forrest_rice's Full Review: 2010: The Year We Make Contact
How can anyone defend this monstrosity? People say that as a sequel to "2001: a Space Odyssey" it's not that great, but on it's own it's very good. I am sure this is untrue, and I have no idea why anyone can't see that.
First of all, you will greatly notice that the director of "2010" lacks Kubrick's directing skills greatly. Rather than scope, we get typical film making style. But the film also lacks the "2001's" timeless quality, it's mysterious quality, and it's extreme intelligence. Here we have some Americans and Soviets go out to explore the Discovery (the ship in "2001"), and when they get to the Discovery, they mill around trying to find out what happened. They then reawaken the HAL 9000 computer. If you notice, when they are done talking to HAL, they switch him off... wait, wouldn't have Bowman and Poole in "2001" just turned off HAL when they were discussing the possibility of shutting him down? Why would they hide into a pod to make sure HAL doesn't hear them? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm using logic, silly me. Oh, and fancy that, the HAL 9000 computer is now labeled! WOW! Way to go Hollywood! We DID NOT KNOW IT WAS HAL! THANKS FOR THE 60's BATMAN LABEL!
The film then tries to explain the point of "2001", which they fail on all accounts. The ambiguity of "2001" is what made the movie so amazing, but this Soviet vs. USA 1980's movie makes Dave's transformation into the star child nothing more than a "wonderful" thing, in which Jupiter blows up, and becomes another sun, and so it's sunny on both sides of the earth, and the Soviets live in peace with the USA! Wow! YAY!
The director, realizing that his movie sucks, decides to make an ambiguous ending, but guess what, that fails too! The film tried to explain "2001" as well as add "human drama" to the "film's majesty". If you were to understand "2001" more, you will realize that Dave and Poole's performances were wooden ON PURPOSE.
"2010" is a piece of absolute crap. It's a crappy piece of propaganda, a piece of propaganda that didn't do anything for anybody. If adds nothing to "2001", it only tries to sneer in Kubrick's face, it tries to say "Kubrick what is wrong with you? Why are you so cold? Can't you have happy Speilberg moments at all?" Please, don't bother with "2010", it's a horrible movie. Shame on Arthur C. Clarke to write sequels to "2001". Although "2001" was a product of Clarke's and Kubrick's ideas, it is still a Kubrick movie. It lacks the idiotic, radical "we should be machines" view of Arthur C Clarke. It was a tribute and satire of humanity, Clarke is a radical wacko that likes straight up sci-fi.
"2010" is a disgrace. Why don't we just make a movie called "A Clockwork Lyndon: Or How I Learned in 2001 That I was Killing Lolita and Started Worrying About My Shining Full Metal Eyes Wide Sparticus".
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.