Quote Originally Posted by Bohandas View Post
Why is "2001: A Space Odyssey" considered such a good movie?
2001, like most of Arthur C. Clarke's work, was more intellectual and less escapist. In order to properly appreciate it, you have to adjust your expectations accordingly. In other Sci-Fi movies the plot is spelled out for the lowest common denominator audience. The 2001 movie was largely non-verbal and slow-paced, which is a complaint of modern viewers who want a literal explanation of the plot and demand constant action to drive the story. Kubrick deliberately deleted narration in the final film’s cuts which gives the movie an extra-terrestrial observed quality. The movie relies more on its visual clues, classical music score, imagination, and mystery. Realistically, manned interplanetary space travel would involve long periods of waiting and anticipation, interrupted by brief flurries of intense activity.

This is an awesome movie, and was an SF groundbreaker. This is mainly due to Kubrick's visual style. He did multiple things that no one had done before. For example, no sound in space. Most SF films previously had ignored the fact that sound doesn't propagate in a vacuum. Kubrick did things like playing the Blue Danube Waltz, and having you listen to the astronauts' breathing inside their helmets. His depiction of zero gravity was a first. Remember, this is pre-CGI, and making a guy walk through a doorway and turn upside down while he was doing it was non-trivial at the time. He added neat little touches like Pan Am (a major airline at the time) running the shuttle going up to the space station.

The trick to enjoying and appreciating the movie 2001 is to read the book first, then watch the movie. If you do, it is one of the great SF movies of all time. And the last few pages of the book are awesome in a way that the movie can't be.