There are few movies that have hooked me as much as this one. It's such a classic that for some reason that I cannot pin down I keep returning to it at least once each year without fail. I feel strangely drawn to it from the eerie opening overture music and pure black screen meant to signify the dawn of creation on earth to the first bars of Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" to the early humans seque-ing brilliantly to man in space, the trip to Jupiter and the super computer gone mad to the final mysterious ending signifying the wonders of the undiscovered and the awesomeness of it which would leave our jaws dropped just as this film does for me each time I watch it.

If you are an intelligent film lover who looks beyond the quick thrill quick fix movie ala "The Mummy" and its countless sequels but look instead at good storytelling and character development as well as innovative, inspired directing so that the whole becomes a work of art to be admired and to stand the test of time, there are really not that many films in existence; this film happens to be one of those that stand the test of time to remain a work of film art to inspire and to entertain serious movie-goers for decades to come.

Directors of note since the film's release such as Spielberg, Lucas among many others have already heralded the genius of this film and copied elements for their own work but you don't have to be a student of film to see just how brilliant this work of art is. You don't simply watch this you experience it and I know each time I do, I take away something new from it and I always look forward to the next installment each year.

Some have claimed that there is no clear story in this film but that is clearly false; there is one constant theme of the monolith and how it affected the various stages of human development suggesting it was the catalyst that got our civilisation going along the path it finally took. There are a few different mini-stories such as the early man, sickness and discovery of the monolith on the moon, the technology gone mad HAL story on the way to Jupiter and the final quest for the still unknown mysteries of space and hence the future of man i.e. the Starchild story at the end. A few mini-stories but all connected by the central theme of the monolith. What is the monolith? The religious among us may suggest that it is an analogy for God, for the atheists maybe some alien force that has an invisible hand in our species' growth and development; for George Lucas, it is The Force and I'm sure many others can substitute their own theories for this as well.

Why are so many younger people so upset at this film? Because in the old days of film, a good film like any good classic book or work of art doesn't tell you what to think but inspires and encourages you to find the meaning to make yourself better than you are by getting you to actually look into yourself and to find out how much potential you have to improve. Films in the last couple of decades don't do this as they tell you what to think and simply give you what you want effectively dumbing down things so that you don't have the chance to improve yourself; the quick sugar fix that dies soon after the 2 or so hours are over.

Some of you may say so what and still think "The David Letterman Show" is the epitome of great television; for you please give this and other films that are artforms such as "Lawrence of Arabia" a miss because you just won't get it. For those who see film as art and the great potential it has to educate and to encourage you to use your full God-given potential to think and grow, this film certainly ranks among the top-10 ever of greats of filmdom.

This dvd is also a real treat for fans as it has been restored very well with the Dolby 5.1 Digital Surround although the picture quality is quite good there are still some imperfections that can be improved upon. I can only imagine just how breathtaking the improved Blu-ray version must be. The Special Features also include excellent footage of the late great Arthur C. Clarke giving a speech and Q&A session at the opening of the film. By the way, widescreen is the only way to view this film and do any justice to it.

Not only is this the best Sci-Fi movie I've ever seen, it is also among the Top-10 works of film art ever made. I cannot recommend this film highly enough and this dvd version is also of good quality although I'm sure the Blu-ray version would have removed the picture quality imperfections.

Updated 29 May 2011:

As Amazon will not allow me to review this separately the Blu-Ray version of this film classic is certainly worth the double-dip; both the picture and sound qualities of this version far exceed that of the dvd and while the picture quality hasn't been restored frame-by-frame which explains the less than perfect frames from time to time especially during the prehistory scenes overall the difference is like night and day when compared with the dvd. The sound quality is vastly improved on the blu ray and the spoken dialogue comes across a lot clearer than on the dvd where sometimes it's barely audible.

Overall a very good transfer to 1080p and even the bonus features documentaries are a lot better than those on the dvd version.

Recommended!

Clean picture, vivid colors. 2001 is an interesting movie. I'm not sure it's even science fiction. Certainly not a 1950s type of space opera or monster movie. The wordless scenes with the apes is classic, and the real sci fi meat of the excursion begins on a shuttle from Earth to a double-wheel space station shown under construction. There's a scene with some Russian astronauts or business people which bored the pants off me when I was a kid, but which I think is brilliant now that I'm an adult and realize what was being said in the exchange. Then onto another shuttle to the moon. The use of the then-thriving Pan Am airlines as a commercial carrier for Earth-to-the-Moon travel was brilliant, having their logo on the spaceships. The last bit of glorious sci fi hardware is when the shuttle lands on the moon in an underground base. Awesome stuff.

Then off to another meeting, which I could not comprehend as a kid, but which, again, makes all too much sense to me as an adult -- the cover story promoted by the US after they find an obleisk buried on the Moon. From there on we meet the HAL 9000 unit and it's more of a suspense story, with their computer going insane and trying to kill the astronauts. Or perhaps acting to keep humans from meeting whatever the scenes on Jupiter were supposed to mean.

Was the final third of the movie Kubrick's idea of what an LSD experience was like? Keir Dullea is excellent throughout. The best part of the movie, really. Inspired casting.

Overall? I've been collecting sci fi movies for 20+ years now, and only last week got around to buying a copy of 2001. So maybe it's not great science fiction, but it does have some awesome sci fi hardware, and shown not as speculation, but as if it were actually functioning, which was revolutionary for sci fi up until 2001. Compare and contrast 2001 with Dark Star from 1974 or 1975. And then Aliens, and the Space Marines ("I hate this job.").

You've gotta see this, if only because it's a great movie. Just maybe not great sci fi.

This is the quintessential sci-fi film, Kubrick's masterpiece, and still amazingly fresh and vibrant (even the special effects) 40+ years after it was filmed. The expression of extraterrestrial intelligence as a black monolith (instead of humanoid creatures) was ingenious; and the juxtaposition of the monolith with human development is also ingenious and groundbreaking for its time. Especially poignant are the early scenes with protohumans and the monolith, with the clear interpretation that the evolution of human intelligence derived from the extraterrestrial monolith...placed here by God or by some other highly intelligent life form. I've seen this film many times and the visual experience is always fresh...in fact this film is primarily a visual experience accompanied by music - the classics "Also sprach Zarathustra" and "The Blue Danube" - which set the perfect mood for the visuals. The acting by Kier Dullea, Gary Lockwood and William Sylvester, who play the primary human characters is good, but the best role is performed, sight-unseen, by Douglas Rain, the voice of HAL, the computer. The character of HAL - in my opinion the best non-human/humanoid character in any sci/fi film - is developed better that any of the humans and you feel the emotions of HAL and feel empathy for and against him as the story progresses. Kubrick not only directed this film, he produced it and co-wrote it with Arthur Clarke; so it definitely has his signature of excellence. While space travel has not progressed to the extent envisioned by Kubrick (and Clarke) in 1968, some of the other advances portrayed in the film are amazingly prescient. This film did not get its due recognition in the 69 Academy Awards; but it has received accolades since then and today is recognized by most as one of the ten best films ever made. I certainly would put among my personal ten best and it carries my highest recommendation.

I actually hesitated about writing this review of one of my favorite films, after all, what could I write that has not already been said before? There are about 600 reviews of the film already on this site, and a sizable publishing industry has grown up around it over the years, critiquing, praising, lambasting, explaining, deconstructing, dissembling, and even spoofing. A quick search on Google - "2001: a space odyssey" - brings back over 700,000 results... surely there's nothing more to say? Oh well, I guess I'll just make a few observations and leave it up to you to decide if you want to go along for the ride.

This film has always engendered extreme responses, but reading the Amazon reviews is instructive. Those who love it give a multitude of reasons, its startling, groundbreaking technical virtuosity, its scope of ideas, portraying Man's evolution from prehistoric Hominid to a being of pure thought or energy, the metaphysics, the unconventional narrative; some compare watching the film to an almost Messianic experience! Those who hate the film invariably trash it as boring and confusing; they don't get it, they want to be "entertained."

Well, the film IS entertaining, just not in a Star Wars/RoboCop/Star Trek/Alien(s) kind of way... all of which I love I hasten to add! For instance, I would prefer to rip out my own fingernails with a pair of rusty pliers than sit through an opera or ballet performance, but I would never deny the skill and commitment it takes to be a 1st class performer in either discipline... it's just that I don't "get it" as an art form.

"2001" is a monumental cinematic achievement, it's safe to say there's never been a film like, and we'll never see it's like again! There are scenes of stunning technical artistry; the jump cut from a bone thrown into the air by one of the Hominids - the first tool/weapon - to orbiting nuclear weapons platform - the ultimate weapon. The docking of the space plane and the orbiting space station, the flight and landing of the Aries lunar transport at the Clavius base, including the stewardess' head-over-heals maneuver! The scenes at the TMA crater on the Moon; remember we hadn't yet landed on the Moon when this was filmed! "2001" presents the most realistic depiction of space travel ever created for the big screen; in space, not only can no one hear you scream, but spaceships don't go "Whoooosh!" There's Frank Pool's "jogging" scene, and Dave Bowman's entrance to the Discovery crew deck, a physical effect - no CGI - that looks impossible, like an Escher drawing come to life. The "Star Gate" sequence, the "Ultimate Trip," as the critics christened it, "Beyond the Infinite," and the final, beautiful, stunningly enigmatic image of the "Star Child."

But IMHO, the most magnificent creation from Kubrick and Clarke is the "HAL 9000" computer that actually runs the Discovery. HAL is the most perfect Artificial Intelligence ever created by man, softly spoken, and quietly proud of his record of infallibility; "...No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

HAL is brought to life, not only by his dialogue, but also by the extraordinary characterization and vocal performance of Douglas Rain. Who could forget his pleading with Bowman as his higher brain functions are shut down, "Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it," and his question to Dr Chandra as he contemplates his own destruction in "2010;" "Will I dream?" Poor HAL; forced to lie, driven insane, then lobotomized by his one remaining crewmate... is it any wonder that he is the most sympathetic character in "2001?!" HAL is the perfect minimalist deity in the AI universe; no garish flashing lights despoil him, no clunking, shuffling, man-in-a-suit ruins the illusion, HAL is pure intellect, viewing the world through gently glowing, all-seeing, lip-reading, wide-angle lenses. If we are to ultimately become slaves to the machine, HAL gets my vote!!!

It's a common misconception that the film was based on Arthur C Clarke's novel; a Clarke short story, "The Sentinel," was the jumping off point for the author and Kubrick, who both simultaneously wrote the screenplay and novel together. In fact, Kubrick ensured that the film was released BEFORE the book was published, he didn't want the audience to have all the answers! With "2001" he was exploring the ultimate questions of where we come from, and where we might be going, he wanted to ask questions of, and even to confound, the audience, and once said that if you came away from the film with more questions in your head than answers, then he had succeeded! But for anyone who is thinking of watching, I would definitely recommend reading the novel first, it provides a wealth of background information, as well as being structured in a much more traditional narrative format... it compliments the film perfectly, and will definitely help you to appreciate and understand it.

Finally, I would like to do something I rarely do, and that is say a few words about the actual DVD production itself... it sucks! To say I was disappointed with this WB issue, ASIN: B00005ASUM, would be a major understatement; from the nasty, flimsy cardboard snap case, to the no frills disc, to the, at times, dreadful transfer - massive amounts of grain, and image quantization - this is an insult to an extraordinary cinematic achievement! If there's any film out there that demands a re-mastered, 2 disc's stuffed-to-the-gills-with-extras "Criterion" edition... THIS is it!!! (Criterion, PLEASE take note!)

Personally, I can't recommend this film highly enough... but please be warned, you MAY be left scratching your head and wondering just what, exactly, it is you've seen!

Any sci-fi fan simply must see this movie (if only once), and this is the way to see it. My first experience with 2001 was watching it on TV in the 70s/80s when it first aired. Watching it on SD television is the WORST way to watch this movie, by the way. If you come across it that way, change the channel. On regular TV the stunning visual effects look cheap and most importantly the already-incredibly slow pace of the movie (more on that later) is emphasized by the jarring commercial breaks. A bit like a slow movement in a Beethoven symphony being interrupted by a hard-rock guitar riff. Anyway, the time I most enjoyed this movie was in a theatre in college during a sci-fi marathon - it seemed especially good after watching several other movies through the night (and consuming quite a bit of beer) It was at that viewing that I finally appreciated the tremendous amount of work that went into the special effects. And now with the blu-ray that is available at home.

To my mind, the effects really ARE the movie in this case. If you have not seen the film already the plot can be summarized fairly succinctly:

SPOILER ALERT The first 20 minutes (no lie) consist of watching the conflict between two groups of proto-humans before and after a visit from a giant monolith that imparts the ability to use bones as weapons/tools to one group. This is a very long time to watch a group of actors in ape suits scream at each other, IMHO. We then move to "present day" / circa 2001 where a monolith is discovered buried on the moon and sends a signal toward Jupiter. We then skip ahead another 18 months where a journey to investigate the Jovian system is underway. This plan is foiled by actually the most animated and engaging character in the movie, the HAL 9000 computer. (BTW, try substituting the letter after each letter in HAL's name for a not-so subtle reference) After the computer has killed the rest of the crew, the lone crewman left goes on a psychedelic journey into perhaps a worm-hole and ends up in a strange one-bedroom apartment with no windows where he watches himself age. In the end, the monolith visits again and turns him into a "star baby", whatever that is.

As I noted before, the movie moves very slowly. I got the impression that a lot of the scenes were timed based on the length of the musical piece. Modern viewers beware, this movie can seem deadly dull. As another reviewer noted, a significant amount of time could be easily trimmed from the movie but I think Kubrick's intent was for it to be slow perhaps to mimic the slow (relatively) pace of space travel. People looking for a character whom they can identify with will be disappointed as all the human characters are very sterile, two dimensional characters seemingly without life or energy. Watching Gary Lockwood's character not even crack a smile at the video phone call of his much-more-animated parents wishing him a happy birthday has always struck me as the epitome of the lack-of-personality of the characters in this movie. I think this was Kubrick's attempt to show humans as becoming machine-like themselves. I am afraid that in some of this, in my opinion, Kubrick is not entirely successful as the best movies (again my opinion) have at least one character with whom an audience can sympathize and move at a faster pace. While I certainly respect those who love this move above all others, I cannot count myself in that group. The slow pace and wooden acting (even if it was for reasons noted above) is not very engaging. The special effects alone, however, make this movie worth seeing.

The quality of the transfer seems excellent and sound is crisp as well. The effects, for the most part, hold up very well especially considering it was made in 1968! Be aware the first 3 minutes of the movie are black-screen with soft music - at first I thought something was wrong with my player or the disc since the disc is set up to play as soon as it is inserted; it does not go to a menu screen first. Considering this is currently available in the $10 range, this is great inexpensive addition to any sci-fi blu-ray collection.

"You are free to speculate, as you wish, about the philosophical and allegorical meanings of 2001."

- Stanley Kubrick

What should film be? What should a good film accomplish? Kubrick challenged our very notion of those concepts in 1968 with perhaps the most brilliant piece of artistic science fiction ever created. 40 years later it's easy to see the polarizing nature of this film. The problem is one of pre-conceived notions about film's purpose. When artists push the envelope of what can be done in their genre, they're almost always met with resistance from the conservative old-school and cries of "genius!" from the forward thinkers. (Look at Stravinsky's Rite of Spring for an example in a completely unrelated genre.)

What makes film unique in the world of art? The ability to tell stories with a rich narrative can be done (better) in literature. The ability to evoke emotions and abstract thoughts can be done (better) by visual arts and music. Film's unique contribution is that of moving pictures. If a picture can say 1000 words, what can a 2 1/2 hour long moving one do? In a way, the "picture is worth" theory is representative of how futile words can be as a means of expression (no offense intended to the great authors and poets). Great films are those that can say something significant, from beginning to end using visuals. Music, sound, and dialogue should only exist to enhance and illuminate the visuals, not overpower and drive them.

Kubrick takes the idea of using moving pictures to state an idea to the extreme. He strips away narrative conventions and uses incredibly dense imagery, meticulously crafted scenes, an immense amount of abstract symbolism and allegory, and only a classical music soundtrack for guidance. Then he allows it all to speak by and for themselves. In a 2.5 hour film there's around 40 minutes of dialogue. That means about 75% or 3/4 of the film is told through its visuals alone. He crafts 3 "acts" (some argue 4) that reiterates a story in an increasingly visual and abstract manner, where every scene says something both singular while enhancing the big picture.

It's fair to say this film has almost no plot. If there is one, it centers around men in the future who are sent on a mission to investigate a strange monolith that is the first evidence of an extra-terrestrial, sentient life form. Is it boring? For those with short attention spans, a need to be spoon-fed an "entertaining story", and be lead by the hand at every step, then yes: by those standards, it is. For those with patience, good attention spans, and receptive minds, then no, it's not. Ultimately, 'boring' is relative. To really "get" 2001, one must be in a calm, meditative, "centered" state where you can receive and process information, without needing it handed to you. While most films put the puzzle together for you, Kubrick merely provided the pieces and leaves it to his audience to do the rest.

One enlightening critique from Nathan493 (IMDb) compares 2001 to Eastern and Western art techniques: "Western technique dictates a canvas to be completely filled with little or no untouched space left, while eastern art there is a strong tendency to leave large stretches of canvas blank, so that the void speaks as loudly to the observer as the subject matter. This is where 2001 is its strongest, the "boring" or "void" areas of the film are often as strong visually as the busy and "filled in" facets of the movie."

Kubrick indeed uses long stretches of "void" to allow the viewer to meditate on all that's being said. Without this void, a complex film would've likely turned into an incomprehensible mess. The extreme amount of time that Kubrick allows us to breath and analyze the scenes are a very large part of WHY this film works at all.

2001 is almost an entirely intellectual film. Art works on two obvious levels: the emotional (through which we connect and feel the implied emotions of a work) and the intellectual (through which we recognize and analyze the intentionally created work). Most want films that move them, not challenge them intellectually, but 2001 does just that. There will always be those who "don't get it" because they watch it with preconceived notions about what film as an artistic medium should be. For those who don't hold these notions, or are willing to let them go, 2001 is a monolithic epochal work of one's artistic vision about man's existence that was aeons ahead of its time.

For those who "don't get it", don't worry. There's more films made for you than there are for us, which is a personal lament and not an insult. "Masterpiece" has largely become trite, but I have to think the word was coined for works like this. For me, 2001 is a profound odyssey of the mind. It speaks volumes on where we've been, and where we might be going, and all the perils that will plague us along the way. It continually challenges the viewer to transcend complacency and evolve into something greater. It touches on almost every major element that pertains to humanity and existence. All the while being the best trip one could ever take while sober.

I, too, saw this film in 1968, so I'm not an adolescent, and I remember very well the impact of the event. That being said, anyone interested in buying this movie as a 'home video', trying to replicate the original intended theatre experience, will be greatly disappointed.

Let's start at the beginning: Most movie versions of popular books tend to be rather incomplete or deviate wildly from their literary parent by the time it gets to the screen. Before men actually walked on the moon, the cinematic effort just to achieve the revolutionary visual effects we see here seems to have been all encompassing for the director, to the distraction of trying to involve us in the deep narrative that made the Arthur C. Clarke novel one of the most provocative and probing works of the age. While both realistic and psychedelic images combined with imaginative classical works are intended to impress the senses, the story-line is almost senseless in this telling, forcing the viewer to tax their own imagination in order to fill in the blanks. So large are the blanks that without the benefit of reading the book first, you would fall asleep, if it were not for the sonic and scenic thrill ride. Unfortunately, sitting through this disc, I found it very hard to keep my eyes (and ears) open.

First thing we need to get straight is that the word 'anamorphic' seems to be thrown around at everything that isn't made for standard TV. "2001:A Space Odyssey" IS NOT anamorphic and never was. It was shot in Super-Panavision 2.2:1; NOT Ultra-Panavision 2.6:1 which requires anamorphic lenses to display a little wider aspect ratio. What's missing is the deeply curved Cinerama screen this film was designed to be projected on, which makes it look wider and gives it a bit of 3D. You don't have that at home, and neither do I, so the extra depth and dimension required to complete the effect just isn't there, but would help this movie very much if such a thing becomes available for home use in the future. (NOTE: This picture would be a good candidate for the "Smile-Box" effect recently developed by Dave Strohmaier for rendering true Cinerama films to flat screens.)

Now, putting aside the men in monkey suits and outdated visions of space travel, my biggest problem with this 'newly remastered' DVD (with no extras!???) is finding the lowest quality picture and sound on disc that I have come across in many years. Whether you are a fan of Mr. Kubrick's original production or not, the technical rendering on this DVD is atrocious. The picture is fuzzy and dim, the sound is screechy, lo-fi, and just barely stereophonic.

My senses have been underwhelmed and I want my money back!!

Much – perhaps too much – has been written about this beautiful yet sluggish, frustrating yet fascinating film. So I’ll put in my nickel’s worth (used to be two-cents’ worth, but inflation has hit everything these days) of speculation.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY can be summed up in the title of this review.

First phase: HUMANIZATION. The Monolith appears to our ancestors and nudges them to the next evolutionary level by teaching them the use of tools. Ironically, this specifically means the use of weapons and the art of killing. That’s right, folks. To be human is to kill via technology. (Best definition I’ve found in more than a half-century of observation.)

Second phase: DEHUMANIZATION. The film audaciously jump-cuts to the just-past-millennium of the movie’s title. In this segment we learn that humans have become emotionally isolated by their technological advancement (Irony 101). Note the strained awkwardness of Dr. Floyd’s message to his daughter and the utterly cold unconcern with which Astronaut Poole receives his parents’ taped birthday greeting. Nearly all of the characters’ conversations concern either empty formalities or technical information. Also note that the distrust and tension between the superpowers of the USA and the USSR continue the theme of the feuding tribes of man-apes in the “Dawn of Man” sequence – and draw the obvious inference as to what the climax of this modern feud is likely to be. (BROAD HINT: it involves a modern version of the bone club Moon-Watcher uses.)

Then the second Monolith is found buried on the Moon, with a magnetic “find-me” beacon to ensure humanity unearths it when it achieves sufficient advancement to reach the site. This is, of course, based on Arthur C. Clarke’s “The Sentinel” – but I’d like to take the idea of an alien warning siren a bit further. Perhaps the Monolith’s makers knew (from their own racial experience?) that someday the species that they helped along would become entirely too dependent on technological tools. The second Monolith’s Jupiter-aimed signal alerts them that mankind has reached this level of physical advancement (and psychic stagnation).

Third phase: SUPER-HUMANIZATION. Bowman is the only human being in the film who shows any hint of an inner life, beyond the mastering of technical equipment. Note his attempts at sketching the spaceship. Stiff, awkward and clumsily amateurish as they are, they at least show that he reinterprets his environment into some form of personal vision, which he struggles (unsuccessfully – Irony 101 again) to express.

