I’m glad to have suggested this wonderful film.

"I don't quite understand the film." Oh, just think about it for the next 50 years, there's no hurry.

@19:00 in one of the lawsuits by Apple against Samsung for copying their iPad design, Samsung's attorneys brought up this scene to demonstrate that Apple didn't invent the iPad design 🙂

"What kind of gift do you want?" "A telephone." Kubrick knew even back in the late 60s.... cell phones were coming.................. and the dang kids were gonna want them.

Those other animals are Tapirs. They are related to horses and rhinos on the evolutionary chain. They are considered living fossils because they have remained unchanged for a very long time.

2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t a film. It’s an experience.

Kubrick never intended for people to fully understand this movie on first viewing, if ever. He preferred that viewers ponder its meaning rather than ruin the mystical effect by over-explaining it.

More like: first there was a bone, now it's a spaceship. That's why THAT cut from the bone to the spaceship. That's the whole evolution of technology in one single cut! :D The most ingenious cut in the history of film.

The greatest science fiction film ever made. Absolutely epic

The Starchild, the next step of the evolution of humans.

Quite simply one of the most important movie of all times. A genuine masterpiece.

The visual effects are all the more impressive when you consider fillming occurred in 1965-7 and there was no such thing as CGI. All the spaceships are physical models. The floating pen was stuck to a large piece of clear perspex. How do you get the effect of an astronaut jogging around a big cylinder? You build the life sized set and literally rotate it at the same speed as the jogger. The lengths they went to to get those effects - amazing! That's Kubrick for you. I saw this in '68 in Cinerama. Now that was an experience!

Loved your reaction! I was in college 66-70 when this film first came out, and you are correct--we were blown away. To truly appreciate the film, one must understand that our culture was undergoing three significant influences that touched our lives every single day: First, the war in Vietnam. Second, the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the 24/7 threat of nuclear Armageddon. (We had nuclear attack drills in school, like tornado drills nowadays). Third was the all-consuming Space Race. Billions of $$ were sunk into that program and every day there was news about some new scientific discovery or accomplishment or manned space launch. In less than 10 years we landed men on the moon. And more than once!. So, in those days it was reasonable and not beyond comprehension that in another 32 years (1969 to 2001) we would realistically have space stations or manned probes to Jupiter. People today cannot understand the economic, financial, employment, and other such sectors impacted by that Space Race. Had we continued at that rate (not saying that we could have done so) we would have colonized Mars by now. Incredible times to be 20 years old!!

Way back in the day, a G rated movie just meant it was open to everybody. PG meant that parents needed to use discretion on allowing their kids to see the movie...they could have nudity, violence and profanity. R was absolutely nobody under 17. If you think about it, Jaws was rated PG. It wasn't until 1984 when PG-13 was introduced that more graphic material in PG movies was "rated up", and made more kid friendly.

“I’m sorry, Kazzy. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” 🔴

The idea behind the breathing in the helmet came about when Kubrick tried the helmet on when the completed costume piece was shown to him. He tries the helmet on and realizes he cant hear anyone and can only hear his own breathing which is amplified inside the helmet. As he walks around with the helmet on he finds the experience fascinating and it became the inspiration for that scene.

If you watch the 1984 sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact", HAL's mental breakdown is explained in a way that makes perfect sense. 2010 isn't as good as 2001, but it's definitely worth watching.

Eventually you should watch this on a 60 foot screen with a powerhouse sound system in 70mm FILM. It’s AWESOME!

I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but the seed for this movie was Arthur C. Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel", which, although it doesn't deal with the philosophical, or spiritual, messaging of 2001, gave birth to the purpose of the monolith.

The Monolith’s appearances marks the moment when mankind reaches a significant point of evolution. The dawn of man is the change when apes discover the ability to use tools. Then the monolith on the moon. It was buried there by the same intelligent life waiting for the time when mankind reaches the moon and discovers it. The high pitch sound was activated when sunlight hits the excavated monolith and it sends a signal towards Jupiter which is why a ship was sent there to investigate.

In 2019 I finally lived a lifelong dream and saw this movie in a theater. It was incredible!

It actually came out in 1968, not 1969. I know because I always thought how brilliant it was that it was made before the first moon landing (1969). I also know because I read that they hard time with the opening scene as just about every makeup artist in Hollywood was working on Planet Of The Apes (1968).

