About
All feedback (3,459)
- *****- Feedback left by buyer.More than a year agoVerified purchaseGood seller!! accurate description, well packaged and quickly shipped.
- *****- Feedback left by buyer.More than a year agoVerified purchaseItem exactly as described. Fast shipping and excellent communication.
- *****- Feedback left by buyer.More than a year agoVerified purchaseFast shipping. As described. Recommend seller!
- *****- Feedback left by buyer.More than a year agoVerified purchaseGreat seller. Fast shipping. Items packed securely.
- *****- Feedback left by buyer.More than a year agoVerified purchaseArrived safe and sound, just as described! Many thanks!!
- *****- Feedback left by buyer.More than a year agoVerified purchaseVery great seller, excellent communication, highly recommended, AAA++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reviews (3)
Sep 10, 2006
Are There Light Bulbs in the Future?
9 of 14 found this helpful I wondered that when the interior of the Leonov (CCCP ship) was so freegin' dim. Or maybe the Ruskies were trying to save power by keeping all of the lights off! That really piqued my curiosity... On the whole, 2010 is an above average, yet not superior movie. If any fans of AC Clarke's series have read the book "The Odyssey File", which chronicles the making of 2010 (the book is composed of e-mail correspondence between Clarke and director Peter Hyams. They were among the first users of e-mail technology - in 1984!) reveals the director's paranoia and even humility as he hopes his film will even come close as a worthy successor to the peerless original. That peerless original, of course, is 2001.
2010 is dated, somewhat forgotten, and does fall short of the power of Kubrick's vision (how many times have you heard THAT before?). But Stan the Man is a hard act to follow. While 2001 is timeless, 2010 reveals its easily dated personality on a couple of occasions. The Cold War theme is the most obvious. The computers, monitors, and graphics used throughout are instantly identifiable, dressed-up Commodore 64-era tech hardware. Roy Scheider's character, Dr. Floyd, instructs his crew to "listen to your cassettes" to receive updates on their mission. Okay, so that line of dialogue wouldn't fly past 1992, when CDs were on the verge of killing the audio cassette star (*). But 2010 is not without merit. It follows its predecessor's footsteps to a faithful degree, filling in the aftermath of the Bowman-HAL fiasco, and the slew of interesting and dangerous ramifications it created.
Peter Hyams obviously set out to create a cerebral, based-in-reality production, unlike the other sci-fi movies of his day, which gave 2010 a distinct image. Return of the Jedi came out the year before, 1983, and the moviegoing public was probably still hot on heels of the Star Wars depiction of space movies, which I assume hurt the box-office chances of 2010.
It is a dated, yet hidden gem, crafted together with solid intentions and performances. The supporting cast of Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, and Bob Balaban play off each other very well and supply some thought-provoking and entertaining moments. The scenes with Bowman and Floyd are gripping, as is the later dialogue between Bowman and HAL. There are no explosions or corny "director tools" used, and the special effects (well, excluding the interior computer sets of the Leonov) were not revolutionary but get the job done.
2010 hasn't enjoyed the staying power of its contemporary brethren (Blade Runner, 1982; the Star Wars trilogy, 1977-1983; Alien/Aliens, 1979, 1986) and is a circle-square comparison to 2001. But it holds its own in many respects and is worth a few repeated viewings.
Sep 11, 2006
The dead hand that crawls KILLS and LIVES
5 of 8 found this helpful This period horror movie has all the right ingredients to be a success. It's got atmosphere, nice sets, Peter Cushing, an experienced horror director, a severed hand with a mind of it's own...but despite all this, it just doesn't work as it should. The principle reason for this is the plotting. It's slow, very slow, and there aren't a lot of things going on in the film. In fact, the film is so slow that even when there is something going on; it feels like there isn't, and this doesn't do the film any favours at all, as it feels like you're stuck in a time warp while watching it. It's a shame this isn't very good, as the cast and crew are experienced in the horror genre, and these guys together should have ensured a better film. I mean, we've got one of the legends of the genre; Peter Cushing, along with two of the smaller stars; Patrick Magee and Herbert Lom, and these guys are directed by one of Hammer Horror's big guns: Roy Ward Baker. How could the resulting movie end up so tragically miserable? You wouldn't think it could, but it did.
The plot follows a house that is under a curse due to some wrongdoing in the past. When the master of the house moves his virgin bride in, she starts experiencing various forms of horror. Like ghosts, severed hands, pregnancy...stuff like that. The first half of the movie is dismal; hardly anything happens, and the stuff that does isn't very interesting. Thankfully for the movie - and the audience - things pick up in the second half when a silly haircut wearing Peter Cushing enters the fray. He doesn't inspire the plot to do anything exciting and/or interesting really, but his screen presence is vast and it's hard to be bored when he's on screen, even if the rest of the movie sucks. The atmosphere and the sets are nicely done however, and this ensures that the dull plot has a nice area to inhabit. It's something of a waste, though, as a better story could easily have moulded around this setting; but at least the movie has some good points. None of the credible actors impress really, and it's more than evident that Cushing is on autopilot. But then again, that's all he needs to be on. If you have a desire to see every horror film ever made, I recommend this movie. Otherwise, it's maybe best to skip it.
Jul 09, 2018
Excellent, fast delivery
Excellent