2001: A Space Odyssey * FIRST TIME WATCHING * reaction & commentary
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- When I tell you this is a wild ride for me... Just wait until my review of it. BUCKLE UP BUTTERCUP
iMPORTANT TIME STAMPS:
Preview review: 00:00 - 2:47
Watch With Me: 02:48 - 32:56
my review: 32:57 - 37:49
Full list of Movies received/watched:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
(THANK YOU SO MUCH TYLER FOR MAKING THIS!!!!)
Second Channel: • 🎉 First Day - FULL TIM...
📨 4636 Lebanon Pike #362 Hermitage, TN 37076
🎥 / awkwardashleigh
👕 teespring.com/stores/awkward-...
✨Let's be Friends!✨
/ awkwardashleigh
/ awkwardashleigh
awk_ashleigh
DISCORD!: / discord
REALLY COOL INTRO DONE BY KELLY GREEN: / kellygreenprg
Hella Cool Logo by Barnes and Co: barnesandco.co
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners. - Zábava
Can we just take a second and appreciate that Ashleigh took on one of the most challenging films ever made and absolutely thrived in it?
She was also high, so... it's easy to be entertained while high.
EDIT: To be clear, cause people won't shut up about it, I'm not saying Ashleigh's dumb, or weed makes you stupid, or any of that. I'm saying that it made the move tolerable for her through all thr slow parts, and open ended ending. Two things she's said multiple times that she hates in movies
Also, I don't think the only reason people like this movie is cause they were high. What a stupid take that was
Ashleigh is spot on for plot points and themes and didn't trust HAL from the git-go.
@@Eidlones Yes, but she also got what it (is generally agreed) was going for, when a lot of viewers never get it or take multiple viewings to get. That may also have been the chemical assistance, but still.
@@gmchris3752 I'm just saying that if you can't enjoy a movie without being high, then it's not the movie that you like. And I seriously doubt she'd like the movie without being high
@@johnezell1628 She has the advantage of having watched a ton of movies that built on the foundation this film laid. That's not detracting from her observations, but when this movie came out, and for several decades after, there wasn't that sort of context for this movie.
I can honestly say, I never expected this reaction to go the way it did. I'm actually impressed.
Same. I thought she would hate it due to the slow pacing.
Very pleasantly surprised to see she understood a lot of it.
@@commonsensecraziness7595 tbh there were several points midway through the movie where she clearly wasn't enjoying it to include saying she probably would have left the theater unless she knew before hand what to expect.
I did not expect the reaction at the end as a result.
@@The_Lone_Aesir I wouldn't put complaints of ominous music in the same category of being bored. We all know Ashley is a wuss when it comes to horror. :P
In 55 years, Ashley is the first person I know of to actually understand the ending. Must have been some good brownies. Looking forward to the sequel, "2010". More questions will be answered.
I wouldn't in a million years thin Ashleigh would like, never mind love this movie. I think for a lot of people, the masterpiece that this is goes completely over their heads, but she noticed everything, the score, the symbolism and the story within the story. Such an entertaining reaction!.
Yeah, Ashleigh's smarter than she looks. More than just a cute redheaded redneck girl from Tennessee.
@@mattslupek7988 A LOT more. She's witty and super intelligent.
Ggy
Well, even people who don't understand the story tend to agree that it's VISUALLY dazzling at least. And groundbreaking and revolutionary when they realize that it's from the sixties.
"Does it stand the test of time?" .. . LMAO! Sweety, THIS flick TRANSCENDS your pitiful notions of time! I assure you!
This was a groundbreaking film. In 1968 there was no CGI and not even blue screen. Yet the effects still hold up today.
And even what you said barely scratches the surface of how far ahead of everything this was in Special Effects. The original Star Trek was state-of-the-art and looks so terribly cheesy (sometimes deliberately, or at least unconcernedly), but pretty much everything about this, except maybe the protohumans, looked so realistic. We would not have that forced perspective opening of Star Wars without this. And so many other things involved here were such leaps of film making technology.
Blue screen existed. That's how Ray Harryhausen accomplished his magic.
Yeah - Blue Screen work had been used since the early 40s
@@Serai3 Top 3 personal favorite Harryhausen creations? Here's mine:
-Skeleton warriors(Jason & the Argonauts)
-Cyclops(7th Voyage of Sinbad)
-Maedusa(Clash of the Titans)
@@Serai3 I believe stop-motion animation usually used rear projection rather than a bluescreen.
I absolutely expected Ashleigh to hate this movie. If she'd been sober there's no way she'd have stuck it out through all the silence and long pauses. Probably the most insightful to filmmaking I've ever seen Ashleigh be. She didn't just say how the music made her feel, when she discussed the movie she explained it's place in the film's symbolism.
I don't get why everyone is so sure she wouldn't have liked it if she wasn't high. Do none of you know people that like this movie?
@@pinklefoo Well, 2001 is from an earlier age with earlier filmmaking styles. I have found that many reactors these days that watch a movie like this consider it "too slow."
@@pinklefoo
I mean, this is the reactor that thought The Godfather was boring. I saw the thumbnail and thought for sure she would find this one boring.
@help4343 I mean The Godfather is astonishingly boring. I've only made it through once.
@@robertthomas4633 I wish I could see things through your eyes for just a few minutes. I think The Godfather is intriguing as hell, still to this day.
When HAL says "I'm afraid", that passes the Turing test for me. And I start to tear up every time. He knows he's losing his mind and dying. We're all afraid.
okay but consider that hal does have very thorough psych evaluations of dave, it knows that dave is empathetic towards it AND it knows how to fake emotions. is he afraid or does he just know that being afraid is his best chance at survival?
@@Kyuschi that's what watching ex machina does to a person
Does the monolith "uplift" HAL? It seems it is different than the other HAL computers.
At age 71, this remains my favorite movie of all time. No words can say how delighted I am you connected with it so enthusiastically, a tribute to your intelligence and depth of spirit. Seeing it on its initial release, I left the theater weeping for joy. Literally. I dragooned a bunch of my friends into watching it when they really wanted to see The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly released in the same year. When the lights went up at the end, I stared into a row of angry young faces. One growled, “We missed Clint Eastwood for THIS???” Consider yourself one of the elect!
my favorite of all time too. i'm 62. my dad took us to see it in nyc.
@@brettashley143 Your dad's a saint in my book. This film made me a Kubrick addict. Don't be shy if it didn't for you. But what other of his films do you like? Barry Lyndon is my second favorite.
barry lyndon! with marissa berenson? i should watch that again.
@@jeffwatkins352
“I’m balls deep in this movie!” Ashleigh’s best quote ever!
@@user-eh3zz5jg9i yes, you are
@Brad1980 yes it is. Also not a girl admitting she has balls lmao.