Fun fact: to get the one set of Zero-G toilet instructions, they had to order something like 100 sets from Letraset. Ten years later, when Alien was filming at the same studio, the set builders found the 98 unused sets forgotten about in storage and decided to make use of them, so yep, most of the too-small-to-read stencilling on the bridge of the Nostromo is actually zero-G toilet instructions... ;-)

One last thing: The G rating. This was when they first put out the ratings. G meant general audiences, it didn't mean "for kids" like we think now. ("Midnight Cowboy" and "A Clockwork Orange" were rated X, lol). That said, schools brought their students to "2001", that's how one member of my family saw it.

This is an amazing movie, but let us not forget the enormous contribution by Arthur C. Clarke, and even some input by Carl Sagan,

Stuart Freeborn, who created the ape costumes, also made Chewbacca’s costume, Yoda, and Jabba The Hutt.

Some of the comments recommend reading Arthur C. Clarke's novel based on the screen play (he co-wrote the screenplay with Kubrick) or watching the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" as ways of better understanding "2001". Personally, I don't think the movie was meant to have "answers". There is intentional ambiguity in the film and it's meaning and intent are meant to be left open to interpretation. If Kubrick wanted to provide answers, he would have given them. I'm not saying the book and the sequel aren't worth reading or watching, just that I wouldn't think of those as somehow providing definitive answers to questions about 2001.

Released in 1968, they started production in 1965 so even more impressive and before the moon landing in 1969

Kazzy, you keep mentioning how so many of the shots/scenes remind you of other movies. You're absolutely right! Someone else mentioned that this more than a movie, it is an experience. So much so, it influenced a whole generation of filmmakers.

The blank screens at the beginning and after the intermission (yes, an actual intermission.) were meant to be for a closed curtain. Stage protocols lingered. I also saw this with _Lawrence of Arabia_ and _West Side Story_ when they were screened at a London Ontario cinema in the 90s.

There are some really good books about the making of this film. 2010: The Year We Make Contact is really good as well, but is not a landmark film, like 2001 was. The thrown bone to orbiting satellite is considered by many to be the greatest jump cut in the history of cinema.

"Wow, this is so ahead of its time, this movie... unbelievable". Nailed it after 10 minutes, Kazzy !

Be sure to react to the awesome sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984), and despite what some say it is a very excellent movie written by the same Arthur C. Clarke, and has a mind-blowing ending. 🖖😎

I was 7 years old when I saw this, and it was completely unbelievable. In many ways, it still is. And Pan-Am is no longer a company!

The Ending: the entity/entities behind the Monolith are seemingly curious about life and its nature, it perhaps being a new phenom. Thus they reach out to life, first inspiring it, then setting markers for it, so it might find its way to them. Upon his arrival, the entity/s thoroughly examine Dave, providing him a comfortable setting and environment- even a last meal as they explore what really mystifies them about life- mortality. They hasten him along to and observe his death, contemplate it, and then decide to try living: creating their own version of life, the 'Star Child' in the end, perhaps Dave himself reborn in a way.

Omg Kazzy. You said the ship looked like it had a face. I’ve thought that every time I have watched this movie! I thought I was crazy lol. Glad to see you are at least as crazy as me!! Lol. Thank you!

Rumor has it that the Oscar for best costume design in 1968 went to Planet of the Apes, because the jury thought that the apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey were real apes...

There is an interesting story behind the music score. They hired someone to write original music for the movie, but because of various issues it got delayed. Meanwhile the studio was getting impatient and wanted to see what Kubrick had done. So Kubrick sent them a print with a "stand in" score made of different musical selections. In the end, that cobbled together score ended up being the final movie score.

My understanding about the classical music throughout the film is that it was originally a placeholder but when Kubrick saw the chunks of the film with the classical score he far preferred it to the score they were working on. He wanted grand, big, gigantic, timeless feelings to go throughout the film.

Being 1969 when this came out, there were typically three reactions: people who walked out because they were so confused; people who were amazed by how well done it was that they embraced the confusion; and people who said, "whoa, that was a hell of an acid trip, man!" My mother was one of the folks who saw it while tripping.

The greatest science fiction film ever made! And the most intelligent. 53 years old and still looks great. A masterpiece of filmmaking!

