A fine, intelligent sci-fi movie that has the unenviable task of being a sequel to arguably the greatest sci-fi movie of all time. If it's at all possible for you to put aside comparisons to Kubrick's film, you should do so. 2001 certainly didn't need a sequel but, if it had to have one, it couldn't be much better than this. The story has Dr. Heywood Floyd (now played by Roy Scheider) joining a Russian mission to investigate the events of the first film. Basically the movie tries to spell out what happened in 2001 for everybody who didn't get it and provide some degree of closure to the story. It's a different movie than 2001 and, in some ways, a more accessible one. I say that knowing how many people hate 2001 for the very reasons many others (including myself) love it. The script here is not as enigmatic and the direction is less artful. The cast is very good and the special effects are excellent. It's not the experience Kubrick's masterpiece is but it is an enjoyable companion piece. Not necessary in any way but good nonetheless.
305 Reviews
Excellent sci-fi... give it a chance!
pranakhan23 May 2009
This is an excellent SCIENCE-fiction film. It carries on the story introduced in Kubrick's "2001", and ties up many loose ends and clarifies what happened in the first film. The effects are excellent even by today's standards, the acting is believable, the characters are well-developed, its pacing is tight, and its plot is well-executed. Finally, this is TRUE science-fiction, not space-opera, and I wish more movies were like this. I hope someone worthy picks up the remaining 2 Clarke novels for the screen.
Now:
1. To everyone saying this is a weak film because it doesn't match the depth, mystery, and style of Kubrick's 2001: You guys need to open your minds a bit! It's ridiculously unfair to measure this sequel, or any film, against 2001. It is, frankly, impossible for ANYONE to produce a film that matches Kubrick's style unless that someone *IS* Kubrick himself! 2010 was not produced to COMPETE with 2001 at all, the director stated that he never would have produced this film without Kubrick's and Clarke's BLESSING. I'm sure the director deliberately avoided copying any of the style of 2001 at the risk of failing miserably and upsetting his own idol. Kubrick told the director to make this movie his own, thus the director did! If you go cynically comparing all sci-fi films to rare masterpieces you will only end up ruining your own chance of enjoying them for their own merits. It's like saying all music is of dubious value because it wasn't composed by Beethoven! You're only hurting and embarrassing yourself.
2. A number of reviewers felt that the monitors on the ships (actual CRTs built into the sets) look cheesy due to their pixellated graphics and curved faces. Well, you guys are assuming that Kubrick's film has flat panels because of some scientific rationale about the future. Did you think that maybe Kubrick didn't use CRTs on his sets was because they did not have color CRTs available in 1968 that were small or cheap enough to build into his sets? All his screens were flat because they used slide projectors to flash static images against the back of semi-transparent screens. Most images were hand drawn to resemble possible computer generated images. The original 2001 scene of the videophone was created by projecting a reel of film against the back of a screen. In 1984, the computer industry was just starting to explode, and color-CRT displays as small as 12" were readily available! When those set designers sat down to think about what the ship of the future would look like, they rationalized that they would be full of CRT displays in 2010, which was only 27 years in the ACTUAL future! How could they know we'd have low cost high resolution LCD flat-screens after only 17 years? You limit your enjoyment by over-intellectualizing everything with a cynical attitude. Of course the graphics were blocky! They were rendered by REAL computers, not hand drawn by artists. I'm sure in 1984 they felt that was a great idea and a nod towards future possibilities!
3. Many people criticize the heavy amount of dialog in 2010 contrasted to the lack of dialog in 2001. Again, we're falling back on the "not Kubrick" style issue. Regardless, you do realize that the BOOK for 2001 was FULL of dialog, right? You DID realize that 2001 is not JUST a film, it has a companion novel several hundred pages long? Since it's a story developed by TWO people, and not just Kubrick, perhaps the lack of dialog is only one director's idea at visualizing the novel and not integral to the STORY itself?
4. Some have heavily criticized the scientific components of 2010, stating that Kubrick had NASA consultants available when he made his film, and that 2010 is weak in this area... Well, I'm wondering why you assume that it wasn't the same case for 2010? Do you have some kind of special insider info about the making of 2010? Because, I believe that there are numerous production notes readily available clearly stating that the director of 2010 was careful in this regard and had many scientific consultants involved in the production of 2010. There is a whole book containing copies of emails between the director of 2010 and Clarke! I remember reading that even Carl Sagan had input into 2010! Oh yeah, lets not forget that Clarke makes a brief cameo in the film, and that both Clarke and Kubrick appear on a magazine cover in the film? If that's not an official endorsement of the film's authenticity and canon, then I am sorely mistaken.
I'm just getting tired of these seemingly angry, cynical, ego-maniacally tedious reviewers bashing the merits of decent films. These people often assume they're brilliant enough to understand what Kubrik (or any filmmaker) was thinking. Dude, you're not Kubrick, you're not a genius artist, you don't even make films! Cynical attitudes are self-destructive, intelligent people are by nature open-minded, and analyze things on their own merits and faults instead of holding everything against rare artistic standards from previous works. The merits or faults of any work are entirely subjective. Many people rate 2001 as one of the greatest movies ever only because all the smart-sounding people do. How many call 2001 a "masterpeice" because they truly, emotionally, and intellectually appreciate the work itself, or simply because it's Kubrick's? How many of you can even honestly answer that question without lying to yourselves?
For the rest of you... if you are open-minded, and consider 2010 for what it is: a DIFFERENT director's take on telling a story from a DIFFERENT book, produced in a DIFFERENT era, then you will enjoy this movie, appreciating that it stands on it's own as one of the top science-fiction films made. And I bet you really enjoy yourselves when you watch movies too, even if they have some flaws.
Good for you!
Now:
1. To everyone saying this is a weak film because it doesn't match the depth, mystery, and style of Kubrick's 2001: You guys need to open your minds a bit! It's ridiculously unfair to measure this sequel, or any film, against 2001. It is, frankly, impossible for ANYONE to produce a film that matches Kubrick's style unless that someone *IS* Kubrick himself! 2010 was not produced to COMPETE with 2001 at all, the director stated that he never would have produced this film without Kubrick's and Clarke's BLESSING. I'm sure the director deliberately avoided copying any of the style of 2001 at the risk of failing miserably and upsetting his own idol. Kubrick told the director to make this movie his own, thus the director did! If you go cynically comparing all sci-fi films to rare masterpieces you will only end up ruining your own chance of enjoying them for their own merits. It's like saying all music is of dubious value because it wasn't composed by Beethoven! You're only hurting and embarrassing yourself.
2. A number of reviewers felt that the monitors on the ships (actual CRTs built into the sets) look cheesy due to their pixellated graphics and curved faces. Well, you guys are assuming that Kubrick's film has flat panels because of some scientific rationale about the future. Did you think that maybe Kubrick didn't use CRTs on his sets was because they did not have color CRTs available in 1968 that were small or cheap enough to build into his sets? All his screens were flat because they used slide projectors to flash static images against the back of semi-transparent screens. Most images were hand drawn to resemble possible computer generated images. The original 2001 scene of the videophone was created by projecting a reel of film against the back of a screen. In 1984, the computer industry was just starting to explode, and color-CRT displays as small as 12" were readily available! When those set designers sat down to think about what the ship of the future would look like, they rationalized that they would be full of CRT displays in 2010, which was only 27 years in the ACTUAL future! How could they know we'd have low cost high resolution LCD flat-screens after only 17 years? You limit your enjoyment by over-intellectualizing everything with a cynical attitude. Of course the graphics were blocky! They were rendered by REAL computers, not hand drawn by artists. I'm sure in 1984 they felt that was a great idea and a nod towards future possibilities!
3. Many people criticize the heavy amount of dialog in 2010 contrasted to the lack of dialog in 2001. Again, we're falling back on the "not Kubrick" style issue. Regardless, you do realize that the BOOK for 2001 was FULL of dialog, right? You DID realize that 2001 is not JUST a film, it has a companion novel several hundred pages long? Since it's a story developed by TWO people, and not just Kubrick, perhaps the lack of dialog is only one director's idea at visualizing the novel and not integral to the STORY itself?
4. Some have heavily criticized the scientific components of 2010, stating that Kubrick had NASA consultants available when he made his film, and that 2010 is weak in this area... Well, I'm wondering why you assume that it wasn't the same case for 2010? Do you have some kind of special insider info about the making of 2010? Because, I believe that there are numerous production notes readily available clearly stating that the director of 2010 was careful in this regard and had many scientific consultants involved in the production of 2010. There is a whole book containing copies of emails between the director of 2010 and Clarke! I remember reading that even Carl Sagan had input into 2010! Oh yeah, lets not forget that Clarke makes a brief cameo in the film, and that both Clarke and Kubrick appear on a magazine cover in the film? If that's not an official endorsement of the film's authenticity and canon, then I am sorely mistaken.
I'm just getting tired of these seemingly angry, cynical, ego-maniacally tedious reviewers bashing the merits of decent films. These people often assume they're brilliant enough to understand what Kubrik (or any filmmaker) was thinking. Dude, you're not Kubrick, you're not a genius artist, you don't even make films! Cynical attitudes are self-destructive, intelligent people are by nature open-minded, and analyze things on their own merits and faults instead of holding everything against rare artistic standards from previous works. The merits or faults of any work are entirely subjective. Many people rate 2001 as one of the greatest movies ever only because all the smart-sounding people do. How many call 2001 a "masterpeice" because they truly, emotionally, and intellectually appreciate the work itself, or simply because it's Kubrick's? How many of you can even honestly answer that question without lying to yourselves?
For the rest of you... if you are open-minded, and consider 2010 for what it is: a DIFFERENT director's take on telling a story from a DIFFERENT book, produced in a DIFFERENT era, then you will enjoy this movie, appreciating that it stands on it's own as one of the top science-fiction films made. And I bet you really enjoy yourselves when you watch movies too, even if they have some flaws.
Good for you!
In the future, there are no lightbulbs
Artdoag219 December 2003
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.
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.
Watch this movie if you want to understand the previous one a little bit better
ken_vandenbussche27 January 2002
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.
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.
The Mystery of the Monolith...
Xstal22 November 2022
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.
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.
A much different movie than the first one.
tcuthbertson16 November 1999
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).
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).
This film deserves more attention.
kaboris119 May 2004
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.
One of the most underrated science fiction movie ever.
mascalzonelatino7 December 2013
This is the sequel of a masterpiece, 2001. So it has to be a mess, right? Wrong.
Yes, the novel by Arthur C. Clarke on which the film is based is even better, but you know, something has to be rewritten to accommodate the Hollywood industry, focused on bigger audiences.
But this is one of the very few sci-fi movies where pure astronomy and aeronautics are at the center of the scene, and not something ridiculously ugly and pathetic came from another world only to be owned by our heroes.
It's made for two reasons: try to explain what the hell happened in 2001 and what the monoliths are made for, giving a damn good finale to the whole story.
Yes, the novel by Arthur C. Clarke on which the film is based is even better, but you know, something has to be rewritten to accommodate the Hollywood industry, focused on bigger audiences.
But this is one of the very few sci-fi movies where pure astronomy and aeronautics are at the center of the scene, and not something ridiculously ugly and pathetic came from another world only to be owned by our heroes.
It's made for two reasons: try to explain what the hell happened in 2001 and what the monoliths are made for, giving a damn good finale to the whole story.
A good sci-fi film
Virginia_Farmboy26 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
While "2010" cannot compare to the masterpiece that is "2001," it is still a good example of the type of sci-fi film that should be made. And by that, I mean a sci-fi film should be about adventure and mystery more than anything else. This film provides plenty of that: there is the search for the lost Discovery ship over Jupiter; there is the investigation of the monolith; and finally, there is the final race to blast away from Jupiter.
"2010" surprised me with its performances. Roy Scheider is well-cast as Dr. Floyd, who's trying to figure everything else; Helen Mirren is solid as the Russian commander; and the supporting performances from Lithgow, Balaban, and the "Russian guy who's in everything" Elya Baskin are fine. And the series couldn't be complete without Keir Dullea or Douglas Rain reprising their roles as Bowman and HAL respectively.
Even though they date from 1984, the visual effects hold off astonishingly well. I was especially impressed with the rippling Jupiter (early CGI) as well as the attempt-to-hook-onto-Discovery scene. My main problems with the movie come from the fact that it is very dated now (in terms of world politics and technology), but that could not have been help. It also is kind of a let down to be told the reasons for some of the events of "2001," but again that is only the novel's fault. This movie is a worthy sequel to Kubrick's film, and is the kind of sci-fi film Hollywood should focus on making.
"2010" surprised me with its performances. Roy Scheider is well-cast as Dr. Floyd, who's trying to figure everything else; Helen Mirren is solid as the Russian commander; and the supporting performances from Lithgow, Balaban, and the "Russian guy who's in everything" Elya Baskin are fine. And the series couldn't be complete without Keir Dullea or Douglas Rain reprising their roles as Bowman and HAL respectively.
Even though they date from 1984, the visual effects hold off astonishingly well. I was especially impressed with the rippling Jupiter (early CGI) as well as the attempt-to-hook-onto-Discovery scene. My main problems with the movie come from the fact that it is very dated now (in terms of world politics and technology), but that could not have been help. It also is kind of a let down to be told the reasons for some of the events of "2001," but again that is only the novel's fault. This movie is a worthy sequel to Kubrick's film, and is the kind of sci-fi film Hollywood should focus on making.
Been there, done that, didn't need the book.
jtrascap27 June 1999
It's definitely a division maker, a film that splits it's viewers down the middle. If you're a 2001 fan then you'll hate it - the sense of mystery and discovery is lost as events and motivations are layed-out and explained every step of the way. If you didn't like 2001, wondering aloud what the heck you just saw, I suggest you do see 2010 since you'll love the directness of the workmanlike treatment.
It's not a a put-down - it's just that the styles are so completely different that you have to consider the messenger as much as the message. 2001 was visionary in nearly every sense the word has -- it threw out the concept of the narrative (visual or otherwise) in an attempt to make you reach your own, personal conclusion of what happened. Rebirth? Ascension? Some Nietche-ish evolution to a "superman"? You tell me -- 2001 expects quite a lot from the viewer that 2010 would much rather even mention.
By comparison, 2010 is very much an old-fashioned Hollywood movie. It explains *everything*, step by step, and includes a Roy Scheider voice-over to help thread the small gaps in time between scenes together. The voice over is often beyond silly - it's in the lyric of a series of emails from Heywood to his wife who, it should be noted, is fearful for her husband's safety. Any spouse sitting through a reading of the atmosphere braking technique will probably not sleep for weeks. Any husband who could write that deserves a slap for scaring the beegeezus out of her.
2010 is not a strong film - frankly, it's quite derivative. It's visual sensibilities leech directly into "Alien" while inside the spacecraft (from the control buttons and displays on the Russian craft, to the lighting of the of EVA room as Baskin and Lithgow take their walk to Discovery, to the smoky "atmosphere" in the interiors when discussing the "troubles" at home). Outside, Hyams tries and is successful in the sense of scope and grandeur of space, and out pitiful size in relation to the course of the Universe. While he apes Kubrick, probably to establish a sense of continuity between the two films, he is at his best in the action scenes as the Leanov (sp?) enters Jupiter space. Either way, you watch this movie and get the feeling you've seen it all before.
To be fair, Scheider is very good in his role of Heywood Floyd, that is if you dismiss the style of the previous occupant of that role, William Sylvester, as only a Kubrick mannequin. Again, the camps are divided -- I believe I understand the tact Kubrick chose to take, the sense of human alienation and evolutionary boredom, and while 2010 puts "real people" in space and makes the voyage to the stars more human, this wasn't the goal of Kubrick. Kubrick wanted to show man at a spiritual, cultural and evolutionary dead-end, and so human reactions (like 2001's Bowman going after HAL) only escape from people as their vestiges of civilization fail them. Different approaches, different movies. So why compare them? Well, life's just not fair, now is it?
If you really don't need to compare the two, you can enjoy 2010. It's not a bad film, it just doesn't give much credit to the intelligence of the audience. That may not be a bad thing, so long as it's entertaining (insert Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler joke here) and 2010 can be entertaining at times. So long as you dismiss 2001 as a separate work of art.
If you have the time and the patience, see 2001 twice, giving yourself a week or two to let it all set in, and then remember that not everything in the Universe has added value by being strictly described.
Actually, whenever I watch 2010, I often wonder if Bob Balaban, hanging in HAL's memory center, is really as nauseous as he appears. And to the people who believe Kubrick was egotistical for destroying his sets, he did so because of what happened after Spartacus: Once production has ceased and the company left Italy, nearly every gladiator film of the '60 were shot on his old sets, some even coming out before Spartacus did.
Stanley Kubrick and Steve Reeves? Now THAT'S the ultimate trip...
It's not a a put-down - it's just that the styles are so completely different that you have to consider the messenger as much as the message. 2001 was visionary in nearly every sense the word has -- it threw out the concept of the narrative (visual or otherwise) in an attempt to make you reach your own, personal conclusion of what happened. Rebirth? Ascension? Some Nietche-ish evolution to a "superman"? You tell me -- 2001 expects quite a lot from the viewer that 2010 would much rather even mention.
By comparison, 2010 is very much an old-fashioned Hollywood movie. It explains *everything*, step by step, and includes a Roy Scheider voice-over to help thread the small gaps in time between scenes together. The voice over is often beyond silly - it's in the lyric of a series of emails from Heywood to his wife who, it should be noted, is fearful for her husband's safety. Any spouse sitting through a reading of the atmosphere braking technique will probably not sleep for weeks. Any husband who could write that deserves a slap for scaring the beegeezus out of her.
2010 is not a strong film - frankly, it's quite derivative. It's visual sensibilities leech directly into "Alien" while inside the spacecraft (from the control buttons and displays on the Russian craft, to the lighting of the of EVA room as Baskin and Lithgow take their walk to Discovery, to the smoky "atmosphere" in the interiors when discussing the "troubles" at home). Outside, Hyams tries and is successful in the sense of scope and grandeur of space, and out pitiful size in relation to the course of the Universe. While he apes Kubrick, probably to establish a sense of continuity between the two films, he is at his best in the action scenes as the Leanov (sp?) enters Jupiter space. Either way, you watch this movie and get the feeling you've seen it all before.
To be fair, Scheider is very good in his role of Heywood Floyd, that is if you dismiss the style of the previous occupant of that role, William Sylvester, as only a Kubrick mannequin. Again, the camps are divided -- I believe I understand the tact Kubrick chose to take, the sense of human alienation and evolutionary boredom, and while 2010 puts "real people" in space and makes the voyage to the stars more human, this wasn't the goal of Kubrick. Kubrick wanted to show man at a spiritual, cultural and evolutionary dead-end, and so human reactions (like 2001's Bowman going after HAL) only escape from people as their vestiges of civilization fail them. Different approaches, different movies. So why compare them? Well, life's just not fair, now is it?
If you really don't need to compare the two, you can enjoy 2010. It's not a bad film, it just doesn't give much credit to the intelligence of the audience. That may not be a bad thing, so long as it's entertaining (insert Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler joke here) and 2010 can be entertaining at times. So long as you dismiss 2001 as a separate work of art.
If you have the time and the patience, see 2001 twice, giving yourself a week or two to let it all set in, and then remember that not everything in the Universe has added value by being strictly described.
Actually, whenever I watch 2010, I often wonder if Bob Balaban, hanging in HAL's memory center, is really as nauseous as he appears. And to the people who believe Kubrick was egotistical for destroying his sets, he did so because of what happened after Spartacus: Once production has ceased and the company left Italy, nearly every gladiator film of the '60 were shot on his old sets, some even coming out before Spartacus did.
Stanley Kubrick and Steve Reeves? Now THAT'S the ultimate trip...
Nominated for 5 Oscars.
robfollower5 March 2019
In the long-awaited sequel to "2001: A Space Odyssey," Roy Scheider is sent back into space on a joint mission with the Soviets to try to find out what happened on the original mission. An attempt to answer the many questions left at the end of the first movie regarding the fate of one of the astronauts, the HAL 9000 computer and the spaceship Discovery on their journey to explore Jupiter.
Now that enough time has elapsed since the release of 2010 for outraged 2001 fans to calm down, it can be seen that, while there was no decisive creative reason for Hyams' sequel to exist, it's not a bad movie.
A good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space opera.
Now that enough time has elapsed since the release of 2010 for outraged 2001 fans to calm down, it can be seen that, while there was no decisive creative reason for Hyams' sequel to exist, it's not a bad movie.
A good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space opera.
My God. It's full of stars.
Hey_Sweden20 January 2020
Writer, cinematographer, producer & director Peter Hyams, a filmmaker who's given us some pretty good pictures over the decades, attempts here what must have seemed to viewers of the period to be near-impossible. How DOES one follow up such an iconic science-fiction film as "2001"? Well, Hyams may be no Stanley Kubrick, but he capably guides through this engrossing story, which he scripted from the novel by Arthur C. Clarke.
The Cold War was still in full swing at this time, and American and Soviet governments are on the brink of war while a joint Russian-American mission is launched into space. These astronauts will do their best to probe the mystery of what went wrong on the Discovery spacecraft several years ago. Leading the Americans is likeable Everyman Heywood Floyd (played in Kubricks' film by William Sylvester, and here by Roy Scheider).
The most obvious criticism to be made of "2010" is understandable, in that it tries to explain as much as possible, taking away from the mystery and enigma of "2001". As a result, it's not as provocative or stimulating, and leads to a rather familiar ending for science-fiction films.
Still, the film is well paced, and VERY well designed and photographed in widescreen. It may not be a truly great film for the genre, but it is definitely a good one, with a majestic score by David Shire (not a composer typically identified with the science-fiction genre) and a wonderful international cast. Roy is just the right anchor to hold everything together, and he receives strong support from John Lithgow, Helen Mirren (a delight in a real character role), Bob Balaban, Keir Dullea (reprising his role of astronaut Dave Bowman), Douglas Rain (once again supplying the relaxed voice of computer intelligence HAL-9000, who is reawakened), Madolyn Smith Osborne, Dana Elcar, James McEachin, Mary Jo Deschanel (wife of cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, and mother to actresses Zooey and Emily Deschanel), Elya Baskin, Jan Triska, Herta Ware, and Robert Lesser. Look hard for author Clarke on a Washington, D.C. park bench.
I would agree that this is *not* a weak film. It tells a good story, and certainly held this viewers' attention for the better part of two hours. It's reasonably intelligent fare that will appeal to sci-fi lovers looking for more adult entertainment.
Seven out of 10.
The Cold War was still in full swing at this time, and American and Soviet governments are on the brink of war while a joint Russian-American mission is launched into space. These astronauts will do their best to probe the mystery of what went wrong on the Discovery spacecraft several years ago. Leading the Americans is likeable Everyman Heywood Floyd (played in Kubricks' film by William Sylvester, and here by Roy Scheider).
The most obvious criticism to be made of "2010" is understandable, in that it tries to explain as much as possible, taking away from the mystery and enigma of "2001". As a result, it's not as provocative or stimulating, and leads to a rather familiar ending for science-fiction films.
Still, the film is well paced, and VERY well designed and photographed in widescreen. It may not be a truly great film for the genre, but it is definitely a good one, with a majestic score by David Shire (not a composer typically identified with the science-fiction genre) and a wonderful international cast. Roy is just the right anchor to hold everything together, and he receives strong support from John Lithgow, Helen Mirren (a delight in a real character role), Bob Balaban, Keir Dullea (reprising his role of astronaut Dave Bowman), Douglas Rain (once again supplying the relaxed voice of computer intelligence HAL-9000, who is reawakened), Madolyn Smith Osborne, Dana Elcar, James McEachin, Mary Jo Deschanel (wife of cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, and mother to actresses Zooey and Emily Deschanel), Elya Baskin, Jan Triska, Herta Ware, and Robert Lesser. Look hard for author Clarke on a Washington, D.C. park bench.
I would agree that this is *not* a weak film. It tells a good story, and certainly held this viewers' attention for the better part of two hours. It's reasonably intelligent fare that will appeal to sci-fi lovers looking for more adult entertainment.
Seven out of 10.
If Clarke's a part of it, it's good enough for me
Rammstein-213 December 2000
I measure sci-fi flicks after the amount of correctness and scientific expertise (with the exception of fun but brainless sci-fi such as "Armageddon" or "Starship Troopers"), and if something is good enough for Clarke or Sagan, it's good enough for me.
This sequel to "2001" is much less of a mystery and is not so tedious. It follows the book very well, right up to the fantastic ending that thrilled me beyond belief when I read it. I actually wish for the rest of the series to be made into films as well, especially 2064, which is a fantastic space adventure with crash landings on the forbidden moon, mentioned in "2010", a rescue mission and a chance to get a closer look at the biological experiment that the makers of the monolith have undertaken by "lighting" Jupiter, the failed second star of the Solar System.
A good film, no more, no less, and though overshadowed by it's infamous prequel, it is a tad easier to watch.
This sequel to "2001" is much less of a mystery and is not so tedious. It follows the book very well, right up to the fantastic ending that thrilled me beyond belief when I read it. I actually wish for the rest of the series to be made into films as well, especially 2064, which is a fantastic space adventure with crash landings on the forbidden moon, mentioned in "2010", a rescue mission and a chance to get a closer look at the biological experiment that the makers of the monolith have undertaken by "lighting" Jupiter, the failed second star of the Solar System.
A good film, no more, no less, and though overshadowed by it's infamous prequel, it is a tad easier to watch.
Fine film.
Kane III14 June 2000
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.
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.
One of the Better Space-Fi Sequels - A Must-See After Seeing 2001
Instant_Palmer13 April 2023
Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' still stands as the the best Space-Fi film and one of the Top 100 Greatest Films Ever Made 💯. Peter Hyams' '2010' is not at that level of film art, but the Arthur C. Clarke's story from which this film was adapted is nonetheless a breathtaking sci-fi adventure, and wraps up the big picture and brings clarity to the original story.
Casting and acting are more than adequate, and direction keeps a focus on the logical thinking of scientists in mind throughout, giving scenes a decent level of credibility, letting the story itself create the tension and drama.
Highly recommended to see 2001: A Space Odyssey first ot you will be lost in space.
Casting and acting are more than adequate, and direction keeps a focus on the logical thinking of scientists in mind throughout, giving scenes a decent level of credibility, letting the story itself create the tension and drama.
Highly recommended to see 2001: A Space Odyssey first ot you will be lost in space.
Helps to read the book first
merylmatt1 January 2011
I was lucky - I read 2001 before I saw the movie, so I knew what the heck was going on. That enabled me to enjoy the movie and its artistic visualization of what was going on. I think the same thing applies here - if you've read the sequel 2010, you'd enjoy the movie more.
Is 2010 as good as the original? Nope, but then again 2001 was one of the best ever. This is a very good movie for its time, it helps to understand the cold war that was going on in 1984 when it was made. I'm not a big Roy Scheider fan, but he did OK in the movie. What I liked best is that it was very faithful to the book and makes Sci Fi into an art. Aurther C Clarke is so popular because he makes you see the beauty and wonder of what is out there, what is possible.
2010, like 2001, is a great visualization of what Clarke is writing about. Man's search for the truth, the meaning of life, what is important to us as a race. To me, that is all very interesting.
Is 2010 as good as the original? Nope, but then again 2001 was one of the best ever. This is a very good movie for its time, it helps to understand the cold war that was going on in 1984 when it was made. I'm not a big Roy Scheider fan, but he did OK in the movie. What I liked best is that it was very faithful to the book and makes Sci Fi into an art. Aurther C Clarke is so popular because he makes you see the beauty and wonder of what is out there, what is possible.
2010, like 2001, is a great visualization of what Clarke is writing about. Man's search for the truth, the meaning of life, what is important to us as a race. To me, that is all very interesting.
Actually, it's very good!
Boba_Fett113823 July 2003
Of course it comes nowhere close to the brilliance of "2001: A Space Odyssey", but I don't think that ever was the makers intension. I believe that "2010" was made to tie up the loose ends and answer some of the questions that "2001: A Space Odyssey" left.
While "2001: A Space Odyssey" was more a visual movie, "2010" actually has many dialog but that doesn't mean that the movie isn't visually spectacular. The sets look beautiful and the special effects also have improved a lot.
The story is easier to follow and therefor the movie is more better to watch for a wider range of people then "2001: A space Odyssey" was. And I even think that this movie is pleasant to watch even if you haven't seen "2001: A Space Odyssey". luckily HAL is still scary even though his role is smaller in this one. And the space walk is actually still one of my favorite moments in cinema history!
The performances by the actors are good, and the tension and relation between the Americans and Russians is done very well.
Although not as brilliant, easier to watch as "2001: A Space Odyssey"
8/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
While "2001: A Space Odyssey" was more a visual movie, "2010" actually has many dialog but that doesn't mean that the movie isn't visually spectacular. The sets look beautiful and the special effects also have improved a lot.
The story is easier to follow and therefor the movie is more better to watch for a wider range of people then "2001: A space Odyssey" was. And I even think that this movie is pleasant to watch even if you haven't seen "2001: A Space Odyssey". luckily HAL is still scary even though his role is smaller in this one. And the space walk is actually still one of my favorite moments in cinema history!
The performances by the actors are good, and the tension and relation between the Americans and Russians is done very well.
Although not as brilliant, easier to watch as "2001: A Space Odyssey"
8/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
My God - it's full of answers!
And yet, this is a good film when looking at it as a straightforward search-and-rescue science fiction film, what Id assume is a faithful (maybe too faithful) adaptation of Clarke's work, it has an inspiring message about Americans and Russians somehow coming together, and maybe some day I will return to it... But I know it won't be like I do 2001, which worked more like a piece of grand philosophical-psychedelic opera than a traditional film.
Oh, and Keir Dullea is terrific here. So is the late Douglas Rain, in particular his performance with Balaban in the climax (that helps to make up for a lot that I had issues with, it's actually a wonderful arc that HAL gets to complete that I didn't even realize was an arc until it happened like it does).
PS: Sure, write off Squirt, Heywood's daughter from 2001, with one line... But what about the Bush Baby damn it?!
Quinoa198428 March 2019
- A fascinating point: this is a sequel to 2001 that would not have this production design without coming after Alien (and in other ways too Hyams I think, consciously or not, was influenced by it- Helen Mirren has Ripley hair and arguably her attitude, if Ripley were a Russian officer in space- not to say it was uncommon, but it's what it is), yet it is still very much a sequel to 2001, so I really loved looking at this film for that hybrid aspect. This may also be as a result of having an Alien-like premise, of a rescue mission gone awry. Everything aesthetically, from the costumes to David Shire's peaceful (if not all awe-inspiring) score to Richard Edlund's special effects, are solid gold.
- Everything about when John Lithgow's engineer goes into space to open the other ship is perfect; he brings a terrified human reaction to it that, frankly, was either missing or subverted in Kubrick's film. However...
- Hyams great sin is to over explain things. I dont even mean with the film overall as far as answering things left ambiguous or just open for interpretation (though there is that); I mean liken when Heywood Floyd has narration as if it's Star Trek and his Captain's Log to his wife explains things we can already get without it (ie the explanation, really to the audience more than to her, about the ship flinging around the planet, or the thoughts about Europa). I know Kubrick and I suspect someone like Ridley Scott would leave it wordless and the audience would get it, not to mention it would feel more of a piece with 2001 at least in directing terms.
And yet, this is a good film when looking at it as a straightforward search-and-rescue science fiction film, what Id assume is a faithful (maybe too faithful) adaptation of Clarke's work, it has an inspiring message about Americans and Russians somehow coming together, and maybe some day I will return to it... But I know it won't be like I do 2001, which worked more like a piece of grand philosophical-psychedelic opera than a traditional film.
Oh, and Keir Dullea is terrific here. So is the late Douglas Rain, in particular his performance with Balaban in the climax (that helps to make up for a lot that I had issues with, it's actually a wonderful arc that HAL gets to complete that I didn't even realize was an arc until it happened like it does).
PS: Sure, write off Squirt, Heywood's daughter from 2001, with one line... But what about the Bush Baby damn it?!
It took me decades to appreciate this film, so I hope this review might save you a few years
rooprect26 May 2021
We open on a warm, orange sunrise over the colossal radio dishes in New Mexico where our hero, the American scientist George Floyd, is high up on a dish scaffold. A jovial but mysterious Russian scientist appears below shouting a few words of mocking admiration. Floyd responds from his perch, "Who the hell are you?" The Russian continues chatting as he slowly lumbers up the steps, and the two strangers trade witty jabs at each other, carefully maneuvering around the subject of the original Jupiter Mission which ended in tragic failure 9 years earlier. The Russian pauses barely halfway up the first flight of steps and says, "This is very bad for my asthma. You think you could meet me halfway?" Floyd utters a noncommittal "Maybe" but doesn't budge. The conversation turns political as they chat about some "very bad" events happening between America and Russia. Then abruptly the Russian says "Let's play a game called The Truth. For two minutes, I will tell only the truth. And so will you." Floyd counters with: "Make it a minute and a half". The Russian offers: "A minute and three quarters." The whole time as we're witnessing this bizarre, comical New Mexican standoff, the camera periodically cuts to a wide shot showing exactly how far apart the two are (physically as well as politically), and how each adversary bargains his way closer to the other on the stairs of this enormous white satellite dish in the middle of the desert.
"We are scientists, you and I, Dr. Floyd. Our governments are enemies. We are not."
This is the greatest "cold war" opening of any film I've ever seen. And make no mistake, "2010" is a film about the Cold War even though it may have spaceships and extraterrestrials and possibly a psycho killer robot or two. In 1984 master director Peter Hyams ("Capricorn One", "Outland") teamed up with the iconic scifi author Arthur C. Clarke ("Childhood's End", "Fountains of Paradise" and the original "2001: A Space Odyssey") to bring to the screen a companion film to the amazing "2001". If you're a fan of Hyams' style, then don't even bother reading the rest of my review; just go watch the movie. Much like "Capricorn One" this movie is a really cool blend of scifi and political thriller. But you shouldn't expect "Star Wars" nor should you expect "The Manchurian Candidate" because it's not that sort of scifi or political thriller. Like all Hyams films it focuses on individuals, and on that level it succeeds brilliantly. More about that in a sec, first here's the basic plot.
The derelict ship The USS Discovery has been spinning wildly around Jupiter's moon Io for 9 years since its mission was abruptly terminated in the 1st movie. There's also this business about a creepy 6-mile high monolith in the general vicinity. Both America & Russia want to get there first and unlock the secrets of what happened, but guess what, the only way anyone can reach it is if the 2 antagonistic countries form a joint mission. And they gotta do it fast because The Discovery's orbit is decaying and it'll burn up with all its secrets.
Back to the theme of individuals which Hyams is great at presenting. "2010" is a very human film. In that respect it presents a great contrast against the original "2001" which Kubrick presented as a very sterile, inhuman experience. In the 1st film nobody showed any emotion, none of the characters really had a soul except, ironically, the ship's computer. Here we get a wonderful array of very human, very warm and interesting characters. The script is full of comedic banter, full of genuine connections between people--whether friendly or adversarial or both, like in that powerful 1st scene. And that's the real magic of this story.
Sure, you can watch it for the story alone because that's really intelligent as well as suspensefully presented (tell me your heart doesn't go through the roof during the Europa probe scene. Or the aero-braking scene. Or HAL's "I think we should abort the countdown" scene. Double-check the batteries in your pacemakers, folks!). But for my money, I love this film for way it fleshes out each quirky character in this tight, claustrophobic mission to reach the derelict ship. Everyone will pick their own favorite, but my money goes to Bob Balaban who plays Dr Chandra, the socially awkward genius who built--and is responsible for resurrecting--the psycho robot HAL9000. But there's also John Lithgow playing the "everyman" engineer Curnow who can't take 2 steps in space without puking but who, along with his Russian counterpart Max, gives us some great human moments and comedic spice. Again, this movie is all about humanity against the coldness of space.
First time I saw this movie I thought it was good but "boring" (hey I was like 9 years old). I watched it a few years later and liked it a lot. Then I bought the book and read it. Then watched the movie again and loved it. Now, a decade or 2 after my initial introduction to this film, a decade or 2 since I've been exploring cinema and not just Hollywood stuff but obscure gems from all over the world and every decade, I keep coming back to "2010" as one of the greatest scifi flicks out there. Here's hoping your odyssey doesn't take as long. There's so much more to this film than meets the eye. Like that opening scene, you can practically write an entire essay on that alone. Egads I think I just did.
"We are scientists, you and I, Dr. Floyd. Our governments are enemies. We are not."
This is the greatest "cold war" opening of any film I've ever seen. And make no mistake, "2010" is a film about the Cold War even though it may have spaceships and extraterrestrials and possibly a psycho killer robot or two. In 1984 master director Peter Hyams ("Capricorn One", "Outland") teamed up with the iconic scifi author Arthur C. Clarke ("Childhood's End", "Fountains of Paradise" and the original "2001: A Space Odyssey") to bring to the screen a companion film to the amazing "2001". If you're a fan of Hyams' style, then don't even bother reading the rest of my review; just go watch the movie. Much like "Capricorn One" this movie is a really cool blend of scifi and political thriller. But you shouldn't expect "Star Wars" nor should you expect "The Manchurian Candidate" because it's not that sort of scifi or political thriller. Like all Hyams films it focuses on individuals, and on that level it succeeds brilliantly. More about that in a sec, first here's the basic plot.
The derelict ship The USS Discovery has been spinning wildly around Jupiter's moon Io for 9 years since its mission was abruptly terminated in the 1st movie. There's also this business about a creepy 6-mile high monolith in the general vicinity. Both America & Russia want to get there first and unlock the secrets of what happened, but guess what, the only way anyone can reach it is if the 2 antagonistic countries form a joint mission. And they gotta do it fast because The Discovery's orbit is decaying and it'll burn up with all its secrets.
Back to the theme of individuals which Hyams is great at presenting. "2010" is a very human film. In that respect it presents a great contrast against the original "2001" which Kubrick presented as a very sterile, inhuman experience. In the 1st film nobody showed any emotion, none of the characters really had a soul except, ironically, the ship's computer. Here we get a wonderful array of very human, very warm and interesting characters. The script is full of comedic banter, full of genuine connections between people--whether friendly or adversarial or both, like in that powerful 1st scene. And that's the real magic of this story.
Sure, you can watch it for the story alone because that's really intelligent as well as suspensefully presented (tell me your heart doesn't go through the roof during the Europa probe scene. Or the aero-braking scene. Or HAL's "I think we should abort the countdown" scene. Double-check the batteries in your pacemakers, folks!). But for my money, I love this film for way it fleshes out each quirky character in this tight, claustrophobic mission to reach the derelict ship. Everyone will pick their own favorite, but my money goes to Bob Balaban who plays Dr Chandra, the socially awkward genius who built--and is responsible for resurrecting--the psycho robot HAL9000. But there's also John Lithgow playing the "everyman" engineer Curnow who can't take 2 steps in space without puking but who, along with his Russian counterpart Max, gives us some great human moments and comedic spice. Again, this movie is all about humanity against the coldness of space.
First time I saw this movie I thought it was good but "boring" (hey I was like 9 years old). I watched it a few years later and liked it a lot. Then I bought the book and read it. Then watched the movie again and loved it. Now, a decade or 2 after my initial introduction to this film, a decade or 2 since I've been exploring cinema and not just Hollywood stuff but obscure gems from all over the world and every decade, I keep coming back to "2010" as one of the greatest scifi flicks out there. Here's hoping your odyssey doesn't take as long. There's so much more to this film than meets the eye. Like that opening scene, you can practically write an entire essay on that alone. Egads I think I just did.
An Excellent Piece Of Science Fiction Entertainment & An Excellent Roy Scheider Performance.
lukem-5276013 December 2021
Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) is determined to find out what happened on that space mission of 2001. Yes this is a late sequel to Kubrick's Classic Sci-fi movie but 2010 is an excellent piece of Sci-fi entertainment in it's own right.
The best part of this underrated film is the casting of the brilliant, Roy Scheider!!!
Scheider is a gem of an actor, a great screen presence that has been entertaining us for years with his Classic roles in Classic films such as the iconic Cheif Brody from the Masterpiece JAWS & jaws 2. Scheider is a childhood hero of mine, a familiar face that I've loved since little & watching the Jaws films & The French Connection & Blue Thunder. Scheider is such a good actor that he brings his average-joe type of front into nearly all his roles & becomes a character that the audience can relate too & genuinely like. Scheider is one of my all-time top favourite actors & i miss him (R. I. P) but he did make an impact on me & the fantasy world of Cinema.
Here Roy Scheider plays Scientist Heywood Floyd, a man obsessed & haunted by not knowing what happened to the previous space team of the first film & wants answers & yes Scheider gives another excellent no-nonsense but very human performance & is the main point of focus/Character of the movie.
I believe the character was played by someone else in the first film but Scheider is always the best choice & he's excellent in carrying this dramatic Sci-fi story.
Floyd is able to catch a ride to space with a Russian team of explorers even if tensions are high with all the Cold War History & with America & Russia above to begin WW3 back on Earth.
Ioved the tense atmosphere & dark look of the film. The special effects are Outstanding considering this was practical effects not silly CGI of today. The movie looks beautiful. The score is fantastic too.
The film had a very SPEILBERG feel to it in my opinion & that's only a good thing. Expertly directed by Peter Hyams, a man who is a great Director & is excellent at Sci-fi stuff (OutLand, Timecop) & crafted a truly creepy & suspenseful Sci-fi Thriller here.
That's another thing i liked about 2010 was it's atmosphere that was intense, uneasy & often creepy.
The whole idea of space is scary to me anyway, all that open blackness of nothingness is terrifying & here it's the environment for our team to be trapped in with strange stuff happening around them.
Helen Mirren is solid as a Russian Captain of the expedition & the excellent John Lithgow gives a superb performance as a panicked engineer that is well out of his depth & is so realistic when he has a full blown panic attack.
2010: The Year We Make Contact is true an underrated Sci-fi Thriller with a top cast & astonishing special effects & a really good suspenseful story with meaning.
This is such comforting entertainment with no bad language or violence but just a nice thick mood of fear & a sense of wonder abit like Spielberg's Classic Close Encounters Of The Third Kind & this should be mentioned with those Classic Sci-fi films.
Roy Scheider is excellent as always & his voice over that happens now & then gives the film a niceness, a comfort & meaning. We grew up watching Scheider so to have Cheif Brody guiding us through this scary space adventure is a huge comfort or it is to me anyway.
Truly an underrated Cult Classic.
The best part of this underrated film is the casting of the brilliant, Roy Scheider!!!
Scheider is a gem of an actor, a great screen presence that has been entertaining us for years with his Classic roles in Classic films such as the iconic Cheif Brody from the Masterpiece JAWS & jaws 2. Scheider is a childhood hero of mine, a familiar face that I've loved since little & watching the Jaws films & The French Connection & Blue Thunder. Scheider is such a good actor that he brings his average-joe type of front into nearly all his roles & becomes a character that the audience can relate too & genuinely like. Scheider is one of my all-time top favourite actors & i miss him (R. I. P) but he did make an impact on me & the fantasy world of Cinema.
Here Roy Scheider plays Scientist Heywood Floyd, a man obsessed & haunted by not knowing what happened to the previous space team of the first film & wants answers & yes Scheider gives another excellent no-nonsense but very human performance & is the main point of focus/Character of the movie.
I believe the character was played by someone else in the first film but Scheider is always the best choice & he's excellent in carrying this dramatic Sci-fi story.
Floyd is able to catch a ride to space with a Russian team of explorers even if tensions are high with all the Cold War History & with America & Russia above to begin WW3 back on Earth.
Ioved the tense atmosphere & dark look of the film. The special effects are Outstanding considering this was practical effects not silly CGI of today. The movie looks beautiful. The score is fantastic too.
The film had a very SPEILBERG feel to it in my opinion & that's only a good thing. Expertly directed by Peter Hyams, a man who is a great Director & is excellent at Sci-fi stuff (OutLand, Timecop) & crafted a truly creepy & suspenseful Sci-fi Thriller here.
That's another thing i liked about 2010 was it's atmosphere that was intense, uneasy & often creepy.
The whole idea of space is scary to me anyway, all that open blackness of nothingness is terrifying & here it's the environment for our team to be trapped in with strange stuff happening around them.
Helen Mirren is solid as a Russian Captain of the expedition & the excellent John Lithgow gives a superb performance as a panicked engineer that is well out of his depth & is so realistic when he has a full blown panic attack.
2010: The Year We Make Contact is true an underrated Sci-fi Thriller with a top cast & astonishing special effects & a really good suspenseful story with meaning.
This is such comforting entertainment with no bad language or violence but just a nice thick mood of fear & a sense of wonder abit like Spielberg's Classic Close Encounters Of The Third Kind & this should be mentioned with those Classic Sci-fi films.
Roy Scheider is excellent as always & his voice over that happens now & then gives the film a niceness, a comfort & meaning. We grew up watching Scheider so to have Cheif Brody guiding us through this scary space adventure is a huge comfort or it is to me anyway.
Truly an underrated Cult Classic.
Why? Why?
MatBrewster2 March 2005
I watched 2001 for the first time in college. I had no intention of seeing the sequel because I knew it was not made by Kubrick and felt it would probably be very inferior. However, my roommate, decided to rent it and I watched it. Even though my parents gave it to me a couple of years ago, I have had no desire to actually watch it. But since I have vowed to review all the movies in my collection I did my duty this evening. I was mildly surprised, but not at all impressed.
In watching this movie I did my best to remove the idea that this is a sequel out of my head and just tried to enjoy it as a science fiction film. This was increasingly difficult since a great deal of time in this film is spent going back and explaining all of the events in 2001. This is probably my greatest complaint about the film. Where 2001 works not by not giving any answer, 2010 works too hard to give meaning not only to itself, but also 2001. Where 2001 is silent, allowing images to tell the story, 2010 fills nearly every moment with noise.
The visuals of 2010 were very well done. I felt the images of the space ships, planets, and space travel were quite nice. The special effects, in general, were also very nice. The film does get severely dated with it's cold war subplot. Americans and Russians working together in space while their political counterparts wage war on the Earth below may have been effective at the time, but today it only seems cheesy.
I have not read the books to 2001 or 2010 so I do not know if their explanation of HAL's "malfunction" are the same as the movies. I can't help but feel disappointed with the explanation either way. I have always felt that part of the power of 2001 was how it didn't answer many of the questions it asked. How there was no explanation of where the monoliths came from, no explanation of what went wrong with HAL, no explanation of what the long sequence at the end meant. It's as if by not giving us explanations, the viewer has to fill in the gaps. In 2010 we get more answers than we need. Any real explanation of why HAL went bad, no matter how logical, seems to dull the experience of watching 2001. Now again, I haven't read the books, where I believe those very things are explained. So those who have read the books may not feel the same way, but this is my experience.
In the end, that is the better way to sum up my feelings on this movie. If you have never read the books, but find 2001 to be an immensely satisfying film experience then 2010 is most likely to be disappointing. However, if you have read the books and have already had much of the meaning behind 2001 explained to you, then you may find more enjoyment out of the sequel. Likewise, if you have never seen the art that is 2001, or found it too heady to understand, then 2010 may be an enjoyable piece of science fiction.
Like this review? Go to www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com for more.
In watching this movie I did my best to remove the idea that this is a sequel out of my head and just tried to enjoy it as a science fiction film. This was increasingly difficult since a great deal of time in this film is spent going back and explaining all of the events in 2001. This is probably my greatest complaint about the film. Where 2001 works not by not giving any answer, 2010 works too hard to give meaning not only to itself, but also 2001. Where 2001 is silent, allowing images to tell the story, 2010 fills nearly every moment with noise.
