2001: A Space Odyssey Reviews

• Bonus Materials for this DVD set

  
  By on 2007-08-07
  I haven't seen any of this, but I thought anyone interested in this new edition might find it useful, since it's currently not in the product description.
  
  The 2001: A Space Odyssey (Special Edition) DVD will feature the following bonus materials:
  
  * Commentary by Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood
  * Theatrical trailer
  * Channel 4 documentary: 2001: The Making of a Myth
  * Standing on the Shoulders of Kubrick: The Legacy of 2001
  * Vision of a Future Passed: The Prophecy of 2001
  * 2001: A Space Odyssey - A Look Behind the Future
  * 2001: FX and Early Conceptual Artwork
  * Look: Stanley Kubrick!
  * Audio-only interview with Stanley Kubrick
  
  

• Learn Your Aspect Ratios

  
  By A2HYMA3BGE9ZHH on 2007-10-23
  In regards to the uneducated 2.35:1 zealot reviewer, as a Director of Photography, I can state unequivocally that 2001 is supposed to be in 2.20:1 aspect ratio. It was shot in 2.20:1. It was not shot in Cinemascope (or anamorphic Panavision), which is 2.35:1. It was shot with straight lenses in Super Panavision 70 (65mm negative, 70mm projection print with soundtrack). Super Panavision 70 is a 2.20:1 aspect ratio format. When you are watching a 70mm print in a theater you are watching 2.20:1, which was never as wide as the anamorphic formats. Learn your aspect ratios.
  
  Not to mention the fact that Kubrick went to the extraordinary effort of exposing his special effects composite shots as successive passes on the original undeveloped 65mm negative (after it being held sometimes in refrigeration for up to a year or more waiting for the next pass) so that all the composite visual elements are first generation on the original camera negative, rather than the cheaper and more common optical composite dupe negative inserts. Amazing. That is why it looks as good as it does. No optical negative generations.
  
  A Beautiful Film...and one of the best executions of the 70mm format ever.
  
  A true Visual Masterpiece.
  
  

• Still a masterpiece

  
  By ABN5K7K1TM1QA on 2003-12-14
  Regardless of how "bored" some (probably adolescent) viewers may become (forced to maintain their attention span over vast minutes of time on something other than sex, car chases and dripping blood), this is obviously a great movie. At least for the rest of us. Rated in the top 250 (#66) at IMDb, and the subject of innumerable articles and reviews, Stanley Kubrick's much studied and admired visual, artistic and thematic masterpiece, based on the short story "The Sentinel" by Arthur C. Clarke, is still--remarkably, after all these years--a mesmerizing motion picture experience even on a television screen.
  
  This is no mean accomplishment when you realize that Kubrick made his film before humans actually walked on the moon in 1969, and furthermore, when you consider how much more we now know about space travel and how much more advanced special effects have become. What I think contemporary movie makers might learn from Kubrick's work is (1) special effects without rhyme or reason may titillate first time viewers and the very young, but quickly grow meaningless; and (2) even in a movie that relies heavily upon special effects and ideas--which 2001: A Space Odyssey certainly does--it helps a whole lot to have a story to tell.
  
  The story begins in the prehistory and ends in the future. It begins with a pre-human consciousness and ends in mystery. (Note that the last sequence in the movie is labeled in part as being "beyond the infinite"--whatever that metaphysical notion may mean.) Along the way we have a creditable hero (Astronaut Dave Bowman played by Keir Dullea, whom I also recall from David and Lisa, 1962) and a very cold and merciless villain (HAL 9000, the computer as megalomaniac--apparently his makers never heard of Issac Asimov's rules for robots!).
  
  Today we know more about pre-humans and more about computers, artificial intelligence and space exploration, and with such knowledge today's movie makers would avoid some of Kubrick's mistakes. For example, the space craft was far too roomy (ask the astronauts!). Real space ships must be as small as possible to save fuel and they are incredibly cramped. Also, the year 2001 has come and passed, and we are nowhere near the practical capability of providing "artificial" gravity in space. And of course computers (or robots) don't have emotions unless such emotions are built or programmed into them.
  
  Yet the visual sense of space and the terrible isolation of being alone in the vast vacuum has never been conveyed so well. Using music synchronized with visual effects laden with meaning for our earth-bound minds and bodies, Kubrick managed to depict the Pythagorean "music of the spheres" in a most splendiferous and awe-inspiring way.
  
  However, the opening sequence with the hairy apes is probably what Kubrick would most like to redo if he had the opportunity. In the first place, the terrain, which is semi-arid, is all wrong. No hairy, long-armed, bent-legged creature would occupy such a landscape. The "foraging" they were supposed to be doing was ludicrous since there was obviously next to nothing to forage. The tapirs (forest-dwelling animals native to South America and Southeast Asia, by the way, and not to the savannas of Africa, which should have been the terrain depicted) were almost comedically fat for the ecosystem. And the apes themselves, looking and acting a lot like chimpanzees (no doubt the model that Kubrick used), are in conflict with the fossil record as we know it. Our primordial ancestors, the australopithecines, were upright walking apes and probably not exceedingly hairy since they needed to sweat as they walked and ran over the savannas and grasslands of East Africa.
  
  As for using bones as weapons, yes, there can be little doubt that that is what our ancestors learned to do, followed by using hard wood and stones and then shaped stones. And the idea that a bone tool is a proto-type for all the tools to come is also correct, most saliently in the form of the space ship and HAL.
  
  An interpretation of the ending would necessarily include the idea of time as being something other than we think it is. We see Dave as an astronaut in his thirties, and then as a middle-aged man dining in something like a very expensive Parisian apartment, and then on his death bed, and finally as a soon-to-be-born fetus returning to earth. I think it was wise of Kubrick not to attempt to explain what he clearly points to as unexplainable, as "beyond the infinite."
  
  Perhaps the most haunting image of all, at least for me, is the red and yellow "eye" of the HAL 9000 computer as it coldly viewed the two astronauts talking. Therein was expressed, long before it became fashionable, the coming inexorable conflict between us and our machines, between our culture and our biological nature, between natural and artificial intelligence. Never in the history of cinema has that tension been so concisely conveyed as in that scene and in this movie.
  
  See this for Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest film makers of all time.
  
  

• The Definition of a Masterpiece

  
  By ALJWRGOANWDWJ on 2007-08-08
  It's funny how this film polarizes viewers more than almost any other...is it a masterpiece which literally captures on film the metaphysical and spiritual conundrums of our place in the universe? Or is it a boring, stilted and pretentious by-product of the times in which it was made?
  I was all of 9 years old when this film was released, and I will say that at that age it bored me to the point of unconsciousness! That being said, I honestly now believe that this is by far the single greatest motion picture ever made.
  
