|2010: The Year We Make Contact
|List Price: $7.49
Our Price: $7.49
- Damn good.
Hello, first of all, if you are one of those people who feel that 2001 was pure genius, and you feel that ANYTHING else would be pure crap--you know who you are, then don't waste your time on this. HOWEVER, if you really loved 2001, and really cared about David Bowman, the Discovery, and HAL, and wanted to see what happened next, this is for you. When the book came out I was CAPTIVATED, pure and simple. Of course, since there is no USSR now, the tension is lost to those too young to remember, but watching this again last night really brought back those times to me. The Chinese parts from Europa that were left out were greatly missed by me. But, this story/movie is very very good. The technology and sets are incredible, the acting is very good, and seeing David Bowman again was CHILLING. After the film was over, I immediately got out my 2063 book to read what happened right this mission, and while I don't remember loving that book, it was very interesting to read the first 50 pages or so again after so many years. OK, enough rambling, enjoy this, OR, stay up on your pedastal and continue to look down on the rest of us who can watch and enjoy something that isn't 10 out of 10 stars PURE GENIUS!! Cheers, Jaderain...more info
- Great sci-fi without the need for little green men
Peter Hyams has some good sci-fi on his director belt notches. This sequel to the Kubrick classic tries to continue many themes of the original, such as the HAL-9000 computer, astronaut David Bowmen's spirit and the Discovery ship, it is hard to call it a necessary sequel because it ends up being an explanation of the events in 2001, trying to neatly package what was already a great mystery that could stand on its own two feet. Still 2010 can be viewed without ever watching 2001 (although you should). It is, for all intents and purposes, a new odyssey, that deals more with the enigma of the Discovery and the Jupiter Mission. There are some great names in the cast, Roy Scheider as Dr. Heywood Floyd, John Lithgow as Dr. Walter Curnow, Helen Mirren as Tanya Kirbuk and Bob Balaban as Dr. R. Chandra who set off onboard the Soviet deep space Leonov as a bunch of science-detectives to figure out what is going on with the old ship. Written by Arthur C. Clarke, this movie captures some wonderful moments, such as various space walks with glorious moving backdrops that will leave your head and stomach spinning. There is also the very memorable air-breaking manoeuvre around a planet and the final countdown escape sequence. All in all, even though this is a needless sequel it still manages to be downright awe inspiring stuff. Even some 20 years on it has still kept up with the times. Family viewing, great drama and hugely enjoyable, 2010 should be a part of any sci-fi collection.
As a note look for the scene where David Bowman appears to his dying mother in the hospital. A nurse is reading a magazine. On the cover are the President of the USA and Russia. A quicker look reveals that they are Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick! ...more info
- "Will I Dream?" ~ The Ultimate Question For Both Man And Machine
'2010: The Year We Make Contact' directed by Peter Hyams and released in '84, sixteen years after classic '2001: A Space Odysessy', is a far cry from the majestic, poetic and mystical cinematic masterpiece of Stanley Kubrick. I'd compare this film to that popular series of books that have glutted the market in recent years that are geared to making particular subject matter more accessible for the intellectually challenged. Title this film "2001 Space Odyssey for Dummies." That's not meant to insinuate that this is a bad movie, it's just a very practical, straightforward approach to trying to understand the mystery of the awe-inspiring Monolith that has stumped a generation of film fans.
Positives: The reworking of Hall 9000 into the script and resolving the artifical intelligence programing problem that occurred during the first mission was well done. I also enjoyed the cast of characters, they were more developed and likeable than in Kubrick's film. Most of all I'm glad they didn't completely spell everything out for the viewer. The mystery of the Monolith is still left a mystery.
Negatives: The Monolith(s) are not the awe-inspiring presence they were in the original, they're just kind of there. There's also a couple of technical issues, not a widescreen presentation and rather poor, grainy picture quality.
My ultimate litmus test for any film is the repeatabliity factor. Is this a film I could enjoy watching over and over again. Unfortunately the answer is no....more info
- the year we make contact
like the book the movie excellent
must SF-fan...more info
- Decent sequel, not sure why it gets blasted so much!
I am a huge Kubrick fan and 2001 is prolly my favorite movie of all time. That being said, I approached this film with the right mindset as in it will NOT be like 2001 and should be viewed as just a film that tries to pick up where 2001 left off. I think Peter Hyams was screwed no matter what here: If he makes this too much like 2001 then he'll get trashed for copying Stan the man; If he went too far his own way then he gets trashed for not sticking to the feel of the original.
