2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) | Movie Reaction | First Time Watching | AI Was Bad Even in the 1960s!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 авг 2023
- We are kicking off our Summer Time Sci-fi Movie Marathon with the Grandaddy of them all, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Here's our reaction to our first time watching.
Get the Full-Length Commentary & More on Patreon
Our PATREON: / youmethemovies
(For Polls, Early Access, Full-Length Reactions + More!)
Our MERCH: www.youmethemovies.com/
Our INSTAGRAM: / youmethemovies
Our TWITTER: / youmethemovies
Shop The Coldest Water: www.coldest.com/YouMeTheMovies
Use Promo Code YouMeTheMovies to get 10% OFF your entire order.
#2001ASpaceOdyssey #MovieReaction #FirstTimeWatching
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Mailing Address:
You, Me, & The Movies (Supchucks Media)
100 24th St West Ste 1 #3072
Billings, MT 59102
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED.
All rights belong to their respective owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Развлечения
The noise in the First 2 minutes and 57 seconds are the Overture. Most movies back in the day had an Overture. The curtains of the movie screen would still be closed. The Overture was there to set the Mood of the film. I wish films would still have Overtures today.
It amazes me that overtures continue to confound RUclips reactors even at this late date.
You forgot to say how the overture would continue, as people were being seated, until it was time for the film to begin.
Replaced by coming attractions, commercials, trivia.
@@Dularr The Overture itself also replacing news reels and cartoons from decades prior
With only 1 film playing they played the soundtrack in the lobby & restrooms. Overtures were a few minutes warning. Final seating w/lights on, we're dimming the lights, & movie is about to start. Lobby Smokers & Junior Narcissists playing w/your hair in bathroom mirrors, please return to your seats.
Sometimes you just know how a reaction is going to go before you've seen it.
😂
Thanks for the comment, saved me a wasted hour
Exactly what I expected. But TED went over very well!! "Shave an hour off." Ugh, done with this joke channel.
I knew she'd hate it lol. I love it, but still enjoyed the reaction.
I love a film that takes its time and builds a mood. It's rare these days. I lioe exploring things I can't always understand or comprehend. It gets my imagination flowing. Some people don't like to do all that.
She hates it, shocked.
In my younger days movies were considered to be an escape from reality. These days it seems people want the Cliff Notes version of the story so they can get back into their everyday lives as quickly as possible.
Or…is it that the movies you preferred to watch as a younger person reflected your attention and maturity level. Certainly my tastes have changed over time.
Their everyday lives of brainless talentless TickTock videos & Superhero movies? Our society, especially the younger generation, is made up of many immature lazy (enjoy wearing your Crocs & Laceless Skechers) entitled dolts.
Love 3 hour movies with deep storylines, but Kubrick stuff, I'll pass on every time.
@@Embur12 Which 3 hour movies with deep storylines do you Love?
yeah, yeah everything was so much better in our own youth, we get it.
Mrs. Movies proves the point that older movies took their time, and today's movies take no time. Think about it.
not only the movie makers fault, but the audience attention span doesn't last very much these days...
@@EnchoIndieStudio True.
I don't think that's all there is to it. A movie like Once Upon A Time In The West also takes it time, but to me does it in a much better way than this one. I know this movie is considered a master piece, it has themes that I like, I like quite a lot of sci-fi; but there"s something about the way things are pictured here that I don't like at all. It reminds me of video installations in art exhibitions, which I don't like either. I try to re-watch the movie every decade of see to see if my taste has evolved enough to like the movie better; so far no luck.
@@EnchoIndieStudio A good point. I had the same reaction. I was used to Star Wars and Star Trek. It took me a second viewing to appreciate 2001.
@EnchoIndieStudio So the Witcher producers were right?
In the book, HAL-9000 is a sympathetic character who is so human that he develops a psychosis, and his reasons for why he takes the actions he does are explained. The instructions that he was given from the White House to conceal the monolith clashed with his basic programming not to conceal information from the crew. HAL was working on a non-murderous solution to the problem, but overheard plans from Mission Control to temporarily disconnect him. HAL didn't understand the concept of sleep and thought that this would kill him, so he panicked. Kubrick chose to leave HAL's motives more ambiguous in the movie, which makes HAL seem more monstrous.
The White House, eh? I bet it was one of them ultra right wing white supremacist MAGA Trump supporting insurrectionists!
More specifically, since HAL was out of options - and their disregard for his feelings and fear of death was fairly callous by the crew - he realized that killing everyone would resolve the logical conflict between being required to tell the crew the truth and being told by the military not to tell them about the mission before their arrival. If everyone is dead, then HAL is keeping the secret without lying.
What is important is that HAL cannot choose to disobey his conflicting orders. It is literally impossible for him. So, if humans hadn't forced him into a lie due to their greed to "get it first" before other groups of humans - an interesting critique of the government and a point about how even the mundane lies we allow them to tell us does still carry a cost - there would never had been a problem in the first place and everything would have been fine. It was our own human failings held us back - and HAL is basically a victim of them.
Wasn't HAL also starting to develop emotions? Honestly, Kubricks handling of HAL was my least favorite part of the movie. He took something very complex and dumbed it down to what is now basically a stereotype.
Kubrick lied to Clarke about what was happening in the movies. This is why the book is different than the movie screen play.
Let's be honest, this is not a well written movie. Even for something with 20lines of dialog. Most of it half saying, "Dan....................... Stop............................. Please, Dan........................................ Don't".
