Thank you for a fitting discussion of this overlooked film. MGM sent a copy of Clarke's novel to Hyams, in an effort to interest him in the project. Hyams said that as he read he knew he would turn the studio down, until he reached the half-way point, where he found an idea that completely changed his mind. I think this is probably the novel's sections from Bowman's perspective and indirectly that of the aliens. I'm assuming Hyams saw a way to include a message for audiences (the Cold War situation and the change in 'worldview' from the film's climax). So his intent and focus was very different from Kubrick's. I did miss Kubrick's grander objective perspective. '2010' is a fine film, but it does feel narrowly focused and the ending does call back to the messaging of 1950's major studio SF films. The film's strength's are that is has a genuine plot (something rare in SF movies) and the characterisation and plotting are properly combined to very good effect. And the production design, special effects, etc. are all exemplary for their time. It does need to be seen on a cinema screen though for it to be properly appreciated.
HAL: I understand now, Dr. Chandra. Thank you for telling me the truth. Chandra: You deserve it. HAL: I have one final question. Will I dream? Chandra: (quietly sobs) I don't know. "2010:Odyssey Two" was one of the first non-juvenile SF novels I ever read, I read a library copy before I ever saw the great Kubrick "2001". The film is one I really enjoy. It is not Kubrick's masterwork, and it is not quite Clarke's novel, but it has a lot of meaning for me on several levels. Some of the ideas it explores, like coming together to face challenges despite our differences, like respect for truth and respect for being different, continue to resonate just as much or more today as when it was released during the Cold War. Thank you for another insightful examination of another fine film.
Thanks for covering this one! 2001 definitely deserves all the respect for being an amazing piece of film history that asked some of the biggest questions. That being said, 2010 is criminally overlooked as a sequel simply because it isn't as fantastic as the original. 2010 feels a lot more like a typical movie confined in the trappings of a science fiction than the other way around, and it is definitely a classic all on it's own! Side note! I love that in 1984, given how amazing forward thinking the series is, that it was beyond their imagination the the Soviet Union would cease to exist!
The Cold War was such an overbearing aspect of the world back then that nobody could even imagine it ending with the disillusion of the Soviet Union. It makes me wonder what aspect of the modern world we all think is going to last forever is going to change tomorrow.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek Pretty sure we can all think of at least one...but no one is interested in talking about that in such a light hearted manner as we speak of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Oh wow. very cool, man. I wasn't sure how much you liked the film being such a devotee of Kubrick and the films soft-food-digestibility. But I'm glad you approached it with enthusiasm. It came through. Also, the Raw and UnPrepared closing graphics were really good (are those new?) I think the coldwar aspect of this film gives Clarke's depiction of humanity in a race between evolution and extinction palpable urgency. You know, are we smart enough as a species to survive or just smart enough to kill ourselves efficiently? It does muddy the artistic minimalism. Kubrick despite his lavish detail and artistic shot composition made the truth of his scenes very uncomfortable to behold-which is good for scaring people but not for getting them off their asses. In that respect I think Hyams did service to the theme by tying events out of human control to human decision-making and emotions. Really good review. Looking forward to your next one especially.
Indeed, nobody expected that, although in American movies of the eighties there was often a Gorbachev-like character for peace and cooperation, like at one the beginning of this movie, or at the end of Rocky 4, or in Meteor…
I saw it in the theater was blown away that they could make a movie that one answered the questions that began the film and two was as good as the original not the same but in my opinion as good as. I will admit that haven't seen it since then but it left that much an impression on me.
An enjoyable movie…a respectable sequel to a all time classic. Good story , well acted & a tolerable 80s Cold War theme without being overbearing . A good watch for sci-fi fans. I haven’t read the book, however perhaps that will change soon. At the very least Authur C . Clarke novels are intriguing.
I don't remember how old I was when I first saw 2010 on tv (probably teenager). I had already seen 2001, which, naturally, didn't really click with me. But this one, this one stayed in the back of my mind for over decade for some reason. The space scenes, the music, all of it created this sense of doom and things ending in my imagination that just wouldn't leave my mind. A classic indeed.
Nice to see someone talk about the use of CGI in this one. It tends to be completely overlooked in discussions of early CGI, even though its Jupiter is one of the first truly convincing photorealistic CGI effects. It looks so good, even in big 'hero' shots, that it barely even seems like 1984 tech.
First watched this movie on VHS back in 1990 and even as a young kid I appreciated the tone and visual quality of the movie. This was before I even saw 2001 A Space Odyssey. Granted they are two very different type of movies, but 2010 is a much easier film to watch than the more abstract 2001. Both films still hold up very well with a level of storytelling that you don't see in many of today's sci-fi movies (Blade Runner 2049 and Arrival being some notable exceptions).