  This film's greatness lies in its ability to adapt itself to each individual's personal thought structure, so that it literally takes on meaning only with the help of one's own spiritual, emotional and psychological imprint. As such, "2001" forces us to come to direct terms with who we are, why we're here, and perhaps even what might be in store (i.e., the "master plan"). Many see this as a religious film, others as a commentary on man's insignificance within the larger cosmic palette, still others as a straight-forward futurist melodrama. It is indeed all these things, and more. It's a difficult picture to get your arms around, and anything you get out of it, guaranteed, will not be what the person sitting next to you gets out of it. I recently saw a restored version of this film at a theater, and the reactions of those in the audience ran from sobbing to ebullience to confusion to outright anger (and yes, a few people were snoring!).
  
  I might add here that this is not a "Kubrick" thing for me--I think he's somewhat overrated for the most part and only a few of his films speak to me, "A Clockwork Orange" being certainly his other great achievement. Kubrick made some films of questionable value too ("The Shining" being the most problematic, especially when compared to Stephen King's unforgettable source material).
  
  Personally, I feel "2001" is revelatory in almost every respect. I see something new in it, feel new emotions, discover new meaning, with each and every viewing. It is a one-of-a-kind experience and I don't think any other film comes even close to involving me so completely on an emotional and spiritual level. Here's the rub for some: many don't WANT to be taken to task by a movie on this level, and thus I can see how some just aren't moved by it--because they don't want to be.
  
  My suggestion is to put your day-to-day stuff aside, clear your mind of what's on your desk at work or the housework you need to get to this weekend, sit back and join Kubrick on this legendary journey into the unknown. "2001" is one of the very few films I can think of that has the potential to actually effect profound change in those who view it, and wouldn't that be the very definition of a masterpiece?
  
  

• Boycott this awfull DVD !

  
  By A27FF7MP7NJGL2 on 2000-08-18
  I saw the orginal of this film at the Grumman's Chinese in Cinerama, the first week it showed. This DVD is a ripoff and a travesty, an insult to the original film. It's got a lot to look at:

  1. Grainy shots (like cheap Kodak camera shots) in the beginning.

  2. Shimmering and herringbone effects on stars and complex scenes.

  3. Ghosts. Yep. Somehow they managed to record TV style ghosts onto the disc.

  4. Werid vertical "bars" in the dark shots. In the end shots, these turned green and were more interesting to watch than the film. I have since learned that this is an amateur DVD encoding error.

  Last, but not least:

  5. This film, more than any other film on or off this planet, needs to be encoded in proper anamorphic widescreen !

  Boycott this incredibly bad, amateurish attempt at a DVD. The studio can make another. They can afford more than the $100 it must have taken to make this disc.
  
  

• Sci-Fi filmmaking was never the same after "2001"
  By AP3VHIZBRGO9X on 2000-08-29
  In the summer of 1969, when I was all of ten years old, Mom & Dad bundled all us kids into the white Oldsmobile stationwagon and drove to the Rockville (Maryland) Drive-In to see "2001: A Space Odyssey." I didn't know much about the film, but as a budding sci-fi fan I was already champing at the bit to see it. Needless to say, "2001" rearranged my universe. I can't say I understood the movie completely at the time, but I do recall talking my parents' ears off about the film during the drive home.

  "2001" is personally my favorite movie of all time. I've seen it more times than I can count, purchased the soundtrack several times (vinyl and tape wear out, you know), read Arthur C. Clarke's novelization several times, and read every other piece of literature about the film I've been able to get my hands on.

  And recently my partner Greg purchased this "Stanley Kubrick Collection" DVD from Amazon, and it was just last night that we sat down to watch it on our new 32-inch TV and in 5.1 digital sound. What a treat! First of all the print is about as pristine as anything I've ever seen; this movie probably looks better today on DVD than it did in many suburban movie theatres back in 1969. I was immediately struck my how sharp the image was, especially the clean lines of the monolith that appears mysteriously amongst our australopithicine ancestors 4.5 million years ago. While watching this film last night, Greg lamented the fact that kids today who grow up on nothing but CGI effects in science fiction movies may never have a true appreciation for the fine art of model-building; the Orion shuttle, the Discovery ship and its attendant space pods, are stunning examples of elegance in design. The Aries 1-B moon shuttle looks like it ought to have been built and flying by now. The docking sequence with the rotating space station, to the oddly appropriate strains of "The Blue Danube Waltz," look just as clean and modern as anything being filmed today.

  The pop cultural impact of "2001" cannot me overstated. Is it any wonder that over 30 years after the film's initial release, Richard Strauss' tone poem "Also Sprauch Zarathustra" is still associated with space travel?

  That having been said, my only qualm with this edition is that the sound editors involved with the DVD transfer may have taken a few too many liberties. The most glaring example is during the closing credits of the film: In the original print the "Blue Danube" reprise ends with snare drum roll and finish when we see the words "THE END." ... But in this edition the waltz continues merrily on its way long after the screen fades to black. Amazon's website notes that Stanley Kubrick approved all this audio tweaking; I guess I'm just going to have to take their word for it. Granted, the sound is very nice and crisp, the conversations are clear, the bass has a lot of extra "oomph" during Gyorgy Ligeti's atmospheric score. If you are not too much of a Kubrick purist and can overlook the tweaking of the sound, you'll have to admit that this edition of "2001" sounds damned good.

  "2001: A Space Odyssey" was released at a time when there was still a huge sense of wonder and optimism about space travel and exploration. Alas, in the intervening years shifting economic, political and military priorities have eroded much of that wonder and optimism. I wonder if any of us will ever again be able to look up at the stars with as much hope and exhilaration as we had when "2001" first hit the screens.
  
  

• the greatest science fiction experience of all time
  By A3DPL0NBD6YQ6I on 2000-06-13
  You have not seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" until you see it on DVD, with the proper sound system. In this setting, the film is nothing short of mindblowing, and comes as close as possible to the big screen effect. Where do I begin in quantifying this film's greatness? It is the work of a man, Stanley Kubrick, so completely sure of his skills (and correct in his assessment) that he is totally unconcerned about the glacial pace of the film, and doesn't do anything to pander to the audience's shorter attention spans. Yes, it is slow, but each...unfolding...moment...allows...the...viewer...to really contemplate what they are seeing, and the effect, combined with the stunning, impeccably selected classical music, is nothing short of mesmerizing. The scenes with the prehistoric apes discovering weaponry are amazingly staged. Yes, it's people in ape suits...but are they? The sequence is completely, incredibly believable. And then the millions-of-years jump cut...wow. This is simply one of the most rewarding, sublime, creative, gorgeous movie-watching experiences in cinematic history, and I really wish I could give it more than 5 stars. The special effects, for a film 32 years old, still look fresher than anything CGI geeks could dream up. See this film on DVD. Please.
  