The visuals of 2010 were very well done. I felt the images of the space ships, planets, and space travel were quite nice. The special effects, in general, were also very nice. The film does get severely dated with it's cold war subplot. Americans and Russians working together in space while their political counterparts wage war on the Earth below may have been effective at the time, but today it only seems cheesy.
I have not read the books to 2001 or 2010 so I do not know if their explanation of HAL's "malfunction" are the same as the movies. I can't help but feel disappointed with the explanation either way. I have always felt that part of the power of 2001 was how it didn't answer many of the questions it asked. How there was no explanation of where the monoliths came from, no explanation of what went wrong with HAL, no explanation of what the long sequence at the end meant. It's as if by not giving us explanations, the viewer has to fill in the gaps. In 2010 we get more answers than we need. Any real explanation of why HAL went bad, no matter how logical, seems to dull the experience of watching 2001. Now again, I haven't read the books, where I believe those very things are explained. So those who have read the books may not feel the same way, but this is my experience.
In the end, that is the better way to sum up my feelings on this movie. If you have never read the books, but find 2001 to be an immensely satisfying film experience then 2010 is most likely to be disappointing. However, if you have read the books and have already had much of the meaning behind 2001 explained to you, then you may find more enjoyment out of the sequel. Likewise, if you have never seen the art that is 2001, or found it too heady to understand, then 2010 may be an enjoyable piece of science fiction.
Like this review? Go to www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com for more.
A superb piece of film-making
recoil-28 August 1999
When I saw 2001, I thought how brilliant a piece of film it turned out to be. Many people could not understand the meaning of the Monolith, but its meaning became clear in this sequal 2010. The acting is first rate throughout, with superb casting and Roy Scheider in one of his best films since Jaws.
The atmosphere generated by both films (more so, this one) is down to the excellent writing behind them. Arthur C.Clarke had a vision of a future and although he admits being 100 years out (talking today) there will be a time when computers like the HAL 9000 and expeditions into space take place just like in the films.
I only hope that sometime in the future, the two novels 2060 and 3001 will make it from paper to film.
I recommend this film to anyone, it is enjoyable for all the family.
The atmosphere generated by both films (more so, this one) is down to the excellent writing behind them. Arthur C.Clarke had a vision of a future and although he admits being 100 years out (talking today) there will be a time when computers like the HAL 9000 and expeditions into space take place just like in the films.
I only hope that sometime in the future, the two novels 2060 and 3001 will make it from paper to film.
I recommend this film to anyone, it is enjoyable for all the family.
Relax and Quit Comparing This To 2001
rjtrules22 February 2010
I just saw BOTH 2001 A Space Odyssey and 2010 this weekend on TCM, for the first time. 2001 is subject to so many varied interpretations, it was both enjoyable and enlightening to peruse many of those over the internet. After doing so, I viewed 2010 under the guise that while it seemingly doesn't rate nearly as high it might/would provide some additional light on the "monolith" and it's aura. Taken under that simple premise, 2010 was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. It takes nothing away from the spectacular mind provoking saga that is 2001, it just adds further perspective without taking away your individual perspective to interpret as you wish Kubrick's original. Don't try and compare it to 2001, just view it as some additional information to add to the pantheon. What's wrong with enjoying something that expands upon the wonderment of the next enterprise, instead of the typical gloom and doom? Surprisingly good performances, reprise of HAL and Dave, and interesting effects make this a must view if one feels like exploring the concepts introduced in 2001 a bit further. Just don't take an artistic or arrogant viewpoint that anything beyond Kubrick's 2001 pales; if you view it on it's own individual basis you'll find this a worthwhile viewing experience.
Wonderful Science Fiction - Beware of Comparisons
Reviewer74619 February 2015
The way to gain the greatest appreciation for this film is to completely clear your mind of the existence of 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you spend the entire film drawing comparisons, you will be soundly disappointed as many people were in 1985 upon its release.
The movies simply have different purposes. 2001 is a work of art that attempts to elicit an emotional response to abstract concepts. Kubrick intentionally leaves questions unanswered so we can decide for ourselves what the answers are or if they even exist. 2010 is an adventure story that lays out the plot details of its predecessor probably in a way similar to what Arthur C. Clark would have envisioned for a film adaptation of 2010: Odyssey Two. 2001 was based on Clark's short story (the Sentinel) but the artistic beauty of the film comes completely from Kubrick. 2010 is more a of straightforward, nail on the head adaptation of the novel.
All that being said, 2010 is not a bad movie by any means. It is certainly much more accessible than the prequel and Peter Hyams does a good job reproducing the awe that should be affiliated with a good space opera. Roy Scheider is clearly trying his best to put on a good performance but I personally think he was the wrong casting choice. The acting in general is unremarkable.
The best part of the movie has to be the finale of the last 10 minutes. This is really when the sense of wonder begins to pick up again after a few hours of straightforward, linear plot progression. However, unlike 2001, the open ended questions asked are not as philosophical as they are plot related. Most are clearly answered and explained in 2061: Odyssey Three (which, by the way, is worth a read as is Clark's entire series).
If the fact that I've been referencing 2001 throughout this review despite saying we should put it out of our minds in the first sentence wasn't indication enough, I will go ahead and reiterate that 2010 is not in the same league as its predecessor. There can be only one 2001, but that doesn't prevent 2010 from being a noteworthy installment in the body of science fiction. It is a must see for anyone interested in the genre but as to whether or not it qualifies as one of the "greats"... I'll leave that for you to decide.
The movies simply have different purposes. 2001 is a work of art that attempts to elicit an emotional response to abstract concepts. Kubrick intentionally leaves questions unanswered so we can decide for ourselves what the answers are or if they even exist. 2010 is an adventure story that lays out the plot details of its predecessor probably in a way similar to what Arthur C. Clark would have envisioned for a film adaptation of 2010: Odyssey Two. 2001 was based on Clark's short story (the Sentinel) but the artistic beauty of the film comes completely from Kubrick. 2010 is more a of straightforward, nail on the head adaptation of the novel.
All that being said, 2010 is not a bad movie by any means. It is certainly much more accessible than the prequel and Peter Hyams does a good job reproducing the awe that should be affiliated with a good space opera. Roy Scheider is clearly trying his best to put on a good performance but I personally think he was the wrong casting choice. The acting in general is unremarkable.
The best part of the movie has to be the finale of the last 10 minutes. This is really when the sense of wonder begins to pick up again after a few hours of straightforward, linear plot progression. However, unlike 2001, the open ended questions asked are not as philosophical as they are plot related. Most are clearly answered and explained in 2061: Odyssey Three (which, by the way, is worth a read as is Clark's entire series).
If the fact that I've been referencing 2001 throughout this review despite saying we should put it out of our minds in the first sentence wasn't indication enough, I will go ahead and reiterate that 2010 is not in the same league as its predecessor. There can be only one 2001, but that doesn't prevent 2010 from being a noteworthy installment in the body of science fiction. It is a must see for anyone interested in the genre but as to whether or not it qualifies as one of the "greats"... I'll leave that for you to decide.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