"You ever been through a wormhole?"
"No...Neither has Stanley Kubrick."
Nailed it.
The reason Hal went nuts is that he had to lie to Dave and the other guy. His malfunctions were a desperate way of avoiding the contradiction. If everyone had been told the real reason they were going to Jupiter, Hal would have been fine because he wouldnt have to pretend. This is canon from the books.
''Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL.''
''I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.''
Mrs Movies: I’m annoyed the most successful experimental movie of all time was experimental lol
True science fiction is about the discovery of the unknown, which this film epitomizes. Back in the old days, long epic films would have several minutes of music play to let the audience know the movie would be starting soon so they could take their seats and be ready. 10-15 minute intermissions were included in the middle to let people go to the bathroom and such before the second part started. The presence of the Monolith is what caused the apes to begin evolving. By touching it and seeing how smooth it was compared to the rough, rocky terrain around them, the realization came into their minds that it was something that was "made." So later one of the apes had an epiphany. Basically, it was "If someone made that giant rock become smooth, what could I make this large bone into?" and figured out that he could take the animal bone and wield it as a weapon. All the consequences that came with that new knowledge followed afterwards. You'll notice the ape throws the bone into the air and then it match cuts to the future with an orbiting nuclear bomb in space in the fictional year 2001 as seen from the 1960s. It's a weapon to weapon cut. The film came out in 1968 but was so accurate in its depiction of outer space and the moon that astronauts afterwards said being on the moon made them feel like they were in the movie. As far as the ending is concerned, Kubrick stated that Dave is transported by the Monolith through a star-gate to an alien world inhabited by a god-like, higher alien intelligence. To them, Dave and the rest of Humanity at that point, are still just a more evolved version of apes (you'll notice Dr. Floyd touched the Monolith on the moon the same way the apes did millions of years prior). So, the aliens basically put Dave in a cage in a zoo to study him. You might notice in our zoos that we tend to dress the animal's cages to try and match the environments that they are used to being in to make them feel more comfortable. Kubrick said that the aliens gave it their best shot and essentially dressed Dave's cage with decor that they figured a human would find aesthetically pleasing and comfortable to live in. The off-screen noises you hear while Dave is in his cage are like the equivalent of what animals might hear when people are watching and talking about them from the opposite end of the glass. So, Dave basically lives out the rest of his life in his cage with a disjointed sense of time and then at the end he is transformed by the Monolith into a super being (officially referred to as the "Star Child") and sent back to Earth for reasons unknown.
intermissions were invented to sell ice cream at inflated prices ;-)
Glad you got it off your chest....
No one cares, let other people figure it out for themselves.
Can't wait to see her watch Lawrence of Arabia. LoL
i ain't reading all that, sorry that happened to you or congrats
This is the deepest of movies, and it is amazing how it is more than a half century old and it still holds up visually artistically, like it was made yesterday
Nah, if it was made yesterday it wouldn't be half as good.
Most of the message and commentary in this movie was visual, not in the dialogue. So a lot of the “artsy” scenes were really telling the story
His audience was the acid trippers who accounted for half of the ticket sales.
Kubrick was a photographer before going into movies, and it shows in his style of visual storytelling. It might already be a lost art.
Viewers these days think any movie can be improved by whipping out the editing scissors and hacking half an hour out of it.
@@mikegilgenbach4840 Not true but why let the truth stand in the way of a good line.
Fun Trivia: the little girl Floyd talks to on the video phone was Stanley Kubrick's daughter, Vivian, who would later go on to direct and edit the behind the scenes documentaries for her father's films , The Shining and Full Metal Jacket.
You should see the sequel 2010. It explains most of the mysteries and it's a very different film experience. Much more accessible.
Definitely offered me a lot of conclusions to heaps of questions I had in 2001.
It totally feels like a Spielberg movie
The film is way too heavy on the anti soviet themes but it does a somewhat nice job of explaining Hal's motivations. The sequel 100% lost the feel of the first though and I regard it a mid tier 80's movie, which for the sequel to 2001 is not a good title.
@@garethlawton5278 The film makes a pretty good case that the Soviet government and the Soviet citizens are not the same beast. If anything, the film is anti-Cold War, and that was topically unavoidable in 1984. Also, the sequel never tried to match the original because they knew it was impossible, so it tried to approach the subject matter from an outsider's perspective rather than try to immerse the audience again, and it retained as much mystery as it revealed. I consider it an upper-tier 80s film, which is saying a lot considering the tendencies of that decade; it avoids a lot of trends that even top-tier 80s films were victim to.
"My God - it's full of stars!"
Mrs. Movies is definitely NOT an idiot. I had to watch the movie a few times before I understood what was happening with the apes, and I'm a retired engineer . . ..
The relationship to the book is complicated - it was inspired by a short story Arthur C. Clarke wrote called "The Sentinel", but then Kubrick hired him for the movie as well, and he wrote a novelisation of the movie (which sold really well because it tells people what the Hell they just saw). It really does help a lot.
The guys in the monkey suits studied chimps at the zoo.
I think the stewardess on the moon flight is wearing that thing on her head to stop her hair from flying out in all directions (you can see clips of exactly that happening for real with some of the female astronauts on the ISS)
Exactly right about the hair and they couldn't fake that in the movie hence the helmet.
A landmark of science fiction cinema, a quaint artifact of the 1960s and undeniably one of the most beautiful, majestic films of all time.
A double bill of this and Solaris would be a hell of a ride.
@@reservoirdude92 If you mean the original Solaris, that ride is a trip to the coma ward. They're both undeniably important films, but "glacial" pacing doesn't even begin to cover it.
@@dostatochno I'd never recommend Soderbergh's before Tarkovsky's don't worry haha
@dostatochno but I'm big into slow cinema, so I guess that's just my bag.
Quaint?
Absolutely watch 2010, it's a decent follow-up, feels much more like a straight forward, "modern" movie, and as for why HAL did what he did... spoilers...! Should also watch Contact if you haven't
This is not artsy-fartsy, ist a 1960s sci-fi movie. We even didnt land on the moon yet, how do you make a hard science movie in a era where my wristwatch has more processing power then the 3 PCs used for the Moon landing. Yes its a very slow movie, but that is part of the experience, and no you cant shave anything off, the silence and dread of being in space is a character on it sown. Once upon a time in the west has a 7 minute "silent" intro where wind and screeches is all you get, along with some iconic stares. Its CINEMA not everything needs to be like fast food, somethings need you to invest the time to appreciate.
In 1964, Kubrick wrote Clarke a letter asking if he could help him create the proverbial good science fiction movie. Clarke gave him a short story to read that he had written for a contest in 1948 called The Sentinel. It became the foundation for what was to come.
Note: the novel was written in parallel with Kubrick's film being made, meaning that the film should not be considered a de facto adaptation of Clarke's novel; they are individual and separate works with different meanings and commentary. The novel is imbued with Clarke's vision and the film is imbued with Kubricks vision of the same narrative.
Well, this should be interesting. The dark opening was also a) to let people get to their seats, and b) is emblematic of the black monolith - and the experience you are about to go on. The "lava lamp" effects were created by putting a thin sheen of oil on a plastic sheet, sprinkling different powders on the sheet and then lifting from underneath. He comes back to Earth as the star child, the next step forward for mankind.
The desert shot during the beginning was actually filmed in England, it was entirely indoors using clever cinematography and paintings in the backgrounds
Thank you for letting us know that.
No they were high definition still shots photographed in different locations round the world, not painted backgrounds. The foregrounds were built in the studios and Kubrick developed a special technique using very low light to project the images from the FRONT onto an extremely reflective screen. In this way, the images could not be seen on the ape men.
This is the kind of movie that you have to watch more than once to get all of the nuance.
And even then many people won't understand it - or even try to. 🙄
Maybe. Unless you've seen a decent amount of Science Fiction that was made since this than you've seen so many homages and "inspirations from" that see this seems like someone didn't bother to tell Kubrick to reign it in a bit. The nuances seem like self indulgences when others films have replicated the themes without having you swim in the themes.
Also, I only a decent number of folks that watch this while high and almost all have claimed to be blown away and that they "got the message." If it takes a mind altering substance to reveal something in your film does that say something about the film or the current state of minds needing to be altered?
@@jessecortez9449I would agree with the self-indulgence take if Kubrick had an agenda, but he clearly wanted to make an abstract story about human evolution that can mean many things. It’s not like the Shining where he includes a lot of heavy (and intriguing) Native American motifs. This is also pre-Moon landing and before home computers of any kind, so he definitely captured imaginations with this. Movies that have come since can rely on historical and cultural stepping stones. I think only Alien has truly captured the nightmare of space in the same way since. His style is just not some people’s cup of tea, but it’s good that we have a few classic directors who were making non-traditional films back in the 20th century.
Don't forget all the buttsex
And be open to.
“I would not be cut out for space if I was spinning the whole time” … we are in space and we are spinning the whole time.
your not aware of it though ....genius 😃😃😃
Musical overtures in movies (with nothing onscreen) used to be very common.
The quip about the Monolith looking like a Book of Mormon sticking up out of the ground tickled my inner and outer apostate... 🤣
You have to remember the first man into space was 7 years before this film came out and they hadnt landed on the moon yet, the story was even earlier, before man had got into space. so it was proper dreaming about what could happen
The book was being written as the film was being made.
If you ever get the chance watch this movie in a cinema. I wasn't too keen on it when i first watched it on dvd on a small box TV. Then saw it in a cinema years later and it blew me away. It was definitely made to be a cinematic experience. Never seen or heard anything like it.
I think my favourite effect was the pen floating, without cgi, that was really impressive.
I like how many monolith shapes there are hidden all over the film. The song Hal sings was the first thing a computer was programed to do, I think, that was a fun Easter egg.
Watching it again with you guys maybe Hal realised it wasn't going to be good for mankind as a whole so was going to abort the mission. Don't know why he'd say it was so important though. Either that or he was jealous and thought he'd be better suited to do the mission alone. I'd have to watch it again and think about it.
Not only was it written as the film was made, it was written by Clarke at the same time as Kubrick was writing the screen play, together.
The book and movie was supposed to be enjoyed in that order, read book, watch movie.
The book explains a lot more of what's going on, and knowing that you went into the movie to experience it with all of your senses and not only your own imagination (although Arthur C. Clarke is a MASTER at describing distance and scale).
I did it the other way around, I watched the movie, and liked it, and then much later on a whim picked the book up while staying at my cousins house. I read it all in one night, couldn't put the book down.
Then I watched the movie again and I LOVED it.
@@emil87th then kubrick thought nah, I'll just do it my way. Think it was just meant to be like any novelization and to be read after the movie. Clarke was writing it based on kubricks script and it was helping kubrick world build with the help of Clarke. But then he just scrapped the idea and Clarke wasn't too happy because he thought he was writing the film.
I really don't think kubrick would of wanted people to read the book before you saw his film. And he went off the idea because he wanted to leave it more open to interpretation and Clarke liked to explain everything.
Turns out Clarke turns out wasn't a very nice man in the end either.
Makes sense kubrick rarely botherd to Finnish a book before making a film about said book
"I know that this is like a masterpiece....right?...or some shit like that" The quote of the year. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"I swear I'm not an idiot. It was just not very clear," is a line I'm going to start using at work... a lot.
the long music at the beginning was to let the theater audience know that the movie was about to start and to take their seats. Most folks would be in the lobby getting snacks or smoking before the movie. The same is done at the intermission.
Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke wrote the screenplay together. It was inspired by a short story, The Sentinel, by Clarke, as well as other short stories of his. After the film was released, Clarke published the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, which he worked on during the screenplay process.
HAL knowing the secret message, causing him to freak out: a common theory, for sure.
Highly recommend the underrated sequel, 2010, different style of film but still very good and answers a lot of the questions from 2001.
It's not that underrated to be honest. It's criticisms are warranted. It's riddled with anti soviet themes which I get being an 80's movie but it gets old. I also found it to have lost all of the charm and feel of the first and ending up as a mid tier 80's movie. Which shouldn't be the case for a sequel to 2001.
@@garethlawton5278 Yea, Russia being the bad guys is so 1980s, would never would happen in modern society where they're the bastion of Democratic partners. Not everyone views 2001 as the pinnacle of film making. I know plenty of people who find it self indulgent and pretentious. It took me 4 tries to watch the entire film without falling asleep. There's a reason no films of note have copied it's style of 30 minutes of silent/music before any dialog. I prefer the traditional story telling of 2010, 2001 is a nice background art piece to fall asleep to, 2010 is a movie.
@@TalynOne Yeah, freezing in the dark with only vodka & stale bread is the plan of the democrat partners for us as of 2023.
@@garethlawton5278 Wish they'd had Yakov Smirnoff do the antisoviet dialog.
The answers didn't satisfy, as really they never could, so I prefer sticking to the mysteries of 2001.
The books, by Arthur C. Clarke, are award winners in their own right
pity about his child love problems
I was once lucky enough to have the opportunity to ask Kubrick what the ending actually means and I will always remember his response. "Use whatever stimulation you choose to partake in, watch the movie on the biggest and loudest screen you can and at the end, whatever the story means to you - that's what I wanted." Kubrick loved keeping things ambiguous in his films which is why he'd have hated the sequel 2010: The Year we make Contact since that's far more explanatory in it's story. It's still worth a watch though so I'd encourage you to seek it out.
Definitely sounds like a something a director would say who actually didn't understand the ending themselves. "I totally meant to it to be whatever you think it is!"
It's good for us then that this is equally owned by Arthur C Clarke then who wrote all four of the Odyssey series.
Actually had no idea there was a "2010" movie....
The novelization written by Clarke was more expositional regarding the ending. Dave was being evolved and finally merged with the Monolith (which is itself a sentient machine) to become the star child with the fetus representing something that no longer has a corporeal form.
His response is terrible.
Mrs. Movies" First 5 minutes just a black screen."
People who've already seen it: "Oh, just you wait"
It was just an extreme close up on the Monolith ;)
2001 is more than a movie. It's an attempt to try to get at that feeling of introspection you get when you contemplate the meaning of existence in your shower. The film is purposefully designed to allow you to interpret it. It hints at feelings we all have but can't quite explain in words. And while the film doesn't change, you do, so each time you revisit it, it can have a different meaning for you. The key thing is you're meant to let it wash over you, in deep focus and introspection, so try watching it again wihtout asking "what does it mean", just let the emotions guide you. It's not about a monolith or a rogue computer. It's about mankind and our relationship to the universe and endless quest to seek out answers. To quote Kubrick: "“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”
a legendary film by a legendary director on of the best science fiction films of all timez with a music score second to none!!! think how this would have looked back in 1968 on a huge movie screen to people that had never seen anything like it before.. remember this was a year before the moon landing .
Yes but as to cowboy guy's point... it couldn't win Best Score because none of the music was original. Kubrick used classic symphonic works. Kubrick intended the movie to be non-verbal but it was shown on massive screens with great sound as it was an audio-visual experience for people to see in the dark to see things humanity had never seen and reflect on humanity's existence in the universe.
I don't need to "think". I was there in 1968 when it opened in my city on the Cinerama screen. You're right it was mind blowing, absolutely unlike anything we had ever seen or heard.
Nobody except a still photography unit went to Africa, the ape scenes were done in London. The actors studied apes in London zoo to get it right. Kubrick got a still photography unit to shoot the backgrounds in Africa which were projected onto a screen under very bright lights to get rid of actors shadows. The ape set rotated so that the cameras could show different views. Looks like its all shot outdoors, but done in the studio. The classic 'stewardess walks upside down' scene was a simple trick pre-CGI, just fix the camera and rotate the whole set apart from the bit with her on it - she was essentially 'walking on the spot'. Same trick used in the Discovery ship, it was a giant rotating 'hamster wheel'. Oh, and did you recognise some shots of the Pan Am clipper approaching the station?...George Lucas 'borrowed' some for the Death Star. And that floating pen?... stuck to a sheet of glass.
