2010

Arrived early and very well packaged. Thank you to the seller!Have wanted this movie for many years.Not disappointed.Great movie.Great seller.Highly recommend this.

Saw this a few years back and as it was a follow on from 2001 I was very interested. It is a different kind of movie from 2001 hasn’t a patch on it for its time but a good enough follow up of the story. I have read the 2001 book, the 2010 book, the 3001 book and others including The Lost Worlds of 2001, all very good books but 2001 was the one that really captured my attention and imagination. The sets, the scenery and graphics are out of this world. The first we see USS Discovery in 2001 for its mission to Jupiter and after Commander Bowman leaves the ship it’s the last we see of the ship until we see it again in 2010 in its tumbling end over end orbit, now completely covered with yellow dust from Io, it’s an amazing scene.! Awe inspiring, we can rely on the continual story of 2001, its actors and props, in my opinion it’s what gives the 2010 story and we see the outcome of the whole story, great imagination. The actors and acting in 2010 are not as crisp and pristine in 2010 but the sets and graphics and the characters make up for that; Roy Schneider was much better in Jaws but he does okay. Still a good movie but not a patch on the first one, 2001.Thanks for reading.🙂

great thanks

Can't really understand the favourable reviews of this very so-so film. OK, so nothing can out-Kubrick Kubrick, but even as a Kubrick tribute film, this fails at so many different levels.

I purchased this movie, because I purchased the one before it, 2001 a space odyssey. Both movies are masterpieces.

Well, where to begin? I should point out that I am an ardent fan of Arthur C Clarke's novels, from the first time I read "A Fall of Moondust" and the soon/never-to-be-made-movie "Rendezvous with Rama" and all point between. But I am also a huge fan of Kubrick. And this duality leaves me conflicted over this movie.Let me point out that I won't give a synopsis or any plot spoilers: you can read the summary and other reviews for that information. Instead I'll confine myself to the merits of this movie, my likes and dislikes.As a straight telling of an Clarke novel, it has much to commend it. The dialogue has that familiar ring that I know from his novels, and this movie's pedantry around the science (the air-braking scene; the "La Grange Point" between Jupiter and Io, where Discovery is "parked"; the scene where the astronaut's weight increases as they move closer to the extremities of a tumbling Discovery) belies a desire to stay true to the novel. If you are truly a fan of Clarke's novels, I think you'll find this movie highly satisfying.If only because it is the only true Clarke novel ever to make it to film.However, therein lies the problem: this movie would never had been made if it were not for "2001: A Space Odyssey". And yet, if "2001" was just another Clarke novel, I'm guessing that too would never have been made a movie. After all, why had none of Clarke's outstanding canon of work ever made it to the screen? Even today, with the credentials of "2001" and the stellar backing of no less than Morgan Freeman, Clarke's outstanding "Rendezvous with Rama" has yet to make it to the big screen, with "script" problems being cited as the major stumbling block.The truth is that in reality, "2001" must really be considered not a book, but a movie script commissioned by Kubrick, who ever true to his perfectionist calling, drew upon the talents of Clarke to help him faithfully craft an epic saga that held true to science, but yet crafted a tale with a grand vision that poses huge existential questions.Thus, "2010" lies uncomfortably between two shores. On the one hand, one has the ardent Clarke fans, like me, who are simply hungry to see first class science fiction brought to the screen. Such people should, ostensibly, be happy with a competent rendition of a Clarke story. Indeed, Roy Scheider is not embarrassing and even manages at time to channel his erstwhile predecessor in the original movie, matching his pedantry in speech (although that could simply be a function of Clarke's writing). John Lithgow and co (including a relatively youthful Helen Mirram) also put in the creditable, committed performances that will mark them out as future acting giants. The use of model-based animation of the "2001"-to-"Star Wars: A New Hope" generation are very well presented here, although some fledgling CGI, used to represent the climactic events on Jupiter work far less well. For these reasons, this is a movie I enjoy even today.However, it lies in the shadow of its giant older sibling, and here is where the divide is made plain. Whereas "2010" is pure Clarke, "2001" is pure Kubrick, with only the bare mechanics of Clarke's writing used t support it. Having seen both movies, all of Kubrick's, and read all of Clarke's books, I can truly understand how painful a process this must have been for Clarke. "2001" is a masterpiece of art, whereas "2010" is merely a really good science fiction story.Kubrick had a higher purpose in mind for his work, an existential examination of man's place in the universe. To tell this story, he naturally wanted the authenticity of one of the three greatest Sci-Fi minds of the time (Asimov and Heinlein being the other two). But it is clear, from the lack of dialogue and narrative in the movie, that he didn't want their style. For Clarke to have been involved in such an endeavour, and cede so much ground to Kubrick must have been tortuous. Clarke would have loved to have fully described the Sentinel, the Star Gate, and other matters. Not that Clarke was a compulsive "plot spoiler": "Rendezvous with Rama" provides adequate evidence of his ability to leave his audience high and dry on explanations, if only to reflect the all-to-often reality that discovery does not necessarily lead immediately to complete understanding.The upshot of this all is that "2010" talks a completely different language from "2001". For that reason, I can understand "2001" fans being grievously disappointed by this movie: sure, the special effects are great and the story continuity makes sense, but the fans who were drawn to the eerie and timeless sounds of Ligeti's score (so well chosen by Kubrick), the presentation of synchronised space flight as ballet, the ascetic vision and the daring use of avant garde visual art techniques to depict flight through the star gate, will be disappointed by the relatively pedestrian vision displayed here. This is only compounded by the relatively conventional photography, action-movie editing and more matter of fact scripting and sometimes amateurish editing. Even the incidental music let's things down, with its stock "single guy on a synthesiser" vibe which does not even bear comparison with the genius of Ligeti.Even worse is that for the "conventional" mainstream Sci-Fi fan, there is little here: no aliens, no action and little suspense. True, the scenes above Io are tense, but not nearly tripping the action Richter-scale for "normal" mainstream movies of the "Alien" or "Predator" ilk.The result is something that is neither fish nor fowl. For those non-Sci Fi people, entranced by the vision of "2001", seeking some further enlightenment, this movie may seem simplistic, pedestrian and a "junior college brass band" end to symphony of rare and profound beauty. For the average Joe Sci-Fi (read "Space Adventure" fan), there is simply not enough to hold the attention.But of course, to a true fan of Clarke's work, this is finally a chance to see one of his works as he might have wanted it to be produced. I like this movie. I really do. But to be frank, and despite how much I hate myself for saying this, it helps me understand why so many other of his great works have never made it to the screen.

I first watched this movie in the cinema in 1984. It was a visually spectacular film and a satisfying epilogue to 2001's enigmatic offering. It explained much that was left unsaid in 2001 without devaluing the original and to my mind it's important that the two exist together.Time however is a cruel mistress and 2010's grand vistas of the Jovian system do not have the same power in the DVD version. This is a film that really shined on the big screen and the DVD format cannot replicate that. In particular the space walk to the Discovery induced a vertigo in the cinema that can never be as effective on the smaller screen. But the biggest issue here by far is the poor, poor conversion to disc. There is grain and motion blur aplenty and at times the quality of the conversion of the film is unarguably dreadful. The sound quality suffers an equally poor fate. Surely this could have been done better. Particularly for a film that is intended to highlight the visual grandeur of our solar system. It is frankly a shocking transfer, that sadly leaves the viewer unable to appreciate how impressive the film originally was. The fact that the older film 2001 has been preserved so much better speaks volumes.The film itself is almost an Appendix to 2001 as much effort is made to inform in almost every aspect of events of the original. At times this is carried a little too far in the dialogue, some of which stands out clearly as being included purely for the benefit of the viewer. Sometimes it's nice to be left something to figure out for ourselves.This aside it is still a hugely satisfying work of art. It's a progression rather than an adventure, but that is as it should be. The pace may have been increased from 2001's immuable waltz, but the film never allows itself to get carried away on a wave of dramatic frivolousness. There is attention to detail here, the sulphurous footprints in the pod bay left from the initial entry to the Discovery are a nice reminder of the temporary nature of vertical orientation in space, and the acknowledgement of both centrifugal gravity and weightless areas within the Leonov are dealt with superbly well in several scenes. Notably Floyds family photo in the aero-braking scene and again Floyd flicking away a pen whilst suggesting a departure scenario to Helen Mirran. These are subtle references that fit the scenes so well, that whilst highlighting the nature of space flight they never detract from the scenes by bludgeoning the viewer with the physics of life in space.It also has to be said that 2010 is a film of it's time and I don't mean a film of 2010. It is dated by a number of huge flags that scream 1984. Clearly none of us in 1984 anticipated the flat screen monitor, Dr Chandlers behemoth, in his office on Earth, is an astounding CRT brute!And the computer graphics used are a dead give away as to the era in which this was filmed. Computer screens display the most wonderful blocky images in an early PC limited colour palette. This is however entirely acceptable. In 1984 this sort of this was hugely impressive in itself and such computer generated wire-frame marvels were viewed as being so advanced that it was perfectly futuristic enough. Today the fact that the idea seems naive shows how fast computer development has exceeded our expectations. Which is in itself startling when compared to how badly we have failed to fulfil both 2001 and 2010's aspirations for space flight.The other obvious marker in time that can not be ignored is the heavy plot intervention of East, West relations. In 2010 Russia and the USA are at a de-facto state of War, it's an idea that in 2010 now, our capitalist, corporate run global infrastructure would never allow. It's an out of place stark reminder that in 1984 the world was a very different place indeed. Arthur C.Clarke saw fit to play upon the tensions of the time perhaps as a cursory warning. It's a useful plot device, which has the side effect of firmly dating the film to that era.All in all, this is an accomplished film that sits well with 2001 despite being from a very different stable, in itself that is no mean feat and it can well stand alone if needs be, whilst it is best viewed in context with 2001. Ultimately the poor transition from Celluloid to digital format is it's biggest flaw. The visuals may not be as important as they are in 2001, but they are nonetheless as informative as the dialogue and for that reason they deserve more care than has been provided in this DVD version.

Good clear quality

Bought it for my husband and he loves it!

You may have to watch this movies more than once, along with 2010, starring Roy Scheider, to really understand what the movie maker is trying to say.

En français audio et sous titre françaisBr de bonnes qualitésFilm excellent

es una opción si quieres la mejor calidad en la que se haya tenido esta película, si eres fan no te puede faltar la versión blueray

なにせ天才キューブリックの続編だから評価が低くて当たり前。しかしロイ.シャイダー、オタクなので問題なし。