Rating: 
Summary: No classic, but still very good
Review: Obviously, this movie does not compare to 2001: A Space Odyssey. But I still greatly enjoyed it. It is better than the average movie. The movie has some very tense scenes and has some nice shots of Jupiter. I would give in ***1/2 stars out of four. Especially good for readers of the book. A very good movie!(I just wrote a big, long review for 2001, so I'm too wiped out to write a good one for this one.)
Rating: 
Summary: A Decent Movie
Review: 2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT is the long awaited sequel to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Now, the pressure of crafting a sequel to match the masterpiece which was Kubrick's original must have been great, and Peter Hyams was the man in Hollywood who decided to tackle this huge challege. And he does shoulder the task quite well in reconstructing the DISCOVERY (whose miniature model was diliberatly destroyed after the filming of 2001) and bridge the gap between 2001 & 2010, but Kubrick's original casts a long shadow over 2010, and the film struggles to escape from under it, and for a brief moment it does but is quickly swallowed up again. As you'd expect, the film takes place 9 years after 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and has a US-USSR expidition to rendevouz with the derilct DISCOVERY, which is in a decaying orbit between Jupiter and Io. The Russian crew is originally quite cold to the American presence due to the fact that a conflict on Earth between Russia and America over South America has heated up almost to the point of WWIII. Yet these difference are over come, etc., etc., standard movie material. The largest difference between 2001 and 2010 is the style. 2001 was a modern symphony set against the back drop of man's odyssey to the stars, with a very lathargic, artistic approach; while 2010 is a fairly straight forward sci-fi movie, that attempts to bring an atmosphere similar to the ALIEN movies (which is indirectly mention in the book). As for style, story, acting, and ect. the film feels fairly average, there's no unique spark, no DEFINING MOMENT, and it ends with a straight forward in-your-face moral--like I said, it struggles to escape from under 2001's long shadow. And there are some baffling additions and omissions to the book's story. For some reason Hyams felt it nessacary to remove the Chinese expidition, which results in the first discovery of organic life off Earth, from the film. Why would he cut an important keystone of the book's plot? Yet he decides to replace that with Cuban Missile Crisis-esque conflict down on Earth, which feels incredibly irrelevant in present year of 2004. I guess he did this to have the film connect more with the politics of the day, 1984 still being in the Cold War, so I guess we can't blame him for not being able to see into the future. All-in-all the movie is worth a week long rental to watch twice. Once to see the movie, the second to point out inconsistancies between 2001, the film, and the book. While I'm still split on whether the book or the movie 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was better, it is no contest with 2010: the book is far superior, and I recomend it highly.
Rating:
Summary: Good, better than the original.
Review: '2010' has something that '2001' does not have; living, breathing human beings we actually care about. Roy Scheider steals the show in one of the few sequals that is actually better than the original. Forget Kubrick's soulless, heartless, overrated film.
Rating:
Summary: So you wonder, what are this freakin monolits anyway?!
Review: If you had asked yourself that question when you finished watching 2001, I'm sure you'll get a slight more enlightening answer after watching this movie. If you're a real fan of 2001 I recommend reading all of its seaquels to get the whole idea finally straightened out!
Rating:
Summary: Pretty Good Sequel
Review: This is a crowd pleaser, not a groundbreaking film like 2001. But somehow it seems like a good idea. 2001 left a lot of things unanswered and 2010 delivers those answers, isn't that the way its supposed to be? Anyway, both movies are great in their own ways, and every one should own both. 2001 to expand your mind, 2010 to blow it away.
Rating:
Summary: fine film/awe-inspiring
Review: much better than 2001 which I thought was a snoozer.
Rating:
Summary: not my cup of tea but a good movie
Review: this movie was a good movie I thought it was funny the USSR was our enemy in 2010 but this movie was made in 1980 I hope everyone is just as scared as the return of the USSR as me lol this movie made sence where 2001 made no sence you can skip 2001 and enjoy this movie if anything seeing how much 2001 sucked made me like this movie even more I just can't give it more then 3 stars
Rating:
Summary: Less original and abstract but more enjoyable than 2001
Review: Arthur C. Clarke refused to even consider a sequel to the epic 2001 for a number of years, yet eventually he returned to the moons of Jupiter, and in 1984 movie audiences got their chance to go back themselves. Out of all the questions left unanswered by the first film, the main question in my own mind as I began this journey was: Will anything actually happen this time? I am happy to say that something does actually happen in this sequel, although the ending disappointed me by ignoring all kinds of valid scientific questions of a practical nature. The film opens with a summary of the major events of 2001; this takes almost no time at all, of course. We reunite with Dr. Heywood Floyd early on (now played by Roy Scheider), good old Hal and even Dave Bowman .... 2010 is a much more plot-driven film than 2001; while the space technology and special effects in the movie are impressive, the film never falls into extended periods of "look at all the pretty pictures" mode. Furthermore, where Kubrick used classical music to impart bits of his film, 2010 director Peter Hyams actually lets words do the talking, and I for one am grateful to him for this. Hyams even lets us in on a little bit of the mystery that was the original space odyssey of 2001. One major difference between the first two films is the importance of the geopolitical setting on earth. Kubrick barely alluded to the problems on earth in 2001, but now we get plenty of evidence attesting to the fact that the world is a real mess nine years later, with the United States and the Soviet Union at the brink of nuclear war. Having taken the fall for the failure of the Discovery's original mission, Dr. Flood has left his science post and has become president of a university. One day a Soviet scientist approaches him with a fascinating proposal. The Soviets are going to go to Jupiter and investigate the huge black monolith there, and the Americans are at least a year behind in terms of being ready for a return mission of their own. The Soviets want knowledge about the derelict Discovery spacecraft and the monolith out there in space. This, plus the fact that the dead Discovery spacecraft's deteriorating orbit means it will soon crash makes it possible for Dr. Floyd, Discovery engineer Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), and Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban), Hal's inventor, to make the journey alongside the Russians in a Soviet spacecraft. The increasing geopolitical instability on earth will come to play a big part in the space mission. The basic overall plan is to investigate the Discovery for any clues as to what the heck actually happened out there nine years previously and to reactivate Hal if possible and thus salvage the ship. Something that used to be Dave Bowman puts in a few brief appearances, telling Dr. Floyd that something wonderful is about to happen but that all of the astronauts must leave sooner rather than later. Everything is fine and dandy up until the actual conclusion. It is as if Clarke decided to just pull a rabbit out of his hat and walk away without giving any real clues as to how the trick was performed. Worst of all, and I have to be careful not to reveal anything about the ending here, I was left with a number of quite valid scientific questions that prevented me from taking the sappy conclusion very seriously. All things considered, I believe 2010 is actually a better movie than 2001. There can be no doubt that it is certainly more interesting and compelling as it does not deal with abstract thought as its primary plot device. I especially appreciated hearing an explanation of sorts for Hal's system failure in the first movie. The social dynamics of the American-Soviet crew made for added bits of drama that blow away the almost sterile presentation of everything in 2001. Obviously, some people will prefer the much more grandiose, celebrated, and boring original, but 2010 presents a much better story, one which can be interpreted without need of advanced philosophical musing.
Rating:
Summary: Better than the first
Review: It's more straight forward, it's more commercial, more understandable, it's better than the first. 2001 should be considered an introduction or a prequel, it's two hours of, well, see my 2001 review for that. But this is much better, yes you still have to think like the first one, but at least with 2010 you know what your thinking about. RS from Jaws & SeaQuest DSV fame does a great job as does John Lithgow & the Russian guy playing Max (he was in Air Force One also.) Thanks for nothing Kubrick, except this superior sequel (by Peter Hyams)
Rating:
Summary: Where Was Stanley Kubrick?
Review: Stanley Kubrick's genuis could have been used for this film. Although I love this film, whatching this after it's prequel takes some adjustment. The music, for one, is over par on this film. Who was responsible for the unmoving music that is a detractor from the entire work. The sets are also in stark contrast to the beautiful sets of the first film. A great movie, but could have used substantial work and genius to follow the first film's footsteps.
| 
