation. This difference remains a point of contention between fans with some finding the film frustrating for it's lack of answers, while on the flipside, others find the book frustrating for removing the speculative element the film have by providing them. Your own preference will vary and I don't think you can say one of in any way objectively superior than the other, rather they are different by design and so have different objectives regarding their intentions of the affect they wish to have on the audience. Arthur C Clarke penned a sequel to the novel in 1982, 2010: Odyssey Two. This of course generated a lot of buzz regarding a possible adaption to recapture the lighting in a bottle of the 2001: A Space Odyssey movie. The film, adapting the novel, was all things considered a remarkably quick turnaround, coming out in 1984 and received a mixed response from critics and fans alike. The consensus at the time being that it was not able to get out of the shadow of the original film to push the science fiction movie industry forward in the way it had so it fell short. Personally I think this was an unfair expectation placed on the films shoulders and such transformative films come out due to a combination of factors, most of which can't be simply imposed in advance by the filmmakers. The criticism that I feel does stick however was, in rushing to get the film out so quickly, the film played it very safe with quite pedestrian directing rather than hiring a director with a true creative vision to imbue the film with something grander. That said, it is a film I hold dear to my heart and think it has a lot of offer people who give it a chance and has interestingly in recent years started to build up a bit of a cult following with some people even regarding it as superior to 2001: A Space Odyssey. While I would not go that far myself, speaking strictly in terms of filmmaking, 2010: The Year We Made Contact, is a more structured and easily digestible film and so I can certainly understand how people could prefer it on those grounds as they don't much care for 2001: A Space Odyssey that is very enjoyed as a more abstract, artistic, experience. 2010: Odyssey Two the novel was followed by two more, 2061: Odyssey Three in 1987 and ending the quadrilogy with 3001: The Final Odyssey in 1997, neither of which have yet been adapted to film. For those looking to experience the full saga, I would recommend starting with The Sentinel, 2001 the film, 2001 the book, 2010 the book, 2010 the film, 2061 the book and finally 3001 the book. Pretty much release order with the exception of 2001 where with them coming out together I think the movie, with it's ambiguity, is a better watch first before you are then given definitive answers in the novel.
Dominic Smith
2024-07-07 15:58:39 +0000 UTCYour feeling that your audience thinks that you're super-naive may be wrong? The quality and consistency of your reactions are on point. And if you don't like a movie, please dis it hard.
Grga Pitic
2024-07-07 15:51:56 +0000 UTCSince you're okay with abstract movies, I would love to see your reaction to a David Lynch movie. Something like Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, or Eraserhead. People have their own interpretations but you can have your own interpretation and story upon seeing them.
PIG
2024-07-07 15:38:39 +0000 UTCI'm so glad you saw this! I don't think knowing the book is required in enjoying this movie. When you walk through a museum and a painting grabs you, you know nothing of the history, plot, or information behind it when it has you. The painter made you feel something without any context and through that painting, as you make your observations, you begin to build a context of your own, unique to you and to the painter, that is it's own relationship. That's what I feel about this movie. Anyways it was gre- ... Wait. You did Ayahuasca FIVE TIMES! Holy crap.
PIG
2024-07-07 15:37:26 +0000 UTCYeah the effects certainly passed onto Star Wars (the effects in SW still impress me too) and later you can see it on STNG. All the way from the Enterprise to 2001, it still looks stunning in 2024. It's incredible.
PIG
2024-07-07 15:31:37 +0000 UTClol! Thank you for sharing
PIG
2024-07-07 15:29:44 +0000 UTCPost Script: Seeing the reaction I was moved to tears because of how it brought back my 1968, 12 year old self and the revelation the film brought (that cinema was a greater art form than anyone had told me) setting me on my life’s course as a filmmaker. That it still holds its power is astonishing. It confirms the film’s greatness and my incredible good fortune to have seen it when I did. Thank you Jen. You brought real joy with this one!
Jeff Preiss
2024-07-07 15:24:31 +0000 UTCYou may already know this, but Kubrick's effects in 2001 were so good that when the conspiracy that the moon landing was faked arose, it was Kubrick who supposedly directed the fake footage. See, Kubrick's film looked so real because the "real" footage was actually more Kubrick! (not really, of course).
Kevin Sommerfield
2024-07-07 14:48:15 +0000 UTC2010 The Year We Make Contact has been described as the Cliffs Notes version of 2001, spelling everything out that was somewhat ambiguous in the first film. I liked 2010, but you probably don't need it, you seemed to pick up on everything from the first film. Still, it's by the director who did Time Cop and I think it's a good watch, so you might want to check it out.
Kevin Sommerfield
2024-07-07 14:40:34 +0000 UTCI have seen this, no need to watch it again, Kubrick was a strange director.
zynjams
2024-07-07 14:01:13 +0000 UTCThere are some nefarious geometric shapes in Star Trek : The Next Generation. Watch with Jen on this site to know more!
