2010: The Year We Make Contact

This film was a good sequel to 2001, but really only a 3-1/2 or 4 star movie experience for me. I personally enjoyed the basic plot and credit Clarke with writing an excellent film with much more human interest and explicit narrative than the original movie. The model work and zero gravity special effects were all beautifully done, but not nearly as innovative as what was accomplished under Kubrick's direction in 2001.

There was one scene (available on UTUBE)in which the Russian spacecraft employed aero-braking to enter the orbit of Jupiter which was very credibly done using what I believe was a blow torch and the animation of Jupiter's "surface" in the background. This was visually new for a sci-fi film and the appearance of a hypersonic wake heated to incandescence by atmospheric friction looked correct in form right down to the leading edge stagnation point in the flow field. Someone had a good feel for what had to be done, and I believe did it by the seat of their pants with blow torch in hand using slow motion photography. It was, however, the only imagry which really excited the "engineer" in me.

2010 considered some interesting questions regarding HAL, the (AI) computer from 2001. In another scene available on UTUBE, Dr. Chandra was concerned with what would happen when attempts were made to restore connections to HAL's higher brain functions after such a prolonged shutdown by Dave Bowman and subsequent exposure to cryogenic temperatures. He attempted to simulate this in his lab with the cooperation of SAL, also an AI computer who was asked how "she" would feel about it. In Dr. Chandra's mind there was no mystery concerning the feelings and consciousness of an AI computer of the 21st century. One of his statements during the course of the film was that life deserves respect though it be carbon or silicon based. Of course, the rest of the crew believed Dr. Chandra's feelings for the possibly authentic emotions of HAL were misplaced since their safety and very lives were at stake. This was a pretty interesting scene and until the very end we are uncertain in weather HAL will lay down his life for the mission. All he wanted was an explanation, and quickly agreed to do what he was instructed to once he realized the deadly ramifications to the crew of his disobeying this order.

2010 also included some Hitchcock style shots of the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke seated quietly in front of the White House (at a bench adjacent to Dr. Heywood Floyd) which document his participation in the movie for film historians.

I actually had the rare treat of seeing the late Arthur Clarke during a Connecticut showing of 2001 in the early 70's. Clarke spoke to the audience following the showing at Bushnell Memorial Auditorium and answered questions concerning the plot of 2001. Here Clarke explained the reasons for the very visual and non-narrative screen style of 2001 as envisioned by Stanley Kubrick.

I liked it when it came out, but now it's also a bit of a time machine to the Cold War. No, it's not going to make anyone's best sci-fi movies list, but the story is compelling and the acting is better than most. Check out Helen Miren as a Russian commander.

This is the rest of the remake of Assignment: Outer Space. See my comments in 2001: Space Odyssey.

...what you get will not resemble the product shown. The product shown has a picture of the planet Jupiter and one of its moons in the background, Discovery floating in the foreground, with the monolith (full of stars) in between, movie by MGM studios. What you'll get will be the el cheapo snap case with Jupiter and the infant on the cover, movie by Warner Bros., which you can typically find at WalMart for $7.50.

I thought I would get a decent copy of 2010 in a keep case, what I got was the bargain bin copy in a snap case that I paid too much for.

The 3 stars is for the deception, not the movie. The movie rates 4 stars, with 2001 a strong 5. -kd5-

I think my first review writing on this film lost the one person who decided to respond to my short write up, feeling my write up didn't help them. After thinking this through a little further, I'm taking time to expand on this write up, as I feel my first attempt to express myself made for an ambiguous writing in need of clarification. So let's start over shall we?

I remember the day when I sat in the theatre as a young boy and the opening for the film "2001 A Space Odyssey" appeared on the silver screen. All of us kids were not only stunned by Trumball's great and real like special effects, but by the subtle message Stanley Kubric and Arthur C. Clarke worked to deliver in that film's simple story line. The appearance of the star child in the end, suggestive of reincarnation or rebith or neverending life, was an intersting concept to give Christian dominant America back in those days. Many Christian parents didn't want their kids seeing this film because of the controvery of faith it created for stout Church attending believers back in the early 1960's.

When you thought the film makers of 2001 couldn't say anything further, out comes 2010, with not only a great story line, but even more awesome special effects to help tell the story.