I think the guy did a heckuva job with the hostile reviews he was going to get either way, it was a noble attempt at a difficult task. I think the acting is solid, the plot moves along nicely, and there's just enough of the old movies characters and history to keep you interested. The special effects were good enough although the mind-bending silence of space was sometimes lost or not adhered to. The awakening of HAL was cool as can be and Keir Dullea's cameo was very nicely done and added a lot to the film.
No, it wasn't perfect by any means. The Cold War subplot is WAY dated and unnecessary, the ending was OK but could have been a little more mystical like 2001, and even though Roy Scheider was good in his role it would have been nice to see William Sylvester back in action.
Overall this is well worth seeing, just dont expect another 2001. That will never be done again. Enjoy this film simply for what it is, a well-done addition to an incredible story. Don't let the naysayers keep you from enjoying this film! ...more info
- Dated followup to 2001
The basic plot of this film is so dated, with the evil Soviets and crazy Americans squared off in a repeat of the Cuban Missle Crisis, that the only real reason to watch this film is the acting and effects. The effects are so-so with the mats being the most obvious example. The Blue-ray brings this out, since you can see the outlines of the moving elements more clearly. The acting is good, especially Helen Mirren and the actors manage to convey the tension between Soviet and American sides. The ending is the clossest element to 2001.
Overall, if you like the film and can accept the Soviet-American tension as a plot, the Blue Ray version is the way to go. The picture is soft - as is typical of films of the 1980's - but the details are easier to pick up in the Blue Ray than the old DVD....more info
- BETTER THAN IT HAS A RIGHT TO BE
**MY ACTUAL RATING WOULD BE 3.5 STARS**
I believe reviewer Mr Robert Wilson has several things wrong and is perhaps being a bit nit-picky: This movie was made with the FULL co-operation and consent of Dr Arthur C. Clarke!! You've got to wonder sometimes if people even see the same movie you do!
First of all, LET ME GET SOMETHING CLEAR AND STRAIGHT: Almost NOBODY is as big a fan of Kubricks' original 2001: A Space Odyssey as I am. Yet I admire Peter Hyam's version of the Arthur C. Clarke sequel novel. Visually, it has many cues that link it to the Kubrick original and the special effects even today in the 21st Century still work very well.
Hyams wisely chose NOT to emulate the style of Kubrick, which would have been a lost cause on several levels, anyway.
A: It wouldn't have been as good if he did.
B: He would have been harshly criticised for trying.
C: The general audiences of 1984 and beyond wouldn't go see such a esoteric, 'antiquated' style of movie direction anymore (More fool them, I say!).
The acting performances are uniformally good, particularly Roy Scheider and Bob Balaban. Balaban does intellectual roles better than almost anyone, though I was irritated that the character's ethnicity had been changed from Sri-Lankan/Indian. But 2010 is not without it's problems now, which are mostly retroactive: the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, along with the Cold War. Also, space technology in the real 21st Century is, unfortunately, nowhere near as advanced as that portrayed in the movie.
Conclusion? 2010 succeeds, but only if you think that sequels are a good idea at all. After all, this is NOT "Highlander 2" or "Jaws 4" you know!! I'd like to see this film fully remastered in Anamorphic, Hi-Def with DTS sound and a host of interviews and making-of features.
- What Science-Fiction is About
I have read 2001 and 2010 and they are both very entertaining what-if novels. However, if I had to pick one of the two film adaptations to take with me to a desert island, I would definitely choose 2010. True, it lacks the perpetual artsiness of 2001, but that does not make its direction any less insightful, or the film itself any less worthy of its source material. As was said in a previous entry, Hyam's stylistic vision is simply different than Kubrik's, and frankly, in my opinion, more interesting and less show-offy. Believe it or not, it is, in fact, possible to be a fan of the novel 2001 and to not enjoy watching the film. This isn't to say that I don't think 2001 was a very well done piece of art. But simply because I can appreciate abstract art in a museum doesn't necessarily mean I ENJOY looking at it. In contrast, the nice thing about 2010 is that through strong acting, beautiful (to this day) visual effects, and a very haunting score, it faithfully expresses the wonder that comes from the exploration and the investigation of the unknown that Clark goes to great lengths to try to convey in his novels.
Another nice thing about 2010 is the fact that it is accessible enough so that a viewer can understand the story without having seen 2001 ahead of time. Best of all, however, is the fact that the script doesn't insult the audience's intelligence. Entertaining or not, this is a thinking man's film.
In a sense, I regard this film as the slightly superior 1980's predecessor to the film Contact. They both strive to be technically accurate, they both employ engaging visual effects, they are both very patient, and they both employ scores as evocative as the imagery on the screen.
In summary, 2010 is a truly excellent film and it is a mistake to criticize its and 2001's stylistic differences. ...more info
- My God, it's full of stars.
I really hate seeing all these reviews for 2010 that compare the movie to 2001. Okay people, we all know 2001 was one of the best movies of all time, but the great thing about 2010 is that Hyams didn't try to recreate any of the artistic style that Kubrick accomplished in the first film--thankfully, Hyams did his own thing. 2010 is an awesome follow-up film to 2001. The story flows very well from the end of 2001, and it's awesome to see the chraters we loved from 2001 being expanded upon.
Stop hating people. This movie was amazing, and it stands alone as a great film without any support from 2001. If you pass this up, you're really missing out on something special. ...more info
- A Message From Space...Before It's Too Late
Nine years after the failure of the Discovery mission to Jupiter - and with the Cold War heating up - a joint Soviet-American operation takes flight to seek answers for a number of questions; what went wrong with Discovery, what happened to astronaut David Bowman and what is the Monolith that orbits the planet.
But complications soon arise when the USA and USSR essentially enter into a state of war. The U.S. crew members are ordered into the abandoned Discovery, but will the warfare on Earth ultimately place roadblocks on peace in space and the cooperation in science and technology? HAL and Bowman just may have the last word in the matter.
Based on 2010: Odyssey Two by Arthur C. Clarke, the book and movie are sequels to the iconic 2001: A Space Odyssey. Director, producer and screenwriter Peter Hyams takes on the task with a possible new beginning in the coldness of outer space and a spark to bring sanity to the vicious political chess games.
Roy Schneider is the disgraced Dr. Heywood Floyd - the scapegoat for the Discovery debacle - while John Lithgow and Bob Balaban portray, respectively, Dr. Walter Curnow and Dr. Chandra, who are all part of the U.S. team to Jupiter.
To tackle a sequel to a Sci-Fi classic that has had a unique spot in pop culture seemed to be a no-win situation for Hyams and the cast. And though the effort falls short of matching 2001: A Space Odyssey, the message from space is a timeless one as long as small minds tackle issues of a global scale.
- Negative Reviews here are from 2002 & 2005!
It is laughable that Amazon would prominently feature two relatively negative reviews from 2002 & 2005 here for a 2009 release that hasn't even come out yet! Those reviews were probably accurate for earlier versions of this film but cannot possibly apply to this upcoming Blu-Ray release. So, in an attempt to offset those reduced stars I've given it five stars. This isn't the best way to deal with it but it's what I've done. This new version should be an improvement. It's a very good film and deserves it....more info
- Great movie, lousy DVD
Buy this for the movie, not for the DVD. Wish I read the other reviews before I bought this. It is not anamorphic and the resolution is poor. Lousy video transfer. If you love cinema and were hoping for a home theatre experience like 2001, this DVD is not in that class. Again, the story is good, the DVD is awful....more info
- Poor Blu-Ray transfer, no extras--but still a great movie
2010 is one of my favorite movies. I saw it in the theater. I owned in on DVD for many years and have watched it dozens of times. When it was released on Blu-ray this week, I ordered it NEXT DAY SHIPPING. Get my drift? Well, I should have saved my money. It looks a tiny bit better on Blu-ray than it does on DVD. There are no extras on the Blu-ray disc that are not on the DVD disc. The sound is no better. In other words, if you own it on DVD, don't bother with the Blu-ray.
That said, I think this movie is grossly underated by most people. As Stephen Hawking himself has said, most science fiction movies are merely westerns set in space. 2010 is different. Here there are real human emotions. I can't be too specific without spoiling some of the surprise, but let me make one example. When the movie came out I was very dissapointed that an Indian actor was not cast in the role of Dr. Chandra. Bob Balaban's performance in this role, however, is perfect. His character created the HAL9000 supercomputer (which as I recall was at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana in the book and portrayed in the movie as the University of Chicago--how's that for nitpicking?) Balaban shows us a Dr. Chandra who feels for his machines as he would another human being, and there are some very touching scenes in the movie. At one point Dr. Chandra is asking HAL's follow-on SAL9000 to help him model what will happen if SAL's higher functions are removed, mimicing what happened to HAL. SAL asks him, "Will I dream, Dr. Chandra?" Chandra replies, "I don't know. Perhaps you will dream of HAL, as I often do." It's a nerd's delight. I love it! Balaban perfectly captures the character, and gives him intelligence and feeling.
