New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2010 (1984)

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I hadn't seen this in many years until it aired over the weekend on TCM as part of its Oscar programming (five nominations!), and found it to be surprisingly involving.

It would never be a rival of 2001 simply by virtue of being a completely different kind of film, but I liked the way Hyams took up the challenge and tried to shoot the picture with a painterly eye towards composition (like the master shots of the early conversation between Scheider and Dana Elcar on the satellite dish).

And there seemed to be a conscious effort to move away from Kubrick's efforts at dehumanization by casting innately ingratiating actors like Scheider and Lithgow and Elya Baskin (the poor man's Armin Mueller Stahl). Scheider especially makes a strong and warm central presence, and I like the way the movie plays to his underused strengths as an engaging lead.

In the end the film is reined in by its narrative, but Hyams gets a lot of mileage out of the well-worn tropes of the genre, like the astronaut leaving the mothership in a tiny pod or the final last-minute escape. It works. And even though the message is dated, if not corny, the movie never fails to entertain.
post #2 of 18
Once you get it in your head that it's a completely different kind of film than 2001, it's an enjoyable flick. It's a great eerie moment when they turn HAL back on and after a bit that familiar voice kicks in. And he gets a nice bit of closure in his final scene with Balaban, where he's simply grateful for someone being honest with him.

Also dug how relatively simple the effects are. They look great, but they're not showy. Not quite the antisceptic silence of 2001, but not Star Wars/Star Trek levels of zoom either.
post #3 of 18
I pretty much agree with Post #1 regarding this movie. However, when I watched this on DVD a few years ago I was shocked by how bad the FX were: you could see very obvious Matte lines on the space ships (almost as bad as the matte lines on the 70's Battlestar Galactica). Have the fixed that for the Blu Ray release?

I like Schieder a lot in this, but I can't help but wonder how it would have played if William Sylvester reprised his role. Impossible I know, but I think his Floyd had the warmth while retaining a bit of reserve as well. I believed he was a government bureaucrat more than I did Schieder.
post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
I believed he was a government bureaucrat more than I did Schieder.
That's a fair point. One thing I like about Scheider is that he couldn't mask his blue collar-ness (I mean that in the best way). He had a street-wise quality that made it seem like he learned everything he knew from living and not from books. Makes it easy to like him but not necessarily to buy him as a bureaucrat scientist.

My favorite futurist touch: Dolphins in the living room. It's more amusing to me than anything. It always struck me as the kind of thing a 12 year old boy would dream up for his science fiction movie.
post #5 of 18
Great calls on the Scheider/Elcar scene and Chandra's faith in HAL (a crucial payoff the film works steadily towards). Maybe it's my getting older, but over time the scenes with Bowman have become more and more moving. The scene where he 'visits' his wife is simultaneously spooky and heartbreaking. And his efforts to personally(?) persuade Floyd are spine-tingling. The look on Scheider's face as Bowman assumes the form of the star child is priceless.



Nice pluses: Helen Mirren, who stubbornly refuses to not be hot. And Arthur C Clarke, in what I'm pretty sure is one of the very few times a film affords an author a double cameo.
post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
It's a great eerie moment when they turn HAL back on and after a bit that familiar voice kicks in.
It's a testament to his work in the first film that it's an eerie moment simply to see "Douglas Rain" in the opening credits.

Speaking of voice work, that's a pseudonym-credited Candice Bergin as SAL 9000.
post #7 of 18
Good but not great movie. The 'something wonderful' that we're promised throughout the film is kinda underwhelming.

I still think that the look and design of the Leonov is pretty spectacular.
post #8 of 18
2010 feels much more like Clarke than the first film. One senses that his vision for the future was in fundamental disagreement with Kubrick's.

Also, I live for opportunities to quote Mirren's line, "You haff been dhrinkink your vhiskey fhrom Kentucky!"
post #9 of 18
Banks kinda already pointed this out (and said it better) in post #1, but it is such a human science fiction movie. At every point it is empathetic, and almost every scene is concerned with the emotional experience of the characters. That's what makes it so engaging for me because imho a lot of science fiction films miss that.
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianM View Post
Banks kinda already pointed this out (and said it better) in post #1, but it is such a human science fiction movie. At every point it is empathetic, and almost every scene is concerned with the emotional experience of the characters. That's what makes it so engaging for me because imho a lot of science fiction films miss that.
Yeah, the big spectacular airbreaking scene is just as much about Scheider and that scared Russian girl as it is about the shots of the ship streaking across the surface of Jupiter.
post #11 of 18
I also love how the relationship develops between the Russian crew and the American crew. How they work and interact with each other changes naturally and never hits any false notes.
post #12 of 18
Yeah, I do enjoy this movie. Disagree with Judas about the ending being underwhelming, though. It is indeed a human movie, and the film ending with humanity at peace and in wonder, which is everything Kubrick's film deems possible for the individual, but impossible for the species, is thematically right.
post #13 of 18
About the only thing I don't like about this film (besides the incredibly dated computer graphics) is David Shire's score. Super-mega-cheesy. Would loved to have seen/heard a Hyams/Goldsmith reunion on this one.
post #14 of 18
This was the first movie I saw that really sold Lithgow as an actor to me. I loved him in this and The Manhattan Project, and his relationship with the Russian guy named Max is one of my favorite parts of this movie.

And I know this is blasphemy, but I prefer this movie to Clarke's book. I've always maintained that Clarke's odyssey series is VASTLY overrated.
post #15 of 18
The movie wisely cuts out the entire subplot with the Chinese. It was a little silly.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
The movie wisely cuts out the entire subplot with the Chinese. It was a little silly.
It also adds character development, which was sorely lacking in Clarke's book. The damn thing is like a physics textbook with characters.
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
The movie wisely cuts out the entire subplot with the Chinese. It was a little silly.
It's been a while since I read it, but was this the ship that arrived ahead of the Leonov and landed on Europa, only to be dragged down by 'Cthulhu-like' tentacles?
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
It's been a while since I read it, but was this the ship that arrived ahead of the Leonov and landed on Europa, only to be dragged down by 'Cthulhu-like' tentacles?
Correct. I actually kind of liked that subplot when I first read it. But then I was a kid, and loved spaceships and ice planets and aliens and spaceships crashing through ice because of aliens.

EDIT: I also enjoyed the little side story involving the archeologist who discovered the lost alien civilization in Tunisia...only to later realize it was the STAR WARS set buried in the sand.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video