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.
303 Reviews
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.
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/
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
A Pretty Good Sequel
Rainey-Dawn2 July 2014
"2010 (1984)" is a pretty good sequel to the first film "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)" - both movies are worth watching.
"2010 (1984)" is a mystery that must be solved but not quite as mysterious the first movie because after watching the first film you already know something about what is going in the second film "2010 (1984)".
"2010 (1984)" has been badly criticized for adding the American-Russian tensions as a backdrop for the movie and is heard in the dialogue between the characters at times. I feel that if you simply watch "2010 (1984)" as a work of fiction while forgetting about the real life Cold War that was going on then you may enjoy "2010 (1984)" a lot better.
Watch "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)" followed by "2010 (1984)" for a good double feature.
8/10
"2010 (1984)" is a mystery that must be solved but not quite as mysterious the first movie because after watching the first film you already know something about what is going in the second film "2010 (1984)".
"2010 (1984)" has been badly criticized for adding the American-Russian tensions as a backdrop for the movie and is heard in the dialogue between the characters at times. I feel that if you simply watch "2010 (1984)" as a work of fiction while forgetting about the real life Cold War that was going on then you may enjoy "2010 (1984)" a lot better.
Watch "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)" followed by "2010 (1984)" for a good double feature.
8/10
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 you like sci-fi, you will enjoy "2010"
8512223 January 2015
Greetings from Lithuania.
"2010" is good sci-fi movie. Not as bold and creative as "2001" of course, but a very nice sci-fi on it's own. It works as a sequel and it works as on it's own. Just don't expect the beauty, music of depths of it's predecessor - "2010" isn't classic.
"2010" follows the storyline of "2001". We will eventually learn what is a monolith and what's his purpose. I didn't quite get what happened to Bowman, the thing i didn't get in the first movie neither.
Special effects of "2010" are nice, but "2001" had definitely better special effects, and "2010" looks a bit dated now, the thing you can't said about "2001". The settings and and all other technical stuff works here - if you like sci-fi in general, you will like this stuff as well.
Overall, "2010" isn't "2001" by any means. On it's own, it's a nice sci-fi movie and not bad sequel. If you like sci-fi, you will definitely will enjoy "2010".
"2010" is good sci-fi movie. Not as bold and creative as "2001" of course, but a very nice sci-fi on it's own. It works as a sequel and it works as on it's own. Just don't expect the beauty, music of depths of it's predecessor - "2010" isn't classic.
"2010" follows the storyline of "2001". We will eventually learn what is a monolith and what's his purpose. I didn't quite get what happened to Bowman, the thing i didn't get in the first movie neither.
Special effects of "2010" are nice, but "2001" had definitely better special effects, and "2010" looks a bit dated now, the thing you can't said about "2001". The settings and and all other technical stuff works here - if you like sci-fi in general, you will like this stuff as well.
Overall, "2010" isn't "2001" by any means. On it's own, it's a nice sci-fi movie and not bad sequel. If you like sci-fi, you will definitely will enjoy "2010".
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.
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.
Nine Years Later
bkoganbing6 February 2009
It turned that 2001: A Space Odyssey was nowhere near the real 2001 when it finally rolled around. It is devilishly hard to predict the future, it's not the first or the last science fiction film to get it wrong. So with only one year remaining until 2010, the story of 2010 bares no resemblance in any way to the future described except in global tensions and those are of a different nature.
Nine years before Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood went into space with a spaceship operated by a computer with issues named HAL to investigate reported signs of life on one of Jupiter's moons. They never returned and their empty ship still orbits Jupiter.
The USA gets word that the USSR is sending a team to investigate the ship which is in orbital decay. They want American participation, but at the same time there is a growing war threat over in Central America where the Russians have a new surrogate government in Honduras.
The president's science adviser James McEachin persuades the man who sent Dullea and Lockwood to head the American team. Roy Scheider picks as his guys, John Lithgow and Bob Balaban. Balaban is the guy who invented and programmed HAL the computer which went haywire the first time.
