review by Rick Dabagian Patron
2001: A Space Odyssey 1968
Watched Apr 01, 2012
Rick Dabagian’s review:
Let's be real, this is more a work of art than anything some old French or Italian dude painted a bunch of years ago. You don't have to watch any other movie to know that this is the best Sci-Fi movie ever made. One of the best movies, period. Amazing shot after amazing shot, through the entire film. It only takes you about five minutes into the movie to realize you are watching something truly amazing, and Kubrick doesn't disappoint.
I won't go on too long because most have seen it and many have reviewed it, but I will say that I think it shares its only flaw with The Shining, which is a climax that doesn't quite live up to the rest of the film. Both movies are so powerful at building a quiet tension with meticulous and beautiful scenes that when we get to some action the movie slightly gets away from the aspects that made the first half so great. I like to imagine that Kubrick might have been persuaded to add more "action" for the sake of the audience, but all I know is that I much prefer the scenes where "nothing happens."
"I much prefer the scenes where "nothing happens."" My sentiments exactly. I have seen it at least 10 times but always fell asleep whenever there were "plot" bits. Isn't that funny? The shots of space were always so captivating I would never sleep through those. Finally saw it last year for the first time with no naps at all, and I thought it was fantastic, but I still don't like the bits of plot.
When I read that line about this being the best SF movie ever made, my instinct was to disagree... but you're right. It is the best. The only other SF movie I'd put up with this is Gilliam's 12 MONKEYS, which is such a different film it seems silly to compare them.
Also, I will never ever understand someone who calls this movie boring. This is one of the most vibrant and energetic films ever made.
Amen, Lise.
Cole: I definitely can see why it might not be very accessible to everyone, but nothing is. It also might be easy to confuse slow for boring, at least to the casual movie viewer. And there are some other great Sci-Fi movies but I don't think any of them even come close to what this film accomplishes. There might be more "entertaining" Sci-Fi picks, perhaps.
I've noticed there are a few movies I really love that have these really well defined separate acts that almost stand alone. In 2001 we have The Dawn of Man, TMA-1, and the two Jupiter parts. So when I say act, I don't necessarily mean the traditional 3 acts, just hard splits in the pacing of a movie. Each section in this movie is extremely unique except for the common thread running through them. All are amazing feats in film-making.
The next film I think of is Army of Shadows. It spans a much shorter time period(!!!) but it still has a very deliberate timeline with very distinctive scenes which are all very different in their design. Not only are these filmmakers creating amazing movies, they are giving us so many extraordinarily different pieces.
Then I think of my favorite movie, High and Low. The opening scenes including the kidnapping, the ransom, the investigation and finally the "chase." Each part has a different tone and they are all done masterfully. As I think about it, I think tone is the reason why movies like these are so amazing. The average movie is so bland and one note, and when they change pace they do it clumsily. But when a great director can change direction and emotion with such skill it's really an amazing movie experience
Just watched this again and while it wasn't the same experience as the first time I found the Jupiter Mission "action" more enjoyable this time around. Maybe I was wrong about that being a flaw
I don't think you can say anything is the best anything if you haven't watched anything else. Maybe I'm missing your point.
I'm sure Rick just meant that it stands on its own without having to be compared to other films. It would have an impact even if you had never seen any other film.
@Lise You might be right about what he meant, but I also don't understand why this has to be "more a work of art" than paintings. Why is the fact that some paintings are old presented as a flaw? Why can't there be multiple kinds of art suited to different preferences?
I think maybe I just don't understand what Rick is trying to say.
I think he's just trying to say that it is a work of art, and not a mere "movie". For many "art" tends to mean paintings hanging at the Louvre, and old ones at that (think of all the "I could have painted that" references to modern art). Add to that that many also think that movies are just entertainment and not art. So within that context I think he's just saying: hey, art ain't just the Rembrandts of the world; 2001 is art too, but isn't recognized as such by most. The use of best or more than etc I would guess is just to show enthusiasm.
Lise has done a good job interpreting my meaning. I'll try to add a bit.
I didn't mean that you LITERALLY don't have to watch anything else. Maybe a slight exaggeration, but I do think that with a basic knowledge of film you can watch 2001 and realize it's something unique that is very unlikely to be matched. Furthermore, I consider the sci-fi genre to be one of the weaker ones in the breadth of cinema. 2001 is so incredible that I feel confident calling it the best sci-fi movie without having seen every single other sci-fi flick.
Do you really not understand me or are you just disagreeing? You don't understand why it has to be more a work of art? This is my opinion, that this hugely complex(relative to a painting, imo) and original creation is more impressive and meaningful than a still painting. I strongly believe that. I have nothing against traditional art, paintings etc, but for me they don't compare. And I wasn't referring to old paintings as flawed, I was referring to "old" artists, as in artists that are long gone(as is the case with the most well known paintings).
ooooh, that's quite the can of worms you are opening there in your last paragraph... good thing you plastered it with "imo"s ;-)
8-) challengers welcome(though not really, just a personal preference)
@Rick Okay, but Kubrick had dozens or hundreds of people help him so it damn well better be more involved of a process than a lone person painting a picture all by themselves based on a vision in their own mind.
I disagree that it's better just because there's more to it. Hundreds of people Vs. one person will always lead to that.
I think both can be a work of art. One doesn't negate another.
Of course, they both are. And I'm not saying Kubrick did it all, but he did have the vision, and the end product is the end product, hundreds of people or not. Standing alone a film is worth so much more to me than a painting. If someone gets more from a painting, great. Whatever works for you
This film will always be near the top of my list......my overrated list that is. :-)
Even Lise; when she is being honest, will admit to dozing off at least a half a dozen times trying to watch this film!
One person's art is another person's.......
"Best sci-fi film ever!" ......not by a long shot!
You have exhibited great taste otherwise Rick. :-)
It is very fashionable for the "artsy" crowd to defend this film; so you will have lots of letterboxd support.
Just wait until Len finds this thread. :)
Haha, yes, come on in Len
But I don't mind if people don't like it very much. It has a certain quality that isn't for everyone. Different techniques work for different people, no shame in that.
Wow, I'm sorry I missed this party. I'll stand with you toe to toe Rick against all comers!
Haha, glad I can count on you Jonathan
My favorite sci-fi of all time. Kubrick is such a talented director, can't wait to check out more of his work!! Nice review man
Thanks Bruno. Kubrick is great; I still need to catch up on a few of his