|
In the world of unnecessary sequels "2010: The Year
We Make Contact" ranks among the best out there. Stanley
Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" probably didn't need a
sequel with its unusual visually stunning ending. Although
a bit dated (the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more AND
we live in the future so-to-speak) "2010" is a terrific
and very different film from Kubrick's. Writer-director
Peter Hyams takes the smart tactic--he took elements of
the original film and made it into an science fiction adventure
film that's thrilling where the original was glacial and
fascinating. ***
The U.S. and Russians are at loggerheads in South America
where war is threatening to break out. When a Russian scientist
(Dana)approaches Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) who was
behind the original mission to Jupiter offering to let them
be passengers. Discovery II is being built but won't be
done in time before Discovery crashes into the surface of
Jupiter, Europa or Io. Floyd arranges for two other Americans
to accompany him on the mission to discover what the nature
of the Monolith is; Dr. Candra (Bob Balaban) who designed
HAL and Discovery designer Dr. Curnow (John Lithgow) to
travel on Russian Commander Kirbuk’s (Helen Mirren) mission.
Tensions mount as a nuclear war between the superpowers
threatens to disrupt their detent in space. The bigger question
always looms—what happened to Bowman and Discovery and what
type of wrold will Floyd and his crewmates return to? It
is a bit of a trick making a sequel to a seminal film much
less one that found itself at critical ground zero when
it came to interpretation and controversy. Stanley Kubrick
may not have made films that made the top 10 in terms of
box office gross during his life time but there’s no doubt
he’s one of the most important figures in post-WWII cinema.
His esoteric taste, unusual approach to film and maverick
sensibilities (there was a distinctive European influence
in his later films which isn’t a surprise given the New
York born Kubrick’s decision to relocate to England)meant
that whenever he touched a new genre (and he loved to genre
hop) he either revolutionized or polarized critics/audiences
(often doing both at the same time). ***
Peter Hyams (“Capricorn One”, “Outland”) was more of
a pulp filmmaker when compared to Kubrick’s literary and
arty sensibility—that’s not an insult it just comes down
to different priorities when making a film. Hyams wanted
to tell an entertaining story first coming from the old
school tradition. He liked telling entertaining stories
that were popular with the audience. A less likely partner
for Kubrick could be imagined but he was for all intents
and purposes Kubrick’s partner in making “2010” as much
as he was author Arthur C. Clarke’s (who wrote “2001” and
the story that inspired it). In making a sequel to “2001”
Hyams was in constant contact with Kubrick about the technical
elements of the story, consulting him so that it would dovetail
nicely as a sequel to a film that really didn’t need one
and the one film LEAST likely to have a sequel. Clarke was
fascinated though by the story that he and Kubrick had set
up and HE wanted to pursue a sequel being the scientist
of the two he wanted something of a rationale explanation
for what happened involving the evolution of humanity and
the birth of the Star child in “2001”. ***
Hyams does a brilliant job of recreating Kubrick’s world
and updating it; almost all the blueprints, designs and
models for “2001” were destroyed after production was completed
or lost. Hyams and his production crew had to recreate it
all based on Kubrick’s memory (and others such as visual
effects wizard Douglas Trumbull). While it’s more of an
adventure story and, hence, more literal than “2001”, “2010”
STILL manages to transcend most sequels by being a DIFFERENT
type of film and experience. The screenplay that Hyams wrote
with the late Arthur C. Clarke (then did it over an early
version of the Internet with Clarke staying in Sri Lanka)
may answers most of the questions it raises but to Hyams
and Clarke’s credit leaves a great many of them vague. “2010”
isn’t a great film but it is greatly entertaining and is
a very good mainstream movie to a film that came from a
time when films could be both arty AND mainstream. Hyams
focuses his attention on the craft of storytelling, character
and the narrative at hand creating a number of stunning
set pieces (including a vertigo inducing spacewalk from
the Russian ship to the Discovery which is spinning out
of control). Keir Duella looks amazingly youthful in his
cameo as Bowman and while make up has something to do with
that, keep in mind that a decade and a half passed between
the first film and this one. ---
Image & Sound:
“2010” improves on the original DVD release from about
8 years ago but that difference can’t be measured in light
years. Colors and flesh tones are brighter and more accurate.
Detail is sharper and this benefits the impressive visual
effects sequences in the film the most. However, the film
IS 25 years old and that means this is never going to look
quite as vivid or sharp as a brand-spanking new movie. Luckily,
“2010” looks like a FILM and hasn’t been over processed.
There’s plenty of detail but the original film was always
grainy and remains so here luckily none of the actors look
like plasticine or wax figures an issue that dogged “Patton”
and New Line’s transfer of “Dark City”. On the whole the
film looks good but it isn’t a huge step up from the DVD
except in the visual effects sequences. Contrast is higher
here as well which contributes to the effect of the film
as being “better” but, really, that’s a façade as the film
just looks brighter. While that does allow more detail to
be seen it does bring up a question—how dark did Hyams want
the film to look? ***
Audio sounds extremely good with a nice True HD presentation.
The score and the subtle sound effects benefit the most
and the soundstage is wider here as well. ---
|
