History a sequel misunderstood Original title: 2010: the year we make contact
Director: Peter Hyams
Year: 1984
Production: USA
Length: 114 minutes
Genre: Science Fiction
Rating: 7
There are many forms of crime and, in most cases, it is never a "perfect crime". There is always a subtle detail that escapes even the most cunning, cool outlaw who leads the investigators on his trail, sentencing him to the most classic of the epilogues.
There are crimes that have nothing to perfect and that, indeed, in their mad course
disseminate such a quantity of evidence to condemn itself from the first move. In the film world, the perfect example of imperfect crime - the pun is intended - in my opinion is represented by Jerry Lundegaard, a car salesman from Minnesota inguaiato debt, which in the film "Fargo " the Coen brothers commits a series of gross errors that fall into a frightening trail of blood that will bring the cop Marge Gunderson to arrest him with a disarming ease.
This premise, which has little or nothing has to do with science fiction, both with the film Peter Hyams, was necessary to express hesitation that at the time the release of "2010, the year of contact" seized a large slice of the public and critics (At least that part which he considers "2001, A Space Odyssey" as the highest expression of art of the last century).
Only a fool can put his hand on the greatest masterpiece of film history and believed to remain unscathed. That's why from the time when it was decided to make the sequel to 2001 he was committing the most heinous of crimes and imperfect, which will not go unpunished for long.
crime that is even more unbearable if he is seen as an attempt to explain (and thus trivialize) the work of Kubrick.
The basic problem of this movie is just to be normally considered as a sequel to one of the great British director, totally forgetting that there is a writer (and most scientists), the Arthur C. Clarke that, starting from his short story "The Sentinel" has as a result, created a quartet of novels including "2010: Odyssey two" is the second chapter (there are also "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: Final Odyssey" ). Hymas
The film is in fact a faithful transposition of this book, unlike his predecessor, is unwilling to enter into the labyrinth of the human psyche or ask questions that even today, after forty years, have not received answers ( even someone you are still wondering exactly what these questions), but wants to be essentially a science fiction story classical, or "hard " if you prefer, a term that has nothing to do with understanding the "red light", but it signifies the close relationship with the scientific verosomiglianza .
Sure, there are references to a life (significance?) And the upper figure of the Nietzschean superman, personified by "reviving" Dave Bowman , but they are sporadic, which flows into a fairly straightforward plot. In this sense
and forgotten (I know it's easier said than done) for those barely two hours of 'bulky "shape of the Master , 2010 is an enjoyable film that keeps glued to the screen with his growing tension , its spectacular images and its blend of action and psychological insight. It is a question that only
Hymas has deliberately left open: How will life on Europa ?
I hope that the third novel by Clarke to give some answers, because, for now, nobody has dared to make a third film sull'Odissea ...
David Battaglia