When Bowman reaches the Star Gate triggered by the third Monolith in Jupiter orbit, his mind is expanded and his life is expended in witnessing just a small portion of infinity. Then he is reborn as the Star Child, who must be a super-human being of some sort, if any of what has gone on before is to make any dramatic sense at all – and perhaps Kubrick didn’t want it to make such sense; it’s a possibility. My guess is that he returns to earth, intended by those who have transfigured him to nudge the rest of us – or our descendants – up to his new evolutionary level, whatever that might entail. Kubrick and Clarke aren’t telling. Perhaps that was wise of them; certainly, it’s rather irritating.

Many critics have lambasted the thoroughly banal dialogue. Perhaps they have missed the point that it is intentionally banal, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it reflects the banality of the human condition at this stage of history. Secondly, the film’s message is not transferred via the dialogue, as it dramatizes a transformation that is not explicable on the verbal level, although that’s exactly what I’m attempting to do (Irony 102, anyone?)

The use of classical music like the “Blue Danube” can be viewed as ironic (the products of an earlier, more philosophically simplistic era whose clockwork music reflected its belief in a clockwork cosmos – a belief shattered by the 20th century discoveries of quantum mechanics and relativity). If not ironic, then the music might reflect humanity’s innate liking for form and order, and our clinging to the dead-but-beautiful past even as we’re hurled willy-nilly into the future. It stays with us just as the inter-tribal hatred does – which is more with us these days than ever.

Whether we’ll reach the year 3000 is debatable, but one thing is certain. Arguments about this movie will take us to the next millennium without any consensus about its meaning being reached.

One final amusement: this film predicted the smart phone and the Kindle and Nook text-download devices with its “Newspad”, on which Bowman and Poole sample mass media while eating their space-baby-food meal.

Un gran clasico del cine y que en 4k uhd se ve espectacular.

商品が届きました。誠意のある出品者様です。SFの名作なので是非揃えておきたい作品です。

2001: A Space Odyssey ist ein absolut visionärer Film. Und ja – Begriffe wie „visionär“ oder „Meilenstein“ werden heute oft etwas inflationär benutzt. Aber hier sind sie vielleicht sogar noch untertrieben.

In hypnotischen, einzigartigen Bildern entwirft Stanley Kubrick eine Zukunftsvision, die ihrer Zeit weit voraus war. Der Film stellt große philosophische Fragen – über das Menschsein, über künstliche Intelligenz und über den Sinn der Existenz. Manche Antworten werden angedeutet, vieles bleibt bewusst offen. Und genau darin liegt die Stärke: Kubrick vertraut seinem Publikum, lässt Raum für eigene Interpretation und macht den Zuschauer selbst zum Teil der Erfahrung.

Die 4K-Disc ist technisch beeindruckend. Das Bild wirkt nahezu makellos für das Alter des Films – scharf, detailreich und mit erstaunlich realistischer Darstellung, gerade in den Weltraumszenen. Sterne flackern glaubwürdig im Hintergrund, Kontraste und Bildwechsel kommen hervorragend zur Geltung.

Der Ton ist altersgerecht und unterstützt die Atmosphäre sehr gut. Natürlich darf man kein modernes Action-Soundgewitter erwarten, aber das wäre hier auch völlig fehl am Platz. Alles dient der Wirkung und dem Erlebnis des Films.

Unterm Strich: eine absolute Empfehlung – nicht nur für Filmfans allgemein, sondern besonders für 4K-Heimkino-Enthusiasten.

To nie jest produkt widoczny na zdjęciu!!!

Otrzymałem standartowe wydanie, a nie widoczną na zdjęciu edycję specjalną.

Watching this blu ray dvd of 2001 the cinematography is stunning, not a problem being a Swedish copy, lots of extras and a commentary. Worth buying!