Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site fluke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!moriarty From: moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) Newsgroups: net.movies,net.sf-lovers Subject: 2010 review (non-spoiler/spoiler sectioned) Message-ID: <129@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 16:08:46 EST Article-I.D.: vax2.129 Posted: Mon Dec 10 16:08:46 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 06:07:46 EST Distribution: net Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Lines: 142 Xref: watmath net.movies:5184 net.sf-lovers:5364Summary: A movie I went into which I had some great hopes for, though not with comparisons to 2001 (I assumed that it was inimitable). Still, after reading the book, I had hoped that we would see a movie depicting what space travel would REALLY be like, and something which would try to exploit the feeling of wonder associated with space and with an alien encounter. Unfortunately, Peter Hyams (who, being director, screenwriter, and director of photography, must take the full blame) sacrificed all of this for quick laughs, cheap thrills and political intrigue, all of which appears pretty inconsequential when examined in context of the enormity of the monolith et. al. This is not a terrible movie; it is beautifully shot, and is entertaining. But it could have been, given the plot and situation Clarke (and Kubric before them) provided, much, much more moving and exciting with relatively little effort or inventiveness on the part of Hyams. Instead, he seems almost intent on squashing out the visionary aspects of the book, and literally takes the low road. Basically a slow-moving hour-and-a-half with a fairly taut last-half hour. The ending itself is ludicrous and seems pretty out-of-character for creatures advanced enough to have provided the stimulus for the advancement of man, besides emphasizing a message Clarke never placed into it in the first place (though the very last scene is nice). You will probably not be bored by this movie, but you won't be moved by it much, either. SPOILERS FOLLOW Well, I'll try to add to what I have stated before: ATMOSPHERE: Looks to me as if Hyams so loved the cloudy, dark, ALIEN-rip-off lighting of OUTLAND he decided to use it here (apparently Intravision was used, also); for a movie which has for a subject the first (well, almost) encounter with an alien race, it tends to look more like a horror/suspense movie than anything. Where are the beautiful, stark vistas shown in 2001? Lord, it can't be THAT tough to do these days. It always looks like the giant mutant iguana lizard of planet X is going to jump out any minute. Only in the scenes which deal with Bowman/Starchild is there any flavor, any light (more on this later). It seems to show a place where space travel is a trudge, a chore rather like commuting in New York via the subway. SPECIAL EFFECTS: Well, next to Trumbell (who is the best... I've looked at scenes 15 times in BLADERUNNER without figuring out how the Hell he did it), Richard Edlund is probably the best in the business these days; and no one can deny that they are spectacular in this movie. But here we come across an interesting phenomena: a film where there is no flaw in the special effects except for their appropriateness. The LEONOV is shot from such a bewildering variety of shots, and in such poor contrast, that she might as well be the Death Star. Also, LEONOV's rotating section appears to create gravity in a satisfactory manner (however, I assumed there was normal gravity on the decks of the ship, as everyone was walking casually -- until Mirren and Schieder pull the pen/pencil stunt in middair to explain the escape method. Wha' happen?); but the ship falls into the non-smooth, bumpy-grimey style of every ship since Star Wars. The DISCOVERY, even after floating around for 9 years, and covered with sulfur, looks better. I would place the blame more on Hyams and the designer than Edlund... it still has some striking effects (especially the metamorphosis of Jupiter). THE SCRIPT: Well, here's my MAJOR GRIPE. I could go on forever about how Hyams trys to turn this into a audience-manipulation-emotion movie, like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF WHOOPEE, with the energy jumping out of the hole in Europa (Jaws music should have been inserted), and the funny things everyone says, as if Hyams is saying, "This is probably too much for you to comprehend... I'll lower it all to your level." Huh. It's not that it isn't entertaining; it's just that I AM SICK AND TIRED OF "ENTERTAINING" SCIENCE FICTION! How about something with some vision and wonder? Cripes, if I see another band of hostilities. Some specific points: 1) The Russian & American subplot. Obviously, Hyams throws this in so that at the end he can pull a Michael Rennie and have aliens so advanced that we can't comprehend them say "Live in Peace and Love, baby!" My God, you think anything that advanced cares about diplomatic relations between two petty world powers? And the Russians in the film completely blow any feeling of comraderie in the book (which I enjoyed); is there something in Hollywood that says all Russians must be represented as sullen, hostile, and most of all, DUMB (why was Alexi killed? he wasn't in the book! I guess just to show Americans are smart, and Russians are dumb). And so much for being scientists... Really the worst thing about the movie. 2) John Lithgows walk in space ("Pant Pant!"). Come on, you think anyone responsible for Discovery's design and construction hasn't been spacewalking around the Earth or Moon for most of his time? Really stupid. Well, I'm running out of time. A few good things (and there are some): GOOD THINGS 1) HAL 9000. Very well done subplot, and the final discussion between he and Chandra had me misting up quite a bit. I'd like to think that my Fat Mac will like me that much. But this is brought from the book, as is most good stuff in the movie. 2) Roy Schieder's meeting with Bowman/Starchild. Very nice verbal interplay between Schieder and HAL. 3) Destruction of Jupiter... really made you feel the power it would take to do this. 4) The very last scene with the monolith on Europa... this is much more circular (with 2001) than Clarke's ending. It also shows the idea of a movie, which is to represent thousand's of words with appropriate images. Hyams did here; it is a shame he had to wait 2 hours before coming out with a great scene. "Texxon... Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt." Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA