2010: The Year We Make Contact
List Price: $2.99

Our Price: $2.99

You Save:


Customer Reviews:

  • A Sci-Fi Classic That Deserves More Respect Than It's Gotten
    True, this movie could never compare to Kubrick's "2001," but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Perhaps it's because I was in high school when "2010" came out, but I relate a lot more to the sequel than the original, which I think could have shed the beginning and final acts and still been a coherent movie.

    As a stand-alone movie, it's one of the more thoughtful sci-fi films I've ever seen, and the performances are quite good, especially Dame Helen Mirren and John Lithgow. And the vidual effects...Richard Edlund does a sublime job of following in Douglas Trumbull's footsteps.

    The only fault I found with the film, and this is mainly in retrospect, is Peter Hyams' choice to have the US and Russia at loggerheads, considering that no such conflict existed in either the books of "2001" and "2010," nor in the film version of "2001." It dates the film somewhat, but it's still a good movie.

    Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the transfer. "2010" has never had a decent transfer to video, and the DVD version is about as bad as it gets. Surely a better print exists of this film, and while the sound doesn't have the same "shuddering" quality the earliest VHS release had, it's still sub-par.

    Hopefully either Warner or MGM will remaster this film for HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray....more info
  • disappointing
    this movie was very disappointing after watching 2001, I honestly didn't think they could make a movie 20 years later and make it look worse than the a movie made in 1968. The conversion to Blu-ray is terrible, it looked like a low budget B movie. The story line was alright in retrospect, except it could have been done much much cooler, without all the 80's....more info
  • Completely unnecessary....
    This is an OK film. It has none of the mystery, the art, the ambiguity, or the brilliance of 2001. It's just a rather straightforward story. It explains everything that happens in 2001, which isn't the point. One of the reasons 2001 worked so well is there were no explanations. It just happened, and you were supposed to let your mind and imagination interpret it. And as some reviewers have noted, the bizarre inclusion of a Cold War, US/USSR military confrontation over Central America was short sighted, stupid, and now, terribly dated. It wasn't in Clarke's original novel, and Hymas should have never put it in. Of course, this was made during the 80's, where we were led to believe that the Russians are going to invade any day now (needless to say, they never did). It is nice to see Keir Dullea and Douglas Rain reprise their roles. The rest of the performances are good for this kind of thing. If there was no 2001, this would be an OK film. But it's really an unnecessary sequel. Read the book, instead. ...more info
  • Decent but Clunky Move with No Sense of Wonder
    First off, the original movie 2001 is in a league of it's own, and few movies can or will ever acheive it's lofty heights.

    Having said that, 2010 is a decent movie in the vein of "Alien" or a standard Star Trek movie, but it comes off as very 'clunky' and does nothing to stir our imagination. One reviewer said it plays like a TV-movie, and they're absolutely right. Something about it just seems "off", with abrupt scene cuts, scenes that go nowhere and just end, and absolutely no sense of wonderment or excitement.

    The editing is infuriating too. We're jarringly thrown from one scene to another with absolutely no attempt at a smooth transition. One example that dove me nuts - they'll show the monolith floating by Jupiter with the great music playing, then cut to inside the ship with no music, then back outside with music, then inside with no music, etc. Talk about clunky - it gets pretty damn annoying after a while.

    The narration by Roy Schieder makes you think you're watching "SeaQuest" and is a bit of overkill as this movie just has to explain EVERYTHING. This movie tells you exactly what's happening before, during and after it has happened, which dilutes any or all excitement. You can definitely check your brain at the door for this one, because it doesn't require you to think about anything - it's all table-spoon fed to you constantly during the film, and that becomes annoying as well.

    And there is absolutely no sense of awe or wonder in this film. I do think it's a good Arthur Clarke story, and his stories usually end with Man or another race ascending to a higher plane of existence, and the ending here is similarly along that vein.

    It was nice, however, to see Keir Dullea and hear Hal again and to re-visit some of those sets.

    Another nitpick - they got the read-out screens wrong in the Discovery. In the scene in the pilot's chair of the Discovery, when they show Hal's eye flanked by the screens, you can see that they used simple CRT screens instead of the flat screens used in 2001. Because there is so much glare on the CRTs, the read-outs don't pop out brightly like they did in the first film. Again, everything just seeme a little 'off' in this film. And the awesome Centrifuge set is nowhere to be seen.

    All in all, it's a decent, clunky, un-exciting journey, worth a look or two but destined to collect dust in your DVD collection. By contrast, how many times have you seen 2001?

    ...more info
  • Damn good.
    Hello, first of all, if you are one of those people who feel that 2001 was pure genius, and you feel that ANYTHING else would be pure crap--you know who you are, then don't waste your time on this. HOWEVER, if you really loved 2001, and really cared about David Bowman, the Discovery, and HAL, and wanted to see what happened next, this is for you. When the book came out I was CAPTIVATED, pure and simple. Of course, since there is no USSR now, the tension is lost to those too young to remember, but watching this again last night really brought back those times to me. The Chinese parts from Europa that were left out were greatly missed by me. But, this story/movie is very very good. The technology and sets are incredible, the acting is very good, and seeing David Bowman again was CHILLING. After the film was over, I immediately got out my 2063 book to read what happened right this mission, and while I don't remember loving that book, it was very interesting to read the first 50 pages or so again after so many years. OK, enough rambling, enjoy this, OR, stay up on your pedastal and continue to look down on the rest of us who can watch and enjoy something that isn't 10 out of 10 stars PURE GENIUS!! Cheers, Jaderain...more info
  • Dated followup to 2001
    The basic plot of this film is so dated, with the evil Soviets and crazy Americans squared off in a repeat of the Cuban Missle Crisis, that the only real reason to watch this film is the acting and effects. The effects are so-so with the mats being the most obvious example. The Blue-ray brings this out, since you can see the outlines of the moving elements more clearly. The acting is good, especially Helen Mirren and the actors manage to convey the tension between Soviet and American sides. The ending is the clossest element to 2001.
    Overall, if you like the film and can accept the Soviet-American tension as a plot, the Blue Ray version is the way to go. The picture is soft - as is typical of films of the 1980's - but the details are easier to pick up in the Blue Ray than the old DVD....more info
  • Great follow up
    Faster paced, more thrilling, great acting, yes it is not Kubrick, but it was and is a great movie as sequels go! ...more info
  • Mixed Bag
    I like this film and came close to buying it on various formats over the years. When the blu arrived, I thought: This is it. Well, MGM really dropped the ball on this one. Parts of the film look fine, but some of the effects shots are a disaster. It looks like they used unfinished elements (?). Color is WAY off in many composite shots (and full of pulsating digital artifacts). There are also a number of painfully obvious traveling mats. Jupiter looks too gaudy, like a big jaw breaker (instead of soft and mysterious, as in 2001), but that may be the way it looked theatrically. What a shame they didn't go the extra mile on this transfer....more info
  • 2010 - The Day we made contact
    I love this movie but - the video quality is not even close to being Blu-Ray quality. It is even blurry at some points. They must not have used the master - who knows....more info
  • My God, it's full of stars.
    I really hate seeing all these reviews for 2010 that compare the movie to 2001. Okay people, we all know 2001 was one of the best movies of all time, but the great thing about 2010 is that Hyams didn't try to recreate any of the artistic style that Kubrick accomplished in the first film--thankfully, Hyams did his own thing. 2010 is an awesome follow-up film to 2001. The story flows very well from the end of 2001, and it's awesome to see the chraters we loved from 2001 being expanded upon.
    Stop hating people. This movie was amazing, and it stands alone as a great film without any support from 2001. If you pass this up, you're really missing out on something special. ...more info
  • great flick
    If you have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, you will definitely have to watch this one....more info
  • Seeing this movie twenty years later, two things are apparent.
    After watching "2001" and "2010" back to back, some differences are obvious: is it less stylized, lacks 1960's fashions, and not a s slow-plodding as the classic. Therefore, it is a more accessible film. "2001" was about mystery, while "2010" is about answers.

    Seeing this movie twenty years later, two things are apparent. First the special effects are top notch. The "Leonov" has a cramped, dark, submarine feel that was adopted for "Star Trek: Enterprise." The computer monitors--despite being non-Plasma--do the job and convey the feeling of what we are actually doing in the 21st Century. The Jovian systems, revealed so beautifully with the Voyager probes, gives you the feeling of actually being there. Compare the external scenes with "Silent Running."

    The second observation is that film is dated. Keep in mind that we are watching a film that is the product of the Hollywood Culture and reflect the hopes and fears of the Hollywood Microverse--that it was made five years before the Velvet Revolution--and that Hollywood has never forgive actor Ronald Reagan for betraying the quote-unquote Cause and becoming a conservative. In the film, the US president is an obvious effigy of Reagan.

