L'umanità ritrova un oggetto misterioso e certamente artificiale seppellito sotto la superficie lunare e, insieme al computer intelligente H.A.L. 9000, parte alla ricerca.L'umanità ritrova un oggetto misterioso e certamente artificiale seppellito sotto la superficie lunare e, insieme al computer intelligente H.A.L. 9000, parte alla ricerca.L'umanità ritrova un oggetto misterioso e certamente artificiale seppellito sotto la superficie lunare e, insieme al computer intelligente H.A.L. 9000, parte alla ricerca.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Vincitore di 1 Oscar
- 18 vittorie e 14 candidature totali
Douglas Rain
- HAL 9000
- (voce)
Ed Bishop
- Aries-1B Lunar Shuttle Captain
- (as Edward Bishop)
8,3769.8K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Riepilogo
Reviewers say '2001: A Space Odyssey' is acclaimed for its pioneering visual effects, classical music integration, and profound themes on humanity and technology. It explores human evolution, man-machine relationships, and cosmic mysteries. Critics note its slow pace, abstract plot, and minimal character development. Some find its ambiguity frustrating, while others value its philosophical depth and artistic vision. Its impact on science fiction and cinematic mastery is recognized, though views on its accessibility and entertainment differ.
Recensioni in evidenza
Darn-near unwatchable; classic
I'm EXTREMELY conflicted about this movie. I hate it, but it's amazing. I won't ever watch it again, but it's groundbreaking. I can't recommend it, but you have to see it.
Unmatched accomplishment
Sometimes reading the user comments on IMDB fills me with despair for the species. For anybody to dismiss 2001: A Space Odyssey as "boring" they must have no interest in science, technology, philosophy, history or the art of film-making. Finally I understand why most Hollywood productions are so shallow and vacuous - they understand their audience.
Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.
2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.
Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.
I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10.
Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.
2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.
Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.
I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10.
It's a puzzlement...
There are two schools of thought about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. One, is that it is the greatest science-fiction epic ever made. This is supported by those who claim to understand the complexities involved and leading up the Star Child ending. The others, like myself, find it as absorbing as watching paint dry on woodwork.
The musical background is glorious, the colors are dazzling, and there's an interesting use of HAL as a villainous computer. Beyond that, there is nothing the least bit interesting about the human characters (trite dialogue and no personality or warmth to any of the individuals), the pace is unbelievably slow (so the intellectually gifted can philosophize on the mysteries of space), and the payoff at the end leaves you either breathless with enlightenment or convinced that you have watched three hours of nothingness.
I had the same letdown feeling when I watched THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE, so your like or dislike of this movie is purely dependent on personal taste. Intellectuals will take the position that you are a mentally challenged clod if you dare disagree with their elevated opinion of the movie--so be aware that this is not conventional story-telling in any sense whatsoever and only for those who admire Stanley Kubrick's way with unlikely cinematic material.
The musical background is glorious, the colors are dazzling, and there's an interesting use of HAL as a villainous computer. Beyond that, there is nothing the least bit interesting about the human characters (trite dialogue and no personality or warmth to any of the individuals), the pace is unbelievably slow (so the intellectually gifted can philosophize on the mysteries of space), and the payoff at the end leaves you either breathless with enlightenment or convinced that you have watched three hours of nothingness.
I had the same letdown feeling when I watched THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE, so your like or dislike of this movie is purely dependent on personal taste. Intellectuals will take the position that you are a mentally challenged clod if you dare disagree with their elevated opinion of the movie--so be aware that this is not conventional story-telling in any sense whatsoever and only for those who admire Stanley Kubrick's way with unlikely cinematic material.
I don't get it
Count me as one of the philistines who is too simple-minded to appreciate this so-called masterpiece. Actually, I have a degree in media studies and a great interest in science, science fiction and anything thought-provoking (the technical term is "need for cognition"). But I am just baffled by this film and why it is so esteemed. It is simply slow, empty and lifeless. When absolutely nothing is happening on screen, am I supposed to feel or think something profound? Even when my professor explicitly explained to me why this film is so great, I still cannot convince myself that it is so.
