2010: The Year We Make Contact [DVD]

Good watch - follow up to 2001

I first watched this movie in the cinema in 1984. It was a visually spectacular film and a satisfying epilogue to 2001's enigmatic offering. It explained much that was left unsaid in 2001 without devaluing the original and to my mind it's important that the two exist together. Time however is a cruel mistress and 2010's grand vistas of the Jovian system do not have the same power in the DVD version. This is a film that really shined on the big screen and the DVD format cannot replicate that. In particular the space walk to the Discovery induced a vertigo in the cinema that can never be as effective on the smaller screen. But the biggest issue here by far is the poor, poor conversion to disc. There is grain and motion blur aplenty and at times the quality of the conversion of the film is unarguably dreadful. The sound quality suffers an equally poor fate. Surely this could have been done better. Particularly for a film that is intended to highlight the visual grandeur of our solar system. It is frankly a shocking transfer, that sadly leaves the viewer unable to appreciate how impressive the film originally was. The fact that the older film 2001 has been preserved so much better speaks volumes. The film itself is almost an Appendix to 2001 as much effort is made to inform in almost every aspect of events of the original. At times this is carried a little too far in the dialogue, some of which stands out clearly as being included purely for the benefit of the viewer. Sometimes it's nice to be left something to figure out for ourselves. This aside it is still a hugely satisfying work of art. It's a progression rather than an adventure, but that is as it should be. The pace may have been increased from 2001's immuable waltz, but the film never allows itself to get carried away on a wave of dramatic frivolousness. There is attention to detail here, the sulphurous footprints in the pod bay left from the initial entry to the Discovery are a nice reminder of the temporary nature of vertical orientation in space, and the acknowledgement of both centrifugal gravity and weightless areas within the Leonov are dealt with superbly well in several scenes. Notably Floyds family photo in the aero-braking scene and again Floyd flicking away a pen whilst suggesting a departure scenario to Helen Mirran. These are subtle references that fit the scenes so well, that whilst highlighting the nature of space flight they never detract from the scenes by bludgeoning the viewer with the physics of life in space. It also has to be said that 2010 is a film of it's time and I don't mean a film of 2010. It is dated by a number of huge flags that scream 1984. Clearly none of us in 1984 anticipated the flat screen monitor, Dr Chandlers behemoth, in his office on Earth, is an astounding CRT brute! And the computer graphics used are a dead give away as to the era in which this was filmed. Computer screens display the most wonderful blocky images in an early PC limited colour palette. This is however entirely acceptable. In 1984 this sort of this was hugely impressive in itself and such computer generated wire-frame marvels were viewed as being so advanced that it was perfectly futuristic enough. Today the fact that the idea seems naive shows how fast computer development has exceeded our expectations. Which is in itself startling when compared to how badly we have failed to fulfil both 2001 and 2010's aspirations for space flight. The other obvious marker in time that can not be ignored is the heavy plot intervention of East, West relations. In 2010 Russia and the USA are at a de-facto state of War, it's an idea that in 2010 now, our capitalist, corporate run global infrastructure would never allow. It's an out of place stark reminder that in 1984 the world was a very different place indeed. Arthur C.Clarke saw fit to play upon the tensions of the time perhaps as a cursory warning. It's a useful plot device, which has the side effect of firmly dating the film to that era. All in all, this is an accomplished film that sits well with 2001 despite being from a very different stable, in itself that is no mean feat and it can well stand alone if needs be, whilst it is best viewed in context with 2001. Ultimately the poor transition from Celluloid to digital format is it's biggest flaw. The visuals may not be as important as they are in 2001, but they are nonetheless as informative as the dialogue and for that reason they deserve more care than has been provided in this DVD version.

Great film for the collection.

I’ve loved 2010: The Year We Make Contact ever since I was 8 years old, curled up on the sofa with my mum, absolutely terrified by that jaw-dropping final act (no spoilers!). Over 30 years later it still gives me the same chills, sense of wonder, and nail-biting tension. In 2025 it’s actually ridiculous that this masterpiece isn’t on any major streaming service in the UK. So when I discovered my wife had never seen it (!!), I bit the bullet and bought the HD download here on Amazon. Worth every single penny. What makes 2010 so special: Roy Scheider is phenomenal as Heywood Floyd – more human and relatable than in the first film Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, Bob Balaban and the rest of the cast are perfect Peter Hyams’ direction is masterful: beautiful practical effects, gorgeous model work, and that claustrophobic, lived-in feel of the ships that still looks stunning today The score by David Shire is haunting and under-appreciated It dares to give answers to 2001’s mysteries while somehow keeping the awe and cosmic scale intact Yes, it’s more straightforward and story-driven than Kubrick’s 2001, but that’s exactly why I love it - it’s the warm, emotional, human counterpart to the cold enigma of the original. The last 20 minutes are pure cinematic magic; even knowing what’s coming, I was on the edge of my seat again. If you love thoughtful, grown-up sci-fi that respects your intelligence, looks fantastic in HD, and actually has characters you care about, stop hesitating. This deserves to be in every collection. An easy 5 stars and one of the best purchases I’ve made this year. Thank you Amazon for at least making the HD version available to buy - now please get it on Prime Video so everyone can discover this forgotten gem!