    The clash of politics is a reminder of several aspects of the 1980's scientific culture. One is the love-hate relationship between the Scientific-Industrial Complex with the Military-Industrial Complex. The scientists were "high and mighty" with their distain of the atavistic military (reread your Carl Sagan as a refresher), but they were also dependant upon the military for funding. So the relationship is reminiscent to that of a 30-year old unemployed teenager still living with his parents and collecting an allowance, but mouthing off to dad, and not doing his chores.

    Defense, which is the first order of government (Federalist 23), serves to protect life, liberty, and property; specifically the lives of the scientists, the liberty to be heretical to established orthodoxy, and the scientific hardware that they use to advance knowledge.

    This leads to the last point: the film is dated because our quisling-enemies have changed. You can see a Soviet wanting to go to the moon or using the Hubble, but you cannot see Al-Qaida doing the same thing. Can you honestly us having a joint US- or UN-Al Qaida mission to Jupiter? Beginning with the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission, US-Russian missions are commonplace, but could we do a joint space mission that Al-Qaida or the terrorist cells?

    Maybe that is an unintended Take Home Message from the film: Know Your Enemies....more info
  • When all else fails, blow up Jupiter!
    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.
    ...more info
  • Blu-ray version
    First of all this Blu-ray is a definite upgrade over the 1998 non-anamorphic DVD version (I can't speak for the intervening 2000 version). Considering the fact that this is an old catalog title I wasn't expecting too much but for $13.99 and free (Prime) shipping it was too much of a bargain to pass up. For the most part the film has a soft look but some scenes look fairly sharp. The movie has been cramped onto a BD25 disc which I guess is okay considering the only extras are a featurette "2010: The Odyssey Continues" and the theatrical trailer. The TrueHD sound is an improvement over the old Dolby Digital 5.1 on the DVD but is only important in a few scenes like the one that involves 'air-braking' and the Jupiter explosion otherwise much of the movie is just dialog. This BD completes my Blu-ray set of the 2001 and 2010 movies so I'm satisfied for now....more info
  • Great movie, but not Blu-Ray worthy just yet.
    This is still one of my favorite movies, but aside from the crispness of the video (which to me differs very little if at all from the DVD), I was put off by the fact that there are no special features different from what was in the DVD version. In other words, all you pay for is just a barely noticeable better screen and sound quality, but absolutely nothing else. Unfortunate. Perhaps a minifeature on Galileo's odyssey as it circled Jupiter, or a retrospective look back at the opinions then and comparison with the realities of now? There is a vast untapped resource of information that could have been included. Sadly, it wasn't....more info
  • Blu-ray version picture quality is so much better than the DVD version
    I've loved this movie forever and watched it probably 2 zillion times on VHS and standard DVD. For whatever reason the "transfer" from the original film to VHS & standard DVD has been terrible -- extremely bad picture quality and not done in proper "widescreen".

    I just got the blu-ray version today and the picture quality is 10x better. You can see so much more detail on the Leonov and the Discovery. The space shots look great, too.

    The audio seems about the same as the regular DVD....more info
  • Good sequel Hal
    2010 is a good sequel to 2001. 2001 is better but the way the Russians Americans and Hal work together makes a good point. Visually 2010 is close at times but not breathtaking. 2010 has elements 2001 didnt have that make it an interesting watchable sequel....more info
  • Great movie, lousy DVD
    Buy this for the movie, not for the DVD. Wish I read the other reviews before I bought this. It is not anamorphic and the resolution is poor. Lousy video transfer. If you love cinema and were hoping for a home theatre experience like 2001, this DVD is not in that class. Again, the story is good, the DVD is awful....more info
  • hard review
    i really liked this movie, it would be impossible to compare it 2001, because they are both very different.
    with that being said the movie itself holds up, but my only complaint is that 2010 is really made for its time period, the cold war influence can be too much at times. this is actually the danger of making a film (that is not about a certain point in history) while being influenced by current events. it doesn't translate well to future generations. (kinda like using rock music in a period piece.)
    what i mean is if you wanted to make a statement about a certain era, its okay to use all the political backdrop (forrest gump used vietnam effectively), otherwise the underlying motive just seems like sneaky activism....more info
  • I think 1 star is to much.
    If you a going to buy this movie because you saw 2001(best movie ever) and want to find out about the story more. Or just want somthing that will give you the same feeling when you watched 2001. Dont buy this please dont its not good at all. And if you love 2001 like I do then just skip this it wont help out on understanding anything....more info
  • 2010 Blu-Rray is noticeably inferior to the dual layer DVD
    They really can't seem to get a digital disc release of this fine film right. I already owned two region 4 (Australia) DVD versions that had compromises, The first release (contradicting its packaging) wasn't even letterboxed - it was 4:3 fullscreen. The year 2000 release was at least a dual layer disc, but not 16:9 anamorphic - just 4:3 letterboxed.

