I think it’s brilliant in a larger artistic aesthetic sense, as an experience, but I fully agree that it should have been an hour longer to really tell the story to completion. I’ve always treated 2001 more as an audio-visual experience, though, so I don’t really mind. The Arthur C. Clarke book exists for a more plot-based experience. But your criticism is totally valid.
2001 was revolutionary, but it’s 90 minutes too long for the story it tells, and not nearly long enough for the story it pretends it’s trying to tell.
I think it’s brilliant in a larger artistic aesthetic sense, as an experience, but I fully agree that it should have been an hour longer to really tell the story to completion. I’ve always treated 2001 more as an audio-visual experience, though, so I don’t really mind. The Arthur C. Clarke book exists for a more plot-based experience. But your criticism is totally valid.