She should've said "Ovaries deep" 😂
@@spongebobandplanktonshould2920 maybe she wears her strap-on while she’s watching the movies. Let her live!
@Brad1980 Relax, Karen.....
This was legitimately one of the best reactions I have ever watched. The connection between the material and the viewer was so cool to see. Stupid cynical me thought that Ashleigh would hate this movie, but she grasped it SO much better than I did the first time I watched it (and I really liked it!). I love it when my expectations get kicked in the ass.
To be fair, I think she would have hated it if she weren't "elevated". But even at that, different people have different reactions to the Devil's Lettuce. She is apparently one of the ones where it helps her focus. I had people hate me playing videogames when I was ... elevated.
@@rmhartman To appreciate 2001 is really helps to be relaxed and just open to the experience, and jazz cigarettes don't hurt for inducing that state of mind.
She grasped it better the first time watching it than I did after ten times and aided by the take of the whole world via internet reviews.
Ashley for President!
Agreed.
“Touch it. What’s the worst that can happen?” A motto for life.
How I met my wife.
Kids.
Not so good on the bus or subway.
@@MrUndersolo It's just a hand, you got another.
What Adam said to Eve?
Hi Ashleigh: Kubrick once explained the meaning behind this movie in an interview. It goes like this: Aliens from a distant planet travel through space to find life that has the potential to evolve intelligence. They plant monoliths on those planets to help the most promising species evolve that intelligence. This is what happened to the apes in the beginning of the movie. Also, those same aliens deliberately buried a monolith on the moon, hoping that humans would discover it. When they did, it emitted a radio signal to a monolith orbiting Jupiter which in turned relayed a signal to the aliens' home planet saying humans were now capable of interplanetary space travel.
The monoliths are also stargates allowing interstellar travel. The colored lights near the end of the movie showed Dave was travelling faster than light to the alien planet. Upon arrival, Dave was placed in the equivalent of a zoo where the aliens could observe him. This was the bedroom. (The strange sounds in the background are the aliens talking.) As he rapidly aged he also gained intelligence far superior to that of people back on earth. The aliens then prodded his transformation into a star child, a superior human being who can travel through space without the aid of technology. The star child then entered the stargate to travel back to earth where it gazed down on our home planet from space.
Science fiction author Arthur C. Clark worked with Stanley Kubrick to publish a book with the same name as the movie to help explain the plot. The background music for the final scene is titled "Also sprach Zarathustra" ("Thus spoke Zarathustra") by German composer Richard Strauss which is also the title of a famous novel by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed humanity needed to evolve into ubermensch (supermen) to overcome our many flaws. Kubrick and Clark used this idea as the central theme of the movie and the book.
Where was this interview? In everything I ever read Kubrick refused to explain anything about 2001.
@@carlopanno6307 Frankly, I don't remember but try Googling it. I'm sure it will pop up.
Sounds more like a Arthur C Clarke comment to me....
One of the best movie reactions of all time. I was worried about how Ashleigh would be with this, but she shows herself to be a woman of insight, culture and understanding. Absolutely well done.
Let's be honest, if she was so cultured, she wouldn't have gone this far in her life missing all these great films. Ignorance has basically given her a successful CZcams career. On the other hand, seeing her change over the years the more films she watches is pretty cool. She's slowly becoming a film buff.
@@catrionacolville2192 She has improved immensely in the last year or two, so i was trying desperately hard in my comment not to sound patronising or snobby. But, not to worry - Catriona to the rescue.
@@alexvaraderey I was simply telling the truth. Getting that far in your life without seeing all those films...or in this case not even hearing of them, is quite something. I was responding simply because what you said just isn't true. I love watching her reviews (except this one, because she was on recreational drugs) and she has boosted my mood up when I've been in some very bad places. I love this channel. But I take it for what it is. I'm not expecting brilliant analysis. I want a good time. As a lifelong film buff (I'm 35, so also a millennial), it's interesting to see someone react so differently to a first time watch than I did). 2001 was one I missed. I didn't want to see it, but my brother insisted. First watch was only about 5 years ago.
The bottom line is you had the same fears I did, but was at least honest about it. Maybe I'm too honest for some, but I'm not good at disguising how I feel on these things, so I find being honest the better option. But you do you as well, it's fine.
@@catrionacolville2192 Sorry to say but you sound like an elitist. Just because you have seen a string of movies that has led you up to the plateau that makes you feel more knowledgeable makes you no better than the rest of us.
Would love to see you in the company of a group of people that was balls deep in to Renaissance art debating the meaning perspective and depth of that art.
What I am trying to say is that people are people. Our interests or lack of it does not make us stupid no matter what it is.
@@ichhabe330 I am, by your definition. Difference is that I don't see it as a bad thing. I expect a lot from people. Especially when it comes to culture. There's nothing wrong with seeing classic films later in life. I started seeing many of them in my mid to late twenties and I'm 35 now, mainly due to financial issues when I was growing up. Just like I know so many 80s and 70s songs and artists even though I'm not from that era. Because I educated myself. Same with films.
Also, I'm not sure I would call taking an illegal recreational drug to watch 2001 as "cultured".
Everyone else in the world: struggles in stunned disbelief about the meaning of the film and especially the ending. Baked Ashleigh: instantly has total and complete confidence about every aspect of its meaning. 5 out of 5!
This. I feel like I have a better understanding of this movie after listening to these stoned ramblings.
I'm guessing audiences in 1968 were on all kinds of pharmaceutical experience enhancers and a lot of them probably saw God and figured out the secrets of the universe during that final portal sequence.
@@asperhesYeah, I feel like it made more sense to her than it ever will to me.
And to be spot on for every high concept of the film is amazing.
Disappointed she cut out the most famous transition cut in movie history... from the bone tool thrown in the air to the spaceship. But she did well when I thought initially her reaction would be a disaster. The movie isn't really suitable for a talkative reaction as it will detract from a person's experience to a movie that will make you think about humanity's place in the universe. It's an audio/visual experience that's meant to be seen on a huge screen in a dark theater with no-one talking in their seats. The beauty and innovation of it's effects have dimmed in the decades since only because outer space movies have become much more common. But in 1968, it was truly a religious experience to be able to see the universe for the first time without it being sped through in the service of an action plot.
Ashleigh... color me impressed! Do you have any idea how many people are completely unable to wrap their minds around this film? You got so much out of this ! I am now a confirmed life-long fan! Keep being amazing!!!!
I rolled my eyes when I saw her take this movie on. I totally expected her to not get it and then she completely buys in and appreciates it. Sorry for underestimating you.
ashleigh: "best movie ever," also ashley: "i would have left the theater by now."
Also Ashleigh: "He cannot see the ship? And ship him can watch him this him do things?"
The duality of man.
It took me at least 2-3 viewings of this movie to get to the level of understanding that Ashleigh had after ONE altered viewing. She is amazing. Ashleigh contains multitudes.
"Weed is from tha Earf. God put this here for me an' YOU. Take advantage man, take advantage."
- Smokey, FRIDAY (1995)
She is kinda wrong though ... because the movie isnt supposed to give "definitive answers" ... and things are open to interpretation.
I was the same, but I guess we weren't "elevated".
I saw the movie, then got the book & went back & saw it 2 more times to try and work it out. Admittedly I was only 16.
Yeah if she is not faking it and having read the books and studied all the wikis - she is impressive. :)
This was one of the most amazing first-time reactions to this film I have ever seen. She figured out everything on the first try.
Well, she was "elevated" so maybe that helped!
She did it the right way, high af. That's how I always watch this movie with ppl for the first time. Whenever I've shown it to ppl sober, they're bored. When I let em smoke then watch, they looooove it and connect all the dots.
"I ain't about to drink peas."
C'mon Ashleigh, give peas a chance!
Okay, that's funny.
Reported!
I saw it at a theater when it first came out. I was 18 and it baffled the shit out of me. Every 10 years or so I would watch it again and each time I understood a little more. It wasn't until I turned 50 in 2001 , that I finally got to where Ashleigh got in one viewing . My congratulations to her for being so hip and cool. This movie is still futuristic after 5o+ years.
i think the theory i like best is that the reason the AI betrayed them was because it had a guess about what the monolith was (giving great knowledge and intelligence to anyone who touches it) and wanted that knowledge for itself
So you are 72yo?
@@papalaz4444244 hard to believe? Old people weren't always old
Same with me. I first saw it at around 15, and I thought it was it was boring and pretentious. But I watched it again about 10 years later and started to appreciate it. Then I watched it a third time another 10 years after then and recognised its genus. It's now one of my favourite films.
I guess that means Kubrick was 50 years ahead of his time.
This was the most amazing reaction I have ever seen to one of the greatest artistic sci-fi movies of all time. Ashleigh, you are a treasure. Never change.
Ashleigh the “lets talk about it” segment was so impressive.
There are so many different ways to interpret this movie… but rarely does a person construct a whole plausible and original understanding of this movie the first time they see it.
I love this movie, and the first time I saw it I didn’t understand it at all.
I’ve been watching these for years, and this is by far her best reaction; unexpectedly moving.
100%, more than any other of her reactions, it reminds me of her reaction to Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), a movie which owes an obvious debt to this one. 2001: a Space Odyssey is my favorite film of all time, and I was dreading her not liking it. How completely delightful to find out just how wrong I was!
You know I've seen this movie many times but it never occurred to me that that black screen at the beginning was the monolith. Very cool.
Halfway through I was going to suggest Ashleigh watch 2010 because it covers some of the same ground in a more user-friendly way, with things a little more spelled out, if it's answers you seek. But from her end reaction she really seemed to dig the ambiguity.
"You've spent your whole life searching for this thing, and the moment you can put your finger on it, you start over." Wow.
The black screen at the beginning with the eerie music was just to give a sense of unease to the cinema, IMHO. It does such an excellent job of it, too.
Despite what Sharksupporter1 said, it is a very well known interpretation that the screen at the beginning is meant to represent the monolith.
Some folks think it's also supposed to represent the film screen itself, as the film is attempting to act in the same way as the monolith and usher those exposed to it to a greater understanding.
Yeah, I had a brief "mind blown" moment when she made the black screen connection. A quick Wikipedia visit tells me that 2001 was filmed for a 2.2:1 aspect ratio. That's almost exactly the dimensions of the largest surface of the monolith, 9:4 or 2.25:1. There were in-story reasons for the monolith to have its dimensions (the squares of the first three positive integers), but I'd never appreciated this clever cinematic choice by Kubrick to echo and amplify that shape before the audience even knows what they're looking at. Well done, Ashleigh!
@@adarnnit well Sharksupporter1 is correct too in that the opening acts as an Overture, a holdover from stage plays that I have seen in a few older movies. It's music to play while the audience is getting settled that helps set the tone for the play to follow. But Kubrick has wisely given it a double purpose. The screen is our monolith taking us to another world.
@@FanboyFilms Sharksupporter1 said "The black screen at the beginning with the eerie music was just to give a sense of unease to the cinema, IMHO."
The operative word being "just". They are wrong in that it is "just" that. I never said that their interpretation wasn't also valid.
Girl! You killed it! Your review of this - the best sci-fi movie of all time was spot on! First view and you totally got it!!! Congratulations! Just realize how advanced this was for it’s time. No CGI, no special effects, just incredible models, artwork, direction and camera work. There are some excellent documentaries on how Kubrick did it all that will simply amaze you. Welcome to the 2001 Space Oddessy rabbit hole.
10:55 and the fact that the movie was released in 1968 and some of these shots still hold up really well tells how talented Kubrick was at the time.
The shots of the Earth were pure speculation since no photos of the Earth existed before 1969. Amazing.
@@Brakdayton I was actually surprised by this claim, so I went on google and found a Wikipedia article titled "Timeline of first images of Earth from space", which shows plenty of images of the Earth that were captured well before 1968. That said, many of the pictures were taken just prior to film's release so it probably was a lot more groundbreaking at the time for the audience to see this imagery than it is now.
@@guest1754 I’m learning something new too! I didn’t know that. I’ll check those out. Thanks.
The man was intense, but you gotta respect his dedication and imagination.
@@guest1754 I believe that, when Kubrick was shooting the film, he didn't have access to any of those pictures, so once they came out he was pretty happy that they looked pretty close.
The iconic bone tossed into the air , to spaceship transformation is still one of the best images in movie history
Not just a spaceship, but a missile platform (although it's hard to tell with how quickly it appears). Millions of years of evolution, and much of what we accomplished was making better weapons!
@@elizadennison7433 Little things like that make me want to send her a copy of the novel (which spells out that element of the story, among others), although she says she doesn't read.
For a movie that was made in 1968. The special effects in this movie was way ahead of its time, It is a great movie
So true!!
And obviously all practical effects...no CGI
@Brad1980 Writing started in '64. Filming started in '65 and was finished in '67.
Principal photography began on 29 December 1965.
The film premiered on 2 April 1968
There isn't even any debate about this. As soon as Dr. Strangelove finished Kubrick started work on this, Meeting Arthur C Clark in April '64. Photography began on 29th of December '65. He finished with the actors in Sept' 67 and finished the special effects In March '68.
Read Clarkes' "The Lost Worlds of 2001", Which includes some details about the making of the movie.
Best reaction you've ever done! Also, so awesome that you understood so much of the undertones and suggestive imagery - some people spend years watching it and never truly get it. High five.
