2001 A Space Odyssey Review pt2 (Trailer)

[CaptainPositron]

Matthew let me try to explain something to you about 2001. It is not a bad movie, it is a different movie. It is different in the sense that it tries to portray a story that is bigger than any character or characters; it tells the story of mankind reaching out to the stars and becoming something more. I can see how you can get hung up on the drawn out style that the film was made in. It's more of a work of art than your standard movie. I just wish you wouldn't condemn it so harshly.

[Donhinton]

I'm a Kubrick fan, and I think two of his films are among the greatest ever made. 2001 was not one of those films and I can't understand why it's so popular. Why would I want to watch pretty visuals for hours on end to understand it when it was boring the first time I did so.

[DoggieBark]

You point out the obvious so badly, yes the movie is going from point A to B, but isn't that what every movie is? Except in a more mainstream and accessible way?

[friction00815]

the ship is going the ship is going the ship is going

crap floating in space

[HRVDNT]

Matthew... I just want you to know that I love it when you complain about these movies that rightfully deserves it. Thank you. Because this is what I always have thought about 2001. I just didn't say it out loud. You did.

[STG472]

Loved the below post - also loved how many people are so proud of the fact that they cant concentrate on a film where shots dont change every 2.5 seconds or runs over 120mins. If this is the case dont ever, ever try and read a book, its not for you.

[TVoneiro]

CONTINIUED:

This annoying complaining of yours could just aswell had been translated over to pulp fiction, arguing that the movie contains just senseless talking and unneccecary jumping back and forth in the story. If you cannot enjoy 2001, its not your type of movie, and there's nothing WE can do to change your mind, other than to say: You just don't get it. Isn't it obvious to you that stanley kubrick is thinking outside the box? You WOULD have gotten that if you just sat back and watched...

[TVoneiro]

Okey, i could barely accept your opinion in the first part. But jesus christ, this review starts to remind me of a little kid that is begging his mom and dad that they can go home from a walk in the woods, instead of stopping up and looking at the scenery! I mean do you have any open--mindedness at all?

[Behemothic101]

2001: A Space Odyssey is a masterpiece. The special effects, music, cinematography, and ambiguous nature make it original and way ahead of it's time.

[rcevey2]

Unfortunately the movie lacks plot, story and characters. And ambiguity can from a lack of ability.

[Williamsfan]

Funny... You know, I'll agree with you there, but personally, I remember enjoying this film a great deal more when I fast forwarded the tedious bits.

[Maximara]

Let me get this straight. You praise this picture and yet in all likelihood pan Star Trek-the Motion Picture which when you get right down to it does much the same thing. Am i missing something here?!?

[Gourry334]

DO SOMETHING!!!

lol

[RYANL22]

This is a great example of how Kubrick thinks we're 5 years old and don't know shit, this film is just a special effects demonstration, and theres even a stupid light show towards the very end. This film is BULLSHIT, I can't stress it enough. BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

[RagingBalto]

It looks like somebody doesn't know the meaning of "symbolism". Go watch Transformers.

[RYANL22]

Transformers was a bad movie too.

[RagingBalto]

Did I say it was good?

[RYANL22]

Where it's a good movie or not what does it have to do with "symbolism" and Space Odyssey?

[RagingBalto]

Fine. Let me just cite the most obvious example. Early in the movie, we're shown scenes of monkeys figuring out how to use tools. By the end of the movie, it's apparent that the tools are figuring out how to control us. The movie is chock full of symbolism and nuances like this. It just doesn't spoon feed all the details to you like most other movies. Take a film class and your opinion on this movie is likely to change.

[RYANL22]

Believe me, I hate it when a movie just holds your hand and underestimates your intelligence. And there are many films out there that have hidden meanings, all I'm saying is that 2001 failed at sending its "symbolism"

[rcevey2]

In Robot Monster, the boy and girl are playing. He's trying to play Space Patrol and goes 'zap, you're dead.' She replies 'then can we play house now?'

This symbolizes the dichotomy of masculine and feminine roles in society: a dichotomy cast in sharp relief by a female scientist who becomes the focus of a love triangle.

Don't agree? Then you just don't get it.

Next viewing I will 'get' how Ro-Man reflects mankind's fusion of primitive instincts with advanced technology.