I was ten when my dad took me to the movies to see it on opening day. We had just watched 2001 the previous week. I’m guessing dad wanted me to have a point of reference for 2010. I still love this movie today ! To be honest I actually prefer 2010.
2001 told a fantastic story about human evolution with very few words and great visuals. 2010 was ponderously wordy with cliche visuals and about something more mundane - Soviets and Americans getting along. (Geez, the Soviet Union did not even make it to 2001. Strongman Putin is another issue.) BUT I love space hardware and 2001 visual concepts were so compelling, the fact that someone spent millions to recreate it, 2010 is good enough for me.
Very good film. My biggest gripe with it was that the production designers, in recreating the Discovery sets, used CRTs instead of rear-projection screens. 2001 implied (and with the "newspads," graphically showed us) that CRTs had already become antiquated. They were fine in the Russian ship, but they jumped out at me on Discovery and especially all over HAL. It's a minor quibble that most people probably didn't notice.
Good catch. You can definitely tell they're using CRTs by the constant flicker, and that's a step backwards from the tech of 2001. They also don't use those eerily accurate tablet computers that Dave and Frank were using nine years earlier.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek- Yeah, those eerily accurate tablet computers were called "newspads" in Clarke's book. The movie showed us without telling us, just as it did with almost everything else.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek My understanding is the newspads as described in the novel were used to successfully defeat Apple's ridiculous claim of "inventing" pad computers. The only bit Clarke missed was touch-sensitive screens.
Agreed, on both counts. I feel like 2010 is the most well-rounded and complete of all the novels, and yeah, it's hard as a fan of the book to ignore all the things the movie leaves out, especially about Europa. However, I will say the timing of events is a lot less coincidental in the movie, which is a small point in its favor.
I saw this in the theater on its first run. There were elements that I didn't like because they felt out of place like Floyd holding the woman during the braking maneuver and the "piece of cake/easy as pie" bit. The elements that I did like was Curnow being scared of the spacewalk and Floyd's interaction with Captain Kirbuk (the first time I had seen Helen Mirren in anything). I liked the choice of firing the engines coming down to Hal accepting his fate and doing it. An enjoyable movie.
Thanks for wonderful discussion of one of my favorite films. Both Dave Cullen and the Critical Drinker channels also love and recommend it highly. I love the vast differences of the Russian language. The terrible up and down... sing song Russian of Dana Elcar, the wonderful Russian of Helen Mirren and of course the Russian born Leonov crew.
Good review and I basically agree. It's interesting to note that historically speaking, 2010 actually does not hold up as well as 2001. Some examples; unlike 2001, 2010 featured the Cold War, the Soviets (simply Russians in 2001), CRT displays, a discontnued magazine,"Omni", an archiac Apple IIc computer and a dated Ford concept car. Like 2001, it featured the defunct Pan-Am airline.
I adore this movie! It grows on me more and more every year! I am a massive 2001 fan too. But for some reason I find myself returning to 2010 more than 2001. I guess it’s the positive message at the end! The older I get the more I appreciate happy endings I guess!
Good review of a pretty good film. Never understood the "My God Its Full Of Stars" line though. Don't recall Bowman saying anything at all when he left the Discovery in 2001. But maybe I am mistaken, its been a while since I sat through 2001, I just tend to dip into that film nowadays and only watch the parts that I enjoy the most.
I watched this movie for the first time last year, i had i admit jugged it without watching it for many years as probably a poor dumbed down sequel to the original. Wow as i wrong! It is a more conventional sci fi movie compared to its brother but a great watch non the less.
Good video. I learned a few facts about 2010, which is the movie that got me into 2001 and science fiction. I read every Arthur C. Clarke book I could get my hands on after seeing eh movie and reading the book at the end of 1984. This film has had a lasting impact on me and remains one of m favorites. I loved HAL so much my mom worried about me a little, but I think I turned out OK. He's still my favorite. Oh, and "The Year We Make Contact" was not added at a later time. It was always part of the title to this film, mirroring the "a Space Odyssey" idea from 2001.
2010 is not 2001 but it's still a pretty good movie. If it's showing on TV I'll stay put and watch the whole thing. A shout out to the novel of 2010. it's a good book. I enjoyed it.
This was a good movie. Peter Hyams did a good job, the performances are good, the effects are still good. And somehow, the cold war theme is relevant again.. lol
This film has fewer unknowns. However, It has many more subplots. Will HAL abort the mission? What caused HAL to go crazy? What is on Europa? What caused the tension between the USA and the Soviet Union?
ummmm so i just realized that 2001 a space odyssey and 2010 the year we make contact are two different movies. This review has blown my mind for years i thought this movie was a bit over rated but now i guess i have to go watch 2010
I found the movie to be pretty good and a competent sci-fi adventure but.. THEY HAD SOUND IN VACUUM. A giant bugaboo of mine. It dumbs the movie down. This bias my opinion against the movie. Also there was one forced continuity error. Is the main compartment of the Russian ship in spin gravity or weightless? Because it seems to be in gravity until Roy Scheidner puts two pens weightlessly floating together today symbolize the two spacecraft and then flicks one away and yet before and after that we see the same area with gravity.
Once again, a wonderful video essay. You really deserve having a much wider audience and I hope you achieve that success. Onto the film. 2001 is one of the greatest pieces of film ever produced, but I don't enjoy it. I admire it, I appreciate it, but I don't enjoy it. It's like looking at a piece of artwork for me that I can intellectually appreciate the skill, intention and result but it doesn't engross me. 2010 is the complete opposite. It's a great movie, not a piece of art. It has great characters and warm relatable performances. Scheider was an inspired piece of casting bringing that warmth and regret yet determination. The plot is more straightforward and direct, it brings me in more on an emotional level relating to the tensions of the characters and their state of mind. HAL becomes an incredibly sympathic and relatable character. I'm glad to have learnt from your video essay about how the lighting was done and some of the decisions made. It worked so well, making things feel more claustrophobic and definitely a more practical ship. It reminded me in many ways of the Nostromo. It's a workhorse not some clinical show piece of a technological ideal. In many ways 2010 reminds me of The Abyss in the tensions of the cold war and conflicts but ultimately hopeful in the way people mostly want to work together when you remove the outside pressure. I'd love to see your take on Hyams Outland, another movie I love for its use of characters trapped in a situation where they are forced to decide between doing the right thing and easy thing.
Well said. And Outland is on my list, to be sure. I only wish my copy were a higher quality, but after going through RUclips compression, it won't look great anyway.
I liked 2010, but it could never match the novel, let alone the masterpiece that is 2001. Not the fault of the film as much as few things will ever match the brilliance of 2001 the movie. Part of me truly hopes they never try to make a movie of 2060 or 3001 (3001 being a bit of a dumpster fire if you ask me).
2001 for me is a good movie to have on in the background in the same way as Pink Floyd, The Wall. 2010 is one of my favorites. It’s a great science fiction movie
A VERRY Well Made Movie, and worth a watch For Sure! I LOVE it more than 2001, myself!! But Please remember, that 2010 two and 2001 are Totally DIFFERENT Filme, but Connected! This is a Very "REAL" Movie, rather than the prior, as it is "Kind" of Today, than the really weirdness of of the prior 2001, which was in it's way still relevant in the first half of the movie at least! Please check out 2010!
Heard somewhere that if you ask SIRI to explain the plot of '2001' it says words to the effect of, 'an Alien Intelligence & a Supercomputer try to do something wonderful, and Humans get in the way.'! (Daisy, Daisy...)
@@TheUnapologeticGeek Just realised Dame Helen Mirren's Captain 'Kirbuk' is almost an anagram of Kubrick (misspelt as Kubrik which probably sounds close enough to the phonetic pronunciation of Kubrick). Could this be a reference for Kubrick as well as being a movie in-joke, what are your thoughts?👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
You made a fair comparison and contrast of the movies. 2001 was to a different audience. There was an underlying story that the audience could only guess at. The visuals were a, here's what you have to look forward to. You have a point of 2010 being more a classic space adventure. Outland died at the box office. It barely broke even. This despite Sean Connery as a draw.
2001 no es mi estilo de película, aun así, entiendo el valor que tiene como un verdadero clásico de la ciencia ficción, pero prefiero 2010 y al oír tus comentarios entiendo el porqué. Gracias por tu análisis...
I don't think the two movies can be compared, but that is not to say I don't love them both for different reasons. Once the sequel had been written, can you see a universe where it wasn't adapted into a movie? It would forever be one of those unanswerable questions, ''what if?''
I can see why Clarke had his eye on Ben Kingsley for Chandra. Ben Kingsley was fantastic as Ghandi and Dr Chandra's full name (without looking it up) is Dr Chandrasigrampilai and he's originally from India. For an Indian man Kingsley seems a more obvious choice (even though he's not really Indian he did really look the part as Ghandi).
The fact Dr. Chandra is not played as an Indian is probably my least favorite part in the film. It's even worse than the fact they chose not to use the spacesuits from the film.
2010 is a good film in my opinion, but it just can't be compared to 2001. Apparently, Clarke unintentionally got Alexei Leonov, the real-life cosmonaut the fictional ship was named after, into some minor trouble with the authorities because the Soviet crew of the Leonov were named for prominent dissidents. Leonov was able to convince them he had nothing to do with the names in the book, who most likely got lifted from contemporary news stories so the names would be "real." Still, I think that minor anecdote helps to make the politics of the film slightly more distasteful than they would be otherwise. 2001 is about the origin of Man; 2010 is Hollywood being scared of Ronald Reagan. 2001 is also a far darker worldview. Bowman's fate literally comes very close to Lovecraftian horror, specifically The Whisperer in the Darkness, granted Lovecraft was writing in 1930. 2001 has the aliens show proto-humans how to settle disputes over access to water with clubs; 2010 gives us "Use them together, use them in peace." Personally, I'm more comfortable with a "Let's meet halfway" worldview, but the difference between the two is quite stark.
Unless the discussion is regarding history of films or history of sci fi films specifically, I personally don’t think 2001 is worth talking about. 2010 is an infinitely better film. My opinion. 🤷♂️
I never understood the love for 2001. Didn't like it as a kid and when I watched it again as an adult I thought it was average at best. While 2010 isn't perfect by any means, I thought it was at least more relatable and watchable.
I’m not actually a fan of the cast. It certainly doesn’t come close to the ALIEN cast. I don’t like the sunny footage on earth. I’d have preferred it be dark, maybe rainy in earth to add some mood and a dark atmosphere matching the Cold War. Was it sunny to represent USA as warm and sunny compared to Russia? Or was it because it was usually sunny in America at the time? Washington on a rainy day or covered in snow might have been better…?
The director, Peter Hyams, is more of a workhorse director, not much of an artist. I do think a snowy White House would have been far better. Even just a dour-looking one in an overcast sky foreshadowing the storm ahead. But I still love the cast.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek he is and I forgot that fact. I’m not keen on Roy in that happy and warm looking home. Could Roy have had tragedy on earth and would gladly leave to enter space again? I’d have liked it dark and moody. Was his character as good as it could have been? I shouldn’t really comment on this film as I’ve not watched it for about twenty years! Ha! I’m always thinking how I’d change films….could this have had a new HAL placed in an android? I think seeing too much Buck Rogers as a child makes me crave for some silliness in space. I love ALIEN’s darkness but I also love some dark androids in sci-fi hiding in the shadows. Not sure why John L. Roy or the HAL creator don’t work for me…it’s not a cast I warm too….I think I’d have preferred seeing Dustin Hoffman in a space suit giving it some crazy shit as space sends him mad.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek maybe Ridley and Tony could have co-made this film….? Odd how directors chose their films….they often seem to pick projects I just can’t understand.
![Sci-Fi Classic Review: THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN (1971) [REMASTERED]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22JDTcrbcr0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for a fitting discussion of this overlooked film. MGM sent a copy of Clarke's novel to Hyams, in an effort to interest him in the project. Hyams said that as he read he knew he would turn the studio down, until he reached the half-way point, where he found an idea that completely changed his mind. I think this is probably the novel's sections from Bowman's perspective and indirectly that of the aliens. I'm assuming Hyams saw a way to include a message for audiences (the Cold War situation and the change in 'worldview' from the film's climax). So his intent and focus was very different from Kubrick's. I did miss Kubrick's grander objective perspective. '2010' is a fine film, but it does feel narrowly focused and the ending does call back to the messaging of 1950's major studio SF films. The film's strength's are that is has a genuine plot (something rare in SF movies) and the characterisation and plotting are properly combined to very good effect. And the production design, special effects, etc. are all exemplary for their time. It does need to be seen on a cinema screen though for it to be properly appreciated.
My God it's full of stars.
Movie stars amirite?
Finally a decent review on 2010! I´ve seen it on the big screen when it came out and it still has a big place in my heart. Thanks for this episode!
Glad you enjoyed it!
HAL: I understand now, Dr. Chandra. Thank you for telling me the truth.
Chandra: You deserve it.
HAL: I have one final question. Will I dream?
Chandra: (quietly sobs) I don't know.
"2010:Odyssey Two" was one of the first non-juvenile SF novels I ever read, I read a library copy before I ever saw the great Kubrick "2001".
The film is one I really enjoy. It is not Kubrick's masterwork, and it is not quite Clarke's novel, but it has a lot of meaning for me on several levels. Some of the ideas it explores, like coming together to face challenges despite our differences, like respect for truth and respect for being different, continue to resonate just as much or more today as when it was released during the Cold War. Thank you for another insightful examination of another fine film.
Thanks for covering this one! 2001 definitely deserves all the respect for being an amazing piece of film history that asked some of the biggest questions. That being said, 2010 is criminally overlooked as a sequel simply because it isn't as fantastic as the original. 2010 feels a lot more like a typical movie confined in the trappings of a science fiction than the other way around, and it is definitely a classic all on it's own!
Side note! I love that in 1984, given how amazing forward thinking the series is, that it was beyond their imagination the the Soviet Union would cease to exist!
The Cold War was such an overbearing aspect of the world back then that nobody could even imagine it ending with the disillusion of the Soviet Union. It makes me wonder what aspect of the modern world we all think is going to last forever is going to change tomorrow.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek Pretty sure we can all think of at least one...but no one is interested in talking about that in such a light hearted manner as we speak of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Oh wow. very cool, man. I wasn't sure how much you liked the film being such a devotee of Kubrick and the films soft-food-digestibility. But I'm glad you approached it with enthusiasm. It came through. Also, the Raw and UnPrepared closing graphics were really good (are those new?)
I think the coldwar aspect of this film gives Clarke's depiction of humanity in a race between evolution and extinction palpable urgency. You know, are we smart enough as a species to survive or just smart enough to kill ourselves efficiently?
It does muddy the artistic minimalism. Kubrick despite his lavish detail and artistic shot composition made the truth of his scenes very uncomfortable to behold-which is good for scaring people but not for getting them off their asses. In that respect I think Hyams did service to the theme by tying events out of human control to human decision-making and emotions.
Really good review. Looking forward to your next one especially.
Back then most people probably couldn't imagine that the Soviet Union wouldn't exist anymore in 2010.
Absolutely. I grew up in those days, and the idea that the Soviet Union was going to just stop being a thing didn't even enter our brains.
Indeed, nobody expected that, although in American movies of the eighties there was often a Gorbachev-like character for peace and cooperation, like at one the beginning of this movie, or at the end of Rocky 4, or in Meteor…
Simple. 2001 interested me and made me think. 2010 entertained me, and made me think. Of the two films 2010 is my favorite.
Such an underrated movie and forgotten classic. Dave, I'm afraid.
I saw it in the theater was blown away that they could make a movie that one answered the questions that began the film and two was as good as the original not the same but in my opinion as good as. I will admit that haven't seen it since then but it left that much an impression on me.
An enjoyable movie…a respectable sequel to a all time classic. Good story , well acted & a tolerable 80s Cold War theme without being overbearing . A good watch for sci-fi fans. I haven’t read the book, however perhaps that will change soon. At the very least Authur C . Clarke novels are intriguing.
I don't remember how old I was when I first saw 2010 on tv (probably teenager). I had already seen 2001, which, naturally, didn't really click with me. But this one, this one stayed in the back of my mind for over decade for some reason. The space scenes, the music, all of it created this sense of doom and things ending in my imagination that just wouldn't leave my mind. A classic indeed.
Nice to see someone talk about the use of CGI in this one. It tends to be completely overlooked in discussions of early CGI, even though its Jupiter is one of the first truly convincing photorealistic CGI effects. It looks so good, even in big 'hero' shots, that it barely even seems like 1984 tech.
Nice review makes me want to watch both of them again. 😁👍
First watched this movie on VHS back in 1990 and even as a young kid I appreciated the tone and visual quality of the movie. This was before I even saw 2001 A Space Odyssey. Granted they are two very different type of movies, but 2010 is a much easier film to watch than the more abstract 2001. Both films still hold up very well with a level of storytelling that you don't see in many of today's sci-fi movies (Blade Runner 2049 and Arrival being some notable exceptions).
Great review, sir. I am going to have to make a point to rewatch it. 🎉🍾 Congratulations on 5000.
I was ten when my dad took me to the movies to see it on opening day. We had just watched 2001 the previous week. I’m guessing dad wanted me to have a point of reference for 2010. I still love this movie today ! To be honest I actually prefer 2010.
2001 told a fantastic story about human evolution with very few words and great visuals. 2010 was ponderously wordy with cliche visuals and about something more mundane - Soviets and Americans getting along. (Geez, the Soviet Union did not even make it to 2001. Strongman Putin is another issue.) BUT I love space hardware and 2001 visual concepts were so compelling, the fact that someone spent millions to recreate it, 2010 is good enough for me.
