6.8/10
45,587
230 user 80 critic

2010 (1984)

Clip
2:10 | Clip

Watch Now

From $2.99 (SD) on Prime Video

ON DISC
A joint U.S.-Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to learn what happened to the Discovery.

Director:

Peter Hyams

Writers:

Arthur C. Clarke (novel), Peter Hyams (screenplay)
Reviews
Popularity
3,823 ( 276)
Nominated for 5 Oscars. Another 1 win & 3 nominations. See more awards »

Videos

Photos

Edit

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
Roy Scheider ... Dr. Heywood Floyd
John Lithgow ... Dr. Walter Curnow
Helen Mirren ... Tanya Kirbuk
Bob Balaban ... Dr. R. Chandra
Keir Dullea ... Dave Bowman
Douglas Rain ... HAL 9000 (voice)
Madolyn Smith Osborne ... Caroline Floyd (as Madolyn Smith)
Dana Elcar ... Dimitri Moisevitch
Taliesin Jaffe ... Christopher Floyd
James McEachin ... Victor Milson
Mary Jo Deschanel ... Betty Fernandez, Bowman's Wife
Elya Baskin ... Maxim Brajlovsky
Saveliy Kramarov ... Dr. Vladimir Rudenko (as Savely Kramarov)
Oleg Rudnik Oleg Rudnik ... Dr. Vasili Orlov
Natasha Shneider ... Irina Yakunina
Edit

Storyline

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 <loh@sfu.ca>

Plot Summary | Plot Synopsis

Taglines:

In the very near future a small group of Americans and Russians set out on the greatest adventure of them all... To see if there is life beyond the stars See more »


Certificate:

PG | See all certifications »

Parents Guide:

View content advisory »
Edit

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English | Russian

Release Date:

7 December 1984 (USA) See more »

Also Known As:

2010: Odyssey Two See more »

Edit

Box Office

Budget:

$28,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend USA:

$7,393,361, 11 July 2012, Wide Release

Gross USA:

$40,200,000
See more on IMDbPro »

Company Credits

Production Co:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) See more »
Show more on IMDbPro »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

70 mm 6-Track (70 mm prints)| Dolby Stereo (35 mm prints)

Color:

Color (Metrocolor)

Aspect Ratio:

2.20 : 1
See full technical specs »
Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

Arthur C. Clarke: sitting on a park bench in front of the White House, feeding the pigeons. See more »

Goofs

Floyd demonstrates how to link the Leonov and Discovery together by using objects which appear to be weightless, when the bridge of the Leonov is under gravity. However, they are not on the bridge for this meeting as they are completely alone and are likely in a part of the ship with lower gravity. See more »

Quotes

[first lines]
Dave Bowman: My God! It's full of stars!
See more »

Connections

Referenced in Pas de Deux: Making 'White Nights' (2004) See more »

Soundtracks

ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA
By Richard Strauss
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

See more »

User Reviews

 
Been there, done that, didn't need the book.
27 June 1999 | by Jim TrascapoulosSee all my reviews

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...


182 of 280 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you? | Report this
Review this title | See all 230 user reviews »

Contribute to This Page

Stream Comedy Titles With Prime Video

Explore popular comedy titles available to stream with Prime Video.

Start your free trial



Recently Viewed