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>
Originally, it was planned to film the opening scene (between Floyd and Moisevitch) at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, which is the world's largest radio telescope (while not mentioning it by name, the novel implies that the opening scene takes place there). However, when director Peter Hyams went to visit the location in 1983 he said it was too dirty to film there and so the Very Large Array in New Mexico was used instead. See more »
When the Leonov crew are attempting to board Discovery, we see that the planet and the moon are being lit from different directions. As they are both being lit by the sun, they should be lit from the same direction. See more »
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.
85 of 107 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?