I still remember in December 31st 2000, at 11:55pm. I was 14 years old traveling to a camping with my parents. There was no party for the new year, we were almost alone there. But there was a TV on the trailer we were staying. And right when the new year came at 00:01 the TV start to broadcast 2001: A Space Odyssey. Uncut, no commercials. I have never seen it before, in fact i haven't even heard of it. But i sit and watched it, from start to finish. What a moment, what a movie... what a way to start the 21st century.
TheTrueBlueSonicFan visuals are great? seriously dude thats the best thing about the film according to you? what about the monolith? what about artificial intelligence plot in a movie back in 1968? what about evolution of human race?
My dad watched this movie more than 30 times since its release and still finds hidden meanings, some kind of "easter eggs" everywhere in the movie. I think this is a what you can call a true masterpiece ...
Tim C Kubrick- what a director, a man of few films, yet no one could master his films, although many directors have made more money, they are mere children compared to Kubrick. I like David Lean as well- a great storyteller who worked on a vast screen canvass.
I was talking to a guy in school and someone overheated me talking about it and we are now great friends due to this movie. Someone asked us what it was about and it's a movie in which you can't explain. It must be watched
I was 4 years old when this was released, and my mother took me along to watch it (she being a big sci-fi buff) and I still remember toddling outside, looking up at her and asking what it was all about. She smiled down at me and said: "Didn't you understand it?" And it took me years to figure out that she had enough confidence in me that she expected my tiny, pre-school brain to wrap itself around it all. The following year came the Apollo 11 landing. She kept me home from school and told me "watch this, this is important!" I kept running in and out of the house to look at the Moon, thinking "there are men up there!" Another year passed, and I bought Mr. Clarke's novel with my birthday money...and sat up the entire night, and read it cover to cover. This story has had a greater impact on my life than almost everything else. One of the finest things ever created by human beings. I understand it, Mum.
This film is a masterpiece, like most of Kubrick's films. He predicted some crazy stuff, like the tablet on the table, and having flat screen TV's in a time of rounded and fat TV's! This film was soooo ahead of its time!
Watching these stupid comments makes me smile. This is not the type of film you should watch without thinking, because then you don't understand the fantastic symbolic art what Stanley Kubrick gave us in this beautiful film. This film is not like the blockbuster science fictions coming from Hollywood these days. This is the real 10/10 sci-fi movie.
Unless you were alive in 1968 and saw 2001 in Cinerama, then there is no way describe how far advanced and fantastic 2001 was compared to anything pior or many years to come after. Mind blowing experience!
I love how Kubrick has decided to use classical music in this movie, rather than having an original soundtrack, because the music in this masterpiece is timeless, no matter how old this film is, it still has a very new atmosphere to it. Whereas if he decided to have an original soundtrack, 30 years later it would probably sound outdated, just like how we think movies from the 1980s have horrible soundtracks.
I see your point but the 80's had the best soundtracks, it was after that it went downhill and became unmemorable. Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner. All the Alien or Star Trek scores. Even the cheesier movies were good. Robocop, Terminator, Predator still sound amazing.
I have something to admit. At first I thought that 2001: A Space Odyssey, was a bad film. However, I now realize that I just did not get it. I was fairly young when I first saw it and got bored at the very beginning. But, now I realize that while I may not get it, it is a cinematic masterpiece.
What I love about this movie is it doesn't really hold your hand and explain things to you. People think it's overrated and that's fine, but it resonates with a lot of people. I wouldn't say this is my favorite film either, but it's a movie that isn't afraid to be itself, and by that I mean an experience
I agree. I love movies that require the audience to think, to figure things out. It's why I love Terrence Malick's films, as well. Movies that assume I'm an adult are a breath of fresh air in this time of comic book movies and FAST LOUD FAST LOUD FAST LOUD.
That's debatable, It probably is the greatest greatest achievment, but overall I think Abel Gance's 'Napoléon', 'Citizen Kane' and 'La Règle du jeu' are a little better. Still it is my fourth favorite movie of all time
Gary Lockwood’s closing comment on how the individual’s analysis of the movie is unique depending on all these different factors like age, socio economic status, etc. really hits the nail on the head.
