2001 - A Space Odyssey

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Aspect ratios, 2008-11-24
I agree with the review about correct aspect ratios. Panavision, CinemaScope and similar anamorphic processes are wider but not as sharp as 70mm which has an aspect ratio of 2:20 to 1. Ultra Panavision, another 70mm process had an aspect ratio of 2:76 to 1. Both processes were later used as the "new" single lens Cinerama films which were made after How the West Was Won which was done in the original 3-strip 35mm process. Mike Todd, who was one of the original members of the Cinerama corporation sold his interest in the company to form his own company which ultimately developed the Todd-AO 70mm process which came close to duplicating the viseral effect of Cinerama. Super Panavision was developed later to compete with Todd-AO using similar lens technology. But as most of us film buffs know...most people don't care. If anyone has seen the Blu Ray disc of How The West Was Won in the smilebox process you'll get an idea of how Cinerama was supposed to look. It would be really great if some of these 70mm films were treated with the smilebox process giving people the choice to watch the film as it was meant to be seen on a deeply curved screen. I did get to see 2001 in 70mm on a deeply curved Cinerama screen and it was amazing. It appears that the days of movie showmanship are long gone.

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Still the class of the Sci-Fi world, 2008-11-23
Frankly, I had forgotten what a great movie this is, and the blue ray version is very, very, sharp!

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

classic sci fi...looks stunning in high def, 2008-11-23
this is an all time favorite of mine. probably up in my top 5 movies of all time. the blu ray looks amazing! for a movie as old as this one, the high def transfer looks like it was made yesterday.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

A timeless beautiful masterpiece, 2008-11-20
I first saw this film when I was 14, in the year it came out - and to say I was dazzled, confounded, stirred to my soul, is understating my reaction. Certainly I didn't understand its depths at that point, but the surface alone was enough to captivate me make me think. Since that time, several decades have passed, and I've watched it many times over, gaining more with each viewing. br / br /The wildly divergent opinions in the previous reviews tell a story all their own, and demonstrate what a cultural philosophical Rorschach test this film truly is -- love it or loathe it, there don't seem to be many neutral responses to it. It's definitely not a film for those with short attention spans, or those who want to stay inside a very secure comfort zone. Comfort is the last thing it offers! br / br /No need to offer a synopsis. Even if you haven't seen it yet, its themes images are known to just about everyone -- the apes, the monolith, HAL. Anyway, this isn't a typical narrative. It's much more of a symphonic poem than a regular plot-driven story -- you should surrender yourself to it. The slow, measured pace is integral to understanding it on a deep, visceral level, because it takes the viewer outside of ordinary time, allowing us to set aside the distracting speed information overload of everyday life. br / br /So, we're in cosmic time here, an oceanic infinity where the everyday no longer applies, where swarms of byte-sized factoids are irrelevant. In a way, it's like meditation -- slowly shutting off the chatter of the monkey mind, so that we gradually become aware of something far more immense vast. br / br /It's not a thrill ride of sensation immediate gratification. It's intensity of experience, building gradually inexorably to a crescendo, a breakthrough of perception. Rational, logical explanation isn't the point while watching ... although afterwards, you'll have plenty to think about discuss with others! br / br /That discussion will cover a lot of ground, too -- the origins ultimate fate of humanity, the nature of the universe, the essence of the sacred, the limits of technology, dehumanization, the meaning of existence -- and that's just the start. It offers questions, not answers, and challenges all who watch it to search for those answers themselves, within themselves. br / br /The depth psychologist Carl Jung once said that the hardest thing in the world for anyone to do is simply sit alone in an empty room with his or her thoughts. "2001" puts you in that room, just as it put Dave Bowman in the same room. A safe, familiar, but sterile room -- and he emerges from it reborn, ready to grow into his expanded universe. Like any great work of art, that's precisely what this film offers each viewer. As in Rilke's poem "Archaic Torso of Apollo," it tells the viewer, "You must change your life." Whether you choose do so is up to you. br / br /To those who find it boring or meaningless -- wait awhile, then give it another try. Sooner or later, life will have you asking, "What's it all about?" Slow down, reflect, and you may find that the film opens up to you at last. br / br /Most highly recommended! br / br / br / br / br /

0 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

Boring, 2008-11-20
"2001" is the most boring SF film of all time. If it had been edited to a 15 minute film, including the docking of the Earth-to-space ship with the artificial satelite (the best scene) it would still be too long. In addition to which, I always have felt that it expressed a real dislike of humanity. Why this is still considered a "classic" I will never understand. And, the special effects have always been terrible. Also, to call the acting "wooden" is kind.