CARBON OR SILICONE?
Premise: Scientists of The United States and the former Soviet Union are sent on a mission to investigate the failure of the Discovery mission.
â€œThere is trouble in Russiaâ€¦so they sent usâ€ ~Captain Frank Ramsey, Crimson Tide. This quote is analogous to many quotes in films where Russia is the antagonist, seemingly the antagonist, or a not fully trusted partner on a scientific endeavor. The latter notion is a key plot point in Peter Hyamâ€™s (Time-Cop, The Relic) 2010: The Year We Make Contact.
2010: The Year We Make Contact is not nearly as thought provoking as its renowned predecessor 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is because it does not attempt to answer every existential question possible. There are no references to mankind in Homo Erectus status, and only a very brief glimpse of man-kind in the next stage of evolution beyond Homo Sapiens: The Star Child. Of course revisiting old material could either induce nostalgia or clichÃ©sâ€™. Peter Hyamâ€™s direction and script superbly compliments Stanley Kubrickâ€™s masterpiece with dazzling sets, a solid cast, and strong linear story telling.
During the course of the mission the crew must deal with the normal hazards of space, and the unexplainable phenomena of Jupiterâ€™s moon IO. But the most glaring threat was the diplomatic issues going on between American and The Soviet Union. Events reminiscent of The Cuban Missile Crisis and other Cold War Events, deter the particulars of the mission at hand. However the fortitude of the late Roy Scheiderâ€™s Dr. Haywood Floyd encourages the crew(s)to band together and act as scientists and to ignore the politics and Fog of War.
The why(s) behind the deadly actions of HAL-9000 are fully explained and HAL-9000 at times becomes a character rather than a plot-device. Concurrently, HAL-9000â€™s survival (according to one of the scientists) is arguable as important as that of a human being. Hence the title of this article: Silicone or Carbon?
The pacing of this film will please the more casual movie watchers; yet is still smart enough to appease fans of the 1967 classic. The movie is in need of more character development for the supporting players. An already established relationship between the supporting characters (i.e. the Eames-Arthur relationship in Inception) would have drawn the audience closer. Yet overall this was a good case study of how to make a worthy sequel to a highly revered movie.