Great Directors

[cyan]

I've never seen 2001.  I'm curious now and will be checking it out. 

Make sure if you do watch it, that you watch the Blu-ray disc (if you have that capability), as it was the best blu-ray released all of last year...it really looks unbelievable, honestly. Hard to believe the film on that disc is 40 years old.

If you can't play blu-rays, make sure you watch the new 2-disc DVD version, and not the old one disc, white-cover, dvd version. The new 2-disc used the same master as the blu-ray, and it looks much better. The old 1-disc 1998 DVD version is closer to VHS quality than DVD.

Here are DVDtalk.com's reviews of the re-releases, which echo that sentiment (and one of them touches on the discussion of "grasping" the films concept, discussed in this thread):
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31297&___rd=1
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31328&___rd=1

[cyan]

Just to clarify, I wasn't speaking specifically about you, Cyan.  I also wasn't speaking specifically about me.  I didn't have too much trouble understanding 2001, because I researched the WTF parts afterwards.

I do disagree with you about the role of a film.  I think that a film has 2 hours to tell a story.  Additional reading shouldn't have to be required.  Although, some movies become much better because of it on subsequent watchings.  For example, I liked Adaptation much more after I read a little bit about Charlie Kaufman.  ...the same for Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.

The only reason I had anything on the contrary to respond to your post with, was because of this statement:

What 2001 lacked for me was the ability to tell a story on film, alone. 

No offense, I mean this 100% literally, but to state that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is lacking in it's storytelling ability is ignorance on a massive scale. That's akin to saying that 'Chinatown' has a poor screenplay, 'Star Wars' has poor special effects, 'Seven Samurai' wasn't inventive with cinematography, or 'Titanic' failed miserably at the box office. 2001 is quite possibly the most-recognized achievement in pure film storytelling ever. That, aside from the special effects, is the film's main draw, as it told the story in a way that had never been done so well before.

really...it's entirely ok to hate the movie, but of all things to critique in that film, storytelling is certainly the one that has been critiqued the least over the years...and it's the one thing that those few outspoken critics of the film in 1968 chose to attack...and their reviews are now looked back on as some of the most laughably outrageous of all time....akin to GameSpot's review of Mario Kart 64, or, more recently, Kane & Lynch. 

[Dave Gray]

The only reason I had anything on the contrary to respond to your post with, was because of this statement:
No offense, I mean this 100% literally, but to state that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is lacking in it's storytelling ability is ignorance on a massive scale.

You're re-stating my words and leaving out some important ones -- "on film, alone".

It seems to me, that to truly get WTF is going on at the end of 2001, you had to have read the book (or gotten the scoop from someone who had.)  To me, that movie hasn't done it's job.  I see books and movies as separate mediums, and you shouldn't have to know a story in one to enjoy it in another.  That's all.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

Make sure if you do watch it, that you watch the Blu-ray disc (if you have that capability), as it was the best blu-ray released all of last year...it really looks unbelievable, honestly. Hard to believe the film on that disc is 40 years old.

If you can't play blu-rays, make sure you watch the new 2-disc DVD version, and not the old one disc, white-cover, dvd version. The new 2-disc used the same master as the blu-ray, and it looks much better. The old 1-disc 1998 DVD version is closer to VHS quality than DVD.

Here are DVDtalk.com's reviews of the re-releases, which echo that sentiment (and one of them touches on the discussion of "grasping" the films concept, discussed in this thread):
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31297&___rd=1
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31328&___rd=1

I have a PS3 but no hd cable or whatever it is that makes it look nicer on the good t.v.'s.  I have my PS3 in my room on a crappy t.v. But I can take it to the living room on the nice one...anyways, is there a cable I need for blu-rays to be better?

[Dave Gray]

Get an HDMI cable.   There's a site called mycablemart.com that had short HDMI cables for 3-6 dollars.  Of course, you can buy higher quality if you want, but that will get you by.

[cyan]

Yep, cheap HDMI cable or a little more expensive component cable. Either will get you the HD picture.

With the HDMI cable, buy the cheapest one you can find...its digital, so quality is the same regardless of cost. If you go with component, look to spend $30-60 for a good cable, as they are analog and quality is somewhat price-dependent.