2010: The Year We Make Contact
A new time, a new odyssey, a new chance to confront the enigmas arising from the daring Jupiter mission of the year 2001. Crew members aboard the Leonov are on course to rendezvous with the sill-orbiting Discovery. What they don't know is that they are equally on course for an uncharted realm of human destiny. And that their fate will rest on the silicon shoulders of the computer they reawaken, HAL-9000.
In this awesome film based on Arthur C. Clarke's sequel novel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, filmmaker Peter Hyams (Capricorn One, Outland) crafts an absorbing spellbinder that builds on its landmark movie predecessor yet is captivating in its own right. The year is 2010. Time to discover we are not alone.
Member Reviews
My God! It's full of stars. - Nikki
The opening of this film is great, invoking the mystery of its predessor, "2001." Without a doubt, "2001" is a richer, more meaningful film than "2010." But "2010" is far more immediate than "2001."
When I was a teenager, I had rented "2001," got bored with it and stopped it before the story got out of Africa. Later I watched "2010," and its eerie beginning made me want to watch and understand "2001."
I love both films for very different reasons.Excellent - Karl
Far better and more comprehensive than 2001. I don't care what anyone says, 2001 was BOOOOORRRRINNNGGG...does that make me an idiot? Perhaps. But I defy anyone to sit though 2001 and actually not start falling asleep. This movie obviously takes place following the events of 2001. It is an intriguing and mysterious journey to find out what happened to the original mission to Jupiter. Far more entertaining. 4 out of 5 stars.Doesn't come close to the power of 2001. - estefan
It's a worthy effort, but director/writer Peter Hyams doesn't come close to matching up to Stanley Kubrick's immortal classic and even on its own, 2010 doesn't quite cut it. The cast does a fine job with Roy Scheider and Helen Mirren especially playing very well off each other and visually, the film is impressive. Stanley Kubrick destroyed the original sets and blue prints of the first film and the set designers here have perfectly re-created them to a tee. The visual effects are also very good and when the film attempts to be tense, it does work in that regard. The little nods to 2001 are also fun to spot and it's nice to see HAL back, even if them adding a reason for his becoming insane was un-necessary. Unfortunately, the main fault sits on the screenplay. While 2001 only talked when necessary, the script here is bogged down by incredibly talky scenes full of exposition. And the way they bring Dave Bowman back and insert him into the story is more confusing than anything Kubrick ever did. Maybe I'm a little biased due to my love for Kubrick's masterpiece, but this just didn't cut it as a worthy sequel to me.
Member Reviews
Read All...
My God! It's full of stars. - Nikki
The opening of this film is great, invoking the mystery of its predessor, "2001." Without a doubt, "2001" is a richer, more meaningful film than "2010." But "2010" is far more immediate than "2001."
When I was a teenager, I had rented "2001," got ...Excellent - Karl
Far better and more comprehensive than 2001. I don't care what anyone says, 2001 was BOOOOORRRRINNNGGG...does that make me an idiot? Perhaps. But I defy anyone to sit though 2001 and actually not start falling asleep. This movie obviously takes place following ...Doesn't come close to the power of 2001. - estefan
It's a worthy effort, but director/writer Peter Hyams doesn't come close to matching up to Stanley Kubrick's immortal classic and even on its own, 2010 doesn't quite cut it. The cast does a fine job with Roy Scheider and Helen Mirren especially playing very ...