The Russian team is headed by Helen Mirren before she played the Queen and before she was Inspector Jane Tennyson. They're all scientists, but her team and Scheider's are citizens of their respective countries. But being out in space forces a cooperation that the governments on earth can't seem to grasp.
The film comes up with a lot of answers for the questions that 2001 left including the reason for HAL's problems in the other film. HAL also gives this new group some reason for concern in this film.
2010 is more Arthur Clarke than 2001 one was which was Stanley Kubrick's own version of what Clarke wrote in the book the first film was based on. Here director Peter Hyams lets Clarke's more straightforward screenplay speak for itself. The end is a spiritual one, something truly wonderful does happen. It's even somewhat biblically prophesied if you think of a play on the words 'son' and 'sun'. And that's as far as I go in describing the climax.
2001 had the actors dwarfed by the spectacle. Here the actors have more to do and they uniformly do it well. Roy Scheider's character seems to be a harbinger for his character on Seaquest DSV.
I'm not a big fan of films where the story is sacrificed so I like the Stanley Kubrick film, but not to the degree others do. This film while operating in the parameters set by Kubrick has an identity all its own.
It might not be something wonderful, but it is something to think about.
Nine years before Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood went into space with a spaceship operated by a computer with issues named HAL to investigate reported signs of life on one of Jupiter's moons. They never returned and their empty ship still orbits Jupiter.
The USA gets word that the USSR is sending a team to investigate the ship which is in orbital decay. They want American participation, but at the same time there is a growing war threat over in Central America where the Russians have a new surrogate government in Honduras.
The president's science adviser James McEachin persuades the man who sent Dullea and Lockwood to head the American team. Roy Scheider picks as his guys, John Lithgow and Bob Balaban. Balaban is the guy who invented and programmed HAL the computer which went haywire the first time.
The Russian team is headed by Helen Mirren before she played the Queen and before she was Inspector Jane Tennyson. They're all scientists, but her team and Scheider's are citizens of their respective countries. But being out in space forces a cooperation that the governments on earth can't seem to grasp.
The film comes up with a lot of answers for the questions that 2001 left including the reason for HAL's problems in the other film. HAL also gives this new group some reason for concern in this film.
2010 is more Arthur Clarke than 2001 one was which was Stanley Kubrick's own version of what Clarke wrote in the book the first film was based on. Here director Peter Hyams lets Clarke's more straightforward screenplay speak for itself. The end is a spiritual one, something truly wonderful does happen. It's even somewhat biblically prophesied if you think of a play on the words 'son' and 'sun'. And that's as far as I go in describing the climax.
2001 had the actors dwarfed by the spectacle. Here the actors have more to do and they uniformly do it well. Roy Scheider's character seems to be a harbinger for his character on Seaquest DSV.
I'm not a big fan of films where the story is sacrificed so I like the Stanley Kubrick film, but not to the degree others do. This film while operating in the parameters set by Kubrick has an identity all its own.
It might not be something wonderful, but it is something to think about.
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?!
Great movie, shouldn't be compared to 2001
rlaine5 May 2014
This has for years been one of my go-to movies when I feel like I could detach from earth for a few hours. Kind of a guilty pleasure, altho there's nothing to be a shamed of really. This movie - while a bit dated - is a solid and an atmospheric experience from the beginning to the end.
I liked 2001 also, I watch it maybe once every five years. 2010 I watch maybe every other year, so it does not hold any surprises, but I like the feel of it. While 2001 is somewhat heavy and artistic, 2010 is lighter and more accessible. Still, it's not a dumbed down Hollywood blockbuster, but rather quite an intelligent movie. In 2001 I still find different ways to interpret it, it holds time and renews itself, keeping a certain distance. 2010 is like your parents house, it never changes, you always feel like coming home.
I didn't see 2010 in the theaters, I was around 10 when this came out, but I saw it later in the 80s as a rental. Back then it was a spectacular sci-fi movie. Now it has a certain nostalgia factor to it. If I now saw it for the first time, I'm not sure if it would stick with me as well as it does now.
I've owned this on VHS, DVD and most recently on bluray. I have to admit I would rather probably watch it from VHS or DVD since bluray isn't very forgiving when it comes to fx shots. You can see a few times that the colors don't quite match. Despite of this I'd say the fx are pretty much on par with other sci-fi movies of that era. Most of them are flawless.
All in all this was the time Hyams was on a roll. Outland is great movie and the sets here clearly utilize his experience gained with Outland. Altho not quite as industrial, but the lighting is dim and very atmospheric. Hyams is one of those directors that I'm waiting to make one more great movie. But like many of his contemporaries, he has fallen into a pit of low budgets and box office failures. Most notorious probably being the Sound of Thunder that looked very much unfinished.
Acting is pretty good. Lithgow especially. Nothing spectacular, but solid show. The synth soundtrack is quite original.
I liked 2001 also, I watch it maybe once every five years. 2010 I watch maybe every other year, so it does not hold any surprises, but I like the feel of it. While 2001 is somewhat heavy and artistic, 2010 is lighter and more accessible. Still, it's not a dumbed down Hollywood blockbuster, but rather quite an intelligent movie. In 2001 I still find different ways to interpret it, it holds time and renews itself, keeping a certain distance. 2010 is like your parents house, it never changes, you always feel like coming home.
I didn't see 2010 in the theaters, I was around 10 when this came out, but I saw it later in the 80s as a rental. Back then it was a spectacular sci-fi movie. Now it has a certain nostalgia factor to it. If I now saw it for the first time, I'm not sure if it would stick with me as well as it does now.
I've owned this on VHS, DVD and most recently on bluray. I have to admit I would rather probably watch it from VHS or DVD since bluray isn't very forgiving when it comes to fx shots. You can see a few times that the colors don't quite match. Despite of this I'd say the fx are pretty much on par with other sci-fi movies of that era. Most of them are flawless.
All in all this was the time Hyams was on a roll. Outland is great movie and the sets here clearly utilize his experience gained with Outland. Altho not quite as industrial, but the lighting is dim and very atmospheric. Hyams is one of those directors that I'm waiting to make one more great movie. But like many of his contemporaries, he has fallen into a pit of low budgets and box office failures. Most notorious probably being the Sound of Thunder that looked very much unfinished.
Acting is pretty good. Lithgow especially. Nothing spectacular, but solid show. The synth soundtrack is quite original.
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.
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).
Where's My 2019?
view_and_review9 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
"2010" is a sequel to "2001: A Space Odyssey." Though released sixteen years later, plot-wise it was only nine years later. It seems Stanley Kubrick was not a part of this project as the new screenplay writer and director was Peter Hyams--writer of another wonderful space movie: "Outland."
Hyams wrote a more technically and scientifically sound movie eschewing the more artistic approach taken by Kubrick. I think Hyams did a terrific job considering the obstacle he was up against. Following a legend is never easy. How would you like to be the son of Michael Jordan, Barry Sanders, Willie Mays, or Wayne Gretzky and play the same sport? So much would be expected of you while there would still remain an air of doubt that you could ever reach the heights of your father.
"2010" started with a Russian official visiting Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider), the one responsible for the Discovery mission nine years prior. The two discussed the desire of both countries to return to Jupiter to further study the Monolith there and find out what happened to the astronauts aboard the Discovery. The Russians will get there sooner, but the Americans have the most intimate knowledge of the abandoned Discovery with the HAL-9000 aboard. So, a tenuous alliance was formed.
