jbirtel

In 1968, a movie critic that had panned 2001 on its original release (and later retracted) wrote: "Everyone hates 2001 except people".

The Odyssey demanded: "To appreciate 2001, is to see it again. And again! "

2001 defies conventional rules of any generic movie. Multi-layered enough to deceive its audience by zeroing its focus on the 'HAL' crisis.

Subplot is presented as 'The Major Plot'! And 'The Major Plot' is demoted to Subplot. But it is that 'Major Plot' that ultimately fascinates. That; and the realistic hardware that is subjectively presented as if you, the viewer, were a passenger along for the ride. That is the core of the movie's mystical power that entices people to revisit over and over again.

And because of its subplot, it's no accident that HAL steals the show.

A question that asks 'What If...'

What if human evolution was the outcome of extra terrestrial manipulation.

A 'Part 1' and 'Part 2' story covering humankind's 2 stage evolutionary process.

Part 1 is told in 16 minutes! Part 2 takes the 2 hour remainder.

Because novel and film were simultaneously 4 years in the making (Arthur C Clark couldn't release the book until 2 months after the general release), Kubrick takes full artistic license to go full speed ahead in defiling any previous sci fi movie; any previous book adaptation; and reinvigorating the silent film format all at the same time.

Plus the most intensive science/movie research on space travel technology ever conceived up to that point that, 36 years later, hasn't been outdated yet. Every detail, down to the low hum of air filtration, was incorporated.

Using 'real time slices of life' sections of only a few chapters, Kubrick, at his command, displays his brilliant understanding of the film median. He stretches the bonds and bounds of film rules, breaks many along the way and creates some of his own.

It is one of the most subjective and kinetic movies ever produced. It's a film that demands to be sensed, watched and listened to.

And one of the few times where book & movie go hand in hand.

In space, no one can hear...anything! As far as I know, Stanley is the only film maker who had the balls to use the dead silence of space to create the story's tension.

"2001: A Space Odyssey" tantalizes us with food for thought; and in that tantalizing area, it doesn't disappoint.

If you don't 'get it' the 1st time you see it; get in line. I saw it the 1st time in 71'. And I didn't fully appreciate it for 14 years and a few viewings later.

A word about Alex North's original score. By itself, the score is awesome. If you start the CD when the MGM logo appears you can actually sync the music to what appears on screen for the 1st 6 or 7 minutes. It creates a flavor all its own. And that's why Kubrick was (unfortunately) justified in yanking it. By placing music over the 'Dawn of Man' sequence, it destroys the desolation and near extinction that early man/ape faced. And nothing could replace Kubrick's selection of existing music for Heywood Floyd's space journey. The main problem is SOMEONE should have told Alex that his music wasn't used before he attended the premiere.

Perfect Acting! (contrary to a lot of reactions). People in the high risk, professional space program are trained to react with minimal emotion. To do otherwise, could mean the difference between life and death...even when death occurs. And the underrated William Sylvester does a brilliant bit of camouflage during his morale speech to the troops; and drops his 'nice guy' mask for 1 split second to reveal how ruthless he is for the sake of (so-called) security. If you literally blink, you miss it. He's got these people by the balls and there's nothing in their power they can do about it.

Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood gave exceptional performances that made you believe they were astronauts actually aboard the Jupiter bound Spaceship Discovery

When I purchase my wide screen projection and 8 ft screen, guess what movie is going on 1st?

Maybe my last review was a tad hasty.

I had previously posted an earlier (harsher) comment based on the theatrical release the day before the DVD's U.S. debut. Should have waited just a couple more days.

After viewing the 'Unrated Director's Edition' with my wife and son (neither had seen it), it came down to this: This was much, much more enjoyable the 2nd time round. Just because this didn't scare me, doesn't mean that this movie isn't scary. I had just as much fun (maybe I'm sick!) watching out of the corner of my eye, my wife and son "yip", jump and cringe behind their couch pillows during the shocking scenes; as much as I did re-watching the flick itself. Or maybe cuz it was late Saturday night; the night before Halloween! Dying (no pun intended) for something to watch that would be kinda scary (at least for them). Something scary on a global crisis level! And guess what? For them...the scares delivered; Yep-per-ree!!...them scares delivered Big Time!

The 'Unrated...' clears up a few more plot holes (like ahh! how they got into the mall by breaking a store window without being followed??) and establishes a little more character opportunities. It did seem better acted the 2nd time around. Fact is, it was just some 'actor spottiness' by a couple of the supporting players that colored my original perceptions. And if Jake Weber doesn't get more acting jobs after this, he needs to fire his agent. The guy's got great voice inflection!

On a hunch, I bought the 'Unrated'...dvd during it's 1st week, while still on sale discount. Because I very much wanted to like this movie, in spite of how disappointing it seemed the 1st time seeing it. Besides, it was Halloween weekend. You know everyone enjoys a good, scary Halloween fright flick during Halloween time...Right?? Hey; doesn't most everybody??? Well...good decision!

Is it as good or better than the original? Not quite!...but that's an opinion. A few too many scenes where thrills take precedent over logic (try exploding a propane tank so close to a fueled powered bus). There's no denying that many vintages surpass the original. And some nice departures on its own. A 1st time director??...there's worse out there from seasoned veterans.

(Secret for uping the scare scale!: Ya just gotta know when to discreetly crank up the volume during the shocking, graphic moments...it helps.)

Why remake a good movie? (Oh! the money...duh!) Personally, I'd like to see more movies that WEREN'T done right the first time get remade.

My expectations were a little low. Then the movie starts!...and Hey! there's hope after all. A creepy beginning that gets sca-aarr-rry! OK! I can live with 'super-zombies' if this quality is maintained. Unfortunately, the opening is the best part.

For any film to succeed ya gotta have something called characterization. And except for Sarah Polley and (the always reliable) Ving Rames; everyone else is snoresville. There's just too many characters filling up space and not enough quality writing to justify their being there. Where's the acting? The shock or panic? They seem to be just running thru their lines as if they can't wait for "lunch is here" to be announced.

Even in horror movies, a certain logic has to prevail to make the surrounding apocalypse feel believable. This has holes large enough for a fleet of semis. It feels like everyone was so impressed with themselves that they were somehow part of horror history with their involvement with a 'Romero Dead Remake' that the logical details were forsaken for shock sake. And this list of plot holes are too long to take up time to start listing.

Conclusion: Stick with the original and rent for curiosity sake. Not without merit, but it just didn't work for me...I'd rather watch a scary movie the scares!