I was just thinking I've clearly always watched this movie wrong. It took at least three watching for me to get to where Ashley did the first time around. LOL
High five? VERY HIGH FIVE !!! 🙂
I'm impressed!!! I initially watched your reaction out of curiosity. Then I was more intrigued when you said you was going to watch it under the influence. But the fact you GOT IT OFF OF ONE VIEWING IS IMPRESSIVE! By the way, this movie came out in the 60's and was a hit because of the fact the people that watched it were under the influenced too.
I can't imagine anyone walking out of this movie in the late 60's. The cinematography and effects were so much better than anything done at the time. Thanks for making this reaction. I really enjoyed it.
A feature film budget would do that. lol I can only begin to imagine what the FX would've been like on the original 1966 Star Trek had they had a film budget. haha
Well, most of the SFX artists who worked on 2001 went on to do the revolutionary work in the 1970's. Set designers, and other people who work on Star Wars started on this film as well. The industry people who worked on this set the bar for future big budget Special Effects in future films. So much so, the industry refers to it as the "Class of 2001." People like Douglas Trumbull who worked on Close Encounters and Silent Running as well as Brainstorm got their start working this film. Trumbull came up with the slit scan process to produce the "Trip effects" at the latter part of the film. Sadly, Kubrick ordered all the models and sets destroyed at the end of production because he didn't want the work appearing in other films later like Forbidden Planet, another big budget Science Fiction film in the 1950's. The Moon lander survives because the modelmaker saved it, but I don't know of any other one.
@@ChrissonatorOFL Strange you would say that as, Gary Lockwood who played Frank Poole (the astronaut on the spacewalk killed by HAL) went on to play Gary Mitchell in the second Star Trek pilot shortly after his work on this film.
Fun fact. This was the first Sci Fi movie that showed a space ship that was not a rocket with wings or shaped like a saucer. Mind blowing (in the 60's and that was hard to do :)
It's still one of the most beautifully shot films ever in my opinion.
Ok. Props. When I saw what you were reacting to I said to myself “This movies has ZERO chance with this girl”. Color me wrong. And shocked! WELL DONE!
Exactly! I thought she’d be bored to tears with the pace of this movie!
@@doplinger1 Same, every Ex I've shown this movie to fell asleep... I guess hence "exes"
Guilty as charged. I guess Ashley went on the Odyssey and transcended our expectations...
maybe she's like rain man? i was pleasantly surprised as well.
The sequel to this film, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, was made in 1984. It is a completely different movie, which answers a bunch of questions this one left us with. It is kind of forgotten, today, but is really worth watching in its own right. Take a look at it.
FYI, Ashleigh, I've never seen this movie "elevated", but I still understand it. The alien monoliths were directly pushing human evolution forward, from the apes changing to homo habilus to Dave achieving a new consciousness to the point that he can see through time. The movie is still amazing to look at, like all of Kubrick's work. Three other Kubrick films you need to see are Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange & Full Metal Jacket.
Clockwork Orange is my favorite Kubrick, but I think the first 45 minutes might be too challenging for Ashleigh.
There’s also a sequel-not a sequel in artistic spirit, but a straight movie version of Arthur C. Clarke’s sequel book-1984’s “2010: the Year We Make Contact”, where a new mission sets out to salvage what happened to the Discovery. I wouldn’t say it answers EVERY question, but it helps with a few.
In my opinion it is a better movie too (one of my all time favorites)
I love 2010 and sad that not enough people give it credit. Far from the masterpiece of 2001, but a more straighfoward digestion of Arthur C Clarke idea of first contact with the spirit of Stanley in Art direction and flare. Its a great sci-fi movie to help digest and expand on the overwhelming questions of 2001. I for one hold them on equal regard of separate categories on the same ideas. .
@Ashliegh Burton - But if you watch 2010, please don't be stoned
@@stiimuli Typo, meant to type 2010. I'm ashamed to of accidentally equated Ronald Emmirich nonsense to these movies.
@@Urugami45 Yes. 2010 presents real questions that deserve clear thought
This film is just stunning. Think hard about what the world was like in 1967, when this hit cinemas. 1967 was the year IBM invented the floppy disk. The first commercial microprocessor wasn't released until 1971. The Apollo moon landings didn't happen until 1969. Yet here's this grand masterpiece film, with video phone calls, with the Discovery crew using tablet computers, with HAL being artificial intelligence, with there being manned moon bases in 2000, with there being a manned mission to Jupiter by 2001. What vision, what optimism!
Wouldn't it be amazing if the space race hadn't petered out following the Apollo missions. This film happened before those landings happened, and expected the space race to carry on, and the technological advances the space race brought forward to continue at the same rate. It didn't count on the space race more-or-less ending when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The real sci-fi vision behind this film was scientist and legendary sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke. If you like sci-fi and like reading books, there are some amazing ones in his bibliography, including the novelization of this movie - well worth a read.
Ashleigh, this is the first time that I've visited your channel. Just as you maybe weren't sure what would unfurl at first with this film, I wasn't sure how I'd take to your reaction. You really impressed me with your engagement with this atypically-structured and bold film, and you were absolutely spot-on with your anticipations of what might transpire as it went along. Your grasp of the film's meanings for a first-time view was fantastic and so satisfying to watch. 2001 is a film (for those drawn to it in the first place) that folks revisit to view periodically when the experience it can supply is needed.
I watched this for years without picking up a fraction of what Ashleigh picked up. She "got it" immediately with the music and imagery. I expected confusion. Instead, I got my first experience of seeing someone completely understand this film on 1st view.
As a Baby Boomer who saw 2001 in a theater at age 12, it took me years to fully process the meaning of the film. You figured it out on the first viewing!😊
I didn't get it the first time either. I guess we should have gotten stoned first.
Ashleigh is an absolute genius.
I guess that all our exposure to many movies that take elements from this one in certain way prepare us to understand better this film. Many of us watched a ton of space films before the 2001 film, but watching this film after only having watch bad 50s-60s sci-fi is very different.
I am a Gen Xer who caught it on HBO, blew my mind!
Hell, I read thr book and it still took me time to process te movie.
Like so many of the other commenters here, I am absolutely floored that our dear, sweet Ashleigh, who portrays herself as a typical southern rube (no offense, that what I am as well), has grasped the meaning of one of the most deeply philosophical and esoteric films ever made in a single viewing! I knew you were smart and intuitive from many of you other posts, but this reaction has blown me away! Ashleigh, you are truly a goddess of mental acuity and understanding. I am so grateful to have subscribed to your channel. You are really special, and I pray that you know that. Bless you and all that you love.
Great pick up Ashleigh, for recognising the monolith aiding our ancestors in making tools! I doubt many audiences understood the significance of this scene, where a femur becomes a bone hammer and a club, on first viewing.
