2001 - A Space Odyssey (1968)

The best copy of 2001 Space Odyssey in Blu-ray....

Keep in mind how old this movie is and then sit back and be blown away of how good it looks on the new Blu-Ray format! If you've seen it before then this will give you another great reason to watch it again like never before. If you haven't seen it before it may be a little slow because back when the film was made they did not use a lot of ambient music and such to fill that uncomfortable scilence you sometimes get on the older movies. There seem to be more of those then I can remember on this film but it's still one of the greatest and inspired a lot of great now classics and newer films as well. If you have a good 1080p set and Blu-Ray player then sit back and drool.... October 3, 2008

Thankyou, Mr. Kubrick

Still a teenager when I first viewed "2001" at a tiny off-campus one screen theater....I recently bought the Bluray disc version....and viewed it on my 1080p Panasonic plasma screen....fantasically vivid in color and detail...simply amazing. It was as if I'd never seen the movie before. The extras are fascinating...watching with the commentary on gives you an insight into the making of the movie...but more importantly, gives you an appreciation...that Kubrick made this movie. Thankyou, Mr. Kubrick. September 30, 2008

Mercury Rising

People jeer at media-created celebrities of today like Paris Hilton, but things were worse in the 1950s and 1960s when we were always hearing about the ASTRONAUTS. Stuffed down our throats, nobodies like Scott Carpenter and Gordon Cooper became household names, even though (and maybe because of the fact that) what we knew about them was tightly controlled and protected by layers of government secrecy and PR. Even their wives were sort of famous, though they never really took as celebrities, none of them, no matter how many insipid articles in McCalls or Good Housekeeping on "Annie Glenn's Favorite Mincemeat Surprise" or "Cooking with Tang." There was Jackie Kennedy, then there were the astronauts, a group of highly trained men we all fell for, and I think Kubrick must have too, for he bases his astronaut heroes on the media representations of the original "Mercury Seven" US astronauts, wed to the plot of Arthur C. Clarke's story "The Sentinel," so that there would be a twist and the astronauts would seem soulful compared to the flat significations of HAL their pet computer.

I assume that's why Kubrick selected some fairly colorless US actors to play their parts, although who knows, at the time Keir Dullea was regarded as a deep well of tangled and tragic emotions after starring in DAVID AND LISA and BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING, but Gary Lockwood had nothing on his resume that would indicate any depth whatsoever, beyond his marriage to Stefanie Powers. Also in the cast, as Lockwood's mother, the swan song of wonderful Ann Gillis, once little Becky Thatcher in Selznick's version of TOM SAWYER, and also the voice of Faline, Bambi's love interest. She hadn't made a film in decades when Kubrick found her and cast her in this small but crucial role. She was the original LITTLE ORPHAN ANNIE (1938) and her eternal sunny optimism is used ironically in the film. (Kubrick wanted the original Depression optimist, Shirley Temple, but her agents said no way was Temple going to re-locate for the required London filming.)

That said, the acting in 2001 is terribly underrated, and the movie should have been nominated for Oscars in several acting categories. MGM built on the tech savvy of FORBIDDEN PLANET, with its similar mix of electronic music, beefcake spacemen, and uppity robot voices, and came out a winner all around. Kubrick had worked with MGM before (on LOLITA), though Dr. STRANGELOVE was for Columbia. After 2001, Kubrick made a longterm pact with Warner Brothers which lasted until his death, but even though some love the photography of BARRY LYNDON I don't think he was ever able to match the tech credits of 2001 ever again. (In fact some of his later pictures look very studio-bound and TVlike.) September 26, 2008

My mistake I read the book first!

I think where I went wrong was reading the book first. Considering the time it was made it was impressive in some of the style and effects but if I were to judge the film as a stand alone today it is just not that amazing. I am sure had I seen this in 1968 my mind would have been blown but in 2008 much less so. The first half feels twice as long as it actually is with very indulgent shots of stationary models moving across other models. Large portions of the story are just plain missing in favor of extended shots of switches and lights. When this movie came out I am sure it was exciting to see but it does not age well. In a lot of ways it suffers from the same problems many films from the 60s and 70s did; slow pacing, jarring soundtrack, guitar solo-esque visuals. The middle segment with HAL & Dave is probably the only part of the movie that is somewhat in the spirit of the book (which is awesome unlike this movie). I felt many aspects of the book were left out when it would have been beneficial to the story and instead were replaced by very slow atmospheric scenes. I love atmosphere myself but because I had the book in mind I was just wanting more meat to the film and that was lacking. I'm not entirely sure why the ending was changed, it's probably a great ending if you are into recreational drugs but I feel the book was a more satisfying ending because it more artfully tied the end to the beginning. The ending was really a grand payoff in the book and by going with Dave on his journey you were completely connecting with him so that his journey was your journey. I understand that a movie cannot convey an internal monologue in the way a book can but scrapping it in favor of visuals seems like a bad choice for the character and the story.

The bonus features were nice, I think every movie should come with at least one commentary track. If I were a fan of the film I am not sure I would be satisfied with the bonus features however.

I can see that I am in the minority in thinking this but I just didn't connect with the movie in the way I did with the book. To put it this way, it took me about 5 hours to read the book which felt in no way as long as this movie did. I guess that lumps me in with the adolescent proles who can't appreciate great art but to be honest this movie was terribly boring and just in no way as great as the book.

I highly recommend the book. September 16, 2008

One of My Favorite Films

Film buffs frequently create lists of their 10 favorite movies. My answer changes from day to day, but there are three films always on the list: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Fantasia, and Koyannisqatsi. A science-fiction drama, a cartoon and a new age documentary; three completely different films.

2001 is an imaginative look at how man's evolution might have been affected by outside influences. Much of the film has no dialogue whatever. The rest has occasional patches of dialogue, with most having nothing to do with the plot. There is the TV interview, a father's phone call on his daughter's birthday, proud parents radio message on their distant son's birthday, a computer's seeming random questions while working up the crew psychology report, the rambling song of a computer having its memory erased. None of this has anything to do with the search for the source of the strange artifact first found by prehistoric apes, then later by explorers on the moon and how it may affect man's future. More important than dialogue are the amazing visuals and music. The spaceship ballets, technical hardware, and the ending star gate dance of lights, combined with magnificent music evoke the sense of wonder and awe that the vastness of space and the possibilities of the future should inspire.

Walt Disney's Fantasia is a groundbreaking film creating a painted ballet to accompany several pieces of well-known music. The only dialogue is short introductions to each piece by renowned musicologist Deems Taylor. He briefly comments on the composer, if the music tells a specific story, and whether Disney's animation follows that story. Music can evoke strong emotions in the listener with or without a story. Fantasia frequently creates new stories for the music, but the power of the music to arouse the listener remains. The mouse king is gone from the Nutcracker Suite, but a circle of dancing mushrooms, and bouquet of waltzing flowers is no less charming and whimsical. The primitive dances of the Rite of Spring have been changed to the struggles of prehistoric life, but the music is still powerfully thrilling. The rage and fury of demons in Night on Bald Mountain end at dawn as the serene beauty of Ave Maria accompanies the glory of a sunrise. Image and music again stir the viewer's soul.

Koyannisqatsi is the newest and least known of these three films. It is a 1982 documentary with ads that said "Until now, you've never really seen the world you live in.". Director Godfrey Reggio combines stock footage (rocket launches, landscape vistas, building demolitions, munitions tests) with spectacular new footage by cinematographer Ron Fricke (cityscapes, commuter crowds, clouds and waves, traffic jams, assembly lines). He creates a mosaic of life in the modern industrial world and how it has become disconnected from the natural world and is now a `life out of balance', which is a translation of the title. Although the film has no characters, dialogue or narration, the dramatic editing and stirring score by Philip Glass create a great emotional, and even physical impact. I once talked my mother into seeing it with me. While she liked it very much and still comments on it, at the end of one particularly frenetic sequence she said, with a sigh of relief, "Thank goodness that's over".

A science-fiction drama, a cartoon, and a new age documentary; three completely different films thematically that each show the power of image and music to reach the viewer emotionally. September 9, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...