Humanity finds a mysterious, obviously artificial, object buried beneath the Lunar surface and, with the intelligent computer H.A.L. 9000, sets off on a quest.
Saying that "2001" is overrated is the sort of statement that can bring down hatred and vitriol from science fiction fans, Kubrick fans and more. Of course, it is possible to be a Kubrick fan and still generally dislike this film.
Nobody can deny that this film is visually stunning, and a landmark in imagery. It also has the advantage of being the last film about space travel to be released before the moon landing, making it somewhat prescient in a way.
But yet, does it need to be so long, so grand, with the music and long shots? Perhaps not quite "pretentious", but the film presents itself as being more important than it really is. Critics at the time (1968) denounced the film, and perhaps they were right. At the very least, two cuts could be made: a longer one for die-hard fans, and a shorter one for casual viewers.
Saying that "2001" is overrated is the sort of statement that can bring down hatred and vitriol from science fiction fans, Kubrick fans and more. Of course, it is possible to be a Kubrick fan and still generally dislike this film.
Nobody can deny that this film is visually stunning, and a landmark in imagery. It also has the advantage of being the last film about space travel to be released before the moon landing, making it somewhat prescient in a way.
But yet, does it need to be so long, so grand, with the music and long shots? Perhaps not quite "pretentious", but the film presents itself as being more important than it really is. Critics at the time (1968) denounced the film, and perhaps they were right. At the very least, two cuts could be made: a longer one for die-hard fans, and a shorter one for casual viewers.