Тёмный

2001: A Space Odyssey Movie Reaction (I can't believe this was rated G) 

Amanda Kazzy Cryer
Подписаться 54 тыс.
Просмотров 75 тыс.
50% 1

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
FIRST TIME WATCHING 2001 A Space Odyssey was such a mind trip. Stanley Kubrick is truly one of the great filmmakers of the 20th Century and we were lucky to have his visionary storytelling.
For More Exclusive Content On Movies and TV Shows, and To Support My Channel, Please Subscribe To Me On Patreon: / kazzyreacts
Banner and Thumbnail designed by: @Skynobi_starwars
/ skynobi
Social Media:
Twitter: / kazzyreacts
Instagram: / kazzy.reacts
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/KazzyReacts
#moviereaction #react #2001ASpaceOdyssey
Song by Kazzy's brother #Copyright
LOVE to ALL of you!
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @kazzycreates

Развлечения

Опубликовано:

 

2 авг 2021

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 1,4 тыс.   
@motodork
@motodork 2 года назад
I’m glad to have suggested this wonderful film.
@KazzyCreates
@KazzyCreates 2 года назад
YOU ROCK!! Thank you, Moto Dork! Look at how everyone LOVES this movie!! There are more comments under this movie than most movies I have watched! 💯👍🏻🔥
@motodork
@motodork 2 года назад
@@KazzyCreates that makes me happy :-)
@christopherleodaniels7203
@christopherleodaniels7203 2 года назад
@@KazzyCreates …it was released in 1968. Kubrick started shooting the moon and Dr. Floyd sequences in 1965. The Dawn Of Man proto-man-apelike ancestors sequences were done last. It’s also noteworthy that the MPAA ratings were just a year or two old at that time. Your reaction was great. It’s a hard film to process, and I feel like you “get” more than think.
@Catweazel1976
@Catweazel1976 2 года назад
Thank you Kazzy Reacts! I love 2001 a space Odyssey. Even though I still don't understand the ending. The trippy visual effects just before the climax still look amazing! Also, 2010; the year we make contact is great! A criminally underrated movie.
@briandonovan1584
@briandonovan1584 2 года назад
@@KazzyCreates Don't forget Kubrick's friend and writer of the move is the legend of high quality science fiction, Arthur C. Clark. Very unusually Clarke wrote the book/script as they were making the movie. Reading the book (not very long) explains things, especially the end. Frank has been shot forward evolutionarily and become a "star child." The monolith on the moon sent a signal to near Saturn (in the book) as a sort of notification to the parent monolith as man has conquered space and is ready for another boost up in evolutionarily like the effect on early man technology was born when that bone was used as a tool and effective weapon. As the bone transitions into a graceful space ship we see the bone has evolved to a space ship bookending the history of technology. Based loosely on Clarke's short story The Sentinel about the discovery of a monolith of unknown origin.
@izzonj
@izzonj 2 года назад
"I don't quite understand the film." Oh, just think about it for the next 50 years, there's no hurry.
@ThothWhoWrites
@ThothWhoWrites 2 года назад
Too true. I read the book before I saw the film and had to do some explaining to the people I saw the movie with.
@mikelarsen5836
@mikelarsen5836 2 года назад
People who don't read books will always be slow to catch up! But I suppose the human race does need Thicko! 😂😂😂
@freddyfleal
@freddyfleal 2 года назад
reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra helps :)
@joeldb
@joeldb 2 года назад
@@ThothWhoWrites The book doesn't explain the film at all they are two totally different things that were created in tandem, but not strictly related to each other.
@ThothWhoWrites
@ThothWhoWrites 2 года назад
@@joeldb I hate getting in arguments on the internet. But my experience was that the book explained a lot about the end. James Blish is closer to my view of that than yours. see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)#Reception You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
@mooncaketin
@mooncaketin 2 года назад
@19:00 in one of the lawsuits by Apple against Samsung for copying their iPad design, Samsung's attorneys brought up this scene to demonstrate that Apple didn't invent the iPad design 🙂
@LJMiho
@LJMiho 2 года назад
F***ing brilliant!
@user-kd2ij7te5v
@user-kd2ij7te5v 3 месяца назад
I watched a couple of “first watch” videos of 2001, and you are the first time one noticed the iPads! For many kids today, the iPads are so normal, they don’t get how outstanding they are back then
@robertsonsid
@robertsonsid 29 дней назад
Excellent! I thought the IPAD idea in 1968 was brilliant!
@Linerunner99
@Linerunner99 2 года назад
"What kind of gift do you want?" "A telephone." Kubrick knew even back in the late 60s.... cell phones were coming.................. and the dang kids were gonna want them.
@Ocrilat
@Ocrilat 2 года назад
Lol yes. And she told him via an earth to moon Skype call.
@donsample1002
@donsample1002 2 года назад
Ocrilat More of an Earth to ISS call.
@rookmaster7502
@rookmaster7502 2 года назад
I believe that was actually Clarke's idea for the movie, not Kubrick's.
@Ocrilat
@Ocrilat 2 года назад
@@rookmaster7502 Do you have a source for that?
@rookmaster7502
@rookmaster7502 2 года назад
@@Ocrilat No, not directly. However, Clarke touched on the very subject in his 1962 book, "Profiles of the Future", where he made predictions about future inventions and technological advancements. Of course, it is possible Kubrick read Clarke's book and thought it would be a good idea to incorporate that concept into the film.
@yvesandrethevenot3489
@yvesandrethevenot3489 2 года назад
Quite simply one of the most important movie of all times. A genuine masterpiece.
@Dlynchian
@Dlynchian 2 года назад
2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t a film. It’s an experience.
@trhansen3244
@trhansen3244 2 года назад
The only thing I can think of that compares to it was voting for Barack Obama.
@christhornycroft3686
@christhornycroft3686 2 года назад
Apparently a lot of people who saw it were on LSD at the time. I’ve heard it’s nuts when viewed that way. I’m not much of a drug person though.
@StreetHierarchy
@StreetHierarchy 2 года назад
@@trhansen3244 😂😂😭
@MatthewPettyST1300
@MatthewPettyST1300 2 года назад
In a full size screen and theater sound. I can't tell you how many times I saw it that way when it first came out at a state of the art theater. Now it's on a monitor with ear buds. For shame, for shame. Even a 58 inch 4K with a sound bar doesn't hold up to the theater. I know from experience.
@BabylonLurker
@BabylonLurker 2 года назад
An experience, indeed! Best experienced on the biggest screen you can get to. Saw it on an IMAX screen a few years ago at a film festival in Copenhagen. Still fantastic.
@porflepopnecker4376
@porflepopnecker4376 2 года назад
Kubrick never intended for people to fully understand this movie on first viewing, if ever. He preferred that viewers ponder its meaning rather than ruin the mystical effect by over-explaining it.
@wackyvorlon
@wackyvorlon 2 года назад
Though Arthur C Clarke explained it in the book. If you want the answers, read the book. Then you will understand the movies.
@brandonflorida1092
@brandonflorida1092 2 года назад
@@wackyvorlon Yes, the book, chapters of which Clarke sent to Kubrick as he was writing it, explains everything exactly. Once you know what's going on, every little bit of the movie from beginning to end makes perfect sense.
@ericsierra-franco7802
@ericsierra-franco7802 2 года назад
@@wackyvorlon Yes, the book is far less arcane and mysterious.
@Corn_Pone_Flicks
@Corn_Pone_Flicks 2 года назад
I saw this first as a teen, and it was pretty obvious even then that the film was about the evolution of humanity. It's very stylized, but there's nothing really confusing about it.
@Dularr
@Dularr 2 года назад
@@wackyvorlon There is a story that Kubrick was misdirecting Clarke on the ending of the movie.
@rossmckenzie7629
@rossmckenzie7629 2 года назад
The greatest science fiction film ever made. Absolutely epic
@willv7868
@willv7868 2 года назад
The Starchild, the next step of the evolution of humans.
@ericsierra-franco7802
@ericsierra-franco7802 2 года назад
Those other animals are Tapirs. They are related to horses and rhinos on the evolutionary chain. They are considered living fossils because they have remained unchanged for a very long time.
@AlanCanon2222
@AlanCanon2222 2 года назад
Also, they are, and were, south American, so our forebears never actually met them. But Kubrick liked their prehistoric appearance.
@ericsierra-franco7802
@ericsierra-franco7802 2 года назад
@@AlanCanon2222 Very true!👍
@4325air
@4325air Год назад
Loved your reaction! I was in college 66-70 when this film first came out, and you are correct--we were blown away. To truly appreciate the film, one must understand that our culture was undergoing three significant influences that touched our lives every single day: First, the war in Vietnam. Second, the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the 24/7 threat of nuclear Armageddon. (We had nuclear attack drills in school, like tornado drills nowadays). Third was the all-consuming Space Race. Billions of $$ were sunk into that program and every day there was news about some new scientific discovery or accomplishment or manned space launch. In less than 10 years we landed men on the moon. And more than once!. So, in those days it was reasonable and not beyond comprehension that in another 32 years (1969 to 2001) we would realistically have space stations or manned probes to Jupiter. People today cannot understand the economic, financial, employment, and other such sectors impacted by that Space Race. Had we continued at that rate (not saying that we could have done so) we would have colonized Mars by now. Incredible times to be 20 years old!!
@krautgazer
@krautgazer 2 года назад
More like: first there was a bone, now it's a spaceship. That's why THAT cut from the bone to the spaceship. That's the whole evolution of technology in one single cut! :D The most ingenious cut in the history of film.
@Malfehzan
@Malfehzan 2 года назад
It's a nuke satellite, a weapon just as the bone.
@sonicmojo
@sonicmojo 2 года назад
@@Malfehzan very astute observation there... Reminds me of George Carlin's remark regarding missiles all looking like dicks! From evolution to de-evolution and all over penis envi!?! 🤣
@TheShootist
@TheShootist 2 года назад
bone weapon. spaceship orbital nuke weapon.
@willmfrank
@willmfrank 2 года назад
@@Malfehzan Humanity's first weapon jump cuts to humanity's last.
@TheShootist
@TheShootist 2 года назад
@@willmfrank that would have been another bone.
@marknickols7316
@marknickols7316 2 года назад
The visual effects are all the more impressive when you consider fillming occurred in 1965-7 and there was no such thing as CGI. All the spaceships are physical models. The floating pen was stuck to a large piece of clear perspex. How do you get the effect of an astronaut jogging around a big cylinder? You build the life sized set and literally rotate it at the same speed as the jogger. The lengths they went to to get those effects - amazing! That's Kubrick for you. I saw this in '68 in Cinerama. Now that was an experience!
@AlanCanon2222
@AlanCanon2222 2 года назад
I was born 8 months to the day after 2001 premiered, and it's been my favorite movie since childhood. Seen it in theaters twice, but hundreds of times otherwise. I envy your seeing the premiere, very much.
@oaf-77
@oaf-77 2 года назад
There was no other movie like it in 1967. It would be decades before special effects in movies caught up to what Kubrick did in 2001.
@marknickols7316
@marknickols7316 2 года назад
@@AlanCanon2222 I didn't see the actual premiere, but I saw the film in '68 which was the year of release and in the original release format - Cinerama: 70mm on a curved screen. Very immersive and almost 3D. I was 15. It really made an impact on me.
@AlanCanon2222
@AlanCanon2222 2 года назад
@@marknickols7316 Saw it on the post Star Wars re-release, I think at the 70mm equipped Cinerama theater at Showcase Cinemas (Louisville), though it's possible I wasn't seeing it in 70mm. I'd had the soundtrack album forever, and my level of anticipation was through the roof. I can't remember if I read the novel first or soon thereafter.
@tonybennett4159
@tonybennett4159 2 года назад
I also saw it on its initial release in Cinerama in Auckland, New Zealand. It was such an overwhelming experience that I went again the following week, and my viewing of it now is still through the lens of that experience. I saw it a few years ago in the BFI Imax cinema in London but the image only took up part of the Imax screen. Still, there were a lot of young people in the audience so maybe for them it was as impactful, but somehow I doubt it : this film cries out for Cinerama!
@KC1976fromDetroit
@KC1976fromDetroit 2 года назад
Way back in the day, a G rated movie just meant it was open to everybody. PG meant that parents needed to use discretion on allowing their kids to see the movie...they could have nudity, violence and profanity. R was absolutely nobody under 17. If you think about it, Jaws was rated PG. It wasn't until 1984 when PG-13 was introduced that more graphic material in PG movies was "rated up", and made more kid friendly.
@glawnow1959
@glawnow1959 2 года назад
To see more examples of "G" rated films from this era I recommend "The Green Berets" (1968), "Planet of the Apes" (1968) (which I tried desperately to get my parents to let me see!), "Romeo and Juliet" (1968), "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave" (1969), "Airport" (1970), and "Dark Star" (1971). For an quick overview of the "M" rating, check out "Valley of the Dolls" (1968), "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), and "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), and the GP "Vanishing Point" (1971), which means unaccompanied children would be allowed to watch any of them.
@slw59
@slw59 2 года назад
Actually, back in the day, a PG movie had mild sex, violence, and/or profanity. An R rated film meant that if you were under 17 years of age, you needed to be accompanied by a parent (or 21 year old) to get in. If a movie had an X rating (as ‘A Clockwork Orange’ did originally), you could not get in if you were under 18. The PG-13 rating came later.
@KC1976fromDetroit
@KC1976fromDetroit 2 года назад
@@slw59 That's pretty much what I said. I got a few things wrong, so to clarify here's a quote from an article about the MPAA ratings system... "The initial rating categories were G (appropriate for all ages), M (for mature audiences, but all ages admitted), R (persons under 16 not admitted without an accompanying adult) and X (no one under 17 admitted). The M category was eventually changed to PG (parental guidance suggested), the R age limit was raised to 17 and on July 1, 1984, the PG-13 category was added to indicate film content with a “higher level of intensity.” According to the MPAA, the content of a PG-13 film “may be inappropriate for a children under 13 years old” and “may contain very strong language, nudity (non-explicit), strong, mildly bloody violence or mild drug content.” On August 10, 1984, the action film Red Dawn, starring Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen, became the first-ever PG-13 movie to be released in theaters."
@slw59
@slw59 2 года назад
@@KC1976fromDetroit I was correcting you on your comment "R was absolutely nobody under 17". You could get into an R rated movie if someone 21 years or older was with you.
@thatoneguyagain2252
@thatoneguyagain2252 2 года назад
PG-13 only exists because Spielberg refused to cut the "still-beating heart" scene from Temple of Doom
@JedHead77
@JedHead77 2 года назад
“I’m sorry, Kazzy. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” 🔴
@GF_Baltar
@GF_Baltar 2 года назад
If you watch the 1984 sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact", HAL's mental breakdown is explained in a way that makes perfect sense. 2010 isn't as good as 2001, but it's definitely worth watching.
@k1productions87
@k1productions87 2 года назад
2010 is more of a contemporary film, made to be appreciated as a "movie" rather than a more artsy film. While this does give it less historical significance, it does make the narrative easier to follow.
@robertanderson6929
@robertanderson6929 2 года назад
I could not agree more. By focusing the plot of the sequel on the mystery of HAL's betrayal Peter Hyams avoids trying to create a derivative work or making the mistake of trying to explain the existence of the monoliths and their origin. Instead we are taken on a very grounded journey to answer a very simple question. And while the answer is simple and satisfying it is what we also learn during the process that enhances our appreciation for the original and confounds us with the fact that we will never truly know what it is all about. As sequels go, I don't think anyone could ask for more.
@chadwelborn215
@chadwelborn215 2 года назад
I agree I was about to make the same comment
@t.gadway6729
@t.gadway6729 2 года назад
There are also RU-vid videos (such as collative learning) which provide various explanations. Also a good one in the book "The Making of Kubrick's 2001". Read none of them. Watch none of them. Let 2001 ferment in the head and try to come up with your own notions. That's probably the point of the movie. I wish I had done that.
@GF_Baltar
@GF_Baltar 2 года назад
@@t.gadway6729 I love Collative Learning, great channel!
@sjeunson1
@sjeunson1 2 года назад
Eventually you should watch this on a 60 foot screen with a powerhouse sound system in 70mm FILM. It’s AWESOME!
@davidsandy5917
@davidsandy5917 2 года назад
I never saw this in cinemascope as there are not too many theaters that can.
@Lethgar_Smith
@Lethgar_Smith 2 года назад
The idea behind the breathing in the helmet came about when Kubrick tried the helmet on when the completed costume piece was shown to him. He tries the helmet on and realizes he cant hear anyone and can only hear his own breathing which is amplified inside the helmet. As he walks around with the helmet on he finds the experience fascinating and it became the inspiration for that scene.
@nevrogers8198
@nevrogers8198 2 года назад
And the sound you hear is Kubrick's breath.
@FrancisXLord
@FrancisXLord 2 года назад
It actually came out in 1968, not 1969. I know because I always thought how brilliant it was that it was made before the first moon landing (1969). I also know because I read that they hard time with the opening scene as just about every makeup artist in Hollywood was working on Planet Of The Apes (1968).
@TTM9691
@TTM9691 2 года назад
"Planet Of The Apes" opened the same day as "2001", can you believe that? You could have seen "2001"....and in a way, you could have pretended "Planet Of the Apes" was the sequel! Starchild gives the planet back to the apes! lol. Also: "2001" was filmed between 1966 and 1968. (it opened in April). Amazing.
@MarkFoster321789
@MarkFoster321789 2 года назад
@@TTM9691 Planet of the Apes actually premiered on February 8 1968: 2001 on April 2nd.
@TTM9691
@TTM9691 2 года назад
@@MarkFoster321789 It's premiere was on February 8. But it opened nationwide April 3rd. 2001 premiered on April 2nd, but opened nationwide April 3rd. For all intents and purposes, April 3rd is the day when paying audiences were able to see both movies.
@MarkFoster321789
@MarkFoster321789 2 года назад
@@TTM9691 Thank you for the info.
@JohnnyXoz
@JohnnyXoz 2 года назад
Released in 1968, they started production in 1965 so even more impressive and before the moon landing in 1969
@k1productions87
@k1productions87 2 года назад
Another interesting film to note in that regard is Destination: Moon from 1950. While it is a product of its time, visually; it does break from the tradition of alien creatures and invasions. It was just a trip to the moon, and the technical challenges in doing so, as well as problem-solving when things go wrong. While they had not yet considered things like orbital maneuvering, rendezvous, and the other important aspects of the Apollo missions, it does get a surprising amount of aspects correct, especially for its time. Its is definitely worth watching for context.
@reving19
@reving19 2 года назад
They started filming in December 1965. Kubrick spent about a year or so before that working on the story with Arthur C. Clarke.
@rb72169
@rb72169 2 года назад
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but the seed for this movie was Arthur C. Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel", which, although it doesn't deal with the philosophical, or spiritual, messaging of 2001, gave birth to the purpose of the monolith.
@richardb6260
@richardb6260 2 года назад
It's basically the middle section of the movie.
@CelestialWoodway
@CelestialWoodway 2 года назад
Read the novelization of the movie by Arthur C. Clarke.
@AlanCanon2222
@AlanCanon2222 2 года назад
The Dawn of Man sequence up to the bone throw (since the space station and moon scenes are also part of The Dawn of Man) is also lifted from his story "Encounter in the Dawn".
@AlanCanon2222
@AlanCanon2222 2 года назад
@@CelestialWoodway one piece of Encounter in the Dawn carried over into the 2001 novel is that one night the researchers (= monolith) make a mistake, and accidentally kill one of the man-apes. In both stories, the visiting intelligence feels sorrow.
@janus1958
@janus1958 2 года назад
@@CelestialWoodway Technically, the book is not a novelization of the movie as it was written concurrently as the movie was made. The movie isn't based on the book, nor the book on the movie. They were meant to be Clarke's and Kubrick's separate takes on the story.
@norryonbass6574
@norryonbass6574 2 года назад
The Monolith’s appearances marks the moment when mankind reaches a significant point of evolution. The dawn of man is the change when apes discover the ability to use tools. Then the monolith on the moon. It was buried there by the same intelligent life waiting for the time when mankind reaches the moon and discovers it. The high pitch sound was activated when sunlight hits the excavated monolith and it sends a signal towards Jupiter which is why a ship was sent there to investigate.
@gordondavis6168
@gordondavis6168 2 года назад
However, eventually technology is a dead end. Technology threatens to destroy man, either through orbiting nuclear weapon satellites or AI such as HAL. Thus, the monolith aliens again evolve man to a post-technological status as a Star Child.
@stell4you
@stell4you 2 года назад
@@gordondavis6168 The Evolution of technology is neutral. What mankind does of it and if mankind is evolved enough to use it stands on another page.
@surfersilver6610
@surfersilver6610 2 года назад
​@@stell4you The funny thing is, on analysis, it was the HIDING of information and secrecy that caused destruction, not the technology on it's own. The need to keep that secret hidden leads to conflict and then creates more conflict to avoid it getting out. Look what we've gone through with this China Lab virus and Dr Fauci (Doing 'Gain of Function' testing with a known oppressive enemy country or anywhere for that matter) wanting to say it came from animals (When all the sequence data shows it's man made) and all the lies and ties to China, Russia, Ukraine by the Bidens, Clintons, Obamas and others. They are keeping secrets and trying to do things without telling the general public out of greed and corruption. Now we are on the brink of releasing terrible weapons of technology over these humans HIDING all what they are doing. Putin is the last problem, in the chain of problems, leading up to the current war. "What mankind does of it" yes correct. We are nowhere near a "Star Trek Federation" society. We are still warring over territory and resources like primates.
@damienbeatty5327
@damienbeatty5327 2 года назад
This is an amazing movie, but let us not forget the enormous contribution by Arthur C. Clarke, and even some input by Carl Sagan,
@albamo95
@albamo95 2 года назад
"The lost worlds of 2001" by Clarke is also an interesting read. It's a mix of alternative scenes he worked on and Clarke talking about his collaboration with Kubrick and the film production.
@damienbeatty5327
@damienbeatty5327 2 года назад
@Zombie True dat!
@jeffreyphipps1507
@jeffreyphipps1507 2 года назад
Except this movie was supposed to be based on the first book of Clarke's four book series and Kubrick didn't let him finish and Clarke wasn't pleased.
@dashriprock9014
@dashriprock9014 2 года назад
N.A.S.A. also had a big part in it.
@Peter-wd1yo
@Peter-wd1yo 2 года назад
Sagan? Never knew that
@victorsixtythree
@victorsixtythree 2 года назад
Some of the comments recommend reading Arthur C. Clarke's novel based on the screen play (he co-wrote the screenplay with Kubrick) or watching the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" as ways of better understanding "2001". Personally, I don't think the movie was meant to have "answers". There is intentional ambiguity in the film and it's meaning and intent are meant to be left open to interpretation. If Kubrick wanted to provide answers, he would have given them. I'm not saying the book and the sequel aren't worth reading or watching, just that I wouldn't think of those as somehow providing definitive answers to questions about 2001.
@victorsixtythree
@victorsixtythree 2 года назад
I stumbled on a video of clips of Christopher Nolan (Nolan worked on a restoration of the movie in 2018) talking about 2001 and he said pretty much the same thing regarding Arthur C. Clarke's novelization of the movie's screenplay. Very interesting: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-U43HcQi2w84.html
@PassiveSmoking
@PassiveSmoking 2 года назад
Yes, the film is very much intended to be a writerly work. It's deliberately open to interpretation and leaves it up to the viewer to extract meaning from it. But definitely read the book, it's a fantastic work in its own right
@tonybennett4159
@tonybennett4159 2 года назад
There are those who say that the choice of the Introduction to "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss which accompanies the iconic opening sequence is no accident. Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical book of the same name, amongst other things talks about the ultimate formation of a super race (the Star Child). Kubrick was never drawn into revealing anything, but it's certain that he had a healthy cynicism about the intelligence of the "intelligent ape", it's a thread that runs through his films.
@Richard_Ashton
@Richard_Ashton 2 года назад
I can't say I remember it properly, but, at the end, the Star Child contemplated the approaching nuclear missiles and thought that he didn't know what to do but would think of something. That echoed the thought of the first ape raised in intelligence at the beginning (Moon Watcher), who thought the same after obtaining food, water and security through tool use.
@alejandrok2891
@alejandrok2891 2 года назад
But keep in mind the book was written AFTER the movie. Clarke and Kubrick had many disagreements making the film so Clarke decided to put in the book all the things that Kubrick did not let him put in the film
@TheTomt50
@TheTomt50 2 года назад
Kazzy, you keep mentioning how so many of the shots/scenes remind you of other movies. You're absolutely right! Someone else mentioned that this more than a movie, it is an experience. So much so, it influenced a whole generation of filmmakers.
@user-ud1wd6wb6b
@user-ud1wd6wb6b 2 года назад
It is simply "the father" of space-sci-fi as we know it today.
@TTM9691
@TTM9691 2 года назад
One last thing: The G rating. This was when they first put out the ratings. G meant general audiences, it didn't mean "for kids" like we think now. ("Midnight Cowboy" and "A Clockwork Orange" were rated X, lol). That said, schools brought their students to "2001", that's how one member of my family saw it.
@onepcwhiz
@onepcwhiz 2 года назад
Same thing with Planet of The Apes. I was surprised when I read that it was G as well.
@ericgollinger367
@ericgollinger367 2 года назад
And US and UK ratings differ as well. Even nowadays, a US rating of "R" can get a "certificate X" in the UK, mostly because they don't have an actual "R" rating, and a certain amount of violence can mean it gets left there in the UK's "X" certification category. Inversely, the UK is less prudish about sex and profanity, so there can be mismatches, comparing the same film on different certification criteria.
@ericgollinger367
@ericgollinger367 2 года назад
The Dawn of Man scene is interesting. A huge "front projection" reflective screen is used in a couple of places. The tiger in the tundra was filmed first, then the actor in the ape costume had to perfect their positioning, relative to the tiger footage to sell the illusion of a tiger attack. Kubrik's shooting ratio was said to be about 100:1 (a hundred takes to get it right) in some cases, especially for this film, and way over budget. When the monolith appeared, the sky in the background was projected still photo. Notice how the clouds don't move, as if the monolith has stopped time! This whole movie is a master class in the best effects technology of the era.
@ericgollinger367
@ericgollinger367 2 года назад
My comments about the Dawn of Man scene was off topic. I forgot I was still in the Reply section. Oh well. Sorry I went a little off topic. Cheers.
@onepcwhiz
@onepcwhiz 2 года назад
@@ericgollinger367 also, the ship is an attack ship like the bone was used to attack. I wished they showed that particular ship some more.
@whunsicker
@whunsicker 2 года назад
In 2019 I finally lived a lifelong dream and saw this movie in a theater. It was incredible!
@GrouchyMarx
@GrouchyMarx 2 года назад
Be sure to react to the awesome sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984), and despite what some say it is a very excellent movie written by the same Arthur C. Clarke, and has a mind-blowing ending. 🖖😎
@jeffreykalb9752
@jeffreykalb9752 11 месяцев назад
Rubbish.
@StereoSpace
@StereoSpace Год назад
I'm one of those people who saw this in the theater when it premiered. I was 8 years old, my father took me to see it. I cannot describe how stunning this was. Everyone talked about this movie for years after, have you seen 2001? No? Go see it! LOL I did not fully understand this movie, despite seeing it multiple times, until I read the book. That's when all these scenes clicked, and I finally got it all. Keep in mind, this was made between 1966-1968, and avant-garde art was in the air and water. You breathed it every day. Lots of artistic experimentation going on. Kubrick challenged himself (and his audience) to see how much story he could tell with visuals only, no explanations, minimal dialogue. I finally read the book to see if that helped, and it's actually a beautiful and elegant little story. Read it, then watch this again, you'll have a whole new appreciation.
@JedHead77
@JedHead77 2 года назад
Stuart Freeborn, who created the ape costumes, also made Chewbacca’s costume, Yoda, and Jabba The Hutt.
@MrHws5mp
@MrHws5mp 2 года назад
Fun fact: to get the one set of Zero-G toilet instructions, they had to order something like 100 sets from Letraset. Ten years later, when Alien was filming at the same studio, the set builders found the 98 unused sets forgotten about in storage and decided to make use of them, so yep, most of the too-small-to-read stencilling on the bridge of the Nostromo is actually zero-G toilet instructions... ;-)
@seukfuhi
@seukfuhi 2 года назад
"Wow, this is so ahead of its time, this movie... unbelievable". Nailed it after 10 minutes, Kazzy !
@pillmuncher67
@pillmuncher67 2 года назад
Rumor has it that the Oscar for best costume design in 1968 went to Planet of the Apes, because the jury thought that the apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey were real apes...
@ericjohnson9623
@ericjohnson9623 2 года назад
It's a cute story, but I think more likely, it's because Planet of the Apes needed and used the makeup more. Although the realism of the 2001 apes is astonishing and probably the better makeup job, it's also a very small part in a much longer movie. Planet of the Apes needed great, ape-like makeup that let actors with speaking roles emote and give dialogue throughout the runtime. If the apes in 2001 were bad, it'd be an awkward start and then once the space stuff started, people would say "Ah, this is where they spent the money!" If PotA's makeup was bad, the film doesn't work.
@arraymac227
@arraymac227 2 года назад
The blank screens at the beginning and after the intermission (yes, an actual intermission.) were meant to be for a closed curtain. Stage protocols lingered. I also saw this with _Lawrence of Arabia_ and _West Side Story_ when they were screened at a London Ontario cinema in the 90s.
@shanenolan8252
@shanenolan8252 2 года назад
Yes it was common ( intermission ) when the average running time of a film was much longer than today 3 and 4 hour movies where normal. Kind of like in a play they still have intermissions like with a Shakespeare production, hamlet is a four hour play
@Ocrilat
@Ocrilat 2 года назад
Back then they still used the curtain in movie theatres. I miss that lol. We also still clapped at the end of a film.
@AlanCanon2222
@AlanCanon2222 2 года назад
Last two films with an overture are Walt Disney's The Black Hole, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, both 1979.
@shanenolan8252
@shanenolan8252 2 года назад
@@AlanCanon2222 motion picture was 79 interesting. I remember going to a very old theater a n old cinema palace and they still did intermissions although the film didn't have one in it , it was just a tradition they wanted to maintain this was in 1990 , sadly its a department store today , but the Beatles once played there .
@Ocrilat
@Ocrilat 2 года назад
@@AlanCanon2222 Funnily, I loved both films.
@mhlevy
@mhlevy 2 года назад
I was 7 years old when I saw this, and it was completely unbelievable. In many ways, it still is. And Pan-Am is no longer a company!
@binghamguevara6814
@binghamguevara6814 2 года назад
Are you sure you were 7? How can a 7-year-old gt this film?
@maxis5650
@maxis5650 2 года назад
@@binghamguevara6814 The title of this video literally states that the movie used to have a G rating when it originally played.
@PaulMDove2
@PaulMDove2 2 года назад
I was 8 when I first saw it (in 1968), then saw it again as a teenager and then again when I was at University helping to run the film club. By then I'd read the book many times but I still was in awe and empathised with all the other students muttering questions to themselves as they left the screening. Even reading the book, plus the sequels, the 2001 movie retains some mystery because it's a glimpse into Kubrick's mind; even Arthur C Clarke himself, after writing the book and working closely with Kubrick, was surprised when he saw the movie for the first time.
@binghamguevara6814
@binghamguevara6814 2 года назад
@@PaulMDove2 Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi (1982)?
@PaulMDove2
@PaulMDove2 2 года назад
@@binghamguevara6814 No I haven't. Big fan of Philip Glass's music so definitely a film I'd like to see.
@sardaukar1977
@sardaukar1977 2 года назад
Omg Kazzy. You said the ship looked like it had a face. I’ve thought that every time I have watched this movie! I thought I was crazy lol. Glad to see you are at least as crazy as me!! Lol. Thank you!
@AlanCanon2222
@AlanCanon2222 2 года назад
Me too: before I saw the movie, my dad had the soundtrack album, with pictures in it, so I even thought that before I saw the film (I spent hours listening to the soundtrack and looking at the liner notes).
@stvbrsn
@stvbrsn 2 года назад
You’re not crazy! The phenomenon even has a name: pareidolia.
@garyglaser4998
@garyglaser4998 2 года назад
I always thought the ship resembled a sperm which would be a fitting metaphor.
@DylansPen
@DylansPen 2 года назад
Spielberg did that in Close Encounters with the ships at the end. It makes them friendlier or more relatable to the audience.
@surfersilver6610
@surfersilver6610 2 года назад
It was an EMoji face.😮 LOL
@Kilotile
@Kilotile Год назад
The newborn baby at the end represents a new beginning.
@somthingbrutal
@somthingbrutal 2 года назад
2010 is worth watching as you get insight into why HAL acted as he did
@tn_bayouwulf2949
@tn_bayouwulf2949 2 года назад
HAL is a take off of IBM. In the alphabet sequence H, I .... A, B .... L, M ..... Watch the sequel "2010, the Year We make Contact" to continue the journey.
@GymQuirk
@GymQuirk 2 года назад
Clarke always maintained that the HAL / IBM thing was purely coincidental.
@Yngvarfo
@Yngvarfo 2 года назад
Clarke actually made his *characters* deny it in the book 2010, but that piece of dialogue did not carry over to the movie.
@ThothWhoWrites
@ThothWhoWrites 2 года назад
My understanding about the classical music throughout the film is that it was originally a placeholder but when Kubrick saw the chunks of the film with the classical score he far preferred it to the score they were working on. He wanted grand, big, gigantic, timeless feelings to go throughout the film.
@MarkGodfrey73
@MarkGodfrey73 2 года назад
Alex North wrote the rejected score. There was a CD of it once. Apparently, Kubrick didn't ask permission to use Ligeti's music and there was a bit of bother about it.
@Majoofi
@Majoofi 2 года назад
I can't wait for your reactions to Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, and Lolita.
@richardb6260
@richardb6260 2 года назад
And Spartacus.
@CelestialWoodway
@CelestialWoodway 2 года назад
A Clockwork Orange.
@Yngvarfo
@Yngvarfo 2 года назад
@@richardb6260 - I'm not sure that I can really call Spartacus a Kubrick movie. He did not have creative control. Kirk Douglas and his Bryna company had. He was only hired as a replacement when the original director, Anthony Mann, was fired.
@reving19
@reving19 2 года назад
@@Yngvarfo Most Kubrick fans do not consider “Spartacus” a true Kubrick movie. There’s a few, but most don’t.
@Yngvarfo
@Yngvarfo 2 года назад
@@reving19 - Still, Kubrick did put in a little Spartacus reference in Lolita, when Quilty said "I'm Spartacus." Much like he had a little 2001 reference in A Clockwork Orange, with the 2001 album in the record shop.
@THOMMGB
@THOMMGB 2 года назад
There are some really good books about the making of this film. 2010: The Year We Make Contact is really good as well, but is not a landmark film, like 2001 was. The thrown bone to orbiting satellite is considered by many to be the greatest jump cut in the history of cinema.
@frozenlightfilms
@frozenlightfilms Год назад
Unlike Most filmmakers, Stanley Kubrick never likes to tell the audience what his films are about or their meaning. His thinking is to let the film impact the viewers, and let them decide, discuss, come to their own conclusions. Now you definitely need to watch 2010: Odyssey Two.
@roguetrooper5288
@roguetrooper5288 2 года назад
I've been watching 2001 for nearly 40yrs and find different meanings every time I watch it.
@ericsierra-franco7802
@ericsierra-franco7802 2 года назад
The greatest science fiction film ever made! And the most intelligent. 53 years old and still looks great. A masterpiece of filmmaking!
@justinsherman9350
@justinsherman9350 2 года назад
The Ending: the entity/entities behind the Monolith are seemingly curious about life and its nature, it perhaps being a new phenom. Thus they reach out to life, first inspiring it, then setting markers for it, so it might find its way to them. Upon his arrival, the entity/s thoroughly examine Dave, providing him a comfortable setting and environment- even a last meal as they explore what really mystifies them about life- mortality. They hasten him along to and observe his death, contemplate it, and then decide to try living: creating their own version of life, the 'Star Child' in the end, perhaps Dave himself reborn in a way.
@davidmichaelson1092
@davidmichaelson1092 2 года назад
A more complete version of this is in Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama" series. The first book "Rendezvous with Rama" is my favorite but many find it a bit dry. The sequels explore the same themes 2001 does but in far more detail. Very fun books.
@Kilotile
@Kilotile Год назад
I always saw it as a new beginning but maybe I'm wrong.
@Ruby_Kang
@Ruby_Kang 4 месяца назад
@@Kilotile That's how I see it. The movie starts with the dawn of man --- ends with a new dawn for mankind. I read it as a visual metaphor.
@johnnhoj6749
@johnnhoj6749 2 года назад
One special effect everyone misses if they don't know about it is that all the ape shots (except for one or two close shots against a real sky background) were shot on a sound stage in the studio using a process called front projection. The people seen in windows in the spacecraft were put there by the same process - projected onto tiny front projection screens pasted onto the miniatures. Incidentally, the pit on the moon was shot on the largest stage at Shepperton Studios as MGM Borehamwood didn't have a stage that big.
@NudistPoet
@NudistPoet 2 года назад
As a kid, I watched it on our black & white TV and it creeped me out. I really should watch it again.
@janus1958
@janus1958 2 года назад
There is an interesting story behind the music score. They hired someone to write original music for the movie, but because of various issues it got delayed. Meanwhile the studio was getting impatient and wanted to see what Kubrick had done. So Kubrick sent them a print with a "stand in" score made of different musical selections. In the end, that cobbled together score ended up being the final movie score.
@barrettkeathley6985
@barrettkeathley6985 2 года назад
The fade from the thigh bone to the spaceship was one of the most amazing edits ever
@paulstroud2647
@paulstroud2647 2 года назад
That spaceship is a missile platform, so the bone/club weapon has also 'evolved'
@MarkFoster321789
@MarkFoster321789 2 года назад
The Greatest Movie Of All Time...IMHO as a 40-year-long 2001 fan. I have had my SONY BRAVIA 65 Inch OLED TV for three months now, and the recent 4KUHD and Blu-Ray releases look incredibly beautiful.
@davidsandy5917
@davidsandy5917 2 года назад
On Apollo 16, one of the astronauts, fell on his back and afterwards listened for the sound of his EVA backpack to make sure he was okay. In space all you can hear is the sounds of your environmental suit. If Kubrick has done this without sound, we would not get the same effect that we would if everything was silent.
@Hershey2553
@Hershey2553 2 года назад
Awe im so glad gou watched this! One of my favs :) Oh and the opening black screen is supposed to be you staring at the Monolith
@int53185
@int53185 2 года назад
Never thought of that!
@robertanderson6929
@robertanderson6929 2 года назад
"My God! It's full of stars!" I highly recommend you watch _2010: The Year We Make Contact._ As sequels go it is actually very good. And it showcases just what a phenomenal actor Roy Scheider really was. The sequel doesn't try to explain everything but it does offer some answers that enhance ones appreciation of 2001. I found the explanation for Hal's behavior most satisfying. And the whole cast puts in some stellar performances.
@dan_hitchman007
@dan_hitchman007 2 года назад
It's like a dumbed down 2001, but halfway decent as far as sequels go.
@robertanderson6929
@robertanderson6929 2 года назад
@@dan_hitchman007 I'm not sure it is fair to call it "dumbed down" anymore than it would be fair to describe _Aliens (1986)_ less of a sci-fi horror thriller than the original _Alien (1979)_ Like the two _Alien_ movies, _2001_ and its sequel are two entirely different types of films. _2001_ was a groundbreaking Sci-Fi masterpiece which inspired a generation of film makers like Lucas, Speilberg, Scott, Cameron and Hyams. I don't think Peter Hyams was trying to make the same type of cerebral science fiction film. For that you would need to see something like Andrei Tarkovsky's _Solaris. (1972)_ Hyams was trying to make a sequel to one of the best movies ever made. Had he tried to replicate the style and tone of the original he would undoubtedly failed and been accused of creating a derivative work. Instead I think he did a yeoman's job of adapting Clarke's story and focusing on explaining Hal's betrayal rather than trying to explain the mystery of the monolith. This is why I enjoy the sequel as much if not more than the original. It is because it makes the original movie better for the answers it does provide much as _The Empire Strikes Back_ makes _Star Wars_ a better film by providing motivation and depth to the characters introduced in the first film. Making a successful sequel is not an easy job. Just ask Rian Johnson.
@dan_hitchman007
@dan_hitchman007 2 года назад
@@robertanderson6929 2001 does not need to be explained. That's the beauty of it. Even Kubrick made it more open to interpretation than Arthur C. Clarke wanted. His short story made the builders unmistakably alien in nature, but Kubrick wanted these beings to stay mysterious and have the audience challenged. It was already hinted at as to HAL's motivation (during his deactivation) and it correlated back to the Dawn of Man sequence and his desire for survival using evolutionary methods (tool use turned into a club of death in this case), often leading to violence to make it happen. HAL was the next stage in man's evolutionary process and it wanted to survive and complete its mission (its reason for being). It felt it must kill to do both.
@richardrose2606
@richardrose2606 2 года назад
I highly recommend that you don't watch 2010 or read the book. Clarke ruins the impact and purpose of 2001 by over-explaining everything. Decide for yourself what the meaning of this masterpiece is.
@robertanderson6929
@robertanderson6929 2 года назад
@@dan_hitchman007 I didn't say that _2001_ needed to be explained. In fact, I praised Peter Hyams for not trying to explain the monoliths or their origin. I said that I appreciated that Hyams chose to focus on the reason for HAL's betrayal. HAL was created by man. The reason for his betrayal is of interest to the audience and ultimately the reveal is rational and easily believed. Hyams couples the very grounded mystery plot with just enough interaction between HAL and Bowman to provide the viewer with a confirmation that the monolith did influence the proto-humans as well as HAL. I thought it was expertly done. And again, if you think it is easy to pull off a successful sequel to a beloved movie, I would offer Rian Johnson and _The Last Jedi_ as evidence to the contrary.
@lightaces
@lightaces 2 года назад
Being 1969 when this came out, there were typically three reactions: people who walked out because they were so confused; people who were amazed by how well done it was that they embraced the confusion; and people who said, "whoa, that was a hell of an acid trip, man!" My mother was one of the folks who saw it while tripping.
@reggievangleason9511
@reggievangleason9511 2 года назад
At age 16 in 1969, I was fortunate to have read Clarke’s 2001 book shortly before seeing Kubrick’s film on the theatre big screen.
@mpemberton7760
@mpemberton7760 2 года назад
The movie wasn't based on Clarke's book. Rather, Clarke wrote it as a kind of companion piece to the movie. It does help to explain a number of things which the movie doesn't reveal.
@OroborusFMA
@OroborusFMA 2 года назад
The novel released after the film came out adds in some nice details. Like when the wormhole (?) opens and Bowman's last words are "My god, it's full of stars." The film is a long homage to Nietzschean philosophy: ape-man-overman. The "star-child" is the next stage of humanity, one that is "more than human" and beyond our conventional morality. "He didn't know what he would do - but he would *think* of something" is another important line in the book that is only implied in the film. It appears twice in the book, when the ape becomes reasoning, and when the star-child has wiped out the Earth's nuclear weapons at the very end of the novel.
@okreylos
@okreylos 2 года назад
It's funny, I read the novel way before I saw the movie for the first time, so everything in the movie just made perfect sense to me. :) I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that so many people have trouble understanding what's going on. I do *know* why that is, I just don't *feel* it.
@TTM9691
@TTM9691 2 года назад
Thank God Kubrick didn't put any of that in the movie, lol. (The book also goes to Saturn, not Jupiter.)
@3DJapan
@3DJapan 2 года назад
13:27 Well on the ISS the toilets use suction. like peeing into a vacuum cleaner. LOL
@snakesnoteyes
@snakesnoteyes 2 года назад
This was also true for the space shuttles when they were still active.
@sagnhill
@sagnhill 2 года назад
In 1961, an IBM 704 at Bell Labs was programmed to sing "Daisy Bell" in the earliest demonstration of computer speech synthesis. This recording has been included in the United States National Recording Registry.
@ltjgsurething88
@ltjgsurething88 2 года назад
Nice to meet you, too! I could spend days answering your questions about this movie (which is my all-time personal favorite), but I'll just tell you about the black screen with the music at the very beginning before the studio logo and opening titles. That's called the "entr'acte" which many movies used at the time. Essentially it was a way for the theatre audience to know the movie was about to begin, so people could make their way to their seats if they were coming back from the bathroom, snack bar, etc. And a theatre with a (very) big screen is really the best way to appreciate this particular film; if it ever plays in one of your local theatres as a classic revival, by all means see it again there - a totally different experience!
@MaunderMaximum
@MaunderMaximum 2 года назад
Kubrick never intended 2001 to have an "explanation." What it means is whatever it means to you.
@KazzyCreates
@KazzyCreates 2 года назад
I LOVE that. However, many people here are telling me "what it all means" 😁💜
@gms1365
@gms1365 2 года назад
When the ape throws the bone into the air... The shot represent the big jump from that point to the actual time. Bone and spaceship equalize in vision that perspective period of time with unspoken words. In nutshell, "look where we were millions of years ago to where we are now".
@beefsupreme72
@beefsupreme72 2 года назад
Also is that spaceship actually a weapon?
@kiemer4531
@kiemer4531 2 года назад
@@beefsupreme72 Yes it is an orbiting nuclear weapon platform.
@peteriuliano5846
@peteriuliano5846 2 года назад
LOVED HOW YOU SHOWED OR PLAYED THE OPENING BLACK SCREEN MUSIC INTRO and silence --- a really a cool way of presenting this film's opening.
@StevieAF
@StevieAF 2 года назад
Principal photography began on 29 December 1965. Filming of actors was completed in September 1967. From June 1966 until March 1968, Kubrick spent most of his time working on the 205 special-effects shots in the film. The film's world premiere was on 2 April 1968. Wiki.
@OrangePony75
@OrangePony75 2 года назад
This is a piece of art. Carl Sagan (in «The cosmic connection») tells how he advised Kubrick on the poetic ending. Beautiful. If this is your thing, I strongly recommend «Solaris» by Andrei Tarkovski.
@AlanCanon2222
@AlanCanon2222 2 года назад
Seconding the recommend for Solaris (Tarkovsky, 1972).
@diogenesagogo
@diogenesagogo 2 года назад
Excellent recommendation. It was billed as Russia's answer to 2001 - which it wasn't - but is a terrific film which poses similarly deep philosophical questions.
@mannygee005
@mannygee005 2 года назад
Yes the original Russian one, not the remake.
@palantir135
@palantir135 2 года назад
For me, still the best SF film ever. Close Encounters of the third kind, is another Classic.
@celticarchie
@celticarchie 2 года назад
I think the beauty of 2001: A Space Odyssey is that it lets the audience find their own meaning within the film. :D
@stewardofconsciousness9781
@stewardofconsciousness9781 2 года назад
The way I interpret it is that every time someone comes into contact with the Monolith is that they receive an increase in intelligence.
@shainewhite2781
@shainewhite2781 2 года назад
The Scene where HAL refused to let Dave inside the ship was on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments. It's implied that a Machine no matter how intelligent, is capable of murder.
@pete_lind
@pete_lind 2 года назад
Self defense ... HAL 9000 could not let them disconnect it ... its still illogical for HAL 9000 to kill the people in hibernation , those were not part of the plan . What make HAL 9000 scary , its always the same monotone voice and there is nothing you can say to it to get it to change its mind . Also reminder , dont have everything controlled by one computer , when peoples life depend on it .
@mikechmielewski386
@mikechmielewski386 2 года назад
@@pete_lind Hal "had" to kill the scientists in hibernation. What do you think would have happened when they woke up and found Poole and Bowman dead/missing? Disconnection. But the reality (as explained more clearly in the books and the sequel film) was while HAL was advanced, he was given two contradictory mission goals, so what he does in this movie was his belief in carrying out what his human programmers told him to do.
@pete_lind
@pete_lind 2 года назад
@@mikechmielewski386 Seen the sequel movie 2010 from 1984 , with big name US and Russian actors , but director Peter Hyams a bit failed with that movie and i have liked his other movies , Capricorn one , Outland , Running Scared . 2010 budget ($28 mil) was 2/3 what 2001 had costed ($12 mil) , if we consider inflation .
@TTM9691
@TTM9691 2 года назад
Oh my gosh, you did a GREAT job on this one, Kazzy! I'm subscribing right....now! Oh my god, PLEASE do more classic movies! I don't even know where to begin! The fact that you immediately spotted the exact shots that so many directors ripped off (or paid homage to) - and then you show us! - thank you. For Stanley! :) Wow. You never know how someone is going to take this movie. This is obviously right in your scope. I know you know from your previous Kubrick movie experiences: his endings always leave you with questions! Is it God? Is it alien intelligence? Is God an alien? These are all legitimate paths. Is the baby at the end literally a superbaby, the size of a planet? Is it symbolic of man's next leap in intelligence? People have been debating these questions since 1968, when it came out at the height of "flower power" with the youth culture at the time showing up in droves, usually under the influence of hallucinongens, lol. Miss Kazzy! Ten years later, the next best alien-contact movie came out: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND! Have you seen that? You must have! Spielberg's amazing follow-up to Jaws, it's about UFO sightings, a huge blockbuster and one of the most dazzling movies you'll ever see. The effects were done by the same guy who worked on "2001", Douglas Trumball. HIGHLY recommended if you haven't seen it already. It's his best movie, hands down. Also regarding Kubrick: you mention "Full Metal Jacket". Definitely see "Paths Of Glory", which is another one of his greatest films, and (with all due respect to "Full Metal") his greatest war film. "Dr. Strangelove" is a satire of nuclear warfare, that's also great. "The Killing" you'll see where Tarantino gets his whole story structure. And "Lolita" is a forgotten, super weird gem. "Barry Lyndon" is a period piece that takes place in the early 1800s and literally looks like moving paintings. (it came out between "Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining"). Sorry for writing so much! Just excited to find your channel! This was GREAT! As I said, I subscribed! PS: If you want to see what space effects otherwise looked like in 1968, you can check out the original "Planet Of The Apes" which came out the same day as "2001: A Space Odyssey"! That's a fantastic movie in it's own right, although I'm sure you've seen it. Anyways, that movie opens with space travel.
@Discoteer
@Discoteer 9 месяцев назад
I love his work. Kubricks movies keep inspiring people, even after all those years. A real genius way ahead of his time.
@PersonaIncognito
@PersonaIncognito 11 месяцев назад
In honor of your very respectful reaction to Kubrick's masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
@KazzyCreates
@KazzyCreates 10 месяцев назад
Thank you SO MUCH! That really means a lot to me ❤️. That film is definitely a masterpiece ❤️
@ralfuz777
@ralfuz777 2 года назад
I preemptively gave you a thumbs up because I already know you’re gonna do an excellent job!!
@KazzyCreates
@KazzyCreates 2 года назад
Thank you so much, Ralph!! 🤗✌🏼💜
@WHYtheband
@WHYtheband 2 года назад
What’s very interesting about this movie is the fact that he talked with scientists about future technology and they suggested to him where we would be tech wise in 2001. There is a scene where they are eating and watching the news on tablets. They were off by 10 years on tablets . But it was close.
@VadimBanev
@VadimBanev 2 года назад
Loved your reaction to this... 2001 is an absolute gem.
@heavyvacation9826
@heavyvacation9826 2 года назад
I don't know if I'd call this an art film but it definitely is full, full of art and has sections that let the audience decide what it all means.
@billcame6991
@billcame6991 2 года назад
I have read it being described as a cinematic Rorschach Test.
@sppsports2449
@sppsports2449 2 года назад
I still maintain that Kubrick is the greatest director in cinematic history.
@the.seagull.35
@the.seagull.35 2 года назад
I can think of many great directors. I can't think of one better than Kubrick.
@BabylonLurker
@BabylonLurker 2 года назад
We were blown away, indeed, in 1968/69. Also note that this film was made before the first moon landing. Also seeing it on the big screen easily surpasses the experience of seeing it in the living room. A few years ago I went to see this movie on an IMAX screen, and it was still amazing.
@subasurf
@subasurf 2 года назад
I would absolutely recommend reading the book to anyone who enjoyed the film. It's phenomenal
@winslow-eh5kv
@winslow-eh5kv 9 месяцев назад
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh I don't think that I'd agree that the visuals in THIS movie look like they were "made today" as you put it. Because if they were "made today" then they would resemble stupid computer simulations, which they don't.
@CommadoreGothnogDragonheart
@CommadoreGothnogDragonheart 2 года назад
I saw this movie when I was three years old. My mom said that I just stood on the seat for the duration of the movie and just stared at the screen. :) Regarding HAL's behavior, below is a very slight spoiler for the sequel 2010, which is another very cool movie by the way. . . . . . . . I think the reason that HAL went crazy was that two orders came into conflict. On the one hand he is compelled to always tell the truth, but then he was told by the higher ups to lie to the crew about their mission (which was kept secret), and he couldn't deal with the conflict.
@IkeThe9th
@IkeThe9th 2 года назад
☝️
@TTM9691
@TTM9691 2 года назад
That is a beautiful story.
@classicvideogoodies
@classicvideogoodies 2 года назад
Kubrick won an Oscar for this film's special fx. All the scenes were shot indoors, including the Dawn of Man sequence. The galactic voyage at the end was shot on a bathtub with drops of milk or some such made to look like galaxies.
@samuellord8576
@samuellord8576 2 года назад
Hi Kazzy,. Great reaction! Very thoughtful! And I agree about the G rating.... except for a crucial fact. Ratings were and are supposed to account for the artistic importance of works, so that young people could have their minds blown by _great_ art. And so it was that in 1969 when I was eleven and my brother thirteen, we were taken to watch the movie by my blessed grandmother. Word was that this film was powerful like no other film in history, and there was agreement that great art should get the earliest possible exposure. And so we came, we saw, we learned. It changed my life, and I will always be grateful for the wisdom of that enlightened policy. Cheers!
@henrytjernlund
@henrytjernlund 2 года назад
The ending of the movie is much more cryptic than the novel, which explains a lot. And HAL wasn't really a bad computer, at least at first, also explained in the novel.
@henrytjernlund
@henrytjernlund 2 года назад
The sequel 2010 also explains some of this. 2010 is not the masterpiece that 2001 is, but it's still good and worth a watch.
@HaganeNoGijutsushi
@HaganeNoGijutsushi 2 года назад
I don't remember the details now: is HAL affected by the monolith and thus gaining consciousness, is he following his directives and came to the conclusions that humans would only obstacle the mission's goals, or both?
@Sejen77
@Sejen77 2 года назад
@@HaganeNoGijutsushi Uhh! Not exactly, If I remmember correctly, in the film 2010 It's actually explained that HAL was given badly written instructions, that caused him to develop paranoia.
@jefferickson5833
@jefferickson5833 2 года назад
Definitely recommend you watch 'Forbidden Planet' 1956. Very fun movie that really holds up very well. Leslie Nielsen (Naked Gun) is great as the leading man.
@lawrencewestby9229
@lawrencewestby9229 2 года назад
I was 11 years old when my family and I first saw this film in 1968. A few weeks later I finally convinced my brother to take me to a matinee showing so I could see it again. I doubt there are many 11 year olds now who would sit through such a film.
@RobotsWithKnivesCartoons
@RobotsWithKnivesCartoons 2 года назад
To me, 2001 is like a spiritual journey, I am not particularly a spiritual person but this film puts me in a trance-like state. I feel like the journey you take is more important to the 'meaning' of the film. Also a few years ago I had the privilege to watch 2001 on 70mm film at the Cinerama followed by a Q&A with Douglas Trumbull, the visual effects director for this film, and that was something else.
@karlmoles6530
@karlmoles6530 2 года назад
Peter Hyams (Also a great director but not quite Kubrick level) made a really good sequel to this in the 80s called 2010. It's got Roy Schieder and Helen Mirren in it, and while it's not as metaphysical as this film it is pretty good. I recommend it.
@wackyvorlon
@wackyvorlon 2 года назад
It’s worth noting that Kubrick was vehemently opposed to the sequel.
@fastertove
@fastertove 2 года назад
I personally find 2010 more enjoyable to watch., but it is a different type of film. Not a bad sequel.
@djashley2002
@djashley2002 2 года назад
@@wackyvorlon It's also worth noting that Kubrick was in the early stages of development for 3001: The Final Odyssey (which he planned to shoot after A.I.) when he died.
@robertanderson6929
@robertanderson6929 2 года назад
2010 is the movie that really made me appreciate just how many movies Roy Schieder has been in that I count among my favorites. From Jaws and The French Connection to The Russia House to 52 Pick Up and 2010 Schieder proved that he was just a great actor. In 2010 he really hits his stride. The scene with him and the Russian girl as they are performing the aerobreaking maneuver is just priceless. He really sells the idea that they are both just terrified and completely helpless as they have nothing to do but to cling to one another without ever being able to understand a single word.
@mannygee005
@mannygee005 2 года назад
oh, young Helen Mirren?
@Station-Network
@Station-Network 2 года назад
Now you have to watch also part 2: "2010 - The year we make contact" ;)
@StephenRansom47
@StephenRansom47 2 года назад
Jobs, Lucas, Spielberg, Gates and many other young creatives saw this in their youth. BUT, Cameron saw their work and then got into it… he was a Truck Driver sitting in a theatre watching Star Wars. This film would have been ahead of it’s time in the 70’s BUT it was Hopeful in the 60’s… we were about to land on the moon. Thanks for enjoying.
@abjectt5440
@abjectt5440 2 года назад
I was 18 when this came out in a brand new theatre with the first showing with my girlfriend who became my wife and we celebrated our 50th this month. It was years ahead of it's time.
@lessevdoolbretsim
@lessevdoolbretsim Год назад
When folks used to ask Arthur C Clark what the movie means, he told them, "Read the book, watch the movie, and repeat the dose as often as necessary."
@alanfeldstein9761
@alanfeldstein9761 2 года назад
Parents are too protective of their children now. The relaxed attitudes of the 1960s are why I grew up normal.
@k1productions87
@k1productions87 2 года назад
there is also this misconception that a G-rating means the film is aimed at children, which was incorrect. It simply meant there was little (if any) objectional content. The PG rating was more a warning for parents that there may be stuff they need to be aware of before considering taking their children to see this film. In that, no they are not "too protective" now, they were even more protective back then, where even PG-rated movies they had to "protect" their children from. Somewhere along the way, PG became the general audience rating, while the G-rating became the "kids only" rating, both of which essentially betray the purpose of the rating system. What would eventually become the PG-13 rating is what the PG rating was originally supposed to be, because nobody by that time drew any concern from PG anymore. ... and today, PG-13 has become the general audience rating, while PG-rated movies are seen as something to take your kids to... so now the whole thing has become absolutely meaningless.
@surfersilver6610
@surfersilver6610 2 года назад
This was Snazzy and your voice is Jazzy, Kazzy. Subbed!
@ThothWhoWrites
@ThothWhoWrites 2 года назад
People used to look for wires above the models. They were astonished that Kubrick had managed to edit them out. It did however help to turn the cameras upside down and turn the models upside down, and that would leave the strings underneath the models to the viewer. You would never catch a glimpse of them "over" the model supporting it no matter how hard you looked. At that 31 minute mark where the astronaut is shooting himself from the pod into the main ship, they put the camera at the bottom of a shaft and pointed it straight up and dropped the stunt man (or was it the actor?) down the shaft on a line. He bounced around when he hit the end of the line such that he looked like he was in a zero-g environment. Astonishing thinking and ingenuity went into this film.
@VadersRage
@VadersRage 2 года назад
I need to sit back down and rewatch this film. It was always a bit TOO cerebral for my limited mind. I think the next step for you, Kazzy, is "2010: The Year We Make Contact". It kinda wraps the two films up with a nice little bow. HAL's actions make so much more sense after seeing "2010".
@MrTech226
@MrTech226 2 года назад
Arthur C Clarke wrote more novels in the series: 2061 Odyssey Three & 3001 The Final Odyssey. But these novels were never made into movies. Tom Hanks was thinking about making them into movies. No development since 2001. But recently, there was discussions of a miniseries on SyFy. Both estates of Clarke and Kubkrick give full support.
@SkeederBC
@SkeederBC 2 года назад
I agree. 2010 is often overlooked but it is a great follow up to this movie.
@film-maniac
@film-maniac 2 года назад
Also wanted to say it was interesting to hear you mention that life was superior to AI. But oddly enough, HAL seemed more human and the astronauts more artificial. Blade Runner felt the same years later.
@donsample1002
@donsample1002 2 года назад
And HAL went crazy because he was given conflicting orders by men. There was nothing inherently evil about him.
@oaf-77
@oaf-77 2 года назад
The astronauts were so professional it was like the humanity was drummed out of them.
@Tomloser4321
@Tomloser4321 2 года назад
Thanks so much Kazzy for your thoughtful viewing of this work by Genius Stanley......and embracing those infamous looooong shots. Many of your contemporaries think it a bore due to those very long shots. They think it's a generational thing, but it ain't !! I saw this opening week in 1968 (not 69) and yes some older folks simply walked out of the theater. Most people stayed. I was 19 and LOVED it. ....but even some of my friends got restless with those long studies. I could appreciate what Kubrick was doing with all that. Anything done in space is slow and hearing one's breathing is what one hears when fully strapped into a suit and helmet ....not words....no music etc etc........ Your interpretation of the film is as valid as anyone else....congratulations !
@KazzyCreates
@KazzyCreates 2 года назад
Thank you so much, Tom! I really appreciate you watching and commenting 🤗✌🏼💜
@Prokifiev
@Prokifiev 2 года назад
Production began on this movie in1964, some of the earliest shots of spacecraft were actually filmed around that time. The "centrifuge" of Discovery was built a mile away from where I live in Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. My Dad took me to see this movie when i was 7 years old...it blew my mind...and at the ripe old age of 56, it still blows my mind. It disturbed me as a child, but I've went on to view it more than 200 times.
@RabidTribble
@RabidTribble 2 года назад
"My God...it's full of stars" If you want to better understand the film, you have to check out the sequel. Much more plot driven, and Roy Scheider (sp?) and his narration make things much easier to understand.
@porflepopnecker4376
@porflepopnecker4376 2 года назад
The sequel is just pedestrian meat-and-potatoes scif-i. Too on-the-nose.
@RabidTribble
@RabidTribble 2 года назад
As a programmer, I appreciate the fact that they explain HAL's "malfunction" in 2010. HAL was not evil...he was driven to his actions by conflicting orders and directives. HAL was more like a child that lacked any human compassion...not evil.
@RabidTribble
@RabidTribble 2 года назад
@@porflepopnecker4376 Yeah, nothing like the original in style and tone, but it stands up on its own. IMO, it was a very underrated film. Critical Drinker did a review of it recently, and he liked it.
@ThomasKnip
@ThomasKnip 2 года назад
2010 is a solid SciFi movie. It just gives an explanation where no explanation is necessary. The power of 2001 is that everyone can come to their own conclusion about the meaning.
Далее
JAWS Movie Reaction (That was PG?!?!?)
38:03
Просмотров 146 тыс.
2001: A Space Odyssey - How Kubrick fooled us all
18:50
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN Movie Reaction (THIS WAS SO FUNNY!)
34:22
Why Does Hal 9000 Malfunction?
19:23
Просмотров 106 тыс.
*WHAT was that* | 2001: A Space Odyssey Reaction
54:47
тгк: Логово FRIENDS
0:23
Просмотров 12 млн
Попрошайка на BMW😅 #shorts
0:42
Просмотров 2,2 млн