I remember this film when I first saw it at the cinema when it came out in 1968 and I have been a fan of this momentous movie ever since. Since then, living in Somerset, England, I have had the amazing privilege of being in contact with Arthur C Clarke as I knew his late brother Fred (what a lovely man) quite well as he still lived in the area near where the Coarkes were born, in Minehead, England. Fred was a Burma Star veteran, an author himself (he wrote a good deal about his war exploits) and one day in conversation let slip in quote a matter-of-fact way that he once sorted out the heating in "Stan's house" (he was a heating engineer by trade) - the name by which he referred to Stanley Kubrick! One of my prized possessions is a small collection of personal slides, letters and books Arthur gave me - the books were first edition, _ex libris_ (from his own personal library) and signed. What is so interesting is how both Arthur and Fred were so _ordinary_ and so approachable. They are both sadly missed, but what a legacy they leave.
Thanks for sharing! i watched Arthur Clark lecturing on space travel at my college many years ago, followed by playing 2001:A Space Odyssey. It was a great experience.
Gregory Youngr Sadly I never actually met him in person as I live in the UK and he was in Sri Lanka by then and unable to travel far because of his post-polio syndrome. The nearest I got was video-conference, email and snail mail, and, of course, the occasional phone call when I was with his brother Fred. What amazed me about Clarke was his technological predictions that have come true, from geostationary satellites to carbon nano-tubes (that may one day help construct he first space lift) based on buckminsterfullerene all of which were simply part of his fictional novels. I have a nice slide photo (both Arthur and Fred were into their 'slide' presentations long before Powerpoint!) of Arthur holding a 'bucky-ball' molecular model, which he sent me along with a copy of the book The Fountains of Paradise, that he wrote some years earlier, the same novel that mentioned the space-lift principle, Amazing guy.
Gregory Youngr Wow.... I'm afraid that he didn't go that specific with me, a;though I ended up in education for nearly 30 years ending up as head of department and teaching astronomy and cosmology. Fred, his brother, who ran the Clarke Foundation in the UK was so supporting of us and the students. There is no doubt that he inspired many people.
The Mona Lisa, The Eiffel Tower, The Golden Gate Bridge, The Taj Mahal, The Statue of David, Rhapsody In Blue, The Raven (poem), War And Peace (novel) The Chrysler Building...........THIS MOVIE.
The author of the book, that the film was based on, Arthur C. Clarke, said in an interview a few years before he died: he was worried...because he thought he was being overly conservative when he wrote it. Certainly humanity will have all of that and more by 2001. The joke was on him, none of that stuff has come to pass yet. I myself was personally convinced in the late '60s that by now (or earlier) a normal person would be able to go into space. Well, it was a nice dream anyway.
Well, the author of the short story that the movie was based on, and the books written at the time and after, having mostly nothing to do with the movie or the directors intent or ideas, etc.
Clarke wrote the book while the movie was in production, and practical limitations prevented the movie from using Saturn as a setting, which is a shame, seeing the amazing effects of not only Jupiter (in the story they do a flyby), but also the beauty of Saturn and its rings would've been truly amazing.
The film was not based on the book. The book and the film were written at the same time from the same story, and the creators worked together to craft it.
Indeed - He came up with the storyline (The Sentinel which later was rewritten as the 2001 novel) and co-wrote the screenplay of the film. FWIW and slightly off topic, he is also credited with coming up with the idea of communications satellites.
Nao and Cozmo Adventures quite frankly pal,the novel was written at the same time as the movie was being made,in my humble opinion the movie is better and those visuals back in 1968 !!!! Kubrick was waaaaaaay ahead of his time
Likely an editing decision by IGN. These two came to Denver in 2001 and during their panel they did go on and on about Clarke. So they definitely did give him a great deal of credit.
I saw it in the original format ( Cinerama) in 1968 in Glasgow. Cinerama was an ultra wide wrap round like an early imax type screen with sound to match. I remember you didnt so much hear the rumble building from nothing at the opening.. you felt it..!! In the dark of the theater and up on the balcony kinda looking slightly down at the screen we felt like we were right there in space.. You really had to be there..!! Awesome!!
I saw it in April 1968 at the Cinerama theater in Chicago. Awsome!! There are only two Cinerama theaters left in the world - one in Seattle, Washington, and one in Lawrence, Kansas. The Seattle Cinerama theater occasionally shows 2001 - I have traveled the 1,300 km from the San Francisco area to see it when it screens there. Well worth the trip!
It wasn't shot in the Cinerama process which uses three distinct cameras. When it was first released it was shown in both Cinerama theaters and regular movie theaters.
