2010

Rating:
Summary: A slap in the face to Clarke and Kubrick
Review: Peter Hyam's adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's novel "2010: Odyssey Two" is a disaster.

The film takes on a completely different tone than what is in the novel. Clarke's novel brilliantly follows up where "2001: A Space Odyssey" left off. Many of the themes such as humankind's relationship to the universe were preserved. The novel tells of an emerging intelligent species on Europa and how their evolution and chances for survival were aided by an unknown extraterrestrial intelligence. The humans who were present during this happening were of no consequence and had not former human David Bowman warned them, the humans in the novel would have been destroyed. Now, for the human part of the story, Clarke emphasizes the comraderie of scientists, American and Soviet (Clarke could not have predicted the fall of the Soviet Union) and how any political differences are meaningless in outer space. Clarke deliberately avoids any mention of conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Guess what? As it turns out, he was right to do so.

"2010: The Year We Make Contact" on the other hand, takes the opposite approach. Hyams could not resist the temptation that since he had Americans and Soviets together, they would be in conflict. In doing so, the film almost completely loses the real objective of going to Jupiter to begin with. The film also loses the character that was in the novel. In the novel, Dr. Chandra, the creator of HAL who originates from India is one of the most interesting characters. In the film, he is another white American who shows no interesting characteristics in his personality. Why make him totally American? Obviously, Mr Hyams wanted to further the whole "us vs. them" theme that resonated throughout the film. Doctor Katherine Rudenko is a character sorely missing in the film and the characters of Curnow and Kirbuk are very much watered down as they are too busy being tense from the all the political turmoil going on. We have plenty of better films that show tensions between people of different nationalities or cultures. In 2010, it was a distraction from what the story really is about.

In the film, David Bowman keeps mentioning "something wonderful" is going to happen. This is a gross and not necessarily accurate oversimplification of what was about to occur. Bowman, first of all, was not human anymore and was almost devoid of emotion. So, it's doubtful he would refer to any event as "something wonderful". The detonation of Jupiter, while enabling a species on Europa to thrive, also would have destroyed much of the other life on this moon. Also, the novel speaks of life forms on the planet Jupiter itself. Thus, in the novel, the destruction of Jupiter involved much sacrifice, whomever made the decision to convert Jupiter into a star, had to weigh the consequences of destroying a myriad of life versus dooming an intelligent species to an eventual death beneath the ice of the moon Europa. Again, the film almost trivializes this event.

"2010: The Year We Make Contact" is equally disrespectful of the preceeding film "2001: A Space Odyssey" by the late Stanley Kubrick. While it was a [good] idea for Hyams not to try to duplicate Kubrick's style, he could have at least given some attempt to preserve the feeling of realism that 2001 is so famous for. For example, what is with the shape of the Leonov? (That's the Soviet ship.) It makes no sense at all to have the "windmill" rotate around the axis of the ship. I think Hyams was perhaps trying to mimic the space station in 2001 but he forgot that the only parts of the space station that would have the centripedal force that would substitute for gravity would be the ends of the rotating piece. This makes sense in a toroid shaped space station where the entire wheel would have simulated gravity. In the Leonov, however, there would be only two small sections where one could stand up. The entire rest of the rotating section would appear to be a tall, narrow wall going upwards. The rest of the ship doesn't rotate sor presumably, there would be no gravity at all there. Yet the film shows people walking all around the Leonov except in a few instances where Hyams obviously figured it would be cool to show people or objects floating.

One of these instances is particularly awful where Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) walks over to a part of the ship, holds a pen in his hand, lets go and the pen remains suspended in air. Floyd obviously encountered an unexplainable phenomenon where he and Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren) are obviously affected by gravity but the pen is not. Hyams also breaks the laws of physics by having the Discovery's engines blast its way forward. This is okay for Star Wars and such, but not for anything from Arthur C. Clarke.

Finally, Hyams appended the final message of David Bowman to the people of Earth. In the novel, the message was "All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there." Hyams had to add "Use them together, use them in peace." This changes the meaning of everything because it shifts focus back to the human race. 2010 is not about the human race, at least from the extraterrestrial intelligence's point of view. It's about the Europans. The human race has already had their help, if they destroy themselves, it's their failure, the ET's aren't going to save them. Floyd's final statement really kills me with his reference to the ET's as "the landlord". This is extremely inappropriate in that the ET's have no claim on us. While they are obviously intellectually superior, they are not our bosses and nothing from Clarke or Kubrick ever even hinted that this was so.

Rating:
Summary: Well done Mr. Hyams.
Review: I didn't approach this film expecting it to be a rehash of Kubrick's masterpiece. I didn't expect the cryptic dialogue. I didn't expect the astounding visual effects. I didn't expect the minimalistic score. Thus, when I did see this film I enjoyed it. When I got it on DVD I wondered if the film would suffer from my maturing like some others that I used to love as a kid. For the most part 2010 holds up. It looks and sounds good, the dialogue is serviceable, the effects are truly amazing, and the plot -though dated by the whole 'cold war' atmosphere- is pretty good. The extras are also quite interesting. So don't be an idiot and expect this to be like 2001. Hyams had an impossible task but he pulled it off. He managed to make a film that retained characteristics of the original, yet was also up to date while avoiding the George Lucas 'commercialization' curse that has plagued the recent STAR WARS films. Take it for what it is, a good sci-fi film with good acting and effects.

Rating:
Summary: It Was OK
Review: I know everyone has said this, but I still feel the need to include it anyway. THIS IS NO 2001. Duh! It doesn't even come close to Stanley Kubrick's enigmatic epic of space exploration and the possibility of other worldly intelligence. This one, set nine years after the events in 2001(Duh!) features a group of American and Russian astronauts who travel to Jupiter to investigate what happened on the spaceship Discovery. From this point they go against everything Kubrick wanted to do, in other words, they explained EVERYTHING. And I mean everything; the purpose of the Monoliths(aka the giant Hershey Bar looking things), why HAL went wacko, and even the fate of Dave Bowman. While Kubrick's film was a feast of visuals and of the mystery of Space, this film, directed by Peter Hyams(who went on to make such duds as "End Of Days" and "The Musketeer") is basically just another mid-80's commentary on the potential destructive force of the Cold War(which today dates the film immediately). That's not to say that this was a bad film. Some of the explanations of the events in the first film were kind of interesting. However, it was what Kubrick didn't say, what he didn't spell out, that made us wonder, that made us remember, and what made his film the sweeping masterpiece that it is today. And that, unfortunately, is something that 2010 will never be, a masterpiece. Even the few scenes featuring astronaut Dave Bowman only serve as a painful reminder of a much better film.

Thank you for Reading.

Rating:
Summary: It's not 2001, but it is still a good movie.
Review: First thing's first: This isn't 2001. It's not the sweeping, technicaly accurate, 4-million-year epic that 2001 was. In this movie, you can have noise in a vacuum and most Russians speak English.

Having said that, this is a good movie that gets an unfair rep beacuse it's a sequal to one of the greatest movies of all time. Peter Hyams does an amazing job of recreating the spacescapes and starships of 2001 and fills it with plenty of character. Roy Schider's Heywood Floyd is not the vapid bureaucrat from 2001, but rather a person haunted by events nine years in his past. To observers on Earth, the fate of David Bowman is a mystery (that last frame of 2001 gets something of an explanation here).

The focus of this film is the attempt to figure out what happened to Discovery, to Dave, why HAL did what he did, and what is that giant Hershey bar doing around Io? Since many people who saw the first movie may have the same questions, it's quite appropriate.

The story is compelling and steeped in Cold War commentary. This was written and filmed in the 80s, but it doesn't feel dated in the least.

The performances are great. Check out Helen Mirren as the Russian Captain or John Lithgow as the American engineer. The special effects are WAY ahead of their time.

In short, it's a great science fiction movie. Check it out.

[This is a review of the movie, not this particular DVD. I haven't seen the DVD and can't comment on it, although I hope that Time Warner did a better job of it then some of their other science fiction titles; eg "Outland", also directed by Hyams]

Rating:
Summary: So Misunderstood
Review: First, to correct the most recent two reviewers who seem to think either that one has to read the book "2001" to understand the film "2001" or even that "Kubric [sic] could not accurately capture the story of 2001 completely"...it's entirely unnecessary to read the book to understand the film. It was written concurrently with the screenplay, and published after the film was released. Arthur C. Clarke, in his book, may have explained some things that were a challenge in the film, but Kubrick was very deliberate in how he filmed "2001." The enigmatic ending is there by design. Indeed, both he and Clarke, who co-wrote the screenplay, felt that if they had tied up all the loose ends, the film would have lost most of its emotional impact. It wasn't meant to have a nice, tidy, readily-explained ending. And the reviewer who said that Kubrick could not accurately capture the story of 2001...what?! He *wrote and filmed* the story! The vision was *his!* Who else to *try* and capture it?

That said, on to "2010." I won't add to what has already been said here about the plot lines, the direction and the acting, just to say that it's about as good a sequel as you're going to get *without* Kubrick making the film. Kubrick had no intention of making a sequel to his original masterpiece; "2001" stood on its own and needed no sequel or explanation. (If anything, his early work on "AI" shows how deep his interest in artificial intelligence went, partly from making "2001" and doing the research necessary to bring HAL "to life."). It was Clarke who took up the task of writing "2010" and the others, all of which do a reasonable job of continuing his first novel. The film sticks fairly close to the book, and is a good, mainstream SF movie. In addition, I don't think it's completely necessary to have seen "2001" to enjoy "2010." There's enough background given to understand what is happening.

