Cheap 2010 [Region 2] (DVD) (Peter Hyams) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of 2010 [Region 2]

A bold concept!
I think my first review writing on this film lost the one person who decided to respond to my short write up, feeling my write up didn't help them. After thinking this through a little further, I'm taking time to expand on this write up, as I feel my first attempt to express myself made for an ambiguous writing in need of clarification. So let's start over shall we? <
> <
>I remember the day when I sat in the theatre as a young boy and the opening for the film "2001 A Space Odyssey" appeared on the silver screen. All of us kids were not only stunned by Trumball's great and real like special effects, but by the subtle message Stanley Kubric and Arthur C. Clarke worked to deliver in that film's simple story line. The appearance of the star child in the end, suggestive of reincarnation or rebith or neverending life, was an intersting concept to give Christian dominant America back in those days. Many Christian parents didn't want their kids seeing this film because of the controvery of faith it created for stout Church attending believers back in the early 1960's. <
> <
>When you thought the film makers of 2001 couldn't say anything further, out comes 2010, with not only a great story line, but even more awesome special effects to help tell the story. <
> <
>Most people don't realize that the original 2001 story was drawn from premises found in Hindu religion as revealed in the Upanishads of India. It's clear Arthur C. Clarke was versed in these religious studies as you watch both films. The overtones of what God might really be as the formless light holding the creation inside his being; as captured in Hindu & Buddhist writings, not to mention the Christian Bible, takes on form as the Monolith in this film, a life giving force, representing the Creator; who is formless: A message that is made clear at the end of this film if you just listen to what is said at the end. Not to know this is to interpret the message in 2001 incorrectly concerning the issues of the Universe, eternity, physical life and the existence of parallel expressions of the one Universe scientists call "parallel Universes". <
> <
>From the Latin, the word "Universe" means "One Word" and you find Jesus Christ in the Bible always refering to Himself as the "One Word". In John the Apostle's writings we find the location of the Universe given in John 1:1-3, which reads from the Septuigent Greek into the English; "In the beginning was the One Word; the One Word was with God and the One Word was God". If you insert the word "Universe" for every instance of the passages where it reads the "One Word", you get the true location of the Universe and what God was talking about concerning the Tree of Life spoken about in the Garden of Eden as you read Genesis of the Bible. The passage now reads; "In the beginning was the Universe; the Universe was with God and the Universe was God". We then learn the creation is suspended inside of God made out of the pure white light stuff of God's being. <
> <
>E=MC2, which Albert Einstein discoverd via the Bible codes he was playing around with back in the 1940's actually read from God's point of view as m=E/C2. What this tells any scientist is that God created mass, i.e., planets and stars with the byproduct revealing time and space as we know it and this was done by slowing down His white light energy (E) by the speed of light squared (C2) which condensed down into gross solid matter. Scientists call this the "big bang theory", but this revelation well supports the law of the Conservations and transferance of energy in physics. The result was the revealing of time and space as you look up into the night sky making it possible for God to create a physical creation suspended inside of his being. These overtones are throughout the 2010 film, especially the message given at the end of the film. <
> <
>Man reads the equation as E=MC2, because that is the process needed to turn all energy, which has been slowed down into solid mass, back into God's pure white light stuff, the first demonstration of that being revealed with the building & detonating of the first atomic bomb. One of the fears the scientists had when detonating the first atomic bomb is that the chain reaction of energy released might go on indefinitely converting the whole planet into the pure white light you see released from the detonation. Fortunately that didn't happen, since the strength of the reaction lessened as it came in contact with the atoms of our atmosphere slowing down and limiting the chain reaction we classify as an "explostion" for lack of a better word to call it in layman's terms. <
> <
>From the Upanishads, the same revelation, hiding in the Bible, reads as follows: "Enumbete then realized 'I am indeed this creation. For I have poured it forth from myself and in that way He became the Creation. Verily, He who knows this, becomes in this creation, a creator". The Bible reveals that man is made in the "image" of God, meaning God is a creating force and as a result we see man expressing this ability in all he raises up from the ground as he creates on this earth. Even the soul takes its origins from Kabbalist teaching out of the pure white light stuff of God's being while God separated his consciousness into individual consciousnesses called souls. In short, you are not a body with a soul upon knowing this, but a soul having been given a body in order to take presence on the earth and participate in it. Knowing all of this makes it easier to understand what the monolithe is in both films and the purpose it serves in its appearance in both films. <
> <
>You also find the same revelation given in Jewish Kabbalist teaching. In fact, an excellent book I purchased off of Amazon earlier this year, written by Rabbi Moshe Hayim Luzzato; entitled "The Kabbalah of the Ari Z'al", starts with the first chapter of his book assuming that the reader/student already knows this absolute truth about the Universe. Not to know it is to get lost with even the first chapter of his book, which would then appear abstract to the more earthly minded who might not know this simple basic absolute truth of how the Creation was done. God certainly didn't make everything out of nothing. That doesn't make any sense to any reasonable thinking person, espeically if you can see by God's laws, even with the help of Man's science that God is a logical thinking God, perfect in all His thinking and expression in working with the Creation. However, God did have plenty to draw from out of His own being, when He became the Creation itself suspended as the Tree of Life inside of Him, if you can even use gender to qualify God at this point of understanding. Knowing this also makes is easy to read and understand the deeper revelations of the Holy Bible, if you are a Christian believer who is well beyond fundamentalism in your studies. <
> <
>While 2010 does not have the esoteric ambiance felt in 2001 with its final revelation discourse, this is still a well done story, following along the lines of the spiritual premise revealed in 2001 concerning the story; with excellent acting and great special effects helping the new story along. <
> <
>This is really great for the whole family and a must see in my book. No real violence to speak of in this film; just good character development, balanced with good action working to reveal a mystery in the end. It will give you pause to think of the Universe in a way you never thought of before just watching both films and it helps to know the things I know about the religions of the world along with man's science if you really want to understand the message being given in both of these films. <
>

---

Decent but Clunky Move with No Sense of Wonder
First off, the original movie 2001 is in a league of it's own, and few movies can or will ever acheive it's lofty heights. <
> <
>Having said that, 2010 is a decent movie in the vein of "Alien" or a standard Star Trek movie, but it comes off as very 'clunky' and does nothing to stir our imagination. One reviewer said it plays like a TV-movie, and they're absolutely right. Something about it just seems "off", with abrupt scene cuts, scenes that go nowhere and just end, and absolutely no sense of wonderment or excitement. <
> <
>The editing is infuriating too. We're jarringly thrown from one scene to another with absolutely no attempt at a smooth transition. One example that dove me nuts - they'll show the monolith floating by Jupiter with the great music playing, then cut to inside the ship with no music, then back outside with music, then inside with no music, etc. Talk about clunky - it gets pretty damn annoying after a while. <
> <
>The narration by Roy Schieder makes you think you're watching "SeaQuest" and is a bit of overkill as this movie just has to explain EVERYTHING. This movie tells you exactly what's happening before, during and after it has happened, which dilutes any or all excitement. You can definitely check your brain at the door for this one, because it doesn't require you to think about anything - it's all table-spoon fed to you constantly during the film, and that becomes annoying as well. <
> <
>And there is absolutely no sense of awe or wonder in this film. I do think it's a good Arthur Clarke story, and his stories usually end with Man or another race ascending to a higher plane of existence, and the ending here is similarly along that vein. <
> <
>It was nice, however, to see Keir Dullea and hear Hal again and to re-visit some of those sets. <
> <
>Another nitpick - they got the read-out screens wrong in the Discovery. In the scene in the pilot's chair of the Discovery, when they show Hal's eye flanked by the screens, you can see that they used simple CRT screens instead of the flat screens used in 2001. Because there is so much glare on the CRTs, the read-outs don't pop out brightly like they did in the first film. Again, everything just seeme a little 'off' in this film. And the awesome Centrifuge set is nowhere to be seen. <
> <
>All in all, it's a decent, clunky, un-exciting journey, worth a look or two but destined to collect dust in your DVD collection. By contrast, how many times have you seen 2001? <
> <
>

---

A Sci-Fi Classic That Deserves More Respect Than It's Gotten
True, this movie could never compare to Kubrick's "2001," but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Perhaps it's because I was in high school when "2010" came out, but I relate a lot more to the sequel than the original, which I think could have shed the beginning and final acts and still been a coherent movie. <
> <
>As a stand-alone movie, it's one of the more thoughtful sci-fi films I've ever seen, and the performances are quite good, especially Dame Helen Mirren and John Lithgow. And the vidual effects...Richard Edlund does a sublime job of following in Douglas Trumbull's footsteps. <
> <
>The only fault I found with the film, and this is mainly in retrospect, is Peter Hyams' choice to have the US and Russia at loggerheads, considering that no such conflict existed in either the books of "2001" and "2010," nor in the film version of "2001." It dates the film somewhat, but it's still a good movie. <
> <
>Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the transfer. "2010" has never had a decent transfer to video, and the DVD version is about as bad as it gets. Surely a better print exists of this film, and while the sound doesn't have the same "shuddering" quality the earliest VHS release had, it's still sub-par. <
> <
>Hopefully either Warner or MGM will remaster this film for HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray.