2010

Rating:
Summary: Extremely well-made sequel to an undisputed classic
Review: Let's face it, there can never be another film like Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY ever again.

That said, however, "2010" is still an excellent film in its own right, and an extremely well-made sequel to that undisputed classic.

Peter Hyams, who made other sci-fi films prior to this (CAPRICORN ONE, OUTLAND) was given the obviously onerous task of following up an overwhelming movie with this one. It is certainly much more conventional than Kubrick's was, but still I think he did a superlative job.

The film picks up some nine years later, with a joint US/Russian mission to Jupiter to find out why the U.S. spaceship "Discovery" met with tragedy. The eerie black monolith which was at the center of Kubrick's film reappears here with equal power.

"2010" is boosted by Richard Edlund's masterful special effects, David Shire's eerie music score (which wisely interpolates Richard Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra", "2001"'s musical calling card), and a highly suspenseful storyline. The cast is also quite good, with Roy Scheider giving yet another great performance as Dr. Heywood Floyd.

Note (**SPOILER**): For those who get the widescreen version of "2010", look very closely at the film's Washington D.C. scene in the film, when Scheider discusses with his successor (James MacEachin) why the mission should go forth. The man sitting on the park bench a few yards away feeding the pigeons is none other than Arthur C. Clarke, the man responsible for writing both "2001" and "2010".

Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Science Fiction Movies of the 80s!
Review: This elaborately conceived science-fiction film is generally overshadowed by it's predecessor 2001. But unlike that film, you did not have to read the novel beforehand to understand its story line. Written, Cinematographed, Produced, and Directed (total creative control) by Peter Hyams, this superb science fiction classic was easily 20 years ahead of its time, and therefore unappreciated by many except the cinema and science fiction purists. Including a mesmerizing original sound score by David Shire, and academy award winning visual effects by futurist Syd Mead, this movie is so rich in theme and detail, you will be compelled to watch it over and over again! Billed, of course, as the sequel to 2001, this film managed to accomplish what that one did not. It created an absorbing, COHERENT, and spell binding FEAST for the senses. Watching this movie in 5 channel Dolby Surround is practically a religious experience, a theme touched on in the movie. If you are one of the many who missed this cinematic experience, treat yourself to a movie that is sure to become part of your private library. You'll be amazed while you're watching it, that you are watching a film made in the 80s! One of the best science fiction films ever made! Excellent!

Rating:
Summary: Not 2001, but interesting and enjoyable
Review: This is not on the same level as 2001... but it is a good film for those who were mystified by 2001, since it answers some of the questions posed by the first film very nicely. Unfortunately, the silly cosmic greeting card from Europa at the end of the film is a major disappointment and the casting of an overly emotional Roy Scheider instead of William Sylvester (who played Heywood Floyd in 2001) was a major miscast in my opinion. William would have played the role with more "cool" and "control" as an authentic scientist-astronaut would have really been for such a mission. Still, the effects and visuals are good and the film is enjoyable. Keir looks great as Bowman and the metaphysical touches are interesting.

Rating:
Summary: Fair ... but what could possibly be as good as 2001?
Review: If taken on its own merit, this really isn't a bad film. It's just that I've seen 2001 so many times that I became used to the style of previous director Stanley Kubrick, I suppose, it felt almost disorienting (for lack of a better word) to then view 2010.

Gone is all the cinematic artistry of the original, themes of the eroding of man's humanity by technology, the eerie lack of a score during space walks, and so on. It's replaced by a film that's much more of the standard sci-fi cliché. It's almost as if the execs at MGM said " they have to do a sequel, but too many people were confused by the original, so dumb it down ..."

The acting is fine, but I agree with a previous reviewer that Roy Schneider is extremely miscast; the effects are fine, the story's fine. It's all just ...OK. It left nothing to the imagination though, it didn't challenge the audience and transcend itself the way the original did. On the other hand though, in the original we had one of the greatest films ever made. Maybe it's unfair to hold 2010 to that kind of a standard.

The best way I could think of describing the experience of seeing 2010 would be to go into a magic show and have all the tricks explained to you. You're just left without the same sense of wonder that you had before.

It's not bad, but it's lifeless ...

Rating:
Summary: 2010 is great science fiction
Review: 2010: the Year We Make Contact will forever be hidden in the shadow of its famous predecessor, 2001. The reason for this is probably the fact that 2010 seems a bit too mainstream though I found the film to be quite thought provoking and awe inspiring. It's truly one of the most underrated sci-fi film of the 80's.

2010 takes place nine years after the disastrous Discovery mission near Jupiter in 2001 that led to the deaths of the crew members at the hands of the computer Hal and the disappearance of David Bowman. The Americans and the Russians both send a joint team on a ship called the Leonov to the site to find out what happened to the Discovery and learn the secrets of the mysterious dark monolith. Heading the crew are Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider), the man who was blamed for the Discovery's failure, and Tanya Kirbuck (Helen Mirren). With the help of the designers of the Discovery and Hal (John Lithgow and Bob Balaban) they begin to search for the answers. At the same time, the US and Russia are on a standoff that could lead to nuclear war and Bowman constantly appears at certain places telling people something wonderful is going to happen.

