Pales in comparison to the book

Rating: 3/10 (22 August 2007)

Although the book was written as a response to the screenplay, it appears the written word has gone further to explore the massive potential of the idea.
Ultimately the book is a genre novel, but what it succeeds in doing is evoking the contrast of REAL LIFE and the MYSTERIOUS UNKNOWN of outer space in thoughtfully constructed juxtaposition.
There is none of this in the film. It is all moody and serious faces. Since there was no reality in the film, the 'mystery' becomes the norm.
Particularly wasted is the trip through the star gate, the crux of all the awe-inspiring messages about humankind's place in the universe. As described in the book in dizzying but sensible detail, a magnificent journey takes place. As for the film, Bowman appears to descend through entirely abstract flashing lights. There are many things he is supposed to see, including THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. The surreal trip to the hotel is wasted too, since we are never told why he is there. This is a journey through life in its entirety (young-old, innocence-knowledge), yet it is SO RUSHED in the film none of these things are even suggested.
There is an attempt to make the film 'graceful', and the use of music is also a part of this. However, if the same music is played repeatedly, then there is no, if you like, 'heart' left. One is listening to habit, rather than 'beauty' (Johann Strauss Jnr) or 'empowerment' (Richard Strauss). Music does not challenge if there is no change.
The Ligeti pieces chosen reflect continuous motion. Why not, then, have different snippets? Why the same bit? (The fact that I am supposed to find the 'Lux Aeterna' scary or mysterious is rather forced. Why should I?)