I once made a comment about 'The Catcher in The Rye' not actually being that good and pondered if it was one of those things where people are afraid to say so because everyone else seems to think that it's a classic. Turned out people were not afraid to say i was some sort of dullard.
I'm about to say the same thing about a film that i haven't deliberately gone out of my way to avoid but have heard constantly is the high water mark of sci-fi, so when i saw the DVD in a supermarket bargain basket for £1.99, i threw it into my trolley.
I'm not much of a fan of sci-fi movies anyway but i was willing to give 2001: A Space Odyssey a chance, especially as it had Stanley Kubrick's name on the credits and he generally turned out good, if eccentric, films.
The initial 'Dawn of Man' sequence i understand but it went on for far too long and that set the precedent for the rest of the film. Docking sequences and space walks that just dragged on forever and added nothing to the film except to make it twice as long as it could have been. It felt like a 90 minute film with a thin plot dragged and stretched out to fill 140 minutes.
The part of the film i had heard about most was the HAL computer killing the crew when faced with being disconnected. Loved that idea but by the time that event comes about, it is two thirds through the film and i was numbed by scenes of spaceships floating painfully slowly through space to loud classical music.
I can appreciate what Kubrick was trying to do, showing the vastness and emptiness of space but i just found it tedious and i rewound the ending twice and still didn't understand what went on at the end.
Maybe it was me, admittedly almost everyone else i spoke to about it today just told me i 'just didn't get it' and maybe that's the case but i wouldn't recommend it to anyone very highly. I'd give Catcher in The Rye a wide berth also. Neither of these classics live up to their hype.