10Don-102
Tribute to one of the top 5 filmmakers of our time...
I write this review just after hearing of Stanley Kubrick's death. It's a great loss, and I write about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, because I feel it is the consummate Kubrick film, the one he will be most remembered for. It is a picture like no other, not only revolutionizing science fiction, but changing the way films are conceptualized. It was probably America's first 'art' film and has inspired the likes of George Lucas and countless other writers and directors.
Aside from its visual greatness, the reason the film spawns so much discussion and analysis is because so many people have so many different interpretations of it. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, his co-writer, had a vision, but we have never really found out what was going through their minds. Of course, the skinny on its 'message' is how technology of the future will take over humanity and decide the course of our lives unless we are careful. 2001's ending is one of hope, a version of our rebirth through the star-child's flight back to earth. It is meaningless to many, but discerning filmgoers will understand.
Although 2001 does not have the wicked, dark humor of DR. STRANGELOVE or CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or contain strong, eccentric characters that filled his earlier works like PATHS OF GLORY or SPARTACUS, I still feel he would've liked to be remembered most for this. If anything, HAL will be his most memorable character, dangerous, murderous, and artificial. It was a half-decade in the making at a time when Hollywood was still churning out dull musicals and just waking up to the New Wave of French and Italian cinema. Kubrick was a maverick director who made great films on his own terms, his own time, and for everyone else to marvel at. He will be missed.
Aside from its visual greatness, the reason the film spawns so much discussion and analysis is because so many people have so many different interpretations of it. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, his co-writer, had a vision, but we have never really found out what was going through their minds. Of course, the skinny on its 'message' is how technology of the future will take over humanity and decide the course of our lives unless we are careful. 2001's ending is one of hope, a version of our rebirth through the star-child's flight back to earth. It is meaningless to many, but discerning filmgoers will understand.
Although 2001 does not have the wicked, dark humor of DR. STRANGELOVE or CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or contain strong, eccentric characters that filled his earlier works like PATHS OF GLORY or SPARTACUS, I still feel he would've liked to be remembered most for this. If anything, HAL will be his most memorable character, dangerous, murderous, and artificial. It was a half-decade in the making at a time when Hollywood was still churning out dull musicals and just waking up to the New Wave of French and Italian cinema. Kubrick was a maverick director who made great films on his own terms, his own time, and for everyone else to marvel at. He will be missed.
Director's Trademarks: A Guide to Stanley Kubrick's Films
Director's Trademarks: A Guide to Stanley Kubrick's Films
2001: A Space Odyssey and Eyes Wide Shut are just the beginning of Stanley Kubrick's legacy. Are you up to speed on the film icon's style?
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAccording to Douglas Trumbull, the total footage shot was some 200 times the final length of the film.
- BlooperBowman inhales deeply before attempting to re-enter the ship from the pod. Arthur C. Clarke in an interview later noted that this is incorrect. Bowman should have exhaled, as the vacuum of space would have damaged his lungs had they been full of air.
- Curiosità sui creditiNo opening credits for actors, writers, producer, director, etc. are shown, with the story beginning right after the title. Although by the 1990s it had become quite common for major films to not have opening credits, it was still unusual in 1968.
- Versioni alternativeTo create the 35mm general release prints, the Super Panavision image was slightly truncated on the top and bottom to achieve the standard 2.35:1 aspect ratio of 35mm anamorphic ("scope") prints.
- ConnessioniEdited into C'è musica & musica: Nuovo mondo (1972)
- Colonne sonoreGayane Ballet Suite -- Gayane's Adagio
(1941-2)
Music by Aram Khachaturyan
Performed by Symphony Orchestra of Leningrad State Philharmonic (as the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra)
Conductor Gennadi Rozhdestvensky
Courtesy Deutsche Grammophon
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- 2001: Odisea del espacio
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Isle of Harris, Western Isles, Scozia, Regno Unito(alien planet surface)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 12.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 60.481.243 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 202.759 USD
- 20 mag 2018
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 67.937.964 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 29min(149 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.20 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti





