's out of 5)Director
Peter Hyams
Peter Hyams
Cast
Roy Scheider - Heywood Floyd
John Lithgow - Walter Curnow
Bob Balaban - R. Chandra
Roy Scheider - Heywood Floyd
John Lithgow - Walter Curnow
Bob Balaban - R. Chandra
Helen Mirren - Tanya Kirbuk
Madolyn Smith - Caroline Floyd
Dana Elcar - Dimitri Moisevitch
Dana Elcar - Dimitri Moisevitch
Douglas Rain - HAL 9000
Candice Bergen (credited as Olga Mallsnerd) - SAL 9000
I didn't know that director Stanley Kubrick's 1968 sci-fi "masterpiece" (as it's often considered) "2001: A Space Odyssey," based on the novel by Arthur C. Clarke, has a sequel. I only found out about this tidbit of trivia when I bought Gary Gerani's book "Top 100 Sci-Fi Movies." It goes with my set of his books that include "Top 100 Horror Movies," "Top 100 Comic Book Movies," and "Top 100 Fantasy Movies."
The 1984 sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact," which is based on Clarke's 1982 novel "2010: Odyssey Two" sits at number 82 in Gerani's book.
He also puts "2001: A Space Odyssey" at number two. What did he put for the number one sci-fi movie? I'll give you a hint. It's my number 27 on this platform.
I put "2010: The Year We Make Contact" on my must-review list for this blog. I was curious. And I happened to find a copy a few months ago at a Half-Priced Books in Omaha. It was marked somewhere around $5, so I snagged it.
The first and only time (to date) I watched "2001: A Space Odyssey" I was thoroughly confused. In fact, I had to pause the movie and read a plot summary and synopsis just to figure out what was going on and where it was all going. In other words, I didn't understand it.
While I found the 1968 movie confusing and difficult to understand, thankfully I found its sequel easier to follow as far as the plot goes. That's not to say I wasn't somewhat confused. I could follow the general storyline, but I was still baffled at what it all meant. Maybe I don't have the sophisticated mind for such intellectual science fiction.
This is a sophisticated sequel orbiting deep in the shadow of "2001: A Space Odyssey." So much so, even I didn't know of its existence until I saw it Gerani's book.
 |
| The monolith endures. |
Bowman, his crew, and the ship became lost back in 2001 and Bowman is surely died. Or is he?
Tension between the United States and Russia, which was the USSR back in 1984, are high. And yet, both nations are tasked with individual missions to find out what happened to the Discovery.
The Soviets are working on a spaceship called "Leonov" while the Americans are working on their own spaceship called "Discovery Two."
Even though the Russians are farther along in the development of their Leonov, only the Americans can reactivate the sentient computer HAL 9000.
The reason for Discovery's demise is blamed on HAL 9000. If you've seen "2001: A Space Odyssey," then you know all about HAL and the chaos he, or it, created. Evidently, he's not evil. He was just programmed by evil government bureaucrats.
Out of the kindness of their dumb ol' hearts, the Russians agree to bring NCA Director Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider - formerly played by William Sylvester in Kubrick's movie) as well as the Discovery designer, Walter Curnow (John Lithgow) and Dr. R. Chandra (Bob Balaban) who designed the HAL 9000. The Russians take them because the Discovery is spiraling its way towards, Io - one of the moons of Jupitar.
Chandra, by the way, uses another supercomputer similar to the HAL 9000 called the SAL 9000 which was used as an earth-bound mission simulator for the Discovery. He experiments with the SAL 9000 to figure out what went wrong with HAL. Fun fact - Candice Bergen voices the SAL 9000, and is credited as "Olga Mallsnerd."
However, there's a mystery in their path. That mystery is none other than the enigmatic alien monolith. It's the same sort of monolith that confused me when I watched the first movie.
I think I need a better grasp of the original story to fully appreciate this movie.
"2010: The Year We Make Contact" doesn't flow as majestically and pretentiously as Kubrick's flick, but it does flow with some complexity. It's not as intellectual as Kubrick's movie, but it certainly tries to be. Thankfully, it doesn't make a fool of itself when trying to do that.
That's not to say it isn't a smart flick. It doesn't go out of its way to try and convince the audience that it's a lofty complex highly intellectual science fiction experience.
It has a slow drag feel to it thanks to all the explaining it constantly puts the audience through. Its charm comes from its being a sequel to none other than Kubrick's highly regarding movie.
Maybe I've been too spoiled by sci-fi that has laser fights and a variety of colorful and crazy planets and aliens blowing stuff up. This movie doesn't utilize any such tropes to tell a compelling follow-up sci-fi story.
Despite it being just a little easier to follow, the ending left me with the same question as I had after watching the first. "Wait! What happened?" Again, I had to consult a plot summary on Wikipedia to make sure I understood what I just watched. The ending is a sappy product of its time - the United States and the then U.S.S.R. seeking peace, blah, blah, blah.
"2010: The Year We Make Contact" doesn't set out to out-perform Kubrick's movie. It's clearly interested in simply continuing the story.
The movie slowly builds up anticipation and intrigue one step at a time. The space visuals, while looking dated, are still well done. Before I forget, kudos to the story for redeeming the HAL-9000 and making it a good super computer!
Despite my lack of proper understanding to Arthur C. Clarke's story, and Kubrick's movie, this movie seems to be a decent enough follow-up. It managed to make me want to go back and give "2001: A Space Odyssey" another chance.