As a lover of "2001," the highlight for me was astronaut Dave Bowman's appearance and HAL getting revived. All in all, while it's no "2001", "2010" is a film worthy of its predecessor.

Rating:
Summary: Wasn't Kubric Still Alive?
Review: Wow, this movie was a perilous attempt from the beginning. This definetely was not a wise career choice Peter Hyams. This movie is as blashemous to the book as Jerry Bruchheimer's "Pearl Harbor" was to the actual event. Even Kubric could not accurately capture the story of 2001 completely, but he at least captured the eerie, helpless feeling that the reader sensed in Bowman's struggle with the paradox of nihilistic and life-preserving powers of the universe. This movie hardly captures any of those feelings. I only watched the first hour of the movie, then turned it off, I felt that it would completely ruin my interpretation of the book. This is a watered-down, sensationalized version of 2010; do not buy/watch this movie unless you have never read/ never plan on reading the book.

Rating:
Summary: an overlooked but worthy sequel
Review: The plot of Peter Hyams' 2010" isn't anywhere near as opaque as Kubrick's original "2001". In that film, and the book it was based upon, astronauts aboard the Spacecraft Discovery travel across the solar system in pursuit of a radio signal originating from an artifact located on the moon. Solid proof of an alien intelligence, the artifact - a featureless and otherwise inert monolith - gives no hint to its purpose or creators; Unbeknownst to the astronauts who discovered it near the lunar crater, Tycho, an apparently identical artifact appeared in Africa 3 million years earlier, at the point in which pre-modern man escaped certain extinction by learning to eat meat and use tools rather than their clawless hands to defend against predators. Only half of Discovery's crew was aware of the monolith and its role in their mission - and that's the half that spends the trip in suspended animation. By the time Discovery reaches its destination, the onboard computer - the chattily homicidal HAL-9000 - kills all but one of the crew, forcing Dave Bowman the lone survivor to "kill" HAL itself, and then face the mysteries of the monolith alone.

With none of the surreal sound and graphics of "2001", "2010" picks up about 9 years later (though the gap was 16 years between the films). Heywood Floyd, the faceless NASA bureaucrat of the first film, is now played by Roy Scheider. While Discovery remains dormant over the Jovian moon of Io, and the fate of her crew and HAL's psychotic episode remain enigmas to most, an impending nuclear war with the Russians keeps most of the world's attentions earthbound. Though the world's prospects make it unlikely that cosmonauts would have any world left to return to, the Russians plan a mission of their own - dispatching the mammoth ship "Alexi Leonov" (nee "Gherman Titov") to Jupiter and (because they legally can't board the Discovery) reluctantly taking Floyd and some Americans with them. On the way, they notice some anomalies on the Jovian moon of Europa (covered almost entirely by ice and perhaps a layer of liquid water needed to support life) but lack the fuel to change course for a closer look. (The film keeps Europa in focus, though jettisons virtually all of the book's subplot concerning a doomed Chinese expedition to the ice moon) Instead, they proceed to the Discovery and then the huge monolith itself. Warily, HAL's creator, the timid Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban) restores HAL while John Lithgow plays the improbably phobic scientist brought along to restore Discovery. As the Earth verges into nuclear apocalypse, the lonely astronauts and cosmonauts come to realize that the monolith is far from dormant, and that something big is about to happen.

This was a great film, suffering both on account of the epic "2001" but also on account of its obvious cold-war dating. (This flick was always on TNT until the Soviet collapse). That's a shame because it's hardly the artless Hollywood sequel it could have been. The cold war tensions work better than the new age bonhommie of the book. Dr. Chandra's reunion and rescucitation of HAL is the perfect counterpoint to HAL's lobotomy in "2001", while HAL's ultimate sacrifice is probably the most convincing display of artificial intelligence achieving humanity in any film. Helen Mirren and Elya Baskin head a cramped crew of Russians (Leonov is more reliant on humans than the cybernetic USS Discovery). Peter Hyams' trademarked heavily atmospheric cinematography contrasts well with that of the original which often looked as if it were filmed in a vacuum. All in all, a worthwhile sci-fi film.

