Rating: 
Summary: Wicked Book, Movie.............
Review: I believe this book Is Great, it would have to be my very favourite book. I thaught it was so good that i went to my local video store and hired it straight after i finished and watched it and to my dissapointment it was hopless, fair enough it is a classic but it has everything and if i hadn'y first read the book i wouldn't have understood it at all, But getting back to the book, it is marvelous.
Rating: 
Summary: 2001 - Stanley Kubrick = Good Plot
Review: Okay, first, let me say that I do have respect for Stanley Kubrick. His work is probably the best that any director could offer in terms of cinnematography. However, his "vision" of the story which he and Arthur C. Clarke concocted is about as understandable as standard US tax forms. Look at it all you like and you may get a general idea, but I doubt you'll find the details.Clarke's work takes place on a different planet, with slightly different dilemas, and a different ending (IE a non-cryptic understandable one). One of the best parts of the novel (when Hal opens the air locks) didn't even appear in the movie. Clarke also consistently follows the laws of physics, something that some science fiction writers have a great deal of trouble with. The series sparks much thought about our origins and where we're going as a species. The thought provoking and mysterious "monolith" personifies the mysteries of our own origins. Overall, this is an excellent book and good for anyone who saw the movie, marveled for 2 hours at the pretty colors, then saw the ending and said... "huh?!" Enjoy this and the entire series, they are worth the time.
Rating:
Summary: Incomparable.
Review: First, if you're aurally inclined, i.e., you understand and remember better a text that you've heard than you do when it was merely read, this is the route to go. I've read the book a number of times before (though, admittedly, not as many times as I've seen the fine motion picture!) and heard things I just never noted before. "He would think of something" isn't only the closing line of the book! Next, this text is unique to both the printed word and the film medium in that I find the book complements the film. Yeah, of course there are great differences. The most obvious is that in the book they went to Saturn not merely Jupiter as in the film. (For a more thorough analysis of that whole process, I recommend "The Lost Worlds of 2001," a journal of how the text was produced while the film was also being produced.) It turned out that the special effects people were having problems putting together a Saturn background so they settled on Jupiter. Then there are many other differences. (As Clarke points out in the introduction, that choice to use Jupiter was providential. A few years later one of the space probes cruised by Saturn. Kubrick, et al, couldn't have imagined the complexities of Saturn's rings. Their speculations may have made the film an anachronism by now had they attempted them.) Clarke describes the obvious: that far more detail is needed in a text than in a film. In the case of "Odyssey," I find the film to be an almost transcendent experience. And, like any such experience, I cannot describe WHY I feel that way. The book puts the film in context. It brings it back to earth--and to "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" in ways that I can relate with on a more, yes, earthly level. There are, of course, portions of the book that are dated, particularly the existence of a Soviet Union and our intelligence squabbles with them. (Though that's not as much an impedance as in, say, "2010," the book or the film.) There is also some speculation. For instance, how does a child who was born on a moon base grow? Will she live longer? There are, however, Clarkian prophesies which balance the speculation, e.g., reference to electronic newspapers, and subtle reference to what has become fact: e-mail. There are also items less pronounced in the film than in the text best described as "tongue in cheek," especially details of a zero gravity toilet. The description of Hal's psychosis is something that couldn't really be described in the film but was in the book. The immense lapses of time spent while Discovery, for example, travels through the orbits of Saturn's many moons would have made the film terribly boring, while Clarke did a wonderful job of describing them--briefly--in the book. The symbiosis of the book and the film resembles that of the relationship between courtship and marriage. Details of the marriage are not anticipated while courting, indeed the marriage is quite different than what was expected during the courtship. But most of us still appreciate, even revel in the marriage. Even with the imperfections, it's better than the courtship! In the final analysis, it's not only a superb book and an unsurpassed film, but the two are inadvertently an examination of both media, such as, again, details from a book that one can include at best symbolically in a film. This you'll find as well in something like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," another example in which the film and the book were significantly different, though both were excellent. Then there's the other stuff that goes on, technical, artistic, certainly budgetary (the film cost more time and money than Kubrick had anticipated) and even political, while the book and film are being constructed, especially when they're being produced simultaneously. In short, I cannot recommend the book strongly enough. The text is of immeasurable value if you've seen the film, on which you WILL have questions. It's the nature of the wonderful film! And if you haven't seen the film, or didn't like it, the book is still superb. If, like me, you do better via the ear than you do via the eye, I recommend the recorded version. If you're more comfortable, or feel you process better by reading, then get the printed version. But don't let this one go by. You'll learn and reflect, and understand the universe just a little better. It will give you unforeseen power to do something which you've yet to ponder. But you'll think of something...