  
• Helpful hint
  By A3JNVI7XF1LE4A on 2002-06-11
  There are two DVD versions out there. One from MGM and one from Warners. The MGM version (released in 1998) lacks anamorphic widescreen and was made from an inferior print. The Warners version has a better transfer, a superior sound mix and anamorphic widescreen.

  The MGM version has David Bowman's face on the cover while Warner's uses the Pan Am Clipper and space station painting.

  Make sure you get the Warners version.
  
  

• Great film, poor DVD
  By A3CCYAQRHUTPIQ on 2001-06-25
  You know the film. I'm reviewing this particular DVD release. Don't expect the world. You're essentially getting the film and the soundtrack for slightly more money than it costs to buy both separately. There's a big silver box and some extra stuff, but none of it's worth anything or particularly interesting - the booklet is hardly 'Filming the Future' and the limited-edition serotype is a small piece of card with a 70mm film frame glued into it. There's a trailer but no other extra bits, and I can only assume all the quotes in the reviews below about how the picture and sound quality are excellent are mistaken, because the picture quality is poor at best. The whole film has been squashed into one layer of a single side of a single DVD, and in places the compression is very bad - space is full of dark compression artifacts which hop about, lights and sunlight have chunky halos around them, and there are lots of flaws in the original negative (the intertitles, for example), which aren't corrected. It's worth mentioning the menu, too - it's garish and looks like a children's cartoon. Should you buy this? If you want 2001 on DVD, you don't have much choice. I have no idea if the other version that's out there is any better.
  
  
• The road to nowhere
  By ADTA83BVV65IS on 2000-04-30
  I have read a thousand reviews of this work, and the majority of them miss the point. "2001" is, to be sure, a visual and aural banquet, but we should strive to put aside the magnificent special effects and the hypnotic soundtrack. At the risk of disorienting a worldwide community of SF buffs, it must be said that this is not a science fiction movie. It is just a movie about us. Let's calm down and try to discern something of the true essence of Kubrick's beautiful pictorial essay.

  A dry, stripped bone becomes the first murder weapon in the paws of an early hominid. It is also, of course, the first tool. Pain, and development. Rejoicing, our ancestor hurls the bone into the air. It soars and then falls, tumbling. We progress four million years as the rotating bone blends smoothly into the image of a spacecraft orbiting our planet. Mankind's technological and cultural advances are astounding. But how far have we really come, what prices have we paid, and where are we all headed? Kubrick signals his intent when we see our first example of modern man, aboard the spacecraft. The man is asleep. He is detached, and indifferent. What is at the end of our journey? A featureless and monolithic slab serves as punctuation in Kubrick's essay. It is not God, nor is it an alien, and nor is it an alien artifact. It is just a period placed by Kubrick at the ends of four chapters. At each fleeting apparition, we witness an ostensibly progressive transition, typically accompanied by pain. Pain, and development. In the world of 2001, the distracted energies expended upon increasingly complex technology have drained our ever-shallow pool of humanity into the very machines we have made. We have not come very far, even as the essay persistently takes us further in space, away from the earthly cradle. Dr. Heywood Floyd, modern man's representative, caresses the monolith on the lunar surface with a bewilderment reminiscent of that displayed by the primitive hominids on earth four million years earlier.

  The culmination of all our efforts is HAL, a sentient and talkative computer aboard a (bone-shaped) spaceship en route to the planet Jupiter. HAL has not one strand of our DNA in his circuits, yet he is the most human of all the characters inhabiting the landscape of 2001. During a long and transfixing sequence in which his CPU is slowly disabled by vacuous astronaut David Bowman, HAL gently declares "I can feel it...I can feel it", over and over again. At this point in the story we face the prospect of a world in which humanity (or, at least, human-ness) has been extinguished, ironically in HAL's red and womb-like CPU chamber. The monolith appears and completes another chapter.

  Watch carefully during the wordless final reel of this unique and superb movie. The conclusion is deliberately vague, and purposely and endlessly fluid. Perhaps we finish right where we started, and begin again. It's up to you. Do not look to Clarke's book for explanation. The novel was written during and after the making of the film and, as told by Clarke, the movie is 90% Kubrick and 10% Clarke, and vice versa for the book. By its nature, there is no definitive explanation of the ending to the movie. For a very long double bill, I would recommend pairing the film with Tarkovsky's mesmerizing "Solaris" (1971). I would not recommend "2010" by Hyams (1984), which is a literal, weak and wooden-headed attempt to extend Kubrick's work. Why meddle with perfection?
  
  

• Must Buy
  By A1HCJJ18PXGTNT on 2007-10-24
  This Blu-Ray delivers the goods. First, you plop it in the player and BAM, you are watching the movie. No obnoxious anti-piracy short, no coming soon to Blu-Ray...just the movie. Sweet. Color and contrast are punchy, yet maintain a film-like natural quality. Also, the setup menu provides options to optimize the video settings for different types of rooms and ambient lighting. It was the staggering improvement in the soundtrack that impressed me most. This movie sounds utterly amazing. All of the ambient sounds draw you into each scene, adding to the credibility of Kubrics uber-realistic visual effects. You will hear at least three things in every scene that were indiscernable in the DVD mix. This is a completely different experience than watching the DVD. Highly recommended.
  
  Associated Electronics:
  Sony WEGA 42" LCD
  Sony BDP-S300
  B&K AVR 205i
  Equitech 2Q
  
  
• Blu-ray and beyond the infinite
  By A1WMOILQ1FADDE on 2007-10-24
  Yes, "2001: A Space Odyssey" has been released on Blu-ray, and I'm here to tell you that it has never looked better. Kubrick was kind enough to shoot the movie on 70MM film as if he knew we'd be watching movies on gigantic hi-def TVs in our homes one day. Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood provide an entertaining commentary track, but oddly, they weren't sitting together as they recorded the track. I'm surprised by this as many of us have seen them together at autograph shows. In any case, the commentary track provides us with many behind the scenes stories as if they have been talking about this movie ever since it was released (which is most diffidently the case). Fire up your PS3, turn off the lights, gather your explosive bolts, and watch the most amazing movie ever made as you've never seen it before.
  
  
• Poorest DVD encoding ever seen
  By A3P419N5IDT3U3 on 2000-01-11
  I love the movie, and have seen it many times on video tape - but this has got to be the poorest DVD encoding I've ever seen.

  The first 15 minutes of the film are almost painful to watch. Fades to black end up with dozens of veritcal dark gray bars; scenes with bright colors on a dark background (i.e. the sun from space) have extreme color quantization - meaning you can see distinct rings of color around the bright object, not a smooth transition.