2010 is worth watching as you get insight into why HAL acted as he did

I've been watching 2001 for nearly 40yrs and find different meanings every time I watch it.

In 1961, an IBM 704 at Bell Labs was programmed to sing "Daisy Bell" in the earliest demonstration of computer speech synthesis. This recording has been included in the United States National Recording Registry.

The fade from the thigh bone to the spaceship was one of the most amazing edits ever

Awe im so glad gou watched this! One of my favs :) Oh and the opening black screen is supposed to be you staring at the Monolith

The novel released after the film came out adds in some nice details. Like when the wormhole (?) opens and Bowman's last words are "My god, it's full of stars." The film is a long homage to Nietzschean philosophy: ape-man-overman. The "star-child" is the next stage of humanity, one that is "more than human" and beyond our conventional morality. "He didn't know what he would do - but he would *think* of something" is another important line in the book that is only implied in the film. It appears twice in the book, when the ape becomes reasoning, and when the star-child has wiped out the Earth's nuclear weapons at the very end of the novel.

One special effect everyone misses if they don't know about it is that all the ape shots (except for one or two close shots against a real sky background) were shot on a sound stage in the studio using a process called front projection. The people seen in windows in the spacecraft were put there by the same process - projected onto tiny front projection screens pasted onto the miniatures. Incidentally, the pit on the moon was shot on the largest stage at Shepperton Studios as MGM Borehamwood didn't have a stage that big.

I can't wait for your reactions to Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, and Lolita.

"My God! It's full of stars!" I highly recommend you watch _2010: The Year We Make Contact._ As sequels go it is actually very good. And it showcases just what a phenomenal actor Roy Scheider really was. The sequel doesn't try to explain everything but it does offer some answers that enhance ones appreciation of 2001. I found the explanation for Hal's behavior most satisfying. And the whole cast puts in some stellar performances.

HAL is a take off of IBM. In the alphabet sequence H, I .... A, B .... L, M ..... Watch the sequel "2010, the Year We make Contact" to continue the journey.

watched it back in '88 when I was 7. my mom tried to convince me not to, but I wouldn't obey. I do remember her saying something like "this film isn't for kids". she was right, as I find it to be the epitome of "cosmic horror". still, I am grateful that I've seen it. it changed me in ways that I am still unraveling.

I think the beauty of 2001: A Space Odyssey is that it lets the audience find their own meaning within the film. :D

When the ape throws the bone into the air... The shot represent the big jump from that point to the actual time. Bone and spaceship equalize in vision that perspective period of time with unspoken words. In nutshell, "look where we were millions of years ago to where we are now".

13:27 Well on the ISS the toilets use suction. like peeing into a vacuum cleaner. LOL

The newborn baby at the end represents a new beginning.

On Apollo 16, one of the astronauts, fell on his back and afterwards listened for the sound of his EVA backpack to make sure he was okay. In space all you can hear is the sounds of your environmental suit. If Kubrick has done this without sound, we would not get the same effect that we would if everything was silent.

The Scene where HAL refused to let Dave inside the ship was on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments. It's implied that a Machine no matter how intelligent, is capable of murder.

I still maintain that Kubrick is the greatest director in cinematic history.

What’s very interesting about this movie is the fact that he talked with scientists about future technology and they suggested to him where we would be tech wise in 2001. There is a scene where they are eating and watching the news on tablets. They were off by 10 years on tablets . But it was close.

I'm one of those people who saw this in the theater when it premiered. I was 8 years old, my father took me to see it. I cannot describe how stunning this was. Everyone talked about this movie for years after, have you seen 2001? No? Go see it! LOL I did not fully understand this movie, despite seeing it multiple times, until I read the book. That's when all these scenes clicked, and I finally got it all. Keep in mind, this was made between 1966-1968, and avant-garde art was in the air and water. You breathed it every day. Lots of artistic experimentation going on. Kubrick challenged himself (and his audience) to see how much story he could tell with visuals only, no explanations, minimal dialogue. I finally read the book to see if that helped, and it's actually a beautiful and elegant little story. Read it, then watch this again, you'll have a whole new appreciation.

This is a piece of art. Carl Sagan (in «The cosmic connection») tells how he advised Kubrick on the poetic ending. Beautiful. If this is your thing, I strongly recommend «Solaris» by Andrei Tarkovski.

As a kid, I watched it on our black & white TV and it creeped me out. I really should watch it again.

