Kubrick's Odyssey II: Beyond the Infinite Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick

For those of us who worshipped Kubrick in his glory days (mind you, his legacy WILL live until the real doomsday comes), this professionally-made documentary is truly an eye-opener. Congratulations are in order to its director and producer, it is a truly remarkable piece of film. I was blind, but now I see, and I will keep my "eyes wide open" this time around! Fantastic job!

This is an okay film. I'm not sure I believe everything that is being said. Although, as certain things are being pointed out, it does seem odd that certain things were placed in the movie and does appear to be intentional (as everything usually is in the movie industry). Maybe he is trying to tell us something through his movies. Not sure but it would be worth watching just for curiosity sake.

Interesting Documentary. Interesting but quirky filmmaker of very flawed films.

I liked Jay's first movie even though I thought some of his examples were a little extreme. So I ordered this one. However this film is not a great follow-up if you are already very familiar with 2001.This movie does have important value if you were trying to teach someone why 2001 is not just a slow, old, geekfeast with bad acting and meh special effect. Jay synthesizes many of the philosophical articles that have been written about this masterpiece over the past five decades into a pleasant, decently produced one hour video. He correctly outlines Kubirck's connections to alchemy and the movie's deeper layers that would not be easily exposed to the casual first time viewer.For that effort I give him two stars. However, I knew all of this already and so would any other long time fan of the movie if they had been following reviewers or read Arthur C Clarke's original novel. I had hoped for something new and so I was disappointed. Sorry Jay, if you're reading this, keep up the good work.

Fantastic revelations and narrative to the facts that many people had always been suspect of. I have a new profound appreciation of Stanley Kubrick whereas before I had none. Thank you Jay !

This wasn't what I expected

If you have seen Kubrick's Odyssey 1, you might want to stop there. In the first Jay Weidner explains how the moon landing was a Hollywood fake for the government. Here, Weidner visits 2001 again, but basically disregards anything of the conspiracy and focuses on the occult aspect of the film. After seeing the first film, he seems to completely disregard Kubrick's intent of the film as conspiracy and instead now Kubrick was this alchemist. Which is it?Generally the few points that Jay Weidner explains in 2001: A Space Odyssey could have been explained in about 10 minutes. Instead he wastes the first 30 minutes giving a narrative of the movie as you are basically watching the scenes he is describing. He does not draw any information from the scenes, but just describes them - scene by scene. If you are watching the movie, then all he is saying is completely obvious. I have seen 2001 numerous times and it stands as my favorite film, so it was tedious to listen to him tell me what was happening in the movie.At the 34 minute mark (this film is 60 minutes), he decides to give some explanation to the film. He brings in some occult traditions, mostly alchemy as he is most familiar with it. His relationship to the Tree of Life and Kabbalah needs a little tweaking as he fudges it a little. If he knew more about it, he would have solved the issue that you cannot switch Saturn for the Sun, that section is essentially wrong. If he had gone the way of using elements (earth, water, fire, air) he might have been more successful. Not to mention he only references the Middle Pillar and basically disregards the rest of the tree.As he approaches the end of the film, we are hammered with the final sequence approximately five times in succession. How many times do we need to see this for him to explain his point? He says the floor has 64 squares, the same as a chess board. Kubrick was a chess master. But then resolves that "the monolith had checkmated him". What the heck does this mean? This was an interesting footnote, but nothing more. The floor is not checkered and there is nothing else indicating a strong chess presence. We had to watch the whole end sequence to hear that silly explanation.Watching the final sequence - again - Weidner draws upon the Cube of Space. While this was a good analogy, the monolith is, by design, NOT a cube. The cube of space is literally a cube. All sides are the same length. The monolith clearly does not fit this description.The star child at the end, as he approaches Earth, Weiner makes the silly assertion that it is thinking "There is much work to be done." WHAT?!?!?! Where did that come from? Ugh. Sweeping assumptions in his explanations which left gaps in what should have been the obvious and simple explanation that HAL is representative of the ego (Bowman's ego, the 'I' or 'eye'). Killing HAL and going through the star field was the annihilation of the ego, which follows with death in the hotel room. Then finally rebirth as the star child.It was not a total waste as he points out the sun, moon and stars being aligned (as we see the opening sequence also five times!!) were pivotal points in which the monolith makes itself present as a transformative point for human consciousness. Weidner says at some point that "the movie is the monolith". What the heck does that mean? He does not explain his thoughts and makes poetic assertions that dont mean much. The monolith as Philosopher's Stone is perhaps the best point he made. But he never expounds on this. He makes other points about some stuff, but does not thread anything together.It seemed there were so many missed opportunities to tell us something but instead just continued to tell us the story which we already know, or could tell by watching the movie. I just cannot recommend this DVD. A die-hard Kubrick fan would be irritated. Someone who never seen the film would be better off seeing the film instead. And conspiracy buff or occultist would be left wanting something of more substance. I might also point out that the production is called "Cubed Brick Productions". Heh. Get it? He even goes as far as to suggest that is what the monolith is. Ugh. Spare me.

I had always wondered what Kubrick was really on about in 2001.Some interesting theories here.The "arcane" way of looking at these things requires a great deal of research it seems!