2010 (1984)

Director:

Peter Hyams

Writers:

Arthur C. Clarke (novel)
Peter Hyams (screenplay)

Release Date:

7 December 1984 (USA)

Genre:

Mystery | Sci-Fi | Thriller | Adventure

Tagline:

Something wonderful is about to happen [Australia Theatrical]

Plot:

A joint American-Soviet space expedition is sent to Jupiter to learn what happened to the Discovery.

Plot Keywords:

Jupiter | Space | Computer | Monolith | 2010s

Awards:

Nominated for 5 Oscars. Another 1 win & 3 nominations

US TV Schedule:

Fri. Jan. 1

8:00 PM

TCM

Cast

Roy Scheider	...	Dr. Heywood Floyd
John Lithgow	...	Dr. Walter Curnow
Helen Mirren	...	Tanya Kirbuk
Bob Balaban	...	Dr. R. Chandra
Keir Dullea	...	Dave Bowman
Douglas Rain	...	HAL 9000 (voice)
Madolyn Smith Osborne	...	Caroline Floyd (as Madolyn Smith)
Dana Elcar	...	Dimitri Moisevitch
Taliesin Jaffe	...	Christopher Floyd
James McEachin	...	Victor Milson
Mary Jo Deschanel	...	Betty Fernandez, Bowman's Wife
Elya Baskin	...	Maxim Brajlovsky
Saveli Kramarov	...	Dr. Vladimir Rudenko (as Savely Kramarov)
Oleg Rudnik	...	Dr. Vasili Orlov
Natasha Shneider	...	Irina Yakunina

Also Known As:

2010: Odyssey Two (USA) (original script title)
2010: The Year We Make Contact (USA) (promotional title)
2010 (Finland) [fi]
2010 - Das Jahr, in dem wir Kontakt aufnehmen (West Germany) [de]
2010 - L'année du premier contact (L'odyssée continue) (France) [fr]
2010 - L'anno del contatto (Italy) [it]
2010 - To etos tis pangosmias symfiliosis (Greece) [el]
2010 - den anden rumrejse (Denmark) [da]
2010 année du premier contact (Belgium: French title) [fr]
2010, odisea dos (Spain) [es]
2010: Året då vi får kontakt (Sweden) [sv]
Avaruusseikkailu 2010 (Finland) (video title) [fi]
O Ano do Contacto (Portugal) [pt]
Svemirska odiseja 2010 (Serbia) [sr]

Runtime:

116 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English | Russian

Color:

Color (Metrocolor)

Aspect Ratio:

2.20 : 1

Sound Mix:

70 mm 6-Track (70 mm prints) | Dolby (35 mm prints)

Certification:

Argentina:13 | New Zealand:PG | Australia:PG | Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) | Canada:G (Quebec) | Finland:K-8 | France:U | Netherlands:AL | Norway:11 | Norway:12 (original rating) | Portugal:M/12 | Singapore:PG | Sweden:11 | UK:PG | USA:PG | West Germany:12 | Canada:PG (Manitoba/Ontario) | Brazil:Livre

Filming Locations:

Plains of San Augustin, Magdalena, New Mexico, USA

Company:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)

Trivia:

The blue spacesuit, a holdover from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), is missing its helmet, apparently because the producers thought that Dave used that helmet while trying to disable HAL in the original film. But Dave actually used a green helmet - part of a green spacesuit which was stowed in the emergency airlock.

Goofs:

Factual errors: During the Leonov's/Discovery's acceleration leaving Jupiter, Chandra was shown as having difficulty holding on due to the force of acceleration. In actuality, neither ship as depicted was capable of that much acceleration, and when linked and only one ship accelerating would be even less. He would have to fight anywhere from .01 to .1 gravity of force, much less than was shown.

Quotes:

[first lines]
Dave Bowman: My God! It's full of stars!

Movie Connections:

Spoofed in "Justice League: The Greatest Story Never Told (#3.7)" (2004)

Soundtrack:

ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRAI

Been there, done that, didn't need the book.

It's definitely a division maker, a film that splits it's viewers down the middle. If you're a 2001 fan then you'll hate it - the sense of mystery and discovery is lost as events and motivations are layed-out and explained every step of the way. If you didn't like 2001, wondering aloud what the heck you just saw, I suggest you do see 2010 since you'll love the directness of the workmanlike treatment.

It's not a a put-down - it's just that the styles are so completely different that you have to consider the messenger as much as the message. 2001 was visionary in nearly every sense the word has -- it threw out the concept of the narrative (visual or otherwise) in an attempt to make you reach your own, personal conclusion of what happened. Rebirth? Ascension? Some Nietche-ish evolution to a "superman"? You tell me -- 2001 expects quite a lot from the viewer that 2010 would much rather even mention.

By comparison, 2010 is very much an old-fashioned Hollywood movie. It explains *everything*, step by step, and includes a Roy Scheider voice-over to help thread the small gaps in time between scenes together. The voice over is often beyond silly - it's in the lyric of a series of emails from Heywood to his wife who, it should be noted, is fearful for her husband's safety. Any spouse sitting through a reading of the atmosphere braking technique will probably not sleep for weeks. Any husband who could write that deserves a slap for scaring the beegeezus out of her.

2010 is not a strong film - frankly, it's quite derivative. It's visual sensibilities leech directly into "Alien" while inside the spacecraft (from the control buttons and displays on the Russian craft, to the lighting of the of EVA room as Baskin and Lithgow take their walk to Discovery, to the smoky "atmosphere" in the interiors when discussing the "troubles" at home). Outside, Hyams tries and is successful in the sense of scope and grandeur of space, and out pitiful size in relation to the course of the Universe. While he apes Kubrick, probably to establish a sense of continuity between the two films, he is at his best in the action scenes as the Leanov (sp?) enters Jupiter space. Either way, you watch this movie and get the feeling you've seen it all before.

To be fair, Scheider is very good in his role of Heywood Floyd, that is if you dismiss the style of the previous occupant of that role, William Sylvester, as only a Kubrick mannequin. Again, the camps are divided -- I believe I understand the tact Kubrick chose to take, the sense of human alienation and evolutionary boredom, and while 2010 puts "real people" in space and makes the voyage to the stars more human, this wasn't the goal of Kubrick. Kubrick wanted to show man at a spiritual, cultural and evolutionary dead-end, and so human reactions (like 2001's Bowman going after HAL) only escape from people as their vestiges of civilization fail them. Different approaches, different movies. So why compare them? Well, life's just not fair, now is it?

If you really don't need to compare the two, you can enjoy 2010. It's not a bad film, it just doesn't give much credit to the intelligence of the audience. That may not be a bad thing, so long as it's entertaining (insert Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler joke here) and 2010 can be entertaining at times. So long as you dismiss 2001 as a separate work of art.

If you have the time and the patience, see 2001 twice, giving yourself a week or two to let it all set in, and then remember that not everything in the Universe has added value by being strictly described.

Actually, whenever I watch 2010, I often wonder if Bob Balaban, hanging in HAL's memory center, is really as nauseous as he appears. And to the people who believe Kubrick was egotistical for destroying his sets, he did so because of what happened after Spartacus: Once production has ceased and the company left Italy, nearly every gladiator film of the '60 were shot on his old sets, some even coming out before Spartacus did.

Stanley Kubrick and Steve Reeves? Now THAT'S the ultimate trip...