Rating:
Summary: Compelling Theatrical Finale for HAL 9000
Review: "2010: The Year We Make Contact" is a movie that is stuck with the unenviable, and even loathsome, task of being a sequel to what many believe to be one of the best movies of the 20th century, "2001: A Space Odyssey". "2001" was much beloved for its poetic and artistic interpretation of the dawn of man through its evolution to modern day with the ever-present monolith having influence over every stage of development. While I understand why "2001" developed such a strong and loyal following, I do not share their opinion of the movie. I feel it is slow and plodding, not to mention very dated. It is not worthy of the high praise it receives. It's a good movie, not a great one.

"2010" was produced 16 years after its predecessor and such a layoff will always create ridiculously unfair expectations ("Godfather III" and "Star Wars: Episode I" are other classic examples of that). Many of the "2001" faithful, who thought they were going to get a similar movie, were sorely disappointed. This accounts for a number of negative reviews and the backlash "2010" has endured. What people fail to realize is that each movie told vastly different stories tied together by the same core events. It had to be done that way. To try and recreate "2001" would be an insult to the original. "2010" uses straightforward storytelling techniques to pick up the tale of the wayward HAL 9000 computer and failed mission to Jupiter. By itself, it is excellent cinema.

"2010" picks up 9 years after the Discovery mission to Jupiter failed and Earth received the last transmission from pilot Dave Bowman, "My God, it's full of stars!" as he encountered the monolith (Quick note: this line was never said in the movie "2001", but it was Bowman's last statement in the book "2001"). Dr. Heywood Floyd, played by Roy Scheider, is the disgraced former head of the National Council on Aeronautics (NCA). Floyd was blamed for the failure of the Discovery mission and the deaths of all its crew members. The character of Floyd was played as a unmemorable, almost faceless bureaucrat by William Sylvester in the original film. In "2010", Roy Scheider's portrayal gives him a very human image of a man tormented by the failure 9 years earlier and who wants to seek redemption. Hence, the storyline for "2010". The United States is building Discovery 2 to go out to Jupiter and find out what happened to its predecessor. However, the Russians, who are also very interested in the events near Jupiter have a ship of their own, the Leonov, that will be ready to travel a full year earlier, but lack the knowledge to unlock HAL's and Discovery's secrets. So, in spite of growing Cold War tensions that have both superpowers near the brink of nuclear armageddon, an agreement is struck that will allow three Americans to travel with the Russians to Jupiter: Dr. Chandra (who built and designed HAL 9000), Walter Curnow (who is designed Discovery 2), and Dr. Floyd. The Cold War backdrop, while now dated, provides a chilling atmosphere through which the Americans and Russians must learn to trust each other in order to make their mission a success. After several months of travel to Jupiter, the crew begins its investigation. The mystery of monolith and signs of life on the moon, Europa, prove just as perplexing as HAL's actions. Alas, while the crew expect their mission to take at least 3 weeks, they (specifically Dr. Floyd) is informed by the ghost (or whatever his current form is) of David Bowman that they must leave in 2 days. Bowman can't say why, just that "something will happen. something wonderful". In order to make the escape launch before Earth is back in range, the Discovery and Leonov must be used in concert with each other, even though the rising tensions between the U.S. and USSR have led to each crew being exiled to its respective ship. The questions now exist: What is David Bowman? What is this "something wonderful" he is warning about? Can these people escape in time? and, most of all, will HAL cooperate in helping the escape? The events leading up to the answers, and the answers themselves, are what make "2010" such an enjoyable watch.

Rating:
Summary: 2000 too many
Review: i saw several glowing reviews of this film so i HAD to put in my two bits here ...

2010 is to me, without question, the worst sequel ever made ... it's a movie *so* bad that it actually manages to taint the original, which is easily one of the great films of the 20th century ...

the mystery, mystique and severe look of the orginal are gone ... replaced by a sophomoric, placating story line and bad acting by former "jaws" actors.

all you really need to know is mr. kubrick saw the screenplay and ran the other direction ... instead the studio settled for peter "who" hyams, director of such classics as "capricorn one" (with oj simpson) and "peeper" (aka "fat chance," i kid you not).

the only reason i rate this a "one star" is because there isn't a "zero." technically, it should be rated as a black hole. don't let it suck you in.

Rating:
Summary: one of my favorite films
Review: strangely enough i was drawn to this piece early in my childhood even though the original still freaked me out

it's a testament that peter hyams was able to construct a mood-piece which combined the eerie stillness of 2001 with the journalistic processes of this film

because what 2010 is, more than anything, is a good old-fashioned detective story it's a journalistic view of the mysteries and enigmas of what happenned nine years before

the special effects are complete knockouts for 1984 the planetscapes are lush and the ships look both cool and realistic
the leonov is one cool, strong, sturdy little ship

also praise the score by David Shire which uses electronic textures, choral and orchestral work to great effect

the screenplay also nicely tows the line between being a sequel to the original film and a sequel to the original novel

will they ever make 3001?