Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - Full Reaction (Patreon)

Published:
2025-12-10 12:00:19
Edited:
2026-08-19 19:06:39
Imported:
2026-10

Content

⚡Auto-Sync (Max) | 🎬 Requests | 🍿 Pick-A-Flick | ▶️ YouTube | 💻 Watch/Download

This hurt my head! okay first of all, it looked and sounded incredible! For 1968 it really does look amazing. So glad I watched it in the theater. Second of all, some of the music and droning sounds would be great in a horror movie haha. Third of all, I really want to be part of the crowd that "gets" it but I'm not sure I do. Help me understand!!??!



(scheduled post in hopes its processed by the time you read this)

Files

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - Full Reaction - Popcorn In Bed

Watch the full reaction to 2001: A Space Odyssey on Popcorn In Bed.

Comments

Andrew Taylor

Alien civilisation gave us an evolutionary boost at certain points in our history is a basic understanding of it

PapaXan

The sequel, 2010, does a decent job of explaining things. It's also a much more easy to watch and understand movie than this one. It's really good.

Shehab Dawoud

Stanley Kubrick. That is all. Very much looking forward to watching this!

nick bell

Growing up with Star Wars and all that action made this difficult for me to like. Just never worked for me. Funny thing is, I love the sequel.

Andrew Taylor

The cut from the bone to the spaceship basically covers like a million years of progress from a technology used to kill and hunt to exploring the stars

Kenneth

Suggestions for the Holiday Season , An excellent Christmas movie set during the depression."The Homecoming: A Christmas Story" a 1971 TV movie that became "The Waltons". A second Chrristmas movie "Office Christmas Party", a 2016 American Christmas comedy film with many famous comedic actors.

Samuel Champ

I've always thought this movie could have said everything it did say with about an hour less content. Just IMO.

Daniel Turbyfill

I get the film, I just don’t think it’s very enjoyable.

Dean Holt

This is definitely one of those movies I appreciate more than I actually like. I fully understand why you’re head hurts though 😂😂. I also remember not really getting it (I was in my later teens in the 90s) & unfortunately it bored me that much I’ve never rewatched it. So now I’m nearly 50 I’m going to be interested to see what I make of it. I do remember the visuals being the best part.

Rick Rodriguez

*SPOILERS* *ENDING* He becomes what been called a StarChild. The next grand phase of human evolution

SteveW

"So glad I watched it in the theater." I know how you feel. I got to see it in a theater as well, and though it was a small theater and it was many years after the film's release, it was still an amazing experience. I look forward to watching your reaction to '2001', Cassie, as I really do enjoy your reaction videos best of all the Patreon channels to which I'm subscribed. I watched your reaction to 'Scrooged' last night and it was a genuine delight as you reacted to the mayhem on-screen. :)

Richard Maurer

I’m not even sure Kubrick understands the end of this film /s

Chris Davis

Yes, you really need to watch "2010", the sequel that was done in the '80's to understand. Also, it's a really good movie on it's own and worth watching.

Just Plain Bob

I think all the talk about explanations misses the point entirely. Anyone can sit and be talked to, passively receiving an explanation for what they’ve seen/experienced. The goal is to think for yourself. And it’s ok if you don’t reach a concrete resolution; not everything is cut and dried, black and white. Contemplation isn’t necessarily about a destination but the journey. The utter ambiguity of the movie is bound to discourage many. But the part that I think really turns so many people off is the pacing. The film takes its time. This used to be much more common in filmmaking. Movies like this and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly are deliberately paced. Shots linger. And today’s audience has no patience for that. Today, we’re used to constant stimulation. Sitting quietly and thinking about what you’re seeing/have seen is akin to mental torture to many. It’s unfortunate because I think we’ve lost a lot, including the capacity for deep consideration and contemplation.

Bill Maurer

Saw it once, tried seeing it again. Never got it. You are not alone

Brian Shannow

Then journey is more important, and understanding isn't always necessary, as long as it sets your mind going, which is the reason Lynch never explained his films.

MikeLL

In the YouTube thumbnail, I picture Cassie in an astronaut's space helmet. I want to see Cassie in a space helmet! Let's Go! Should be a great reaction.

MikeLL

What it is then?

Kawaii Leonard

An old 2000's era Windows screen saver.

Scott Macaulay

Excited to watch this with you! I highly recommend the sequel 2010 with Roy Scheider as Dr Floyd and John Lithgow. It is a really good and a more traditional sci-fi drama narrative that is easier to take in. It explains a lot of the story as intended by Arthur C Clarke more than Kubrick but definitely worth a watch. Another interesting fact from Collative Learning here on Patreon is the Monolith is the exact ratio of the movie screen turned on it's side.

UCOOLJULES

You only need to see this once, and as Cassie says it's a visual and aural masterpiece. But story wise it's slow and dull, and leaves you wondering just "why?"

Just Plain Bob

PS to original post: From a recent study by the NIH: Brain rot destroys yet another cognitive function, namely, attention span, as the pervasive use of smartphones and social media establishes an environment of rapid intake of information, leading to only superficial engagement with content. This phenomenon, more popularly known as “doomscrolling”, has been said to fragment attention and reduce one’s ability to focus for continuous periods of time. The findings reveal that brain rot leads to emotional desensitization, cognitive overload, and a negative self-concept. It is associated with negative behaviors, such as doomscrolling, zombie scrolling, and social media addiction, all linked to psychological distress, anxiety, and depression. These factors impair executive functioning skills, including memory, planning, and decision-making. The pervasive nature of digital media, driven by dopamine-driven feedback loops, exacerbates these effects.

Johnny Bullis

Im with you Cassie.. I never understood this movie either. The sequel 2010 The Year We Make Contact might help you understand this one better.. it does explain more.

Mark Duedall

As a condition to my watching a reaction to this painful, high brow movie, I am requiring a reaction to a curated set of YouTube videos asserting that Stanley Kubrick directed the filming of the moon landing on a top secret Warner Brothers soundstage in Burbank.

Walter

The author of the book 2001 didn’t understand the movie either, so don’t feel bad.

Rich Campbell

My attempt at a simple explanation. Each monolith is a milestone of human intelligence. Intelligence Milestone 1: Monolith represents early man's discovery of the use of tools and weapons. Intelligence Milestone 2: Monolith discovered on moon. Timely for the films late 60's Moon landings and the "Leap for Mankind" Intelligence Milestone 3: Artifiicial Intelligence. AI becomes smarter than us, self aware and homicidal. Intelligence Milestone 4: Man sees the universe "beyond the infinite", in a room full of renaissance art and sculptures, each one its own "leap" of intelligence. Man becomes aware of the beauty of Earth, seeing it for the first time as if through the eyes of an unborn child.

Just Plain Bob

I don’t know where you heard that, but I’d be curious to find out. Arthur C. Clarke wrote the short story “Sentinel” that provided the germ of an idea that became “2001: A Space Odyssey.” He worked on the novel at the same time Kubrick developed the script, with much communication back and forth during the development of both. So it seems unlikely that he didn’t understand what Kubrick put on screen; it hews pretty closely to his novel. I highly recommend Clarke’s books to anyone that’s a fan of hard science fiction. He helped develop the idea of satellites, particularly geosynchronous orbital satellites, championing their development and use. His novels are extraordinary, though he’s often criticized for lack of character development. He was much more interested in big ideas and how future technology might affect the human race.

Elliot Nesterman

The notion of an extraterrestrial race being a sort of midwife for the evolution of intelligent life throughout the galaxy is a theme that features in several of Clarke's stories and novels, most notably "Childhood's End."

Clarence Newman

I don't like this film. That doesn't mean I dislike it. I just don't like it. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen it. And Silent Running is better. I know what you're all thinking though: "What are you doing, Dave?"

Celeste McAllister🍓

Dave followed the Monolith into the realm of " Infinite Knowledge" there the aliens built him a comfortable cage to live out his life,to be reborn as the "Starchild"....Don't Worry about Frank drifting through space forever,his remains will be discovered/recovered in Jupiter orbit in the year 3001...

Walter

It was a sarcastic interpretation of his quote "If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention” on my part. I didn’t intend on misrepresenting the author or his work.

james sweeney

I'd watch Dr. Strangelove 1000 times before watching this again.

Daniel Turbyfill

Not quite. The Monolith is a tool of some alien intelligence looking to foster other intelligence in the universe. The first Monolith catalyzes the evolution of man from earlier hominids. The second transmits a signal when found on the moon by humans, signaling success of that first step and pointing them toward the third monolith. The third monolith catalyzes another leap forward in evolution for Dave Bowman from human to something more, sometimes referred to as the starchild. That last part gets retconned a bit in the later film (2010) and more so in the novels. Cassie would probably enjoy 2010: The Year We Make Contact more than 2001 as it is a more conventional film. I generally find it more enjoyable. 2001 bores me to tears.

Daniel Turbyfill

HAL is a side plot that mirrors what the monolith did with mankind elevated from a simple computational machine to an artificial intelligence. Interestingly HAL’s malfunction/psychosis is the fault of the people who gave him his directives for the mission, rather than a fault with HAL itself.

Night King01

I dont think most people get this movie. So much so that kubrick had to explain it when interviewed. Daves essentially in an alien zoo where he is basically on display to be studied by the aliens. 2010 the year we make contact is the sequel and I heard is more straightforward explaining what happened with Hal and all that.