The alien intelligence behind the monolith seems to want to help uplift our species and most probably others. It literally just appears out of nowhere amongst the sleeping hominins and after influencing the new client species I assume it vanishes just as swiftly, so it may be the same artefact in each of the appearances. However, since the latter two were buried at the same time as the appearance of the first I assume our alien benefactors place all three at around the same time, under what conditions I don't know.
The number of social and technological "filters" we had to pass through as a species to leave our planet seems to be the alien's prerequisite for it sharing the information necessary to reach the next step. Though my understanding of what the obstacles were to reach the third monolith isn't as well defined, I'm sure there are lots of holes in it.
Pretty sure the epidemic mentioned on the moonbase was a smoke screen to hide their discovery from the Soviets; and whilst I agree an epidemic is an immediate threat we have survived them in the past. Whereas, the unknown represented by the monolith has far-reaching ramifications that could very well lead to extinction.
HAL's mind is programmed using our logic, but without the benefit of human intuition or common sense, and is then given a task its mind can't reconcile through reason alone. A lot of sci-fi regarding artificial intelligence is influenced by Isaac Asimov's Robots series, which often showed the pitfalls of giving a computer conflicting directives through "the three laws of robotics". In this instance, we can assume that HAL was ordered to prioritise mission success over the crew and maintaining the ship's functions since it didn't get trapped in an irreconcilable logic loop and decided to disable communications and kill the crew.
I also think you reasoned your way through the third encounter in orbit of Jupiter very well. I think the third monolith triggered a change in Bowman that his brain struggled to interpret until he made the association with the room, which I assume is symbolic rather than physical. But inside that concept time and space lost their meaning as he experienced the rest of his life in an eternity of moments, before being reborn onto the next step as the star child.
They made a sequel to this:2010-The Year We Made Contact. It answers some of the questions about 2001. It has been preserved by The National Film Archives as one of the greatest movies of all time.
One of my all time favourites. I love that it doesn't treat it audience like an idiot, and actually challenges you to think about why things happened the way they did. Its not just a movie...its art.
True, true!
Exactly. You don't watch 2001, you experience it.
I don't like the way it has so little diversity, though. I expected more from Kubrick.
@@trhansen3244 Diversity, in 1968? Hmmm I don't think you can blame Kubrick alone.
@@trhansen3244 You're not allowed to judge the past by today's standards.
You're ability to pick up this movie and get into it so seamlessly is honestly impressive. It's one of the best sci-fi films ever made, made by one of the greatest directors ever, but also one of the most confusing. Glad to see you enjoyed it so much.
Well done Ashleigh, reacting to this challenging masterpiece. Seeing, and hearing, this in 1969 as a kid in the cinema was a stunning experience, spoiling me for life with its quality and vision.
I hope to see you doing more of these classic movies.
Loved this review! I'm so happy you enjoyed the score. All of the music in the soundtrack pre-existed the film. The weird, dissonant anxiety-inducing choir music was a piece by Gyorgy Ligeti called "Lux Aeterna." The piece was about two years old when "2001" was released.
Love that Ligeti piece.
“I’m gonna watch 2001: A Space Odyssey”
There is no way Ashleigh’s gonna enjoy this.
“But I’m gonna watch it elevated.”
Oh damn, Ashleigh’s gonna love this.
It's definitely a great way to watch this film.
You don't need to watch this on drugs, she got bad advice.
Ashleigh, you are so much more intuitive than I was the first time I saw this film. Most people don’t understand that the silences are just as important as the dialogue. I am so happy you, not only understood the nuances, but saw the beauty of the music too!!
Alfred Hitchcock said "what you dont see on the screen is far more important than what you do" ... to create suspense. In these days of movies flooded with CGI it is hard to make people understand that "creating impressions in people's heads" is far more effective than "telling them precisely what happens".
Ashleigh is mostly wrong though with her "statements of what things mean" ... because she is taking things literally.
This is my first time seeing you, and I so appreciate how you paid attention during this film. Your interpretation was very unique, and great fun to witness.
This is not only the best reaction to a movie that you've done, it is also the greatest reaction of all the reaction content I've ever seen from all other content creators. If there are content creator awards you should definitely win the top prize.
It was hilarious watching Ashleigh become increasing concerned about HAL becoming self-aware while she was becoming increasingly self-aware via her elevation 😄 I was very impressed that Ashleigh figured out the basic meaning of the plot, the 'force' that moves things along. A little historical context can clear up some of Ashleigh's questions about the movie. In 1968 the American Apollo Space Program had already orbited men around the moon, and were on the verge of landing men there. Thus, the average public was extremely interested in the movie. My whole boy scout troop went to see it, if that gives you an idea of the cultural phenomena the movie was. And seeing it was mind blowing! This was the first time in cinema history where the special effects, that we've all come to take for granted, ACTUALLY LOOKED REAL. Kubrick was a genius. Ashleigh, keep up the great work, attitude, and insight.
Here, Here, 👏👏👏
Elevation? I've never seen that word used in this context before. No idea what you mean. How did she elevate herself?
@@catrionacolville2192 It's a euphemism, cos she can't say the actual word here on CZcams. She was artificially "elevated" [wink wink] while watching this movie, as recommended by some supporters of the channel. It's kinda why Ashleigh said stuff like she was scared about her computers becoming self-aware (a bit paranoid).
@@hedgehog1965uk You mean she took recreational drugs? I didn't think she was like that. Kind of disappointing tbh.
@@catrionacolville2192 If you watch Ashleigh's introduction from around 0:48 again, now knowing what she is talking about, it should make more sense to you second time around. Each to their own. I have to admit I was a bit surprised. I've only heard her calling this particular substance "the devil's lettuce" before, but wasn't sure if she ever actually partook herself. Personally, I tried it with a girlfriend many years ago. It was interesting, but it's not really my thing. I'm not going to judge Ashleigh, but I also won't judge you for judging her, as you clearly have certain feelings about it. I hope it won't put you off watching her entertaining and honest videos.
You really nailed what's so fun about this movie for me. I love speculating, theorizing, coming up with my own interpretation on literary and artistic works, and this movie lends itself to that so well. You trying to decipher the meaning of this movie was the exact same process I went through (although I wasn't elevated lol).
I'm glad Stoned Ashleigh loved this movie so much! I just hope Sober Ashleigh feels the same way, haha! 😂
I have to forget that I saw the sequel and just watch the movie for itself. Must say Ashleigh came up with some pretty deep stuff.
@@MichaelJohnson-vi6eh Right. 2010 explained too much. 2001 was meant for the audience to personally discern the meanings. And Ashley's interpretation of the movie was awesome.
I enjoyed 2010, but you definitely have to watch it second.
