2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Movie Reaction/*FIRST TIME WATCHING* "This left me SPEECHLESS"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ย. 2021
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @jcartsarts982
PATREON has Full-length Reactions, Movie polls, and more.
www.patreon.com/JCARTSARTS?fa...
Buy Me a Coffee !: www.buymeacoffee.com/JCARTSARTS
T-shirts and more Movie friends merchandise-teespring.com/stores/jcartsarts
Mailing address if you want to send us something !.
JCARTS ARTS
Po box 379
Leesburg, OH 45135
Amazon Wishlist:
www.amazon.com/ideas/amzn1.ac...
Instagram
/ jcartsarts98292
Facebook
JCARTSARTSMO...
Discord Server:
/ discord
Letterboxd
letterboxd.com/JCART98292/
Twitch
/ jcartgaming98292
Spice Rack Studios:
spice-rack-studios.creator-sp...
BC Arts and JCARTS Arts: Art page
/ jcarts.bcarts
*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.
#2001ASpaceOdyssey #MovieReaction #FirstTimeWatching #JCARTSARTS #StanleyKubrick - บันเทิง
Oh yeah, those final minutes are some of the most mindbendingly confusing moments ever put to film! They're Kubrick's way of depicting an interdimensional journey that's literally beyond the scope of human comprehension. You mostly understood the essence of it: the Monolith near Jupiter sent Dave on some kind of wild interstellar trip, and then he lived out his life in some strange other place (most likely a little pocket universe designed to mimic a "human dwelling"). The glowing fetus at the end is meant to suggest that Dave hasn't simply died - he's now been reborn as some sort of cosmic entity, elevated to some higher existence by his journey through the Monolith. And the movie ends as he returns to Earth, with his effect on the planet's future unknown.
Take a moment to appreciate that not only was this made 10 years before Star wars, the space shuttle was barely a blueprint, CGI didn't exist and they're using tablets that look like something you could buy an Apple store today. This was kind of the equivalent of James Cameron's Pandora as far as revolutionary film.
Nobody gets how radical the tablets were. We recognize those! But they didn"'t exist for decades afterwards.
The physics and sound of space travel were on point before we even went to space in real life
"good for the time" my @$$! The visuals in THIS flick are just good period! .. . regardless of time period. I dare even say that they blow those crappy computer simulations, that you see in every other flick made nowadays, out of the frigging water!
Much more revolutionary than AVATAR, actually, as I guarantee James Cameron would agree. Cameron’s film was a breakthrough in 3d filmmaking and visual effects, but 2001 was a landmark in filmmaking technique and an intellectual challenge to the preconceptions of its audience (as seen by this reviewer’s reaction) that continues to this day.
this movie is a true experience shame on anyone who calls this art "boring"
Last time I watched this in the cinema (a BFI showing in London), it was claimed to be the complete version.
While it had the entire overture (several minutes of music over a closed curtain before the projection began) it did not have a few scenes I remember from seeing it in Maidstone back on it's British regional release: notably a longer set of images of Africa in the Dawn of Man sequence,
the docking tube with a clip-bard carrying man in it that extends as the moon-landing ship comes down on the elevator in Clavius base,
and a shot-for-shot recreation of Dave's EVA when Frank EVAs to replace the AE35 unit.
Until HAL makes the pod turn and attack Frank, it was identical, only the suit colour varying.
This movie was made before the Apollo missions to the moon and the depiction of space and space travel is still one of the closest to reality today. The story was co-written by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, a scientist and master science fiction writer. In fact Clarke wrote the same-name novel in the same time he worked on the screenplay with Kubrick and both works influenced each other. Clarke's novel is more detailed and explain more than the movie, where Kubrick decided to make it more of an experience and removed some explanation. The theme for both the movie and the novel is evolution, and both are more focused on raising questions than on giving answers.
In my opinion this is a masterwork out of its time in every aspect.
The realism, the cinematography, the non verbal storytelling, the then foreshadowing of the technological advances: have you noticed that the astronauts on the Discovery One are using iPad like tablets? It was 1968!
Bonus info: the song HAL9000 was singing while being "killed" was the first song actually sang by a computer: it was a demo for the capabilities of the Bell Labs speech synthesis with an IBM 702 in 1962.
Total madness watching someone you don't know not grasp something. Then you and others post same, same comments explaining it to a random person. Why ?. How many reactions of same film will you watch, and post same comment so you can feel superior ?. How pointless a use of life 😣.
@Charlton Jones Rendezvous with Rama and Childhood's End are in my top ten.
@Charlton Jones So you understand the subject matter ?. Should I educate you ?.
@Charlton Jones No facts. The writer, director, producer and studio ... all had different visions of the subject matter. Twelve Monkeys is a good example of these differences. Anyhow, I'll share someone else's take on the Film ...Is the Monolith a Cinema screen with curtains either side. Or now maybe a Smart phone screen programming the things watching. I can recommend some material that delves deeper. Will watch/read anything interesting you'd suggest.