2010 is vastly underrated; it's quite an enjoyable film filled with moments of genuine tension and suspense. This film manages to maintain excitement and intrigue without a person pulling a gun on somebody else. Some of the great moments in this film include the Leonov's attempt to slingshot around Jupiter, John Lithgow's terrifying (for him though we feel some of the terror) space walk, the approach to the monolith, and the fine conclusion which is nothing short of spectacular and awe inspiring.

The cast includes Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, and Helen Mirren so you know acting isn't a problem. All three of the top billed actors deliver stellar performances. Scheider is a superb every day man who is haunted by his past mistakes and hopes to atone for them. Supporting performances are all around solid with the most impressive coming from Keir Dullea who truly mystifies as the the ethereal and almost celestial David Bowman.

Of course, for a film of this sort you need the usual special effects. In this film's case, they are quite spectacular. The interior of the Leonov looks a bit dated and a bit 80's, but the exterior is very realistic. The scenery is quite beautiful as all the planets look convincing. The film's most impressive effects come at the end though I don't want to say what it's like.

Director Peter Hyams did a fine job of bringing Arthur C. Clarke's novel to the screen. His script is intelligent and the direction is more than competent.

The only actual grudge I had with this movie were the voice over scenes when Scheider's character would be writing to his wife. The voice is a bit too loud and feels intrusive. Thankfully it's not in the movie for long.

2010, in its own right, is a science fiction classic. Some may feel bored by the lack of violence but for those who enjoy clear headed sci-fi films that are intelligent and impressively mounted you certainly can't go wrong with 2010. If you enjoyed this film, then I highly recommend you watch Contact.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent film...
Review: In the outset of 2010: The Year We Make Contact, the Soviet Union is preparing to send its spaceship, the Alexei Leonov, to Jupiter in order to investigate the phenomenon responsible for the dereliction of the American spaceship, the Discovery. Because the Soviets are not familiar with the HAL9000 computer that runs the Discovery, they approach American scientist Dr. Floyd (who oversaw plans for sending the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey) and ask if he would like to tag along. Dr. Floyd and two other Americans, an engineer and a computer scientist, are permitted to board the Leonov. Their purpose: To learn what happened to the crew of the Discovery and why its computer system, Hal, malfunctioned.

The backdrop of 2010 features increasing confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union and, unlike the book, becomes, in part, the basis for the climactic ending. As so many commentators of the film have noted, the backdrop belongs to a faded Cold War era, but we can hardly blame producer Stanley Kubrick for not knowing, in 1984, that in eight years there would be neither Soviet Union nor Cold War. Had Kubrick, like the book 2010: Odyessy Two, not higlighted a U.S.-Soviet confrontation, the movie might not have been the interesting and enjoyable expidition into alternative Cold War futurology that it is. A great cast and excellent special effects make for a wonderful viewing experience.

That said, the movie's political message that "we have to get along" remains, and the imperative to explore and utilize all worlds "together" and "in peace" remains as powerful today as it was in 1984, even though we have yet to acheive the magnificent accomplishments in space exploration in this film.

Rating:
Summary: One of Sci-Fi's best
Review: Peter Hyams, the director of Capricorn One, gives us 2010, the sequel to the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. People who have seen both films (like me) notice two completely different approaches to Arthur C. Clarke's tale of discovery. Stanley Kubrick's 2001 offers us an introspective into the human soul, and it is characterized by letting the visuals and music tell the story in the place of dialogue. Hyams takes a different approach, giving the audience a more straightforward approach to the film, with plenty of characters and dialogue.

Personally, I preferred 2010 to 2001. Although it couldn't capture the awe and wonder of space that 2001 did, the story was equally engrossing. We finaly learn exactly what happened to Dave Bowman at the end of the first film, and what drove HAL mad. The film has an inspiring, although not necessarily realistic, moral to it.

The acting is about average. I had a hard time believing John Lithgow as a reluctant astronaut after seeing him in 3rd Rock. If this movie has a fault, it's that it's based on a novel written in 1982, and the geopolitical climate has drastically changed. But its message of cooperation is as timeless as the ages.

The DVD special features, such as the "making of" featurette, are pretty good. I learned that the 2010 set designers had to build all of the miniatures from scratch, because Kubrick had the orignal Discovery from 2001 destroyed!

2010 is an inspiring and exciting film. No sci-fi fan should go without giving this one a look.

Rating:
Summary: More comprehensible than the first...
Review: While the first movie was o.k., it is not a good movie to watch on Saturday night with a few friends. It was meant to be watched, pondered, and repeated until you realize that the ending is impossible to understand.

While this movie may not be as scientific, it's still not totally unbelievable. You can enjoy it fairly easily, and it's overall just a fun movie, with good acting and plot.

Rating:
Summary: Fair ... but what could possibly be as good as 2001?
Review: If taken on its own merit, this really isn't a bad film. It's just that I've seen 2001 so many times that I became used to the style of previous director Stanley Kubrick. I suppose, it felt almost disorienting (for lack of a better word) to then view 2010.

Gone is all the cinematic artistry of the original, themes of the eroding of man's humanity by technology, the eerie lack of a score during space walks, and so on. It's replaced by a film that's much more of the standard sci-fi cliché. It's almost as if the execs at MGM said " they have to do a sequel, but too many people were confused by the original, so dumb it down ..."

The acting is fine, but I agree with a previous reviewer that Roy Schneider is extremely miscast; the effects are fine, the story's fine. It's all just ...OK. It left nothing to the imagination though, it didn't challenge the audience and transcend itself the way the original did. On the other hand though, in the original we had one of the greatest films ever made. Maybe it's unfair to hold 2010 to that kind of a standard.

The best way I could think of describing the experience of seeing 2010 would be to go into a magic show and have all the tricks explained to you. You're just left without the same sense of wonder that you had before.

It's not bad, but it's lifeless ...

Rating:
Summary: A Daring Space Journey to Find Answers
Review: =====>

This two-hour 1984 movie is intended to be a sequel to Stanley Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey" (which I've seen). However, this sequel is self-contained. That is, you don't have to see Kubrick's movie or read (even though I've read it) Sir Arthur C. Clarke's 1982 novel ("2010: Odyssey Two") to understand this movie.

Why do I say this? Because this sequel begins by letting the viewer read the mission report filed by the mission specialist named Dr. Heywood Floyd (a minor character in Kubrick's movie and now portrayed in this movie by Roy Scheider) who was invloved (on planet Earth) with the 2001 mission to planet Jupiter. According to this report, when the mission ended, the talking supercomputer (with the voice of Doug Rain, reprising his role for this movie) named HAL (that controlled the American spaceship called "Discovery") malfunctioned and was disconnected. As well, this spaceship was abandoned near Jupiter by its only survivor, Commander Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea, reprising his role for this movie). Just before Bowman disappeared, he had discovered an alien artifact or monolith in orbit around Io, one of Jupiter's moons.

As the movie progresses, we learn that the Russians plan to send a spaceship (called "Leonov") to intercept the Discovery. The Russians allow the Americans to let three of their specialists go along with them. (Two of these specialists are Floyd and Dr. Chandra, the genius who created HAL.) So this movie is about a joint Russian-American crew on the Leonov being sent in the year 2010 to intercept Discovery and essentially find out what happened to Discovery, Bowman, and HAL. As well, they are to learn more, if possible, about the alien monolith. By the end of the movie, the viewer has most of these unknowns answered.

This 1984 movie follows Clarke's 1982 novel fairly well. However, one addition not in the novel is the cold war that takes place between the Russians and Americans back on the Earth. (This reflects the actual world political tensions that were occurring in the 1980s.) I'm not sure why this was added but it, unfortunately, dates the movie. One omission in the movie that's in the novel was a Chinese mission to Jupiter. By omitting this mission, the viewer will probably not understand why Europa (one of Jupiter's moons) is so important. I was also disappointed in the portrayal of Dr. Chandra (whose full name is Sivasubramanian Chandrasegarampillai). In the 1982 novel, he is a short, Hindu computer genius but this movie portrays him differently. (Note that in this movie his first name initial is given as "R" rather than as "S.")

I said above that the movie is self-contained. It is true that this movie is easy to follow and is straightforward. However, to understand the finer nuances of it, it is helpful to see Kubrick's mysterious and awesome movie and to read Clarke's 1982 novel. For example, near the end of this movie, Bowman is shown alternating from a middle-aged man to an old man to a baby. You won't understand the significance of this unless you've seen Kubrick's movie.

Bowman's last words transmitted back to Earth during the 2001 Jupiter mission were "My God, it's full of stars!" This important line occurs throughout this movie. These words are not found in Kubrick's movie but do appear in Clarke's 1982 novel. Note that this line originally appeared in Clarke's 1968 novel "2001: A Space Odyssey" (which I've read). Also note that in this 1984 movie we are never told exactly what is full of stars. (However we are told the answer to this in Clarke's 1982 novel and even in his 1968 novel.)

The special effects in this movie are impressive. The images of Jupiter are also well done. However, Io has many active volcanoes. Surprisingly, this activity (essential to a line in the movie) was not shown. Also, I heard noises in the vacuum of space throughout this movie!

Finally, there are small touches that make this movie interesting. For example, there is a cameo by Clarke. (You'll have to look carefully for him). The classical musical piece "Thus Spake Zarathustra" (by Richard Strauss) is played during the opening and closing credits. (This music was the famous music in Kubrick's movie.) As well, the captain of the Leonov has the last name of "Kirbuk" (which is an anagram of "Kubrick" with the letter "c" missing).

In conclusion, this is a good, solid 1984 sequel that can be enjoyed by those who have not seen the first 1968 movie by Stanley Kubrick. For those who have seen the first movie, most of your questions will be finally answered!!

*** 1/2

<=====>