It's not just the most important sci-fi movie of all time, but possibly also one of the most important movies in general. Just layers upon layers of stuff to feed your mind.
No, he can't get credit for all of them, and we have to remember Clarke's central role in the film made out of his book. At the same time Kubrick had a grand vision and he made countless choices of what to emphasize, what to prioritize, what to leave in and out. The texture, the composition and context for the predictions are all genius.
It IS the best movie of all time, and better than movies like the Godfather, etc, for many reasons. It revolutionized movie making. The greatest use of silence in a movie ever. The greatest use of music (can anyone who has seen 2001 not think of it when now hearing the Blue Danube Waltz?). The greatest non-CGI effects of all time. Camera techniques so innovative, they are still a major part of cinematography studies. Almost supernatural realism of future technology, such as the Discovery, flexible computer tablets, the space station, and HAL, which WILL eventually exist, but is still maybe 100 years or even more distant in OUR future. Even complaints about "wooden" acting of Lockwood and Dullea. What people don't realize is that real astronauts trained for a long isolated voyage like this would be picked specifically for a rock steady, unflappable, almost computer like personality. The kind of personality where you could point a gun at their head, and they would just coolly stare at you. Which makes the whole HAL episode almost a battle between an electronic and human computers.
Innovatively? Yes its up there. Visually? Absolutely the best. It is one of the most mesmerizing movies ever. It's more of an actual relative experience than a film and so I wouldn't say it is the greatest film ever but it is in the top 10.
When i watched this movie i couldnt believe it was from the 60's with how great the film looked its almost comparable to todays cameras and it just blows my mind. and the whole movie is brilliant i couldnt believe it took me this long to finally watch that movie but im glad i did
''...strange rumbling sound that goes on for minutes, to somehow put the audience into a state of expectation...'' Gyorgy Ligeti would be delighted to hear such description of his Overture: Atmospheres :) 2001 Space Odyssey score is truly remarkable.
If you've ever heard Woody Allen's views on 2001: A Space Odyssey, then that explains my experience exactly. It took me three or four times to really like this movie, but it is truly a work of art that I am still trying to understand.
Stanley Kubric was ahead of his time. First time I saw this movie I was in 2007, I was 24 and it changed the way I thought about space, AI, time travel, and anthropology, and basically made me conceive of all the endless possibilities out there. All thanks to this movie.
@@EscapeMCP You're right. The film discusses extra-terrestrials as a cover story but the film is fundamentally about the qabalah and qabalistic tree of life.
Richard Strauss composed the tone poem " Also Sprach Zarathustra " in Munich. He was 28 years old and conducted its first performance in 1896. The opening fanfare, (titled ' Sunrise ' by Strauss, ) lasts 1 minute & 48 seconds. The opening low C note is played on a 32 foot organ pipe, more felt than audible.
personally I thought the film was trying too hard to be convoluted - to look "smart" (when I first saw it in 1999)... Just recently saw it again on netflix, and I felt the same way as it did when I was younger. Granted, there are some great scenes in the movie, way ahead of its time. But I think Kubrick was "dropping acid" when he was making this movie... I got a real "Hippie vibe" on both viewings.
Transformers is a good movie, but 2001: A Space Odyssey is way overrated, it was great for it's time but it's overrated now. The annoying sounds, and prolonged scenes killed it for me, and the robot HAL was a joke too.
I don't want to nitpick but they mentioned "Star Wars" being a sci-fi film... it is not. It's a fantasy film. It takes place in a different galaxy in a past time period. The focus of the film features mystical elements like the "force" and a universal life force, unexplained spiritual powers... it doesn't primarily comment on the effect of technology on humanity
+Yue Wang It also uses advanced armors, space flight, clones, lasers. It IS sci-fi but like I was saying to a friend the other day 2001 is SCI-fi where Star Wars is sci-FI.
Star Wars has a science fiction like setting, but ultimately science is portrayed as the bad guy (Ewoks vs. Empire = Nature vs. Technology), thus it's more like anti-scifi, which I would say sci-fi should portray science in a neutral light... The setting may have advanced armors, space flight, clones, lasers, and so on and so on, but you could easily take the story and plop it into a fantasy setting and no one would bat an eye. Advanced armor becomes enchanted armor, space flight becomes magic fairy dust, clones become armies made using magic, lasers become magic beams (a la Harry Potter). It's a fantasy story in a sci-fi setting, which is cool in its own right, but that doesn't make it sci-fi.