So happy you enjoyed this Ashleigh. It is a masterpiece and maybe one of the most challenging movies ever made. When you think about Arthur C Clarke writing it and Kubrick making it in 1967-68 WITHOUT Green screens and CGI, you have to marvel (sorry about the pun) at it. Clarke wrote another 3 books (2010, 2061, 3001) and all were good but 3001 is my favourite. Mixture of technology, evolution and intelligence combine to challenge just like 2001 did. 2001 was so far ahead of its time, it's a miracle it was made. Could not be made now with Studios run by accountants.
Not only didn't he have green screens and CGI, he also didn't have that much older material to borrow ideas from. Many things we see in this movie were seen here for the first time, and then other sci-fi movies repeated them so much we take them for granted now.
@@matushorvath 100%. A couple of true geniuses at work. Just think of those revolving sets to show artificial gravity. I still quibble about the helmet off return to Discovery (would have boiled his blood instantly) but it is a masterpiece. Can't wait to see what Denis Villeneuve does with "Rendezvous with Rama"
Look how far she's come, to watch a movie like 2001 and completely vibe with it. Well done! Well done!
I'll be completely honest. I saw this come up in my notifications and I was SO READY for you to be bored by it - which I would have understood, but been mildly disappointed.
It makes my heart flutter with such unbridled joy to see you fall in love with 2001. For such an old and heavily referenced science fiction film about existentialism, it doesn't get nearly enough love in the yt reactor space.
But that ending discussion is exactly what I love about this film, and you're totally right. There's so much to love here - the music, the narrative, the special effects (stunning for 1968 and still hold up incredibly! I'd definitely recommend watching a few breakdowns sometime, they're fascinating.) All of it leads into an incredible experience.
As far as scifi films set in outer space, another one Ashleigh might like is 2009's Moon with Sam Rockwell.
Ashleigh, the into music before the MGM logo, the Intermission and the outro music were common with the long, big event movies back then. I'm glad you liked this one. You may enjoy the sequel as well. Released in 1984, "2010: The Year We Make Contact". It's more a straightforward space adventure, with a bit of Cold War unrest included. It does answer a few questions posed here about HAL and why Jupiter is important.
Yup, it's an overture.
The music would play before the movie, to set the tone, while people were finding their seats at the cinema. For some movies the overture would play again at the end while people left their seats.
Back then theaters usually did it in this order:
1. Music plays (Ouverture)
2. Lights go out
3. Curtains open
4. Picture shows (Studio Logo)
Repeat after Intermission.
That was a leftover from classic concerts and operas, and this movie is probably one of the last that still did it this way.
Btw, the logo of this movie has been altered from the usual MGM lion roar to a more modern looking variant ("It's Beans!")
@@Cau_No Movie overtures have been a part of cinematic history from 1926 through to 2015. Most of these movies have the overtures removed for TV, home media, and streaming services, so most people aren't aware that an overture existed for most of the movies that had them.
Back in the day... movie theaters showed 2 movies with cartoons, news reels and mini movies ( 3 stooges shorts) between movies. Think Roger rabbit. And no set start stop time so you could enter/leave in muddle ov movie... so think an cartoon ended and to set you in mindset to see this they started with a black theater and music.
I just came across your channel yesterday with your TMNT reaction and thought I'd check out another. You did AWESOME! Not many people actually understand what this movie is about but you nailed it! I'm definitely watching some of your other videos now 😊
Well, I've watched your reaction for the 4th time. I just love the way your mind works, your the only reviewer of this film that understood what was going on while you were watching it.
I watched this when it came out at the cinema, I was so hooked that I made my family stay in the cinema and watch though to the space station scene, but then they wanted to go home :D
The music and black screen at the beginning is an "overture." They used to do that a lot back in the day, especially if it was a big production like this. When people went to see this, it's what would be playing as the audience was coming in and taking their seats. An overture would usually consist of music from, or based on, the music from the film score, played over a title screen or some other thematic artwork. Eventually, somebody realized that they could use that time to play trailers for other movies and the overture just sort of died out.
Related to that is the "intermission." That was in place so people could have a chance to get up and go pee. Especially important if it's a long movie.
The intermission really should be brought back for longer movies.
I would defiantly recommend watching 2010 as well, it adds interesting context to some of the things that occurred in 2001. Also if you haven't seen it you should definitely check out Arrival, it's a modern scifi masterpiece in my opinion and gives you 2001 vibes.
This was such a great reaction. The fact that you got so much right about the story and found so much meaning in something like the score is awesome. I've watched this movie with people that had no clue what the monoliths connection with anything even was. This video is a lot of fun.
'What moves time along?........... I gotta take a nap'
I can actually see your mind spinning trying to take in what you've just witnessed. Brilliant Ashley. Best reaction yet by a mile. And very perceptive. Most people seeing this for the first time are just baffled.
3:15 The fact that you didn't get the urge to say, "It's Beans!" shows why MGM went back to their more familiar vanity plate almost immediately after this film's release.
You should eventually watch _2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)._ It's not Kubrickian art like 2001, but it is definitely an engrossing sci-fi thriller with a stellar cast.
I like the 2010 book, but the movie is far inferior to 2001. And aged badly with too much emphasis on the cold war and the absence of the Chinese mission only makes it worse (in the book, Russia and USA were cooperating because China was getting there first. Well, they also missed the end of communism). Another annoying thing is that it is very hard to notice that the guy traveling to the moon is the same character that is the protagonist of the 2010's rescue mission. Fun fact: I watched 2010 for the first time in a drive-in, and they were very uncommon in my country and pretty much inexistent now.
And it does answer some of the questions left unanswered in the first one.
2010 was much easier to understand, and explained some of the mysteries of the first movie.
@@alexandretorres5087 The actor in 2001 who played Dr. Floyd was not available to reprise his role in 2010, so they cast Roy Scheider to take the role. I did like that they brought back Douglas Rain as HAL and Kier Dullea as David Bowman, and he hadn't really aged much at all.
I won't say any more as I don't want to spoil anything for Ashleigh.
I saw this in a movie theater maybe 10 or 15 years after it first came out and although I think I’d seen it originally on TV (maybe; not sure), it was a real trip, and I wasn’t elevated. It took multiple viewings and some reading to understand the latter section of the film for me, so kudos to you for getting it on first viewing, but seeing this is a theater really is the ideal way to see it. If you ever have a chance to see this in a theater (especially in 70mm), don’t deny yourself the experience. It really is amazing to see this on a big screen.
Many viewers of this movie have tried to explain it (especially the ending). Yours is the best I ever heard. I saw this movie in 1968 at a Cinerama theater on a HUMONGOUS screen. I was twelve at the time and I kept wondering - "If this is a science fiction movie, why all the freakin' monkeys??" In later years, I came to understand it and appreciate it the way you do.
"If the purpose of the music is to make me uncomfortable..." Darling-girl, the purpose of this whole damn movie is to make you uncomfortable!
