A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy (1982)

A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy Review
Review #147

3.5/5 stars

Director – Woody Allen

Cast - Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Jose Ferrer, Julia Hagerty, Tony Roberts, Mary Steenburgen, Adam Redfield

——————–

Beside his unique look on life, Woody Allen is known for being both prolific and inconsistent. It seems that for every Annie Hall or Match Point there is a Whatever Works.

A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy lies somewhere in between those examples. It is not a Great Film to be sure, but not every movie has to be. Here we have a breezy, light, slightly fantastical take on romance, all done in Allen’s unmistakable style.

The story concerns a group of friends, three couples, who rent a house out in “the country” to spend a small vacation together. Of course each person finds themself desiring a member of another couple, and hijinks ensue. People climb out of windows, meet in wooded glades, and deal with the inevitable confusions and mixups that it all entails. It is all very laid back, but has a dry wit and enough imagination to keep it flowing nice and smoothly.

Allen also adds some strangely fantastical elements. A subplot which becomes a bit more relevant towards the end of the movie concerns spirits, and Allen’s inventor character even has a bicycle powered flying machine. Does it all quite fit? No, but we don’t care. Ferrer is funny in a strangely funny and sympathetic “old leche” role, and the cinematography is lush and vibrant. Woody Allen doesn’t normally do movies in natural settings, and purposefully wanted to try something different here, despite his self-professed hatred of anywhere outside of a city.

All in all, the movie is best described by its title. It is as relaxed, warm, and modest in ambition as a lazy, hot summer late-afternoon. It aspires to nothing more, and while it may not achieve too much, it is comforting and pleasant. I wish there were more movies like this.

OVERALL

Don’t expect a huge amount from A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy, but it is a sweet 90 minutes. Woody Allen has made better, to be sure, but he has also made much worse. This may not be a ringing endorsement, but is in no way an insult. Pleasant is the best word for this movie, just pleasant.

——————–

TRAILER 

“A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

125 – The War of the Roses (1989)

The War of the Roses

 4.5/5 stars

Director – Danny DeVito

Cast – Michael Douglas, Katherine Turner, Danny DeVito, Dan Castalenetta

 ——————–

There hasn’t been a darker comedy made about marriage than 1989’s The War of the Roses. It is deliciously evil in its view of love; it would make an awful date-movie (or, to a discerning couple, perhaps a great one). This is essentially the anti-When Harry Met Sally.

Danny DeVito’s brilliantly twisted movie follows the Roses, a married couple whose relationship, for one reason or another, falls apart in dramatic and spectacular fashion. Turner’s character finds herself bored with her status as housewife to a rich business man, while Douglas feels shackled by a wife who doesn’t understand the financial game. When she admits to feeling relieved when he goes to the hospital after suffering a serious heart attack, the tension comes to a head. She files divorce papers, but he digs up an obscure law with the help of his lawyer friend (DeVito), that says he may stay in the house if he wants. They divide the house in half, and start to make each others life hell. It is here that the movie really takes off.

The back and forth between the two slowly builds up, until they are doing absolutely awful things to each other; she locks him in the sauna, so he urinates in a soup she is serving to distinguished friends… he (accidentally) runs over her cat, so she crushes his small foreign car with her truck… and so on and so on. It is a testament to the gradual crescendo brought about by careful direction that we don’t question the increasingly absurd lengths the couple goes through.

The movie is told through the eyes of Danny DeVito’s lawyer character, who tells this story to a client (a silent role played by Dan Castalenetta) who is contemplating divorce. This framing device helps greatly with the tone of the story. If we were shown the “war” after getting to know the Roses we might feel more attached to them. Having the story recited keeps the whole affair at a comfortable arms length. If we were too close to them we would cry, not laugh. Not that there are a huge amount of laughs here, the humour is too dry for that. Like the best of British comedy, it’s really too good laugh at.

OVERALL

The War of the Roses is a darkly comic movie, well acted and directed. It may come across as bitter toward the concept of marriage, but it really is against couples who don’t fight to keep their marriage, and instead fight to get the better deal after the relationship. It does this in an endearingly twisted way.

Douglas and Turner’s third outing together (after the Romancing the Stone movies) is a great way to end their on-screen pairing. I definitely recommend this to anyone who can enjoy a bit of dark comedy.

