Only a few films are transcendent, and work upon our minds and imaginations like music or prayer or a vast belittling landscape...Alone among science-fiction movies, 2001 is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.Read Full Review »
100
Washington Post: Desson Thomson
Maintains its artistic magnificence after more than 30 years.Read Full Review »
100
ReelViews: James Berardinelli
Watching this film demands two qualities that are sadly lacking in all but the most mature and sophisticated audiences: patience and a willingness to ponder the meaning of what's transpiring on screen. 2001 is awe inspiring, but it is most definitely not a "thrill ride." It is art, it is a statement, and it is indisputably a cinematic classic.Read Full Review »
Beloved for many different reasons, including its scrupulous scientific accuracy, its vast reach from "The Dawn of Man" to the next stage of human evolution, its unrivaled integration of musical and visual composition, its daring paucity of dialogue and washes of silence, its astonishingly creative psychedelic sequence and its still-gorgeous pre-digital special effects.Read Full Review »
60
The New York Times: Renata Adler
The movie is so completely absorbed in its own problems, its use of color and space, its fanatical devotion to science-fiction detail, that its is somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring.Read Full Review »
10
Washington Post: Stephen Hunter
A crackpot Looney Tune, pretentious, abysmally slow, amateurishly acted and, above all, wrong.Read Full Review »
Hotmail