Most people don't realize that the original 2001 story was drawn from premises found in Hindu religion as revealed in the Upanishads of India. It's clear Arthur C. Clarke was versed in these religious studies as you watch both films. The overtones of what God might really be as the formless light holding the creation inside his being; as captured in Hindu & Buddhist writings, not to mention the Christian Bible, takes on form as the Monolith in this film, a life giving force, representing the Creator; who is formless: A message that is made clear at the end of this film if you just listen to what is said at the end. Not to know this is to interpret the message in 2001 incorrectly concerning the issues of the Universe, eternity, physical life and the existence of parallel expressions of the one Universe scientists call "parallel Universes".

From the Latin, the word "Universe" means "One Word" and you find Jesus Christ in the Bible always refering to Himself as the "One Word". In John the Apostle's writings we find the location of the Universe given in John 1:1-3, which reads from the Septuigent Greek into the English; "In the beginning was the One Word; the One Word was with God and the One Word was God". If you insert the word "Universe" for every instance of the passages where it reads the "One Word", you get the true location of the Universe and what God was talking about concerning the Tree of Life spoken about in the Garden of Eden as you read Genesis of the Bible. The passage now reads; "In the beginning was the Universe; the Universe was with God and the Universe was God". We then learn the creation is suspended inside of God made out of the pure white light stuff of God's being.

E=MC2, which Albert Einstein discoverd via the Bible codes he was playing around with back in the 1940's actually read from God's point of view as m=E/C2. What this tells any scientist is that God created mass, i.e., planets and stars with the byproduct revealing time and space as we know it and this was done by slowing down His white light energy (E) by the speed of light squared (C2) which condensed down into gross solid matter. Scientists call this the "big bang theory", but this revelation well supports the law of the Conservations and transferance of energy in physics. The result was the revealing of time and space as you look up into the night sky making it possible for God to create a physical creation suspended inside of his being. These overtones are throughout the 2010 film, especially the message given at the end of the film.

Man reads the equation as E=MC2, because that is the process needed to turn all energy, which has been slowed down into solid mass, back into God's pure white light stuff, the first demonstration of that being revealed with the building & detonating of the first atomic bomb. One of the fears the scientists had when detonating the first atomic bomb is that the chain reaction of energy released might go on indefinitely converting the whole planet into the pure white light you see released from the detonation. Fortunately that didn't happen, since the strength of the reaction lessened as it came in contact with the atoms of our atmosphere slowing down and limiting the chain reaction we classify as an "explostion" for lack of a better word to call it in layman's terms.

From the Upanishads, the same revelation, hiding in the Bible, reads as follows: "Enumbete then realized 'I am indeed this creation. For I have poured it forth from myself and in that way He became the Creation. Verily, He who knows this, becomes in this creation, a creator". The Bible reveals that man is made in the "image" of God, meaning God is a creating force and as a result we see man expressing this ability in all he raises up from the ground as he creates on this earth. Even the soul takes its origins from Kabbalist teaching out of the pure white light stuff of God's being while God separated his consciousness into individual consciousnesses called souls. In short, you are not a body with a soul upon knowing this, but a soul having been given a body in order to take presence on the earth and participate in it. Knowing all of this makes it easier to understand what the monolithe is in both films and the purpose it serves in its appearance in both films.

You also find the same revelation given in Jewish Kabbalist teaching. In fact, an excellent book I purchased off of Amazon earlier this year, written by Rabbi Moshe Hayim Luzzato; entitled "The Kabbalah of the Ari Z'al", starts with the first chapter of his book assuming that the reader/student already knows this absolute truth about the Universe. Not to know it is to get lost with even the first chapter of his book, which would then appear abstract to the more earthly minded who might not know this simple basic absolute truth of how the Creation was done. God certainly didn't make everything out of nothing. That doesn't make any sense to any reasonable thinking person, espeically if you can see by God's laws, even with the help of Man's science that God is a logical thinking God, perfect in all His thinking and expression in working with the Creation. However, God did have plenty to draw from out of His own being, when He became the Creation itself suspended as the Tree of Life inside of Him, if you can even use gender to qualify God at this point of understanding. Knowing this also makes is easy to read and understand the deeper revelations of the Holy Bible, if you are a Christian believer who is well beyond fundamentalism in your studies.

While 2010 does not have the esoteric ambiance felt in 2001 with its final revelation discourse, this is still a well done story, following along the lines of the spiritual premise revealed in 2001 concerning the story; with excellent acting and great special effects helping the new story along.

This is really great for the whole family and a must see in my book. No real violence to speak of in this film; just good character development, balanced with good action working to reveal a mystery in the end. It will give you pause to think of the Universe in a way you never thought of before just watching both films and it helps to know the things I know about the religions of the world along with man's science if you really want to understand the message being given in both of these films.