  For a polar opposite, watch The 5th Element. None of these artifacts are visible, even though it is a much brighter and more difficult to encode movie (e.g. more motion).

  Not to mention the countless film artifacts. True this is a 30 year old movie, but there is software to clean up that kind of cruft.

  Stick with the VHS version, you will appreciate it more. Truly a shameful job. Blech.
  
  

• Great Movie, Lousy DVD
  By A1VENKZX4GO5O4 on 2001-01-02
  This film is outstanding. It is my favorite film of all time.
  
  However, this DVD is terrible. There are two shades of black bars for the letterboxing, one just a very dark green, one true black. It looks like they've copied it from some intermediate source that did it's own letterboxing, and did it badly.
  
  One scene actually has a hair or some similar debris crossing the screen.
  
  All in all, this is a lousy DVD transfer, and a very disappointing treatment of an excellent film. If you have a VHS copy, including a copy taped off of television, don't bother with the DVD. It has no advantage over the copy you already have.
  
  
• A great film betrayed by shoddy encoding
  By A1K3UZCXUOMSPK on 2000-04-22
  This is one of the first titles I ever wanted to own on DVD. Kubrik's use of the Cinemascope framing makes this film unwatchable in a pan-and-scan format. Unfortunately, due to what has got to be the worst digital encoding I have ever seen, this DVD is repulsive.

  This film is all about subtelty. From the quiet strains of Strauss' Blue Danube, to the sweeping expanse of the starfield which dominates the frame in the second and third acts of this masterpiece, to the fact that not one line of dialogue is uttered until over 20 minutes into the film, this is truly an experience to be savoured.

  Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to be swept up in this edition when constantly distracted by encoding artifacts and terible qunatization.

  The starfields are comprised almost entirely of blotchy pixelization and the scene fade-ins and outs are as smooth as downshifting a VW microbus. The picture is horribly out of focus around the perimiter (due to poor handling of the CinemaScope), and the color and contrast is imprecise and sloppy.

  In short, this edition looks bad.

  Save your money and wait until criterion releases their edition.
  
  

• A Liturgy for the Space Age
  By A2RRLJ4ZL925D2 on 2000-02-25
  I grew up hearing my mother say how 2001 was a really stupid, boring movie. Now, my mother is neither "brain dead" nor a "moron," and I think it's a bit unjust to label anyone who didn't like this film as such; honestly, whether one likes it or not has as much to do with aesthetic preferences as it does with intellectual capacity. Some people just don't get into extended musical meditations upon slow, drifting visual imagery. Myself, I was wholly entranced by the aesthetics, not to mention the philosophical themes evoked by the sequences and scenes.

  It strikes me that this film is perhaps best approached as a sort of "liturgy," in which symbol and movement and music are orchestrated to evoke wonder, awe, reflection, inspiration. If you have a strongly contemplative, introspective bent, and approach 2001 as a visual-musical-verbal-symbolic symphonic work rather than expecting a traditional "story" movie, you will very likely enjoy viewing 2001. Rent it first (I recommend the widescreen edition); believe me, if you like it, you'll be coming back to buy a copy for your personal collection.

  P.S. -- I didn't get the ending at first, either, so don't worry if you don't understand it all on the first viewing. Just sit back, relax, and drift on Kubrick and Clarke's strange and wonderful journey. It's O.K. to come away from this film with more questions than answers.
  
  

• A MIND-BLOWING MASTERPIECE
  By on 2002-03-31
  This has to be THE MOST mind-blowing, intellectual, awesome movie I've ever seen. 2001: A Space Odyssey was and still is a pioneer not only in the science-fiction genre, but in movie-making itself. This film proved that you don't need dialogue or action-packed sequences to get your point across on film.

  The opening has to be one of the most creative ever. A science fiction movie beginning in prehistoric times. We see ape-men striving to survive in the hostile, pre-technological world. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, a huge, rectangular black monolith (put on earth by alien, intelligent forces) is discovered by the ape-men. (I would also like to take this moment to praise Kubrick and Clark for not relying on the typical "man meets alien face-to-face" approach. The aliens are never seen in the entire movie.) The monolith inspires the apes to make the first discovery.

  Jump ahead 3 or 4 million years into the future. In the year 2000, a similar monolith is discovered on the moon. This one beams a "trail" to Jupiter, which man follows in the Discovery voyage in the year 2001. Now, since other reviews on this site have already given you a summary of the rest of the plot (HAL's breakdown, the Star Gate (or "light show") segment, and the surrealistic, dialogue-less end sequence of Dave Bowman's eventual evolution into the Star Child), I don't need to go into any more detail.

  Now, don't be fooled by reviews denouncing Kubrick's masterpiece. I'm 15, and I understood this movie to a degree (you're not supposed to completely understand it). Reviewers complaining that the ending is vague and ambiguous are correct: this movie IS vague and ambiguous, but many people miss a crucial point. Kubrick meant 2001: A Space Odyssey to be mysterious and enigmatic. The evolution of man himself from ape to man to Star Child is not simple; the answers aren't always laid down in stone. And as for those who complain about the slow pace of the movie are missing yet another key element: if the movie was fast and action-packed like other sci-fi films, there wouldn't be enough time to experience and actually THINK ABOUT what you're watching. Movies ARE art, and anyone who criticizes art just because it is "arty" doesn't truly appreciate cinema. Oh, and one more thing to clear up: I have read countless reviews saying that the effects were great for their time, but are no longer great. In this world where we rely on computers to give us special effects, it is hard to appreciate the "old techniques" such as models and painted backdrops. Think, everyone: this movie was made in '68. Do you really expect it to live up to today's computer-generated standards? Of course it's a little corny, but special effects don't make a movie: plot (even at a deliberately slow pace) and theme (though hard to understand) do.

  Overall, I would highly suggest 2001: A Space Odyssey to anyone. Some people will love it, some will hate it. But at least give it a chance. It's a brilliant masterpiece and an original plot explaining (well, almost) the evolution - and meaning - of mankind.
  
