2010: The Year We Make Contact

Deal Score0
Deal Score0

  • A new time, a new odyssey, a new chance to confront enigmas arising from the daring Jupiter mission of 2001. Crew members aboard the Leonov will rendezvous with the still-orbiting Discovery. And their fate will rest on the silicon shoulders of the computer they reawaken, HAL-9000. Based on Arthur C. Clarkes 2001: A Space Odyssey sequel, director Peter Hyams spellbinder nominated for 5 Academy Awar

A new time, a new odyssey, a new chance to confront enigmas arising from the daring Jupiter mission of 2001. Crew members aboard the Leonov will rendezvous with the still-orbiting Discovery. And their fate will rest on the silicon shoulders of the computer they reawaken, HAL-9000. Based on Arthur C. Clarkes 2001: A Space Odyssey sequel, director Peter Hyams spellbinder nominated for 5 Academy Awards* stars Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Oscar winner** Helen Mirren, Bob Balaban… More >>

2010: The Year We Make Contact

This site uses affiliate links and if you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a commission payment.

  1. this movie was a good movie I thought it was funny the USSR was our enemy in 2010 but this movie was made in 1980 I hope everyone is just as scared as the return of the USSR as me lol this movie made sence where 2001 made no sence you can skip 2001 and enjoy this movie if anything seeing how much 2001 sucked made me like this movie even more I just can’t give it more then 3 stars
    Rating: 3 / 5

  2. 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.

    Rating: 5 / 5

  3. Really, set aside the desire to make money, the question “why?” has got to pop into the mind of anyone even cognizant of the fact that there is a sequel to 2001. There is absolutely no reason for this film to exist. It was well crafted from a technical aspect and I respect the work of the actors and the special effects people – still. The film should not be made.
    Rating: 1 / 5

  4. It’s more straight forward, it’s more commercial, more understandable, it’s better than the first. 2001 should be considered an introduction or a prequel, it’s two hours of, well, see my 2001 review for that. But this is much better, yes you still have to think like the first one, but at least with 2010 you know what your thinking about. RS from Jaws & SeaQuest DSV fame does a great job as does John Lithgow & the Russian guy playing Max (he was in Air Force One also.) Thanks for nothing Kubrick, except this superior sequel (by Peter Hyams)
    Rating: 4 / 5

  5. ‘2010’ has something that ‘2001’ does not have; living, breathing human beings we actually care about. Roy Scheider steals the show in one of the few sequals that is actually better than the original. Forget Kubrick’s soulless, heartless, overrated film.
    Rating: 3 / 5

Leave a reply

Register New Account
Reset Password