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 <email@example.com>
Helen Mirren first acquired her Screen Actors Guild (SAG) card for this, her American feature film debut. See more »
Jupiter is much smaller than the Sun and could not turn into an equivalent Star. In the new system, Europa would be too close to the new Sun to be habitable. The new sun would not have the longevity of the original one. However, Jupiter being turned into a mini sun was not a natural occurrence, and was done by design by the omnipotent monoliths which no doubt controlled its size and output. The purpose of this was only to warm the surface of Europa, not the entire solar system, and only until the primitive lifeforms on Europa had evolved. 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.
93 of 118 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this