I don't know if I'd call this an art film but it definitely is full, full of art and has sections that let the audience decide what it all means.

Kubrick never intended 2001 to have an "explanation." What it means is whatever it means to you.

Unlike Most filmmakers, Stanley Kubrick never likes to tell the audience what his films are about or their meaning. His thinking is to let the film impact the viewers, and let them decide, discuss, come to their own conclusions. Now you definitely need to watch 2010: Odyssey Two.

The leap in special effects in 2001 is amazing. Up 'til this, "spaceships" were pretty much toilet paper tubes covered in tin foil, sparklers out the back, with visible support wires. Stanley done good. Again!

For me, still the best SF film ever. Close Encounters of the third kind, is another Classic.

I saw this movie when I was three years old. My mom said that I just stood on the seat for the duration of the movie and just stared at the screen. :) Regarding HAL's behavior, below is a very slight spoiler for the sequel 2010, which is another very cool movie by the way. . . . . . . . I think the reason that HAL went crazy was that two orders came into conflict. On the one hand he is compelled to always tell the truth, but then he was told by the higher ups to lie to the crew about their mission (which was kept secret), and he couldn't deal with the conflict.

This movie was presented on 70mm film on a huge screen at the Cinerama Dome and other same type screens at other theaters. Presented this way, the movie is so impressive and engaging. If you ever get an opportunity to watch this movie on the big screen, you'll understand how the movie is really supposed to be viewed. On rare occasions this opportunity arises.

At age 16 in 1969, I was fortunate to have read Clarke’s 2001 book shortly before seeing Kubrick’s film on the theatre big screen.

The ending of the movie is much more cryptic than the novel, which explains a lot. And HAL wasn't really a bad computer, at least at first, also explained in the novel.

Definitely recommend you watch 'Forbidden Planet' 1956. Very fun movie that really holds up very well. Leslie Nielsen (Naked Gun) is great as the leading man.

Principal photography began on 29 December 1965. Filming of actors was completed in September 1967. From June 1966 until March 1968, Kubrick spent most of his time working on the 205 special-effects shots in the film. The film's world premiere was on 2 April 1968. Wiki.

I saw 2001 in a theater when it was released, when I was 11. It was the same year as the 1st moon landing. This movie blew me away and made think of movies, space, and computers in an entirely new light.

I preemptively gave you a thumbs up because I already know you’re gonna do an excellent job!!

When folks used to ask Arthur C Clark what the movie means, he told them, "Read the book, watch the movie, and repeat the dose as often as necessary."

To me, 2001 is like a spiritual journey, I am not particularly a spiritual person but this film puts me in a trance-like state. I feel like the journey you take is more important to the 'meaning' of the film. Also a few years ago I had the privilege to watch 2001 on 70mm film at the Cinerama followed by a Q&A with Douglas Trumbull, the visual effects director for this film, and that was something else.

I saw this when I was nine years old when it was first released. I was mesmerized and forced my parents to take me back to see it twice more.

Oh my gosh, you did a GREAT job on this one, Kazzy! I'm subscribing right....now! Oh my god, PLEASE do more classic movies! I don't even know where to begin! The fact that you immediately spotted the exact shots that so many directors ripped off (or paid homage to) - and then you show us! - thank you. For Stanley! :) Wow. You never know how someone is going to take this movie. This is obviously right in your scope. I know you know from your previous Kubrick movie experiences: his endings always leave you with questions! Is it God? Is it alien intelligence? Is God an alien? These are all legitimate paths. Is the baby at the end literally a superbaby, the size of a planet? Is it symbolic of man's next leap in intelligence? People have been debating these questions since 1968, when it came out at the height of "flower power" with the youth culture at the time showing up in droves, usually under the influence of hallucinongens, lol. Miss Kazzy! Ten years later, the next best alien-contact movie came out: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND! Have you seen that? You must have! Spielberg's amazing follow-up to Jaws, it's about UFO sightings, a huge blockbuster and one of the most dazzling movies you'll ever see. The effects were done by the same guy who worked on "2001", Douglas Trumball. HIGHLY recommended if you haven't seen it already. It's his best movie, hands down. Also regarding Kubrick: you mention "Full Metal Jacket". Definitely see "Paths Of Glory", which is another one of his greatest films, and (with all due respect to "Full Metal") his greatest war film. "Dr. Strangelove" is a satire of nuclear warfare, that's also great. "The Killing" you'll see where Tarantino gets his whole story structure. And "Lolita" is a forgotten, super weird gem. "Barry Lyndon" is a period piece that takes place in the early 1800s and literally looks like moving paintings. (it came out between "Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining"). Sorry for writing so much! Just excited to find your channel! This was GREAT! As I said, I subscribed! PS: If you want to see what space effects otherwise looked like in 1968, you can check out the original "Planet Of The Apes" which came out the same day as "2001: A Space Odyssey"! That's a fantastic movie in it's own right, although I'm sure you've seen it. Anyways, that movie opens with space travel.

