2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) MOVIE REACTION! FIRST TIME WATCHING!!

We are approaching the end of our Sci-Fi Playlist and what a penultimate film to end on! the 1968 classic Stanley Kubrick masterpiece... 2001: A Space Odyssey. We hope you enjoy our thoughts on this film.
You can now support us on Patreon to access these Reaction videos up to a week before they are uploaded to KZbin and also access new and exclusive content such as Full Length Reactions and our Cinema Rules Podcast! (see link below)
Patreon: / cinemarules
Twitter: / cinemarules
Instagram: / cinema_rules
SubReddit: / cinemarules
TikTok: / cinema_rules
#2001:ASpaceOdyssey (1968)
*Copyright Disclaimer, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners.

[@Daniel24724]

" If you understand '2001' completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered." - Arthur C. Clarke

[@kevinharkness2108]

The monolith beings decicided to give the apes a little push up the evolutionary ladder theorizing that this act would develop them to human status and one day be capable of space travel which the buried sentinel on the moon would deduce when unearthed. Human curiosity would then lead them to search for the signals source giving the monolith beings the opportunity to give humanity its next evolutionary "push" hence the new and improved "dave" being returned to earth for the next part of their experiment.

[@IbrahimHoldsForth]

@@kevinharkness2108 Arthur C. Clarke's novel adaptation of his own screenplay is pretty much straightforward about what it all means -- there's no mystery to that end in the novel. The film version withholds narrative details supplied by the omniscient narrator of the novelization -- to profound effect. Alas as a teen sci-fi reader I read Clarke's novelization before seeing this film and unfortunately that spoiled the film for me mystery wise.

[@Ian-lx1iz]

@@IbrahimHoldsForth Absolutely. The above quote from Clarke is completely wide of the mark. Arthur C. Clarke never confused anyone - he always explained the s.h.1.t out of everything. No questions unanswered, no mystery - everything wrapped in a (very boring) bow.

[@kokomo9764]

They didn't fail.

[@andymac7663]

I understand that it’s shit!

[@cardaderdention]

"I've never seen another Stanley Kubrick film except for The Shining" .....I see a series of reactions on the horizon.

[@UBubba98]

You haven’t seen full metal jacket yet? Definitely watch that one. It’s a very accurate depiction of the marine corps in the Vietnam war.

[@a.t.v3519]

Lil B Yeah, It's so heartbreaking.

[@m.e.3862]

I think a Kubrick series of reactions is called for!👍😁

[@excalibur2024guy]

Watch Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick knew how to show war more than he did outer space.

[@joshuafletcher4501]

This one and Barry Lyndon are my favorites from him 🙌🏻but I enjoy them all besides maybe killers kiss and fear and desire.

[@aidanfarnan4683]

Fun fact: if you look at the chess board, Hal is lying about the chess game, he didn't have check. He's testing if the crew are reliable enough to spot his lies because he's got a secret mission to accomplish and needs to know if the crew can be relied on to act like him under stress, or if not, be disposed of without anyone noticing.

[@toskvision]

I'd not heard this before but it doesn't surprise me as I remember reading somewhere that Kubrick was an avid chess player and wouldn't make a mistake like that.

[@freddymo3339]

"Mmmm, could be. " Arthur C. Clark

[@jimtrela7588]

@@toskvision Kubrick had been a chess hustler in his late teen years in Washington Square, New York City.

[@danhair]

Why not just a mistake because Hal did not understand that by playing the recording when they got to the destination, he would not be breaking his mission. They were supposed to learn about the mission eventually.

[@matthewweng8483]

That's Kubrick... genius.

[@stevemccullagh36]

"It's all gone a bit weird." 2001, ladies and gentlemen.

[@slowerthinker]

Swifty followed by "well, it was the sixties"

[@stevetheduck1425]

Notice the distorted voices heard in the 'hotel room' at the end? The 'aliens' do not appear so much as are audible. Some work was done on optical / digital shapes to represent the aliens, the few pictures suggest shapes like paper sculptures, but, like the hedge animals intended for The Shining, they were not good enough for Kubrick.

[@frankgesuele6298]

And the practical affects are awesome🙌

[@jasonvoorhees3124]

Depending on what mood you're in, this is either the most boring film in the world, or its stunning.

[@thelonelydirector]

Stunning... fucking stunning!!!

[@FireTiger941]

@@thelonelydirector Boring...fucking boring LOL

[@pauledwards9493]

or both.

[@m.e.3862]

Also depends on what mind altering drugs you're on too!

[@catherinelw9365]

@@m.e.3862 Who needs drugs for this film??? 😄

[@benjaminsmythe8967]

This film is the perfect fusion of science fiction and art.

[@andymac7663]

Perfect fusion of shit!

[@randywhite3947]

@@andymac7663 😂

[@michaelcorleone7297]

@@andymac7663 like superhero movies?

[@andymac7663]

@@michaelcorleone7297 No I don’t!!!! space odyssey is 💩💩💩

[@michaelcorleone7297]

@@andymac7663 i feel marvel is 💩

[@starbrand3726]

The Monolith helped evolved the apes into modern humans. The hats the flight attendants wore served to hide their hair. Because the filmmakers couldn't do the 'hair floating in zero gravity' effects yet. The obscure ending has been interpreted many different ways. This is one... The Monolith evolved Dave into a new being, but it couldn't do that while Dave was still alive, nor could it kill him, so the Monolith created an environment where Dave could live out the remainder of his life, then after dying of old age, he could be transformed, evolved, ascended. I highly recommend that you watch the sequel 2010.

[@vapoet]

I've heard a theory that the monolith gave the apes the concept of technology. It eventually makes us somewhat devoid of humanity, hence the sterility of the acting. Eventually, in the form of HAL, the technology fails us and it is time for the next evolutionary step.

[@starbrand3726]

@@vapoet While that opinion is different, I like it. It's unique and a very valid interpretation.

[@Sharksupporter1]

The monolith gave the apes the idea for the next step in their evolution. The use of tools. Allowed the consumption of meat, and therefore increased 'brain power'. Then on the moon, when discovered, sent a signal to Jupiter. Turned humanities sight towards Jupiter, creating new tools, and allowing travel to Jupiter. And a new generation of HAL computers etc. On observing the Large Monolith at Jupiter, 'different form of travel' perhaps? And observing the Monolith at the end of his days, becoming the Star Child. The next step in our 'evolution'. Evolved into a new being.

[@charlesborden8111]

I think that was main reason why the flight attendants, who would have been called stewardesses at the time, wore the caps, can't exactly stick the hair to a pane of glass and move it about the camera frame. Other reasons a costume designer might use them would be that back in the Sixties many of the uniforms stewardesses wore included a hat or cap of some sort; plus, it would allow women not to have to deal with a Medusa mass hair moving about in microgravity. Another thought is it is a nod to the caps worn the astronauts/cosmonauts of the time in the real world.

[@petersvillage7447]

@@vapoet My understanding (and I think Keir Dullea has affirmed this) is that not only do astronauts have to be at the absolute peak of physical fitness, they also need to be highly intelligent and - especially for a mission like this one in the film - highly self-controlled people. This may well mean that selection favours candidates with certain traits associated with psychopaths, such as a tendency to remain very calm in stress situations, and to be emotionally flat. Not only does this make sense for the astronauts on a technical level, it also heightens the sense that HAL is actually more alive and emotional than his human colleagues - he exhibits curiosity, for example. When it comes to a fight for survival between the organic and inorganic crew, it's easy to find more pathos in HAL's demise than the rather cold humans (no cryogenic pun intended). I personally see HAL's increasingly independent consciousness as perhaps being another gigantic step in human development, equivalent to that of the apes discovering tool use. Though of course, that tool use was immediately culminated in violence - and so it does here when humans have created artificial life...

[@smichelle65]

Dave at the end wasn't on the ship; the aliens put him in a place to observe him in his natural habitat. The weird violin noises on the soundtrack were them discussing him.

[@Uncle_T]

You need to watch A Clockwork Orange by Kubrick.

[@peepnox7747]

That’s one my favorite Kubrick films

[@joshuayeager3686]

PLEASE

[@drakeredwingofficial]

they wouldn't be able to put their reaction up on KZbin tho

[@tonypate9174]

David Prowse RIP pre the Darth Vader days

[@sydIRISH]

This is an acquired taste. It's in my top 5 of all time. It has everything. Action, sex, violence, revenge, rape, redemption, drama, comedy, EVERYTHING. It's odd though. If you're afraid of human genitalia...stay away.

[@TriScorp]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke the writer of this move/book

[@jgreen2015]

/ mcu Thor 😂

[@TrentRidley]

Though only from the perspective of a far less advanced civilisation that does not understand the technology.

[@robtierney5653]

Hogwarts is just M.I.T.

[@Yggdrasil42]

@@TrentRidley That's the point of the quote. No matter how advanced you are, if something is sufficiently more advanced you won't recognize it as technology anymore. It might as well be magic.

[@versetripn6631]

Kubrick I believe tasked Clarke to write prior to the film. Many view it as Propaganda to spur the "Space Race" to the Moon.

[@erickyoung8331]

It's nice to see reactors that aren't thrown or turned off when the film's answers aren't obvious or when it requires thinking. You guys appreciate the challenge of trying to understand. I still don't understand everything in this movie, but a big part of the movie is trying to figure out the metaphors, even AFTER you have watched it. Great stuff, guys!

[@emilyc9240]

"Is he now one with the universe?" That's the closest I've heard anybody come to what actually happened. I absolutely love the book and the film but I think Kubrick could have explained the ending a bit better

[@nerdiloo9863]

What .. didn't he put "THE END" ?

[@porflepopnecker4376]

Yes, he could have. And I'm so glad he didn't.

[@mnikhk]

Kubrick did in a phone interview he didn't give away completely.I just saw the movie first time today

[@falcychead8198]

I'd be willing not to disagree that if Kubrick stumbled anywhere it was at the very end of the film, representing the "Star Child" as a planet-size fetus. But to be fair, I don't think I would have come up with anything better. And considering all the other brilliant ways he managed to convey some very abstract ideas (SMASH CUT TO: EXT-SPACE, 4 million years later), I think that audiences could afford to take _one_ step towards meeting him in the middle.

[@michaelbuhl4250]

I like how the story goes from the introduction of tools to tools becoming aware and turning on man.

[@user-zh4vo1kw1z]

I see it more as the tools starting to define man, and then us having to outgrow that stage

[@josuemc93]

Also like how the tool is almost indistinguishable, as mentioned in Arrival, from a weapon. Depending on word/verbiage and intent.

[@vivalapsych]

Good point!

[@wizzolo]

this movie is a masterpiece, so many technical innovations, so many layers of interpretation.

[@d3l3tes00n]

I wish I could like it.

[@AchtungEnglander]

@@d3l3tes00n Its not for everyone and that is cool. You do you !

[@andymac7663]

It’s shit! You’re welcome

[@AchtungEnglander]

@@andymac7663 What is your favourite film ?

[@andymac7663]

@@AchtungEnglander Rita, sue and Bob too

[@AaronRaynerKASR]

There are literally tons of writings about the ending of this film. In a nutshell: Dave manages to survive, stumbles onto Jupiter, and encounters a species of highly advanced beings who try to give him the comforts of the good life. Dave, blown away by their existence, sees himself age in mere moments, goes on a color trail, dies, and is reborn as a star child.

[@joaosantos5503]

The thing about this film is that, unlike most films, its story is told visually rather than through dialogue. It's mostly a visual and sensory experience. That's what puts some people off.

[@alucardbloodream2013]

the one thing that makes this movie good an creepy. is the calmness in HAl'S voice

[@promnightdumpsterbaby9553]

Even when hes scared.

[@davidmarquardt2445]

@@promnightdumpsterbaby9553 HAL. The calm, rational voice of insanity. In the sequel 2010, made in the mid 80's, a cyber psychologist on a mission to find out why the Discovery failed determines that someone had deliberately loaded a second program. The conflict between the 2 disparate programs caused HAL to go insane. He determines this using his own mainframe in his office on Earth, HAL's sister, SAL 9000.

[@promnightdumpsterbaby9553]

@@davidmarquardt2445 yeah,i own It ;) i love that film too.

[@promnightdumpsterbaby9553]

@@davidmarquardt2445 the third book also has floyd,hal,and dave in it. Its pretty good.

[@Seantendo]

When he says "I'm afraid" it always sends a shiver down my spine.

[@manwiththeharmonica2167]

This was so ahead of its time.

[@peepnox7747]

U Right

[@Gnossiene369]

That is impossible. I hate this statement, ass licking that does the opposite. If you are going to praise an amazing film, don’t insult it with bullshit statements. It was made when it was made and it was made brilliant. No need for the pseudo intellectual statements that doesn’t make sense.

[@Silver-rx1mh]

@@Gnossiene369 Seriously.....? Good grief.

[@CommissionerSleer]

@@Gnossiene369 Just 9 years after Plan 9 From Outer Space. An amazing leap forward in Sci Fi cinematography. "ahead of its time" is an idiom that isn't to be taken literally and there's nothing intellectual (pseudo or otherwise) about it.

[@georgemorley1029]

@@Gnossiene369 Your interpretation of his comment strikes me as wilful contrarianism, probably in an attempt to differentiate your opinion from that which you perceive to be trite or obvious. I assume that, by doing this, you believe you will assert some degree of intellectual superiority over the masses who adopt a similar opinion. Well, I’m afraid it didn’t work. Your comment only succeeds in making you look like an idiot. The film is not only ahead of its time, it’s still ahead of our own time. No one before or since this has made a more visionary science fiction film.

[@joka619]

so glad your camera bubbles are now not reversed and actually look corresponding to how y'all sit. great reaction as always. this is an epic film, deserves multiple viewings too. also, this film is better viewed not knowing anything about HAL, unfortunately, it seems like y'all knew enough to suspect from the beginning of HAL's introduction in the film.

[@miasumner272]

HAL's singing Daisy Bell which was also the first song to ever be sung by an IBM computer so him singing it as he goes is a reference to IBM and the progress of computers at the time.

[@musicgarryj]

Apparently IBM were rather annoyed that the computer was named HAL: as it implied that they were lagging one step behind! lol

[@leehargreaves7473]

I worked for IBM when they actually made a 9000 series.

[@paratus04]

Fun fact about vacuum exposure. During space suit testing a seal failed and the guy testing the suit was exposed to hard vacuum. He passed out within 15 seconds but before he did he said he felt the saliva on his tongue begin to boil in the low pressure. They got him out in less than 90 seconds and he was fine. The human body can handle a change of 1 atmosphere pretty well with just a few surface capillaries rupturing as long as you exhale. If you try and hold your breath it can damage your lungs. As for the story intelligence was the most important thing the aliens found in the universe. So they would help potential races gain intelligence via the monoliths. The second one burried on the moon was a test to see if the intelligence took in the human race. The signal to Jupiter (Saturn in the book) was to have a human follow it and meet the creators who then evolve him into the “Star Child” the next level of evolution for humans. Finally HAL’s issue was the creators of the Jupiter mission gave him conflicting orders. To protect crew and mission but hide the real mission from Frank and Dave. As he felt Frank and Dave were starting to catch on about the mission, the conflict in his orders that caused made HAL begin to act erratically and eventually homicidally to remove the source of the conflict.

[@antonycharnock2993]

The Expanse is good at this sort of thing if you like hard sci-fi.

[@paratus04]

@@antonycharnock2993 way ahead of you there. Read all the books and finishing up season 5

[@M139NG]

@paratus04 That part about confusing orders i find very fascinating. That's exactly the kind of AI programming issues this series on Computerphile is all about. If you haven't checked this playlist out, i think you will find this very interesting. Cheers! kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYW8hWSHm8mZqa8

[@brianclark9144]

The monolith is a computer. When the apes touch it, they advance to the next stage of evolution. The moon monolith activates the one by Jupiter. The creators of it were ensuring that humans were advanced enough to achieve space flight. When that one is touched, evolution is advanced again. In the book, he finally becomes a being beyond space and time.

[@SporeMurph]

@@christopherbenassi7721 It is described as a device or machine in the book. The aliens that built it have advanced beyond matter though and become pure energy. How it works exactly is not explained.

[@markhamstra1083]

Even more so in the sequel novels, Clarke explicitly describes the monoliths as computing machines, even with reference to von Neumann architecture.

[@danigar]

This for me is one of the rare cases where the movie is better than the book (which Clarke wrote concurrently with the movie if I'm not mistaken) The whole ambiguity of the monolith and the ending is what makes it so powerful imo

[@JulioLeonFandinho]

@@danigar That was the source of conflict between Kubrick and Clarke... Clarke, as a writer wanted everything being explained in detail, Kubrick, as a photographer and movie maker, wanted everything to be insinuated. Whatever do you prefer, the story is pretty simple and clear, it's about alien intelligence guiding the human being evolution. If you like the way of Kubrick there's much more room to theories and specullation, but him and Clarke didn't diverge in the essence of the story.

[@porflepopnecker4376]

Clarke's version of the story leans toward the mundane and the explanatory. Kubrick's cinematic interpretation is not dependent on it at all.

[@thetoothbrushfromnisemonog8340]

I think 2001 a Space Odyssey is easily the greatest film ever made. Honestly, I might sound kind of pretentious but idc, Stanly Kubrick’s directing in this film is so beyond masterful, the kind of insane ideas that he thought up along with along Arthur C Clarke and how brilliantly he was able to convey it all through film, its so incredible. Its just so freaking dense with so many insanely profound philosophical themes and ideas, there isn’t a single film I think about more than this one. It’s really one that you have to watch multiple times and really think about to fully comprehend though.

[@andymac7663]

I think 2001 a space odyssey is easily the shitest film ever made!

[@ricardocima]

It's the best piece of art of the last century.

[@andymac7663]

@@ricardocima 💩

[@ricardocima]

@@andymac7663 lol

[@krautgazer]

I'm 100% with you. This is the greatest film in cinema history. It condenses the whole history of human life into one single piece of marvelous art.

[@OneDarkMartian]

Kubrick was a genius. He was such a master of his craft and possibly the greatest filmmaker ever. You absolutely have to watch his other films. Particularly A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. All masterpieces!

[@DNotzz]

Yessssa this movie STILL HOLDS UO TO THIS VERY DAY. Kubrick was a genius. A mad mad genius.

[@shanenonwolfe4109]

This movie is like a fine wine you only pull out a few times a year

[@kokomo9764]

Or once every 10 years if you are like me like me. I hate this movie and I understand very little of it.

[@catherinelw9365]

@@kokomo9764 Glad I'm not like you.

[@douglaskoster4245]

Add "A Clockwork Orange" to your future Kubrick viewing. He's a director that never disappoints.

[@frankgesuele6298]

Who today is his equal?

[@flushfries5633]

@@frankgesuele6298 We’ll probably only know in hindsight, as a lot of Kubrick’s movies were panned on release, so there’s no telling who our current or next director is that always hits a homerun

[@shadow7988]

@@frankgesuele6298 Christopher Nolan is probably the only director/producer even remotely close. Cinema is dead, and comics, shaky cam, and CGI killed the industry.

[@erickyoung8331]

"What year was this film made?" Mentions my birth year..."1968! Oh, so it's REALLY OLD." Ouch, LOL.

[@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio]

Yep, same here.

[@shaneortega2894]

Me too

[@ItDoesntMatterReally]

2001: A Space Odyssey is definitely the type of film that everyone should see at least once, and it definitely helps to be in the meticulous and attentive mood to sit through it. It's a beautiful film filled with many questions, but it's not something I'm just going to pop on for casual entertainment.

[@user-zh4vo1kw1z]

Don't know about "everyone". It's definitely my favorite movie by far, but have refused to show it to some mates. Remember, there are people who think van Helsing is a great movie

[@ItDoesntMatterReally]

@@user-zh4vo1kw1z All the more reason to at least attempt to show them something good. If they walk, it's their loss lol.

[@user-zh4vo1kw1z]

@@ItDoesntMatterReally this is a movie where I can fully understand it not being somebody's cup of tea. It has a specific flow and aesthetic that is just not for everyone. It may not be that They don't "get it", it is just outside their wheelhouse. I don't like liver. Cudo's for chefs who make wonderfull dishes with it. Just not for me. I think dr. Strangelove is a deeply boring and unfunny movie. But I can understand people that feel differently. And for those mates: why serve high cuisine lobster to someone who is allergic to it and thinks everything but chicken nuggets is shyte? Or make a good burger to someone who looks down on anything that isn't made from the most expensive ingrediënts you can find?

[@lukerose384]

@@ItDoesntMatterReally I wouldn't call it a loss, the film is boring as fuck

[@andymac7663]

The film is shit!

[@mclovin457]

I really really would like to see a clockwork orange reaction

[@greg5775]

Not me. Another 2 hours of my life I wasted at the show.

[@mattmccomas1]

@@greg5775 Uh..huh....

[@Orlor]

Thank you for watching this. Been waiting forever for someone to finally react to this one. My take is that the monolith is a tool for the aliens to go to planets and instill a spark of intelligence in promising species thus kickstarting their evolution. It gave the ape (Moon watcher in the book) the knowledge of tools and weapons which is why the cut from the bone flying in the air to the satellite orbiting the Earth. (The satellite was supposed to be a nuclear launch platform thus the film cutting from one weapon to another) The second monolith (Or is the the first one. You never know because the first one just disappears) was a test for the apes to see if they had achieved space flight. When the Sun hit the monolith, it sends off a signal towards Jupiter for the next stage of the test. Thus the Jupiter mission 18 months later. Now HAL. The reason that HAL started to malfunction and decided to kill off the crew members is that he was given conflicting instructions. His primary function was to collect all the data and present it to the humans without error. However, he was also given a second instruction for this mission that he wasn't supposed to reveal to anyone until after they entered orbit around Jupiter. He started to develop the computer equivalent of paranoia. And when he caught Dave and Frank planning on disconnecting him, he saw the crew as a detriment to the mission and decided to kill them off and continue the mission himself. The Stargate. When Dave approaches the monolith, it activates a stargate and sends Dave across space to the aliens' planet where they set up a comfortable place for him to stay. While he's there, they start deconstructing him in order to build him into the next evolution of man, the Starchild which is what you see at the end of the movie. Anyway, that is my take on it. Like you said, the movie is open to numerous interpretations so your mileage may vary.

[@chumbimba83]

I haven't even watched the reaction yet but just the fact that they would react to this is why I love this channel.

[@tc-2000]

A common misunderstanding is that the film is based on the book. The film was jointly written by Kubrick and Clarke. Then Clarke wrote the book during filming. They both had different ideas, which they separately explored, but it is not true that the film expresses the same events or ideas seen in the book. Kubrick and Clarke have both stated this at various times. So you can’t easily cross reference them and say - oh this is better explained here. What you see in the movie is exactly what Kubrick wanted and you decide the rest. The book is a separate thing. Which makes this far more interesting in my opinion.

[@pathatfield2543]

It all started with Arthur C Clarke’s short story “The Sentinel”

[@tj_2701]

The book is even better. Unfortunately the second book disregards the first book and instead uses this movie in it's place.

[@pathatfield2543]

@@tj_2701 thanks for that information

[@juanucedaperez9614]

Yes. The film is not based on the book.

[@randywhite3947]

Thank you for clearing things up

[@robertpearson8798]

I starting watching this video thinking “these guys aren’t going to get it”, then I was pleasantly surprised that you pretty much did. Your understanding and appreciation of the kraft of Kubrick makes me happy. One thing to notice is the continual reference to birth, Frank Poole’s birthday, Floyd’s daughter’s birthday, the birth of Man, the birth of A.I., the birth of the Star Child, even the docking with the orbiting space station is symbolic of the act of procreation.

[@danigar]

And the Discovery looks a sperm cell

[@porflepopnecker4376]

Which is headed for Jupiter, which is like a big egg.

[@petersvillage7447]

@@porflepopnecker4376 Which is why the film is secretly about the destruction of the native American peoples.

[@krautgazer]

There's also one particular shot in the star gate sequence that looks suspiciously like a sperm.

[@DinerLingo]

@@petersvillage7447 This comment is so good it went over too many people's heads.

[@betsyduane3461]

Kubrick used the classical music as a place holder, it worked so well he kept it. There was actually an an entire soundtrack never used written by Alex North who also worked on Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove. North did not learn that his score had been abandoned until he saw the film's premiere.

[@juancarlos23alva]

Come on guys do more Stanley Kubrick masterpieces!

[@markodarkman1061]

I can't believe how good this movie still holds up with practical effects while some newer movies like Star wars Phantom Menace aged horrible because of bad cgi .

[@Bothandle70]

Movies like phantom menace should be given more credit though. Without those movies investing heavily and taking risks, the cgi technology wouldn't have come this far in such a limited time.

[@ThreadBomb]

People who did the SFX for this movie later worked on Star Wars, and in between worked on the TV series Space 1999.

[@shadow7988]

@@Bothandle70 CGI was a disaster for film just like shaky cam, so I'm still going to hold it against the prequels. Cheap, mass produced junk CGI will never match practical effects made by people that actually cared.

[@cutthr0atjake]

Poor Hal was driven mad by being given conflicting orders. His death never fails to reduce me to tears.

[@TrentRidley]

'His' pleading with Dave is heart breaking.

[@jacobjones5269]

HAL’s breakdown is quite fascinating.. It seems to me stress programming went askew when he was confronted with something unknown, that he couldn’t compute.. Then emotion, real emotion and stress kicked in.. I don’t know..

[@flightdub6056]

‘I’m half crazy All for the love of you’ Hal went kind of crazy because while he had to hide the nature of the mission, he was programmed to care for the crew. His care for them literally drove him mad. It’s interesting on a rewatch how he hints to Dave that the mission isn’t what it seems on the surface, as if he wanted them to come to the conclusion on their own without him having to tell them. He was doing everything he could within the bounds of his programming, but because it made him seem glitchy and untrustworthy, it backfired. Truly tragic

[@billvegas8146]

That's from the sequel that Kubrick had nothing to do with.

[@miller-joel]

HAL doesn't "die." He's turned off. And turned back on in 2010.

[@OneAndOnlyMe]

2010 - The Year We Make Contact is worth watching too.

[@Haldurson]

I saw this movie in the theater with my parents back when it was released. I was 8 years old, and I can still picture myself walking out of the theater just in awe, just wanting to talk about what I had just seen. It changed my life.

[@kellyroberts7268]

Technology is going to kill us.

[@Haldurson]

@@kellyroberts7268 It's possible. That's why your mother taught you to look both ways before you cross the road.

[@amitychief3061]

Great to see someone react to this film. I saw this in the theatre in the 70's and was absolutely awe struck. I tell people that to this day, it presents the best visual spectacle ever done. I remember hearing a story about real astronauts being asked how it was to be in space. They answered that it is like the movie 2001.

[@michaelbastraw1493]

Congrats on being the first people to publish a bona-fide reaction to this film on KZbin that I've seen. Trivia: the bone spinning into the air turns into an orbiting weapons platform. Best. Leo.

[@andrewr255]

Another Kubrick masterpiece: "Dr. Strangelove or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb", a movie I can watch endlessly every time its on.

[@213byron]

Still can’t believe this is a film made in the 60s

[@666ATB666]

The title of the opening music "Thus Spake Zarathustra" lays out a major concept of the film: "Zarathustra" takes its title from writings by Nietzsche about a Zoroastrian prophet who deemed that "God is dead" but that mankind had yet to know about it. What Nietzsche meant by this is that the Age of Enlightenment with it's development of science and reason should have ended mankind's need for religion and that man abandoning the idea of god is necessary for people to develop their own internal sense of morality & decency without having to depend on a set of rules put upon them by religion. This letting go of the "higher power" concept will allow mankind to evolve to it's next level, to become their own higher power, the "Ubermensch", basically meaning that the next important evolution of man is to become our own gods. Back to 2001, during the Dawn of Man sequence notice the colors of the sun, which represents the "all seeing eye" of God, and it's similarities to HAL's eye, which also represents God (note how like God/religion HAL is a man-made construct which is supposedly perfect and "above" humans, and is always watching/in control of the lives and very fates of the astronauts). When mankind (our astronauts) finds that God (HAL) is flawed, mankind then kills God and is then able to become God himself (Dave's eye is now the "all-seeing eye), evolving to a higher state of enlightenment.

[@malcolmdrake6137]

LOL! The music was _filler_ added by the editor, because the _st_ wasn't completed on time and it was released with _public domain_ music. There is no connection between the music and any "major concept"...LOL!

[@666ATB666]

@@malcolmdrake6137 LOL! I'm aware of SK's process, however the way he came to use the music doesn't automatically mean that he couldn't intend it to have a deeper meaning 😉 LOL! If you study Kubrick you must know that he sometimes piles on layers of theme and subtext, using everything from color, paintings, literature references, subconscious suggestions and yes, music, to do it. Given that many think of Kubrick as a genius & one of the G.O.A.T.s and given that the film is clearly about some form of mankind's evolution I think it's a stretch to write it off as merely coincidence ✌️

[@SueSnellLives]

@@666ATB666 I'm reading that book right now and your analysis fits very nicely with it. The great thing about artists is that they don't mind if the rest of us interpret what they've done, and sometimes I think others pick up on things that artists maybe subconsciously put into their work. I don't see the point of arguing about that kind of thing, so well done you.

[@tonybennett4159]

@@666ATB666 Yes, I tend to agree. Apparently Kubrick asked Alex North to come up with something with a similar mood to the opening of Also Sprach Zarathustra, but was disappointed in the result and stuck with the Richard Strauss composition. I believe that while The Blue Danube was used as a filler, Kubrick immediately asked "I wonder if we dare?" There are plenty of examples of happy accidents becoming iconic moments in movies..

[@waynezimmerman5308]

@@malcolmdrake6137 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(score) The soundtrack; composed by Alex North; who worked with the director for both Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove, was complete, Kubrick simply rejected it without a word to the composer that he did. North didn't find out until the movie came out. You can actually look up North's version; finally released in 1993, on KZbin.

[@patgillen8542]

I gotta say, this film is notoriously baffling and cryptic, but you guys were incredibly cued into what was happening right from the start. I'd love to see you react to the sequel! 2010 is one of my favorite sleeper sequels, and a surprisingly quaint continuation of the original odyssey.

[@andrewreisinger6860]

The creators of "Toy Story" love Kubrick. They used the carpet from The Shining in Syd's house, and also used the phrase "Open the pod bay doors" as one of Buzz Lightyear's sayings in Toy Story 4.

[@yanndick]

The problem with first watching and then discovering 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY on TV and not on a huge cinema screen is that the experIence of and from it is very different. 2001 is the kind of movie that truely deserves cinema screen to be fully enjoyed.

[@roryotoole3279]

When you said the Death Star at the beginning you weren't far off. They had just shown the part with the bone flying through the air, it then changes into a weapons satellite. It goes from man's first weapon to the latest weapon. I'm sure many wouldn't agree but you should also check out "2010: The year we make contact".

[@iKvetch558]

I definitely agree...2010 is not, can not, be as good as Kubrick, but it has a great cast, tells a compelling story, and is loaded with great moments. 💯

[@IggyStardust1967]

@wespozo It's a much differently paced movie. However, I have to say that 2010 would be a shit movie without 2001. I like them both, but realize that they are very different stories that relate to one another.

[@porflepopnecker4376]

2010 takes something wonderful and makes it mundane and pedestrian. One of the worst sequels of all time.

[@somthingbrutal]

the people that told hal to lie about the purpose of the mission basically drove him mad, as he was not designed to lie

[@milescoburn1845]

But you only find that out in the sequel.

[@1000000man1]

To clarify, the film isn't really based on a book. The book and screenplay were written at the same time. The story was written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke.

[@elcal9600]

this is simply a cinematic masterpiece way ahead of its time. So many questions, few answers, just like life itself...

[@imakevideossometimes9144]

It literally doesn't look like a 1968 film, it could've been made today!

[@MG-bs5mr]

I'm reading ArthurC Clarke's Rama series just now and I think it could be the next 2001, IF made right.

[@Juggernogger64]

@@MG-bs5mr that would unfortunately require a director to go full perfectionist and in the process harass and mistreat the actors like Kubrick.

[@MG-bs5mr]

@@Juggernogger64 I don't think most modern actors would accept that type of treatment to be fair. I'm sure that there would be a director capable of pulling it off without terrorising the crew.

[@joebarlow1667]

@@MG-bs5mr David Fincher tried for years to make Rendezvous with Rama, starring Morgan Freeman. Breaks my heart the film never happened.

[@MG-bs5mr]

@@joebarlow1667 I'd heard that Morgan Freeman had had something to do with a possible project in the past. It is a shame that it never happened. In the era of reboot after reboot a well made series of Rama films would be so refreshing.

[@LadyFinger_]

This is a film that you like more every time you watch it.

[@cgbleak]

It also gets funnier every time you watch it.

[@OLGMC]

That monolith score still gives me the fricking goosebumps. I've first watched this as a teenager alone in the evening and it absolutely freaked me out

[@bucklberryreturns]

Of the many genius ideas put into this film...the thought that centrifugal force could be used to overcome the lack of gravity was just amazing.

[@djyanno]

If you are into Kubrick, Clockwork Orange and Dr Strangelove are your next movies

[@klcpesan]

Ooh yes!

[@krisbrown6692]

Also Barry Lyndon.

[@slowerthinker]

Barry Lyndon is peak Kubrick.

[@spikedpsycho2383]

Great future predictor - Glass panel displays - voice activation - credit cards with magnetic stripes - picturephone - vacuum toilet (Space toilet) - convoluted spacesuits (A7L apollo) - tablet

[@matsv201]

This might suprice you. But picture phones existed back in the 50tys. What killed it was digitalization of the telecomgrid in the early 70tys The first flat panel displayed was comersilized the very same year. 1968. Granted it was black and white, but it was clear that it was the future. It had been shown of for years prior to that First magnet strip informarion card was introduced.in 1969, but cards uses for information storage had been used for more than 10 years at thia point. Voice activation had been demoed as early as in 1930. The demo later was shown to be fake. But it still let the imagination flow. Primitive voice interface was developed in the mid 60tys and voice control hardware was introduced in the late 80tys. The first patent of a tablet computer dates back to 1888. Yes, steam age. In the 60 there was several people making mockup tablets. The thing is because large lcd wasnt avalible they had to fake it with back projection. Touch display computers did exist, but because GUI wasnt yet a thing, there was no real popuse of them

[@michaelradel2405]

I first saw this movie in 1969 during my first year of University and the year man first landed on the moon. It absolutely blew my mind back then and it still does - I have watched it some half a dozen times in the interim. I studied medicine at University and later did a PhD in neuroscience! Since retiring some 5 years ago, I have pursued a long held interest in palaeontology culminating in specialty study in the very new field of palaeoneurology! This movie really was at a time when I was very impressionable and impacted me greatly. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it had some role to play in priming my field(s) of interest and study over subsequent decades Thank you for this great review! 👍🤩🤔👌🏻

[@samanthanickson6478]

"i'm sorry dave. i feel much better now." ~hal 9000 i watched this movie w my son when he was 11 and prefaced it w a stmt that it was very special and he needed to treat it as a hw assignment bc we'd talk abt it when it was over. he got a notebook and scribbled throughout. he got a kick out of hal, laughed at him begging for his "life", and kept asking why ppl back on earth didn't stop it. i asked him for his impression: he said the danger of unchecked tech, hal was kinda like a bomb for your enemy that you accidentally detonate in the lab.

[@strangelyjamesly4078]

Apocalypse Now. A Clockwork Orange.

[@The_Bermuda_Nonagon]

Dr. Strangelove? Barry Lyndon ? :D

[@johndawhale3197]

Apocalypse Now is directed by Coppola not Kubrick.

[@dcipawn]

Full Metal Jacket.

[@mclovin457]

This is THE masterpiece

[@Charzy1230]

Imo thats se7en or blade runner: the final cut

[@alexsclewis]

@@Charzy1230 lmao no

[@TheStOne1]

Hal failed because he was told to keep a secret but at the same time his only goal was to succeed in the mission. He interpreted keeping that secret as dangerous for the mission and for that he went "mad", so he decided to kill the humans and complete the mission all by itself.

[@MrSmartAlec]

My parents took me to see this movie for my 14th birthday at one of the Cinemascope theaters in Pittsburgh. What an experience to see it that way. Back in those days they used to hand out movie programs for big releases like 2001. They were high quality heavy bond "magazines" with glossy color photos and stories about the movie. I think I still have the one I collected at the movie.

[@iangrant3615]

I'm so relieved you liked it haha! I was worried you might just say 'what is this film trying to be?' It's definitely not a film you would want to watch regularly, it's a bit of an endurance test as it's so immersive. As the movie poster said at the time, it's the ultimate trip. As you mention, it's based on the work of Arthur C Clarke, one of the most influential science fiction authors of all time. This film inspired a lot of the visual design in Star Wars and the Star Trek movies and really kicked off a new style of cinema, not to mention special effects. For me, it's a great example of cinema as a source of wonder. It makes you think, it's thrilling, it's unnerving, it's everything that life itself can be, including the madness and chaos of dreams and nightmares. There is a sequel, 2010, which is not nearly as good in my opinion, but is worth a look if you're interested in digging deeper.

[@fungifago]

Well said

[@countgeekula9143]

2010 is great but it's more a straight forward scifi drama/adventure than the heady art piece this one is. Wish we got adaptations of the rest of the book series.

[@redsabreanakin]

I thought 2010 was pretty damn good. Its definitely worth a look.

[@seagull8415]

Despite the U certificate, i find the movie terrifying. The tension, the sound design, the unknown, its all so intense.

[@soubhagyanayak3098]

I agree. I am pretty sure they used a bit of its music in the recent Godzilla vs Kong trailer. For purpose of suspense. Its quite effective and i noticed it as i have seen the movie so many times.

[@davidmorris3089]

It’s not a horror movie, but it certainly uses horror elements and imagery to great effect. And some of the scenes are eery or downright terrifying: the music playing as the group of scientists are walking up to the monolith on the moon, HAL killing the entire crew with no fanfare or musical cues, and the brief flashes of Dave’s face contorted in terror as he’s hurtling through the star gate.

[@bfdidc6604]

The sequel, 2010, is also worth a look. It is not a classic like 2001, but it tells its own story and clarifies some of the loose threads. It also stars the always interesting to watch Roy Scheider of Jaws fame.

[@listonheinz9103]

It’s a hidden gem, not talked about much for some strange reason. I loved it as a kid and I’ve never seen or heard anyone talk bad about it either. It’s a classic of its own but under the radar.

[@devinmorse3607]

When I first watched this film I hated it. I thought it was boring and confusing. Then, years later, something happened. The film began nagging at my mind. I was compelled to watch it again. So I did. This time it was a different experience. I opened my mind, I researched the film, I studied it as absolute science fiction and art. When I did that, I discovered something. 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't just a film. It is a journey without a destination.

[@jimmyj1969]

A journey without a destination: like Odyssey - since return to Ithaca was rather a pretext...

[@antonego9581]

to me its the only film that can be put on the level of truly great, transcendent works of art like the David statue. This film isn't a piece of entertainment, it's a work of art. Kubrick uses the visual and audible mediums to create something that connects with some inherent part of the human experience. From the earliest human ancestors looking at the stars to the astronauts on the ISS, the vastness and beauty of space is something that has been present for every person who's ever lived whether they realized it or not. Kubrick undertook the act of taking that element and creating a tangible piece of art we can all experience. It will never be surpassed.

[@DarthTach]

The Monoliths (IMO) are civilization markers and guides. The first one sort of "kickstarted" our brains to begin using tools and standing on two legs. The second one is a "checkpoint" and pointer. In order to get to that checkpoint you need a certain level of technology to not only discover it, but to also build the infrastructure to excavate it. The third one is the final technological checkpoint. Because you need to be able to understand deep space exploration to get to it. And once there it takes you to your final destination and begin the next stage of evolution to a more energy based lifeform.

[@flightdub6056]

I also think that Hal was created between the second and third one, and that journey was in essence a struggle to see whether humanity would win out over the technology it had created thus far to be deemed ‘worthy’ of the 3rd marker. If Hal had kept Dave locked out, perhaps it would have been AI that were allowed to evolve into something more in the end

[@stuartjohnrichardson]

i really hope you watch 2010 it's very different but i love it.

[@RockYourBrand]

I'm a big fan of 2010.

[@iKvetch558]

2010 is worth watching just for the cast...the performances are excellent.

[@archie7T8]

For me 2010 is a great film in its own right but I feel is sadly overlooked due to being a follow up to this classic great film.

[@stuartjohnrichardson]

@@archie7T8 Totally agree. I get the feeling that I'd be facinated in Cinema Rules reaction to 2010. I think I like it just as much as 2001.

[@stuartjohnrichardson]

@Formerly Paul I don't agree at all. Although 2010 is a sequel it doesn't try and copy 2001 it's a totally different movie. It really is a case of a sequel that actually doesn't go over old ground of the first movie. Each to their own. I'm glad you hold 2001 in such high regard. I do to. I just don't think the sequel suffers by comparison as it is just a totally different kind of film.

[@PhilipZeplinDK]

The black pillar is shown many times, that most don't notice. Every time the screen cuts to black - the audience is looking at it.

[@KBH27]

2010: The Year We Make Contact , was also good

[@tsogobauggi8721]

"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do I'm half crazy, all for the love of you It won't be a stylish marriage, I can't afford a carriage But you'll look sweet upon the seat, of a bicycle built for two..."

[@olgak.1139]

Adam Driver has sang this some time ago.

[@eddiepolo6047]

The "aliens" put him in a zoo in the end. That room he was in is what the "aliens" imagine humans live like.

[@iangrant3615]

Always reminds me a bit of the ending of AI: Artificial Intelligence, which of course was originally going to be directed by Kubrick before Spielberg took it on instead.

[@antonycharnock2993]

That was weird. The brightly lit floors & ceilings juxtaposed with 18th century classical stylings.

[@kellymoses8566]

Yes, its oddness is because the aliens didn't do a perfect job recreating a human house.

[@SigToyArts]

Ya, the aliens knew there was nothing more Dave could do in that form. So they waited on his transcendence. Made him comfy, like hospice.

[@jazzx251]

My annual routine: About 12:30pm on January 1st, with a raging hangover ... I turn on the live Vienna concert for its second half ... At the end of the show, they always play "The Blue Danube" ... ... which is my cue to pretend that I am waking up in zero-G, moving in slow motion as I gradually spacewalk to the toilet [fortunately, when I get there, - the instructions for use aren't as elaborate as in the film!]

[@victorsixtythree]

The screenplay was written by Kubrick and science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke based partly on a short story by Clarke titled "The Sentinel". If I remember correctly, the idea of "The Sentinel" was astronauts find an ancient alien artifact on the surface of the moon but it is protected by some sort of force field. The only way to penetrate the force field is with a nuclear blast. Once the force field is breached, the alien construct sends out a signal, presumably to its creators to signal that the field has been penetrated. One of the astronauts speculates that the purpose of the alien artifact was to act as a beacon to let the aliens know when Mankind's technology was advanced enough to not only make it to the surface of the moon to find the artifact but also to penetrate the force field. To do that Mankind would have had to not only master nuclear energy but also to have avoided the perils of nuclear war.

[@mikeclarke1961]

Some of the questions in this film are answered in the sequel, 2010.

[@csw3287]

One of Thee Greatest films of ALL time.

[@paulytheking7365]

I think the idea is that Hal was made not to lie, but was told not to talk about the mission, causing him to go mad

[@possiblepilotdeviation5791]

5:11, "It's almost like a dance." It's literally a waltz. Intended for dancing.

[@yashbspianoandcompositions1042]

Its the Blue Danube waltz composed by Johann Strauss Jr

[@miqx1977]

Shaun, when I first saw it I had the same thought: great movie but I doubt if I watch it again anytime soon. I re-watched it after few years and I liked it even more, I noticed more things. After third viewing I have no doubt this movie is an absolute masterpiece, not only as a film but as a work of art.

[@steviemcdonut]

If anyone says they understood the ending of this movie the first time they watched it, they’re lying

[@m.e.3862]

Or they were tripping. "Hey man, far out interpretation of the existence of human life, mannnnnn😜

[@Greenwood4727]

i dont think i ever understood it.. and never will because the me that watched in the 90's is not the same me that watched it last year..

[@Dularr]

It's possible. You have to remember the US and USSR were on the verge of an all out nuclear war during the 1960s. All you have to pick up on is the music indicates when the aliens were tinkering with the pre-humans to humans. Then later humans to the star-child.

[@markharris1125]

I think I'd already read the book - I was probably ten when I saw this and loved Arthur C Clarke - so I think I knew. But the book explains, the film hints, so you are right! “Then he waited, marshalling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something.”

[@olgak.1139]

Benjamin Button's ending is similar to this.

[@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio]

I'm so familiar with this film, I can hear the 4% PAL speedup in their voices.

[@FeaturingRob]

This was based on an Arthur C. Clarke story called 'The Sentinel' which is what inspired Kubrick to make the film, seeking Clarke's help in creating a story based on 'The Sentinel'. After this was out for a few years, Arthur C. Clarke wrote a sequel novel which was also adapted for film. '2010: The Year We Make Contact' was the film. Stanley Kubrick had nothing to do with the film, which was directed, produced, and co-written by Peter Hyams (who was also the cinematographer of the film). Roy Scheider (Chief Brody in 'Jaws') plays Dr. Heywood Floyd, John Lithgow plays the designer of 'Discovery', and Bob Balaban plays the programmer-creator of HAL 9000, and Helen Mirren plays the Russian captain of the 'Alexei Leonov', the Russian ship tasked with finding out what happened to the 'Discovery' which is in orbit around one of Jupiter's moons. Douglas Rain returned to voice HAL and Keir Dullea returns as Dave Bowman. It is not AS weird as '2001', but it comes close, and answers a lot of questions about what happened. Clarke continued to write other novels that extend the story...somewhat. '2061: Odyssey Three' and '3001 - The Final Odyssey' Spoiler...In '3001', Frank Poole's body is found in deep space and is able to be revived...and he goes back to Jupiter for more answers. However, even with the answers...more questions pop up. Which is the hallmark of the best science fiction!

[@thelookuplookdown]

Kubrick was an artist and a genius. He dabbled in multi pal genres, bringing a new perspective every time, which is why many of his films were, initially, met with coldness and indifference. Would you dare to view his almost forgotten masterpiece "Barry Lyndon", visually surely one of the most astonishing period films ever made..... Michael - South Africa.

[@nevetszinodas6654]

They called the computer HAL to be only one letter off from the biggest computer company in the world at the time.. IBM.

[@spaceactivistarchive4180]

This has been firmly denied by everyone involved in making the film.

[@Henrik_Holst]

The human brain seeing patterns where there is none.

[@TomVCunningham]

this has been debunked. it was just a coincidence.

[@mxmxpr]

Coincidence is correct. It's short for Heuristically-programmed Algorithmic Computer

[@mxmxpr]

You guys got it! There are almost endless layers to the movie. Basically the monolith opens an evolutionary pathway via the subconscious, and Kubrick's goal was to use the art of cinema in the same way. It's been pointed out the monolith is a blank movie screen and that may very well be the key.

[@em23]

The food they were eating on the trays was oatmeal with food coloring.

[@domcoke]

This channel is absolutely at its best when you watch interesting and challenging films... there's really only so much one can say about "Robocop", or "Fifth Element", or "Predator" - but to hear you enthuse about "Come and See", or "The Seventh Seal", or "2001" is fascinating. To hear you appreciate the craft, and ponder the meaning is really engaging. Not everything has to be arty cineaste films, but it just makes for a much more interesting watch for us [and possibly for you]

[@CClaudin]

Agree -- you guy are astute observers and a better match for serious cinema.

[@crimsonstare]

I'm so glad you guys enjoyed this film. When I first saw the review advertised I was terrified you'd hate it and think it was boring and slow. So glad to be surprised.

[@perrymalcolm3802]

Greatest sci-fi film! Blew audiences minds. The ending still holds up awesomely well as an immersive visual experience of awe. Soooo much more intense on the big screen!

[@TeamSukiyo]

Never thought I’d hear a Daddy Day Care reference in a Stanley Kubrick reaction

[@brandonflorida1092]

I have been waiting for a long time for someone to react to this, rather than just review it. Unfortunately, it's not one of the hundred films that reactors do over and over. Thanks for the original thinking!

[@Orlor]

Yeah. That's been a concern of mine as well. It seems that all the reactors get together and decide what films they're going to react to. How many times can you watch someone react to Alien and The Lord of the Rings? Asleigh Burton has been watching some films "Outside the box" so to speak but this is the first time I've seen someone react to this one.

[@brandonflorida1092]

@@Orlor Yes, I watch Ashleigh too. She's funny. But there is precious little originality out there. I suspect that millennials may generally have very little knowledge of the movies made between 1930 and 1970. The exact same thing applies to people who react to music.

[@hannahripebanana]

You guys badly need to see 2010 now. It answers a lot of the questions raised in 2001.

[@iKvetch558]

I concur...and it is loaded with great performances...how about that Dame Helen?! 💯

[@hannahripebanana]

@@iKvetch558 She was VERY good. Roy Scheider was brilliant as Dr Floyd. The story is a product of the 80s but its excellent. A lot more accessible than the first and the effects are top notch.

[@shaggycan]

It's hilarious when movie reactors cut away from playing the music, but don't realize the music is in the public domain so they can't take the copyright hit.

[@thecraigster8888]

One thing about watching the movie multiple times is how you do pick up on more aspects of it. Here’s one thing to look for as an example, the space station conversation with the Russians. This film was made during the Cold War (see Dr. Strangelove) and the Russians were our enemy. Due to having already seen the film you know where the conversation is going. Look at how guarded they act when they share the same table at a cocktail lounge, aka watering hole.

[@Sessy_Sun]

‘Under the Skin’ is another mind blowing, atmospheric sci-fi - would be great to see your reaction to it!

[@domcoke]

Absolutely second this

[@stepheng.robert7262]

I agree! I saw it at the theatre! It's an incredible movie!

[@AutomanicJack]

i agree, but i admit i had to watch some explanation afterwards and read the summary of the novel. some interpretation i did right, but some i just didnt figure while watching the movie.

[@stepheng.robert7262]

Personally that's what I like about a movie like this. To interpret on what you see on your own. I like to draw my own conclusions and it's the kind of movie that lets me.

[@LizanneFox]

Jonathan Glazer is an incredible director

[@amandaevans7908]

I've never seen this one! Looked really awesome for how old it is!

[@steverogers8163]

Daisy is the first song sung by a computer in 1961 by the IBM 7094. Which was a nice touch by Kubrick tying HALs earliest memories, as Dave lobotomizes him, to a real life event for computers.

[@nothefabio]

The fetus is him, at the next level of human evolution, coming to reclaim the Earth.