- Sorry, this item is not available in
- Image not available
- To view this video download Flash Player
|Price:||$11.99 & FREE Shipping on orders over $35. Details|
|You Save:||$15.00 (56%)|
2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology. The film's greatest strength is in the details. Read morePublished 4 days ago by Damian Marynski
Probably the best and most realistic space sci-fi ever made so far (2015)Published 10 days ago by Along the Mountain Trails
|Topic||From this Discussion|
|Amazon is stupid||
Same here. One semi-workaround is to search the reviews using "blu-ray" as your search key. It's not perfect, but it weeds out a lot of the SD garbage.
Jan 23, 2008 by Michael P. Stewart | See all 23 posts
|Is paying extra for old movies in hd worth it?||
Almost all movies since the dawn of motion picture have been shot on 35mm film. All new hollywood movies are still shot with 35mm cameras. Only a few movies have been shot on HD cameras, like the new starwars movies. HD cameras have a LOWER resolution than 35mm cameras meening that yes old movies... Read More
Oct 18, 2007 by Sir moviefan | See all 22 posts
|Quality of BluRay Disc||
"2001:" Looks OUTSTANDING.
That's my opinion, at least.
When I show off to others the capability of what a Blu-ray disc can do,
this is the title I use.
It is definitely a major step up from the early DVD's,
including some great special features.
If you read the reviews,
you may... Read More
Jan 5, 2009 by Addison Brodrick | See all 52 posts
|What is this film saying?||
I think the singular meaning that you're seeking just doesn't exist. This film is made in a way that forces one to ponder it's meaning, I think that it was never intended to be fully explained. That's the simple beauty in a film like this, it says so much without saying much at all. I think the... Read More
Dec 11, 2008 by Jason Torrey | See all 73 posts
|Something Got Chopped||
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... Read More
Nov 10, 2010 by Gerry | See all 13 posts
|I got a knock-off||Be the first to reply|