Ashleigh, they actually made a sequel, that is just as good.
It's called 2010 and stars Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow and KEIR DULLEA.
Indeed. 2010 is really good and answers some questions from this film, like specifically what caused the crisis in HAL.
I do agree. 2010 is much less cryptical and more focussed on human relational and emotional aspects. The sequel made in 1984 has become relevant again looking at the state of the world of this day. It rounds up the cinematic experience of the first movie, perfectly. Finally, if you're feeling upset about HAL this is another good reason to watch 2010 - no spoilers here 🙂.
The only movies as good as this one are Citizen Kane, and Lawrence of Arabia..
And Douglas Rain!
I was a teenager when this came out, and to see it on the BIG SCREEN in all its pre-CGI-all-practical-effects splendor was a visual feast. The story took second place to the filmmaker's medium. Many went to see it in -shall we say- "enhanced" state of mind just for that optical treat. Only upon second or third viewing did the full over-arching story sink in. I interpreted it as saying that some extraterrestrials just zoomed by one day a million years ago, but had no time to stick around and wait for developments, so they left "teaching machines" behind to give early man a leg up. Then, when they grew up and were advanced enough to dig up their signaling device on the moon; hey! it was time to bring them over for a meet-and-greet. Pull the astronaut through a wormhole (trippy, yes?) and set up a nice place he'd be comfortable in so he could live out his whole life while being prepared for the next phase of evolution to the Star-Child. Excellent reaction! Wonderful to rewatch this classic through fresh eyes.
This has been my favourite film since I was 9 years old, and every time I watch it, I find new meanings. It is one of the few films in the history of cinema to truly transcend the form - its storytelling is unconventional and if one approaches it like a traditional film it would be easy to find it plodding and pointless, but what it truly achieves is something far more remarkable - a profound portrait of the human condition and our search for meaning in an infinite universe that owes us no meaning and feels often indifferent. Above all, the ending seeks to evoke something deep within us all, a feeling that is somehow eerily familiar, like a lost memory, but which we can't quite grasp or explain in words. The film doesn't change, but we do, and in never providing us with answers, it endures and serves as a gateway to endless questions.
Baked Ashleigh is brilliant. You certainly ‘elevated’ this review.
Successful experiment.
I was actually anxious if you'd like this movie as it's story isn't straight forward or fed to us easily, but I'm glad you liked it. I really hope you'll give *2010: The Year We Make Contact* a look. It's more... "traditional" in Hollywood terms, not quite the trip Kubrik takes us on here, but I think it's a good fun Sci-fi movie in it's own right, and knowing this film helps so much in understanding the events that happen in 2010.
Understanding the events according to their interpretation. Arthur C Clark had nothing to do with it and Stanley Kubrick had nothing to do.
@@grosbeak6130 Clark just wrote the book, that's all
Why? Film is subjective
It does live in the world of the Cult Classics. Welcome to Stanley Kubrick's world
@grosbeak6130
🤣 Go pout. Clarke had everything to do with 2010.
Oops, you deleted your follow-up comment/tantrum.
The 'Processing' stare Ashleigh did from 36:42 to 36:50 said it all
so, i literally just watched this movie for the first time and i did not expect to see that you had already made a video of you reviewing it, and i was just binge watching your videos today and i did not see this before... the algorithm gods of the universe have blessed me. I had the exact same experience with the movie. ART.
SO glad you like it. Being open to interpretation was exactly what Stanley wanted from this and many of his movies - he hated certainty and relished ambiguity. And given Toschi's advice, you will freak when if you read this little story but it's 100% true - honestly. I used to work for a UK photographic retailer in 1995 and we had a telephone call from Kubricks personal assistant Tony Frewin wanting to order a newly released Minolta Camera. I recognised the address we had to courier it to as being Stanleys manor house in Hertfordshire and we cheekily asked if it was for him. Mr Frewin confirmed that it was and that Stanley was actually sat next to him. Then we took our chance and asked if he was able to explain what the ending of the movie actually means. His answer - which he shouted out to us - was: *"Take whatever stimulant is your personal choice, sit and watch the movie then whatever you feel it means to you - that's what it means."* So well done for the advice Toschi as you echoed the great man's instruction and well done Ash for taking on a movie which isn't for everyone but is SO good if you do "get it".
That is an amazing story!
EPIC
I gotta say it! Elevated Ashley is next level hilarious. "Stop watching me. I can feel all your eyes." 🤣🤣🤣
My favorite moment is when HAL is trying to discuss the mission with David Bowman. Bowman dismisses HAL's concerns. Then there's a pause, followed by HAL saying "There's a problem." And HAL's villain phase begins.
Watched a few of your reviews today, thanks, they're great. Saw 2001 in its first release in 70mm on a cinerama screen - mind blowing. The music at the start was the overture, house lights down, curtain closed and lit. I was a teen and a little too young for hallucinogens - that came a couple of years later at a rerelease screening- but there were people tripping in the front rows. Visually, for a sci fi/fantasy, it really wasn't surpassed until Star Wars a decade later. A movie for the mind.
Your ability to interpret the visual medium is incredible!
This movie is insane. You should watch the documentary of how they filmed it, because in the mid 60s nothing like this movie existed anywhere. They used these crazy special projectors to make that IPad thing Dave has work and display multiple different images on the same tablet. The lighting too. In an era before LeD lights, they used literal thousands of lights below the floor of the fancy house to get that effect. The set was over 100 degrees from all the lights.
Yes and the floating pen in the beginning was such a basic effect, it was just stuck to a sheet of glass.
@@3DJapan Yeah and it still took a ton of takes to get right lol.
This movie is such a trip, I'm so glad you enjoyed it! Honestly, this might be your most hilarious review ever, and that's saying something! 😂
I've always loved this movie, it's more experiential art than traditional movie. But it was SO influential and groundbreaking for its time, nothing had been made like it. I think the sparing use of music/background noise plus the very slow pace contributed to the feeling of "uneasiness" that pervaded throughout. I absolutely love the use of classical music and the art direction is just exquisite. My dad loves this film so much, he set his computer startup, shutdown and error sounds to HAL quotes. 😋 One thing that also sets this film apart from other scifi -- there were no mechanical or rocket noises during the exterior space scenes because there's no noise in space! Just one detail that astronomers and space geeks appreciate.
Anyway, super impressed with your interpretation, they made a sequel in the '80s called 2010 that explains more about HAL and his motivations, but not nearly as good a film, IMHO. Kubrick is definitely a master!
I love that, once the hippies went to see it in droves, it actually was sold as "The Ultimate Trip".
This movie reaction was a such a trip. It is always nice to see when someone sees rainbows and can handle it with out freaking out.
Honestly those space station scenes having been made in 1968 still blow my mind. It's SO ahead of its time that it almost feels like cheating somehow.
