2010

Underated film,

A solid, well-plotted and serious bit of science fiction that I actually prefer to the original 2001, whose grindlingly-slow pacing always tired me out despite its beauty and remarkably crisp and well-realised effects. 2010 lacks that majesty, but is workmanlike in its delivery, reasonably serious in its science, and friendly in its tone - all of which give for significant rewatch value.

A classic sc-fi movie, with a stellar cast including the much missed Roy Scheider.

This film is superior in everyway to the laughable 2001. The story is stronger and more believable and with a handy encapsulated condensing of the story from the first film handily abbreviated within the first 10 minutes introductory overview.There are a couple of things that made me cross though. First is the scene with the pet dolphins in Rob Shneider's house, an omen for his later role in Jaws. The child says that the Dolphins are fish, yet the mother chastises him and proceeds to lie to his face and say that they are not a fish. This fundamentally ruined the film for me as it made the rest of the science seem hokey and too far withdrawn from even theoretical physics.Also, the ship is a Russian vessel yet the tannoy is in Americanese. This is ridiculous. There is also speculation about ghosts - which do not exist - so the whole film comes apart within the first 30 minutes. The special effects are also shoddy, making Star Wars look photo real. On some of the bad space ship shots you can see strings and different colored outer masks where the films are blended.Also you can hear the flames in space which is impossible as it would be too far away plus the vacuum is on. On the whole this film lacks sparkle and imagination. The Russian accents are excellent too, sounding like a Ferrero Roche advert. Kubrick should have directed this one and not the first one.In summary, this is an excellent film let down by poor production and wonky camera work, amateur dialogue and eye popping special effects failures with dodgy science and a cheesey tongue in cheeks ending. Russians and Americans would not work together and the two suns is a straight up rip off of Star Trek and tatooing. Unenjoyable space pap, recommended.

Rare example of me liking the sequel more than the first film.

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.

A great cast delivers the second part of the story. The acting in the space sequences of the first film are a little wooden, but the high-concept and effects are what make the film.This film reverse pplies here. Although the effects are ok, they're not equal to 2001. But, its the cast that sell the film, concept and circumstances; Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow and Bob Ballaban all excell.All in all a good sequel and well worth seeing.

Great item well packaged fast delivery 5***** seller 👍