This movie, along with Alien (1979), Blade Runner, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator (1 & 2 are a tie for me), and Jurassic Park will always remain the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time. They are all timeless and still stand up extremely well to this day. 2001, Alien, and Blade Runner all likely making a case to be among the top 10 greatest movies of all time period.
2001 is an amazing movie no doubt. But it's not for everybody though and it may take a couple viewings to understand it or you might have to be a little older to understand it.
But once you do, the rest pales in comparison. I was fortunate enough to meet Sir Arthur C Clarke in real life once for a brief moment on my graduation, he said to us: "Exploit the inevitable".
2001 is best described as an experience of philosophical ambition. It's not perfect but this is a film that that questions man's relation to the god he creates and the god that created him. You can't get more ambitious than that. One of the truly great achievements in American cinema.
I have watched this movie over 20 times in my life and each time it reinforces just how good it is. The ending had me in tears the first time I watched it. The idea of being reborn as a star child seemed so perfect to me. It still does in an odd way.
The reason why i think both Interstellar and 2001 are great films: 2001: This movie has one theme, that no matter how great our technology will get, it will not save us from our last moments, as seen in the last 30 minutes of the movie. The movie is timeless, having both great visuals and great cinematography. Definitely the Godfather of all Sci-fi movies. Interstellar: A film that tells you any human can become the villain simply by following his own ideals. (Dr.Mann) It illustrates perfectly that no matter how desperate we get, there will still be conflicts between us. The scene where Mann and Cooper were fighting proves my point. The film was shot perfectly, and definitely deserves to be called "Modern day 2001" As both films were scientifically, physically mostly accurate. No green screen, no CGI. Nolan definitely gave us a movie worth watching million times
Captain Possible Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" stunk and stunk bad compared to 2001.. remember Kubrick did 2001 way back in 1968 way before digital computer graphic technology.. Nolan should be totally and completely embarrassed for ripping off Kubrick's ideas and Nolan no way would of even dared making Interstellar if Stanley Kubrick was still alive today "no way".. Interstellar Stunk Stunk Stunk and Christopher Nolan should be ashamed. Interstellar is just a conundrum of rip offs from many films.-.Signs, Field of Dreams, 2001, Star Wars... ect ect ect
Thank you "Dave" and "Frank" for appearing in this video. I would not have believed any insights could be added to the more than 50 years of thoughts people have shared about 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Keir and Gary give some fresh observations. You are obviously the movie's biggest and most informed fans, as well as its cast members.
MrPete8680 The ARPANET back then was not even a harbinger of the present day Internet, instead it was merely a text communications means using X.25 packet-switched instead of store & forward switching (dedicated circuit switching).
I just watched it for the first time, and I have to say that it's an absolute masterpiece! One piece of advice though if you haven't seen it, wait til you're old enough to sit through it and appreciate it. If I'd have watched it as a kid I would've been very bored, but as a 22 year old it stunned me and I was hooked even through those long silent set-pieces. The final fifteen minutes were very confusing, but art in it's finest form. Thank you Mr Kubrick, you blew me away with this one. 47 years on and it still has the ability to really impress...now one of my favourite ever movies.
Nice to see the comments this movie so deeply stirred my soul when it first came out and watching these clips still has that effect. Brilliant because it did not only rely on special effects like today’s features of this genre.
"Hello, I'm Keir Dullea, and I played Dave Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey." "Hello... I'm Gary Lockwood and I'd rather have my fingernails ripped out with pliers than to be here talking about this thing I did five decades ago that I clearly can't stand."
As an awarded and published astronomy science technical artist, and semi-professional astronomer for most of my life, more recently as a lecturer and teacher of this subject, this has always been my most favorite film of all time, since I first saw the movie on the big silver screen after its release in late 1968 as a 15 year old, and had just bought my first astronomy telescope about a year before. Ironically the new 70 millimeter Dolby stereo copies of 2001 were recently first screened again in my home town at the Hollywood Theater in Portland Oregon, where I first viewed the movie in the late summer of 1968.
You guys got old. But I agree totally with you. It is a very forward thinking film but the first great big budgeted science fiction space film is Forbidden Planet made 10 years prior to 2001. A film that too had deep psychological and human evolution overtones.
+Marc Parella Forbidden Planet is great old sci fi, and I'm sorry to say but I like it more than this film. I don't remember much of it now, but I watched it a few years ago and was mostly bored. It had lot of great establishing shots and ideas, but then the establishing shots went on and on and on. I watch movies to escape, mostly, not to think. It just wasn't my kind of film, but it definitely had some great moments and ideas.
+Marc Parella Marc I agree, Forbidden Planet was wonderful. And it was NOT a grade B film. It was very well made and had fantastic effects. That said, it was very much 50s effects, just extremely good ones. What is shocking is that less than a decade later 2001 was being planned and shot. In less than a decade, we went from flying saucers to believable space craft and space stations. We went from Robbie the Robot to HAL. We went from a mad scientist to technology that has gone mad. The special effects were so good, they hold up TODAY. A few years ago, I went to see this at the Hollywood Cinerama Dome. Its effects hold up today. They are not "good for their time", they are good period. And the story is great, it's timeless.
Funny story: I remember '2001' was doing a rerun in the early 80's, including the ABC cinema, Liverpool. After a few minutes of no picture and music, (which is how the pic begins, of course), the lights came on and the manager got the small stage to announce that they had sent out for a new projector light bulb. Things were eventually sorted out, and in 15-20 minutes we finally got to see the film.
This film is certainly one of the all time greats. It is visually stunning, and the choice of classical music couldn't be any better. It certainly stays in your mind long after you've watched it. Very profound.
the black monolith represents the movie screen right? thats why most of the shots of space appear vertical instead of sideways. This is because the monolith screen is vertical...not horizontal..
RubberDuckStudios The monolith isn't symbolic at all. It's a device made by extremely advanced ancient species out in space to experiment with other life forms in the universe. It taught the apemen in the films start how to do all the things they'd need to in order to grow as an intelligent species, and then they put the monolith buried on the moon for the day humans would become advanced enough to find it there as a signal of humans advancement.
MrAnimeopera agreed. its like a device that boosts intelligence and/or inspires technological advancement which some other form of life has set out to guide human advancement.
RubberDuckStudios I saw the RU-vid video on that explanation and while it is joyfully interesting, it does not fulfll the meaning for me as such in the film. Maybe Stanley was having his Director's fun with the auidence as well. Clearly, the monolith is introduced each time in the film as a evolutionay advancement whether this be by actof God or alien, so it representing a movie screen is (pardon the pun), most one-dimensional.
This movie has been stuck in my mind ever since my Aunt took me to see the original release when I was 13. I gained a new appreciation for it several years later when I read the "Behind the Scenes" book. The set was massive.
Their voices are featured on the commentary track for the Blu-ray edition of the film, but it is invaluable to have these two gentlemen on film, sharing their memories and impressions.
There are a lot of interesting things here and I did enjoy watching but I think ultimately, this video tends toward the superficial. What makes 2001 such an incredible work of art is the combination of flawless aesthetics with the profundity of the questions it raises about what it means to be human, and what's at the frontier of that experience. I can't think of many films that do this to such a high level - maybe three or four others, that's it.
George Morley Ach! You called me on it! Now I gotta put my money where my mouth is. Okay, I'll do as many as I can... Aguirre the Wrath of God Rashamon The Seventh Seal Solaris (original, Russian version) Such a dark list! I've been trying to think of a comedy that would fit in and while there are lots of truly great ones out there, I can't recall one that takes quite the same sorts of questions as its theme. Perhaps you can remind me of what I might be forgetting :)
I haven't seen 3001 but 2010 struck me as just a pop, mainstream story that didn't come anywhere near the first in any category. Certainly it didn't aspire to the level of sophistication that Kubrick's film did. Don't get me wrong, I like pop mainstream stories. I love Star Wars, for example. But without the collaboration of Kubrick and the input of real theoretical physicists (as the first one had), 2010 is a very different sort of product.
When I first watched this film I thought “ that’s the set of alien!” In some parts.(one of my all time favs). It’s amazing how much influence 2001 had over science fiction over the years. Still holds up too which is amazing.
My favorite movie of all time. Though I was haunted by one thought. When Bowman was blown into the emergency hatch, why didn't the pod move violently in the opposite direction according to the laws of physics? Wasn't the robot arm already detached? Even if it was, it should have reacted to the explosive bolts and the air pressure being released, not have stayed perfectly still. Any thoughts on this?
Is a film that makes us think a bad one? Is a film that drives us to the point of researching about it so we can interpret it a bad one? I see that many in the comments think so.... Alas we have failed the black monolith! Enjoy avengers and avatar!
Ethan Reuben Alas, this is what will ultimately destroy humanity. We're rather close to dividing in two distinct groups, our social organization the only thing keeping us connected.
it was a great novel! i'm currently reading the Foundation series, the trilogy of Isaac Asimov. i'm on Foundation and Empire now (the second one). great series!
I saw 2001 ASO at the theater in its first run in 1968. I was 12, I had no idea what was going on but fascinated. Thankfully Mad Magazine explained it all. Never miss a chance to see it again.
Like it or not Christopher Nolan's Interstellar is our generation's 2001. Sure its a COMPLETELY different film. 2001 was about larger than life themes while Nolan's Interstellar was about warmer and more human themes such as how love drives us to do impossible and great things. The only similarity between 2001 and Interstellar is both films utilizes awe-inspiring practical VFX. 40 years from now when all VFX in movies are full-CGI people will appreciate Interstellar as a masterpiece.
+Johnny Tey I totally agree. A lot of my friends told me the movie was extremely boring and it was so long that I decided to watch it on a long flight back home to fall asleep but I found myself completely intrigued and immersed in the events of the movie instead. My only regret is that I wasn't able to watch the last 30-45 mins+ of the movie due to the plane landing but no movie has captivated me as much as Interstellar did.
+ArsenalBowler Buy it on Blu-ray NAO!! Its just beautiful, and I say Blu-ray because while no format comes close to film quality the Blu-ray show cases Chris Nolan's use of real live celluloid film really well.
I love it. This movie blew my mind. Although, I didn't appreciate it the first time I saw it as much as I do now because I didn't fully understand. Its one of those movies where you really need to open your mind to. Years later, I have so much praise for it and see its brilliance. This movie is an incredible work of art and true genius. Definitely among my top 5 favorite movies of all times. I just wonder how they created like the vortex and stargate fxs since no cgi was used at all.
I love the collaboration and connection of music and cinematic art and there some films with that collaboration at its best and 2001:Space Odyssey is definitely one of them ! 🎥+🎵=❤️ I also love the cinematography of the film.
One nitpick - but 2001 is not the first big-budget sci fi film. Forbidden Planet was in the 50's and it has top notch (and budget) acting, writing and effects and all that. It was meant made to put a lot butt into seats. Actually, even to this day, many of its special effects hold up, some surprising well, some so well you won't notice them or will at first making the automatic assumption that it was computers, before you remember that those machines were not used for movie back them and where as big as football fields. Anyway, 2001 as not the first big-budget Sci-Fi movie.
Miguel Pereira just more proof that the claim about 2001 I was disagreeing with is not accurate. Although, if someone wanted to focus on Hollywood post WW2, then I could see them no included your excellent example.
Miguel Pereira In what way? "Cyberpunk is a subgenre of science fiction in a future setting, noted for its focus on "high tech and low life". It features advanced technology and science, such as information technology and cybernetics, coupled with a degree of breakdown or radical change in the social order" (net search gave this definition in the search results - I used Bing, but google probably would show the same or similar). I guess I would see it has partially Cyberpunk in some way.
BINARYGOD Maybe it's not more cyberpunk than Sci-Fi, but it has some elements like a strugling lower class and tensions between those lower and upper classes.
This movie was so good, upon my first viewing, there was nothing else I could think about, I was paralyzed by the beauty and horror of the movie, that's when I knew that this was the greatest movie ever made.
I saw the film in 1971 in a dark theater on the Big Screen, after taking LSD. A mind blowing experience, that I still remember vividly after 46 years....
I watched this movie for the 3rd time (In its entirety. I'm only 34) the other day, and I could've sworn I was finding all these shots and things that I didn't notice BOTH times watching it. Then I just read a comment down of a guy who still picks stuff up and hidden messages after 42 times watching. WOW! This was THE movie that made me like Sci-Fi. After I've seen this movie (29), I've been into scifi, both new and classic (yes, 50s b-budget black and white). This. This!
I am one of the few who has seen this movie in CINERAMA. You have not seen this movie until you have seen it as it was meant to be seen. Today there are only 2 places in the USA, portland, wasington, and hollywood, where you can still see it as it was meant to be seen. It is unforgettable, and AWESOME, in cinerama. It makes it almost 3D, and it makes you feel as if you were really one of the apes, or in space. Unbelievably awesome.