When i saw 2001 it definitely made an impression on me. When i saw 2010 it did not make much of an impression. Don't remember much about it except that Roy Schneider starred in it.
The slow pace was intentional so that the audience could soak up the amazing visuals with the futuristic depictions in space - it was a totally new experience in 1968. But the avant garde, eerie music and long pauses also created great suspense. By today's standards, it's too slow a pace for many, but for those who love art, metaphor/ symbolism, and deep thinking, it's a masterpiece of filmmaking, especially for the time in which it was made.
Ashleigh, you're my favourite movie reviewer and it's not even close at the moment. I wasn't sure you'd enjoy this one. I am absolutely blown away at how you were able to interpret this complicated movie so fast. You're no movie newb anymore!
Love this reaction. You are really getting this movie, Ashley! This was so ahead of its time. I love the whole atmosphere of the movie. I actually bought the soundtrack album and play it from time to time, just for the atmosphere.
Ashleigh's reaction to this movie was surprising she did better than me when I first watched it She picked up on everything way to go Ashleigh your smart!!!!!
I didn't know I needed this, but turns out spaced out Ashleigh is _exactly_ what I needed in my life :D
I saw this as a small child in a London cinema in the 70's, we walked there in the snow & on the way we spoke about how we'd heard it was better than Star Wars. Everyone in the cinema seemed to hate it, we did as well, quite a few people got up & walked out, I think we lasted until the end, just in case it made sense by then, it didn't! We walked home in the snow & ice horribly disappointed & then we saw a massive fireball streak across the sky, no on knew what it was, but it as one weird day ;-).
This movie has to be one of the most analyzed movies of all time, yet people keep watching it, finding new meanings. Truly one of a kind experience.
"There's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and then there are other films."
- CinemaTyler.
Truer words have never been uttered or read in this case.
I asked myself, “How has Ashleigh never even heard of one of the most famous movies ever made?”
“…and then how was she able to give such an insightful analysis of something she was completely unfamiliar with just hours before?”
Then I remembered:
13:33
I'm missing something. What happened? She started acting weird after that. She said she took too many of something, but I'm not sure what she's talking about.
@@catrionacolville2192 PCP, obviously.
The optimal way to view most movies
This was made in 1968, when the space program was it its height. We got to the moon in 1969. The meaning of this movie was probably the most discussed topic at parties in 1968 lol. The sequel, which was made in 1984, is called 2010 and while it's a more conventional, "smaller" movie, it's worth your time and answers some questions.
Ashleigh perfectly explained this movie! 😃
When she said she got elevated, at first, I thought she meant the movie or the monolith elevated her. 😂
I was like, "Woo, Ash got so involved, she got Evolved." 😂
Great Video! 😃
"I gotta take a nap" slayed me.🤣 I'm thuroughly impressed by how you processed this movie 1st time through. And people say that the devil's lettuce makes people dumb.🙄 What a crock. As an old guy who's seen this movie numerous times, I 100% agree with every aspect of your opinion of this movie. And, you're hilarious when you're "elevated". 5/5⭐
Stanley Kubrick's soundtracks have always been amazing. Like they are a character.
And after all the years. 2010 was an awesome followup with a ton of nods to this original and literally answers a lot of your questions.
It was indeed. (But personally, I am glad that the other two books wern't filmed. They wern't that good.)
@@florianhoppe4159 100% agreed. You might be able (with a LOT of rewriting) to film a good version of 2063. But 3001? No way you can polish that turd.
@@exile220ify What personally disappointed me the most that, besides the Space Elevator and "Reactionless Drives", there was no felt difference between the "World" in 2063 and 3001. And the story was such a bore. (Though: I heard that it was once planned to film it with Tom Hanks as Buck Rog... ehh... Frank Poole. Though, that was along time ago and he's far too old now...')
"Astrodome? You can't grow a good hot dog indoors! Yankee Stadium. September. The hot dogs have been boiling since opening day in April. Now that's a hot dog."
What was really interesting about 2010 as a sequel is that it really is absolutely nothing like 2001 and still works extremely well. The soundtrack doesn't have anywhere near the gravitas and presence as almost another character, and (thankfully really) they did not try to make it a Kubrick movie. It manages to tell a compelling story that is well acted, it integrates further evolving the human experience, and while being so different really integrates seamlessly with the first movie. Interestingly I do think it does a good job of using atmospheric sounds and visual cues to create tension and express emotions without words, something Kubrick was a master at, and I think that really helps the movie feel somewhat like 2001. Is 2010 even remotely the seminal, groundbreaking work that 200q was? Not even close. Still a really good movie.
What a fun reaction! I'm so glad you liked this film. It's pretty mind-bending & trippy. Just think - this was made before Star Wars!
I hope you'll also watch the sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact" as it provides some answers and resolution.
I'm a big fan of 2010. It's a much more conventional style, so you can watch it sober....
@@WolvesPlaysGames "Those sons of bitches. I didn't know. _I didn't know!_ "
2010 is much more conventional, it answers questions, 2001 poses them. They're not in the same league.
@@xheralt”Will I dream?”
Almost 10 years before "Star Wars" and these are still some of the best VFX of all time, and all practical. One of the greatest sci-fi films of all time (although, admittedly, I could do with about a minute or so less in the Stargate). Great reaction, Ashleigh!
The tagline on the original 1968 poster was "The Ultimate Trip." That is how it was marketed. And it was very successful. In 1968 it made about 57 million dollars; that is the equivalent to 479 million in 2022. Now, that you have seen the movie, I promise you, you will see references to this movie in commercials, TV shows, other movies, all over the place. Like The Wizard of Oz it is quoted all the time. And I have seen it twice in the big screen, last time in 2019 in an IMAX screen. It is remarkable. I am very happy you liked it, and wrestled with what it means!
And yet it cost so much to make that it didn’t turn an official profit until well into the ‘70s!
The Trailer and Poster were trying for that counter culture Audience of that time
Like fine wine 🍷 this film only improves
Great review. Glad you liked it! This movie is a masterpiece and the marketing was a simple "The Ultimate Trip." Thank you for presenting 2001 in its correct widescreen aspect ratio.
Wow. I am so impressed how you took this challenge on and dissected the real meaning from such an abstract film. Bravo. 2001 is perhaps the greatest sci-fi film ever made, but it doesn't spoon feed you dialog....it forces you to THINK. And you figured it out beautifully.
You'll now have to check out the sequel 2010 (1984). It's more of a traditional movie that has a lot of explanations about the first. So glad you enjoyed it!
I expect you’ll be highly disappointed with 2010. It doesn’t compare at all with 2001.
@@kennewton9369 2010 is a fantastic movie.............sober
@@kennewton9369Well, that’s one thing that I might actually like about it.