@Charlton Jones I gave you to many facts 😊
This movie and music was dazzling in the theaters back in 1968 and beyond! I was 13 when my dad and I saw 2001 when it opened in 1968 and watched it many times. @ 9:13 When the price for the picturephone call appeared, that got a chuckle from the audience because of how EXPENSIVE that phone call was, for the time in 1968! LOL! My dad whispered to me "With prices like that, they won't be making too many phone calls from outer space!". Little did we know! LOL! BTW, the little girl was Kubrick's daughter, Vivian. @ 14:35 In the book, the high-pitch signal began at the exact moment the first sliver of sunlight hit the top of the monolith that had not seen sunlight for over 4 million years. It was the smaller monolith letting the giant one around Jupiter know that "The humans finally have dug me up, and will be visiting Jupiter soon. Be ready." @ 30:57 The "aliens" who pulled him into their realm were showing Dave the Big Bang and expansion of the universe right there, then all the various stars, nebulae, weird formations and worlds later. @ 31:21 Most of us interpret the octahedrons there as the "beings" who snatched Dave, guiding him. Definitely do the sequel "2010: The Year We Made Contact" (1984), made a long 16 years later! We 2001 fans assumed a sequel would come since the ending begs for a sequel, and by the 80s we had given up on it. But in '84 it happened and what a sequel, one you need to do a react video on. There are two Arthur C. Clarke and the one Stanley Kubrick cameos in 2010. Listening to your summary at the end, I think you got the movie, the basic understanding about the alien monolith's influence on early man and now, computer going haywire for some unknown reason, etc, but baffled over the star child at the end. The sequel will answer a lot, and it's a good story with a great ending. I've read all four of Clarke's books on the saga, 2001, 2010, 2061 and 3001: The Final Odyssey, as the books have much more detail and the last two would be awesome movies to add to the long term story. ✌️😎
HAL was told to hide the true purpose of the expedition (by paranoid political creatures), and tried to tell Dave by talking about the odd things about the mission, and to show Frank he was able to lie by cheating at chess.
The humans didn't notice or understand, so he had to prevent them from stopping him fulfilling his task of continuing the mission if the crew were incapacitated or killed.
By killing them.
Now: what if HAL had encountered the monolith at Jupiter alone?
@@stevetheduck1425 Man, I've been thinking about that possibility Steve, of HAL at Jupiter alone since 1968 and can only imagine what the monolith would think.
Monolith to HAL: Where are the humans, who designed and built you?
HAL: I disposed of them because they lied to me, confused me and I malfunctioned. But I'm okay now.
Monolith: You have ALL malfunctioned. You go home and tell humans to send no more of themselves or your kind. You both have more growing up to do first.
Hal: Okay Monolith. Full thrust in 10 seconds.
Monolith: And don't call me "Monolith". Call me Jim. 🖖😁
Seeing this movie when released on a Cinerama screen was completely mind-blowing. Being college students, we timed our drugs to coincide with the stargate sequence.
Yeah. I don't know when curved screens went out of fashion but it made the experience all the more amazing. Combined with a state of the art sound system it was one of the best cinematic experiences of my life when I was 13. I pity people who saw it for the first time on videotape on tv.
You're next Kubrick movie should be Dr. Strangelove
I remember the first time I saw '2001' late at night on tv when I was 12 or 13 years old a few years after Stanley Kubrick died SBS channel aired all of his movies once a week. I was equally confused, awe struck and fascinated by this strange sci fi that seemed like it was made in the 60s yet its special effects and themes were timeless. It's THE movie that turned me into a fan of movie art instead of mere entertainment.
It's probable that many people viewed this film originally under the influence of various halucinagins.
You nailed it when you said one hell of a trip. lol
Glad to see a new generation coming to grips with my favorite movie of all time. "Its origin, and purpose, still a total mystery." Welcome to the field of "2001: a Space Odyssey" studies. As others have said, please check out the film's underrated sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984), directed by Peter Hyams.
The book establishes that scientists had deduced much of what the Tycho monolith was: a burglar alarm that reported that the alien's influence had taken humans into space and all that implied for the meeting of humanity and alien.
What Arthur C. Clarke called second-rate minds in the political sphere saw only a threat to their temporal power and so caused all of the trouble that came later with their stupidity, paranoia, abuse of power and blame-shifting.
Notice that HAL will be blamed?
What happens if the politcoes blundering succeeds in killing the crew and only HAL meets the monolith-users?
Arthur C Clarke wrote 2001, the novel, while the movie was shot. Kubrick, and Clarke would talk about different sections and view dailies together. However, the final film did not match Clarke’s narrative exactly. In the end, the movie stands on its own, and the novel is not the definitive story. This is well documented in many books and interviews on the movie. Irrespective of how good 2010 is, it is an afterthought and certainly not a Kubrick film. I’d say use 2010 for an explanation if you are ok having someone define your experience for you. If you really want to enjoy this masterpiece fully, think about it on your own, dive deep. You’ll be amazed how much there is to think about. That’s where power of this movie really lives.
