2010: The Year We Make Contact (BD)

This review is an excerpt from my book “Killer B’s: The 237 Best Movies On Video You’ve (Probably) Never Seen,” which is available as an ebook on Amazon. If you enjoy this review, there are 236 more like it in the book (plus a whole lot more). Check it out! 2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT: Imagine being asked to write and direct “Citizen Kane II,” and you’ll have a clue to the obstacles Hyams faced in fashioning this sequel. “I know ‘Citizen Kane,’” some critic is bound to write, “and you’re no ‘Citizen Kane.’” “2001” is inviolable; an absolute: hypnotic, mystical, visually brilliant; one of the finest films in the genre—perhaps even one of the finest films in all of cinema history. “2010” naturally suffers by comparison—but only by comparison. Taken on its own, as a stand-alone story, “2010” has much to recommend it. At the top of that list are the flawless and beautiful special effects by Richard Edlund. And Hyams (who adapted Clarke’s novel, produced, directed and did his own cinematography) deserves a lot of credit, not just for taking the risk of attempting a sequel to “2001,” but for making such a [expletive deleted] good one. While “2001” was a detached, emotionally frigid film, “2010” concentrates on character and action, and excels at both. Not that it’s devoid of ideas, however. Quite the contrary: In any other film, ideas like a computer learning what it means to perform a noble sacrifice, or wondering if it will dream when it’s unplugged, or of life arising elsewhere in our galactic neighborhood, would be enough to hang an entire plot on. But comparisons are inevitable, and in any contest between mystery and clever explanations, mystery always wins. Even in this contest, however, “2010” offers a subtle touch: the mystical implication that Starchild Bowman might become the anima mundi of a new planet, or the consciousness/life-force of its emerging species. The real secret of “2010” is that it is essentially an old-fashioned, ‘50s style space adventure movie (well-)dressed up as an ‘80s action and effects extravaganza. (The film’s political subtext sets it squarely in that Cold War era—and is the one part of the film that seems dated.) It’s a space adventure that is intellectually stimulating, emotionally compelling, visually interesting, tense and suspenseful—and which even touches wonder in its climax. So it’s not “2001.” So what? It’s still a thrill to see our old friends the Discovery, Bowman and HAL (featuring his original voice, Douglas Rain), once again—a trio of veterans who provide the film with a poignant finale in their ultimate reunion.

This gives me Hope. I've watched it several times. Very apropos for these trying times. Love it! Well-done.

I was pretty upset when I discovered that my DVD copy of 2010 wasn't anamorphic... so I would have been happy just to find a DVD in anamorphic. But I decided to upgrade to blu-ray for this disk, since I remembered it from the theater as being pretty visually impressive. I read a number of reviews on here. I have noticed that Amazon has taken to "clustering" reviews recently... so the reviews for Blu-ray, DVD, or even VHS are all together. This is DUMB, but it's what they do these days. Oh well... In this case, the review is for the USA release of 2010 on Blu-ray (not the Canada release, as some of my other Amazon purchases have turned out to be lately!). I've just finished watching it. And I watched it, and listened to it, EXPECTING to see the issues that some folks mentioned here (bad image quality, artifacts, etc). So I'm pleased to say that on the BD I received, there was NONE of that. It's a very nice transfer. Granted, the master has a lot of grain, and there are some minor scratches which can be noticed on rare occasion. But it still looks really nice. Short of doing a "frame-by-frame restoration" (as was done on the James Bond disks a few years ago) where colors are corrected to compensate for fading (NOT an issue on this print by the way), scratches are digitally "painted out" and so forth... I doubt that this could look much better. Of course, the criticisms about the SFX sequences are... well, utter nonsense. Yes, there are some minimal visual artifacts that inevitably exist on ANY film that was made in the days when filmmaking was optical in nature. Somehow, I was expecting (based upon some of the reviews of the blu-ray) that these would be jarring in HD. But they weren't. The film looks very, very good. I've also noted the criticisms of the film itself. Well, as others have stated... this is NOT 2001. Nor was it intended to be. Personally, I like this film a lot more than I like 2001. 2001 is "higher art" but it's less "watchable" and that's what I care about when I'm watching entertainment. It's a fun film. Clarke was involved, very much so, in the making of the film, by the way, and despite claims to the contrary by some would-be "urban mythmakers" he never "forswore" this film. No, he always spoke of it fondly, at least in all of his public commentary. He even went so far as to say that there were elements in the film which he wished he'd included in his earlier novel. So ENOUGH with the "Clarke would have hated it" nonsense, OK? The design of the film is classic Syd Mead, except for the re-used design elements from 2001, of course. Mead's individual setpieces on the Leonov were beautifully done, as was his design for the Leonov itself. Sadly, there were flaws in the execution of these designs. The Leonov's rotational section should have all of the "modules" set up so that they are normal to the radius of rotation, but there two angled modules per "arm" which are not normal to this... so the floors of these sections would be, effectively, on a 30-degree slant. I blame this on the model-makers, not on the designer... but it happens. More significant was the fact that all of the "setpieces" on the ships were built in a soundstage, as complete "uninterrupted" floorplans. This is, of course, nonsense... but would not have been a significant issue except for a pair of "long, walking" shots aboard both vessels which simply wouldn't fit into the ship designs. Most viewers will never notice this sort of thing, but to me, it's a huge issue. Finally, a lot of criticism is placed on the film for not having the shots which should be in zero-g be in actual zero-g. Of course, considering that the film was shot on the planet Earth, not in deep space, it would be pretty difficult to get the shots in true zero-g, wouldn't it? It would be tremendously expensive, and would make for a lot of distraction from the storytelling for the average viewer (just like it was for viewers of 2001!) I would have preferred that the actors, and the director, had remained more aware of this during filming, but it's a minor quibble that doesn't really interfere with the storytelling. All together, this is a fine, enjoyable film which has (for the most part) withstood the test of time. The anachronisms - Pan Am, the USSR/USA "cold war," etc, etc... are minor concerns, but remember, this film (and its predecessor) specifically didn't use NASA but instead NCA as the national space agency (and NASA existed at the time, so this clearly was by design). So you can think of this as a "parallel world" to the one we live in, and you can enjoy the film just fine on that basis. Overall, this BD was much higher quality than what I'd been expecting from the reviews, and I'm totally satisfied with it.

This was an excellent film! It answers the questions of the former film while providing realistic edge-of-your-seat science fiction action of the kind that seldom seen in most science fiction films and thereby lends realism to the circumstances at hand.

Raccolta di 3 film davvero notevoli per la fantascienza anni 90 ad un prezzo davvero OTTIMO! Qualità adatta al bluray, contenuti speciali ovviamente ridotti al minimo, ma presenti.

La suite tant attendu de 2001 l'odyssée de l'espace. Décrié comme mauvais et vite fait, je dis un grand bravo au réalisateur.

Hasta hace relativamente poco tiempo, no conocía la existencia de esta película. Seguramente eclipsada por el éxito de su predecesora; Aunque la crítica y el público fue bastante dura con ella, no deja de ser una buena película de CF; Olvidada, igual que las 3 novelas posteriores a 2001.

Good old film. Was received with no issues

Totally underrated movie - can't be compared to 2001 of course ... regardless, this movie presents it's own messages and the presentation is carried by an interesting combination of a more-than-capable ensemble cast. The disc is excellent quality and, after so many years, *this* is the correct widescreen ratio. Buy it. Enjoy it.