    So I immediately pre-ordered the Blu-Ray version from Amazon expecting it to be perfect. As others have noted though, the transfer quality is truly terrible. I did an A-B comparison on my 48inch 1080i screen between the Blu-Ray loaded in its player and the dual layer letterboxed 4:3 DVD upsampled to 1080i in my Toshiba HD-DVD player. The Blu-Ray has more detail, granted, but it is far too bright and areas which should be very dark or black show instead as you would epxect from a poor quality VHS. By comparison the DVD looked vastly superior. though with a smidgen less detail.

    The only (minor) reason I have to keep the Blu-Ray is the mini-featurette on the making of the film. It's hard to imagine how Warner could allow such a poor quality Blu-Ray to be distributed - don't they have any quality control? ...more info
  • What Science-Fiction is About
    I have read 2001 and 2010 and they are both very entertaining what-if novels. However, if I had to pick one of the two film adaptations to take with me to a desert island, I would definitely choose 2010. True, it lacks the perpetual artsiness of 2001, but that does not make its direction any less insightful, or the film itself any less worthy of its source material. As was said in a previous entry, Hyam's stylistic vision is simply different than Kubrik's, and frankly, in my opinion, more interesting and less show-offy. Believe it or not, it is, in fact, possible to be a fan of the novel 2001 and to not enjoy watching the film. This isn't to say that I don't think 2001 was a very well done piece of art. But simply because I can appreciate abstract art in a museum doesn't necessarily mean I ENJOY looking at it. In contrast, the nice thing about 2010 is that through strong acting, beautiful (to this day) visual effects, and a very haunting score, it faithfully expresses the wonder that comes from the exploration and the investigation of the unknown that Clark goes to great lengths to try to convey in his novels.

    Another nice thing about 2010 is the fact that it is accessible enough so that a viewer can understand the story without having seen 2001 ahead of time. Best of all, however, is the fact that the script doesn't insult the audience's intelligence. Entertaining or not, this is a thinking man's film.

    In a sense, I regard this film as the slightly superior 1980's predecessor to the film Contact. They both strive to be technically accurate, they both employ engaging visual effects, they are both very patient, and they both employ scores as evocative as the imagery on the screen.

    In summary, 2010 is a truly excellent film and it is a mistake to criticize its and 2001's stylistic differences. ...more info
  • 2010; The Year We make contact
    Really enjoyed this one. on time and in good condition...more info
  • Pretty good Blu ray of 2010
    I thought the picture and sound quality of this Blu ray release were pretty good. The transfer is a bit grainy at times but nothing terrible. All of the space sequences looked amazing. This is a definite upgrade from any previous video release. The audio was okay but nothing exceptional. The disc is light on extras with only a short documentary and a theatrical trailer (both in standard def). For the price Amazon is selling it for, it is a bargain. While not the best transfer I have seen (certainly not as good as the restoration done for 2001) it is adequate and some scenes are actually quite beautiful....more info
  • "Will I Dream?" ~ The Ultimate Question For Both Man And Machine
    '2010: The Year We Make Contact' directed by Peter Hyams and released in '84, sixteen years after classic '2001: A Space Odysessy', is a far cry from the majestic, poetic and mystical cinematic masterpiece of Stanley Kubrick. I'd compare this film to that popular series of books that have glutted the market in recent years that are geared to making particular subject matter more accessible for the intellectually challenged. Title this film "2001 Space Odyssey for Dummies." That's not meant to insinuate that this is a bad movie, it's just a very practical, straightforward approach to trying to understand the mystery of the awe-inspiring Monolith that has stumped a generation of film fans.

    Positives: The reworking of Hall 9000 into the script and resolving the artifical intelligence programing problem that occurred during the first mission was well done. I also enjoyed the cast of characters, they were more developed and likeable than in Kubrick's film. Most of all I'm glad they didn't completely spell everything out for the viewer. The mystery of the Monolith is still left a mystery.

    Negatives: The Monolith(s) are not the awe-inspiring presence they were in the original, they're just kind of there. There's also a couple of technical issues, not a widescreen presentation and rather poor, grainy picture quality.

    My ultimate litmus test for any film is the repeatabliity factor. Is this a film I could enjoy watching over and over again. Unfortunately the answer is no....more info