In the distant future, a police marshal stationed at a remote mining colony on the Jupiter moon of Io uncovers a drug-smuggling conspiracy, and gets no help from the populace when he later finds himself marked for murder.
A soldier from Earth crash-lands on an alien world after sustaining battle damage. Eventually he encounters another survivor, but from the enemy species he was fighting; they band together ... See full summary »
Louis Gossett Jr.,
In this sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, a joint American- Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to discover what went wrong with the U.S.S. Discovery against a backdrop of growing global tensions. Among the mysteries the expedition must explain are the appearance of a huge black monolith in Jupiter's orbit and the fate of H.A.L., the Discovery's sentient computer. Based on a novel written by Arthur C. Clarke. Written by
Keith Loh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
When the derelict Discovery is first seen, it's tumbling dramatically end-over-end - this from the rotating crew deck's momentum having long since been conferred to the entire vessel. However, the ship is turning about the wrong axis. The crew deck, able to fit only in the rear half of the front sphere, can only then spin along the long axis of the craft. Thus, if that rotation is frozen, the ship must turn on that very same axis too... like a top. It would also spin very slowly, as the relatively small amount of rotational energy in the crew deck's mass would have been distributed over the enormity of the whole ship. That's similar to a figure skater, tucked tight in a fast spin, moving her arms out, proportionately slowing her speed. See more »
It is stated in the movie that the monolith has dimensions 1-4-9. Its width to height ratio is indeed 4 to 9. However, the thickness is far less than one fourth of the width. See more »
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.
105 of 151 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?