Get the MovieNight app
Add it to your home screen — faster & full screen
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
The Space Odyssey Series
An epic drama of adventure and exploration.
Humanity finds a mysterious object buried beneath the lunar surface and sets off to find its origins with the help of HAL 9000, the world's most advanced super computer.
polfloe10
Jun 17, 2026 · via TMDB
i mean its alright. it hits a pretty okay point. yea. it was solid but nothing special. i agree with myself.
jc2try
Jan 10, 2026 · via TMDB
It's not for general entertainment and the audience is movie industry/enthusiasts. Movie critics and the people find effort to leave a review for it happen to be in the niche, therefore it has a high score. Sure, it this movie might have made some breakthrough in the industry. But I, like other general audience, didn't find it greatly entertaining.
RealZero
Dec 7, 2025 · via TMDB
From an artistic point of view, I can certainly see the appeal of this movie. From its influence on media, as well. But, to me personally, that's about it. Very short summary: - Very artistic movie that has very nice visuals, great use of classical music and use of sound or lack of sound to create an ominous atmosphere - But sadly, extremely slow...everything. Which would be fine if it would lead to a satisfying, surprising conclusion. But ultimately the conclusion, also, is just an artistic one, and all possible story elements around HAL that could've been used...stay unused. -- Longer: The visuals, especially considering its age, are impressive. Little details, especially in the beginning, that show us how communication, food and such things work in this vision of future are quite interesting and made me optimistic to where it would lead to. Sure, the pacing was slow from the very beginning, I'm certain the first hour would be handled in today's age in 20 minutes, but hey, I don't mind a slow start and I'm used slower pacing from older films. Then the middle part, everything involving HAL, which, I assume, is the most well-known part of the movie, even to those that haven't watched it. It's slow, but interesting. So much potential: Does HAL make mistakes? Is everything planned? If he makes mistakes: why? What's his agenda? And is it HIS agenda? Very much potential along with his natural question in an unnatural, calming, constantly calm tone. Many interesting things could come from this. But sadly...they don't. The possibly dangerous parts are resolved quickly, the "secrets" are more confusing than shocking and the last 20 - 30 minutes of the movie are basically just an art piece you'd expect from a museum or theater. In both, good and bad ways. As said in the beginning, from an artistic point of view, I like this movie. Really nice designs, lovely and strong use of classical music and the sound, or more often, lack of sound, creates a really interesting atmosphere fitting to the "vast emptiness of space" mood. If that is what you want, it's quite impressive. But if you want a story, twists and possibly complicated or interesting revelations...I don't see any of it. Everything about HAL and the monolith had potential for so many stories, but in the end the creators decided to end the movie on an artistic yet confusing scene that offers no real resolution of anything and a very long drawn-out way to reach it. It's a pity, I would've liked more story around HAL. So...watch it if you're into art and movie artistry, but don't expect to be moved by the story, if you are like me.
Christopher Figaro
Oct 19, 2025 · via TMDB
This is the second Stanley Kubrick movie I've seen that I didn't enjoy. The first was The Shining, which I found painfully slow and uninteresting. It annoyed me. And it's not because it was bad, but because everyone treats it like a masterpiece. I expected brilliance, tension, something gripping. I got none of that. And this space movie is no different. I'll give credit where it's due. The movie is well made. The visuals and cinematography are stunning. The effects and the music are genuinely impressive. You can clearly see how other movies like Star Wars, Interstellar, and Inception took inspiration from it. But that's where the praise ends. The movie is pointless, painfully slow, and filled with way too many long drawn out shots. The opening title alone takes over four minutes. Four minutes of just music and a black screen. What was the point of that? Then we spend twenty minutes watching a bunch of monkeys in the wilderness. Later, we're stuck with two characters silently eating and watching an expositional video on their tablets for what feels like an eternity. There are no characters worth mentioning or even remembering. The story goes nowhere, and by the end, it feels like the movie had absolutely nothing to say. I expected this movie to at least have a story, something to hold on to. I don't think I'll be watching any more of Kubrick's movies. I don't care how highly praised they are. I'm done.
griggs79
Nov 14, 2024 · via TMDB
Seeing _2001: A Space Odyssey_ on the big screen for the first time is an eye-opener. The vastness of space, the eerily precise shots of the spacecraft, and the careful pacing all come to life in a way a TV could never match. The immersive sound design, from the opening hum to the famous orchestral music, and in particular the equally orchestrated silence filling the cinema, makes you feel like you're part of the journey. Details that might seem faint on a smaller screen are clear and striking here: the textures of the spacesuits, the contrast in colours, and the scale of Kubrick's vision. This unique visual and auditory experience in a cinema is a must for any film enthusiast, as it genuinely lets the film's grandeur and mystery sink in.
r96sk
Jan 16, 2024 · via TMDB
Pleasing on a technical level, even with barely anything to grasp story-wise. <em>'2001: A Space Odyssey'</em> looks and sounds exquisite, it really is seriously impressive in that regard for a film from 1968. That is, however, the only reason that this gets a passing rating from me if I'm to be totally truthful. The plot itself is rather disappointing, with not much meat on the bones. I get it's evidently going for the more artsy approach, made clear by the lack of dialogue/bona fide narrative alongside plenty of ambiguity. It's a Stanley Kubrick film after all, not that I've seen much of his work (this be the first, in fact); moreso what I've heard through the grapevine down the years. There are also a lot of long held, empty-feeling (as intended, I'd imagine) shots that bothered me throughout. It just didn't entice me, that's all. I can still respect it. Given the aforementioned, the cast are basically nonentities - as harsh as that may sound. Douglas Rain does a good job, in fairness, and William Sylvester is alright. I can't say I blame those onscreen all that much, as they aren't exactly given much opportunity to showcase themselves. As has been the case with a couple of other movies down the years, I'm certainly content to file this one with the 'I clearly didn't get it and I'm cool with that' tag. I'm still glad I watched it. I do appreciate it, if only technically, and naturally love that others love it.
User reviews courtesy of TMDB.
Amazon Video
Apple TV Store
Google Play Movies
YouTube
Fandango At Home
HBO Max Amazon Channel
Philo
YouTube TV
TCM
HBO Max
Amazon Video
Apple TV Store
Google Play Movies
YouTube
Fandango At Home
Spectrum On Demand
Keir Dullea
Dr. David Bowman
Gary Lockwood
Dr. Frank Poole
William Sylvester
Dr. Heywood Floyd
Douglas Rain
HAL 9000 (voice)
Daniel Richter
Moonwatcher
Leonard Rossiter
Dr. Andrei Smyslov
Margaret Tyzack
Elena
Robert Beatty
Dr. Ralph Halvorsen
Ed Bishop
Aries-1B Lunar Shuttle Captain
Glenn Beck
Astronaut
Alan Gifford
Poole's Father
Ann Gillis
Poole's Mother
Edwina Carroll
Aries-1B Stewardess
Penny Brahms
Stewardess
David Charkham
Ape
Maggie London
Hostess in Elevator (uncredited)
Chela Matthison
Receptionist (uncredited)
Vivian Kubrick
Floyd's Daughter (uncredited)
Kenneth Kendall
BBC-12 Announcer (uncredited)
Kevin Scott
Miller (uncredited)
Burnell Tucker
TMA-1 Site Photographer (uncredited)
John Swindells
TMA-1 Site Technician #1 (uncredited)
Stanley Kubrick
Astronaut Breathing (voice) (uncredited)
Anthony Masters
Production Design
John Alcott
Additional Photography
Geoffrey Unsworth
Director of Photography
Brian Johnson
Special Effects
Stanley Kubrick
Director
Derek Cracknell
First Assistant Director
Stanley Kubrick
Producer
Douglas Trumbull
Visual Effects
Stanley Kubrick
Visual Effects
Douglas Trumbull
Visual Effects Supervisor
Arthur C. Clarke
Screenplay
Stanley Kubrick
Screenplay
Apr 2, 1968
Apr 10, 1968
Jan 1, 1974
Re-release
Oct 5, 2001
Re-release
May 18, 2018
70mm re-release
Aug 24, 2018
IMAX version
© 2025-2026 MovieNight. All rights reserved.
Versus
Sign in to play →
Poros Stands
2024
Hands On
2016
Sign in to vote
Battle your watched movies head-to-head
Community Top Movies
Evil Dead II
1987 · 14 wins
The Dark Knight
2008 · 14 wins
Final Destination
2000 · 12 wins
Top Gun: Maverick
2022 · 11 wins
Joker
2019 · 11 wins
Trivia
Leaderboard →Playing as a guest — sign in to save your score and rank on the leaderboard.
Movie Trivia
Guess the movie from a clue — tagline, plot, cast and more. Pick from four posters.
What movie experience do you prefer?
What is your favorite movie genre?
Versus
Sign in to play →
Poros Stands
2024
Hands On
2016
Sign in to vote
Battle your watched movies head-to-head
Community Top Movies
Evil Dead II
1987 · 14 wins
The Dark Knight
2008 · 14 wins
Final Destination
2000 · 12 wins
Top Gun: Maverick
2022 · 11 wins
Joker
2019 · 11 wins
Trivia
Leaderboard →Playing as a guest — sign in to save your score and rank on the leaderboard.
Movie Trivia
Guess the movie from a clue — tagline, plot, cast and more. Pick from four posters.
What movie experience do you prefer?
What is your favorite movie genre?
We use essential cookies to run MovieNight, plus analytics (Google Analytics) and advertising (Google AdSense) cookies. By continuing to browse, you agree to this — or click No and we won't. See our Terms & Privacy Policy to learn more.