2001: Űrodüsszeia

Egy látnok életnézete, filmes képekkel és zenével kifejezve, sci-fi műfaj környezetében. A tematikai skála abszolút széles, a gondolkodás születésétől és a saját személyiség tudatosításától az emberiség kezdetén egészen a mesterséges intelligencia uralmának fenyegető veszélyéig, amelyet egy fejlett civilizáció jelent a jövőben. A film türelmes tempója találóan allegorizálja az ember életének hosszát, és a világegyetem mélységével és rejtélyességével összekapcsolva az egzisztenciális kérdéseire adott válaszok távolságát is. Kivéve azokat az elavult inverz szűrőket a táj fölötti záró áthaladásnál, egy csodálatosan örök időkre szóló dolog. A restaurált változat képvilága, amely a Project 100-nak köszönhetően érkezik a mozikba, tökéletes. (2014.04.03)

An extraordinary space ballet, mixed with a psychedelic trip to the galaxy's edges. Why is Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey a great film? Because it resisted the lure of the book and instead of parroting Clark's text, it became a kind of bizarre visual essay on the future, the universe and people. Kubrick's brilliance is also evidenced by the fact that today, when film is taking the path of "perfect imitation," its riveting game of shapes, colors and sounds does not lose any of its concern or suggestiveness. In my opinion, that is why A Space Odyssey does not age, because it is not a copy of a sci-fi original, but a supreme work of art that transcends the boundaries of the sci-fi genre. To today's viewer it may seem lazy, peaceful, anti-dramatic, but its real charm is toiling beneath the surface of the action. Bravo! This work walks in the footsteps of the best tradition of artistic fantasy... (2004.03.30)

I wonder if anybody will understand this without reading the book. Kubrick created something really weird from Clarke’s pure-blooded sci-fi. OK, it starts more or less the same, then it sort of jumps chapters and the ending of the book that I had considered important is somehow missing in this movie. The movie lacks the purpose that is quite well described in the book. The journey through space is presented differently. Instead of Saturn’s moons, we fly toward Jupiter instead. There are lots of differences that annoy me, but lots of things that exceeded my expectations. The black monolith and the nice-guy computer HAL 9000 remained the same. I have more or less arrived at the conclusion that it’s almost impossible to compare them due to certain characteristics that each media has. I think that what bothered me in places was the unnecessary drawn-outness, probably due to Kubrick’s fascination with the emptiness of space. It loses a star for a certain vividness in the first half that is due to the fact that the “future" occasionally comes across like the 1970s, on the other hand the movie is incredibly advanced and well-thought out. This is my purely subjective view of the movie and oldsters probably won’t share my view, but I’m just rather particular about this sort of thing. This is because the movie was years before its time. But this then meant that it set certain standards for the genre, so there you go... hrmph. (2009.07.12)

A film that gives you the impression that while you were watching it, you managed to have dinner, take several work calls and watch another film at the same time, because, strictly speaking, Space Odyssey has about 15 minutes of story stretched to two and a half hours. But that’d be a big mistake, because you’ll actually have to give the film at lot more time than its duration. This time, Kubrick didn’t disappoint me, maybe because before the screening I thought I would turn the film off because it’d be boring. I still can’t explain how it could entertain me so much, let alone make me feel like watching it again :) After A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket, I didn’t get Kubrick’s reputation of a genius filmmaker, now I do. That said, I can’t imagine how I could persuade someone who cares less than a lot about cinema to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. (2009.08.10)

There’s no point writing anything. Space Odyssey is insanely underrated, because its genius and timelessness lies in the fact that it laughs at common genre conventions in a way most of us regular folks will never allow, which is the very reason why I adore it. If we were trying to defend film as true art (which we certainly want to do), we should use Kubrick's masterpiece as an example. Welles may have his Citizen Kane, Fritz his Metropolis, and Coppola his flawless The Godfather..., but this is the only film that manages to evoke unadulterated viewer ecstasy and a sense of amazement through the imaginative use of basic filmmaking devices such as music, cinematography, sets, and now a dose of high quality visual effects (which are, by the way, utterly captivating for their time). Strauss's Waltz seems to have been composed just to underscore the amazing harmony of the weightless state, and the universe seems to really exist for the sole purpose of allowing Clarke and Kubrick to think about it and create their own and, in terms of filmmaking, the most epic human vision in history, in space, time and thought – at least that’s how I felt during those 140 minutes, although that big message doesn't seem incomprehensible after two screenings (unless I'm terribly mistaken, which perhaps the next screening will reveal). What I've realised for sure, though, is that the HAL computer is a beautiful caricature of Kubrick's work – except that Stanley never makes a mistake. (2022.08.31)