I think "2010" had added drama above and beyond "2001: ASO" because of the space pact between the Russians and Americans while there was imminent conflict happening on Earth. There was one danger after another the two crews had to contend with climaxing with a final cataclysmic danger that would spell the death of all of them. They had to escape from the orbit of the Jupiter moon, Europa, well ahead of schedule by combining the Discovery and the Russian ship all with the help of HAL (who'd been rebooted and apparently repaired), who seemed to be lapsing back to his old tampering self.
It was a fantastically suspenseful confluence of events. There were monoliths forming so rapidly they were consuming the planet Jupiter, there was the issue of fuel and getting back home, then finally the issue of whether or not they could trust HAL. What a rush!
If I dare say, I liked "2010" more than I liked "2001: ASO." This was easier to sink my teeth into and easier to digest. The concepts, the language, and even the objectives were more concrete and easier to understand. Kubrick's movie is the genesis, but who's to say you can't love the offspring even more. I just want to know, where's 2019???
Hyams wrote a more technically and scientifically sound movie eschewing the more artistic approach taken by Kubrick. I think Hyams did a terrific job considering the obstacle he was up against. Following a legend is never easy. How would you like to be the son of Michael Jordan, Barry Sanders, Willie Mays, or Wayne Gretzky and play the same sport? So much would be expected of you while there would still remain an air of doubt that you could ever reach the heights of your father.
"2010" started with a Russian official visiting Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider), the one responsible for the Discovery mission nine years prior. The two discussed the desire of both countries to return to Jupiter to further study the Monolith there and find out what happened to the astronauts aboard the Discovery. The Russians will get there sooner, but the Americans have the most intimate knowledge of the abandoned Discovery with the HAL-9000 aboard. So, a tenuous alliance was formed.
I think "2010" had added drama above and beyond "2001: ASO" because of the space pact between the Russians and Americans while there was imminent conflict happening on Earth. There was one danger after another the two crews had to contend with climaxing with a final cataclysmic danger that would spell the death of all of them. They had to escape from the orbit of the Jupiter moon, Europa, well ahead of schedule by combining the Discovery and the Russian ship all with the help of HAL (who'd been rebooted and apparently repaired), who seemed to be lapsing back to his old tampering self.
It was a fantastically suspenseful confluence of events. There were monoliths forming so rapidly they were consuming the planet Jupiter, there was the issue of fuel and getting back home, then finally the issue of whether or not they could trust HAL. What a rush!
If I dare say, I liked "2010" more than I liked "2001: ASO." This was easier to sink my teeth into and easier to digest. The concepts, the language, and even the objectives were more concrete and easier to understand. Kubrick's movie is the genesis, but who's to say you can't love the offspring even more. I just want to know, where's 2019???
Rejoinders to the original
FiendishDramaturgy22 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a completely different animal from the original, 2001: A Space Odessy. With this second attempt, you get a completely straightforward science fiction film, which stands alone, and does not need the muddlement that was its forbearer.
Peppered with good performances, some mysticism, a little intellectualism, and one of the greatest on-screen villains ever conceived, this stand-alone sequel greatly surpasses the original in enjoyability, watchability, and entertainment.
You are served the solutions to the problems and questions posed in the original, but without going back to find them. Beautiful.
Unfortunately, this is one of those "genius films" which fans and foes alike will search far too deeply for hidden symbolism and metaphors; thereby making it seem far more intellectual than it really is. It was reminiscent of my 10th grade English classes in that respect, and yet I still found this a much more enjoyable endeavor.
It rates a 7.9/10 from...
the Fiend :.
Peppered with good performances, some mysticism, a little intellectualism, and one of the greatest on-screen villains ever conceived, this stand-alone sequel greatly surpasses the original in enjoyability, watchability, and entertainment.
You are served the solutions to the problems and questions posed in the original, but without going back to find them. Beautiful.
Unfortunately, this is one of those "genius films" which fans and foes alike will search far too deeply for hidden symbolism and metaphors; thereby making it seem far more intellectual than it really is. It was reminiscent of my 10th grade English classes in that respect, and yet I still found this a much more enjoyable endeavor.