Keith Jones

While he did direct the moon landings his commitment to accuracy, forced him to demand to film on moon locations, not a sound stage…🤪

Daniel Turbyfill

I have no problem with a film that gives minimal explanation and/or invites or indeed requires the viewer to come up with their own explanation, but this film is just so tedious and in love with its own cleverness (special effects) which for the time was revolutionary but is hardly interesting today.

Richard Maurer

Well the /s at the end of my comment does stand for sarcasm. I get the ending of the movie now of course, but like a lot of people I didn’t first time I saw it. But I have the excuse that my first time seeing it was with my 8th grade science class on a field trip to the theater. I pretty much got the Starchild part from the beginning, but how the psychedelica and the time-shift room lead to the Starchild seems a bit fuzzy.

Above Average Dave

This movie is kind of like running a 10k when running is not your thing. "Welp. Did that."

Stick Figure Studios

The spaceship that it cuts to is actually a nuclear weapon satellite, so it's really just a cut from one weapon to another.

Stick Figure Studios

To say this isn't a movie is to place very narrow limitations on the potential of cinema.

Stick Figure Studios

Actually, It really helps to see this multiple times (the more one does, the less "dull" it becomes). I did in order to fully understand and appreciate it. It is now one of my favorite films.

Stick Figure Studios

SILENT RUNNING is very good, but I wouldn't call it "better," just more conventional.

Stick Figure Studios

DR. STRANGELOVE is another fantastic Stanley Kubrick film and I love it, but it is certainly more conventional, less contemplative, less challenging and less existential than 2001, so I get why someone would prefer watching it.

Stick Figure Studios

Although interestingly, the more one runs a 10K, the more running becomes one's thing. Not unlike this film. The more you watch it, the more you get and the more you appreciate. That was my experience anyway.

Shehab Dawoud

You're right, it's an experience.

Clarence Newman

Ahhh, but Huey, Dewie and Louie, Stick.....

Above Average Dave

I get that, and there are movies that all of us love to revisit. I think I've seen this one three or four times in the last 20 years. Always impressed on how good it looks. I did know the president of the AFI for a few years, and we discussed this film once. She loved it but as we started talking about the themes and the film's statement/message, she looked at me and smiled. "It's Kubrick, Dave." And I know what she was really saying to me is, "It's Chinatown, Jake." (that, or, "OK, we're done talking about this one.") 😁

Steven Perez

Don't feel bad about not understanding it, Cassie. I've read the novel four times, and I'm still not sure I get it.

Astraeos

Barry Lyndon crew here. Thats my favorite Kubrick film. And nobody will react to it.

Shehab Dawoud

People have already explained the evolution part. You also did a quick search at the end, and you've probably done more since, so I won't repeat what's already been stated. But even as someone who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, you can't help but be fascinated by it. Regarding the ending: You can just listen to the horse's mouth himself. Kubrick rarely did interviews and rarely spoke about what he was going for with his films, but this was an exception https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er_o82OMlNM&t=36s AI is the other core theme here. And it's scary just how human Hal really was. He was given conflicting orders, which he couldn't handle, started to panic, and made bad decisions. That's a very human thing to do. As well as the way he tries to manipulate Dave at the end, and begs for mercy. It is more relevant than ever, although I doubt we'd ever reach this point or Terminator level in real life. It also shows us how small and insignificant we are in space and in the grand scheme of things. We're basically infants. The astronauts have to learn how to walk, go potty, and go from eating essentially baby food to more solid food. The visuals are incredible. No special effects, just a bunch of models and miniatures, and great filming techniques. This came out a decade before Star Wars, but is infinitely better, and its influence is clear to see in pretty much most Sci-Fi movies. The sound is haunting, and the music is iconic. The song you referred to as ballet music is a waltz called 'The Blue Danube' from the 1800s, but nowadays, everybody associates it with this film. Like so many other Kubrick films, it was disliked at the start, then some time passes, and it's universally recognized as a masterpiece that changed cinema. There'll never be another Stanley Kubrick.

Joe J

If only the film had starred Newman & Redford, lol. Poor Cassie, I think she struggles with sci-fi, for sure not a genre she watched much (if any) before the channel.

René Ferland

Arthur Clarke gives an explanation of HAL behovior in the novelization of the movie. Then, in the 2010 novel, he gives an other explanation.

René Ferland

We live in a time of one minute shorts on TikTok. No wonder some might find this movie very long and slow. :-)

Astraeos

Some of these comments make me extraordinarily sad. People are so complacent, and so unwilling to challenge or exercise their brains in anyway what so ever. It just makes me sad.

Doc Larry/old geezer

⚠️ SPOILERS — Do not read if you haven’t seen 2001: A Space Odyssey. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a remarkably complex and ambitious film, especially considering it was created in the 1960s. It was marketed as an “intelligent” movie, and in many ways it lived up to that reputation. I first saw it as a preteen, and the visuals were breathtaking. The special effects were extraordinary for their time, and HAL remains one of the most memorable and unsettling characters in science fiction. That said, the opening sequence with the early hominids (apes) often feels overly drawn out, and the ending is famously confusing. But the core idea is that each appearance of the monolith triggers a leap in human evolution. The first monolith inspires the hominids to use tools; the next one on the moon pushes humanity further into space; and the final monolith near Jupiter leads to the astronaut’s transformation into the “Star Child.” That final image—the giant infant gazing toward Earth—represents the next stage of human evolution. I don’t think a YouTube edit would do 2001: A Space Odyssey justice. Just my personal opinion—but for any movie buff, it’s a film that absolutely belongs on the “watch at least once” list. P.S. I also recommend watching the sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It’s a very different kind of movie, but an interesting one. It also helps explain some of the challenges and mysteries from the original film. It also features Roy Scheider, who delivers a strong lead performance — you may recognize him from his iconic role in Jaws.

René Ferland

One has to remember when this movie was released: in 1968, in theaters, a very different time from today, with a very different vibe. I grew up in the 60's. In those years, 2001 seemed very far away in the future, and nobody had the slightest idea of what it would be.

Shehab Dawoud

And if I ever hear anyone compare Interstellar to this film again, I'm just gonna slap the taste out of their mouth, and I'll take my chances with the judicial system xD

Tyler Hale

Stanley Kubrick movies deserve rewatches and analysis especially 2001

Tyler Hale

2010 is definitely a movie in the traditional sense with an actual plot and characters.

dansoddity

I remember watching this for the first time and being blown away and then recently going back to it with a resulting frustration. There's a bunch of compelling stuff here for sure, groundbreaking visual effects for the time, strong scenes especially with Hal and the dawn of man opening, but the pacing is agonising at times. It's sort of unfair to view a film that came out almost a decade before even Star Wars (1977) came out with the same lens as you would today, especially with all the great Sci-Fi we have now. But the long stretches of very little happening and Kubrick leaning into atmosphere here more than any of his other films, made me appreciate it conceptually as an experience more than like it as an intended film. Certain parts I just couldn't take my eyes off, and others felt like a chore. And I don't think my experience with it speaks to attention span, one of my favourite films is "A Brighter Summer Day" which is a 4 hour long behemoth that came out of the Taiwan New Cinema movement in the 80's - I watch it every year and get something new out of it every time.

Stick Figure Studios

If you haven't done so and ever get a chance, I recommend seeing it in an actual theatre. I caught it on an IMAX screen when it released for its 50th anniversary in 2019 and even though it's sent out maybe a dozen times before, it was utterly like seeing it for the first time. I finally fell in love with it.

JRCortez

I was a young teenager when my parents took us to see this movie when it first came out, at a drive-in theater with a HUGE outdoor screen. Right underneath the screen was a playground for kids. I sat on the swingset or the merry go round watching the movie and I was in awe….

Joe J

Cassie would definitely like 2010 much more.

Night King01

Is it the same in 2010 the movie though? I only heard they explain it in that film so thats why I mentioned.

Mike Gallagher

Whenever I watch this film I think of what Samuel Johnson said about Paradise Lost. "Paradise Lost is one of the books which the reader admires and lays down, and forgets to take up again. None ever wished it longer than it is. Its perusal is a duty rather than a pleasure. We read Milton for instruction, retire harassed and overburdened, and look elsewhere for recreation; we desert our master, and seek for companions."

Stick Figure Studios

Same. I expected it, but it doesn't make it any less disappointing.

Stick Figure Studios

Although I tend to disagree with the notion of there even being such a thing as the "greatest film ever made" (and even If I did, I'd probably go more with the not dissimilar TREE OF LIFE by Terrence Malick), this is certainly a worthy contender.

Tyler Foster

One of the filmmakers routinely cited for making strange movies that audiences were baffled and confused by was David Lynch. I don't know if he said this, exactly, but my impression was always that David Lynch cared significantly less about whether or not a viewer understood one of his movies and more about whatever emotional reaction it inspired in the viewer, kind of like an inkblot test. Sure, he had an idea of what he was making and why, but you can maybe see why the artist would be almost bored (or at least comfortably satisfied and fulfilled) with their own idea of what the movie is about by the time they've put in the work to get it on screen, and someone else's perspective on it would be fresh, and unexpected, and even potentially point out something subconscious that was in the work that the artist themselves didn't even know was there. In keeping with this, there are many answers as to what 2001 means, but keep in mind that finding a "correct" answer is not as important as finding *your* answer, even if both might be interesting and fun to talk about.

