'2010' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Josh Zyber has turned his unblinking gaze to '2010.' He says this movie is underrated for an 80's sci-fi film, but a disappointment when compared to 2001. This Blu-ray looks and sounds as good as it ever could. Recommended.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2013/2010.html

[Arkadin]

very nice review.
I've always liked this movie a lot regardless of the pointless comparisons to the Kubrick masterpiece.
I wonder if the third movie will ever get made?

[Yog-Sothoth]

As stated in the review, the previous DVD release was a bad non-anamorphic one, so this is definitely an improvement over that. It certainly didn't receive the same TLC that 2001 did, but for $15 at Wal-Mart, I can't complain.

[Arkadin]

according to the review it DID receive the same TLC.
It doesn't have as pristine a source material and therefore doesn't look as good.
the video quality is excellent.
but you read that, right?

[Attebery]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

very nice review.
I've always liked this movie a lot regardless of the pointless comparisons to the Kubrick masterpiece.
I wonder if the third movie will ever get made?

Me too! This is the best thing Hyams will probably ever do.

[cheez avenger]

The LFE bumps this title!!!!!!

[eastx]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

according to the review it DID receive the same TLC.
It doesn't have as pristine a source material and therefore doesn't look as good.
the video quality is excellent.
but you read that, right?

I think he was referring to the lack of extras.

I like this film; I'll have to buy it.

[DoubleJ]

As the direct sequel to one of the greatest motion pictures ever made, quite frankly, '2010' stinks.

In my eyes, it doesn't mean that 2010 stinks. This statement gives one the impression that a movie is either good if it's completely standalone and/or original, or terrible if it is connected to another work in any way. By no means does it have to be a polar opposite argument.

2010 is a great film by itself, even though it's not as good as 2001.

[SlaughterX]

I didn't care for 2001, so I'm guessing I would really hate this movie?

[eastx]

Originally Posted by SlaughterX

I didn't care for 2001, so I'm guessing I would really hate this movie?

Actually they are way different. 2010's pace is much faster and the movie actually makes sense, which is nice.

[wickedbob]

Hey Josh. I just wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate you on this review.
I remember reading your reviews when you first started writing for HDD and in a word, they sucked. You were not very objective in your language, very extreme in your viewpoints, had little regard for describing in detail the quality of the video and audio and if you hated a movie, it was like the review was over before it began.
Ultimately I gave up reading anything with your name on it and seriously questioned my involvement in regularly visiting HDD as I couldn't understand why you were chosen to write in comparison to your peers who, at the time, were light years ahead of you in the skill of writing good reviews.
Your current work is almost like it was written by a different person. Your tone is much more tapered, your writing style much clearer and you actually spend time with details in each section. My faith has been restored.
I hold a glass high to you and say congratulations.
Please keep up the good work.

[Dark Lord Greg]

Originally Posted by SlaughterX

I didn't care for 2001, so I'm guessing I would really hate this movie?

Originally Posted by eastx

Actually they are way different. 2010's pace is much faster and the movie actually makes sense, which is nice.

yeah, I actually enjoyed 2010 more than 2001

[dhenders]

I too enjoy parts of this film, although 2001 was actually "enough" of a good thing. The film, however, is fairly faithful to the spirit of Clark's follow-ups. Inevitably a bit of an anti-climax (yes, a pun there; especially if you've read some of the in-depth analysis of Kubrick's version of the original story).
I was totally taken aback by the "preponderance of all those bulky CRT computer monitors", as the reviewer put it. The flat screens were one of the things that Kubrick and his advisors got RIGHT in 2001. It was a real let down to see the Discovery retrofitted with those old fashioned CRTs. I guess it must have been cheaper to avoid the rear projection technique that Kubrick used, but really jarring to see that misstep in this production. Even though Kubrick laid down the gauntlet on that issue, many films to follow (even the great Alien) blew it on this issue. Oh, and this transfer is riddled with digital artifacting, that the reviewer only hinted at (in some of the BAD composite shots).

[RoadLizard]

This review about sums it up. This is a solid if unspectacular film. It has its good moments and a few cringey ones. Roy Schieder is a lousy Heywood Floyd and acts nothing like his predecessor. The Russian crew is OK. Balaban is awesome as Chandra. Lithgow is great too.

The mystique and thought-provoking nature of 2001 was lost in this film. Clarke is a "no-BS" writer and he HATES any type of religious or spiritual tones so that stuff is nowhere to be found in this film which does hurt it a bit IMO.

Still, for $14 bucks NEW.... its worth it to have it on the shelf and I suspect I'll watch it here and there.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by dhenders

Oh, and this transfer is riddled with digital artifacting, that the reviewer only hinted at (in some of the BAD composite shots).

The compositing problems aren't digital artifacts. They're endemic to the production. The effects were optically composited, and have a lot of issues with translucent foreground objects (you can see stars in the background through some of the spaceships) and garbage mattes. But that isn't an issue with the Blu-ray transfer.

The Blu-ray does have some blocky grain and a touch of color banding. They're worth noting, but neither is very severe.