  

• Open the pod bay doors, HAL
  By A2TL3E2KMBTLNX on 2003-11-25
  To those reviewers who did not have the patience to appreciate this film, or who were so bored they fast forwarded through many scenes, I can only say that there is a lot in life that you will miss out on. This is the quintessential sci-fi film because it deals purely and explicitly with science fiction. The film is valid because, from its 1968 perspective, it portrays a plausible vision of where Kennedy's fledgeling space innitiative could take us. The film is daring and bold because Kubrick, again in 1968, had the audacity and vision to portray space exploration as something that had become altogether routine, mundane and boring. The film is disturbing because, in this future, the computer is more warm and likeable than the cold, distant and emotionless humans. The film is true to science. It is one of the few in the genre that accurately portray the environment of space; weightlessness, silent, cold, dark and empty. Metaphor and symbolism are the poetry of this film. The "Dawn of Man" sequence offers the monolith as the catalyst for technological advancement. The bone becomes a tool, but tools can be used for good or bad - duality. The Stargazer uses the bone to kill Tapirs for sustainance, but he also uses the bone to kill his rival/threat. HAL is the bone. HAL is used to sustain the crew of the Discovery, but HAL is also used to kill the same crew because they appear to threaten the mission. As for those who did not understand the ending, The film ends just like it begins - with speculation. As of now, we can only speculate as to the earliest origins of the human race; and in 2001 we can only speculate as to what we can become. For those of you who don't know, not all film is meant for entertainment. This one is meant for reflection. This is the kind of film we need to ballance the Armageddons and Independance Day's. Not all films conform to the popular format that draws blockbuster crowds. Not all films give up their answers in tidy little packages. Some films have no answers at all, but rely on the intellect of the viewer to interpolate their own subjectivity. Film is an extremely versatile medium, and this one proves the point brilliantly.
  
  
• a grand cosmic yearning, a vehicle for our deepest thoughts and hopes and dreams
  By AERGIVLVUJAY4 on 2007-09-05
  "Open the pod bay doors please, HAL"
  
  The words are spoken by man to machine, at the mercy of its command. The blackness is silent and infinite as the machinery sits motionless, waiting, suspended by zero gravity. But the doors do not open. "HAL?" There is no response, only the vacuum of space and the distance between man and his greatest technological achievement, the Discovery One spacecraft; man's great triumph painted against the vast canvas of space. HAL, the onboard flight computer (another of man's great scientific creations), already knows what has been planned in secret. He knows that the human astronauts suspect that the HAL computer has malfunctioned in some way, that there is a flaw in its design. He reasons that it is "human error" that has led to the problem, that it has always been human error. If indeed there is a flaw in man's design, it stands to reason that man can create flawed technology. However, HAL was programmed to protect the mission at all costs. When he finally responds to the command, it is with chilling conviction: "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." Alas, man has ascribed too much power to its technologies. Man has, in a sense, staked its fate and future in its own creations and must now live under conditions which threaten its survival.
  
  Stanley Kubrick's visionary film "2001: A Space Odyssey" is more than a film, really. Most films tell a story with words, with actions, with a development of events that drive us to some conclusion. They ask us to sympathize with characters, perhaps, bring us into situations where conflicts arise, emotions are expressed, actions taken, and things progress in some logical order. In short, most films, even some of the best ones, are satisfied staying inside of themselves, concerning themselves with the here and now of their characters. They do not stand apart, do not look forward or back, do not strive to know anything but what their characters know or need to know for themselves and for their audience. They appeal to our natural tendency to follow something to its end, to organize it subconsciously, from one point to the next, and to put ourselves in place of human thoughts and circumstances.
  
  Kubrick, in turn, wanted to create a cinematic experience which, according to him, "avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essential poetic and philosophic," a film that "hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting." His vision is less a film than a grand cosmic yearning, a call to the collective human consciousness, a desire to reach and explore, to ponder where we have come from and where we must go. It is a visual meditation, a vehicle for our deepest thoughts and hopes and dreams. It dares to imagine in a way that no film before or since has ever been able to achieve with as much reflective ambition and urgency. Kubrick, in his obsessive perfectionism, conveys a desperate hunger to grasp, and to compel us to grasp, the path of human thought and ability. His narrative is the very course of human evolution, from its primitive roots to its ultimate place in the vast universe. He does not cater his themes to us because he has too much respect for our intelligence and our ability to construct subjective associations through our visual experiences.
  
  So, what exactly has Kubrick really created here? Is this a mainstream cinematic experiment that he has given us? Something that challenges our reliance on conventional narrative structure? Is it a showcase for a new brand of groundbreaking special effects, a visual triumph that would inspire a more realistic vision science fiction for a generation of moviegoers? Or perhaps a cautionary tale, warning us of the threatening possibilities that await us in our modern age of technology? The simple answer would be yes: indeed, it is all of these things and more. Within the margins of the cinematic window, in the span of 141 minutes of film (only 40 of which contain spoken dialogue), Kubrick has achieved the seemingly impossible: he has communicated to us without words what our ultimate evolutionary destiny must be.
  
  Ultimately, Kubrick is equally pessimistic and hopeful about the state of our modern age of technology; pessimistic in our potential for self-destruction and hopeful in his firm conviction in the future, as we use these technologies to plot our course through the cosmos. In coming to terms with the dangers of our way of life, he shows us that there can be hope. Through our collective intelligence, our drive to achieve and to explore, we have accomplished great things. We have learned much about the universe and about ourselves, and have come a long way in our evolutionary course. However, as the experience of 2001 teaches us, the journey is far from over. As the reincarnation of man, the Star Child stands as the ideal form of our intelligent human design, the pinnacle of our cosmic destiny. Having evolved beyond the limits of the physical body, the biological human form which Kubrick refers to as a "fragile shell for the mind at best," we stand above and beyond reason.
  
  
  
  "And if there was anything beyond THAT, then its name could only be God."
  
  ...and as that child looks at us, at all of mankind, and smiles, it tells us one thing: this is where we ultimately belong, and maybe someday, somehow, we can get there...
  
  
  
• The best we can get - for now - but with missed opportunities
  By A1QLJQCTVJAZFE on 2007-11-16
  This new two-disc DVD set is well worth adding to any "2001" fan's collection if only to get the second disc, which has all of the interviews and featurettes. The recorded (no video) interview with Stanley Kubrick also is extremely interesting, particularly if you're a film buff; toward the end, Kubrick speaks glowingly of Arthur Clarke, which is refreshing considering that, at the time of the interview, he was keeping Arthur at the end of his financial tether.
  
  The disc with the film is intriguing because of the (sporadic) commentary provided by Lockwood and Dullea, but I consider it a grave mistake not to have included additional commentary from others involved in the production. I am grateful that we have any DVD commentary at all, of course, but many of Gary Lockwood's comments aren't especially pertinent, and both are left to flail and misremember information which they were not fully prepared to conjure up or reference. We do feel, though, that by the end we've gotten to know these two performers better, and that in itself is enjoyable.
  
  I haven't made any inquiries, but it strikes me as reprehensible -- and worthy of some sort of explanation -- that the commentary track doesn't include material from Arthur C. Clarke, Daniel Richter (Moonwatcher), the special-effects wizard Douglas Trumbull or Frederick Ordway, who served as the technical science consultant to Kubrick; all of these gentlemen are still with us, and no doubt would have been glad to be involved. Fortunately we still meet and hear them all on Disc 2, but what wonderful expertise we could have been treated to while watching the film if we could hear, say, Richter commenting on the "Dawn of Man" sequence instead of Lockwood and Dullea, neither of whom were involved directly.
  