The rest of the cast is extremely strong: Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, and others do a great job. Look for Dana Elcar in the opening scenes at the VLA in New Mexico, and Arthur C. Clarke makes a cameo feeding pigeons in front of the White House. The story line is much more accessible than 2001, yet the movie contains many of the hallmarks of an Arthur C. Clarke story--IDEAS--not space battles.
I'm downgrading the rating by one star because of the inexcusable poor Blu-ray transfer. But I highly recommend you see this movie! ...more info
- hard review
i really liked this movie, it would be impossible to compare it 2001, because they are both very different.
with that being said the movie itself holds up, but my only complaint is that 2010 is really made for its time period, the cold war influence can be too much at times. this is actually the danger of making a film (that is not about a certain point in history) while being influenced by current events. it doesn't translate well to future generations. (kinda like using rock music in a period piece.)
what i mean is if you wanted to make a statement about a certain era, its okay to use all the political backdrop (forrest gump used vietnam effectively), otherwise the underlying motive just seems like sneaky activism....more info
Great movie. Sequel to the first 2001 movie. I purchased 2001 on Blu-Ray and wanted this one on blu-ray but it wasn't available yet. So I got the regular DVD. Still a great movie....more info
- 2010 - The Day we made contact
I love this movie but - the video quality is not even close to being Blu-Ray quality. It is even blurry at some points. They must not have used the master - who knows....more info
- Pretty good Blu-Ray for a lesser-known catalog film
First, the disc itself:
There are a lot of reviews on Amazon for various editions. This review is for the Blu-Ray, not the DVD. Yes, the DVD was a cheap, non-anamorphic quickie release. But rest assured, the Blu-Ray is in anamorphic 1080p resolution and faithfully presents the 2.4:1 image of the original film.
This is a bare bones release, to be sure. The only extras are a 9 minute TV piece about the making of and a theatrical trailer, both in SD. We don't even get a commentary track. Pretty weak, all told.
The picture quality is good, not great. Certainly, it is light years ahead of the old DVD release. But it is nowhere near the level of "2001" on Blu-Ray. Blacks are generally very solid, and detail can be striking in some scenes. Color is also very rich, especially in the space scenes. However, there are three issues with this transfer: One, the additional resolution and color depth easily exposes the matte lines on the 1980's optical effects; Two, there is some color banding and posterization on the monolith itself, presumably this is in the source material, but it should have been fixed; Three, there are several effects shots, mostly space-scapes, which display a sort of horizontal "juddering" back and forth.
Either way, this is as good as the film has probably ever looked, and probably will ever look. It is clear that WB didn't pull out all the stops in cleaning up and restoring this film for Blu-Ray release (as they did for 2001). It probably represents a very faithful transfer of whatever film elements they have in their archive. It thus has strengths and weaknesses. It certainly does things which even a good DVD cannot do. It just doesn't shine the way the best Blu-Rays can (the Blu-Ray release of 2001 among them).
The audio is relatively uninspiring as well. Don't expect a roof-rattling sonic experience which tests all of your surround speakers. It is a very front-loaded soundtrack, but clear enough for what it is.
Many pooh-pooh 2010 as the red-headed stepchild of the "masterpiece" 2001. Well, I'll agree that 2001 has a certain austerity and mystery that make it live in the memory of the viewer. It is a classic. But 2010 is no slouch as an entertaining science fiction film.
In its 2 hours, we are given explanations to some of the mysteries of the earlier film, as well as a continuation of its plot. Also, we are treated to some vintage 1980's Cold War drama. Overall, it is a very tightly paced drama, with good characters and performances (especially Roy Scheider and Helen Mirren), and generally very good effects. It looks, sounds, and plays out like a movie which deserves to rank among the better sci-fi flicks of the past 40 years.
Really, my only beef with it is the production design of the computers. All those bulky CRT monitors really kind of threaten to take me out of the moment, especially when the earlier film maintained such a "timeless" look - but suspension of disbelief puts me back. It is very easy to feel charitable towards this film, given its faithfulness to the material, good acting, and crisp pacing.
