I saw "2001" when it was first released. At that time it left audiences both dazzled and perplexed. The imagery was absolutely dazzling, and it was widely said that it could only be truly appreciated while tripping on LSD. On the other hand, nobody seemed able to figure out exactly what it was about, and the ending left audiences perplexed, unresolved and, ultimately, unsatisfied.
The staging of "2001" changed the way in which motion pictures, and particularly science-fiction motion pictures, were produced from then on. Furthermore, don't expect much in the way of linear storytelling or character development.
Most importantly, don't expect speed. The operative word in the term "motion picture" is "motion", and there simply isn't much "motion" in "2001". Despite his meticulous attention to detail and dazzling imagery, Stanley Kubrick's one fault as a filmmaker is that he likes his movies s-l-o-w. And if you think "2001" was the only one of his movies that suffered from that phenomenon, just try sitting through "Barry Lyndon", if you can. At the time of that film's original release, I recall one critic saying that watching "Barry Lyndon" was a "like looking at a beautiful still-life painting".
The staging of "2001" changed the way in which motion pictures, and particularly science-fiction motion pictures, were produced from then on. Furthermore, don't expect much in the way of linear storytelling or character development.
Most importantly, don't expect speed. The operative word in the term "motion picture" is "motion", and there simply isn't much "motion" in "2001". Despite his meticulous attention to detail and dazzling imagery, Stanley Kubrick's one fault as a filmmaker is that he likes his movies s-l-o-w. And if you think "2001" was the only one of his movies that suffered from that phenomenon, just try sitting through "Barry Lyndon", if you can. At the time of that film's original release, I recall one critic saying that watching "Barry Lyndon" was a "like looking at a beautiful still-life painting".