[RadarKat73080]

God yes! As a G1er, I guess you'd call me, I will shoot Michael Bay in the face should I ever meet him for what he did to my childhood!

[smallestmansmind]

For once in my life i am going to have to agree with you. Confused Matthew just didn't get this film, he viewed like he would a normal film and that is one mistake i thankfully didn't make when i watched it.

[AwesomeCoasters]

While 2001 wastes our time with crap floating in space as u say, pt2 of your review was pretty much the same. It is probably the least substantial, probably the worst pt of a review youve ever done. You couldve cut so much! We don't need to watch the whole scenes, TWICE (you showed some shots twice each, which was just review landscape to me) and we didnt need those to understand your point anymore.. we got it. And you seem not to have cut your vocal missteps dis time.. thats really weird

[robert506007]

well to be honest Matthew I really don't get how anyone could think you're all big on the action. As you said you look for the story and honestly you have heavily criticized most action films that I've seen your reviews on. honestly as far as I can tell you could care less about the action if there is no story behind it or at least that's how you've come off sounding in my opinion.

[jfridy]

This is not nothing, it's just Special Effects, doing nothing. There is a plot, but yeah, the entire beginning of the film could be cut to 10 minutes and it would set up the Jupiter mission part just fine. The dead pauses would work if we had something to think about, but the movie has given so little at this point that it's just dead air.

[BigBrotherMateyka]

I agree with you wholeheartedly on your comments regarding GATTACA. What an awesome movie.

After watching the second part of your review, I take back any negative criticism I made about your first part and must agree with you entirely about 2001: A Space Odyssey...this is absolutely BORING, BORING STUFF.

Way to go, Matt. You never disappoint for too long. :)

[BananasInTheSand]

The "face of God" comment was in reference to the black monolith. When I said "God" I did not mean that in a literal sense. I simply meant it as a reference to the force which separated human beings from other life on earth and propelled us to the situation shown in the film.

[BananasInTheSand]

Simply showing a quick five second shot of all the hard work and thought that went into this would be the equivalent of inviting someone over to your house to listen to classic music or to look at a painting and then having them stare at it for five seconds and then asking them to leave. Kubrick let us soak in the experience. This had never been done before in mainstream films.

[slashville]

I wholeheartedly agree, as I said in response to his part 1 trailer of this film, my brother (who usually likes fast paced space films) and myself thought that these drawn out shots and emphasis on "crap" floating in space was necessary for the audience to experience of feeling like we are actually in space. I've always thought this film was the strongest at giving this experience. The design of the ships and backdrops combined with the music are good enough to stare at for minutes anyway.

[BananasInTheSand]

Who gets to determine what constitutes one frame too many? Kubrick was intentionally trying to break convention. Plus, nothing like this had EVER been shown on the screen before. Before this film came out, you had Buck Roger's style special effects. Kubrick did much more than simple show better effects, however. He added classical music to this AND he purposely elongated the amount of time watching the craft so you could fully appreciate it.

[celticarchie]

Mathew, I darn not check what you're gonna say about 2001. Your reviews have always been an acquired taste and my opinion of 2001 is always in flux. ;)

[ElBombastico883]

Typical Kubrick fanbois; they can never explain the movie for us, but are always so quick to say we don't "get" it...

[davincent98]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but the effects were done by Douglas Trumbull. He ten went on to do the effects for another well-known sci-fi movie: Star Trek: the Motion Picture. watching that movie, I'm thinking that he wanted to mix his style with Kubrick's. I did see Eyes Wide Shut, Fast Forwarded through it, and still got the gist. AI was a hard one to sit through with the plot direction changing every five minutes and the seven endings in a row. But, that's just me.

[BananasInTheSand]

Stigmastudio, I respect your opinion, but you just don't get this film. It is pure genius and the scenes that Matthew mocked were awe inspiring. You just have to look deeper into the layers of this film. The scene with the craft floating over the moon was like a ballet. If you can't see the face of God and the hubris of man in that scene, then you just don't get it. That being said, to each their own. I respect your right to disagree and Matthew's too. Usuallly his reviews are good.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

A good artist knows how far a metaphor will stretch. A good poet does not use a single word above what he absolutely needs to achieve his effect, and likewise a good film does not have one scene, one frame of celluloid more than is essential to get its point across.

I've seen ballet, and it involves movement, the characteristic this lacks. Was the face of God and the hubris of man evident during the lengthy scene of landing, during all the staring at computer screens and silent astronauts?

[abridgedfanboy]

You've got it in one, FuzzyNecromancer. I'm actually working on becoming a writer myself, and one thing I'm consistently instructed on during critiques is "don't waste words." If you can paint the same image in one minute that you can in five, paint it in one. All this stuff floating in space is basically filler. 2001 is the equivalent of an amateur novelist who spends ten pages describing a family dinner with purple, flowery prose because he doesn't know how to write properly.

[mazureac]

you DON'T GET IT!

[FuzzyNecromancer]

Your defense of alleged cinematic genius is quite elegant and persuasive.

[BananasInTheSand]

He seems to think that the characters in the first hour were one dimensional and we never learned anything about them, but why does this all have to be done through dialog? Can there not be visual poetry that conveys what these people are going through and who they are? They landed on the moon and they saw the face of God and Matthew seems to wish there were huge explosions and heavy metal music playing in the background and jokes from Disaster Movie thrown in.

[BananasInTheSand]

Also, Confused Matthew is wrong about there being no character development or plot in this. There was plenty of non-verbal character development. Also, there was plenty of plot. The craft was investigating the structure on the moon. That is a plot point. The reason why it NEEDED to be stretched out was to be realistic. If you get in a car and try to drive to Alaska, do you complain if you're not there in thirty seconds? This was all about REALISM.

[BananasInTheSand]

Confused Matthew just doesn't get it. When they were showing the craft traveling over the surface of the moon, it was breathtaking. I actually wanted to see another five minutes of this or so. It was a metaphor for life. That scene over the moon intellectually challenged the viewer to ask if there was a god, how we got here and what was the point of life.

The scene with the craft landing was important because it was a metaphor for how not matter how much technology we have, we all must land

[stigmastudio]

first of all you need to settle down, second your thinking to damn hard if your finding metaphors in empty scenes, and third nobody gose to a scifi movie to see realism. and if a scene of some one flying to the moon is so long is for realism then the scene should be a hell of a lot longer then then 20 minute to be realistic especialy in a ship moving that slow.

[link4723]

The only thing I learned from the movie was patience.And what do the ships floating through space have to do with mans evolution?I fail to see any real meaning in watching people do stuff in space.Its like watching people walk around on the streets or eat stuff.Its just people doing stuff.Subtle messages are nice in a movie but when you make over half of it with them it defeats the purpose.

[yodasteveo]

I have to say Matthew that your review of 2001 is fuckin hilarious. 2001 is a great technical achievement on a par with the original king Kong or Star Wars. However I have to agree that's its more of a 2 hr arthouse movie, a piece of art more than a piece of conventional cinema.

[Danny77uk]

"GET. YOUR. FUCKING. ASSES. DOWN. THERE"

I lol'd.

[Al1701]

It's a movie. It's supposed to be accessible to everyone. To make a movie where you need a "special understanding" to enjoy it is asinine.

And the Simpson's did a more comprehensive depiction of human evolution in a two minute pre-episode gag than this movie did in two hours.

This movie was gratuitous and ill paced, plain and simple.

[17R3W]

It occurs to me that this more of a technical demo for special effects.

I consider CSI (CSI: Miami in particular) less of a of an actual "show" and more of a demo for HDTV. There lots of overly bright colours, zoom ins on little details, and breath taking scenery, but not a lot going on in terms of plot.

But if you want to test an HDTV there are few programs better.

[Riotboy1]

I love 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly for the Monolith, HAL, and the space scenes. Confused Matthew right in between it does get kinda BORING.

[17R3W]

I think you should do a directors cut of the movie,

Those shots should be last 3 -5 seconds each (some could be cut completely)

[Ryoku75]

Its odd that people would say that Matt isn't happy without action considering he's seen the Matrix sequels and wasn't a big fan of the action shots, ditto for Saw.

[AcidHead27]

Yay part two is out..

I saw the movie after I finished watching your review and holy fuck was it boring.

[u2atomicbomb]

It is very rare I disagree with you but I have to here. You claim 2001 has no story, characters, plot etc, Kubrick was aiming to track the progress of human evolution from the very beginning to our embarkment into space. his ideas transcend any plot/character/story. The slow pace reflects man's slow evolution. 2001 demands patience but what it gives you is an insightful examination of mankind, where we came from and where we could be going.

[Kratos87Fan19]

That's no excuse for a boring movie. That exact same insight could come from a movie that has much more dialogue, development, and plot. There was no reason to drag it out endlessly and make us sit through it while we have thoughts of suicide in out minds.

[u2atomicbomb]

Any focus on a single character o rplot would have detracted from the overall aim to cover man's evolution in its entirety. There are countless signs and symbols in this film that CM not acknowledging all of which indicate a series of profound truths with greater vigour than conventional means of film. This is not a film you ca access all of the meaning with in a single viewing or indeed several. Everytime I watch this film I find some new subtlety that Kubrick quietly slippe in there.

[u2atomicbomb]

continued - This film is pioneering. It demands the viewer look for far more from their viewing than their precepts allow. This is why it attracts the obvious criticisms "nothing happens" "it's boring" etc. If Kubrick had made his points more accessible, more readable, you would not attain the same level of satisfaction as if you'd have decoded it yourself

[Kratos87Fan19]

Like. . . I . . . Said: there is no excuse for making this movie boring. Even if you're right, he could have done it without so much gratuitous crap. You could have the same effect watching a movie that's only one hour long. Why did we have to sit through two hours of stuff floating in space and landscape if nothing important was happening?

[rcevey2]

So Kubrick made the movie *intentionally* difficult to understand? That would explain things.

[u2atomicbomb]

He made the film one in which you have to view again and again in order to get a full picture. The film is loaded with intense many times subtle signs and symbols that the geneeral film going audience will not get. But I like many others can watch this film with great ease and after every viewing find a new interpretation. This film is ahead of even our time, it is demanding far more from the human psyche than previously thought possible in film. Thisi s why many get it and others do not

[makeshiftperfection]

I just had the misfortune to watch this "film" a few weeks ago, and I agree with everything you are saying. Holy shit. I fell asleep twice during the first hour or so.

[Serdikhan]

If this movie had someone clipping his nails I bet they'll shows how he does that from start to finish with every detail

[Serdikhan]

Every scene from any movie has to have something meaningful to the movie, no matter how little important. What does this movie do. It shows us pointless scenes and it shows the not very important scenes insanely longer than they have to be. It's like 5 seconds are 7 minutes. What was with the details? Do they think we're that stupid as to not know what's going on in a scene? This is just a waste of brain cells

[micronoid]

I really like the idea of the monoliths but I thought it was wasted potential when they dont making any more appearances between the dawn of man and the year 2001. Is 2001 saying that nothing of interest to the monolith happened between those times? Is it implying that they did appear at various points between those times and we dont get to see it. If thats the case then thats even worse because Id rather have seen all its other appearances then crap floating in space.

[moeezS]

Yeah, the movie is terrible until HAL 3000.

[DarthRic1979]

I remember trying to watch this movie as a kid and of course no kid could sit through this shit. years later when my taste in movies became more refined and I was a grown man I tried to sit through this again and with no fucking surprise I couldn't. One of the dullest movies ever made. The point is movies are for entertainment, if you want art go to an art gallery. If a movie does not entertain and keep you engaged then what the hell is the point?

[facecaptain]

Film does not exist purely for entertainment. The aim of any good art form is to stimulate thought and seek truth. Yes there are movies which were created simply to entertain, but there are many others which strive to do so much more. Just because a film isn't merely an entertainment doesn't mean it has no point. 2001 remains a striking achievement, and it is sad that Confused Matthew, usually so articulate and insightful, can only comment on "crap in space" and "nothing happening".

[stigmastudio]

crap in space and nothing happening is all there was. I know film is an art form and art can be used for many things such as like you said stimulating thought and seeking truth, but i saw none of that, all i saw was scenery and crap in space. this movie, beautiful looking as it is, dose neather of those, in order to cause such affect a person needs to see or hear something that would cause such affect, scenery, shit floating in space, and monkeys going crazy dosn't do that.

[raptor797]

lol. if you make a movie designed to have no plot, then you haven't made a movie. You've just stuck a bunch of film together and gave it a title. Then what the fuck is this movie about if you willingly accept it has no plot?

[KajiCarson]

He insulted the movie, not you, so why do you have to take it so personally? It's not like you made the damn thing.

[unassumption]

If he didn't intend it to be a movie what in hell's name DID he intend it to be? An effects reel, that's what.

A builder makes your decking with rotten planks and it collapses when you go to walk on it; would that shodddy workmanship be justified to you if he said he intended the decking to collapse and your just not seeing his vision for the decking? This thing was marketed as a movie, not an effects reel. People act like it has plot, the BOOK has plot, this has acid trips in space.

[Ryoku75]

Good metaphor there.

[micronoid]

He can't be more primitive ? I'm amazed at all the different veiled ways 2001 fans have of saying that you just don't get it. How condescending do you have to be to imply that someone isnt evolved enough to have a valid criticism of this movie. I mean is it even possible to have a valid criticism of 2001 without it being shot down by the youre not smart enough gun.

Yes a train can't float, it wouldn't be train if it did. Similarly, 2001 is not a movie its just stuff happening.

[Foebane72]

GOD, at least 2010: The Year We Make Contact was a much more enjoyable movie!

[charlesvan13]

I still can't dislike this movie competely. For example, it's the only movie that shows human exposure to a vaccum accurately. Movies always show the character's blood boiling or head exploding. In fact, one can survive a minute or two with out serious harm. It has happened to astronauts at nasa testing space suits.

[charlesvan13]

I just want to hear what Matthew has to say about the Star Gate sequence, i.e. the LSD sequence, and the Star Child floating in space.

None of that was given any explaination in the movie. But I've heard Auther C. Clarke's book explains what's going on.

[Craydon]

This is getting monotonous... Oh, I mean Mathew's complaining.

[Foebane72]

No, the "movie" is monotonous. Matthew keeps me engaged.

[Craydon]

Really I think I've had enough. It's a slow movie, I got it, move on.

[KajiCarson]

Then you probably shouldn't be watching his reviews to begin with.

[Craydon]

Hey, I liked the Lion King review...

[Serdikhan]

I saw the review of part 2. And I don't have very high hopes for part 3. Will something finally happen? I'll just have to wait and see

[Ryoku75]

Well to my knowledge HAL shows up so we should hear Matthews input on him and while I usually enjoy Matts reviews it seems lazy to repeat stuff so much, atleast he could say something about the models or something but he's just analyzing the plot\on-screen action which is mostly stuff floating or people defying gravity.

[davincent98]

if you want a comment on the models to cover the time it takes to show the film, rent the DVD/Blu-ray, and watch the commentary

[Ryoku75]

Or I could buy it online cheap and just come up with my own comments, I don't want comments on the models I'd just like Matt to get a little more creative with this, I've already gotten the point in the last part that this film as loads of scenes with little to anything happening.

[bwones]

As much as I love Kubrick's movies I gotta be honest here - I can't watch this movie.. I fast fast-forward 2/3 of this shit and I can never watch it till the end.. ;-)

[LeonSKennedy828]

This movie looks so boring...

[KajiCarson]

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

[LeonSKennedy828]

I was only making a comment, you fucking jackass ¬_¬

[KajiCarson]

So was I.

[LeonSKennedy828]

But was the point, except to be a snide lil' git on your part?

[KajiCarson]

The point was to make you realize the complete redundancy of your superfluous post. And, hopefully, to inspire you to contribute future input that is more meaningful and thoughtful than the randomly retarded "DUH, THIS MOVIE LOOKS BORING" comment.

Judging by your latest post though, I see we still have some way to go.

[LeonSKennedy828]

@KajiCarson I'm not even going to waste my time with you, you're too stuck up for my liking.

[KajiCarson]

Then why are you posting comments on my channel?

[KajiCarson]

And another thing, what purpose are you trying to accomplish by flaming my channel? What's your deal with calling me a "fucking jackass" and a "piece of shit" for simply chastising you for your bland and uninteresting comments? Incredible to meet a person who takes such personal offense over an anonymous YouTube quib. Christ almighty.

You seem to me to be an overly sensitive, mentally unhealthy and sad person. Kindly crawl back into the hole you emerged from.

[AlphaLuna]

You have to put yourself back to the 60' to understand why it was so amazing just "look at things" -there was nothing ...I mean nothing like it- regardless of the lack of plot and dialogue, as someone said it was a vision were the cinema was used as a medium to illustrate that. Not conventional at all of course, but it made a mark in history you want it or not.

[JFISCH93]

Dude I hope theres a Crap Floating in Space sequel!!!

I wanna see more LANDSCAPE!!!

[TheSilhouette]

Matthew, completely agree with you on this film.

What I find most ironic is that many of the same critics (Roger Ebert being a prime example) who are always going on about how this or that film is just "all special effects", praise 2001 to the sky when that's all it's really about as well.

When 2001 came out back in the 60s, it's special effects were spectacular (they're still impressive today), and it was hailed as a "vision of the future" - and that's ALL it is: a vision, not a movie.

[xapha]

Interestingly enough the long scenes of "crap floating in space" somehow remindet me of star wars. of course these scenes were significantly shorter, but next time you watch empire (especially that one) pay attention to repeated shots of lukes x-wing flying somewhere. and that without musik. happens two or three times only, but by todays standasrds its still unnecessarily long. (not supposed to be criticism towards star wars;))

[TheSilhouette]

Pretty much every science fiction/outer space-related film for the next decade and beyond was directly influenced by 2001 when it came to special effects.

Also, if I remember correctly, some of the people who worked on 2001 worked on the Star Wars films as well.

[RadarKat73080]

In 2001's defense, the book is very good and actually goes into detail which is kinda important but isn't in the movie! Why would they leave that out?

[rcevey2]

Because working on story would take away from watching special effects.

[RadarKat73080]

That;s weird, I'm not disagreeing with you, but Kubrick could tell a good story. See, well, almost any other movie he's made. In particular, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange. Those are all great stories.

[rcevey2]

Sometimes movies lose balance, overly concentrating on style over substance. Movies from Cleopatra to Clone Wars suffered from a too-heavy focus on being visually stunning.

I'm concerned Avatar will be like that as well. Cameron can combine stunning visuals and a compelling story, but the hype over the Fusion Camera System and building the world might overshadow story work. I want to hear a trusted review (CM?) before going to see it.

[RadarKat73080]

You and me both on Avatar! Sadly, Revenge of the Sith dumped more CGI shit on scene then Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones combined!

[rcevey2]

Yes, but it wouldn't have alliteration; something that gives deeper meaning to a 500-character YouTube comment &^).

[hildegain]

There is no other way of looking at this movie than saying it's nothing.

The people downrating his videos aren't going to get far, there are few of them and many of us.

Looking forward to part 3, can't wait to see more nothing lol :D

[cramram6666]

Part one isn't working on his website :(

[abridgedfanboy]

So how do people defend this film and despise the Star Wars prequels when, in all seriousness, they suffer from the same "effects reel demo" issues?

Out of curiosity, are you going to address the issue of symbolism that so many people have brought up in the comments?

[charlesvan13]

That's because the cinematography in this movie is good, whereas the effects in the prequel star wars movies are as esthetic as a video game. Although, I agree that the plot is way too thin in 2001 to carry the movie..

[abridgedfanboy]

That's true, I'll admit; for all the filler, the film is certainly beautifully constructed, as opposed to Lucas's slathering of subpar CGI.

But yeah, all the cinematography in the world doesn't mean much if it doesn't mean anything to the movie's plot, which itself is too vague to do anything at all.

[AutomatedCritic]

the story goes that a very drunk Rock Hudson blurred out slumbling out of the premire "Will somebody tell me what the hell this is about?" which followed by audience laughter

Rock Cm and i felt the same towards 2001

[BigAlForever2k6]

Landscape.

[DDRrez]

crap floating in space

[FlailingJunk]

The part when the ship lands and they start strolling down the ramp is when I stopped watching it the first time.

[SpazzMaster8705]

Yep, my "New Confused Matthew Video" sensor is right once again!

[KentaAndTotodile]

Whoever is rating his vids low needs to stop. You have to watch it on his webste not here.....=/

[JTC545]

I dont know if thats true, the way he describes the film this is pretty much what it is.

[cloak211]

woo

[TheAngryMovieNerd]

YYYYYEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!!!­!!