It rates a 7.9/10 from...
the Fiend :.
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.
Space travel as a job, not an adventure
nickboldrini28 July 2018
This film eschews the fantasy and philosophical aspects of 2001 to show a scientifically realistic portrayal of space flight. The depiction of the realities of space travel make this seem like a more realistic nuts and bolts film, and the characters are more important than in the original which was more balletic in its depictions. This is a vastly different film to 2001, but one that is a good sci fi in its own right.
Dr Chandra, Will I Dream ?
ShootingShark30 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
When a Russian mission to rendezvous with the marooned Discovery spacecraft in orbit around Jupiter is announced, American Dr Heywood Floyd negotiates a place for himself on the trip. Can he find the answers to what went wrong nine years earlier ... ?
This is a great movie, sadly overlooked in my view, by science-fiction fans, Stanley Kubrick admirers and cult movie enthusiasts alike. For director Hyams to even conceive of making a direct sequel to Kubrick's enigmatic untouchable classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is brave beyond words. To then write, photograph, produce and direct a film which is both an entertaining story and embraces the galactic mystery of its famous predecessor, whilst maintaining narrative consistency, is simply outstanding. This is pure science-fiction of the best literary kind; the ideas are utterly fantastic yet conveyed as realistically as possible. The basic concept of Jupiter as a sun that failed is an incredibly interesting premise, and the depiction of space travel (notably the scene where Lithgow and Baskin spacewalk from one ship to the other) is as ruthlessly authentic as the original. Best of all, unlike a lot of sf, it has great characters with great moral dilemmas. Scheider is fabulous, in one of the very best roles of his illustrious career, as a man seeking redemption - he anchors the whole movie in solid drama, explains everything to us and makes the whole story flow smoothly. There are three great quirky supporting parts from Mirren (as the Russian captain), Lithgow (as an Ordinary Joe) and Balaban (as a scientist who prefers the company of computers to people), and the Russian actors in the smaller parts are great. Add to this the iconic casting of Dullea and Rain and the film's pedigree is complete. Visually, it is simply dazzling, as the Leonov glides into orbit around Jupiter; genius visual effects designer Richard Edlund recreates the red gas giant so convincingly here that you will believe you are in outer space. The film is full of astronomical wonder, mystery, spooky moments, incredible design (Floyd's house is about the coolest place I've ever seen), exciting set-pieces and great performances. Writer Arthur C. Clarke (who appears as the guy feeding the birds outside the White House) wrote a great novel, which takes the key elements of the original movie - the monolith's purpose, the reasons for Hal's neuroses, what happened to Dave Bowman - and weaves a spellbinding yarn around them. Some may say the explanations detract from the enigma of the original, but they don't; this is a different picture, but one that builds upon its predecessor with its own style and a greater emphasis on character. Other critics may put down the anti-military sentiment, forgetting that this was bucking the trend at the height of eighties right-wing Reaganomics. I personally think the dual star ending is one of the most beautiful and touching in any film. I find Hyams almost criminally underrated - he's made some tremendous pictures (Capricorn One, The Star Chamber, End Of Days), but this one is his masterpiece I think. Trivia - for true cinephiles, take a close look at the brief shot of the Time magazine cover the nurse is reading.