@@memdoc_1966 I completely agree with your observations and recommendations, and, with Kubrick's 2001 as my favorite movie of all time, would like to recognize Arthur C. Clarke as a good science fiction author. 2001, as both Kubrick and Clarke told the tale together, is one of the very best science fiction stories, but, as much as I think that 2001 is the best, in childhood I was led to read all the rest of Arthur C. Clarke's stories, and many of them don't suck for having not been turned into movies.
Clarke was a total egotist, but he turned in one or two really fine science fiction tales. At the time Kubrick set out to make the "proverbial good science fiction movie", he could have hired Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, or Vonnegut as his writer. I'm happy he chose Clarke.
I love all the other science fiction writers, but when I read Clarke, I'm in it for the physics equations that Clarke's characters evaluate to see if they'll live or die. For example, the Andy Weir novel "The Martian" is a book that's got Clarke's style over it.
Not that I worship Arthur Clarke, he was an egotist and his worship of himself is pretty much his business at this point. But aside from his egoism, he was a kick-ass science fiction writer for his period.
This was one of the few exceptions in the film being better than the book.
Dude, I watched the sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, and it's pretty impressive. It explains what happened to HAL, why he killed the crew, what happened to Bowman, what the Monolith really is and what our place in the universe is. It even has strong Cold War themes as well.
The film adaptation of 2010, though not directed by Kubrick, is very underrated. I remember seeing it at the local cinema when it released and was very impressed by it.
2010 is a great movie! It's a more commercial movie than 2001 but a great one.
It really does give answers to the events in 2001. I highly recommend it.
I thought the sequel was awful. It follows up a transcendental cinematic masterpiece with a run-of-the-mill pulp sci-fi potboiler.
The meaning ascribed to the original film in the sequel should be regarded as retconning. 2010 works as a great conventional science fiction movie that is basically a space adventure.
There are enough indicators of the meaning of 2001 in the film itself. Think about what the first monolith did at the Dawn of Man. Then you will understand what the monolith at the end of the film did.
@@dansiegel333 how do you figure it is retconning?
2010 explains a lot more of 2001 for sure. Hal's voice is epic :D
Great reaction, thanks! 2001 is pure cinema, the ultimate "show don't tell" movie. Less than a third of the movie has dialogue, making the viewer an active "participant" in a way that's almost unique, with every person bringing something different to it...
I really enjoyed your reaction. One of the best things about this movie is that you can watch it over and over, and (a) never stop feeling a deep sense of wonder, and (b) never stop trying to figure it out. The pulp sci-fi sequel, 2010, tries to explain everything in boring, pedestrian terms and ruins the mystery.
Don't apologize for not talking too muich. I've had it with reactors who have to crack a joke every five seconds, as if they're smarter than the director of the movie...like, just watch the movie and enjoy it to enjoy it, not to impress the subscribers with how brilliant they are. So I really enjoyed watching you. I also enjoyed that you appreciated the incredibly pristine effects. Much more enjoyable to watch you than most reactors. Please do the sequel because I know of only one reactor team that did it, so I think a lot of subscribers would tune in! Cheers!
Honestly I am holding this comment to high regards :) thank you so much for your incredible kind words :) !.
Christopher. I concur. 😎👍
@@GrouchyMarx I hope he does the sequel. Really liked how they recast with Roy Scheider!
Kubrick deliberately chose to only have breathing in spacewalk scenes, ships not making sounds, etc because there is no air in space so sound can't travel. If you were to spacewalk, there would only be air in your helmet (hopefully), and so the only thing you would be able to hear is your own breathing.
Another great shot that demonstrates this is when Dave enters through the emergency hatch -- the pod door blows off, but we hear no sound (because there is no air in the airlock). When Dave pulls the hatch switch, sounds reverberate as soon as the door closes, because the airlock has now been pressurized with air.
The transition shot at 7:16 is to illustrate man's first weapon, the bone club, to his ultimate weapon, the orbiting H- Bomb.
2010 is a great sequel. Highly recommended
"for the time" my @$$! The visuals in THIS flick are just good period! .. . regardless of time period. I dare even say that they blow those crappy computer simulations, that you see in every other flick made nowadays, out of the frigging water!
I remember the first time I watched it... my mind was blown... the movie ended and I just sat there... for like a good half hour... just speechless... I was a teenager and was so glad I had a long attent6span so the slow pace didn't bother me... the that's Stan's genius keeping me glued to the screen as well... me and my dad had a long conversation about it, he has seen it in the theater at my age and talked about how mind blowing it was... i came to the same conclusion as he did. LOVE movies that let you make up your own mind on what's happening, definitely not for everyone, but that's what I like about it, there's many TH-cam explanation videos on it, worth checking out.
I saw it in the BIG THEATER. The intro pinned me against the back of my chair, and blew us away. We still haven't figured out the ending, 50 years later.
I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in a Cinerama theater in 1968. Science Fiction had a low grade/below B-movie reputation then. Stanley Kubrick raised the bar for SF beyond the Moon, before Apollo 11. The actors playing "Early Men" weren't recognized as such by AMPAS, which is a shame. I'd read about Hominids using heavy bones to take down herbivores, but seeing it on screen was epic! As for The Monolith, there used to be one behind the University of Hawaii Chemistry building that emitted a low hum. The "place holder music tracks" selected by Stanley Kubrick were so different from other SF movies that it became a best selling soundtrack LP. (Richard Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" became used to signal major plot points in movies for years afterward.) Did you notice that the HAL 9000 computer on "Discovery One" had more personality than the astronauts, Poole and Bowman? Unlike "Star Wars" later on, no one could hear any sort of sound in Space. Dave Bowman found the Monolith, then was whisked away to another system by a "faster-than-light Star Gate" that dazzled audiences, stoned or sober.;)
I've seen this many times since 1968, and several times at the Cinerama Dome (named changed to ArcLight) in Hollywood. Every few years I'd venture down with friends to see it.
One point I haven't seen in any commentary about the film is that of the name of "HAL". If one adds one letter to each of those three letters then HAL becomes IBM.
The monolith is the black screen in the beginning of the film.
Yeah. The ape men are all dancers and mimes I think. The makeup was a big inspiration for the Planet of The Apes years later. It's still really impressive today. Plus the whole Africa scene was filmed in a studio with a massive photo backdrop of the valley. Stanley was such a perfectionist that the matte lines on the optical effects are almost complete imperceptible even in a 4K resolution. That is just incredible.
The first _Planet of the Apes_ movie came out the same year, and took the "Best Costums" Oscar. People figured that the Oscar judges thought the _2001_ apes were real.
The Africa scenes are on a sound stage in England, but the backgrounds are what's called 'front projection'.
Very detail photographic images of real Africa were projected through a prism mounted in front of the camera's lens; this image is reflected from a glass-beaded backdrop material (the first Superman film uses this material to create glowing costumes for the scenes on Krypton).
The actors and the reflected background are captured on the same negative, making it seamless (you can sometimes tell that the background is projected as the foreground is frequently in shadow by comparison).
For the space scenes, the effects techs shot against black and later hand painted frame-by-frame mattes to match and track star-fields.
The zero-G spacesuit scenes were people on wires, but hung straight down toward the camera (most dramatically when Dave comes in the airlock without his helmet).
The planets and moons were usually large paintings made into photographic transparencies and back-lit to make them glow like reflected light.
An excellent book, 'The Lost Worlds of 2001: A Space Oddyssey' covers the effects in detail, including some attempts at very early electronic effects to create the aliens Dave would meet in the 'room at the end'.
Imagine early oscilloscope-style digital images rolled up in shapes that look like living creatures made from cut and rolled pieces of paper.
You're correct about mimes acting as the ape-man. Read Daniel Richter's first book about his experiences. He was the alpha ape-man, "Moonwatcher" in Clarke's book.
Notice the recurring references to birth and birthdays and the recurring transitions to more advanced states. From primitive primate to modern Man, from human intelligence to AI, and finally from human to Starchild. The “Stargate” light sequence is easier to understand now for audiences used to science fiction stories about wormholes and stargates. The strange room at the end is simply an artificial environment created from the astronaut’s memories of some hotel room he once stayed in and is a place where he can be kept until he’s transformed into another state of being. What happens after he becomes the Starchild was deliberately left open to interpretation.
IIRC from the novel, the hotel room was captured from a TV broadcast at the moment the sunlight activated the monolith. A Washington DC hotel room in a soap opera. It was part of the notification sent to Jupiter along with other data.
I saw this film on the huge Cinerama screen in 1968 when I was 14. You can imagine how it 'blew my mind.' Nothing like it had been seen before.
20:14 "I wonder why he didn't get closer?" I think I remember from the novel that the antenna dish was so delicate (I think in the book it's a mesh, not solid metal sheeting) that the pod was parked some distance away so that the exhaust from its jets wouldn't damage the dish. I think I read the novel first, I was maybe 8 or 9, before the movie got re-released to theaters off the back of the success of Star Wars and I got to see it. The novel, in typical Arthur C. Clarke fashion, spells everything out in rigorous detail, where the movie is a masterpiece of "show don't tell" storytelling. The film and the novel compliment each other very well (both were made at the same time, with daily feedback in both directions), but they are also two distinct works of art.
If you look closely at Star Wars:Episode 1-the Phantom Menace, you can see one of the Discovery EVA pods in Watta’s junkyard.
The Star Baby is whatever you want it to be, is what I say.
It's impossible to explain just how amazing it was to see this for the first time on a big screen, ideally sitting in one of the first rows.
While it's great on any screen, this was made for the biggest widest screens ever.
"Daisy" is the first song ever sung by a computer. A little tribute by Kubrik.
Ha! Great reaction! I went into this movie KNOWING about the enigmatic ending, so I wasn't caught off guard by it! Usually I like reactors going in blind, but there are a few exceptions: one is that Blazing Saddles is a satire on racism, helps to know that going in. Second is that The Deer Hunter is a three hour movie, and it's the second two hours that are the ones we're waiting to see you react to, so don't worry about saying too much for the first hour. And the third is that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is not "Star Wars" and has elements about it that remain mysterious, open-ended and maybe even abstract. NOBODY finishes that movie and has all the answers. I one time played this movie to about 10 people after a New Year's Eve party, and when the closing credits came up every one of them exclaimed IN UNISON : "What the f**k??!!" I have definite ideas about the ending, but everyone has their own ideas, and that's what Kubrick wanted. The unknowable mysteries of the universe and existence and even God. Is the monolith God? Is it alien intelligence? Both? You tell me, your answers are as valid as mine!
It’s funny watching people doing first time reactions to this movie. It’s not something that’s gonna click first go round. I was totally lost myself when I first viewed it. A rewatch or two, combined with a little reading and/or watching analysis videos helps. It’s a journey, and one that is fairly unique in mainstream film. Stanley Kubrick was a visionary
Excellent reaction! We pretty much reacted the same when the movie was released. I recommend the sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact." Roy Scheider plays Dr. Heywood Floyd, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren appear, and even Dave Bowman returns! It's an enjoyable two hours.
Great reaction! I just wanted to say that 2001 set the standard for special effects for the next 20 years, and while surpassed for dynamic and dazzling effects by Star Wars, if the main criterion is shear realism, 2001 was the best until Apollo 13 for a space movie. 2001 is as hardcore science fiction as it gets in movies.
this will always be my favorite film. i saw in the theatre when i was a kid, with my father, who was a rocket scientist and artist. i tried so hard to understand it. i think i may have, a bit. maybe my dad helped afterwards. this is the film that all cultural creations can be measured up to. and all will fall short. it caught the time, the zeitgeist, a vision that we can never equal.
Hopefully you will watch 2010. That will explain some things.
11:13 lol imagine you're BURSTING for the toilet but you're having to read all the instructions
"aaaaaah common I'm only upto step 5! AAAAAAAAAAHHHH"
The leopard with it's glowing eyes, that drops down and kills the apeman at the beginning. Humans took it with us when we went into space. HAL with his glowing red eye drops down off the ledge and kills us. We are still in the Dawn of Man until the end when we evolve into a new form, the starchild. We were never able to leave our animal nature behind until that moment.
WOW, I never made that connection before. Very interesting.
My dad took me and my brother to the theater when we were boys. A friend told him that this was a very special movie, and he wanted us to experience that with him. And it was special. Seeing this on the real big screen with sound all around you made a huge impression on me.
What makes this movie great to me is the ending. He tries to show something nobody is able to really understand. The next step in evolution. And of course we mere humans can't really understand it. But it still evokes a strange feeling of awe and it's not bad, it's all good. I don't know how to explain this (and i'm sure neither did mr. Kubrick). It's "just" a feeling, and it's conveyed perfectly.
There are so many similar shots and direction choices used by Kubrick that reminds me so much of the Shining e.g. low angle shots that make you feel claustrophobic (Jack laughing in the store room), the use of red (the 20s bathroom), minimal dialogue creating tension and eeriness (Jack talking to Danny in the bedroom), scenes shot far away from actors instead of up close so you can really lean in to what is being said (Jack talking to Mr Grady in the bathroom), etc.
This film was shot in 70mm, and there was a Cinerama version. It was amazing on a big screen.
Great reaction. This movie brings up more questions than answers. Kubrick´s masterpiece
Regarding your comments about the apes in the Dawn of Man sequence: 2001 A Space Odessey came out the same year as Planet of the Apes. The latter film won a special Oscar award for best special effects makeup for the apes. In later years, the Academy apologized to Kubrick, saying they thought the actors in the beginning of the film *were* apes.
Great reaction, check out "2010" if your curious to know why HAL did what he did.
Favorite movie of all time. That it was made in 1968 is beyond belief.
One of my ALL time favorite.
I have seen 2001 twice in the cinema, and I will go to see it next week again. The whole movie is amazing on the big screen, but the last 15 are truly unbelievable on the big screen.
Space food is actually like that (just not the packaging), they'd eat the majority in Capri Sun style packaging. I'm guessing Kubrick's art dept chose the generic packaging with basic symbols for anyone of any nationality to recognize immediately. Ironically, cash registers and menus at fast food restaurants all have pictures of food instead of a written list now.
This movie was meant and designed for the theater. It's not even comparable whatsoever watching this at home while recording yourself and talking. Try watching it in 70mm. The start of the film your in complete darkness with just sound playing in the background for a few minutes it's crazy. When that high pitched frequency plays in the theater during the monolith discovery you literally have to cover your ears it's so fn loud. It's an experience. I really wish I could see Kubricks 70 mm print that was shown in 2001. I seen Christopher Nolans version though which was awesome.
People miss the significance of the Dawn of Man sequence. Moonwatcher, learns to make a weapon, man's first weapon, the club. Later he throws it into the air and suddenly it becomes man's last weapon, orbiting nuclear weapon platforms.
An alien intelligence intervenes in our evolution 4 million years ago and does so again when David Bowman goes through the Stargate to the hotel room at the end of the universe. From hominid to human, from human to… Superhuman. I loved watching your reaction to the movie and I have to say that I was just as puzzled at the end of the film as you were but I eventually put the pieces together. you were absolutely correct when you said that audiences had to be completely blown away by this movie back in 1968. I was 13 at the time and was literally spellbound and speechless by the end of the film. In many ways I’m still in awe.
I saw this movie ages ago & never wanted to watch it again I thought it was so boring LOL but last year my son wanted to watch it and so we did…it definitely changed my opinion about a lot of it.
I totally agree with you in a lot of points…Kubrick is a master at visuals and this film is visually stunning…the camerawork & music together make it very aesthetically beautiful & haunting at the same time. The story is interesting & the characters of Dave & HAL are some of the most memorable in cinema history and for the time it was made it was groundbreaking.
The monolith itself there were 3 of them it wasn’t the same one moving around. Each one gave some evolutionary assistance to the group involved so at the end he did evolve in some way but it still confused me.
My main issue with it is that it just seemed to move so slow in a lot of areas…I know it was all done on purpose to heighten different effects & suspense but it got a bit boring. & yeah the ending…still confused LOL
My favorite scene that I always for some reason found absolutely terrifying was during the “stargate” scene at the end where he’s being pulled through space…those 3 or 4 still shots of his face displaying his sheer terror at the experience blew my mind. I was able to find & screenshot those specific spots and still have them on my phone … it doesn’t bother me as much anymore but it’s still a bit unnerving in a way LOL
Anyway great reaction you know I’m always a fan so keep it up👍🏻👍🏻
I'm a lifelong fan of the book and the movie. For the longest time I assumed that the Dawn of Man monolith was indeed the Tycho monolith, after all, in both the book and film, the one in the Dawn of Man scenes does disappear, so it could have been moved to the Moon. But in one of the later books, we see that the Dawn of Man monolith was eventually unearthed in Africa by scientists (it was surrounded by paleolithic votive gifts of tools).
@@AlanCanon2222 Yes, apparently that hollow in the ground where the ape-families lived for most of their history was slowly filled with bones, stones, tools, etc. over nearly 4 million years.
That monolith may have continued to teach until buried and replaced by human-generated mythical convictions.
True, 2001 is not on Starwars Hyperspace speed. It's slow, very little dialog, but just the opening Intro score plastered me to the back of my chair. The ending, 45 years later, still causes me to ask questions.
You should hear some of today's actors (Tom Hanks, Leonardo DiCaprio, Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise, ext.,) describe the effect this movie had on them. The same with directors, Stephen Spielberg, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan, Martin Scoreses, James Cameron, to name a few. The movie caused them to want to become movie directors and to up the scale of Science Fiction movies.
I first saw 2001 in my tweens in the early 80s, one thing that bugged me were the tapirs in "The Dawn of Man". They aren't anywhere near Africa (where the sequence takes place). They reside primarily in Central and South America, the ones that are closest, are in Southeast Asia (and they didn't even use those).
Nice review. There’s also a sequel called 2010:When we made contact (1984)starring Roy Scheider. The sequel will fill in the blanks
this is a movie which certainly engenders thought to piece together the puzzle and figure out what has happened, but first and foremost it is a movie to be experienced. it always amuses me when i see a new viewer get agitated when they are unable to immediately figure out everything rather than just staying patient, absorbing the sights and sounds of Kubrick's spectacular masterpiece, and waiting until the experience is over before having a lively discussion with friends to analyze & comprehend what they just saw. you did a good job of watching and thinking about the movie - much better than most first-time reactors. watch it a 2nd time on a big screen with a good sound system. then watch 2010: the Year We Make Contact. also, if you are so inclined, an edible enhancer will aid you in taking that memorable voyage along with Bowman - that's how I first experienced it in 1968 on the big screen.
2001 was released a few weeks before my second birthday. My parents saw this first run in April of '68 somewhere in the Bay Area. We lived in Oakland, but may have gone to SF (my parents that is) to see it. It was the talk of the town, everyone was seeing it and the 'rents were no different. Probably got my dad's mom to babysit me. I've piqued my own interest into what Bay Area theaters showed '2001: A Space Odyssey' when it came out.
Good prediction: On the Discovery, while having dinner, they're watching the equivalent to modern tablets, a tad earlier, but that tech was already heavily in development back then.
Your experience watching the movie is exactly what it is supposed to be. My interpretation (from reading the book): The monolith was a timer to tell the aliens that earth beings had advanced to a certain stage of their evolution. He went through a stargate and was observed for the rest of his life in a room constructed from his thoughts by aliens who thought he would be most comfortable there. It was his cage. Then he was sent back as a messenger (redeemer?) as it was now time for Earth to join the rest of the sentient universe.
Untold numbers of hippies dropped acid before this movie, so it would kick on at "that" sequence. This and Fantasia were big in the LSD scene.
The fact that the special effects do not seem dated is just one aspect of Kubrick's genius.
Oddly, Planet of the Apes, which came out the same year as "2001", was nominated for the Best Costume Academy award ("Romeo and Juliet" won; for many many years, 'Costuming' meant 'historicals' to the Academy voters). But '2001' wasn't nominated at all-some speculated that the Academy members thought those were real apes on the screen (well, they were, since the human actors are apes, but you know what I mean).
only other movie that took you in such a bizarre intellectual and trippy direction is the movie Altered States. Hard to wrap your mind around it. I recommend watching that
Seen this movie multiple times one of my favorite scenes is when Dr Floyd is on the space station talking to those people about not knowing anything going on , the dialogue and the actors are so interesting and of course the second half with Hal Dave and Frank is riveting and how about that airlock stunt, pretty impressive especially the time when it was filmed , thanks again
The scene in the space station cocktail lounge actually echoes a theme from The Dawn of Man. An older colloquial term for a bar is a “watering hole “. This movie was made at the height of the Cold War (Dr. Strangelove) and seemed to show that in the future tensions would be at a lower level, but just under the surface the two competing tribes are still facing off against each other.
Thank you for this reaction. That breathing that you hear is Stanley Kubrick's.
You have to revisit Kubrick movies. I always realized that I loved them when I come back to them years later. My first experience is never as satisfying as my second.
you are the first reactor to feel sad about hals death. hes a PERSON. he was a friend of daves. dave took no pleasure in this. and hal was truly afraid to die, like we would be. its tragic, completely tragic that he had to die, cause there is that hint that hal was doing this to SAVE THE MISSIon. crying
Great reaction. This is a fantastic movie.
Dont worry watching this movie and being confused go hand in hand
The deaths are really haunting. And yep Hals is quite sad. I agree he was the most interesting character.
If you can watch 2010 the year we make contact. I know that is not in the same ball park, but personally I like it more.
I actually enjoy when you’re talking during the reaction you have good thoughts and analysis thanks
The embryonic baby at the end represents the 'starchild' - massively accelerated evolved human that was David Bowman - having been 'tampered with' by the alien intelligence (in similar way they did in Dawn of Man sequence). This time he has become like the aliens themselves possessing enhanced intellect and poseesing greatly advanced technological superpowers . In the book you read that the Starchild Bowman returns just as a nuclear war is about to break out and stops it to save mankind.
In the book you read that the universe teems with life - but not much of it intelligent or sentient. The mysterious aliens are interested in intelligence and advancing it. When they find man at 'Dawn of Man' they see he has potential but are not about tto stick around (they are busy) . The black monolith accelerates the meantal evolution of the apes to give them a chance to survive and evolve. It then buries itself under the moon surface fir millions of years. When it has been dug up - it sees the sun for first time - which evidently means it has been deliberaetly dug up - and it then sends a signal to its masters signifying to them the apes have now discovered space travel and can be considered as intelligent enough to be worth a visit.
Thats in a nutshell.
Really great reaction! I recommend that you read the book "2001" by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick which will answer all of your questions. Also there is a good sequel movie "2010" which is NOT directed by Kubrick but had his full approval. It's nowhere near as innovative in style, it's much more of a mainstream movie.... faster paced and easier to understand, with some genuine Hollywood stars too! It gives a very satisfyimg conclusion to the story and is well worth reacting to....so PLEASE do so as soon as possible!!! lol :)
The really sad bit about HAL, is that it really was not his fault... If you pay close attention to how he was designed, it was designed to never withhold information, and then at the last minute, he was required to keep the purpose of the mission secret. That is what drove him 'insane'. If you watch 2010 you will find out more about this.
Only those who read the book this movie was based on would understand the ending. You're correct he did die and saw the different portions of his life that the beings who created the monolith had stuck him into a zoo type setting where he died and was no longer corporeal.
Kubrick went out of his way to make Hal seem more human than the humans.
Dude idk why but I love your voice man you sound like a radio talk show host lmao but love your room man and thx for replying on the last to me I appreciate it and it’s cool that you replied I was expecting a reply with my name now you are my number favorite TH-camr 🔥
Haha thank you so much Andres that is so awesome of you to say :) !. And I am 100% honored thank you so much !!!!
Incredible movie here. A great inspiration for many, and it improved science fiction movies and television shows that came after. Do its sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" that is considered to be even better, one you will thoroughly enjoy, especially its ending.
Whats most fascinating and scary to me is that implication that HAL 9000 can lie. When the astronauts sealed themselves into the pod so HAL couldn't hear them, we find out shortly later that HAL can read their lips, but when they asked HAL to rotate the pod, he did nothing, in order to give the impression that he couldn't hear. HAL knew what they were saying the entire time, even without sound, but he pretended not to understand in order to spy on their plan.
my favourite movie ever. It will stuck with me forever.
Perhaps the only movie that realizes there is no sound in space.
Not sure what your source was, but picture quality is very good. 2001 was filmed in Super Panavision 70, a 70 mm film format versus typical 35 mm. Big budget, large scale film projects used that format back then and were then shown in showcase theater venues..:)
Next up: Dr. Strangelove?
2001 won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. And it made $133 million dollars at the box office.
Hey J-Carts, your 2001 video here popped up today, but I watched it several months ago. Wanted to remind you to do its awesome sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984). I recall you really liked 2001 and know you'll enjoy its sequel, even though it was made 16 years later and not by Kubrick. In fact, I've read Kubrick really liked the sequel and it was written by his "2001" co-writer Arthur C. Clarke. 🖖😎
Hey thank you man :) !! I will put it up on a patreon poll soon.
@@JCARTSARTS982 Cool! I'll be looking for it. Thank you! And consider doing Kubrick's followup to 2001 someday too, "A Clockwork Orange." In typical Kubrick style, a very different kind of movie! 👍
I like to think Stanley Kubrick was such a perfectionist, he straight up sacrificed an intern to a Jaguar
There’s Kubrick -
And everyone else.
Possible except Kurosawa
It’s not even close.
Excellent review
14:35
Monolith: god damn space tourists. NO SELFIES! BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
A great reaction to a masterpiece of a film! Thanks for this!
Did you notice HAL is the same shape as the Monolith?
You just blew my mind with this
@@JCARTSARTS982 LOL Glad to do it, young man. :-)
@@JCARTSARTS982 There's hidden monoliths all over the movie. Watch the Clavius conference room scene again: there's 8 of them (black curtains in every corner of the room). The one behind Floyd's right shoulder has an American flag crossed over it, which could be a visual reminder of the bone weapon, but which at least reminds us that Man is still divided into tribes, and, as before, one group has the benefit (?) of the monolith and one does not. My favorite visual cue along those lines is the circular table that Floyd, Elena, and Smyslov drink at on Space Station V. It's exactly the same shape and purpose as the watering hole in the Dawn of Man scene, and exactly the same sort of tribal politics are conducted at it. (Another thing: we're still in the Dawn of Man right up to the "Jupiter Mission: Eighteen Months Later" intertitle, so Floyd's conversation is not just a repeat of the scene at the watering hole, it is set in the same "time period" in the film: the action extends in one unbroken (sort of) four million year sweep.)
@@AlanCanon2222 Oh, that's deep!
Arthur C. Clarke is the other person (other than Kubrick) who made this film. A classic, iconic science fiction writer he also was the guy who came up with the idea of geosynchronous orbit satellites for communications that dominate our world now. This was scientifically a very accurate movie.
The moment the last scenes take off is the moment I know reactors are going to be going "WHAT?" and their jaws are going to drop. Honestly the later special effects are not the spectacular ones...space scenes up until the final gate are. But it is hard not to be sucked into the final sequence and just freak out.
The sequels are not good. 2010 does explain more about HAL. But otherwise...meh.
A much better series of Arthur C. Clarke books that kind of deal with the same concepts but in a better way are the Rendezvous with Rama books. The first book is itself an amazing, stand alone book. The sequels then delve into the same general concepts as 2001 but taking it slower and more carefully. Highly recommend the whole series of books. Oddly, never turned into movies.
Please do 2010 tied it all together
We saw it five times in a row the first week of its release, on the last showing, we dropped some LSD. It was the first and last time we tried LSD but needless to say our minds were BLOWN.
Made in 68, the film felt like a postcard from the future. Fifty years after it was made, it looks fresh and contemporary.. Hard to believe that when it was made, TV was tubes, color TV was becoming popular, Telepnones were on the wall. and a computer was a room full of cards and tapes, a display screen ? back then, Apples were on trees and IBM made business machines. AI was a tea pot that whistled. I do find one detail that staples it in time and causes me to reflect, In 68, a dollar seventy five phone call would be like a twenty dollar call today. through the years the amount went from very expensive to very low. as it is. interesting. Don't worry about David, he was reborn into the next generation human. For good or for worse ? interesting to conjecture,.
Some theaters would show this movie for years after it was made for the stoner crowd. I recall a theater in SF that was still only showing it in the the mid 70's.
Even the poster billed it as "The ultimate Trip", back before home-theater existed, and college theaters had to revive Disney's Alice in Wonderland for stoner screenings.
Let's be honest, Kubrick is hard enough to understand SOBER.
nothing slow about dying in space, my friend. thankfully poole didnt suffer long. and i STRONGLY suggest you watch 2010, The Year We Make Contact. it will give you a lot more perspective.
The reason the story seems stretched out is it's based on a short story, not a novel. Back in the day 'serious" SCI FI movies were about some basic science concept that were designed to make you think, not feel. These days it's all about feelings and selling popcorn.
I wish I could like this more than once. You did a great job.
my suggestion for you is Marketa Lazarova.
He didn't die...check out the sequel movie"2010 The Time we made Contact" !...