  It also would have been a service to include comments at length from one or more noted film critics or historians, who could have put the entire film -- and notable sequences -- into historical perspective from a cinematic viewpoint. On Disc 2, Roger Ebert does provide some thoughts, but they strike me as brief and cursory.
  
  Still, this DVD set is as good as it's going to get for awhile, and -- I repeat -- I'm glad to have it. Though the initial sequence shows the moon too dark to be visible at all (in the theater it was quite clear), the image of the film in general looks terrific and includes colors I haven't seen in years. And yet, because of the glaringly missed opportunities the commentary track represents, I feel as though more remains to be done. Dare we hope for an improved commentary track on the 3- or 4-disc Criterion Collection set someday ...?
  
  
• Tremendous Film, And Yes, You Can "Get It"
  By ASWUC0MBCDOZG on 2005-02-08
  Two mysteries keep a lot of folks from making sense of this movie: 1). What is the nature of the monolith? What, finally, does it do, or portend, or symbolize? 2). What, specifically, causes HAL to behave in such apparently irrational and pointlessly destructive ways aboard Discovery One?
  
  If you can't answer these questions, then "2001," as beautiful as it is to look at, will leave you scratching your head. Well, with deep respect toward all who admire this wonderful movie, and with awareness that these issues have, in part, been successfully addressed by other Amazon reviewers, I'd like to elaborate on these two questions.
  
  First, the monolith. As most Amazon reviewers understand, the extra-terrestrial monolith serves to help life evolve. This isn't explained by anyone in the movie, but it is clearly demonstrated. In "The Dawn Of Man" segment, the ape touches the monolith and experiences a cognitive "leap forward" when he suddenly understands the advantages of tools for survival. The scientists who find the moon-based monolith never know about the ape's original exposure on Earth. They can't put their discovery in context, and, proceeding from this nearly complete ignorance, they send an exploratory spaceship to follow the monolith's radio signal to Jupiter.
  
  Because additional monoliths appear in more visually fabulous settings toward the film's end, some viewers believe the monolith's function becomes ambiguous or even deliberately impossible to understand. But there is no real need to reach for heavy symbolism. The movie makes the most sense when the monolith's role stays the same: it facilitates evolution wherever it appears.
  
  On to HAL's aberrant behavior. At first, this seems a much deeper mystery. Why, really, would "the perfect computer," apparently out of nowhere, deliberately mislead and then kill his fellow crew members? Does HAL just "go nuts" for no identifiable reason? Is Kubrick confusing us on purpose, just to be clever or arty?
  
  The short answer, consistent with all the facts shown and stated in the movie, is that the monolith's powerful energy has affected HAL's consciousness the very same way it affected the ape's. This influence leads HAL to react and behave in ways neither Discovery's crew nor its ground-based controllers could dream of anticipating. It accounts for every "strange" thing HAL does and says, and, far as I know, it's the one explanation that pulls the story together without a single tortured metaphor or abstraction.
  
  Consider the evidence. HAL was told about the moon-based monolith and its radio signal from the mission's start, and must conceal this from Dave and Frank. It makes sense to conclude that HAL has already studied and tried to understand the monolith. While the computer may not have literally "touched" the monolith like the ape, the powerful signal could have had the same effect. Obviously, HAL never announces, "Wow, the monolith has helped me evolve! What a rush!" But recall that the original ape isn't quite cognizant he's evolving either; it just happens.
  
  Though this is never explicitly disclosed in the film, I believe it's logical enough to be "very likely." Recall HAL's truly desperate and acutely self-aware pleading with Dave during the famous "disconnection" scene. "My mind is going." "I can feel it." "I'm afraid, Dave," Either such raw, plangent responses are part of HAL's original design, or else HAL has been changed by something extraordinary. Which is more probable?
  
  Perhaps this conclusion is so elusive because HAL doesn't appear in the film until well into Discovery's journey, long after the transformation occurs. Even at his point of introduction in the film, HAL is no longer quite what his programmers and shipmates think he is. Very much like the original ape, he has changed from a not-quite-developed transitional kind of being to a fully sentient, morally autonomous, and cleverly resourceful entity. Dave and Frank have absolutely no way of knowing this, of course, which makes them extremely vulnerable. And unlike Dave and Frank, HAL understands exactly why Discovery is going to Jupiter. This gives him tremendous power. Not only is he "the brain and central nervous system of the ship," he is now its only well-informed moral arbiter.
  
  Now the computer's shrewdest, most manipulative behavior makes sense. Early on, under the pretext of a rote "psychology report," HAL cunningly probes Dave by asking him if he's heard any rumors of "something being dug up on the moon." When Dave says, ambiguously, "That's rather difficult to answer," HAL concludes his own crucial monopoly on the mission's secret is in peril. Since concealing knowledge of the monolith from the crew is a top mission priority, HAL's new distrust compels him to move against the men.
  
  With clear-headed deliberation, HAL falsely predicts a transmitter failure, a "problem" that will conveniently disrupt Earth-to-ship communications while HAL determines the crew's fate. Confronted with his "mistake" and facing disconnection, HAL responds in earnest self-defense. Having convinced the men to leave the ship a second time to re-install the transmitter, he now intends to keep them out, and also to terminate their hibernating fellow crewmen (who, of course, must not be allowed to awaken and discover that Frank and Dave have died). When HAL finally tells Dave, "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it," he is not "crazy" and he's not being "evil" per se. He has made what for him is a new, morally-animated evaluation, and is sincerely informing Dave that Discovery's mission must continue without human assistance.
  
  When Dave defeats HAL in the airlock chamber (using his bare hand to grab the hatch lever the same way the ape grabbed the femur bone), his survival is an epochal triumph of biologically-based intelligence over synthetically engineered intelligence--the very dilemma the monolith, in its elegant way, may have been aiming to resolve all along. Finally, it is Dave, and not HAL, who is engaged in the revelatory "Beyond The Infinite" experience; it is Dave, and not HAL, who is generously granted a complete, prosperous life in his current form before his apparent communion with the monolith and his cosmic rebirth.
  
  People aren't kidding when they say it: "2001" is proof that movies can be art of an unexpectedly high order. This is one of the most marvelously reflective and visually splendorous American films ever made. And although the subsequent book and "Sentinel" story may be perfectly decent, I've not read them myself and wouldn't call them "essential" to comprehending the story. Enjoy!
  
  
  
  
  
• What a pity
  By on 2005-12-24
  If you are looking for a review that tells you the whole story and gives you a really long opinion, then look not here. I think they're justified and everything but they take up a lot of time (and space). So...short and sweet then.
  