Shehab Dawoud

Well, I'm not the biggest Nolan fan, so I wouldn't mind doing that. In all seriousness, I find the comparisons that I've seen insulting, in terms of quality, achievement, and impact.

Wesley

To anyone who appreciates this film and wants to "understand" it, just read Roger Ebert's review, but more importantly his essay titled "The Monolith and The Message"

GM

"Oh, Christmas :-)" LOL

Dioskur

Was elitists posturing the goal of your post? If so you did very well. "You know, smart people like it because they have evolved taste, but stupid people dislike it because they dont get it. I personaly like it, because I get it. I'm very smart if you couldn't tell." That movie is full of flaws and while it has just as many strenghts as well it is massively overhyped. It has its legendary status just because of movie snob clubs.

Steve SG-1

Does anyone know the size of screen Cassie normally watches on her reactions?

Phil Stubblefield

Cassie, I can't wait to watch this! I can't even imagine the somersaults your brain must have been doing!

Brent Petty

Cassie, I'm still not convinced that the people who claim to "get it" actually do get it.

GM

"We've done it, Captain. We discovered time travel! Where should we go first?" "Let's go see the apes!"

DAVID COSTELLO

The monoliths were there every time humanity took a step forward in evolution. Dave is now the next step forward.

Catherine LW

It’s unsurprising. In this age of instant gratification, people have become intellectually lazy.

Catherine LW

I didn’t find it dull when I saw it at 8 years of age.

UCOOLJULES

I did when I was 9, at release, and later at various ages up to my mid 50s when I gave up trying to find something new in it. I'm glad it interests you. I expressed my opinion. That's all. It's not a competition

Romero Cetera Rivers

Yes... I have Tree of Life on The Criterion Collection...and have yet to discover it's greatness from what I hear. It's just been gathering dust on my upper shelves for 3 years and counting! 🌌😅

Mark Vaderr

Cassie, a little fun fact to rest your mind. Both "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Planet of the Apes" were released not only in the same year, but also on the same day! Quite a moment in science fiction film history.

Brett Richey

There's tension in the comments section. I repeat... there's tension in the comments section. 😬

Kyle K

Think Kubrick might have a talent of doing that to people.

Brett Richey

Silent Running is just wonderful.

Brett Richey

He'd love it. Same with Lynch and Lars von Trier. The don't want 'liked', they'd have preferred 'loved' or 'hated'.

Brett Richey

I imagined you saying that like Arnie says "It's not a tumor!" in Kindergarten Cop.

Brett Richey

Exactly. One of the greatest match cut shots of all time.

Catherine LW

I wish people wouldn’t get all worked up when someone attempts to explain the film or state why it’s a classic or comment on the current inability to watch something that’s not fast paced and frenzied. They take it too personally.

Brett Richey

It's just art. There's no right or wrong. It's as subjective as anything else. I do like reading people's takes on films like this though; see if they match my own. But agree that it's not worth trying to convince someone who doesn't want convincing. If someone doesn't like broccoli you don't keep offering them broccoli.

Grinznmore

An amazing film that has not been matched to my knowledge. Each time I see it, I pick up more detail. 57 years since the movie came out. What film has come out that matches the insight and scope of this film? Imagine a film in 2082 that is on target. We are currently struggling with AI Agents. All art invokes different interpretations. And make no mistake, this is art.

Just Plain Bob

I didn’t know that. An excellent day for fans of sci-fi!

Michael G

There is nothing to "get" per se, so dont worry if you feel like you are missing something deeper and more. This is an experience movie, something to wrap yourself up and let all of it flow into the brain. Time, space, evolution, the unknown, it is all there, and the two fundamental, questions are at its heart; Why, and How. So much of it is meant to be open ended, and not have the movie tell us the answers, but to find them ourselves. To interpret it our own way. There is a micro and macro parallel going on, the first with he progression of humans, and our overall push to do and understand more, then the individual level to push and do more. Where the movie leads is that humanity got to a place/was getting to a place where we could start to understand and conceptualize what is out there, but at the same time what is inside, and how they are not all that different. The exploration is external and internal. The movie will present itself to each person differently, and the most excellent sequel 2010; The Year We make contact is more explicit in the questions the first movie was seeking.

Freja Corbinne

best part of the film is the ape suit actor who does a downhill forward roll

Catherine LW

Your comment was fine. Non denigrating but some people are ridiculous in their thin skinned attitude.

Stick Figure Studios

I always feel like that's a cop out. While the film obviously does not explain itself in such an explicit manner as we're used to movies doing, there's clearly some intended meanings behind the events and images in this film. Granted, people can have their own specific interpretations of it, but I feel like there's still a general "field" of meaning that people can approximate. A lack of precision is not the same thing as "it can mean anything."

Stick Figure Studios

I like Nolan but I'm not a big fan of INTERSTELLAR. Nevertheless, I can clearly see the similarities. I would never liken them in terms of significance or impact, but there are obviously some aesthetic and thematic commonalities.

Stick Figure Studios

Definitely check it out. I would recommend doing the theatrical cut first before you do the extended version.

Catherine LW

I didn’t find the ape scene drawn out. I thought it was fascinating. They were probably Australopithecus, who started eating meat instead of grubs and plants, and their brain development as a result commenced the evolution of homo sapiens.

Catherine LW

Well, some art can be interpreted wrongly.

Mark Vaderr

Yes. it is amazing. Reminds me a lot of when "Dracula" & "Frankenstein" were both released in 1931.

Brian McGovern

I saw the notification this morning and thought to myself,"Cassie is going to be bored by this". She isnt wrong either. I dont mind thecfilm. Visually looks spectacular. However I think Kubrick is overrated. I find him ( and Nolan) to be self indulgent. That's right. I called Christopher Nolan self indulgent. I said what I said.

Just Plain Bob

The level of overt hostility has been surprising.

JohnnyUtah

I love that you gave this the theater reaction. I saw this way later in life so I feel I was able to understand it much better than if I was younger. For 1968 I think it was absolutely groundbreaking.

Night King01

Dude you have my vote on that. His best film IMO from the ones ive seen. One of my favorites

Clay F

My TV is 65 inch. Been thinking about going larger w/upgraded technology.

Clay F

She seemed to connect with Planet of the Apes (1968).

Catherine LW

Back in the 80’s, a book was published and became a best seller: “The Closing of the American Mind”. Prescient.

Stick Figure Studios

I could think of only one movie since the release of this one that matches it un terms of scope, ambition, beauty and depth and that is Terrence Malick's TREE OF LIFE, my all-time favorite film.

Stick Figure Studios

Eh, there's always some tension in the comments, but particularly on the more divisive films and 2001, as great art tends to do, is divisive.

Stick Figure Studios

Ebert makes some rather astute observations on this film I think.

Brett Richey

It was a joke. You get them in the comments too.

Christian Becker

Ok, I'm doing it. Watching 2001 once more. For me, this is the kind of movie you have to see once, simply because it is way ahead of its time. Personally, I never really loved it, and I never pretended to know what the ending was all about. Okay, the movie never had it easy with me, because I got it as a present on VHS, knew nothing about it, and I somehow hoped for something like Star Wars — well, let's just say I was rather surprised and, to be honest, bored to tears for most of the time, at least during the first 35-45 minutes. I was about 12. I learned to appreciate the movie more over the years, but I have to admit I really like 2010 more.

Catherine LW

Very true, Bob. Anything that requires thought or analysis is now considered boring or “highbrow” which is an example of the decline of intellectual exercise. I remember when I took a few days off from work to go travel to see a special art exhibit by some painters I love and some of my co-workers looked at me like I grew a second head when I answered their question about what I did on my mini vacation. Why was that so shocking?

Catherine LW

And I gave my opinion which I am entitled to.

Catherine LW

Reminds me of the scene in Amadeus when the Emperor tells Mozart, “too many notes”. Mozart asks, “which notes should I remove?”

djKENTO

Watch the sequel, 2010. It's a much more straight forward space adventure movie and it explains what's going on a bit more.

Alex Villarreal

At its heart it’s an art film. I suppose there’s no need to “get it.” It’s just a matter of experiencing it—that’s enough.

Catherine LW

Next time a reaction to Jackass Part IV appears I will be sure to comment on how painfully lowbrow it is.

James M

I know there are a lot of recommendations to watch 2010. I'd just like to offer the alternative option of, don't waste your time. I can think of nothing that makes 2010 worthwhile, but if it is truly worth watching let it win a poll vote against other movies or maybe someone will pick it for their monthly wildcard.

James M

It's a fantastic and beautiful film. It's something you experience, not something you "get". This is what everyone should be told before watching. Stop trying to "get it" and just watch it.

GM

The real meaning of the film: it's a cautionary tale about the dangers of overtures and intermissions. That's why they stopped using them in modern movies.

Chris Thom

Love Tree of Life. But another one that's a bit controversial as far as people liking it or understanding it. Another atmospheric kind of movie.

MrKsummer7

I think if Cassie watches 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984), it will give more insight into the reason behind the failure of the Discovery One mission, and it has a great cast: Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, and Helen Mirren.

Chris Thom

If there was something to get, I think the general message was that humanity has to work on its self and it's mentalities to survive it's own tools and conflicts of interest. Hence the monkeys using tools to kill, and humanity building Hal to be overly rigid and immovable. Like humanity would have to transcend some of it's impulses to truly move forward. That's how I saw it, anyway. Not really sure what the aliens had in store for us though.

UCOOLJULES

And you're also entitled to have the last word, so please, go on

James M

The movie can be analyzed and has meaning but not a simple meaning. Look at "Citizen Kane" another movie that like this one is broken into story vignettes. Just as each of Kane's life periods is presented with pivotal events so these periods of humans are presented as narratives around pivotal events. It's an interesting comparison between two great movies. But Citizen Kane never breaks with traditional storytelling apart from breaking away from a strict timeline, whereas 2001 enters the final act by abandoning a story narrative. That's why people struggle i think. Without a story we wonder what the story is. As your film teacher rightly points out: there's no story here. However saying it can mean whatever you want is a big jump. I don't think it can mean whatever you want, but I do think the meaning is not as simple as decoding a hidden story. I believe there can be visual meaning without a story narrative. There is a surreal aspect to the ending. Yet the ending is also a part of the whole. In the context of the film the changes as he ages and as the infant appears must be related in our minds to the changes we saw earlier in the movie. I think where we must think and consider is how these changes are related. How is change pivotal to humankind? How is modernism with its worship of progress portrayed here? What are the assumptions we have about change and "progress"? And how does this movie offer cautions about them? The difficulty here is not so much too little meaning in the movie, but too much.

James M

Some people have read Paradise Lost several times, and some of us rewatch this movie in part and whole many times. I'll say this much: every time I see it again I realize that my conception of what it is does not match it when I see it again. I can watch Indianna Jones escape from the cave chased by the boulder over and over (I have) and I love it, but I never stop and say "wow that's not what I remember. Wow"

James M

I don't advocate violence. But I think anyone who thinks they are comparable is mistaken.

Steve Mercier

Stanely Kubrick quite purposely left the interpretation open on this movie, so it's hard to say that anyone "gets" it outside of their own reading and experience. There's a book of the same name written by Arthur C. Clarke, who co-wrote the movie; however, both were more or less released at the same time, and one doesn't necessarily take precedence over the other (except for, I suppose, personal preference). And honestly, I'm not sure one really makes more sense than the other--which isn't to say that either version doesn't make sense; just not one more than the other. I've always looked at it as a story about human evolution, pure and simple: from primordial primate, to industrious inventor of artificial intelligence, finally to 'something else' beyond our purely physical forms. The monolith that appears seems to be there to either initiate the evolutionary process, or to witness it--perhaps sent by something or someone more advanced than we are. When astronaut David Bowman hurtles through space and time in the last act of the movie, and sees an older version of himself sitting at a table eating, only for the original version to disappear, and then the version at the table sees himself even older in bed, only for that version to disappear, only for that version to become what appears to be an infant made of pure energy and light--I've always taken this as David's mind making sense of the evolutionary process as he becomes what the book refers to as a 'star child'. I think most see this as an almost god-like form; but, again, interpretations vary. Violence also seems to be a key component of evolution: as primordial man discovers that tools can be used to harm and kill; and HAL 9000--an invention of 'modern man'--kills without mercy to complete its mission. The child-like nature and physicality of David's final form might seem to suggest that man can finally evolve beyond violence. As always, intepretations vary; and this just happens to be mine. But if you find this helpful in some way...cool. (By the way, this is my all-time favorite movie, and I watch it every New Year's Day; so, I think I might just watch it with you next year instead.)

James M

I'm with you Catherine. I've watched just the first section alone a few times. It's aesthetically the best section of the movie from my tastes. It's the second section with the Cold War that I find tedious sadly. I admire so much Cold War fiction but Kubrick made it so dry it's a challenge to get through it.

Catherine LW

Just stick to car chases. I have bit my tongue and did not comment on the many mediocre movies people love despite their poor writing, predictable plots, and crappy acting but I will be sure to comment on how boring and a waste of time they are.

James M

Well I'm going to be a bit harsh here... if you have the patience and experience to think about this movie you are likely to appreciate it. If you lack patience and a thoughtful disposition you probably won't like it. Also lacking patience and being disinclined to reflect you might be more likely to post a hasty remark.

Gro Do

Yes! Its by Arthur C. Clarke so it is an official sequel. Underloved movie.

Catherine LW

Part of the allure of many works of art is the mystery. What is Mona Lisa smiling about? Who is the subject of Girl With Pearl Earring? What is under The Old Guitarist? We don’t need, or should not need to have everything spoonfed to us. We are expected to ponder and think about mysteries.

djKENTO

Definitely needs a remaster. Every release is pretty rough. Still has a stereo sound mix.

UCOOLJULES

Who mentioned car chases, apart from you. It sounds very much like you have a lot on your plate right now, and I don't want to antagonise you. But I'm sure everyone would love to see your feedback (positive and negative) on the films that are reviewed. Hey I'll even help you. I love Blade Runner, Aliens, and Passengers all of which I've watched many times. The only car chase movie I rate per se, is Bullet with Steve McQueen. There was one based in Paris that was ok, but that's about it. Thoughts? In any case, have a nice evening

Canadianant

I didn't see this was posted guess I know what my next 3 hours are. This should be interesting as I think I tried to watch this once before and kind of didn't get it but I think that's kind of the point in a weird way. Does anybody actually "get"this?

James M

Ending by reminding you that it's Kubrick might be a response to a brick wall put up on your part. You may have objected to the film as it is and if that's so, if you dislike the experience of watching it, there's nothing outside you that will change that. Only you can enjoy it, or as you appear to have done, persist in not enjoying it. Discussion is for people who liked the move in some way but struggle with it.

Clay F

I am not commenting whether 2010 is worthwhile or not. But agree in preferring that 2010 not be an auto reaction -- instead, react to 2010 only if wins a poll or is a PAF winner, as you said.

Catherine LW

I agree, James. The Cold War part dragged on a bit. The HAL part was great, though.

James M

Isn't it amazing how different his movies are? I love this and Dr Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange. Barry Lyndon I find dull and unwatchable. The Shining is okay, but I don't really like it, not enough to rewatch it. Full Metal Jacket seems good but I'd never call it great. Spartacus is a fun one. I just can't see how one guy directed all these.

Catherine LW

I frequently see comments from Europeans criticizing Americans for intellectual laziness. Used to annoy me, but now I see why. The hostility towards intellectual and artistic thought is odd. Now there are problems with hyper intellectualism. But a rejection of anything intellectual is either laziness or crudeness. Like the problem with Hamlet, there should be a healthy blend of both.

Joanthan Skidmore

2001 is a great piece of ART, 2010 is a better MOVIE, it helps explain 2001... to a degree. There's a book titled "Slaughterhouse Five," or rather a part of it that would give you an idea about the near end part where he is in the old fashioned room.

Above Average Dave

Wow - you couldn't be more wrong, James. In fact, she and I (and a very small group of the folks from AFI, including two extremely famous American directors) had just watched a special screening of a restored version when this occurred. I went on about the things I liked, which was the vast bulk of the film. What I did say is that for modern audiences the pacing and story development is ponderous for audiences (not so much for audiences when it was released in 1968, who grew up on long conversations, early TV, radio and no devices). This was in 2018 and phones and the interwebs were in full swing. Also, I had spent time teaching seminars at elite universities and had noticed that, since about 2005, the students had less and less background in history and critical thinking, as well as putting things in context. This was giving us (and has given us) a generation or more with less of the background that Kubrick would assume the typical viewer in 1968 would have. My sentiments that I shared with her went along these lines saying that the vast bulk of people born after about 1985 or so would have a hard time parsing through a lot of the subtlties that were vital to the story. That and it had a true late 1960s-70s ending where a LOT is left to interpretation. That's when she said, "It's Kubrick, Dave." Anyway, the analogy of the 10k was for Cassie and anyone else whose not sure if the film was for them. Either it is or it isn't. Also, I think I mentioned I've seen it 4 times. Life (at least, in my living of it) is far too short to watch movies or read books that I dislike multiple times. My only real hit against it at this point - and probably every viewing but the first - is the pacing. But thank you, James Melton, for trying to read my mind or presume that you sat in on my life experience. I really appreciate the effort. Next, guess what I said to one of the famous directors who, like me, has a name that ends with a vowel. Bless your heart.

Michael G

How about 2010 being an excellent film on its own enough to make it worthwhile

Christian Becker

No, I still don't get the ending. But I really liked your reaction, if I may address you personally. I sometimes really thought I could read the desperation of trying to understand what was happening on the screen in your face. I'm pretty sure that if someone took a picture of me during this rewatch, it would have shown the same „WTF-is-going-on“ face I get during the last 30 minutes every time I watch this movie. So thanks for a very nice watch along.

James M

When they get to space your comments are great. "No dialogue" yes 23 min along and not a word. "Star Trekian" yes the station is like later movies. I thought that view was very close to some scenes from Star Wars films decades later. That's because this movie set the mold and we have made limited progress towards space life that we can use to replace this iconography. "Gravity" does a fantastic job of updating what movie space looks like to match what it actually looks like for us.

deskmerc

You mentioned that the film looked great, like the HD 4K BluRay scan made it pop. That's not the case...most films were done with 35mm film, Kubrick used 65mm film (projected at 70mm) and this is how the film looked like when it was released. (Essentially he made a 12K resolution film...in 1968) Panavision made him special lenses just for this film, so it could be as sharp as you see it now. The man was meticulous with his photography here, and his optical effects methods were years ahead of everyone else. Literally nobody had seen anything like this before.

keoma songs

When it comes to trippy or hard or intellectual sci+fi movies, I always preferred Solaris (1972), now there's a movie that's about something, even though the book author, Stanislov Lem hated it, as well as apparently hating every other adaptation about his works except one. I also prefer 2010 and would rank it next. Then I would probably rank 2001 above Solaris (2002). Then dead last would be On the Silver Globe (1988). That movie is a nauseating migraine, If you know you know.

Grinznmore

I'll check it out. Thanks. Happy Holidays

James M

I mentioned noticing something new every time. It struck me how during the presentation when he talks about "absolute secrecy" and controlling what the public knows and obtaining "oaths" from everyone, Kubrick frames him with the US flag. It's a somewhat critical expression I think. He's definitely aligned the authoritarian aspects with the visual of the flag.

James M

I'd just watched "A Night to Remember" about the Titanic yesterday, and today I hear HAL explaining that it is infallible. HAL the unsinkable AI.

Stick Figure Studios

Well, after years of hoping for it I finally got my PIB 2001: SPACE ODYSSEY reaction and it did not disappoint. Thank you again, Cassie, for not only watching this film but for doing it in the theater space. I anticipated that you would be both awestruck and confused by it and while some don't consider that to make for a particularly entertaining reaction, I don't mind it at all. For me, a reaction doesn't have to be Especially animated or visceral. It only has to be authentic and you had an authentic experience with this film. You recognized the iconic music, you marveled at the visuals, you were creeped out by the sentient computer, you scratched your head at the enigmatic finale.... You saw one of the greatest, most original and most challenging films of all time and while I understand you are worried that you didn't get it (although I think you actually got more than you're giving yourself credit for) you were engaged almost the whole time and you had the exact kind of questions that you should have... although I will admit that there were a few more hilarious comments from you than I expected ("You're going down, HAL!"). P.S. If that first sequence felt at all familiar -- the one with the apes and the monolith and the water hole and that fantastic cut (probably the single greatest transition in the history of cinema) from the bone being tossed in the air to a nuclear satellite orbiting the Earth -- it might be because it was parodied in the BARBIE movie. All of those young girls playing with their dolls in that barren wasteland suddenly being confronted with the massive Barbie and then subsequently smashing their dolls (with one girl even throwing her doll up into the air until it cuts to the film's title) is in homage/spoof of this movie.

JRCortez

Onward to "2010: The Year We Make Contact"!! 😆......

Stick Figure Studios

Honestly, I used to greatly prefer SOLARIS as well. Tarkovsky is one of my favorite directors and Kubrick one that I've always found it easier to admire than to truly love (same with this film), until I caught it in an IMAX presentation when it was re-released to theaters for its 50th anniversary back in 2019 and that's when I finally fell in love with it. I don't know that I would say I love it more than SOLARIS but it's close. Incidentally, Tarkovsky himself was not a fan of 2001.

Stick Figure Studios

I think lots of people "get" it, but not in the way that people who don't get it think they're supposed to get it.

Stick Figure Studios

I think your notion of the star child being a form of humanity that can transcend violence is a good inclination because in the initial script when the baby approaches Earth at the film's end, all of the nuclear satellites orbiting the planet (one of which we saw earlier in the film in that iconic cut start being destroyed) suddenly start being destroyed (presumably by some sort of telekinetic ability the baby has) indicating that he has come to get rid of our weapons. Ultimately I'm glad they didn't go with that, but it shows where their heads were at.

Stick Figure Studios

Well put, James, and I appreciate the comparison to CITIZEN KANE, Another great film that I've been pushing for a reaction to on this channel for a long time. I even picked it as one of my five submissions when I won trivia night.

Stick Figure Studios

Did anyone notice that birthdays are a recurring theme throughout this film?

keoma songs

My appreciation grew for Solaris 1972 after watching Solaris 2002. And I like the 2002. Seeing the changes put 1972 in a different context for me. I've also read the Lem novel. So they're all different in their own ways enough to be about different things, or a different focus at least. Another one of these kinds of movies people may or may not have seen, is Eolomea (1972). And as the East German representative to respond to 2001 philosophically, it has as much subtlety and introspection as one might expect from East Germany. I would rank it below Solaris 2002 by quite a bit, though I find its Pre-Star Wars droids amusing.

James M

Have to say I love that you knew exactly when it was going to end. It's like Kubrick perfectly stated his thing and when he was finished you 100% know it.

Tyler Hale

See you next Wednesday

Stick Figure Studios

Every time I watch this film, I forget that that line is in it. I'm pretty sure that's where John Landis got it from because he uses it in almost every one of his movies.

James M

I would ask yourself one more time if you "get it". You said so many insightful things at the end and you noticed so much in the moment. And this movie is about seeing, observing, feeling, and then wondering and thinking. You seemed to do all of that. I don't know how much more *anyone ever got from this movie on their first watching. People left the theater silent. That's how it was. All the talking came later. You "got it" as much as anyone I've met.

Rick Williams

It's okay Cassie. I never got it either. I don't understand why some love it so much. It is just weird.

Vak

Cassie, by questioning whether you actually "got" it, in a very real sense you DID get it. Clarke was writing the novel as Kubrick was writing the screenplay, and there was a ton of back-and-forth, but they were both fully embracing their respective mediums. That means that while the story is very similar between the two, the novel explains a lot that the movie chooses not to, as Kubrick was focusing on an experience, rather than traditional developed characters. Or phrasing it another way, his goal was to pour a cascade over the viewer's senses, while forcing their brains to kick in to interpret what they were experiencing. So, basically, yeah, it's about key moments in human evolution being prodded by aliens, interdimensional beings, or what have you. But based on what's presented, it's a perfectly valid take that humans were taking the WRONG lessons from the monolith. In the Dawn of Man section, the monolith inspires prehistoric man to use the very first tool as a survival aid, so they wouldn't have to compete with animals for limited resources - but to actually use those animals themselves as a resource. Did prehistoric man get the lesson "wrong" by immediately using that tool to kill OTHER, less-developed, tribes? Maybe! When the monolith on the Moon is uncovered and is exposed to sunlight for the first time since it was buried, it sends a signal towards the monolith orbiting Jupiter. Was that really intended to send a human spaceship chasing in that direction, or just a signal to its builders that humanity had "woken up" and left Earth? We're not told. For all we know, the builders THINK they're getting a signal that a peaceful humanity has left its cradle and is ready to take its place with other developed races, but instead get a ship sent by a secretive government controlled by a computer with a tenuous grip on sanity and morality, plus a couple of completely uninformed astronauts. (Boy, won't THEY be surprised.) Kubrick is posing questions, not giving answers. So in that sense, you "got" it completely.

Michael Labs

I've seen this movie a few times before I was able to even pretend to "get it"...and that was with the help of other people's theories and impressions. As to the movie itself, I think it lends itself better to "...how is this making me feel?... what is this making me think about?..." As others have said, I think pacing does the film a disservice for the more modern day viewer (I'm kind of a "tweener" in regard to slow draw outs vs constant activity). During the appearances of the monolith, it occurred to me this time to imagine that an actual chorus of angels would indeed be a fearful thing. Also, it was stated in the past that what if the initial shots of "nothing" at the beginning and intermission of the film was actually a close-up of the monolith?... and we see nothing because we weren't selected to have the cosmos explained to us... High-brow vs Low-brow? I am not going to pretend to be any kind of arbiter in that discussion. I will admit that this is an example of a movie that I have to be in the mood for when I view it, otherwise I get little from it. Enough stream of consciousness for tonight from me.

Johnny Liu

You are right about the movie being atmospheric and an experience, I think Kubrick himself said it is a movie that he thought was better to be felt rather than intellectualized. There is also a very funny and off the cuff interview he did with a Japanese media journalist in the 80s where he explains the ending of the film. https://youtu.be/zaR2pJjL08g?si=HT3QN7cF8DJV84FT

Stick Figure Studios

I saw the 2002 film before I ever saw the Tarkovsky one. I actually didn't like it when I saw it, but I haven't watched it since. I should really be visit it. Perhaps I would appreciate it more now.

Stick Figure Studios

Not comparable in terms of quality certainly, but in terms of subject matter, aesthetics and some themes. Like I said above, Nolan deliberately tried to evoke Kubrick'a film, but he's not nearly the cinematic artist Kubrick is.

SeanATX

Great outro Cassie! You summed up some good points about the experience of seeing this for the first time.

Chris Thom

I feel like the ending imagery with all the colors and the lights actually was kind of meant to simulate an acid trip or something similar. The drug LSD was coming up on the scene in the late 60's, in part because of Ken Kesey (famous author) who stole it from a psychologist's office while working at a mental hospital and ended up distributing it all over the SF Bay Area. He and professors and writers like Timothy Leary hoped to make the drug and it's effects a big part of their lifestyle. Lots of intellectual types trying to open their minds and find spiritual connection while at the same time a lot of changes were happening in politics, culture, war, and society. Some computer scientists, inventors, and artists credit the drug for allowing big breakthroughs to come forth. Heady time. This film was some kind of statement on that era, I think. What it means precisely is open for interpretation.

Gray

Tt's certainly a striking movie the craft put into it visually is quite amazing, must say Kubrick loves a craft docking. That look to the camera with confusion near the start made me actually laugh out loud.

JPDotCom23

You should check out '2010: The Year We Make Contact', it's not as trippy

Keith Jacobsen

Cassie's expression through most of this: ROFL But don't feel bad, though it's an important and innovative film, people have been BAFFLED by it since 1968.

Brad

I never realized Discovery One and the Nostromo have the same soundtrack. So this movie could be summed up as HAL murders everyone, then Dave drops acid lol The sequel is really good and explains what happened in this movie.

Philip Alan

Look at Cassie recognizing the fantastic camera work in this movie! Love it!

Catherine LW

Well, Cassie, you were not as lost as you thought. You followed it very well, and your reaction was not untypical for this film. Best comment: “You murdering little red dot!” 😆

Catherine LW

True, Stick. Floyd’s daughter. Frank’s birthday. Then Dave is “reborn”.

Dioskur

"But the part that I think really turns so many people off is the pacing. The film takes its time. This used to be much more common in filmmaking. Movies like this and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly are deliberately paced. Shots linger. And today’s audience has no patience for that. Today, we’re used to constant stimulation. Sitting quietly and thinking about what you’re seeing/have seen is akin to mental torture to many. It’s unfortunate because I think we’ve lost a lot, including the capacity for deep consideration and contemplation." Did you read up on the reaction of the people when it came out initialy? They hated it and of the few people staying in the cinema most were high, because the end had a reputation for being great trip fodder. Thats why the movie made only 2 million and had to be changed and re-released to even reach the production costs. So yes, we lost something: People arnt allowed to smoke pot in the cinema anymore, so they cant stand the pacing. And dont take it from me, they even changed the marketing to call it a great trip movie. I am glad you like it and as I said somewhere else it has some great aspects but calling everyone disabled by brain rot who doesnt like it is just disrespectful.

Shawn Kildal

When she said, "hesitant to watch" in her intro, I think the word she was looking for was "apprehensive".

Shawn Kildal

Just by watching Cassie's body language and facial expressions throughout this reaction, I'm going to guess this isn't going into the "S" tier in her movie rankings.

Shawn Kildal

Speaking of science fiction films and problems with Paramount Pictures regarding Forrest Gump, Star Trek VI the Undiscovered Country is also no longer available on YouTube.

Stick Figure Studios

I'd be willing to tell you why I love it if you are genuinely interested.

Stick Figure Studios

Also, while HAL is being disconnected by Dave, he reverts back to the moment he first became operational, in a sense his "birth day."

YodatheHobbit

THAT music was also featured in the high HALO jump military skydive scene in Godzilla(2014), as well as the scene of Caesar's tribe hunting at the beginning of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I'm sure it's been in a few other films too I'm less familiar with. I remember reading one comment about this film which is kind of a DUH, but really impressed me when I was reminded of it. This film was made before we even WENT to the moon. That just made me go, WOW. I think the ending can be best and most simply summarized as this: Dave has transcended time and space, so he is always continually seeing both his future and past self(sort of like in Arrival?). The room he's in I assume might have been created for him by the monolith/aliens/higher intelligence to live in (similar to the ending of Contact?) based on what he would like. That makes the most sense to me. It's the HOW he's reborn at the end that I can't really ever find words for in trying to explain to myself. Although I haven't really researched how others explain it, at least not for quite a few years. Space hermaphroditically(like a worm) birthed him in a giant womb? Is the "Starchild" a god? irrrnerntnoooo...

Old As Dirt Bert

Saw it new with a date in '68 and both of us thought it ho-hum. We were already tired of psychedelic visuals by that point. Saw it twice after that and appreciated the cinematography a little more. Saw it now with Cassie and thought about Kubrick creating for himself and thinking the movie-goers wouldn't understand but it didn't matter. I was happy with Cassie's reaction to the noise, the indulgent black screen, the unsatisfied plot points, and an ending that might hope for a follow-up picture.

Clay F

I liked it. Went in without any effort or desire to understand. All I could really remember from watching portions decades ago was the nature of the interaction with HAL and the sound of HAL's voice. Kubrick directed FMJ you reacted to. I think Kubrick's "The Shining" is a work of art, but I know a tough reaction for you. This year, as suggested by my son (a Kubrick fan), I watched "Paths of Glory" (1957) [RT 96%, RT Aud 95%] directed by Kubrick and liked it. I plan to watch Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971), which I don't really remember and understand it's wild. Son suggested "Barry Lyndon" (1975) (Ryan O'Neal) [Kubrick] - on my watchlist. Kubrick's final film is "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999) w/Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, which is a little too disturbing for me -- I would have preferred more sensual -- but still a striking movie and I recommend. "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999) is a Christmas movie (definitely more of a Christmas movie than Die Hard).

Christian Becker

"That's ‘Paths of Glory’ with Kirk Douglas? In my opinion a very good film, but it is hard to watch. A very good demonstration of the madness of war, though. Definitely worth a watch. 'A Clockwork Orange', holy cow! I can't say that I enjoyed that movie very much, but it is also one I'm glad I've watched. And as a plus, it inspired a German punk band, Die Toten Hosen, to do a concept album about the film/book. As punk is not to everyone's taste, I'm sure it’s not a plus for many people, but I happen to like the album. There is even an English version of the most popular song on the album, 'Here Comes Alex'."

Clay F

Yeah, w/Kirk Douglas. I liked it. I am unsure if I will like A Clockwork Orange.

Rick Williams

I am interested. And to be fair I haven't seen the movie since I was a kid. I am going to watch it again with Cassie's reaction and see what it is like to watch it as an adult.

Catherine LW

I agree, Clay. I saw Eyes Wide Shut once and that was enough for me. Disturbing.

MikeLL

I haven't watched the full reaction, just the first 45 minutes or so. I'll save it when I am really desperate to watch something. It seems like such a chore to watch the whole thing right now. But I do have one criticism about the reaction. By now Cassie should understand the concept of an Overture. She has watched many films with overtures now, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia and My Fair Lady come instantly to mind. She even cut off the overture to one movie, which I found unforgivable at the time. Of course, it is Cassie, and I have such forgiveness that I have forgotten which movie it was. Maybe faulty memory at my age, ha ha.

Yaisu

i never cared for this movie. It's a 90 minute movie stretched out to be a 2 and half hour movie.

Catherine LW

I was 7 years old, saw both films and certain scenes horrified me: Seeing Frank hurtling through space, cut off, frantically trying to reconnect to his oxygen tank. Seeing Landon’s partially shaved head with stitches, revealing he had a lobotomy. Never forgot those shockers.

Shreddy

I think it's a tad overrated, like many Kubrick films. Sorry. I pretty much only like "Full Metal Jacket", and after the boot camp section it weakened considerably. "The Shining" is good I guess, but I'm not into horror. "Dr. Strangelove" had some fun bits. "Eyes Wide Shut" is his worst. Haven't seen "Barry Lyndon" or "Lolita" though. Kubrick had some originality and occasional strokes of genius (in many of his movies, that are not enjoyable or intellectually even stimulating, as a whole) that are rare in Hollywood, but he was also really uneven and a bit crazy. And sometimes a bit pseudo-artistic, sorry. "A Clockwork Orange" and "Eyes Wide Shut" especially. Don't think you necessarily missed all that much. The ending is ambiguous and left open for interpretation. Is that the sign of courage or cowardice? Maybe courage, in Hollywood HAL 9000 was one of those strokes of genius. Maybe he predicted our near future. The effects are certainly groundbreaking, for 1968, but I don't think it makes it a good film.

Freja Corbinne

I think you missed the point of both FMJ and Dr. Strangelove

Freja Corbinne

Maybe for visual fidelity, but for dynamic range nothing compares to a properly done HDR 4K remaster on a proper display. A theater projection is way more flat in terms of luminosity and contrast.

Freja Corbinne

2010 has some fun space stuff, political drama, AI drama, and aliens. I think it's a fun watch, even if it's not super deep. It's more fun than this movie is.

Henry Graham

Possibly an apocryphal story, but at the premiere of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rock Hudson stormed out halfway through shouting, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?" Burt Lancaster was another among the 200-odd who left early, although he would later accept Kubrick's Academy Award in the director's absence. I think this is objectively one of the greatest achievements in cinema history, a film that leaves me marvelling at the screen every time I watch it - usually whenever the 70mm print is brought back to the Prince Charles Cinema in London. I love its genuine attempt to wrestle with our place in the universe and the nature of mankind, and there are so many shots in this film that still feel like miracles. An audacious, singular masterpiece.

James M

So "Don't like the movie. Don't like the director." Hard to discuss "I didn't like it" but that's fine. I don't like Pauly Shore and people wonder why. I try not to say why because they get offended, particularly if they like him. That might be the case here too. :)

James M

Glad you enjoyed it. If you start to think about it you can think quite a while about 2001. It's not a puzzle to solve but a few ideas to think about. If you find none of the ideas here relate to anything you ever think about then my feeling is you don't think about the universe and how we perceive ourselves in it very much. And maybe that's the thing that people really don't enjoy when they watch 2001. They don't have the time or interest to think about what we have made of ourselves, why we have done that, what kind of future we will have. I don't mean the future as in some adventure story like Star Trek or The Martian or Apollo 13. We all know what those are and they have nothing to say about the future - we can read The Odyssey, Treasure Island, Moby Dick, Musashi and see what an adventure is about. When I think about the future I think mostly about the present and what projecting from it tells us. That's what serious science fiction does. "Foundation" did that. "Dune" tried to. Arthur C Clark tried to do that when he wrote "2001" and I think Kubrick saw that and tried to capture it in film. Not an easy task. Dune has been notoriously difficult to film and though the recent movies are popular they leans into the Arabian Nights aspect and lose some of the introspection that was so prominent in the novels. Foundation, the TV series, has struggled to get a hold on the concepts and the scope of the novel. It's a very difficult task to turn strong science fiction into a good movie. So given the challenge involved I think 2001 is even more of a masterpiece. It was extremely hard to bring these ideas to film and not dilute them and Kubrick managed to do it.

Steve Holton

Actor Anthony Daniels also walked out of the film after 20 minutes and demanded his money back from the box office. Little did he know what influence the film would subsequently have on his career as George Lucus claimed Star Wars would never have happened, but for 2001: A Space Odyssey. And Anthony Daniels would never have starred as the Android C-3PO.

James M

As to other Kubrick films: I get really bored by "Barry Lyndon" and I know most Kubrick fans don't but I do. "A Clockwork Orange" is a fantastic movie. Highly recommended. Not sure I'd press for it in this venue. Lots of the fans of the channel will not like it and most likely Cassie will not enjoy it. "Lolita" is a non-starter here for the obvious reason. I have missed most of his older films other than "Spartacus" which I think would be a fine watch for this channel. I have never wanted to watch "Eyes Wide Shut". First the subject is problematic for me personally. Second I have too many feelings about the actors in the lead roles not to read into the characters my own feelings about the actors. I can't be objective enough to enjoy any of this movie, so I have left it alone.

James M

People have been baffled by the demand that they think since long before 1968. ;)

James M

One last thought: If you look at Transcendence as an experience and then try to portray it in film you will have a very hard time doing it in a way that's meaningful to everyone I think. I believe there's a notion of transcendence in the final section of 2001 and I think the colorful effects are a dated way of trying to show that while the aging man is a more poetic way of showing it. If you consider some other movies where a character transcends our existence they can seem peculiar. I can think of "Being There", "Eraserhead", "Powder", "Groundhog Day" or "Barbie". Some of these work better for a contemporary audience. We don't get frustrated at "Barbie" going from Barbieland to the real world and back again by using toy modes of transportation, but we might feel frustrated with Dave going from the real world of the spaceship to his transcendent room via lots of colored lights. We accept Bill Murray's enlightenment in Groundhog Day as a matter of trying to be a better person for the betterment of society and being judged as sufficiently improved by Andie MacDowell, but we may shake our heads asking what just happened when Jeremy Reed leaves the Earthly world behind in "Powder". However we don't miss the fact that something astonishing is happening in Powder or 2001 while we might reduce the change in Groundhog Day to a romcom true love moment or dismiss Barbie's trip as a bit of cartoon story with nothing significant behind it. You risk losing the fact that you are portraying a transcendent moment when you make it more accessible.

Stan the Man

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but man that’s disappointing to read. Kubrick is an artist first and foremost. On of our greatest. 2001 is one of the great works of art full stop. Some people can’t get beyond not understanding the ambiguity but that’s what makes “art” art. Why did Da Vinci paint Mona Lisa smiling like that? The ambiguity is the wonder, asking ourselves “what does this mean? What does it say?” If you want a straight arrow 3 act film tied off with a neat bow? Kubrick probably isn’t for you. But that doesn’t make him overrated. You can not like a movie and still appreciate its genius. 2001 changed science fiction in cinema. It was a paradigm shift. I don’t know how old you are but try to put yourself in the mindset of someone in the 1960s. All the sci fi you’ve seen in film is mostly cheap B movies. Nobody had ever taken it as seriously as Kubrick. Then there’s the visual effects. They are revolutionary, even more so than Star Wars in my opinion. Star Wars effects a lot of them don’t hold up today. But 2001? These images are rock solid. This film was just revolutionary in every way. Its use of music, its cinematography, its narrative, the effects. It was a singular vision in an era where filmmaking was often a producers medium. Kubrick was doing things no one else could even imagine. That’s not an overhype either. Finally I’ll just say this. Kubrick conquered almost every genre and made a stone cold classic in almost each and every one. How many filmmakers can say that? Horror? The Shining. War? Full Metal Jacket. Comedy/satire? Doctor Strangelove. Historical epic costume drama? Barry Lyndon. Erotic Thriller? Eyes Wide Shut(which is an amazing film). The only genre he didn’t get to dabble in was a musical and children’s film. 2001 is a masterpiece.

Kal Zakath

When this first came out, it caused a sensation. It was almost meant to be an experience rather than a comprehensive story. The only Sci-Fi things we had as a reference were shows like Star Trek, and pretty much grade B movies. Forbidden Planet was the first big budget Sci-fi movie in the 50s, but there really weren't any after that for a while. That the special effects hold even to this day is impressive to say the least. This movie was made before man landed on the moon, and tried to extrapolate what tech would be available - they predicted video phones, flat screen TVs, showed how things changed with perspective (when the Pan Am flyer is going to the space station and is rotating to dock, you see everything spinning when you are looking at the ship, but from the perspective of the pilots, the space station is stationary as the stars rotate around it, as an example). There is a sequel to this - 2010 - from the novel by the same Arthur C. Clarke (who was an actual scientist/engineer who devised a communication system using satellites in geosynchronous orbit during WW2). It is much more of a main-stream movie with a big cast and it does fill in some of the gaps from this one. Not sure that anything like it could ever be made again - there is so little dialog and action, it's something that wouldn't be a box office hit.

Wayne McKinney

I saw this in 1968 the way it was supposed to be seen: in CINERAMA! And I left feeling cheated. I could recognize what I had just sat through as a unique cinematic experience; the visuals were amazing and so realistic that it still looks good today; the space travel infrastructure was well thought out and anticipated things we experience today; and the malfunction of the HAL9000 certainly has relevance today, and this was before the term “Artificial Intelligence” had even been thought of. Having said all that, I expect a movie to have an ending, not to simply STOP! I was so frustrated by it that I bought the book by Arthur C. Clarke (one of the screen writers) to find out the “star child” story that Cassie looked up after her watch. I’ve never had any desire to see it again but, when watching it with Cassie, it became clear to me how much it had stayed with me over the last 57 years. Although I had forgotten some of the fine points of the storyline, many of the scenes were instantly familiar to me and, overall, it felt like I had seen the film just recently, not 6 decades ago. I guess, if you use that yardstick, it was an exceptional film, but not one I particularly enjoyed. One final thing about the visuals: it was Kubrick’s amazing special effects and realism that have convinced many who do not believe we landed on the moon, that NASA hired Kubrick to fake the moon landings. This movie was released a year before Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon

K, Zachary

Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski were at that premiere they didn't walk out. At least I don't think. No because Polanski and Kubrick were best friends. In fact he convinced him to come back to LA to do Chinatown. It produced the book The Long Goodbye. Ben Affleck is set to direct the movie. The Simpsons copied this so many times here is my favorite https://youtu.be/Eoi99pnnQWo?si=PIOIB3MckEuLj30R Then the Treehouse Of Horror were Pierce Bronson was the voice of the machine: https://youtu.be/yep25xxX47k?si=JFcQ-vpHmNtmpHcI

John Neiberger

This is one of those movies that's worth watching...once. It's not entertainment. It's more of a visual spectacle, like an art installation. Once you've seen it and appreciated, you can move on to something else. The sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is a much more straightforward and entertaining movie.

Just Plain Bob

I think you’re thinking of “The Big Goodbye”, Affleck’s film (based on the book of the same name) about the making of Chinatown. “The Long Goodbye” was a novel by mystery/noir legend Raymond Chandler, featuring his most well known character, Philip Marlowe. It was adapted by Robert Altman into a neo-noir film the year before “Chinatown.” Chandler is one of the acknowledged masters of the form, along with Dashiell Hammett and Ross Macdonald. Although “The Long Goodbye” is quite good, Altman changed the Marlowe character significantly from the books. The best adaptation of the Marlowe novels (IMO) is “The Big Sleep” starring Humphrey Bogart. Bogart was born to play Sam Spade (a Hammett character) and Philip Marlowe and similar noir characters. Nobody did it better.

K, Zachary

Yeah your right it is The Big Goodbye Chinatown and the last years of Hollywood

DAVID COSTELLO

It's cool Anthony Hopkins based his Hannibal Lecter voice off of HAL.

DAVID COSTELLO

Even when she doesn't like, the commentary is gold. "Murdering little red dot".

Steve Smith

2001 is indeed a weird, boring movie. "2010, The Year We Make Contact", the sequel, was way better.

Ginko

Mike, you're being a little harsh here. An overture in a musical or a big epic is one thing — it usually even says ‘Overture’ on screen, and you know you’re in for three hours of spectacle. 2001 literally starts with 3 minutes of pitch-black screen, and music that sounds like hell’s orchestra warming up. There’s no title card, no warning, nothing. It’s not a normal overture, it’s Kubrick trying to make you feel like you just got locked in a dark room on another planet. The whole point was that this was not going to be like any movie you've seen before. Even some audience members from that era thought the projectionist had started the wrong reel or that there was a sound-system malfunction.

MikeLL

Fair points all, and I like the way you put it, but I do think Cassie should have had some idea of what was going on.

Shreddy

I knew I shouldn't write my honest opinion. I don't know why the hell I did. Even when I know I'm right, from my personal point of view. And I've stumbled across some intelligent people, who share my opinion, along the years. I'm a professional graphic designer, born in late seventies. I'm pretty artistic, spent most of my life with working with and analyzing art. I just don't think most of Kubrick's films say all that much. Style over substance. He did some fairly good films, but also some really mediocre ones, that only seem intelligent on the surface level. They are all visually impressive and bold though. More style than substance. And funny that you'd say that, but I think Mona Lisa is vastly overrated. I've see it IRL, when you look at it objectively, it's nothing special. Small painting with desaturated coloring, I see better stuff in art classes now and then, by total unknowns. People attach stories and myths to certain artists over time. Especially dead artists. Mona Lisa became infinitely more famous after being stolen. It's just a small portrait, really. No message, no symbolism. It's all in people's heads. Stuff that Da Vinci never intended. I'm not saying Kubrick's films are bad. At his best he is far more interesting, than most stuff that comes out of Hollywood. But his work is very uneven, and often more style than substance. Visually all his films look great. And he isn't afraid to break conventions, which can be good, if they are broken for a clear purpose. But he often doesn't have all that much to say. I mean, I didn't say his work is trash. Or even mediocre, overall. Just a tad overrated. Liking all the elitist and ambiguous, unconventional stuff doesn't necessarily make anyone more "artistic" or "clever" or whatever. Like, I know Jackson Pollock is famous, but most of his work gives me absolutely nothing and I think it's pretty much just trash. Not a big fan of Pablo Picasso either. I'm not trying to impress anyone with how elitistic my taste is, I maybe did that when I was like 19 year old insecure art school freshman. Back then saying you hate Picasso (or some Kubrick movies), would have probably been a social suicide. As I aged, I started to prefer honesty, and built the confidence to say what I really think. Online it's pretty dumb though, because lots of cinephiles act just like I acted when I was 19.

Shreddy

Yeah I knew saying it aloud is a mistake. Normally I wouldn't. I like Kubrick, but I think he is just slightly overrated. His films are often more style than substance. Not always, and not all his films. He reached a certain status, where even if he farted, people would interpret there to be some intelligent subconscious message.

John

I have to agree. 2010 was a more enjoyable "traditional" movie. 2001 is definitely an artistic statement.

John

I firmly believe 2001 was designed to be watched on acid.

John

There are a number of videos on YouTube that "explain" 2001 if you're interested. Some are only a few minutes long - enough to give you a synopsis of the grander themes, especially at the end.

John

If the entire movie is exploring human existence, the significance of HAL must be that HAL is the laser pointer, and we are the cat.

Shreddy

I didn't write a word about the point of those films, so how do you know if I missed it... Dr. Strangelove has more in it than just "fun bits", but it's kinda stating the obvious, especially now after the Cold War ended. Back then it was an important film, sure, it amped up the conversation about Nuclear Chain of Command in the USA. It's pretty good, sure. I haven't felt the need to see it again though. Rewatching the scenes with Peter Seller from YouTube is enough for me. That's the funniest bit anyway. USA actually did recruit Nazi rocket scientists, funny stuff. FMJ doesn't have much to say after the boot camp ends. The boot camp is excellent short film, in itself. What's it about? Pretty much about Project 100,000, launched in 1966. And how military units can get very culty. After it becomes just a slightly above average Vietnam war movie, with some colorful dialogue, good visuals, but not that much to say. Kubrick lost his way on the sea. He found something, but it wasn't the Asian continent. "Platoon" is the better Vietnam film, as a whole. "Apocalypse Now", while not realistic, I'd rate second. FMJ is the third best Vietnam film. Dr. Strangelove and FMJ are both anti-war films, clearly. I support that sentiment, I hate Jingoistic American war films. But it doesn't mean FMJ second half wasn't a letdown.

Stick Figure Studios

I actually think 2001 benefits more from multiple viewings. I've seen it about a dozen times in my life and I get something more out of it each time. It's a marvelous movie. 2010 is also good, but it's far more conventional, literal.and less ambitious.

Dioskur

Stan read this sentence of yours again: "Some people can’t get beyond not understanding the ambiguity but that’s what makes “art” art. " You are using the "if everyone would be as smart as me they would agree with me" argument. That is exactly why this movie and some of equal fame allways trigger heated discussion. Because the "I like it" side of the table can't stop acting as if they were trying to educate "the simple people".

RF McNight

Watch the sequel 2010 Cassie. though not as cinematic it does explain 2001 and what happened and is a very good movie in its own right.

Chris Thom

That first Star Trek movie seemed to take a lot of inspiration from 2001 in turn.

Chris Thom

Kubrick movies are fascinating because of how much thought and consideration he puts into every frame. Scenes and the movies themselves are layered with different meanings and interpretations and vibes. There just aren't that many filmmakers quite like that, and that's why he stands the test of time. He read a lot about subliminal advertising and used those methods in his movies in a way that made his work feel like puzzles to be solved. And they have a way of making the viewer an active participant in the experience and to ponder what's under our own beliefs, and hopes and fears-- and how we connect to our society, or don't. I get what you're saying, though. I'm not always in the mood for his films either. But I'm glad he existed and left us some really interesting work. He's a rare one!

Freja Corbinne

Dr. Strangelove uses surrealist and slapstick dark comedy to highlight the absurdity of Cold War posturing, paranoia, and brinksmanship (which led to Mutually Assured Destruction). Full Metal Jacket's second act following the deployed Marines in Vietnam is meant to contrast their increasing disilusionment with the war effort against their dehumanizing treatment of the Vietnamese people. The third act has us see the Marines start to face heavier consequences, as most of Joker's squad is eliminated by a single sniper who turns out to be a young Vietnamese girl. Joker is meant to symbolize how the deployed Marines become completely desensitized, as by the end of the movie he's completely humorless. After being forced to give the sniper a mercy kill he simply reflects that he's "in a world of shit," but happy to be alive. The platoon at the end, singing a ridiculous Mickey Mouse song as they march through a burning ruin of a city, finalizes the dehumanization of the Vietnamese people. Not to say these are super deep themes, but like I didn't study art I studied computer science and physics, and I cranked out this analysis in like 20 minutes. I think 2001 is harder to decipher and made a lot more spectacle of its effects, and the latter is somewhat detrimental to people focusing on the things in this movie that actually matter, like what the monoliths are and what they're doing, as well as the implications of AI (HAL).

Rick Williams

Don't worry about it, Cassie. Don't try and figure it out. The person who wrote this must have been on LSD or something similar. You can check the box that you have seen it. Now you can move with life, and I will do the same because I don't get it either.

Rick Williams

I don't like movies that have to be explained. If you have to explain it to half the people or most of them then you failed as a storyteller.

Rick Williams

It was written and created by people on acid I would say.

HercEl

It's definitely the type of movie you'd have to see several times to try and wrap your head around

Jon Johns

Yoda, although you are 100% correct about Godzilla (2014), since Cassie hasn't seen it, by revealing a specific scene, it is considered 'spoiling'. Please don't spoil things.

Jon Johns

I like what David Lynch says about audiences. He talks about this in several videos you can find, but the gist of it is: David Lynch emphasizes that art shouldn't always make sense and that adults often lose the imagination they had as children, with his quote: "We think we understand the rules when we become adults, but what we really experienced is a narrowing of the imagination". He believed viewers should find their own meanings, suggesting that meaning arises from an emotional connection, not a literal explanation, allowing the audience's subconscious to fill the gaps. In essence, Lynch sees the audience as active participants who should explore the emotional and subconscious depths of his work, rather than passively receiving a single, defined message.

Richard Maurer

Finally got around to watching this reaction. I empathized with Cassie’s “Victorian hotel room” comment. I’ve had a similar thought. The aliens took him on an overly long psychedelic trip across the universe, then put him up in a fancy hotel, with nice towels, which as anyone who’s read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy knows, is very important. Then he kept catching himself aging, only to turn into a space fetus (don’t tell me I’m wrong, my interpretation is as good as any). I do like this film, I just don’t take it as seriously as some people do.

Tinderbox

You watched it from beginning to end, so you are definitely in the club!

Chryss Guiler

That was truly an experience, wasn't it, Cassie? I felt fortunate when it appeared in theaters, that I had read the book by Arthur C. Clarke. Thus, I had a modicum of an idea what was going on. I don't actually remember now a lot of what I'd read, but the beginning where the monolith enabled the apes to begin to reason things out was pretty cool. And, I think you will enjoy 2010 much more. Stars Roy Scheider (Chief Brody in Jaws), John Lithgow (Footloose, 3rd Rock from the Sun), and Helen Mirren (The Queen, and many other great movies and tv).

Kent Theaker

Cassie, you nailed it in so many ways. The monolith at the beginning was an alien intervention to advance mankind's evolution. (You may not have used those exact words, but you got the concept.) Check. We find out late in the film - from Floyd's video - that the transmission of the monolith on the moon was to a third monolith orbiting Jupiter. Dave goes out to examine the third "box" via pod and gets pulled inside it, as a sort of gateway. All the trippy visuals as he's speeding into another...dimension? Well he goes *somewhere*. It turns out to be a fancy hotel where time is fluid, so all the different Daves can see each other. And you suggest the last stage is another evolution. Check. You got it. It's just weird and ambiguous...and Kubrick loved ambiguity, as we know from the hundreds of SHINING explanatory videos.