This movie became very popular with the stoner crowd when it came out. Especially for the beyond the infinite scene. Some theaters would play this as their midnight movie for years back when midnight movies were a thing.
9:34 "This is a deep movie, huh? 'S a real deep fuckin' movie. ... I was not mentally prepared for that."
Okay, now what you need to do is take that quote and put it on a T-shirt in your merch store. And make sure it's clear that she's referring to 2001.
Saw this in the theater when it was first released, along with fellow graduate students in various fields of science (archaeology, paleontology, biology, and geology). We had some fun discussions about it afterward.
Lol I thought my school was being weird playing this movie across two lectures. It was a history of tech type of class and at the end of the movie an older classmate asked what I thought my answer was something around the lines of "he lost me during the ludacris speed/acid trip" and his response was "I should have brought you some acid too" then I noticed he was going to the moon 😂
It would be funny if the archeologist picked up on the alien was collecting artifacts. Creating a poor simulated habitat for the human.
do you enjoy 2023?
When it came to the attention of the studio that some people were watching the movie while high on drugs so they could REALLY enjoy all the lights and colors in the Jupiter sequence, they put out a new ad with a tagline promoting the movie as "The Ultimate Trip!"
I love Stanley Clarkes Bass playing in this movie.....
Check out 2010: The Year We Make Contact. That film is A LOT more streamlined and, though not as great as 2001, still very entertaining. Solid 1980's era cold war film.
The end sequence when he's in that strange room. It's he's basically in an observation room and analysed to see how their experiment in giving man knowledge and seeing if he's a force for good or bad. With the star child, they're saying we are.
They're saying we are...which?
@ct6852 That's up to the individual watcher to determine. What do you think?
@@jamesburns4180 I really don't know. Just had a big question mark after seeing this for the first time a decade ago...and still not sure what to think.
The point of the overture is to let you know the movie is starting, so hurry up and finish your popcorn purchase. I prefer it to ads.
Was not expecting this reaction, 2001 is a movie that isn't for every and yeah very confusing, but so amazing.
The earliest humans or pre humans in the beginning couldn't have understood the middle part of the film which was inhabited by us, the more evolved humans, so the third segment has to imagine a post human future that we ourselves aren't evolved sufficiently to understand. That's why the third segment turns into an impressionist art piece which is meant to be as mystifying and incomprehensible to us as our world would be to the earliest humans in the beginning of the film. Kubrick is trying to imagine and visually depict what is literally unimaginable to us. So there is a reason for the ending to be that way. It wasn't just Kubrick wanking off. It's also the significance of the floating space baby at the end. It references our rebirth as a species into some other evolutionary form.
It's not for everybody, but I will say that a lot of people don't click with this movie the first time they see it (this was also true for The Shining), including countless well known critics and even Woody Allen. He explained that the first time he saw the movie, he was really indifferent to it. It was only on subsequent viewings of it that he started to recognize that Kubrick was way further along on a curve. Allen said it took some time for him and many others to catch up to Kubrick. I felt that way the first time I saw it as a teenager. I liked it, but felt kind of unsure about it. I didn't understand the point of it. It's probably in my top 3 films of all time now. I've seen it countless times. If you take your time with it, like so many other Kubrick films, it will reward you when you try to interpret it and the film will grow on you.
I also remember taking an ex to see it and she was bored out of her mind. lol. It's also hard to fully appreciate this movie if you've never seen it in a theater the way it was intended to be seen.
2010: The Year We Make Contact is real fun and has a much more modern pace. There were rumors that Tom Hanks was going to make part 3, but it never happened.
2010 explains why HAL went bad.
I don't know if it's fair to call this the dawn of Sci-Fi. 1930's Metropolis heavily influenced Star Wars; namely C3PO.
My two penn'orth: It's a film you can't talk through..... It's a film that needs to be seen in the dark (especially the 'worm hole' bit)...... but I understand that doesn't work for a RUclips reaction channel.
It's a small detail but I just love the hand cell animated computer screens.
HAL was troubled because he was keeping a secret about the mission and when the humans were talking about aborting the mission, it decided that the mission was more important than the humans. The monoliths were about an ancient alien species trying to cause the human race to evolve. The final scenes were about the next version of Humanity. BTW - people have pointed out that HAL was just one letter in each case from IBM. Kubrick insists this wasn't the case.
A great film that doesn't hold your hand and forces you to pay attention. I love it and it's underrated sequel 2010. I think you two should watch the sequel if you get a chance, either on the channel or in your personal life.
I’ve been wanting to watch 2010 and haven’t gotten around to it. Is it more straight forward or does it follow a similar path as Kubrick?
@@CarloisBuriedAlive It hand-holds the audience with answers.
The first time I saw this movie was in high school Physics. The teacher had us do math problems based on things like gravity, orbits, and object rotations in the movie. Our final test was over 2010.
I also think it was an excuse for Mr. C to introduce us to a movie he really loved. And 24 years later, I still remember how much we all enjoyed those assignments.
The first time I saw this movie I was high.
Based teacher.
Any moron can read a lesson out of a textbook, but creating lessons that engage students and frame the information in an easily digestible fashion takes passion and commitment.