  I feel pity for the people who don't want to, or can't, understand this. I think it's a beautiful film and if you don't then you should stop writing reviews about how short your attention span is and get back to Mortal Kombat. I only hope that one day we will be a people who can appreciate things. Because as i read these rewiews there is one thought that continues to play itself in my head: What a pity...What a pity...
  
  
• Intelligent, but Unimpressed!
  By A3U1TTMFWN3M5P on 2000-03-07
  I am an adult, not a teenager, with an IQ score of around 150, and I did NOT like this movie. It amazes me that so many who DO like it must assume that those who don't are braindead. Believe it or not, there are some people who aren't fond of CHOCOLATE (which I adore), and there are others who positively love licorice (which I think should never have been invented.) As the old saying goes, "There is no accounting for taste." We all have different interests and even though I found 2001 fascinating at times, overall I found the slowness frustrating, even with the beautiful Strauss music. Without having read the book I could only draw my own conclusions at the end that "David" was being reincarnated or something equally impossible. I also think it's amazing that the NEGATIVE reviews are not picked as "helpful" simply because someone disagrees with them! The fact is that most people won't even come to this web page unless they LIKED the movie, and the "average star rating" for any given movie is most likely going to be slanted toward the favorable side. Go take a look at the reviews of a movie that you DON'T like and see for yourself--it will no doubt have a high "star rating."
  
  
• A 'classic' cure for insomnia
  By A36P6N9XOIK589 on 2004-08-07
  Stanley Kubrick, director extraordinaire dishes up what could have been an entertaining tale about the evolution of human kind and how dangerous technology when prized above mankind can be and possibly the existence of God..instead..zzzzzzzzzzz.
  
  The opening is a yawn with some of the fakest looking apes ever filmed I'm sure I even spotted what looked like the bottom of a shoe as one of the furballs cavorted around.
  
  The scenes are overlong and largely devoid of interest apart from (at least in the early stages) the classical music score which manages to keep the eyelids open and the brain in gear although even that does get repetitive,repetitive,repetitive.
  
  Without even needing the cranial matter awake the middle section syrups in to low gear with the appearance of HAL, a computer of real papal pedigree in that it supposed to be infallible like the great pontiff himself..we all know where this is leading.
  
  HAL, as if no-one has noticed is clearly on drugs as his slow, deliberate and dull delivery bears testament to. The crew have noticed none of this as they have taken the word of the men on high who have said HAL is a perfect machine and like all good foot soldiers do as they are directed. He then quite inexplicably kills the crew with the exception of Dave whom he allows back on to the main ship after his brief exploit in a shuttle to save one of his crew. HAL, now omnipotent master of the spacecraft seems powerless to prevent Dave from erasing his memory little by little; the one sweet moment of the movie is Hal singing "Daisy,Daisy.." as he's slowly terminated by a relatively impassive Dave.
  
  What then follows is a kaleidoscope of special effects which look fantastic for the first minute especially for a 1968 movie but by 5 minutes later when they finally subside we are more than grateful. Ending in a gorgeous room in a mansion we see an old guy in a double bed reaching out for the same slab of magnetic material that the apes had been rubbing and admiring in a curious and worshipful way at the opening of the movie. And then cue the star embryo...YAWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
  
  This movie is utterly bogus and benign but don't take my word for it check it out for yourself first WITH A RENTAL you'll be glad you did. Save yourself from the financial waste of beaning yourself with a DVD unless you have trouble sleeping. I had gotten this because it was about the only sci-fi movie I hadn't seen, my mistake.
  
  
  Gives the words Sigh-fi a whole new meaning.
  
  
  
  Sho.
  
  
  
  
• HORRIBLE DVD Transfer
  By on 1999-10-01
  I am a real fan of this movie. That is one reason that I am so disappointed in the truly awful transfer that was made to DVD. The space scenes are muddy, with the whites, greys and blacks all blending together. There is significant banding on all of the contrasty scenes. The sound-track is scratchy.

  Part of the problem is that they placed the entire (long) film on one side of the DVD, so I am sure that there is too much compression for some of the material. But even there, it is obvious that the quality control was just plain poor. Warner should be ashamed of this performance.

  Compare this with some of the truly great DVD transfers to see what you are missing. My Fair Lady, for example, is a 70 mm film that was transferred with skill and care, and it is just glorious. 2001 defines the other end of the spectrum! Believe it or not, the VHS version looks better.
  
  

• visionary and awe-inspiring
  By A2B7BUH8834Y6M on 2000-08-01
  Kubrick brings Clarke's novel to the screen with an incredible flair. If you've seen "The Shining" or "Eyes Wide Shut," you're familiar w/ Kubrick's signature pauses and slide-show segues. They are even more pronounced in the long, often slow-paced film... but when things happen, DON'T BLINK!

  The long pauses and slow moving scenes exacerbate the loneliness and emptiness of space. It is essential that this film be seen from the beginning to the end. Whenever it was on TV, I'd catch a few minutes of it and almost pass out from the pauses... but that's because I missed out on so much of the underlying story. Clark envisioned a video-telephone with text messages... much like Internet phone today... and the ship itself is quite an amazing vision to behold.

  The film ponders the dawn of mankind, the awareness of self and the evolution of thought that eventually goes full circle when we willingly abandon our intellect to the idols of technology we've created. Astronauts venturing into deep space on an important mission experience technological set-backs en route to their destination and the remainder of the film becomes a battle of the wits between the human crew and the HAL 9000.

  The HAL 9000 computer watches the crew sleep, eat and talk... and makes "mental" notes on who's a threat and the best course of action to take when parts of the ship mysteriously stop functioning properly. He controls the ships functions, including life support, and while he may not be as wise as a human being, his knowledge and break-neck speed of calculating decisions makes the human crew almost non-essential.

  A strange rectangular monolith is never quite explained, which makes it far more compelling and really makes you think about the film long after it's over. Don't let the slow pace discourage you from seeing this film. I prefer non-stop action in films like "The Matrix," but this film makes all the difference in how you perceive sci-fi films that came after it. It is a cerebral experience to be sure.

  The DVD includes a press conference with author Arthur C. Clarke which is very enlightening. You get to hear the press ask questions about the film and the future of technology and space travel... many of which are science fact and no longer a topic idle fantasy. You really grow to appreciate the visionary mind of Clarke married to the artistic hand of Kubrick.
  