Rating:
Summary: The Mother of all Science Fiction
Review: This is my favorite science fiction novel of all time! However, much of the credit goes to Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick and Clarke holed up together in a hotel in Manhattan and hashed out the details for the plot. The movie and the book happened contemporaneously, and I have to say that - as great as the book is - the movie is better (I believe it is the best movie ever made). Even though there are differences between the book and the film (Saturn?), I believe one should see the film first and then read the novel to get a more straight-forward interpretation of what happened.
Rating:
Summary: Still One of Arthur C. Clarke's Best Novels
Review: Along with "Childhood's End", and "Rendezvous With Rama", "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of Arthur C. Clarke's greatest works of science fiction. It is among the finest film novelizations I've read; one of the few which actually surpass the film in artistic quality. Here Clarke makes some important changes in the plot that differ substantially from the film; most notably, the USS Discovery's final destination of Saturn, not Jupiter, searching for those who received the lunar Monolith's high-pitched wail. And he does a fine job portraying HAL as a sympathetic, almost human, character. Those interested in a realistic vision of manned exploration of the Solar System will not be disappointed with Clarke's novel; so will those who found Kubrick's film a confusing kaleidoscope of images and special effects.
Rating:
Summary: From Short Story to Novel and Film
Review: In 1948, Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story called "The Sentinel". He later joined in a dual project with Stanley Kubrik to A) expand "The Sentinel" into a novel and B) create a movie; both were called "2001: A Space Odyssey". The movie, which I have also reviewed, pushed the science fiction film genre three steps forward into maturity. The novel was not as revolutionary, as SF writing was already well ahead of SF film. That takes nothing away from this novel, which dealt with science fiction in a very mature, realistic, hard-science way. What it also did was to remind us of the element of wonder involved in leaving home (Earth) and stepping out into a bigger world (space). As of 2001, we have no hard evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. The movie adopts the premise that, if we find such evidence, it will likely represent a decidedly superior intelligence. How will Mankind deal with such evidence? This novel and this movie give a very positive but necessarily incomplete answer to that question. The highly abstract and symbolic imagery of the Star Child is open to many interpretations. There are no clear answers here, but the movie abounds with beautifully thought-provoking possibilities. We also see in this novel a theme which later shows up more clearly and strongly in Clarke's "Rama" series ("Rendezvous with Rama", "Rama II", "Garden of Rama", and "Rama Revealed"), that scientific and technological advances will eventually take us face-to-face with questions of spirituality, religion, and the meaning of life and the universe. What is sad is that Clarke's vision of the future has not (yet) been proven or disproven; our space program has just slowed to a snail's pace and we have not gone nearly as far by 2001 as Mr. Clarke expected (or as far as we could have gone). Let's get moving (upward)!
Rating:
Summary: One of the all time greats!
Review: This book is a true science fiction masterpiece. The 2001: A Space Odyssey movie directed by Stanley Kubrick is also a masterpiece, but it really fails to capture the true essence of the novel. The main plot of the novel deals with the creation of man and the possibity of alien life forms, but my favorite subplot has to be the development of the HAL9000 computer as a character just as human as the crew of the Discovery. This novel raises many questions about just what sets humanity apart from others; whether they are apes or sentient computers. Every time I read this book I find some new angle to ponder. If you haven't read it yet, do so.
Rating:
Summary: Well it had to be read in the year 2001..
Review: ..didn't it? I read this before about 5 years ago and it left me astounded. The feeling of total isolation from everything familiar was something I had never contemplated. The book is worth it for that imagery alone, regardless of what happens with the plot. Second time of reading was still enjoyable and I was able to make more sense of the ending which disappointed me first time around. I think this is one of those books that anyone who says they are into sci-fi should read. If you haven't, don't even talk to me! Much, much better than the film.
Rating:
Summary: What's beyond man?
Review: I can't say I liked the movie. I found it boring, and it became one of those works that you can NOT understand, but if you say you liked it, people will find you very smart. Anyway, I've read the book, and I finally read a story, a different work of art. Let's say the movie could be "the way one of the readers envisioned the book", a good visual way, but if you don't know the story, sorry, you yawn in front of that movie. I love everything Arthur Clarke wrote: "Childhood's end" is somewhat similar to the basic concept about human evolution in 2001. As F. Nietzsche said, man is something that must be soon overtaken. In which way, who knows? A.C.C. fascinates because you can feel his own great fascination about man and the universe. Oh, and he's a genius.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most brilliant books I ever read
Review: This book is just brilliant! Arthur C. Clarke is a genius! I remember when I first saw the movie and I was astonished, I wanted to read the book right away. When I read the first chapter of this book I couldn't stop. I highly recommend this book!
|
