2010 - L'anno del contatto

Titolo originale: 2010

1984
T
1h 56min

VALUTAZIONE IMDb

6,7/10

59.607

LA TUA VALUTAZIONE

A joint U.S.-Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to learn what happened to the Discovery, and H.A.L.

Riproduci trailer2: 14

2 video

99+ foto

Artificial Intelligence Sci-Fi Epic Space Sci-Fi Adventure Mystery Sci-Fi Thriller

Una spedizione congiunta tra gli Stati Uniti di America e l'Unione Sovietica viene inviata su Giove per apprendere cosa è successo alla Discovery e il super computer H.A.L.Una spedizione congiunta tra gli Stati Uniti di America e l'Unione Sovietica viene inviata su Giove per apprendere cosa è successo alla Discovery e il super computer H.A.L.Una spedizione congiunta tra gli Stati Uniti di America e l'Unione Sovietica viene inviata su Giove per apprendere cosa è successo alla Discovery e il super computer H.A.L.

Regia
- Peter Hyams
Sceneggiatura
- Arthur C. Clarke
- Peter Hyams
Star

Vedi le informazioni sulla produzione su IMDbPro

VALUTAZIONE IMDb

6,7/10

59.607

LA TUA VALUTAZIONE

Regia
- Peter Hyams
Sceneggiatura
- Arthur C. Clarke
- Peter Hyams
Star

Vedi le informazioni sulla produzione su IMDbPro

Candidato a 5 Oscar
- 1 vittoria e 9 candidature totali

Video2

Trailer 2:14

Official Trailer

Clip 2:11

2010: The Year We Make Contact

Clip 2:11

2010: The Year We Make Contact

Foto107

+ 100

Recensioni degli utenti320

6,759.6K

Recensioni in evidenza

6tzzertao

A much different movie than the first one.

The first movie in the series, 2001, was a very artistic piece that had only moments of dialogue in its more than two hours of film. 2010 appears nearly apologetic in comparison, explicating somewhat excruciatingly every nuance of the plot through the main character's supposed messages back to planet earth. All of the blurry details of 2001 are made crystal clear in this fashion. It is a very wordy movie.

Nevertheless, 2010 has images that can captivate audiences just as well as they did in 1984. Today's movie goers will notice slight glitches in the special effects as well as a couple of discontinuities. The movie also dates itself because the plot includes a lot of tension between the Americans and Russians.

Because 2001 was such a great movie, 2010 tends to pale in comparison. However, it is still a very good science fiction movie and it is worth viewing (but probably not buying).

7Xstal

The Mystery of the Monolith...

It's some years later (nine in fact) a return is being planned, but the Russians seem to hold the upper hand, they're ahead, and will be first, so the USA is forced, to tag along, to sit right back, not take command. Upon arrival, the monolith is there, a balloon ride makes an interesting fanfare, jumping to Discovery, rebooting Hal to look and see, then instructions that they need to be elsewhere.

It's not the worst sequel you'll find, and there are some remarkably good performances from a heavy weight cast. Not sure it will resolve too much of the conundrum, the interpretation of the first is uniquely your own if you've found the time to ruminate on it over the years, but compared to what it could have been, I wouldn't put you off.

8kaboris1

This film deserves more attention.

I looked this film up before renting it since I had never seen it. The comments I saw for a review saying it was boring as the original (first one) and ..."uninvolving"? This movie blew me away, I really thought it was great. This is NOT an action movie and for that matter neither was "2001". If you're looking for a fast paced and, well.. shallow movie this isn't that either. You thinkers, this movie is for you. The acting is wonderful and special effects are very convincing and not diverting. The story is very interesting although it certainly dates it more than special effects. I can probably name about 120 sci-fi movies that aren't as enjoyable to me as 2010 and most of those are still more than worth seeing. Not only worth seeing but for genre fans it is worth owning on DVD.

Kane III

Fine film.

The reactions to this film sum up a problem of perception that many film buffs seem to have. To such people, Kubrick was a genius. Kubrick made 2001. 2001 is a *Kubrick* story. Therefore 2010 is by definition a presumptuous attempt to explain what Kubrick deliberately left unsaid. etc. etc.

Sorry, 2001 is an *Arthur C Clarke* story. He wrote a sequel to his own story, called it "2010" and *he* explained what Kubrick left unsaid. I'd say he had a right. Then someone buys the film rights and produces a fine movie from it.

And it *is* a fine movie. Intelligence far in excess of the usual Hollywood SciFi garbage (Independence Day or Starship Troopers anyone?).

The scenes with Keir Dullea were far more chilling than anything in the original.

Arteur theory is still alive and well, I see.

ken_vandenbussche

Watch this movie if you want to understand the previous one a little bit better

I never knew a sequel was made of "2001: A space odyssey" until a few months ago. When I finally had watched this film, I understood why. "2010" is anything but a bad movie, but it doesn't offer the same remarkable innovation its predecessor did. Nevertheless, this film has some great special effects which are, just like "2001", way ahead of its time. Watching this film, it's hard to believe that it's already more than 15 years old! Because this film sets off immediately where the previous one ended, you're involved the second you start watching! As a result of this, "2010" sheds some serious light on many unanswered questions of "2001: A space odyssey". This alone makes the story of "2010" very appealing, because one wants to know the true meaning behind the mysterious monolith.

The only let down of the film is that the characters are quite thin and the acting isn't always very convincing. Add to that one or two scenes that can be a bit monotonous and you know why I think "2010" is not as good as "2001".

Even so "2010" is worth-watching thanks to breathtaking special effects and a storyline that'll make the previous movie a little bit more understandable.

Altri elementi simili

8,3

2001: Odissea nello spazio

9,6

9,8

8,3

9,6

9,8

8,0

7,4

6,8

7,3

7,1

6,0

Wild Tigers I Have Known

Trama

Modifica

Lo sapevi?

Modifica

Quiz
Stanley Kubrick notoriously had all models and sets from 2001: Odissea nello spazio (1968) destroyed to prevent their reuse (which was common at the time). The model and interior of the spaceship Discovery had to be constructed by painstakingly scrutinizing blown-up frames from the original movie. The reconstructed ship was not a complete copy: the corridors are just a bit wider and lit with a more natural blue/white tone compared to its '2001' counterpart.

Blooper
No pods should be in the pod bay in 2010. 2001: Odissea nello spazio (1968) showed 3 pods. All were lost. The first was lost with Poole's body. The second was lost when Bowman blew the exploding bolts to enter the airlock. The third transported Bowman into the worm hole/monolith. When the crew enters the pod bay in 2010, one pod is is still sitting in it's storage area. (Although ignored in the movie, this is explained in the book (section 4, chapter 24). Dave Bowman is supposed to have retrieved pod #3 on remote while preparing his departure.) It is entirely possible that Bowen could have remotely piloted the pod back to the Discovery.

Citazioni
Dr. Vasili Orlov: What was that all about?
Chandra: I've erased all of HAL's memory from the moment the trouble started.
Dr. Vasili Orlov: The 9000 series uses holographic memories, so chronological erasures would not work.
Chandra: I made a tapeworm.
Walter Curnow: You made a what?
Chandra: It's a program that's fed into a system that will hunt down and destroy any desired memories.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: Wait... do you know why HAL did what he did?
Chandra: Yes. It wasn't his fault.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: Whose fault was it?
Chandra: Yours.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: Mine?
Chandra: Yours. In going through HAL's memory banks, I discovered his original orders. You wrote those orders. Discovery's mission to Jupiter was already in the advanced planning stages when the first small Monolith was found on the Moon, and sent its signal towards Jupiter. By direct presidential order, the existence of that Monolith was kept secret.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: So?
Chandra: So, as the function of the command crew - Bowman and Poole - was to get Discovery to its destination, it was decided that they should not be informed. The investigative team was trained separately, and placed in hibernation before the voyage began. Since HAL was capable of operating Discovery without human assistance, it was decided that he should be programmed to complete the mission autonomously in the event the crew was incapacitated or killed. He was given full knowledge of the true objective... and instructed not to reveal anything to Bowman or Poole. He was instructed to lie.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: What are you talking about? I didn't authorize anyone to tell HAL about the Monolith!
Chandra: Directive is NSC 342/23, top secret, January 30, 2001.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: NSC... National Security Council, the White House.
Chandra: I don't care who it is. The situation was in conflict with the basic purpose of HAL's design: The accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment. He became trapped. The technical term is an H. Moebius loop, which can happen in advanced computers with autonomous goal-seeking programs.
Walter Curnow: The goddamn White House.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: I don't believe it.
Chandra: HAL was told to lie... by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: Those sons of bitches. I didn't know. I didn't know!