I need to sit back down and rewatch this film. It was always a bit TOO cerebral for my limited mind. I think the next step for you, Kazzy, is "2010: The Year We Make Contact". It kinda wraps the two films up with a nice little bow. HAL's actions make so much more sense after seeing "2010".

The way I interpret it is that every time someone comes into contact with the Monolith is that they receive an increase in intelligence.

The Greatest Movie Of All Time...IMHO as a 40-year-long 2001 fan. I have had my SONY BRAVIA 65 Inch OLED TV for three months now, and the recent 4KUHD and Blu-Ray releases look incredibly beautiful.

Now you have to watch also part 2: "2010 - The year we make contact" ;)

Parents are too protective of their children now. The relaxed attitudes of the 1960s are why I grew up normal.

LOVED HOW YOU SHOWED OR PLAYED THE OPENING BLACK SCREEN MUSIC INTRO and silence --- a really a cool way of presenting this film's opening.

I was 11 years old when my family and I first saw this film in 1968. A few weeks later I finally convinced my brother to take me to a matinee showing so I could see it again. I doubt there are many 11 year olds now who would sit through such a film.

Also wanted to say it was interesting to hear you mention that life was superior to AI. But oddly enough, HAL seemed more human and the astronauts more artificial. Blade Runner felt the same years later.

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh I don't think that I'd agree that the visuals in THIS movie look like they were "made today" as you put it. Because if they were "made today" then they would resemble stupid computer simulations, which they don't.

We were blown away, indeed, in 1968/69. Also note that this film was made before the first moon landing. Also seeing it on the big screen easily surpasses the experience of seeing it in the living room. A few years ago I went to see this movie on an IMAX screen, and it was still amazing.

Hi Kazzy,. Great reaction! Very thoughtful! And I agree about the G rating.... except for a crucial fact. Ratings were and are supposed to account for the artistic importance of works, so that young people could have their minds blown by _great_ art. And so it was that in 1969 when I was eleven and my brother thirteen, we were taken to watch the movie by my blessed grandmother. Word was that this film was powerful like no other film in history, and there was agreement that great art should get the earliest possible exposure. And so we came, we saw, we learned. It changed my life, and I will always be grateful for the wisdom of that enlightened policy. Cheers!

Peter Hyams (Also a great director but not quite Kubrick level) made a really good sequel to this in the 80s called 2010. It's got Roy Schieder and Helen Mirren in it, and while it's not as metaphysical as this film it is pretty good. I recommend it.

Thanks, Kazzy! 🚀 I've enjoyed both cinematic interpretations of 2001 and 2010... and I've read Arthur C. Clarke's 2061 and 3001... so, I'm vaguely aware of how awesome the *full* space odyssey is! 🌌

During his life Kubrick would never talk about the meaning of the film, especially the ending, preferring that people decide for themselves. He said things like: " How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo Da Vinci had written at the bottom of the canvas, 'The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover'? This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don't want this to happen to 2001: A Space Odyssey" He also said "I would not think of quarreling with your interpretation nor offering any other, as I have found it always the best policy to allow the film to speak for itself."... But after his death an interview from 1980 was released wherein he expleined "The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by godlike entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. ... [W]hen they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made some kind of superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were trying to suggest." ... Arthur C Clarke wrote this type of ending in his novelization of the film and Kubrick apparently hated that he had explained it.

The music at the start feels weird watching at home, but if you imagine watching it at the theatre, it's basically music that plays before the film. You're still talking to your friend you went with, the lights aren't even out yet, the curtains aren't even drawn, but the music is already creating the mood, before the film even starts.