Kevin Sommerfield
2024-07-07 13:58:27 +0000 UTCJen, you mentioned awhile back you would be up for doing a reaction to Barbie (2023). Now that you’ve seen 2001, you definitely should. Why? Now you will get the reference/parody at the beginning of Barbie. Just a thought.
Joe M
2024-07-07 12:49:35 +0000 UTCYay! I can’t wait to watch!!! Re: The sequel… here is the text of a letter (for real) Kubrick wrote on August 27, 1970 to James T. Aubrey, Jr. at Metro Goldwyn Mayer 245 N Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210. (expletive bleeping, mine) Dear James, It has come to my attention that you and your studio are considering producing a sequel to "2001: A Space Odyssey" over my objections. My attorney informs me that you hold the option and, legally, there is little I can do to stop you. However, I'd like you to know that I own the tapir bone prop from 2001 - the one "Moonwatcher" throws into the sky. If you attempt to make a sequel, I will cram that femur up your ass so far, it will take an undiscovered alien super-intelligence to figure out how to dislodge it. Seriously, don't f___ with me. Best regards, Stanley MGM Studios Boreham Wood Herts …One of the truly amazing things about 2001 A Space Odyssey, is that there hasn’t been a film made to compare it to ( from Hollywood at least) Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris (not the re-make, please) is generally thought to be the best parallel, but hard to imagine your doing a reaction to a film in Russian (watch it on your own if you get a chance)… ONE THING NOT TO BE MISSED: Fellow Youtuber and Patreoner, CinemaTyler has an absolutely brilliant making-of 2001 series. It’s beyond fascinating!
Jeff Preiss
2024-07-07 11:17:18 +0000 UTCYou might consider a good follow on film from this one which is Silent Running which Douglas Trumbull, who worked on the effects for 2001 did the effects for. Trumbull would go on to direct and write Silent Running which is a very good film which still stands up today with a message for the times that is still relevant. Most of the effects geniuses who worked on 2001 and Silent Running went on to do Star Wars in 1977 and start the wave of effects films which followed. These two films were their school. 2010 is a much more mainstream film but deserves a viewing. It also explains a few things from 2001 and also has a cameo by Arthur C. Clarke.
Stephen Koehler
2024-07-07 10:29:45 +0000 UTCAt the end, I loved your expression... just seemingly perplexed. BTW, no you weren't annoying at all. Just the right amount of talking and bringing up good questions.
Over50Gamer
2024-07-07 09:04:56 +0000 UTCYeah, it's stylistically different and more mainstream, but I quite like it.
Guy Gordon
2024-07-07 08:56:21 +0000 UTCI'm very curious as to what your reaction would be to Kubrick's polarizing A Clockwork Orange. One of my favorites of his.
Guy Gordon
2024-07-07 08:54:00 +0000 UTCI always enjoyed 2010 as it's own thing, so I would recommend giving it a watch.
phillip giroux
2024-07-07 07:41:54 +0000 UTCRealize those groundbreaking and remarkable visual effects in 1968 were 9 years before "Star Wars". Douglas Trumbull was a genius. He dazzled us all with visual effects in other movies like: "Blade Runner", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", and "Star Trek The Motion Picture" (1979) to name a few. And yes please post the sequel "2010..."; It's really well done and worth the watch. 👍
Prof. Writhms
2024-07-07 07:41:50 +0000 UTCThe Tree Of Life 2011 is a film with some similarities to this you might enjoy
Matt
2024-07-07 07:30:15 +0000 UTCYou could watch the sequel 2010, which gives some explanation. Someone who thinks they understand everything on the first watch would be an overconfident moron.
SnabbKassa
2024-07-07 07:09:07 +0000 UTCI think you were right on top of everything here, Jen. Also, I laughed out loud when HAL said "I can't do that Dave ... Goodbye" and you said "Frickin AI!" I feel that way about HAL, and I feel that way about AI now. Great reaction!
Kevin Sommerfield
2024-07-07 06:53:37 +0000 UTCWait, what gave rise to the 'Geometric shapes are so nefarious!' statement? 😁
Jack O
2024-07-07 06:52:48 +0000 UTCI knew this would be right up your alley. It's even better on repeat viewings. It's certainly open to interpretation, but I think you picked up on the general idea. The monoliths were placed by some entity to push humanity to the next step of evolution. And I actually think this movie makes for great reaction videos, because it's just so damn good. The visual effects are impressive, the music is outstanding, and it has such a creepy and unsettling vibe, especially when HAL goes nuts and kills everybody. When our modern AI eventually goes insane, we can't say that we were never warned.
Joe Blankenship
2024-07-07 06:07:54 +0000 UTCYou mentioned some experimenting you did, now I'm interested in seeing your reaction to Altered States (1980)
Allen Bond
2024-07-07 05:54:43 +0000 UTC2010 is a much more straight forward adventure movie is very straight forward about what's going on. That said, it's a fun time and has some really good effects for the era.
djKENTO
2024-07-07 05:44:38 +0000 UTCAlso, just sat down with shnacks to watch the movie and your reaction side by side and, I have to say Jen, you've never come across as naiive to me. You seem to be pretty intelligent and I've seen some awesome observations come out of your critique and commentary. You see and understand both or multiple sides to movies and stories and the people who make them work. And that is why I'm a member of your Patreon. 😊
Over50Gamer
2024-07-07 05:38:06 +0000 UTCReally hope you check out FIRST MAN 2018 its far to underappreciated to win any polls but the practical effects, sets and music is amazing, you would love it😊
Matt
2024-07-07 05:13:53 +0000 UTCI highly recommend 2010 and it's one of my favorite Sci Fi movies along with Star Trek. It's a lot more straightforward of a space adventure movie. It does continue the story of 2001, but the cinematography and tone of the movie is much more approachable and is a typical 80s Sci Fi movie. Since you like Star Trek II and III, then I think you'll enjoy 2010.
Bret Kay
2024-07-07 04:57:07 +0000 UTCWould love to see your reaction to 2010 Jen. It's a good movie, with more answers, and appeals a bit more to a mainstream audience. (Good cast too)
Eric Denney
2024-07-07 04:16:34 +0000 UTCGlad I'm not the only one here who's read 3001. I still haven't read 2061 and I probably should. I've read other ACC works and he is an amazing author.
Over50Gamer
2024-07-07 04:12:27 +0000 UTCYou've probably already figured this out, but the music at the beginning was the overture from the original roadshow release. Many longer movies had them in the 50s and 60s, though they were usually a little more melodic. 🙂
Bryan Tuck
2024-07-07 04:10:25 +0000 UTCSide note: in binary (or format-wise this would be octal), 001 is 1 and 010 is 2. May just be a fluke... or maybe not 🤔
Over50Gamer
2024-07-07 04:03:55 +0000 UTCI think I commented before on this, but I'll say it here too. I think 2010 works very well with 2001. Yes, they're totally different direction styles, but 2010 does a great job explaining things about what happened in 2001 and building off of it without violating that movie's spirit. It also has some of the best performances by Roy Scheider and John Lithgow. EDIT: At the Patreon credits, you said almost EXACTLY correctly what HAL's conflict was, and that was an amazing observation. That being said, you would enjoy 2010.
Over50Gamer
2024-07-07 04:01:13 +0000 UTCmonkeys.......space.......starchild......
Kristin D
2024-07-07 03:45:18 +0000 UTCIt does happen lol but luckily not to me or anyone I drank with
Jen M
2024-07-07 03:39:02 +0000 UTCLOL I literally said to my editor how weird it must be for him to edit Seinfeld and then this back to back, couldnt be more different lol
Jen M
2024-07-07 03:38:23 +0000 UTCAwesome! This film has the single best transition in cinematic history. Kubrick avoided explaining the end but did so in this 1980 interview if you want to listen. I won't spoil it for others if they haven't watched. There are many videos on the making of this on Youtube as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er_o82OMlNM The red Djinn chairs in the Hilton were designed by Olivier Mourgue and were commercially available but Kubrick supposedly had these destroyed after filming. I was lucky enough a few years ago to find a chair and a company that made replica tables that accompany them in the film.
Geoff S.
2024-07-07 03:33:54 +0000 UTCI agree that 2010 is worth the watch as well.
Mike Miner
2024-07-07 03:30:09 +0000 UTC2010 is a decent movie. It's nowhere near the groundbreaking masterpiece that 2001 is, it's much more of a conventional sci-fi thriller. And it does a pretty good job exploring the aftermath of 2001's ending without robbing it too much of its mystery. But it's absolutely non-essential at the same time.
Kevin Kuenn
2024-07-07 03:28:42 +0000 UTCDave followed the monolith into the realm of infinite knowledge,the aliens built a cage for Dave to live out the rest of his life to be reborn as the Star-Child,don't worry about Frank's body drifting in space forever,Frank's remains will be discovered in Jupiter's orbit in the year 3001...if you felt a bit uneasy that's what Kubrick was looking for....
Celeste McAllister
2024-07-07 03:28:09 +0000 UTCIt's so funny that you watched this in the same week as Seinfeld. "WHAAAAT's the DEAL with all those monkeys???"
Mike Miner
2024-07-07 03:27:18 +0000 UTCSo scared of Ayahuasca! 'Fraid I'm gonna 💩 myself in front of a buncha people. 😳
Julian Pamplin
2024-07-07 03:26:29 +0000 UTCI will watch the intro and outro because those are always great 👍
Ian
2024-07-07 03:25:32 +0000 UTC2010 is not the same sort of film as 2001 but it does tie up a lot of the plot threads from that film so I think it's worth seeing.
Tim Arnold
2024-07-07 03:24:48 +0000 UTC