At this price, if you're a sci-fi fan and you are purchasing 2001 on Blu-Ray, there's no reason not to get this as a logical companion piece. Seeing as how you can probably own both for under 30 bones, it's pretty much a no-brainer. This is an entertaining film, a fine if slightly problematic transfer (though probably the best we could have expected), and a good buy overall for fans of the original and genre fans in general. It's also a nice movie to have on hand if you introduce someone to the original and are met with frustrated bewilderment on your audience's part. ...more info
- Probably as good as it will get...
I've always loved this film, but let's face it, it's never gotten much love from WB. The standard DVD is non-anamorphic and just doesn't look very good, especially on a large screen. The Blu-Ray is a big improvement in this regard. However, I doubt much (if any) work was done in the way of restorative work to the master, and there are no extras beyond those found on the standard DVD.
All that said, it's been priced very fairly, and I DON'T see Warner re-releasing it in two years with a sparkling new transfer and a boatload of new extras. So, if you like this film, don't fear the "double dip" - just scoop it up, because this is probably as good as it will ever get, at least until the NEXT video format rolls around!...more info
- it has its moments
any way you dice it noting could ever come close to stanley kubrick's original masterpiece. what we get from the sequel is a kinda smart/kinda stupid plot about world peace. its worth a look because its better than a lot of science fiction out today but its still extremely weak compared to the first film....more info
- Better than nothing, not great
I've always enjoyed 2010 and it finally gets a transfer that doesn't suck. However, it's the poorest looking film I have on Blu-ray. It's whoppingly better than the previous DVD release (for shame MGM) but it's in need of some cleanup. The ship board scenes are very grainy, and I'd swear I'm seeing superimposition lines for some of the special effects (especially when the probe to Io is launched). However, a lot of it does look pretty good, especially some of the later space scenes.
The blu-ray release is essentially good enough that I can watch the film without wincing at how bad the video transfer is. And for the price, it's hard to argue that we should have gotten a restoration. But I still hope that one day this film will get a restoration because it's a really engrossing tale in its own right....more info
- For the haters... and those who are curious but have not checked this out thanks to the haters.
"The truth must be told: This is a good movie.
What we get in "2010" is not an artistic triumph, but it is a triumph of hardware, of special effects, of slick, exciting filmmaking. This is a movie that owes more to George Lucas than to Stanley Kubrick, more to "Star Wars" than to Also Sprach Zarathustra. It has an ending that is infuriating, not only in its simplicity, but in its inadequacy to fulfill the sense of anticipation, the sense of wonder we felt at the end of "2001."
But the truth must be told: This is a good movie. Once we've drawn our lines, once we've made it absolutely clear that "2001" continues to stand absolutely alone as one of the greatest movies ever made, once we have freed "2010" of the comparisons with Kubrick's masterpiece, what we are left with is a good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space opera -- a superior film of the Star Trek genre."
- Roger Ebert
Chicago Sun-Times, 1984
I could not have said it better myself - so I didn't bother trying. This is the best, as well as the most simple and concise, argument/explaination I have ever seen for why this is not only a good movie, but hardly deserves the backlash that it gets from Kubrick devotees. Yes, "2001" is a far superior film. A masterpiece. A classic. "2010," may not be all that - but did it want to be? Would it dare try to top the first film, or even be anything like it from an artistic, contemplantive stand-point? That would have been foolish. Even if it would have succeeded on some level (which it probably wouldn't have), it still would have felt secondary, unimaginative; a hack job copy-cat. So, being smart enough to realize that, it went in a more straight-forward direction in terms of storytelling and mystique, though it was no slouch in these departments, but turned the major efforts and attention into crafting an exciting conclusion of the themes Kubrick presented. For what this film was (and is), and at the time, it was far superior to most of its kind. And consider this: what if "2001" had never been made? What if this film had to stand on its own? It would have been hailed as pretty damn impressive. Which, looking at critic reviews, it was actually. It's this dumb, unnecessary backlash that would make one think otherwise.
Ebert gave this film three stars out of four. As did Leonard Maltin, and a host of other long-time critics with review books out there. I agree whole-heartedly with them.
- Seeing this movie twenty years later, two things are apparent.