You need to watch the sequel to this movie. "2010: The Year We Make Contact". Then you will understand most things that had happened in the first movie. It's quite a ride.

Yes G movies back then could be like pg now we saw everything as kids war movies etc my first non G movie was Planet of the apes in late 60s it was rated GP whatever that was I think it was a rating before pg came out anyway thanks Kazzy!

People used to look for wires above the models. They were astonished that Kubrick had managed to edit them out. It did however help to turn the cameras upside down and turn the models upside down, and that would leave the strings underneath the models to the viewer. You would never catch a glimpse of them "over" the model supporting it no matter how hard you looked. At that 31 minute mark where the astronaut is shooting himself from the pod into the main ship, they put the camera at the bottom of a shaft and pointed it straight up and dropped the stunt man (or was it the actor?) down the shaft on a line. He bounced around when he hit the end of the line such that he looked like he was in a zero-g environment. Astonishing thinking and ingenuity went into this film.

1968. That's when 2001 was released in the theaters. I first saw it in the drive-in theater with my family, when was a young child at that time. At the end, my parents asked me what I thought about it, and I told them it was okay, but I didn't understand it. Their response: "That's okay, we didn't understand it either." It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and having watched it many times now, and read up on it, I've come to realize that you are NOT SUPPOSED TO "UNDERSTAND" it. Kubrick refused to spoon-feed answers, but instead sought to provoke questions. You are not expected to understand it, but he hopes to elicit wonder and make you think. Kubrick refused publicly to offer an interpretation or say if it was an allegory, and he invited the audience to interpret it for themselves. So I'll offer up mine. The Dawn of Man sequence shows early ape-like protohumans--distant ancestors of ours, millions of years ago. This tribe lives in a drought-stricken area with a water-hole, and they are struggling. A potential food source (those are tapirs, but are meant to be some sort of prehistoric mammal), has no fear of them. They are helpless against predators. A competing tribe is encroaching on their waterhole, and the best they can do is scream at each other. The monolith appears--and it is apparently of extra-terrestrial origin. The bravest of the ape-men, "Moonwatcher" touches it, and that triggers the monolith, and it's purpose is to tweak their intelligence a bit. Afterwards Moonwatcher is dinking around with some bones, and (with his intelligence enhanced by the Monolith) has an epiphany and realizes he can make a weapon of the bone. The tribe's diet becomes enriched with protein, further helping their brain development, and they are able to drive off the competing ape-tribe. Their tribe survives, and evolves further. Millions of years later, a second monolith has been discovered on the moon. And of course, they have to cover it up. When Heywood Floyd goes out to investigate it, they trigger the second monolith when they touch it too, and it sends out a powerful radio burst, which they track and determine that it is aimed at Jupiter. They send out an expedition to investigate--but of course, cover it up again with the crew. HAL malfunctions (for reasons I won't get into now--see the sequel), manages to kill the crew except for Bowman. By the time all this happens, they are almost to Jupiter, so Bowman decides to complete the mission alone. He finds the third monolith in orbit around Jupiter, and takes one of the two remaining pods out to investigate it up close, leaving the Discovery at a safe distance. Intrepid dude. The third monolith is the Star Gate. It pulls him into a vortex, and he is transported across mini-light years, arriving at an alien planet. He encounters some alien objects, roughly shaped like diamonds, which could be buoys, ships, machines, artificial intelligence--but anyway they snag Bowman and his pod, and place him in an observation chamber. Inside the observation chamber, we hear eerie sounds, but it is never explained what those are exactly, and Kubrick wisely refrains from ever showing us the aliens directly. They may not even be there "in-person". Bowman sees himself older, and then becomes that older person, repeatedly. The aliens can control space and time. They have powers that seem god-like. The design of the chamber is drawn from a memory of a place he visited as a child. But somehow the light comes from everywhere, not from any lamp. For Bowman, a whole life passes by, and yet it also seems to go quickly--time is not linear any longer. He grows older, and lies dying on the bed. The fourth monolith appears, to nudge mankind into its next evolutionary stage. Bowman is reborn as the Starchild--a fetus, with god-like powers, who returns to Earth--and that's where we are left to wonder--what is Bowman's nature now, and what will he do with his god-like powers?

"My God...it's full of stars" If you want to better understand the film, you have to check out the sequel. Much more plot driven, and Roy Scheider (sp?) and his narration make things much easier to understand.