2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

No director could ever have hoped to repeat the artistic achievement of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and nobody knew that better than Peter Hyams, who made this much more conventional film from the first of three sequel novels by Arthur C. Clarke. Whereas Kubrick made a poetic film of mind-expanding ideas and metaphysical mysteries, Hyams shouldn't be blamed for taking a more practical, crowd-pleasing approach. In revealing much of what Kubrick deliberately left unexplained, 2010 lacks the enigmatic awe of its predecessor, but it's still a riveting tale of space exploration and extraterrestrial contact, beginning when a joint American-Soviet mission embarks to determine the cause of failure of the derelict spaceship Discovery. Having arrived at Discovery near the planet Jupiter, the American mission leader (Roy Scheider) and his Russian counterpart (Helen Mirren) must investigate the apparent failure of the ship's infamous onboard computer, HAL 9000, as well as the meaning of countless mysterious black monoliths amassing on Jupiter's surface (an interpretation Kubrick originally left up to his viewers). Meanwhile, Earth is on the brink of nuclear war, and an apparition of astronaut David Bowman (Keir Dullea) appears to repeatedly promise that "something wonderful" is about to happen. --Jeff Shannon Amazon.com

Superb follow-up to the first

I found 2010 much easier to follow, largely due to the fact it had a conventional story line rather than seemingly random scenes that made little sense like its predecessor (a movie I appreciate, but still find somewhat confusing). The acting is superb and the plot makes complete sense. In the end, one actually feels attached and sympathetic to Discovery. If you liked the first, this will probably seem less stellar; but if you found the first thought-provoking, albeit confusing, then this movie will help you understand its predecessor substantially. August 11, 2008

2010 The Year We Make Contact

2010 is a wonderful continuation of 2001. It is well acted and has plenty of technical reality straight from NASA for its day. There are no science fictions that come as close to real weightless space travel then 2001 and 2010. These two highest quality movies show the positive ingenuity that ambitious mankind can create and dream about from childhood.

A quality science fiction movie is NOT one that relies on violence of sex to sell the movie. Filling time with violence is the lazy way to fill time in a movie and dash the hopes of young children. We need more quality movies such as 2001 and 2010 in which our humans ingenuity and dreams come true.

Since 2010 is a timeless classic, 2010 MUST be rendered into High Definition with the upmost care for detail of picture quality.

2010 explains the odd behavior of HAL9000 in 2001. Hal was forced into acts of death by directive of the White house, due to White house folks who would not share information to the public but placed the top secret into HAL's memory and directed HAL to protect it's release at all costs. An intelligent being like HAL would constantly dig at such locked code and be suspicious (just as NORTON virus protection is today). This locked code is the same as we would describe today as a computer virus and a virus is very hard to get rid of.

I look forward to the HD release!
July 9, 2008

"Something wonderful!"

This movie came out during Reagan's reign, when the Cold War was still running pretty hot. The race to Jupiter, to the abandoned Discovery craft from 2001, turns into another expression of that strange time. Political rivals are forced into close but uneasy cooperation, and the joint mission turns into an friendship that neither side would admit to. When the Earthly saber-rattling becomes loud enough to hear all the way out at Jupiter, the two parties are ordered to separate. Then, as promised, something wonderful happens - but the kind of "wonderful" best appreciated from a few million miles away.

That's where Clarke's newscaster style of storytelling really works best. Fantastic engineering feats under near-impossible conditions, natural grandeur, and world-shaking cataclysms don't need a lot of shouting and exclamation points. Clarke's story and Hyam's direction let the inherent drama speak for itself.

Even though it's almost a quarter century old at this writing, it's held up well. Only the most jaded of effects-fans could fault the presentation, and the optimistic ending combines the right mix of explanation and mystery. You won't find chases and explosions here - well, not exactly - just a good story and an enjoyable movie.

-- wiredweird May 30, 2008

2010: Space Farce?

I thought this was a silly movie. I don't know what I thought I was expecting... but while 2001 made sense, 2010 didn't seem to do that. May 15, 2008

2010 - Arthur C. Clarke's Sequel to 2001

This film was a good sequel to 2001, but really only a 3-1/2 or 4 star movie experience for me. I personally enjoyed the basic plot and credit Clarke with writing an excellent film with much more human interest and explicit narrative than the original movie. The model work and zero gravity special effects were all beautifully done, but not nearly as innovative as what was accomplished under Kubrick's direction in 2001.

There was one scene (available on UTUBE)in which the Russian spacecraft employed aero-braking to enter the orbit of Jupiter which was very credibly done using what I believe was a blow torch and the animation of Jupiter's "surface" in the background. This was visually new for a sci-fi film and the appearance of a hypersonic wake heated to incandescence by atmospheric friction looked correct in form right down to the leading edge stagnation point in the flow field. Someone had a good feel for what had to be done, and I believe did it by the seat of their pants with blow torch in hand using slow motion photography. It was, however, the only imagry which really excited the "engineer" in me.

2010 considered some interesting questions regarding HAL, the (AI) computer from 2001. In another scene available on UTUBE, Dr. Chandra was concerned with what would happen when attempts were made to restore connections to HAL's higher brain functions after such a prolonged shutdown by Dave Bowman and subsequent exposure to cryogenic temperatures. He attempted to simulate this in his lab with the cooperation of SAL, also an AI computer who was asked how "she" would feel about it. In Dr. Chandra's mind there was no mystery concerning the feelings and consciousness of an AI computer of the 21st century. One of his statements during the course of the film was that life deserves respect though it be carbon or silicon based. Of course, the rest of the crew believed Dr. Chandra's feelings for the possibly authentic emotions of HAL were misplaced since their safety and very lives were at stake. This was a pretty interesting scene and until the very end we are uncertain in weather HAL will lay down his life for the mission. All he wanted was an explanation, and quickly agreed to do what he was instructed to once he realized the deadly ramifications to the crew of his disobeying this order.

2010 also included some Hitchcock style shots of the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke seated quietly in front of the White House (at a bench adjacent to Dr. Heywood Floyd) which document his participation in the movie for film historians.

I actually had the rare treat of seeing the late Arthur Clarke during a Connecticut showing of 2001 in the early 70's. Clarke spoke to the audience following the showing at Bushnell Memorial Auditorium and answered questions concerning the plot of 2001. Here Clarke explained the reasons for the very visual and non-narrative screen style of 2001 as envisioned by Stanley Kubrick.
March 16, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...