After watching "2001" and "2010" back to back, some differences are obvious: is it less stylized, lacks 1960's fashions, and not a s slow-plodding as the classic. Therefore, it is a more accessible film. "2001" was about mystery, while "2010" is about answers.
Seeing this movie twenty years later, two things are apparent. First the special effects are top notch. The "Leonov" has a cramped, dark, submarine feel that was adopted for "Star Trek: Enterprise." The computer monitors--despite being non-Plasma--do the job and convey the feeling of what we are actually doing in the 21st Century. The Jovian systems, revealed so beautifully with the Voyager probes, gives you the feeling of actually being there. Compare the external scenes with "Silent Running."
The second observation is that film is dated. Keep in mind that we are watching a film that is the product of the Hollywood Culture and reflect the hopes and fears of the Hollywood Microverse--that it was made five years before the Velvet Revolution--and that Hollywood has never forgive actor Ronald Reagan for betraying the quote-unquote Cause and becoming a conservative. In the film, the US president is an obvious effigy of Reagan.
The clash of politics is a reminder of several aspects of the 1980's scientific culture. One is the love-hate relationship between the Scientific-Industrial Complex with the Military-Industrial Complex. The scientists were "high and mighty" with their distain of the atavistic military (reread your Carl Sagan as a refresher), but they were also dependant upon the military for funding. So the relationship is reminiscent to that of a 30-year old unemployed teenager still living with his parents and collecting an allowance, but mouthing off to dad, and not doing his chores.
Defense, which is the first order of government (Federalist 23), serves to protect life, liberty, and property; specifically the lives of the scientists, the liberty to be heretical to established orthodoxy, and the scientific hardware that they use to advance knowledge.
This leads to the last point: the film is dated because our quisling-enemies have changed. You can see a Soviet wanting to go to the moon or using the Hubble, but you cannot see Al-Qaida doing the same thing. Can you honestly us having a joint US- or UN-Al Qaida mission to Jupiter? Beginning with the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission, US-Russian missions are commonplace, but could we do a joint space mission that Al-Qaida or the terrorist cells?
Maybe that is an unintended Take Home Message from the film: Know Your Enemies....more info
- 2010; The Year We make contact
Really enjoyed this one. on time and in good condition...more info
- Why oh why?
Why would anyone buy a 1.33:1 Blu-Ray DVD? Anyone who has a Blu-Ray system is almost guaranteed to have a WideScreen TV. If they don't release this in atleast 16:9, this will bomb in the charts.
It's a fantastic movie though. Very different to 2001....more info
- This doesn't sound so bad...
For those of you poo-pooing the quality of the transfer before you even see the disc, you might want to start by completely discounting everything in Amazon's disc spec and just zoom in on the cover art from the back of the box. There, plain as day, it says the following:
Main Feature: 1080p High Definition, 16x9, 2.4:1
Audio: Dolby TruHD English
So my suggestion is to not get your panties in a bunch. After years of enduring a substandard DVD edition based on the digital master created for the LASERDISC, it looks like we're finally getting what we want.
Now if only they would give the royal Blu-ray treatment to that other Hyams classic, OUTLAND... ...more info
- Great follow up
Faster paced, more thrilling, great acting, yes it is not Kubrick, but it was and is a great movie as sequels go! ...more info
- 2010: The Year We Make Contact
This is an excellent sequel to the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. I have seen 2010 at least once a year since it came out and I never tire of it. The graphics are beautiful, especially when the Russian space ship arrives near Jupiter. The mysticism portrayed in the monolith puts forth philosophical questions about how a living, loving, intelligent Creator works in the Act of Creating. It shows that the Creator in the shape of a box cannot be contained in a box, but works in mystic and natural ways to re-Create. This is why we call the Creator the "Great Mystery". It may be a fictional story, but stranger stories have come true. I think this movie could be considered "prophetic" in concept, as well as wishful that the Creator of the universe would show us the way again with a little more force....more info
- Completely unnecessary....
This is an OK film. It has none of the mystery, the art, the ambiguity, or the brilliance of 2001. It's just a rather straightforward story. It explains everything that happens in 2001, which isn't the point. One of the reasons 2001 worked so well is there were no explanations. It just happened, and you were supposed to let your mind and imagination interpret it. And as some reviewers have noted, the bizarre inclusion of a Cold War, US/USSR military confrontation over Central America was short sighted, stupid, and now, terribly dated. It wasn't in Clarke's original novel, and Hymas should have never put it in. Of course, this was made during the 80's, where we were led to believe that the Russians are going to invade any day now (needless to say, they never did). It is nice to see Keir Dullea and Douglas Rain reprise their roles. The rest of the performances are good for this kind of thing. If there was no 2001, this would be an OK film. But it's really an unnecessary sequel. Read the book, instead. ...more info
- To the world that will be faced in the future
Boundary at four another world beyonds of year.