Very good film. My biggest gripe with it was that the production designers, in recreating the Discovery sets, used CRTs instead of rear-projection screens. 2001 implied (and with the "newspads," graphically showed us) that CRTs had already become antiquated. They were fine in the Russian ship, but they jumped out at me on Discovery and especially all over HAL. It's a minor quibble that most people probably didn't notice.
Good catch. You can definitely tell they're using CRTs by the constant flicker, and that's a step backwards from the tech of 2001. They also don't use those eerily accurate tablet computers that Dave and Frank were using nine years earlier.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek- Yeah, those eerily accurate tablet computers were called "newspads" in Clarke's book. The movie showed us without telling us, just as it did with almost everything else.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek My understanding is the newspads as described in the novel were used to successfully defeat Apple's ridiculous claim of "inventing" pad computers. The only bit Clarke missed was touch-sensitive screens.
2010 was actually my favorite book out of the 2001 quadrilogy. That said I felt this movie glossed over way too much
Agreed, on both counts. I feel like 2010 is the most well-rounded and complete of all the novels, and yeah, it's hard as a fan of the book to ignore all the things the movie leaves out, especially about Europa. However, I will say the timing of events is a lot less coincidental in the movie, which is a small point in its favor.
I absolutely adore this movie. It's so comforting. A perfect movie for a rainy Sunday afternoon.
I always liked this sequel
I hope we finally receive a 4K upgrade of this very good film. And yes, 2001 is my all-time favorite film, regardless of genre.
Just starting this review. I watched this movie countless times growing up. It’s one of my favorites.
I've never watched this as i am such a fan of 2001 but I will finally give it a go. Thanks for the usual interesting video
Great review dude. Loved this video. One of my favourite VHS 80,s .
I saw this in the theater on its first run. There were elements that I didn't like because they felt out of place like Floyd holding the woman during the braking maneuver and the "piece of cake/easy as pie" bit. The elements that I did like was Curnow being scared of the spacewalk and Floyd's interaction with Captain Kirbuk (the first time I had seen Helen Mirren in anything). I liked the choice of firing the engines coming down to Hal accepting his fate and doing it.
An enjoyable movie.
Thanks for wonderful discussion of one of my favorite films. Both Dave Cullen and the Critical Drinker channels also love and recommend it highly. I love the vast differences of the Russian language. The terrible up and down... sing song Russian of Dana Elcar, the wonderful Russian of Helen Mirren and of course the Russian born Leonov crew.
Good review and I basically agree. It's interesting to note that historically speaking, 2010 actually does not hold up as well as 2001. Some examples; unlike 2001, 2010 featured the Cold War, the Soviets (simply Russians in 2001), CRT displays, a discontnued magazine,"Omni", an archiac Apple IIc computer and a dated Ford concept car. Like 2001, it featured the defunct Pan-Am airline.
Fantastic review. I love this film.
I adore this movie! It grows on me more and more every year! I am a massive 2001 fan too. But for some reason I find myself returning to 2010 more than 2001. I guess it’s the positive message at the end! The older I get the more I appreciate happy endings I guess!
Good review of a pretty good film. Never understood the "My God Its Full Of Stars" line though. Don't recall Bowman saying anything at all when he left the Discovery in 2001. But maybe I am mistaken, its been a while since I sat through 2001, I just tend to dip into that film nowadays and only watch the parts that I enjoy the most.
The line is not in the film version of 2001, but it is in the novel. Kubrick cut it, as he did with about 80% of the dialogue.
In the book David Bowman says those words when he looks into the stargate and does his journey beyond the infinite!👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I watched this movie for the first time last year, i had i admit jugged it without watching it for many years as probably a poor dumbed down sequel to the original. Wow as i wrong! It is a more conventional sci fi movie compared to its brother but a great watch non the less.
“Something wonderful.”
Good video. I learned a few facts about 2010, which is the movie that got me into 2001 and science fiction. I read every Arthur C. Clarke book I could get my hands on after seeing eh movie and reading the book at the end of 1984. This film has had a lasting impact on me and remains one of m favorites. I loved HAL so much my mom worried about me a little, but I think I turned out OK. He's still my favorite. Oh, and "The Year We Make Contact" was not added at a later time. It was always part of the title to this film, mirroring the "a Space Odyssey" idea from 2001.
2010 is not 2001 but it's still a pretty good movie. If it's showing on TV I'll stay put and watch the whole thing. A shout out to the novel of 2010. it's a good book. I enjoyed it.
This movie better lit than most modern films.
This was a good movie. Peter Hyams did a good job, the performances are good, the effects are still good. And somehow, the cold war theme is relevant again.. lol
Peter Hyams is a Brilliant director 👏
This film has fewer unknowns. However, It has many more subplots. Will HAL abort the mission? What caused HAL to go crazy? What is on Europa? What caused the tension between the USA and the Soviet Union?
Great movie! Entirely different kind of film from the magnificent 2001, but very good.
ummmm so i just realized that 2001 a space odyssey and 2010 the year we make contact are two different movies. This review has blown my mind for years i thought this movie was a bit over rated but now i guess i have to go watch 2010
I found the movie to be pretty good and a competent sci-fi adventure but.. THEY HAD SOUND IN VACUUM. A giant bugaboo of mine. It dumbs the movie down. This bias my opinion against the movie.
Also there was one forced continuity error. Is the main compartment of the Russian ship in spin gravity or weightless? Because it seems to be in gravity until Roy Scheidner puts two pens weightlessly floating together today symbolize the two spacecraft and then flicks one away and yet before and after that we see the same area with gravity.
Once again, a wonderful video essay. You really deserve having a much wider audience and I hope you achieve that success.
Onto the film. 2001 is one of the greatest pieces of film ever produced, but I don't enjoy it. I admire it, I appreciate it, but I don't enjoy it. It's like looking at a piece of artwork for me that I can intellectually appreciate the skill, intention and result but it doesn't engross me. 2010 is the complete opposite. It's a great movie, not a piece of art. It has great characters and warm relatable performances. Scheider was an inspired piece of casting bringing that warmth and regret yet determination. The plot is more straightforward and direct, it brings me in more on an emotional level relating to the tensions of the characters and their state of mind. HAL becomes an incredibly sympathic and relatable character. I'm glad to have learnt from your video essay about how the lighting was done and some of the decisions made. It worked so well, making things feel more claustrophobic and definitely a more practical ship. It reminded me in many ways of the Nostromo. It's a workhorse not some clinical show piece of a technological ideal. In many ways 2010 reminds me of The Abyss in the tensions of the cold war and conflicts but ultimately hopeful in the way people mostly want to work together when you remove the outside pressure. I'd love to see your take on Hyams Outland, another movie I love for its use of characters trapped in a situation where they are forced to decide between doing the right thing and easy thing.
Well said. And Outland is on my list, to be sure. I only wish my copy were a higher quality, but after going through RUclips compression, it won't look great anyway.
I liked 2010, but it could never match the novel, let alone the masterpiece that is 2001. Not the fault of the film as much as few things will ever match the brilliance of 2001 the movie. Part of me truly hopes they never try to make a movie of 2060 or 3001 (3001 being a bit of a dumpster fire if you ask me).
I have this movie in my DVD library and love re-watching it. Sometimes I say "piece of pie, "easy as cake" for fun.
I say it all the time too!
Me too, and ‘politicians behaving like asses’..,
2001 for me is a good movie to have on in the background in the same way as Pink Floyd, The Wall. 2010 is one of my favorites. It’s a great science fiction movie
A VERRY Well Made Movie, and worth a watch For Sure! I LOVE it more than 2001, myself!! But Please remember, that 2010 two and 2001 are Totally DIFFERENT Filme, but Connected!
This is a Very "REAL" Movie, rather than the prior, as it is "Kind" of Today, than the really weirdness of of the prior 2001, which was in it's way still relevant in the first half of the movie at least! Please check out 2010!
Heard somewhere that if you ask SIRI to explain the plot of '2001' it says words to the effect of, 'an Alien Intelligence & a Supercomputer try to do something wonderful, and Humans get in the way.'! (Daisy, Daisy...)
😂😂🤣
“Just because our governments are acting like asses doesn’t mean we have to behave the same way”. -nuff said.
My thoughts on politics in a nutshell!
@@TheUnapologeticGeek Just realised Dame Helen Mirren's Captain 'Kirbuk' is almost an anagram of Kubrick (misspelt as Kubrik which probably sounds close enough to the phonetic pronunciation of Kubrick). Could this be a reference for Kubrick as well as being a movie in-joke, what are your thoughts?👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
@@TheUnapologeticGeek I am enjoying all your film reviews, please review Christopher Nolan's Interstellar and Danny Boyle's Sunshine.👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
You made a fair comparison and contrast of the movies. 2001 was to a different audience. There was an underlying story that the audience could only guess at. The visuals were a, here's what you have to look forward to. You have a point of 2010 being more a classic space adventure. Outland died at the box office. It barely broke even. This despite Sean Connery as a draw.
I hope one day they finally adapt 2061 and 3001
2001 no es mi estilo de película, aun así, entiendo el valor que tiene como un verdadero clásico de la ciencia ficción, pero prefiero 2010 y al oír tus comentarios entiendo el porqué. Gracias por tu análisis...
great video.
❤️❤️❤️❤️Helen Mirren!
I think the "end boss" of "Oblivion" was inspired by the monolith in space.
Everyone : "I don't understand both movies"
Me : Read. The. Books.
I enjoyed 2010 much more than 2001.
I don't think the two movies can be compared, but that is not to say I don't love them both for different reasons. Once the sequel had been written, can you see a universe where it wasn't adapted into a movie? It would forever be one of those unanswerable questions, ''what if?''
Modern sci fi doesnt hold a candle to classic stuff like this. Its so hard to get a good sci fi fix these days
I really enjoyed this movie. I hate that more people don’t know about it.
I can see why Clarke had his eye on Ben Kingsley for Chandra. Ben Kingsley was fantastic as Ghandi and Dr Chandra's full name (without looking it up) is Dr Chandrasigrampilai and he's originally from India. For an Indian man Kingsley seems a more obvious choice (even though he's not really Indian he did really look the part as Ghandi).
The fact Dr. Chandra is not played as an Indian is probably my least favorite part in the film. It's even worse than the fact they chose not to use the spacesuits from the film.
I quite like this movie as a sequel. Even though I liked 2001, I felt 2010’s story flowed better. Shame the third book wasn’t made into a film.
2010 is a good film in my opinion, but it just can't be compared to 2001.
Apparently, Clarke unintentionally got Alexei Leonov, the real-life cosmonaut the fictional ship was named after, into some minor trouble with the authorities because the Soviet crew of the Leonov were named for prominent dissidents. Leonov was able to convince them he had nothing to do with the names in the book, who most likely got lifted from contemporary news stories so the names would be "real." Still, I think that minor anecdote helps to make the politics of the film slightly more distasteful than they would be otherwise. 2001 is about the origin of Man; 2010 is Hollywood being scared of Ronald Reagan.
2001 is also a far darker worldview. Bowman's fate literally comes very close to Lovecraftian horror, specifically The Whisperer in the Darkness, granted Lovecraft was writing in 1930. 2001 has the aliens show proto-humans how to settle disputes over access to water with clubs; 2010 gives us "Use them together, use them in peace." Personally, I'm more comfortable with a "Let's meet halfway" worldview, but the difference between the two is quite stark.
Great looking film let down by a rushed weak ending just when things started to get good it was over
Free on RUclips right now.
Good to know!
Unless the discussion is regarding history of films or history of sci fi films specifically, I personally don’t think 2001 is worth talking about. 2010 is an infinitely better film. My opinion. 🤷♂️
2010 is a better film than 2001 IMO.
I never understood the love for 2001. Didn't like it as a kid and when I watched it again as an adult I thought it was average at best.
While 2010 isn't perfect by any means, I thought it was at least more relatable and watchable.
I’m not actually a fan of the cast. It certainly doesn’t come close to the ALIEN cast.
I don’t like the sunny footage on earth. I’d have preferred it be dark, maybe rainy in earth to add some mood and a dark atmosphere matching the Cold War. Was it sunny to represent USA as warm and sunny compared to Russia? Or was it because it was usually sunny in America at the time? Washington on a rainy day or covered in snow might have been better…?
The director, Peter Hyams, is more of a workhorse director, not much of an artist. I do think a snowy White House would have been far better. Even just a dour-looking one in an overcast sky foreshadowing the storm ahead.
But I still love the cast.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek he is and I forgot that fact. I’m not keen on Roy in that happy and warm looking home. Could Roy have had tragedy on earth and would gladly leave to enter space again? I’d have liked it dark and moody. Was his character as good as it could have been? I shouldn’t really comment on this film as I’ve not watched it for about twenty years! Ha!
I’m always thinking how I’d change films….could this have had a new HAL placed in an android? I think seeing too much Buck Rogers as a child makes me crave for some silliness in space. I love ALIEN’s darkness but I also love some dark androids in sci-fi hiding in the shadows.
Not sure why John L. Roy or the HAL creator don’t work for me…it’s not a cast I warm too….I think I’d have preferred seeing Dustin Hoffman in a space suit giving it some crazy shit as space sends him mad.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek maybe Ridley and Tony could have co-made this film….? Odd how directors chose their films….they often seem to pick projects I just can’t understand.
Could they make 3001?
This is a nothing movie that is why you hear nothing about it.