——————–

 TRAILER

 “The War of the Roses” on other websites:

 IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

 ——————–

124 – Spaceballs (1987)

Spaceballs REVIEW

2/5 stars

Director - Mel Brooks

Cast - Mel Brooks, John Candy, Rick Moranis, Bill Pullman, Daphne Zuniga

——————–

I had always heard of Spaceballs as one of those movies that, while not exactly critically well received, had a great cult fan base. With quotable lines, the trademark Mel Brooks sense of humour, and a shameless willingness to parody, lampoon, and generally mock the great science fiction epics, it is supposedly tailor-made for a nerds love.

Now, I consider myself a nerd. I have seen most, if not all, of the movies referenced in this movie. I like many of Mel Brooks movies. I love Blazing Saddles, and even the musical version of The Producers. Having said all that, I have to say Spaceballs is one of the most distressingly unfunny movies I have ever seen. It has a couple funny bits, I suppose, but nothing on par with the absurdist “Telegram for Mongo!”, or the satire of “Springtime for Hitler”. Heck, it doesn’t even have anything on par with the Blazing Saddles farting scene…

This movie mainly relies on what I call the “Sound-alike Joke”. An example of this dreaded beast is when we see an oozing mass of melted cheese and pepperoni slide into frame and announce himself as “Pizza the Hutt”… or when Lord Dark Helmet says he is a Master of The Schwartz. I suppose we are meant to laugh because Pizza the Hutt sounds like Jabba the Hutt, and The Schwartz like The Force… well, it’s supposed to be funny.

I did find a couple of scenes mildly funny I guess… John Hurt’s chest-burster scene was nice, and there was a fairly well done scene where the bad guys located the good guys by bringing out their own VHS copy of Spaceballs and fast forwarding it to the correct part; and anytime spent riffing on Princess Vespa’s (Leia’s) hair is well spent.

John Candy and Rick Moranis appear, apparently because it’s the 90’s and, well, future archeologists have to be able to date it somehow. Bill Pullman (Paxton? Something like that…) is there as well. Joan Rivers does the voice of Dot Matrix (C-3P0), and this is a blessing; mainly because if you didn’t see her in the credits you might not think of sullying her reputation with this.

Mel Brooks, where have ye gone!? Oh, there you are; walking out on your knees in green face paint and floppy ears, proclaiming yourself to be the great and wise Yogurt…

OVERALL

 To put it bluntly I found Spaceballs to be lazy, reliant almost entirely on tired jokes, and it just felt bland and dry. Brooks seems to have lost his energy, his impeccable timing, and apparently his sense of humour. Well, at least we still have The Producers!

——————–

TRAILER

“Spaceballs” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

121 – Brazil (1985)

Brazil REVIEW

4.5/5 stars

Director - Terry Gilliam

Cast - Jonathan Pryce, Kim Greist, Michael Palin, Robert de Niro, Katherine Helmond, Bob Hoskins, Ian Holms, Jim Broadbent

——————–

I had always heard of Brazil as one of Terry Gilliam’s better films and a definite cult movie. I love dystopian sci-fi like Children of Men and 1984, and while I didn’t know Gilliam very well, I recently purchased a box set of his movies and I look forward to exploring even more of this divisive film-makers work. Brazil was, I think, my first Gilliam movie to watch all the way through, and boy was I off to a good start.

Brazil is a dystopian movie, but it has a wonderful dose of charm and quirk that I understand is Gilliam’s trademark. While it is dark and gloomy from a visual standpoint, it clips along at a lovely pace, and has a great set piece or two sprinkled in there as well, interspersed with some wonderful acting from Jonathan Pryce, the ever reliable Ian Holms, and specifically Michael Palin.

We follow Sam Lowry, played by Jonathan Pryce (a great actor who also appears in movies as varied Evita, Tomorrow Never Dies, and the Pirates of the Caribbean series) as he maneuvers his way through life in a dystopian future. He dreams often of a specific girl, and he finally finds her only to realize she may be associated with a terrorist group. The movie mainly concerns itself with Lowry’s journey towards and with this fantasy woman, as he fights the ridiculous, suppressive, and ineffective bureaucracy that turns its citizens into soulless machines.

Having since watched a few of his other movies, I think I have found that Gilliam often has a problem with keeping a story coherent and focused, and frankly there is a bit of that here. However it is not as prominent in, say, The Brothers Grimm or The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. And really there is a lot of charm (damn I’m overusing that word, sorry) in Gilliam’s helter skelter method. It comes across much like your grandfather when he rambles on and on with some story. Except, how cool would it be to have your grandpa talk about dystopian societies with vivid dream sequences and on-the-nose social satire? Brazil cool, that’s how cool.

OVERALL

Brazil is Gilliam at his best. The satire of the movie is great, and the imagination on display greatly rewards repeat viewings. This is the kind of movie that isn’t for everyone, but should be. Highly recommended. Oh! And this movie is where that Wall-E music comes from!

——————–

TRAILER

“Brazil” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

112 – The Right Stuff (1983)

The Right Stuff REVIEW

4.5/5 stars

Director - Phillip Kaufman

Cast - Fred Ward, Dennis Quaid, Ed Harris, Scott Glen, Sam Shepard, Barbara Hershey, Lance Henrikson, Veronica Cartwright, Jane Dornacker

——————–

There are subtle films, and then there are crowd-pleasing bombastic films. Subtlety is generally prefered, with critics usually “docking  points” for the more in-your-face movies. However The Right Stuff is one of those rare movies that wears its colours on its sleeve proudly and for all to see, and yet gets away with it. I have never felt so good about a movie that is so “pro-American” (whatever that means any more), so in-your-face, and even so corny (in places).

The Right Stuff follows both Chuck Yeager and a group of young pilots who are chosen to be the first American astronauts. After a rigorous test screening (and amidst heavy rivalry between the Air Force and Navy pilots), seven pilots are chosen for the Mercury program. Among them are cocky Cooper (Dennis Quaid), uneasy Grissom (Fred Ward), “do-gooder” Glenn (Ed Harris), and tough Shepard (Scott Glen). Others are Carpenter, Schirra, and Slayton, but we really pay any attention to them. The film focuses heavily on their general cocky attitudes, their fervent self-belief, and their optimistic nature, all-in-all, the titular “Right Stuff”.

This movie idolizes its main characters, and the characterization is neither very deep or very distinct. This is perhaps a good thing however, as we are shown them as the embodiment of every young boys fantasy of pilots or astronauts. These are the men we should all strive to be, the movie seems to tell us. Frankly we don’t disagree, as most of us have always wanted to be these guys.

And while it is true that the men are cocky, it is because they need to be. The cocky attitude is in someway a cover, as is subtly revealed in the final scenes of the film. As one character puts it when it is mentioned that monkeys were the prefered cargo for the original flights, ” Monkeys? You think a monkey knows he’s sittin’ on top of a rocket that might explode? These astronaut boys they know that, see. Well, I’ll tell you something, it takes a special kind of man to volunteer for a suicide mission, especially one that’s on TV.” That quote puts the film in nutshell.

A note on the music. It was composed with  inspiration by The Planets Suite by Gustav Holst. This is all fine and dandy, and the music itself is quite good, but in places it copies The Planets to a note, but then abandons it after a few seconds. I personally found this very distracting, as I constantly expected the music to go somewhere but it instead veered off course. The real Planets Suite would have worked well, I wonder why they didn’t just use that…

OVERALL

The Right Stuff is a movie that certainly wears its heart on its sleeve, but it has more than enough humour, guts, and yes, heart, to pull it through. The actors do wonders with the minimal characterization they are given. Watch out for a young Harry Shearer and Jeff Goldblum as two naive and in-over-their-heads bureaucrats. The special effects are astounding, especially for their time. The movie is an unabashed heart-warmer. I find that I tend to see these movies as frivolous, as below the meaning of true art. That is dangerously close to pretension, and with that in mind I find myself fully recommending this film.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Right Stuff” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

110 – Aliens (1986)

Aliens REVIEW

4.5/5 stars

Director – James Cameron

Cast - Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, Carrie Henn, Lance Henrikson, William Hope, Paul Reiser

——————–

- follows Alien

- followed by Alien 3

——————–

Ridley Scott’s Alien is regarded (rightly so, in my opinion), as one of the greatest science fiction and horror films. With a mix of suspense and scares, it successfully blended genres in a way not always succesful in other films. James Cameron, fresh off of the success of The Terminator, directed the sequel, Aliens, and he came up with quite a movie indeed.

While Alien went with the suspense angle, Aliens tells a similar story except in a more action/thriller vein. The “space truckers” from the first movie are here replaced with Marines, and where Ripley (played by Sigourney Weaver) in the first movie was forced to use her wits and whatever tools at hand to defeat a “zenomorph” alien, here she has a squad of men armed with flamethrowers, machine guns, and futuristic vehicles to fight a whole hive of them. Hijinks ensue.

Aliens is well paced, with each scene having a distinct purpose. It ticks along like clockwork, scarcely missing a beat. In fact, if I was to have any complaint, it is that it is, in fact too “clock-worky”. There isn’t as much time given for suspense as I would have liked, but this criticism treads dangerously close to the fallacy of comparing two films who were essentially of two different genres.

The main character of Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver, is one tough cookie, and is often credited as pretty much the first female action hero. In fact Weaver herself referred to Ripley in this film as “Rambolina”. But Cameron takes care not to just whitewash her as another McClane or Rambo. She is given a heart and a personality. Note the way she reacts to being told her child is dead, the way she dislikes the gung-ho idiots among the Marines, the way she becomes a sort of surrogate mother to an abandoned child. We are fully convinced of her personality, which makes the “Get your hands off her, you bitch!” moments all the more thrilling to see.

It would be amiss to not mention the way Cameron treats the military in this movie though, and really, in all his movies. They are all either harsh and butch, or cocky and whiny, and either way they’re annoying as hell. It got to the point where I almost wanted to fast-forward through scenes where they were talking etc. From Aliens to The Abyss to Avatar, he may as well have copy and pasted his military characters. It is essentially a pre-teens fantasy of gun-toting he-men. I would have liked a more professional, grounded look at the men, but I guess I mustn’t quibble.

OVERALL

Aliens is an excellent action movie, that combines scares and thrills in a great way. The characters are well fleshed out (saving the army dudes), and Sigourney Weaver as Ripley is iconic. The movie will carry you on a ride which you won’t mind going on again and again. Highly recommended.

—————————————-

TRAILER

“Aliens” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

107 – Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

Nineteen Eighty-Four REVIEW

3.5/5 stars

Director – Michael Radford

Cast - John Hurt, Richard Burton, Suzanna Hamilton, Gregor Fisher

——————–

1984 is an adaptation of George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel. Directed by English director Michael Radford, several scenes were famously shot on the actual day they were written to have occurred in the book.

The lead character, Winston Smith, is played with downtrodden perfection by noted English actor John Hurt. This film is his story, as he goes from a disquieted laborer under the oppressive regime of The Party, to a wannabe revolutionary. The antagonist, O’Brien, is played by Richard Burton (in his last film performance), and Smith’s “love interest” (though to use such a term is dangerous of giving the wrong impression) is played by Suzanne Hamilton. English character actor Gregor Fisher also appears as Smith’s neighbor.

The story of 1984 is famously dark and frankly quite depressing, and as such the tone is kept effectively bleak. The element of satire/warning keeps the movie from becoming totally dry, but it does struggle against this in the third act. The acting can be a bit dry as well, mainly with John Hurt. I think he would have been more at home in the classic British acting style rather than the more modern method-type, but his stillness and considered manner do fit with the character rather well, so we mustn’t nit pick.

The film unfortunately falls into the trap of assuming the audience knows the book. This results in some fairly key elements not being explained. What is Winston’s job? If we have read the book we know that he rewrites old newspaper reports, etc., so that they fit with the current views of the Party. However, here a first  time viewer just sees Winston muttering away in some strange language while looking at pictures and then firing off little tubes down what looks like a garbage chute. While it is true that Winston rarely speaks too much in the book, there was so much in the book  explaining about Double-Speak (the Party’s prefered way of talking, where the English language is paired down to its bare bones), explaining about the Party and its methods, etc., that is just not supplied here. We are shown events happening with no explanation, potentially leaving the viewer confused.

While the first two acts are fairly well-paced and feature some iconic images, the third act does dip in quality when Winston is captured by the Party and interrogated for his rebellious thoughts and actions. Unfortunately these scenes drag considerably, with much pointless repetition of shots and ideas. This bogs the movie down when it should really be moving to its quick and inevitable conclusion.

OVERALL

Nineteen Eighty-Four follows the book very well, perhaps too well. By leaving a lot of the dialogue intact and neglecting the explanation of the world we are shown, we don’t get the full impact of the story and Orwell’s point. The acting is excellent (especially Richard Burton and John Hurt), and the grimy world is perfect for this story, but a bit more clarity would certainly have helped. Sometimes it seems that things are left out so we’d have to read the book just to understand the film. Radford seems to mistake  confusing his audience for narrative complexity, and that is a dangerous road to start travelling down (a path which hurt the recent Inception). I do recommend this, as the acting and tone rise to great heights, but because unclear story-telling drag the movie down quite far, I have to recommend it mainly to those who have read Orwell’s book.

—————————————–

TRAILER

“Nineteen Eighty-Four” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

87 – Wall Street (1986)

Wall Street REVIEW

4.5/5 stars

Director - Oliver Stone

Cast - Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Michael Sheen, Daryll Hannah, Terence Stamp, Hal Holbrook

——————–

 Wall Street, Oliver Stone’s follow-up to his enormously succesful Platoon, plots the rise and fall of a young man who tries to get ahead in the financial world of the mid 1980′s. Charlie Sheen stars as the young man, his father Michael Douglas appears as his on-screen dad, and Michael Douglas co-stars as the infamous character Gordan Gekko.

Plot-wise, Gordon Gecko is an unscrupulous business man who will cut throats and stab backs to get what he wants. Due to this he has, of course, become a major player in American business, with influence and power that young Sheen can only dream of. Sheen apprentices himself to Gekko, who trains him in the ways of Wall Street. After finding himself involved in a highly unethical business trade involving an airline his father works for, Sheen is forced to make a decision regarding his lifestyle and the consequences it brings about to himself and others.

Charlie Sheen is very good as the likable but naive young man who, while trying to please his father and make a name for himself, is caught up in circumstances that go increasingly over his head. He projects the perfect mix of earnestness and natural pluck that the role needs. Michael Douglas as the sly, double-dealing Gordon Gekko, is wonderful, and in fact received an Academy Award for the role.

Wall Street thankfully avoids the preachiness that such a film could easily fall into, and instead mainly positions itself as a coming-of-age film. It still works as a moral and financial  lesson, but as I said, does not bludgeon us with it. Its financial dealings, which provide the plot of the film, are complicated and beyond the knowledge of the average viewer, but Stone presents them slowly, easing us into the world of Wall Street. Even when there are a few deals that are a bit too complicated for  us, we can always watch the characters. How they react to the goings-on gives us all the information we need.

Wall Street is a drama, but almost qualifies as a thriller. A slow, potboiler of a thriller, to be sure, but a thriller all the same. Gordon Gekko is a wonderful villain, and the various supporting cast is excellent. Daryll Hannah, as a young married woman Sheen wants to seduce, is perhaps a bit… dull  I guess would be the right word. She sounds high through the whole movie, and its very distracting. She is really the only downside to an excellent cast that includes Martin Sheen, Terrence Stamp, John C. McGinley, Hal Holbrook.

OVERALL

Wall Street is an excellent movie that would draw in any audience and sweep them towards its gripping and thoughtful conclusion. It is a smart movie, but it does not pander. For my money it is better than Stone’s more famous movie, shot directly before this, Platoon. For a moving and brainy coming-of-age story, look no further.

——————–

TRAILER

“Wall Street” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

86 – Witness (1985)

Witness (1985)

4/5 stars

Director - Peter Weir

Cast - Harrison Ford, Kelly McGillis, Lukas Haas, Jan Rubes, Danny Glover, Brent Jennigs, Jossef Sommer, Alexander Godunov, Patti LuPone, Viggo Mortensen

——————–

Witness follows the story of a young Amish boy (played by Lukas Haas) who sees a murder take place. He later identifies the murderer to John Book (Harrison Ford). The hitch is that the murderer is a cop (Danny Glover), and when Ford reveals this to his boss (who turn out to be in cahoots with Glover), Ford goes into hiding with Haas to his Amish town. John Book falls in love with the boy’s mother, which of course, complicates things, and ends up driving the majority of the story along.

Witness was directed by Peter Weir, the Austrailian director of such films as Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, The Truman Show, Fearless, and The Year of Living Dangerously. This film was his first real crack at the North American market, and it certainly made his name there. Audiences reacted so well that a film Weir had been previously trying (unsuccesfully) to make, The Mosquito Coast, was immediately given the green light. Critics reaction was also largely positive. The movie has also enjoyed popularity through numerous late-night cable airings, as well as for the many parodies of its “vanilla ice cream” scene, where an Amish man’s face is demeaningly smeared with ice cream by a local thug, who promptly gets a hay-maker or two from Harrison Ford.

Witness combines genres in an attempt to create a distinct tone. This is an admirable idea in principle, but I found that the transitions between genres were jarring. We bounce back and forth throughout the film between police thriller, inter-cultural melodrama, and romance from scene to scene. The flow wasn’t consistent in that respect. Couldn’t we have scenes that mix all three aspects? Of all the aspects that the movie focuses on, the”cop genre” feels the most heavy handed. When the shoot out at the end of the movie comes, it almost feels tacked on to create a suitable ending. I would have personally liked a non-violent ending, but the violence does feel a bit warranted and is fairly realistic. I guess I just want a cop movie with no shootout at the end. Too much to hope? Perhaps.

Lukas Haas, playing the naively innocent Amish boy, is a wonderful find , but the chemistry between Kelly McGillis and Harrsion Ford is the main reason that this movie works as well as it does. McGillis is excellent, and even though this is not Ford’s best work, as some say (personally I think his best work is in his next film, The Mosquito Coast), he carries a sense of compassion and the qualities of an everyman that remind us of a tough James Stewart. In the end, this is really what Ford is best at.

OVERALL

Witness works best when it focuses on its story of culture clash, with Ford’s tough cop forced to hide with peace loving and down to earth Amish. The movie unfortunately strays a bit with its romantic story-line, and the ending is a bit of a cop out, but this is a solid movie. All in all I think it is one of Peter Weir’s lesser works, despite being one of his most famous. But enjoy the good performances (including Viggo Mortenson’s film debut in a small role), and go for the ride. Definitely recommended.

——————–

TRAILER

“Witness” on other websites”

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

 

80 – 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

2010: The Year We Make Contact REVIEW

4/5 stars

Director - Peter Hyams

Cast - Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren, Keir Dullae, Douglas Rain

——————–

- follows 2001: A Space Odyssey

——————–

2010: The Year We Make Contact is the under-seen and under-rated sequel to Kubrick’s masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. I see 2010 as the younger brother to 2010. 2001 came first, and everyone expects much of the follow-up, but are disappointed when it follows a different course. While 2001 was visionary, groundbreaking, and unique, 2010 is practical and grounded. For this reason the sequel was ignored, and even derided, merely because it is different from its predecessor. Frankly I think the outcry would have been greater, and the results worse, had Peter Hyams tried to copy Kubrick’s style.

The plot of the movie is a continuation of the plot of 2001, written by Arthur C. Clarke, the co writer of 2001. The States and the USSR are still in the Cold War (a bit of alternate history), and both countries are sending up spaceships to recover the Discovery and HAL, in orbit around Jupiter. As the Russians will get there first (but have no knowledge of HAL’s inner workings), three Americans go with them. While investigating HAL and the strange otherworldly “monolith” which floats silently close by, the States and the USSR back on Earth come close to declaring war on each other, and the crew must deal with both Earthly problems and the otherworldly concerns of the monolith.

The film balances these two main plotlines very well, all the while delving into a bit of the mythology of the first film. Why, in 2001, did HAL go “insane”? What was the Monolith’s purpose? What is the “Star Child?” These questions and more gradually become addressed, if not answered outright.

Arthur C. Clarke has always written great science fiction, and there are some sequences here which are astounding. One scene in particular, where an American and a Russian must spacewalk from one ship to the other, is one of the best sequences in any science fiction movie. The characters interact wonderfully, with the Russian teaching the other how to say certain words in Russian. The visual effects are wonderful, and the scene is not hyped up, or drowned out by suspenseful music. It is a truly wonderful scene. Another sequence where the main character (played by Roy Schnieder) meets what he believes to be the spirit of one of the Discovery’s crew, is extremely well done also. The special effects in this movie are good, if not ground-breaking. The music has a tendency to jar the viewer, and is a tad “80′s”, but on the whole fits the tone of the film.

While the mystery of the first film is replaced with investigation and character development (and I will admit, this may hurt the film a little), the characters we see in the film are wonderfully fleshed out, and the urge to stereotype is resisted all around. Arthur C. Clarke has always written characters that, while being scientists, and all being fairly analytical in their personalities, come across as real, mature people. Too often when characters in movies are presented with problems, the actors will portray the characters a little over the top, the thinking being that if the character is scared, the audience will be too. The treatment of character in this movie however is mature, and never panders to the audience. I found this very refreshing.

OVERALL

2010: The Year We Make Contact is a good, solid, old-fashioned (in a good way) science fiction film. Although the awe and majesty of the first film are not present so much in this one, its absence is made bearable by the logical tone of the film. This is not to say that 2010 doesn’t have its own sense of wonder,but it is of a different sort than its predecessor, 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you love science fiction, I implore you to seek out this film. You are in for a good surprise, let me assure you.

——————–

TRAILER

“2010: The Year We Make Contact” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–