Purchased as the follow-up movie to the original 2001 - A Space Odyssey. Great viewing for all science fiction fans.

PLEASE NOTE: I have sumarised the film in this review but have not spoiled the ending. I watched the original (2001 A Space Odyssey) and despite loving it, I was left rather confused and in need of answers (what happened to Bowman?!?!) The job of directing a good sequel is never an easy one, when that job is to direct the sequel to the landmark film 2001: A Space Odyssey it becomes near enough impossible. Peter Hyams has achieved the impossible with this beautiful and captivating movie. Based back in the cold war era, a space race begins between the usual suspects (USSR and USA) to reach the abandoned discovery which is still in the vicinity of Jupiter after a mysterious failed mission back in 2001 (Space Odyssey). Russia finishes its spacecraft first but needs an American astronaut to gain access to the discovery que Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider). Floyd joins the Russian astronauts and the mission begins. On arrival to vicinity of Jupiter, a probe is launched to investigate an energy source on Europa (Jupiter's frozen moon) but is destroyed by a mysterious blast of energy from the surface of the moon. After a dangerous 'aero braking' manoeuvre, a manned pod is sent to investigate the strange monolith which discovery was originally sent to check. Another strange blast but this time from the monolith fires out towards earth, the manned pod and its one crewmember are never seen again. HAL 9000 is reactivated onboard the discovery and the reason for his malfunction becomes apparent (won't spoil it). Communications between soviets and the USA breakdown and the crews are ordered to separate in space back to their crafts and return to Earth in the next launch window. Bowman (from the original) then appears to Floyd (in a strange state where his age is changing every few seconds) and advises him to leave within 2 days as something 'wonderful' is going to happen. The two crews then re-unite and use discovery as a booster rocket for the Russian craft (Leonov) to clear the area. This arouses HAL's suspicions once again as the plan of action is contradictory of the original mission objective but this time, Chandra tells HAL the crews intentions (to sacrifice the Discovery and subsequently HAL himself) HAL understands and thanks Chandra for his honesty. The crew leaves the vicinity on Jupiter safely and Bowman again talks to HAL giving him one last objective (to send a message to people on Earth and again I won't tell you what that message is). The monolith has by this time vanished and Jupiter... I won't ruin for you ;-) Given the fact this movie picks up where Space Odyssey left off it truly is brilliant. The original was such a hard act to follow but hats off to Hyams, this captivating film answers all of the questions left by 2001 and ties up all of the loose ends beautifully. You could not ask for a better sequel here and even though the film has gone in the cold war direction as alot of films in that era did, it doesn't make the film unbearable and I would even say it adds to its charm. Well done Hyams for a truly great movie I thoroughly enjoyed start to finish and that ending... Epic!!!! 4 Stars as the music could have been better, it should have been a bit longer and the acting did not strike me as anything special (not saying the acting is bad though, just not outstandingly good). Truth be told I don't give 5 stars for much as I have high expectations, as far as this sequel is concerned though, its awesome. My rating: 77% (must see if you have seen the first, if you haven't, avoid as it will ruin the first movies impact) Genre: Sci-fi Suggestions based on this movie welcome. Thanks for reading :)

