2010 (in Hollywood Movies) 2010 (1984) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream 2010 on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: In this sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, a joint American- Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to discover what went wrong with the U.S.S. Discovery against a backdrop of growing global tensions. Among the mysteries the expedition must explain are the appearance of a huge black monolith in… Runtime: 116 min Release Date: 07 Dec 1984
It's a different film than 2001 but I still liked it better. (by atosennim)
I'm amazed that none of the comments I read bothered to pick up on the religious significance in the film. To me it seemed rather obvious and it is one of the reasons I liked the film so much. I'm surprised the Christians weren't outside protesting it -- the second coming of the "sun". That alone was worth the price of admission for me. The second thing was the dialog between Bob Balaban and HAL near the climax of the film. For me it was the most touching dialog EVER between a man and a machine. Hands down. It brings tears to my eyes. As mentioned in another comment the <more>
dialog between Scheider and Dullea is also great. I realize the film looks dated now as do a lot of films due to technology. But the acting I felt was topnotch. Look who's in it -- Mirren, Lithgow, Balaban and Schieder. Great actors. Also the script was very good and I thought inventive especially the religious idea. The reasons mentioned above put the movie in a separate class to me. If people haven't seen it I always tell them it's one of my favorite films.
2007 Now???.........2010 Still Holds It's Own!!! (by Nubian-3)
I've read other comments on this sequel to 2001.Some pass it off as outdated,acting not up to par,comparing Hyams with Kubrick,disappointment with this version explaining narratively our ride to Jupiter.I consider nit picking criticism like that pure rubbish.This film does have a modern day look to it as I am writing this in 2007,in spite of it being released some 23 years ago.The visual effects are still outstanding as well as the sound.Back in 1984 surround sound was in it's infancy,only some 7 years old maybe?I think director Peter Hyams' telling of this extraordinary story is <more>
marvelous.Stanley Kubrick was at the helms on 2001.Did it his way,why compare the styles?They both did fantastic jobs.2010 carries us further on into the mystery of the Monolith.We were left with all sorts of questions in 2001.This film gives us both an enlightening and spiritual insight to the real nature of the black puzzling object.I love this movie.
A superb sequel truly befitting of the classic original. (by TheRichardT)
Director Peter Hyams has constructed the perfect sequel. In the original 2001, director Stanley Kubrick wanted to have the "Star Child" detonate the nuclear warheads circling the earth, but felt that this would be to close to his previously released "Dr. Strangelove". In this case Hyams along with astronomer/oceanographer/writer Arthur C. Clarke have closed the circle on so many questions.Clarke makes a cameo in the scene in front of the White House; which is cropped out in the "formated for TV" version. Superb music, sets, cast, crew and story come together to <more>
form an intellectual achievment. While not as purposefully mysterious as the original, it brings Clarke's message of hope the film came out in 1984, very much in keeping with his superb book: "1984: A choice of Futures".An ensemble cast including many superb Russian actors; Dana Eclar may be excused for his accent, since his screen appearance more than makes up for it! . As well as Keir Dullea Dave Bowman and Douglas Rains voice of HAL rekindling their parts.And the one scene with Bob Balaban trying to calm HAL's concerns as he knows that they are abandoning HAL to almost certain destruction. The spirit of "ahimsa" non-violence is Clarke gently talking to us once again when HAL says: "I'm afraid." 10 stars at least
When I saw 2001, I thought how brilliant a piece of film it turned out to be. Many people could not understand the meaning of the Monolith, but its meaning became clear in this sequal 2010. The acting is first rate throughout, with superb casting and Roy Scheider in one of his best films since Jaws.The atmosphere generated by both films more so, this one is down to the excellent writing behind them. Arthur C.Clarke had a vision of a future and although he admits being 100 years out talking today there will be a time when computers like the HAL 9000 and expeditions into space take place <more>
just like in the films.I only hope that sometime in the future, the two novels 2060 and 3001 will make it from paper to film.I recommend this film to anyone, it is enjoyable for all the family.
One of the most underrated science fiction movie ever. (by mascalzonelatino)
This is the sequel of a masterpiece, 2001. So it has to be a mess, right? Wrong.Yes, the novel by Arthur C. Clarke on which the film is based is even better, but you know, something has to be rewritten to accommodate the Hollywood industry, focused on bigger audiences.But this is one of the very few sci-fi movies where pure astronomy and aeronautics are at the center of the scene, and not something ridiculously ugly and pathetic came from another world only to be owned by our heroes.It's made for two reasons: try to explain what the hell happened in 2001 and what the monoliths are made <more>
for, giving a damn good finale to the whole story.
Great movie, shouldn't be compared to 2001 (by rlaine)
This has for years been one of my go-to movies when I feel like I could detach from earth for a few hours. Kind of a guilty pleasure, altho there's nothing to be a shamed of really. This movie - while a bit dated - is a solid and an atmospheric experience from the beginning to the end.I liked 2001 also, I watch it maybe once every five years. 2010 I watch maybe every other year, so it does not hold any surprises, but I like the feel of it. While 2001 is somewhat heavy and artistic, 2010 is lighter and more accessible. Still, it's not a dumbed down Hollywood blockbuster, but rather <more>
quite an intelligent movie. In 2001 I still find different ways to interpret it, it holds time and renews itself, keeping a certain distance. 2010 is like your parents house, it never changes, you always feel like coming home.I didn't see 2010 in the theaters, I was around 10 when this came out, but I saw it later in the 80s as a rental. Back then it was a spectacular sci-fi movie. Now it has a certain nostalgia factor to it. If I now saw it for the first time, I'm not sure if it would stick with me as well as it does now.I've owned this on VHS, DVD and most recently on bluray. I have to admit I would rather probably watch it from VHS or DVD since bluray isn't very forgiving when it comes to fx shots. You can see a few times that the colors don't quite match. Despite of this I'd say the fx are pretty much on par with other sci-fi movies of that era. Most of them are flawless.All in all this was the time Hyams was on a roll. Outland is great movie and the sets here clearly utilize his experience gained with Outland. Altho not quite as industrial, but the lighting is dim and very atmospheric. Hyams is one of those directors that I'm waiting to make one more great movie. But like many of his contemporaries, he has fallen into a pit of low budgets and box office failures. Most notorious probably being the Sound of Thunder that looked very much unfinished.Acting is pretty good. Lithgow especially. Nothing spectacular, but solid show. The synth soundtrack is quite original.
I looked this film up before renting it since I had never seen it. The comments I saw for a review saying it was boring as the original first one and ..."uninvolving"? This movie blew me away, I really thought it was great. This is NOT an action movie and for that matter neither was "2001". If you're looking for a fast paced and, well.. shallow movie this isn't that either. You thinkers, this movie is for you. The acting is wonderful and special effects are very convincing and not diverting. The story is very interesting although it certainly dates it more than <more>
special effects. I can probably name about 120 sci-fi movies that aren't as enjoyable to me as 2010 and most of those are still more than worth seeing. Not only worth seeing but for genre fans it is worth owning on DVD.
Of course it comes nowhere close to the brilliance of "2001: A Space Odyssey", but I don't think that ever was the makers intension. I believe that "2010" was made to tie up the loose ends and answer some of the questions that "2001: A Space Odyssey" left.While "2001: A Space Odyssey" was more a visual movie, "2010" actually has many dialog but that doesn't mean that the movie isn't visually spectacular. The sets look beautiful and the special effects also have improved a lot. The story is easier to follow and therefor the movie is <more>
more better to watch for a wider range of people then "2001: A space Odyssey" was. And I even think that this movie is pleasant to watch even if you haven't seen "2001: A Space Odyssey". luckily HAL is still scary even though his role is smaller in this one. And the space walk is actually still one of my favorite moments in cinema history!The performances by the actors are good, and the tension and relation between the Americans and Russians is done very well.Although not as brilliant, easier to watch as "2001: A Space Odyssey"8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Excellent sci-fi... give it a chance! (by pranakhan)
This is an excellent SCIENCE-fiction film. It carries on the story introduced in Kubrick's "2001", and ties up many loose ends and clarifies what happened in the first film. The effects are excellent even by today's standards, the acting is believable, the characters are well-developed, its pacing is tight, and its plot is well-executed. Finally, this is TRUE science-fiction, not space-opera, and I wish more movies were like this. I hope someone worthy picks up the remaining 2 Clarke novels for the screen.Now:1. To everyone saying this is a weak film because it doesn't <more>
match the depth, mystery, and style of Kubrick's 2001: You guys need to open your minds a bit! It's ridiculously unfair to measure this sequel, or any film, against 2001. It is, frankly, impossible for ANYONE to produce a film that matches Kubrick's style unless that someone *IS* Kubrick himself! 2010 was not produced to COMPETE with 2001 at all, the director stated that he never would have produced this film without Kubrick's and Clarke's BLESSING. I'm sure the director deliberately avoided copying any of the style of 2001 at the risk of failing miserably and upsetting his own idol. Kubrick told the director to make this movie his own, thus the director did! If you go cynically comparing all sci-fi films to rare masterpieces you will only end up ruining your own chance of enjoying them for their own merits. It's like saying all music is of dubious value because it wasn't composed by Beethoven! You're only hurting and embarrassing yourself.2. A number of reviewers felt that the monitors on the ships actual CRTs built into the sets look cheesy due to their pixellated graphics and curved faces. Well, you guys are assuming that Kubrick's film has flat panels because of some scientific rationale about the future. Did you think that maybe Kubrick didn't use CRTs on his sets was because they did not have color CRTs available in 1968 that were small or cheap enough to build into his sets? All his screens were flat because they used slide projectors to flash static images against the back of semi-transparent screens. Most images were hand drawn to resemble possible computer generated images. The original 2001 scene of the videophone was created by projecting a reel of film against the back of a screen. In 1984, the computer industry was just starting to explode, and color-CRT displays as small as 12" were readily available! When those set designers sat down to think about what the ship of the future would look like, they rationalized that they would be full of CRT displays in 2010, which was only 27 years in the ACTUAL future! How could they know we'd have low cost high resolution LCD flat-screens after only 17 years? You limit your enjoyment by over-intellectualizing everything with a cynical attitude. Of course the graphics were blocky! They were rendered by REAL computers, not hand drawn by artists. I'm sure in 1984 they felt that was a great idea and a nod towards future possibilities! 3. Many people criticize the heavy amount of dialog in 2010 contrasted to the lack of dialog in 2001. Again, we're falling back on the "not Kubrick" style issue. Regardless, you do realize that the BOOK for 2001 was FULL of dialog, right? You DID realize that 2001 is not JUST a film, it has a companion novel several hundred pages long? Since it's a story developed by TWO people, and not just Kubrick, perhaps the lack of dialog is only one director's idea at visualizing the novel and not integral to the STORY itself? 4. Some have heavily criticized the scientific components of 2010, stating that Kubrick had NASA consultants available when he made his film, and that 2010 is weak in this area... Well, I'm wondering why you assume that it wasn't the same case for 2010? Do you have some kind of special insider info about the making of 2010? Because, I believe that there are numerous production notes readily available clearly stating that the director of 2010 was careful in this regard and had many scientific consultants involved in the production of 2010. There is a whole book containing copies of emails between the director of 2010 and Clarke! I remember reading that even Carl Sagan had input into 2010! Oh yeah, lets not forget that Clarke makes a brief cameo in the film, and that both Clarke and Kubrick appear on a magazine cover in the film? If that's not an official endorsement of the film's authenticity and canon, then I am sorely mistaken.I'm just getting tired of these seemingly angry, cynical, ego-maniacally tedious reviewers bashing the merits of decent films. These people often assume they're brilliant enough to understand what Kubrik or any filmmaker was thinking. Dude, you're not Kubrick, you're not a genius artist, you don't even make films! Cynical attitudes are self-destructive, intelligent people are by nature open-minded, and analyze things on their own merits and faults instead of holding everything against rare artistic standards from previous works. The merits or faults of any work are entirely subjective. Many people rate 2001 as one of the greatest movies ever only because all the smart-sounding people do. How many call 2001 a "masterpeice" because they truly, emotionally, and intellectually appreciate the work itself, or simply because it's Kubrick's? How many of you can even honestly answer that question without lying to yourselves? For the rest of you... if you are open-minded, and consider 2010 for what it is: a DIFFERENT director's take on telling a story from a DIFFERENT book, produced in a DIFFERENT era, then you will enjoy this movie, appreciating that it stands on it's own as one of the top science-fiction films made. And I bet you really enjoy yourselves when you watch movies too, even if they have some flaws.Good for you!