The theme seems not to change.
I will feel the sense of crisis that might happen tomorrow.
I want to be pleased with alive in four years.
- Great movie, but not Blu-Ray worthy just yet.
This is still one of my favorite movies, but aside from the crispness of the video (which to me differs very little if at all from the DVD), I was put off by the fact that there are no special features different from what was in the DVD version. In other words, all you pay for is just a barely noticeable better screen and sound quality, but absolutely nothing else. Unfortunate. Perhaps a minifeature on Galileo's odyssey as it circled Jupiter, or a retrospective look back at the opinions then and comparison with the realities of now? There is a vast untapped resource of information that could have been included. Sadly, it wasn't....more info
- No video improvement over DVD
I was hoping that it would be an improvement over the DVD version of this that I have, which is dark in several spots, and has a variety of camera flair and special effects errors. In otherwords I was hoping for a 'restored' edition. No such luck. The BluRay video might even be worse. My equipment is ISF calibrated. (Really good movie though, BluRay sound was clear)...more info
- Very dull movie and dvd quality is just horrible
The pace of this movie is just as slow as the original from 1968. Lots of dull conversations and bad american actors trying their best at Russian accents. The Russian characters are all very forgetable and make this movie just plain dull. There's also too much political rancor between Russia and the US throughout.
The dvd quality is also very bad. For one thing, the widescreen side of the dvd is extremely squashed with HUGE black bars. On my widescreen 30 inch tv, the actual picture seemed like about 6 inches tall on the screen. Also, the picture quality is very grainy. The plot is a real sleeper too. This movie was just not an enjoyable experience, in my opinion, and certainly not worth owning....more info
this movie was very disappointing after watching 2001, I honestly didn't think they could make a movie 20 years later and make it look worse than the a movie made in 1968. The conversion to Blu-ray is terrible, it looked like a low budget B movie. The story line was alright in retrospect, except it could have been done much much cooler, without all the 80's....more info
- Move over Jaws
This was a decent movie. It is the sequel to the orignal Space Odyssey. In the move Russian and the American search for the ship discover to figure what went wrong and why the computer went haywire and killed all the crew. This has a good plot but not a lot of action. The main charter is pladded by Roy Shider better known as peter Brody in the spingtinglin Jaws and its first sequel. Richard Drifous is also in it I think. If you are lucking for a high action sciencfiction movie I recommend Zarkoor the invader or Predator or Alien movies....more info
- great flick
If you have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, you will definitely have to watch this one....more info
- 2010- Good Sequel but POOR Blu Ray Transfer
I just purchased 2010 in Blu Ray, and while I enjoyed the movie, I felt that the BLU RAY transfer was lousy. There were many artifacts and the picture was not sharp considering this was BLU RAY. The price however was low- but again- since this is BLU RAY I expected a razor sharp image. The sound was the saving grace (DTS MASTER) ...more info
- Unfairly Suffered due to Older Brother Comparisons
Standing on its own, this was actually a very good movie. It was a different style than its big brother, lacking the "mystic" overtones and also lacking the bizarre imagery which made 2001 incomprehensible to so many people. This movie is NOT incomprehensible, with a very clear storyline. The special effects are technically better than the first movie (not surprising, given the advances in movie technology). And, they're inserted naturally into the storyline instead of being highlighted and framed like they were in the first movie, which frankly made it pretentious at times. The movie is a little dated in that it pits the US against the old USSR. Of course, the years specified in BOTH movies (2001 and 2010) are either gone or almost here, and the reality of space exploration is far less than what these movies envisioned. Still, I found this to be a satisfying continuation of the first movie, with a moving ending. If you're bothered by the fact that it actually explains away some of the incomprehensibility of the first movie, so be it. It has quite a fine score too, by the way.
BTW I notice many reviewers denigrating the DVD (NOT the movie) based on aspect ratios and quality. I'm writing this review for the upcoming Blu-Ray release, which WILL be in 2.40 : 1. I'm looking forward to having a high-quality (I hope) release of this movie....more info