Well, where to begin? I should point out that I am an ardent fan of Arthur C Clarke's novels, from the first time I read "A Fall of Moondust" and the soon/never-to-be-made-movie "Rendezvous with Rama" and all point between. But I am also a huge fan of Kubrick. And this duality leaves me conflicted over this movie. Let me point out that I won't give a synopsis or any plot spoilers: you can read the summary and other reviews for that information. Instead I'll confine myself to the merits of this movie, my likes and dislikes. As a straight telling of an Clarke novel, it has much to commend it. The dialogue has that familiar ring that I know from his novels, and this movie's pedantry around the science (the air-braking scene; the "La Grange Point" between Jupiter and Io, where Discovery is "parked"; the scene where the astronaut's weight increases as they move closer to the extremities of a tumbling Discovery) belies a desire to stay true to the novel. If you are truly a fan of Clarke's novels, I think you'll find this movie highly satisfying. If only because it is the only true Clarke novel ever to make it to film. However, therein lies the problem: this movie would never had been made if it were not for "2001: A Space Odyssey". And yet, if "2001" was just another Clarke novel, I'm guessing that too would never have been made a movie. After all, why had none of Clarke's outstanding canon of work ever made it to the screen? Even today, with the credentials of "2001" and the stellar backing of no less than Morgan Freeman, Clarke's outstanding "Rendezvous with Rama" has yet to make it to the big screen, with "script" problems being cited as the major stumbling block. The truth is that in reality, "2001" must really be considered not a book, but a movie script commissioned by Kubrick, who ever true to his perfectionist calling, drew upon the talents of Clarke to help him faithfully craft an epic saga that held true to science, but yet crafted a tale with a grand vision that poses huge existential questions. Thus, "2010" lies uncomfortably between two shores. On the one hand, one has the ardent Clarke fans, like me, who are simply hungry to see first class science fiction brought to the screen. Such people should, ostensibly, be happy with a competent rendition of a Clarke story. Indeed, Roy Scheider is not embarrassing and even manages at time to channel his erstwhile predecessor in the original movie, matching his pedantry in speech (although that could simply be a function of Clarke's writing). John Lithgow and co (including a relatively youthful Helen Mirram) also put in the creditable, committed performances that will mark them out as future acting giants. The use of model-based animation of the "2001"-to-"Star Wars: A New Hope" generation are very well presented here, although some fledgling CGI, used to represent the climactic events on Jupiter work far less well. For these reasons, this is a movie I enjoy even today. However, it lies in the shadow of its giant older sibling, and here is where the divide is made plain. Whereas "2010" is pure Clarke, "2001" is pure Kubrick, with only the bare mechanics of Clarke's writing used t support it. Having seen both movies, all of Kubrick's, and read all of Clarke's books, I can truly understand how painful a process this must have been for Clarke. "2001" is a masterpiece of art, whereas "2010" is merely a really good science fiction story. Kubrick had a higher purpose in mind for his work, an existential examination of man's place in the universe. To tell this story, he naturally wanted the authenticity of one of the three greatest Sci-Fi minds of the time (Asimov and Heinlein being the other two). But it is clear, from the lack of dialogue and narrative in the movie, that he didn't want their style. For Clarke to have been involved in such an endeavour, and cede so much ground to Kubrick must have been tortuous. Clarke would have loved to have fully described the Sentinel, the Star Gate, and other matters. Not that Clarke was a compulsive "plot spoiler": "Rendezvous with Rama" provides adequate evidence of his ability to leave his audience high and dry on explanations, if only to reflect the all-to-often reality that discovery does not necessarily lead immediately to complete understanding. The upshot of this all is that "2010" talks a completely different language from "2001". For that reason, I can understand "2001" fans being grievously disappointed by this movie: sure, the special effects are great and the story continuity makes sense, but the fans who were drawn to the eerie and timeless sounds of Ligeti's score (so well chosen by Kubrick), the presentation of synchronised space flight as ballet, the ascetic vision and the daring use of avant garde visual art techniques to depict flight through the star gate, will be disappointed by the relatively pedestrian vision displayed here. This is only compounded by the relatively conventional photography, action-movie editing and more matter of fact scripting and sometimes amateurish editing. Even the incidental music let's things down, with its stock "single guy on a synthesiser" vibe which does not even bear comparison with the genius of Ligeti. Even worse is that for the "conventional" mainstream Sci-Fi fan, there is little here: no aliens, no action and little suspense. True, the scenes above Io are tense, but not nearly tripping the action Richter-scale for "normal" mainstream movies of the "Alien" or "Predator" ilk. The result is something that is neither fish nor fowl. For those non-Sci Fi people, entranced by the vision of "2001", seeking some further enlightenment, this movie may seem simplistic, pedestrian and a "junior college brass band" end to symphony of rare and profound beauty. For the average Joe Sci-Fi (read "Space Adventure" fan), there is simply not enough to hold the attention. But of course, to a true fan of Clarke's work, this is finally a chance to see one of his works as he might have wanted it to be produced. I like this movie. I really do. But to be frank, and despite how much I hate myself for saying this, it helps me understand why so many other of his great works have never made it to the screen.

Not as good as 2001 but still a great film. It’s not widely available.

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.