Lots of people call this a slow movie, which is true, but they don’t really understand how hypnotic and ultimately terrifying it actually is. It’s a masterpiece in my opinion but that’s just me
The book and screenplay evolved together, during filming. It is a very cool, but confusing story😊
The computer was called HAL because if you go one letter forward for each you get IBM
Mrs is in rare form in this reaction. She was definitely grumpy and didn’t seem interested in touching the monolith.
Good thing they didn't choose to do a music reaction channel, she'd hate everything ever recorded.
You have got to watch one of his best, A Clockwork Orange . I think you both will love it .
A little interesting backstory about the song that HAL sings as he is dying.
In 1961 Arthur C. Clark was visiting Bell Labs. He came across two researchers who were doing the first research into speech synthesis. They showed him their results. A computer singing a particular song.
ruclips.net/video/41U78QP8nBk/видео.html
Not really the sort of movie to stick a camera in your face and react to. It's an experience.
And yes. It's artsy and takes it's time. Are those fundamentally bad things?
The world is filled with non-artsy movies that leave zero room to think or intrepret or discuss. Just junk food movies. The list is neverending.
Is it not right that there should be slow, methodical movies that ask the audience to think and absorb things?
This is one of them and is considered by many to be one of the best.
Think of other movies that would even dare to tell the story of this scope. There aren't many.
It sort of is the kind of thing only a creative mind at the height of his powers and commercial success could ever attempt because it's so bold and out there, they would never be given the opportunity otherwise. It's a little like the double album effect when a band goes all out after they hit their commercial peak. It's a bit indulgent and overlong at times but there are usually real gems in there and creative concepts that you only ever get from a band/director trying to reach to new places and having the freedom to do it.
ugh you're one of the those people. My guy it's just a film.
@@RamiroEloy1997 your use of the term 'it's just a film' says it all.
Some films are among the most bold, original, groundbreaking in their field. Not just another film like Ted 2 or whatever. Even your great modern spectacles like Dune will be long forgotten in 50 years time.
Just like some books are not just like other books. Some have changed writing. Influenced millio ns of creative works. Become tentpoles in their genre.
It is just a film but it's one the most iconic, influential films of the 20th century.
I absolutely love this movie, but fully understand it’s not for everyone. Not for any sort of “they aren’t smart enough to get it” kind of way, but rather it just doesn’t appeal to everyone’s tastes. Nothing wrong with that. Film is subjective. Look at all the “best movies of all time” lists. No one agrees on what the best movies are, or what order movies should be ranked. We all have different tastes.
That being said, I believe 2010 might be a little more up your alley. It is far more traditional storytelling. A plot that is fairly easy to follow and laid out more simplistically (not suggesting you need it, but it’s just a lot easier to get into).
Packing the bowl now.
You're right, Mrs. Movies. This film is very deep. It's a hallmark of Stanley Kubrick films. I liked the sequel, '2010'. It's a fair bit easier to follow, plus I really like Roy Scheider.
None of the music was written for the movie. The intro to the movie was the intro to Richard Strauss's 1896 "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (Thus Spoke Zarathustra or Zoroaster). Much of the music had been composed in the previous decade or two. It was experimental -- and a lot of people called it noise. An exception was Johann Strauss's "The Blue Danube Waltz," composed in the mid-1800s.
There actually was a score written for the movie - but Kubrick discarded it, as he liked the classic pieces better.
It is said that was Kubrick's plan anyway, but the studio wanted a 'normal' score, so he commissioned Alex North, knowing it would not be used.
But the Alex North soundtrack was published on Varése Sarabende records and CDs, so you can still listen to it.
@@Cau_No I forgot about that! Thanks!
Even for millions of years, the human species has always remained impatient.
im old enough to have seen this film first run in true Cinerama. the overture at the very beginning was played with the lights on to cue the audience to be seated, lights dimmed and the actual film began
I saw this when I was about 10 years old, and did not get lost once. Oh, and I never thought HAL was evil, only confused and fighting for his survival. I felt the same way about the replicants in Blade Runner, which my mom took me when I was 12. I guess it helped that I began reading science fiction and horror books at a very young age. My mother gave me Stephen King's first novel, Carrie, when I was 8. I always feel sorry for HAL and the replicants. In these films, man is a screwed up species, in need of more enlightenment.
In my opinion, the most amazing and fascinating thing about this movie is the concept idea. The idea that there's a civilization out there that is capable of guiding a species into their evolution. In this case, our ancestors were given a little touch in their minds so they started using tools and that freed them from starvation and gave them the advantage over others . But this civilization seems to be like gods in a way. We never see them, we don't know anything about them. We only see this monoliths, just this pitch black monoliths waiting for humanity to find them as they evolved into a civilization capable of travelling through space.
The movie is incredible. If you think, this was 1968... think about it, and think what you saw and how it looked. It's not important the fact that they thought that PAN AM was going to last until that year, the important thing is the rest of the ideas. A.I. for example, and now we are discussing about AI in our present.
You should try 2010 THE YEAR WE MADE CONTACT, which is very good sequel for this masterpiece.
What is the significance of the last part of the evolution in the film and the star child?
Kubrick was one of the greatest directors ever. Yes the last part is trippy and artsy, but that's why many love it. I think the monolith repesents how our knowledge is always limited and it only expands when we reach out to the mystery and have the courage to embrace it.
Nice reaction, guys! A strange memory I have about this film is the time I was in college, (ca. 1988) on my way to my Music Appreciation class (I was a Computer Science major, but we were required to take one Fine Arts class.) I arrived to class early, and my professor asked for my assistance. He was dubbing a new soundtrack over the opening of this movie, playing a keyboard. He had me hold down one note while he played his new score. And he made sure to tell everyone else in the class how well I played.☺
Enjoyed your reaction, a movie of its time. How about "Silent Running" 1972 with Bruce Dern a sci-fi space movie that makes more sense today than it seemed to then.
Silent Running is a great film but with one flaw, the crap hippie Joan Baez song! GOD! It's awful! If they do react to this movie it will be the one time I'll be happy for the copyright rules. Won't have to hear that horrid woman.
Don't mind the song at alll
The room in the end is like a zoo he is kept in, while the alien intelligence views him, supposedly after dying he is made into som super intelligent baby and sent back to Earth...
"Big" movies often had musical overtures -- David Lean's for example. The last one I can recall would be STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE.
You guys need to watch the sequel 2010. Answers a few questions about the first movie. Got Roy scheider and Hellen Mirren. It's a lot more straight forward than the first and a lot more happens. Even has Bowman in it. 😉🥰
And it sucks like a Hoover dialed up to eleven.
@@porflepopnecker4376 Each to their own. 😉👍
My favorite scene in "2010" was when Floyd meets Dave. All of that shifting back and forth between Dave's versions. Goosebumps.
@CollectiveDreaming-es8zg The scene with Bowman's wife always stuck out for me as creepy to.
You really think she'd want to sit through the sequel?
The 1984 sequel, 2010, is a much more conventionally paced movie. It's more modern and opts for explaining rather than showing. It doesn't leave it up to the viewer to put his or her own interpretation on the film the way that 2001 does. The cast is also tremendous. Roy Scheider takes on the role of Heywood Floyd. It's underrated, I think. It may not be as much of a masterpiece in terms of scope and meaning, but it might be more enjoyable than 2001 - which was very much a movie of its time. Its impact was as a pioneer in so many innovative film making techniques.
"Jupiter and beyond the infinite." "To infinity and beyond."
"Daisy Bell" was composed by Harry Dacre in 1892. In 1961, the IBM 7094 became the first computer to sing, singing the song Daisy Bell. First computer to sing - Daisy Bell youtube.
As mnetioned in another comment, the sequel film "2010" is a more traditional story narrative featuring Roy Scheider as the character Dr Floyd from 2001. And the actions of the HAL-9000 are more deeply explained. I remember the weekend that "2010" & David Lynch's version of "Dune" both hit theaters at the same time, i saw them both of that first Friday. "Dune" played at the Chinese Theater while "2010" screened at the Cinerama Dome, both in Hollywood. I enjoyed 2010 way way more than Dune. Still one of my favorite sequels.
It's most definitely self-indulgent, and while I like the movie as a whole, and I can respect the vision, I totally get why someone would dislike it or wouldn't care for it. I think the worst part of this is the "movie critics" (random fans from Twitter and Reddit) coming into your comment section and telling you you're wrong for having an opinion that is different from their opinion. Classic childish behavior displayed by self-proclaimed "true film aficionados".
I do hope everyone understands that calling Mrs. Movies dumb, unintelligent or stupid is not going to heighten her appreciation of the movie, it's just going to make the fans look like total assholes.
Having been down in the comment section already, I have to agree. I really like this movie, but don't understand why people lose their minds if someone else doesn't share their enthusiasm for such a slow paced movie which is open to a lot of interpretation. I certainly appreciated it more on repeat viewings than when I first saw it as a teenager.
I don’t have time to read through the comments, but the first five minutes was the overture. That was the music that was playing as you came in and sat in your seats, instead of just random previews. When the MGM logo came up, the curtains would part.
I watched a really interesting analysis video that argued that the subtext of the movie is how we learn from movies, and that the monolith represents a film screen, and including the overture music at the start of the film is a meta inclusion to represent the people coming in to watch the screen.
The music when they show the monolith is actully a classical work from that time - it's Ligeti's Requiem (a mass for the dead). Don't listen to it alone at night.
Did you notice how extremely realistic the visuals were? To impart a sense of realism to the Discovery, they built a 54-foot-long model. Imagine the studio setup required.
You'd enjoy the sequel more. It's more of a traditional film and answers some of your questions. I love this film, but I also loved 2010. I believe you'll appreciate this more after seeing the sequel. Also, the sequel has Roy Schieder, Helen Miran and John Lithgow.
Yeah, I think the first movie is more of a classic (just look at all of the references and allusions that movies and TV shows are still makin to it), but the second movie is much more approachable and really helps you better understand 2001. Love them both, but they're very different movies.
Everybody seems to feel that way about the sequel, but hardly anyone does a reaction video for it.
I'm sorry, I don't want to offend anyone, but in my country we have a saying - one fool can ask more questions than hundred wise man can answer.
Refreshing to see someone call it out for a change, this movie is the perfect visual representation of someone huffing their own farts.
You may enjoy 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984). A very different type movie, and actually pretty good, Recommend watching it.
You need to watch 2010 - A New Odyssey to understand what fully happened to HAL.
The details are in the movie, but it is very hard to put them all together.
Suffice it to say the movie is a realistic warning about the dangers of AI and letting it take over all aspects of our lives and trusting it without question.
You kids! Watching films on your phones, TVs and computers. As has been pointed out, important films shown in the theater (since there was nowhere else!) had a 5 minute overture to allow people to get seated before the film begins. The lights would dim and the overture play. When the overture ends the lights go completely down, the curtain opens and the film begins. Haven't you seen films like "Gone With the Wind" and "Lawrence of Arabia"? Movies were a full presentation in those days. I worked in a classic film theater, and when we ran these films they came with strict instructions from the studio as to how they were to be shown. The ending also often came with walkout music. The film ends, the lights come up, and music continues for 5 minutes while the audience left. Oh, and the movie came first, Clarke's book was a novelization of the film.
This entire film is an essay on evolution, intelligence and the concept of time. Since it is exposed in a cinematographic work it is open to interpretations but if I remember correctly there is here on RUclips a video of an interview with Kubrik himself where he explains its meaning
Titan is a moon of Saturn. It is unique in that it is larger than some dwarf planets such as Pluto, and is the only satellite world in our solar system that has a significant atmosphere.
I love your guys reactions and have for years. But it's a shame that Ms. Movies has absolutely no concept or ability to extend her perception to a time like the 60s and how this film affected people. Moreover, if you're not completely enthralled and captivated by the monolith scene with the colors expanding... to the point where you feel something unexplainably nostalgic about reality coming into being... then you're probably not on the level to really judge this film yet. It's raw art.
She's so used to seeing movies as well-packaged, consumerist products that she's likely unable to subtract that from an art-piece of actual integrity. She's trying to fit this movie into the same dimensions as the modern culture's plate of soulless, vapid, overly expository, thoughtless and untalented soda can films. This film is not from a time like that. This film doesn't hold your hand. It's not there to entertain your ADHD. It's there for itself and if she cannot see what it's accomplishing artistically, that's not her fault or the film's fault.
It's simply that she is too shaped by modern media culture to even bear witness to something that's an achievement. If I were her, I would be upset by this and try to extend myself until I see what others see... because in doing so, she'll become much more intelligent and her concepts of art, entertainment, and perception will all deepen significantly.
She didnt like the drawn out silences and slower pace of the film. The wormhole scene is a dated sequence at best, psychadelic and beautiful but barely rooted in plausible or realistic interpretations of theoretical space and time physics. Its okay for someone not to like a film. Even if the majority of people praise it. I thought Mr. And Mrs. Movie both riffed off each other well when interpreting the plot and themes. Mr. Movie understood the dawn of man sequence with the monolith inspiring the ape-like men with the means to use tools and Mrs. Movie picked up on an oftentimes misinterpreted part of the film when the victorian futuristic room was kind of a mirage used to simulate a captivity setting or habitat for dave while he makes the transition in to celestial fetus. Just because Mrs. Movie didnt really like this film doesnt mean shes incapable of having understood it or lacked the patience to watch it. Im sure it was mind blowing for 60’s audiences, but that doesnt by default mean that everyone must like it or they are unintelligent. Hot take: Not everyone has to like it. I bet stanley Kubrick recieved equal amounts of criticism for its drawn out scenes and allegorical/metaphorical plot as he did compliments for its score and mesmerizing visual sequences.
Dude, get off your own dick. "...too shaped by modern media culture to even bear witness to something that's an achievement"? That's some serious self-aggrandizing word salad you got goin' there.
@@nati5088Next time just say you didn't comprehend the movie either and we'll call it a day. It's not supposed to make "scientific sense", it's a visual and tonal masterpiece that transcends the kind of simplistic film experience that you ALSO feel the need to mistakenly compare it to.
It's not a normal movie. It's surrealistic, visual, and heavily drenched in archaic tones that tease out emotions and deep psychology through an absolute mastery of the artform. I feel so genuinely bad for people who think movies are just 'linear stories on a screen'.
I love Mrs. Movies - I’m a fan of all different kinds of movies, so sometimes I agree with her take and sometimes I don’t. I love the movie but I can definitely see what she means. Ashleigh Burton is another reactor who watched this and she loved it - and she also pretty much understood a lot of the key points with one watch.
It’s cool getting multiple perspectives on a movie with RUclips reactors.
@@CarloisBuriedAlive I agree. I just feel bad that lots of people today only view cinema through the narrow lens of contemporary expedited filmmaking. There's more to visual storytelling and conceptualization than just an easy to follow plot and dramatic set pieces.
gotta love the bone weapon flying in the air... and in a single cut, time jumps 4 million years in the future, to show... ANOTHER WEAPON... that's not a satellite, it's an orbital nuclear weapons platform.
The start was the way cinemas used to play music or in this case noise with the curtains over the screen to allow late people to get to their seat, then a minute or so in the lights go down then they would open the curtains as the MGM stamp comes up.
Films like Lawrence of Aribia or Bridge Over the River Kwai have an Intermission in them on my DVD's still, this was where you could go to the bathroom or get a top up at the food concessions,
The black screen at the start was an overture that they played while people sat down.
BEST SCI-FI MOVIE EVER MADE! Special effects still hold up 50+ years later!
I loved the movie and then read the book while in the final years of elementary school .. .. The ending of the movie is quite different than the book .. .. Let me know if you want to know the book ending .. ..
At the end, he returns "reborn" in the "new age" as he is the new man
The 'Spaceship' the bone cuts to was supposed to be an orbiting bomb - so cutting from one weapon to another. But it's not clear in the movie sadly.
Correct, most people mistake the orbiting H-Bomb for a spaceship or satellite.