2010: a space non-entity
April 4th 2010 06:32
2010 poster copyright see below
2010: The Year We
Make Contact.
Make Contact.
Finally, after 26 years, I decided to watch "2010: the year we amke contact", but only after my local DVD pusher convinced me it was great and well worth the ten bucks he wanted for a pristine copy. It wasn't a fair contest, I'm a hopelessly hooked sci-fi addict, but something always kept me away form 2010, not the least of which was Kubrick refusing to touch it.
Peter Hyams, of "Capricorn One" fame, the 'cow-space-boy' western "Outlander" and the infamous "End of Days" disaster, has created, comparative to "2001: A Space Odyssey", a dullard’s sequel of the futuristic and brilliant 2001. So much in it annoyed me, for instance; the abandonment of the laws of physics, that Kubrick ingeniously incorporated into 2001, for example, space being silent.
Hyams decided we will hear engine and thruster noises, in space's vacuum.... Just that one decision wrecked the rest of the experience for me, as it degraded the experience, by association with 2001, to the level of creative and technical sullege. With fifteen odd years of technical development, since the advent of 2001, one would expect a higher level of expertise and realistic effects, but it has the look of a film much older, and simpler, than 2001.
With the few instances of weightlessness, rather than suspending one's disbelief through clever techniques, one is made aware of the restricted and awkward physical movements of the actors, making them, at times, appear more like suspended sides of beef, slowly squirming on a butcher’s hook.
The opening sequences were a series of screen typed messages, intent on giving the audience an artless, and moron proof, explanation of this film's link to 2001, and as a way to introduce the current film’s premise.
If this wasn’t stupefying enough, this lazy and infuriating tactic was used throughout the film, in various ways, like messages home and so on. Clarke did have messages in his book, but, it translates badly on film, where we do not want to be told what is happening, we want to experience it first hand, allowing us, the audience, to make up our own minds as to details and motivations, thus enriching the experience intellectually. Hyams managed to eradicate any nuance of intellect from this film, which may be seen, in some circles, as an achievement in itself.
Then we come to the plot and dramatic interaction of characters. Now I get really depressed. A dated USSR USA conflict is thrown at us, just a re-take of the South American shipping embargo of the 1960s. China featured in Arthur C. Clarke's follow up novel, yet there is no reference to it in this film.
Also edited, was the male to male bi-sexual relationship onboard, and other sexual relations. The Russian crew and their American guests had a job of it, trying to make drama out of a humdrum, unscientific, unimaginative script, that, unlike the wonderful 2001: A Space Odyssey, has dated into obsolescence.
The look of the interior of the Russian ship was also really dated, small cathode ray tube screens, with their dated curved glass fronts, unlike those in 2001, which were flat (achieved by rear projection), and, well, I could go on, and on, and on, but it just isn't worth it.
The fact that Hyams not only wrote, directed and produced this general fodder Sci-Fi, but was also its cinematographer, might go some way to explain why I feel this film falls a galaxy short of its eminent predecessor. However, nothing can be said to defend the script. It is fine, if all you want is a simple space story; I do not mean this to be condescending, but, maybe less critical Trekkies and the like will enjoy it?
Maybe, if I hadn't had such high expectations, being such a huge fan of Kubrick's work and 2001 in particular, I may have felt this film deserved some more respect, but that attitude could only be possible if my IQ was the equivalent of a blow up doll. The sad truth be known, it's just a low brow, B Grade sci-fi flick, which is even devoid of the unintentional humour B Grade Sci-Fi films so often succour a disappointed an audience with. Technically, it is a pedestrian attempt.
It is an insult to the creative legacies of both Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick.
Kubrick was asked if he wanted to direct it, even Hyams asked if Kubrick minded if Hyams did it; no problem said Kubrick, he didn't want to touch it, probably because the story becomes too overt, as to the monolith's nature and its part in the creation process.
Clarke said he worried about someone making it into a film, yet, as soon as Hyams raises his hand, they both immediately agreed, or in Kubrick’s case, just didn't care. Maybe Kubrick did care, but just didn’t like the way Clarke had to spell it all out?
Such a pity! If I had been Clarke and looked over Hyams' previous work, and what technical roles (too many) he wanted to cover in the film production process, and what the budget and design was, I would definitely have said, no thank you!
But, had the current day film maker Duncan Jones (of "Moon" fame) been around, I think I would have said, definitely yes!
So, leaving the disappointing and disastrous planetary orbit of 2010, I next shall visit, the "Moon", by Duncan Jones.
IMAGE CREDIT: Official poster of film, copyright presumed that of production company and/or publisher/distributor, all rights reserved.
FAIR USE RATIONALE: Low Res copy, not good enough for and not meant for reproduction, image used only for illustrative purpose to identify the film product being reviewed and used as no other image available.
| 122 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Mountain Fog
Comment by Matt Shea
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
tanx matey.
Yes, no bigger disappointment have I experienced.
cheers
fog