SF映画の傑作。 製作時期を考えると感嘆する。 小説を読んでから観直すと実に良い。 続作も併せての観賞を推奨。

ottima trilogia per gli amanti del genere

Ich besaß schon seit längerer Zeit die DVD von 2001 und 2010. Während man bei 2001 (einen doch sehr alten Film) voll auf seine Kosten kam (Bild-wie neu,Ton 1A, 16:9 anamorph), wurde es einem bei dem unbeschreiblich schlechten Transfer von 2010 (flimmern, zu dunkel- Monolit nicht sichtbar, letterbox) einfach nur schlecht. All den "lieben" Leuten ("...Blu-ray-Version nicht besser als VHS....") sei nun gesagt: Die Blu-ray-Version ist natürlich nicht perfekt aber qualitativ doch um Lichtjahre vom DVD-Transfer entfernt und zwar zum Besseren. Hier wurde erstmals gescannt - nicht einfach abgefilmt, hier wurde z.B. an der Helligkeit und Farbe nachgearbeitet. Es sei zwar erwähnt, daß die Blu-ray von 2010 leider noch immer nicht die Bildqualität von 2001 erreicht, was wahrscheinlich daran liegt, daß hier zwar neu gescannt und gemastert wurde, aber eben nicht wie bei 2001 ein über die Maßen teurer Bild für Bild-remaster gemacht wurde, was man aber jetzt bei den Blu-rayversionen akzeptieren kann, da es sich immerhin bei 2001 um den Kultklassiker handelt. Zum Film muß ich für all diese netten Leute anmerken, die 2010 als sooo schlecht deklarieren: Ich liebe beide Filme in Kombination, was, so finde ich die Story komplettiert als einen Gesamtfilm. Und bevor Ihr mich jetzt auch gleich zerfleischt: Der "...dämliche, armselige Kalte Krieg - Unsinn..." der da eingebaut wurde, war zu der Zeit als der Film gemacht wurde zu 100% aktuell and in Fortführung der damaligen Situation perfekt erdacht für 2010. Wenn ihr euch heute darüber beschwert, dann dürft ihr euch auch nicht 2001 anschauen, denn wie wir alle wissen ist 2001 auch etwas anders gekommen, als es im Film dargestellt wurde, und ach übrigens auch in 2001 kam der kalte Krieg indirekt vor. Über den Film 2001 (den ich wohlgemerkt auch sehr schätze) sei euch mal allen gesagt, daß der Film in einigen Belangen ( Tricktechnik, Musik, u.a.) zwar ein Meisterwerk darstellt, aber in anderen Gebieten eben auch nicht. Er mag zwar heute Kult sein, aber wenn man erst das Buch lesen muß, welches ja durchaus dem Film zu Grunde liegt, um das Filmende zu verstehen, dann hat irgendwie, der Regisseur der die Geschichte inszeniert hat versagt. Es tut mir sehr leid euch edlen über die Maßen hochstehenden unirdischen Wesen, deren Denken alles zu sprengen scheint (zumindest scheint ihr das zu glauben) zu enttäuschen, aber Mr. Kubricks hat zwar "Kult" geschaffen aber bei 2001 auch etwas "versagt". Steigt man aber vom Hohen Roß der Gehirnakrobatik nur ein klein wenig runter und sieht sich beide Filme mit offenem Geist und Herzen, in Kombination als einen Gesamtfilm an, dann erhält man eine absolut perfekte Story mit Anfang und Ende, viel Raum zum wirklichen Nachdenken über Gott, Mystisches, und Jenseitiges und am Ende hat man wirklich ein größeres, erweitertes Bewußtsein, welches, so nehme ich an, auch Kubrick ursprünglich dem Publikum vermitteln wollte. Fazit: 2001 & 2010 (Gesamtfilm) ist, aus meiner Sicht die beste Variante um beide Filme zu beurteilen und der Regisseur von 2010 hat großartige Arbeit geleistet um an 2001 einen eben auch nicht perfekten Film anzuknüpfen und diesen zu komplettieren. Soviel zur Ehrenrettung von 2010 und dessen Regisseurs und der Blu-ray-Version. (Danke, und jetzt dürfen mich die "perfekten" 2001-Fanatiker zerfleischen)

I like movies directed by Peter Hyams.I find he is a good director.He made movies like 'Narrow Margin' the remake and i think he also directed 'Timecop' one of Jean Claude van damme's best movies among others.He does another great job here with a sequel that was very hard to make.How do you make a sequel to such a classic? Keep that in mind when you judge this sequel.2001 was not an easy movie to make a sequel to.Its such a classic and such a strange kind of movie.Its got a great cast.Roy scheider,Hellen Mirren,John litgow,Bob balaban.Hal the super computer is back and we also get to see bowman again wich is cool.The bluray transfer is pretty impressive considering its not a new restoration and stuff.There is absolutely not DNR or any thinkering with the picture.There is a pretty nice grain layer.I doubt a new restoration of it would make it look much better than it looks here.Maybe just a bit better but what we have here is pretty good for an old 80's catalogue title.The 5.1 mix is also not bad.The back surrounds where used nicely during the whole movie.I enjoyed it.If you like the movie get this bluray.You never know if we will get a 4k of this.