As others have said, read to book first––or else it make little sense.

A good movie just for the visuals at the time, and the very dry pacing––which to me adds to the ability to get involved.


 

I liked it.

I agree completely.  It's almost as bad as watching Spock travel through Vger.

Want a realistic depiction of space travel?
2001
Want a philosophical thinker art movie?
2001
Want action and high drama?
Then 2001 is not for you.
Might I suggest 2010?  
I like 2001.  I don't particularly agree with everything in that 2001 explained video.  
For 1 that video doesn't agree with the explanation for Hal posed in 2010.  Hal didn't make a mistake so much as he was trying to get the message across that something was wrong and that he had a hidden message... without directly saying so.  When the crew misinterpreted that they became a threat to the success of the mission.  
2 it's debatable if contact with the monolith advances evolution or if it's simply a monitor of our progress.  After one group of apes touch the monolith they invent tools and defeat their rivals who had not touched the monolith.  This would seem to indicate the monolith had some effect.  But the other 2 monoliths seem to have no effect on our evolution.  The one on the Moon sends a transmission to the one at Jupiter prompting us to go look at that one.  Most of the crew dies but one get absorbed by the monolith.  The last bit of the film is what it's like in the monolith.  Existing outside of time or at all points in time at the same time.
I like 2010.  It's less of an art film and is still mostly accurate in terms of space travel, has a much more straight forward plot and action, and explains a lot of what happened in 2001.
They are different styles of movie with different messages.  I like both.  One more than the other but that's to be expected.





 

2010 was pretty good.
 

Watch it as though you're reading poetry rather than a novel.

I saw this movie a few years ago at the Leonard Nimoy Thalia Theater in NYC.