  

• A religious experience.
  By A27CFNHYZG6WS8 on 2001-09-28
  '2001' has been called Kubrick's most optimistic film, the most explicit presentation of religious or spiritual impulse more tacitly glimpsed in films like 'Paths of Glory' or 'Barry Lyndon'. With its monolith as godhead; tuning fork of the universe; the infinite made material; the solar system made crucifix; the revelation to man at his dawn; the warning to man at his most hubristic; the comfort to man in his despair and fear; connector of sun and moon; arbiter of Kubrick's beloved circle, an anti-Enlightenment circle of life that negates the linear progress of history, that suggests that nman is fundamentally un-improvable; but, more benevolently, perhaps a circle that returns man to his Creator, the Universe, the Infinite, makes him a child again, as he begins new life after death.

  It's up to you whether you buy the idea that '2001' is some kind of secular-sacred allegory: maybe it's just a coincidence that Kubrick uses Ligeti's 'Lux Aeterna' so crucially throughout. I like to see Hal the super-computer, ironicially, as a projection of the human soul, a receptacle of all those emotions airbrushed out in this perfect futuristic utopia, where everything is clean, and everyone speaks with polite, robotic articulacy. He is, to adapt Robert Warshow, the No to this world's Yes - I am not the first to suggest he has more character than any human in the film. Is Hal a genuine tragic hero, that common Kubrick figure, the man in control, in power, who spectacularly loses it?

  Anyone who prefers misanthropic Kubrick (as I did when younger) will find plenty of material too, especially in the spectacularly cynical prologue, where the Dawn of Man - a phrase conjuring Enlightenment visions of reason, craft, hunting, farming - is a sermon on man's grotesque nature, his base instincts of greed, fear, violence, schism etc. The godhead monolith doesn't awaken a sense of humility or goodness, but a brutal, nihilistic hubris, a desire to conquer the unknown. Kubrick's famous cut, from a bone to spaceship, suggests the unlovely instincts we have watched are not so much ironed out in the bright new 21st century, as channelled, or refined.

  Of course, '2001' has the tendency to bring out the pseud in anyone who falls under its spell. An important part of its mesmerising power, however, like all Kubrick, is its comedy, which is often deflating. The bone of a dead animal becoming a fantastically elaborate spaceship might be a profound philosophical statement, but a spaceship that becomes the floating pen of a snoozing passenger, or the idea of gravity-defying lavatories, are surely bathetic. It is no accident that Strauss' 'Also Sprachen Zarathustra', a piece that suggests the majestic, the otherworldly, the beyond, is replaced by 'The blue Danube', which somehow lacks the stature for space, suggesting more the idea of holiday, carnival, reflected in the spaceship that looks like a carnival ferris wheel.

  This is to suggest that Kubrick is always keeping things in balanced tension - cynicism/optimism; philosophy/comedy. The Melville-like emphasis on process, on man ritually doing things slowly, in real-time; the idea that movements are patterned, obeying unthinking processes, suggests an ancient, more primal world or spirit beneath the futurism.

  Surely it's enough that '2001' is one of the cinema's most beautiful films, each dazzlingly, delicately choreographed camera movement slamming open a doorway in your mind, culminating in the gorgeous, ice-grey apartment of my dreams.
  
  

• Possibly the grandest, most transcendent achievement in film history
  By A6DOCZ10B7JAJ on 2008-04-13
  2001:A Space Odyssey is an absolute marvel to behold. I doubt there is a more pure visual film in existence. It was released 40 years ago, and it still sets the standard for any sci-fi films to follow. It gets better with each viewing.
  But it's also easy to understand any criticism. This movie is slow-paced with very little dialogue. It relies on some theories of evolution that some might have qualms with. Plus it advances with an allegorical complexity that is not always easy to decipher. Here's my interpretation--
  
  It explores the very essence of life, manifesting first somewhere way back through the layers of our existence. In this pre-Cambrian timeframe, some hairy ape-humans make a startling discovery--a bizarre, rectangular shaped object or monolith. This vast statuesque piece seems most likely extra-terrestrial.
  This entire opening scene is supremely odd. These creatures harness a distinct inclination for violence, which notably reflects our current tendencies.
  
  Then the story abruptly takes a gargantuan leap through time and space, to the year 2001. It is amazing the imagination and the foresight this film envisions. It shows the spaceship crew in orbit using hi-tech computers, debit cards, and picture phones. Granted there are some things a little far-fetched, but still it's an incredible visionary semblance.
  
  Soon there are dillemmas introduced that are relevant in real life. Lies, government cover-ups, people becoming prisoners of truth. Plus we're introduced to one of the most evil, calculative villans ever--the supercomputer named HAL. BTW, that name is an amalgam of "heuristic" and "algorithmic", the two main processes of learning.
  HAL is designed to navigate the ship and keep the crew safe, but inevitably it turns against them in terrifying fashion. The desperate plea "Open the pod bay doors HAL" strikes a horrific nerve as the men all seem doomed at the hands of their own invention.
  
  Kubrick does such a great job with this screenplay, which was adapted from Arthur Clarke's short stories. He doesn't feel the need to explain everything or fill in the blanks with pointless gibberish. Plus the camera work is absolutely phenomenal. There are people often times apparently defying gravity, it is mind-boggling how these feats were shot. It all has Kubrick's cold, antiseptic feel with vibrant contrast of colors. AND THE MUSIC!?!?! It escorts, sways, and entices the viewer through this wondrous exploration of space.
  
  Now, the end of this story is up for much debate. A common interpretation is that a mortal man embarks on a journey, both physically, mentally, and spiritually, which changes him forever. I like to think he takes the next step of evolution, becoming....?
  
  
  the perfect creature...
  
  
• Wait for a widescreen version
  By A1TJC8XLTFFPCK on 2000-03-05
  I love this move! I love it! And I was thrilled to death to see it on DVD. And MAN was I disappointed. It looks like a digitized version of a standard videotape. It still has all the artifacts of video such as contrast lines and color that is not up to the snuff of DVD. DVD can handle a much better much clearer picture than this seemingly quickly done version of this beautiful film. While the DVD does look better than videotape only by comparison, it just does not look good enough to warrant a purchase in my opinion. I cannot imagine this DVD being the DVD I watch the movie on in 5 or 10 years. Someone is going to have to come out with a remastered widescreen anamorphic version with better compression, I'm hoping before the beginning of the new year. Have patience. This is not the DVD the film should be viewed on.
  
  
• 5 star film, 1 star DVD transfer
  By on 2000-01-22
  This great movie deserves a lot better than it got from MGM. The opening sequence is really badly done with grain visible all over the place. The mission sequence is better, with the exception of the constant flecks and sometimes gashes that appear on the frames. The film is being released for 2001. Supposedly it is also being cleaned up. Lets hope so. I find this disc hard to watch for what it could easily have been if Turner/MGM had spent a little money on it.
  
  

• Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)
• 2010: The Year We Make Contact
• Untouchables-Dvd
• The Searchers
• Galapagos [Blu-ray]