2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT - DVD review

Sir, you are no "2001." Well, what is? "2010: The Year We Make Contact," based on the book by Arthur C. Clarke, is a respectable attempt to follow up on the spectacular success of Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." As it stands, director Peter Hyams created in "2010" a good, well-made, tightly-knit, nicely-acted science-fiction sequel, yet one that clearly lacks the vision and scope of its illustrious predecessor. Be that as it may, however, "2010" may be a more appealing proposition for some viewers. The newer film's more conventional plot, its greater reliance on human character relationships, and its more matter-of-fact explanations for otherworldly phenomena might make it more accessible than "2001," which relied almost exclusively on images and sound to sustain its ideas. Looked at another way, "2010" is a good piece of entertainment, while "2001" is a persuasive work of art.

"2010" begins nine years after the spaceship U.S.S. Discovery was abandoned near the planet Jupiter, its crew mysteriously dead or gone; and with yet another giant, black monolith standing ominously nearby. The Americans and the Russians, ever at odds with one another, nevertheless agree on a joint mission to investigate the situation, with three Americans going along on a Russian spacecraft. Their explorations again reveal the presence of higher intelligences guiding Mankind's destiny and even restructuring our universe.

Three familiar characters return to the film: Dr. Heywood Floyd, this time played by Roy Scheider, who becomes the main character in the drama and is given a more well-rounded personality than before; Dave Bowman, reprised by Keir Dullea; and the HAL 9000 computer, once more personified by the familiar voice of Douglas Rain. In addition, the cast includes several other fine actors: John Lithgow as an astronaut-engineer with a fear of heights; Helen Mirren as the captain of the Russian team; and Bob Balaban as HAL's creator. They make a convincing unit, and together with some stunningly beautiful special effects create an absorbing story. Of course, those introductory strains from Richard Strauss's "Also Sprach Zarathustra" still open and close the film.

Video:
The DVD picture quality is excellent, as we would expect. I had noticed a few instances of line flutter in "2001," but such distractions are almost completely absent from "2010." The nearly 2.40:1 widescreen ratio allows one to see the picture as it was shown in theaters, a pleasure for me after being forced to live with the truncated, pan-and-scan video tape for the last dozen years.

Audio:
The original Dolby Stereo has been remixed in Dolby Digital 5.1 and makes reasonably effective use of the rear speakers. Separation is good in front and front-to-rear distinctions, although it is obviously limited in left-to-right rear channel differences. Deep bass is prodigious; if you have a subwoofer, I pity your neighbors.

Extras:
To complete the package, MGM offer a ten-minute featurette on the making of the film, with interviews with the writer, director, and stars, but little else on the disc itself, not even a theatrical trailer. They put an eight-page booklet with production and trivia notes in the box. It is a little disappointing to see that cost factors are affecting even so stalwart a company as MGM. Remember, they used to offer both a standard and a widescreen format on almost every disc.

Parting Thoughts:
Watch for a couple of cameos by novelist Arthur C. Clarke. He first appears sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons in front of the White House, and again as a face on the cover of "Time" magazine, presumably the face of the President. He seems to have had a good time with the project, and I think viewers will have a good time, too, if they understand beforehand that "2010" is a more traditional, straightforward science-fiction story than "2001." I'm sure the promotional people at MGM feel it's mandatory for every buyer of "2001" to also purchase "2010." And I see no reason why viewers can't enjoy both, providing, as I've said, they go into it with the knowledge that the two films are very different in style and content--one a preeminent classic, its successor merely a competent follow-up.