More generally, literary critics distinguish between 'show' (reader has to figure things out) and 'tell' (author makes things very obvious) modes of writing [0]. Show and Tell styles also appear in film making. Obviously the film and the book are in different media, but I think it's fair to say that the film 2001 is totally at the 'show' end of the spectrum while the book is mostly 'tell' (in common with a lot of Clarke's writing).
Having said that, I REALLY liked the book, and would recommend that you give it go!
(p.s.: it's BS that you got downvoted for stating a contrary opinion in a measured, reasonable manner -- hopefully my upvote cancels out the haters!)
Large ares of it are basically "wow factor" shots which looked really impressive in 1968 and lack a lot of that to present-day viewers. Sometimes it feels more like an agonisingly slow pan across the concept art.
In the early part, the slow pace of the journey into space heightens the sense of isolation. It's something a modern movie couldn't get away with, and is a unique part of 2001 that you should really experience.
I believe space is black, silent, and immobile- though this might be just the lasting imprinting of 2001. I doubt you'd see anything resembling Hubble images up there.
This way of thinking is common, but you're missing out. There is an entire world out there where movies are art and they can be as perspective-changing as a good book.