This is a great movie, sadly overlooked in my view, by science-fiction fans, Stanley Kubrick admirers and cult movie enthusiasts alike. For director Hyams to even conceive of making a direct sequel to Kubrick's enigmatic untouchable classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is brave beyond words. To then write, photograph, produce and direct a film which is both an entertaining story and embraces the galactic mystery of its famous predecessor, whilst maintaining narrative consistency, is simply outstanding. This is pure science-fiction of the best literary kind; the ideas are utterly fantastic yet conveyed as realistically as possible. The basic concept of Jupiter as a sun that failed is an incredibly interesting premise, and the depiction of space travel (notably the scene where Lithgow and Baskin spacewalk from one ship to the other) is as ruthlessly authentic as the original. Best of all, unlike a lot of sf, it has great characters with great moral dilemmas. Scheider is fabulous, in one of the very best roles of his illustrious career, as a man seeking redemption - he anchors the whole movie in solid drama, explains everything to us and makes the whole story flow smoothly. There are three great quirky supporting parts from Mirren (as the Russian captain), Lithgow (as an Ordinary Joe) and Balaban (as a scientist who prefers the company of computers to people), and the Russian actors in the smaller parts are great. Add to this the iconic casting of Dullea and Rain and the film's pedigree is complete. Visually, it is simply dazzling, as the Leonov glides into orbit around Jupiter; genius visual effects designer Richard Edlund recreates the red gas giant so convincingly here that you will believe you are in outer space. The film is full of astronomical wonder, mystery, spooky moments, incredible design (Floyd's house is about the coolest place I've ever seen), exciting set-pieces and great performances. Writer Arthur C. Clarke (who appears as the guy feeding the birds outside the White House) wrote a great novel, which takes the key elements of the original movie - the monolith's purpose, the reasons for Hal's neuroses, what happened to Dave Bowman - and weaves a spellbinding yarn around them. Some may say the explanations detract from the enigma of the original, but they don't; this is a different picture, but one that builds upon its predecessor with its own style and a greater emphasis on character. Other critics may put down the anti-military sentiment, forgetting that this was bucking the trend at the height of eighties right-wing Reaganomics. I personally think the dual star ending is one of the most beautiful and touching in any film. I find Hyams almost criminally underrated - he's made some tremendous pictures (Capricorn One, The Star Chamber, End Of Days), but this one is his masterpiece I think. Trivia - for true cinephiles, take a close look at the brief shot of the Time magazine cover the nurse is reading.
Interesting if unnecessary
TheLittleSongbird21 April 2011
2010 is not a bad movie by all means. Comparisons to the milestone that is 2001:A Space Odyssey, that I feel is Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece and sadly often misinterpreted, are inevitable. 2010 doesn't compare to 2001, but does a decent enough job on its own.
The special effects here are really quite good and still look great especially when captured so well by the great cinematography and lighting. The direction and script is efficient enough, the music is appropriately haunting and somewhat mysterious and the acting from Roy Schneider and John Lithgow is very good. Also while neither a strength or a weakness, 2010 is in some ways slicker and shorter than 2001, and the Black Monolith which still confuses a lot of people is elaborated upon here.
However, while the script has moments of thoughtfulness and efficiency, it also isn't as complex and mysterious with some of the voice over occasionally over-simplistic and also some of the dialogue could've have excised- the beauty of 2001 was that it wasn't about the story or dialogue but more the images, the meaning behind them and the music. The story certainly is interesting, but what hampers it is a certain over-explicitness that is rather banal on the surface, a really simplified religious ending and a lack of the epic sense and ambiguity that made 2001 so masterful.
All in all, an interesting film but it is also rather unnecessary as well. 6/10 Bethany Cox
The special effects here are really quite good and still look great especially when captured so well by the great cinematography and lighting. The direction and script is efficient enough, the music is appropriately haunting and somewhat mysterious and the acting from Roy Schneider and John Lithgow is very good. Also while neither a strength or a weakness, 2010 is in some ways slicker and shorter than 2001, and the Black Monolith which still confuses a lot of people is elaborated upon here.
However, while the script has moments of thoughtfulness and efficiency, it also isn't as complex and mysterious with some of the voice over occasionally over-simplistic and also some of the dialogue could've have excised- the beauty of 2001 was that it wasn't about the story or dialogue but more the images, the meaning behind them and the music. The story certainly is interesting, but what hampers it is a certain over-explicitness that is rather banal on the surface, a really simplified religious ending and a lack of the epic sense and ambiguity that made 2001 so masterful.
All in all, an interesting film but it is also rather unnecessary as well. 6/10 Bethany Cox
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews