In some circles, admitting that you find anything by Kubrick "boring" is considered uncool, so nobody will admit to it. It's like Blade Runner (also mentioned in Moorcock's essay, not coincidentally): their cultural and historical significance for genre development means that cinematographical critique will always be forced to take a back seat.

Personally, I'm a child of the late '70s and I just cannot watch 2001 without falling asleep. Sure, I admire the photography and the realism; the second half of the movie is occasionally exciting; but among Kubrick's work, it's definitely not one I'd rewatch. Part of the reason is even willfully acknowledged: Kubrick actually meant to show how space-travel was very boring, Moorcock mentions it. So there is no shame in admitting that the message was efficiently driven home.