Why 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY Is Still Sci-Fi's Top Movie

[erik]

It was 49 years ago this month, in April 1968, that director Stanley Kubrick's groundbreaking science fiction film 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was unleashed on a cinema-going public already weary from the social and political turbulence of the times. Here's a look at ten reasons why it remains the best film the science fiction genre ever produced to this day:

www.blastr.com/2017-4-28/10-reasons-2001-a-space-odyssey-still-greatest-sci-fi-movie-of-all-time

[the Scribe]

That's interesting.

I do have to admit that I didn't quite understand the movie at all when I saw it. Reading the book, assuming there is a book is often best to do before seeing the movie. Kubrick was one of a kind.

Is there anyone out there that is close to a Kubrick today?

[erik]

I think Spielberg is very close, even though he and Kubrick were perceived to be of opposite outlooks on humanity. And there's also Christopher Nolan (INTERSTELLAR), and Terence Mallick (DAYS OF HEAVEN).

But Kubrick was very unique in a way that I don't think the movie-going public necessarily understands or appreciates anymore. Auteurs like him are fewer and farther between (IMHO).

[Deleted]

Malick stands alone as a visual director today IMO, but no one comes close to Kubrick for visual and intellectual ideas...

[erik]

Quote by robertaxel:

Malick stands alone as a visual director today IMO, but no one comes close to Kubrick for visual and intellectual ideas...

A lot of Kubrick's intellectual method had to do with the fact that he was always a masterful chess player (having absolutely destroyed George C. Scott, who was no slouch either at chess, on the set of DOCTOR STRANGELOVE in 1963). But he also seemed to value a lot of his freedom and independence by living and working in England from the time he made LOLITA in 1961 until his death in 1999, though he never considered himself an "expatriate".

With respect to 2001, one must concede that the film's success owes a lot to the way he and Arthur C. Clarke collaborated on it. Kubrick's own intellectual fascination about the endless possibilities of life existing elsewhere in the cosmos were on par with those of Clarke, though (wisely, in my opinion), neither of them ever made the alien presence visible except in the form of the enigmatic black monoliths.

And while this film was so complex and so unlike any sci-fi film that came before it that it got some of the absolute worst reviews any film had ever gotten, before or since, clearly there were a lot of aspiring young filmmakers out there who saw 2001 and were sufficiently inspired, regardless of whether they veered into science fiction or not.  And it was only a matter of a few years before all the negative reviews got reversed.  As with almost any Kubrick film, 2001 needs to be seen many times for people to appreciate its many subtle and complex nuances (IMHO).