Rating: 
Summary: MJ'S review of 2010
Review: I didn't really "get" 2001: A Space Odyssey, although my husband likes it very much. But......THIS 2010 movie really made me understand the original meaning behind the first movie. I could watch this one over and over again. Very suspenseful and it really kept me in my seat.
Rating: 
Summary: A Fanatastic Ending To An Interesting Story!
Review: I liked this movie. It is quite different from 2001 but it has elements of Sci Fi and adventure that makes you wonder just exactly what is out there.Roy Schieder and John Lithgow are wonderful and passionate with their characters. John is even afraid of heights and is assigned this Space Mission. The Russian characters are real and the underling story line is World War III on the verge of happening. With all this on Earth going on and their mission to find the Discovery (the Hal 9000 lost ship) one other element is added to the story. We are not alone. There is a brilliant effect sequence as one of our own planets in our solar system has a problem...I won't tell you the details, but the result is: "All These Worlds Are Yours.
Except Europa.
Use The Together.
Use Them In Peace." Now that is an ending. Get this one. The DVD extras are few, but the movie is worth it!
Rating:
Summary: loved it since i was a kid
Review: this film is different than 2001, which was done with a more mythological vision in mind. this follows a more conventional storyline but still has a great vision. i've always loved this film since i saw it way back when. the only real qualm i have with this movie is that in their spacewalks and other events happening in outerspace they still use sound! HASNT ANY MOVIE MAKER --besides Stanley Kubrick--LEARNED YET THAT IN SPACE THERE IS NO SOUND?!? Also, one of my favorite parts is the end. the music during the credits is just beautiful!
Rating:
Summary: Good Sequal. Mixed DVD results.
Review: Peter Hyams sequal to 2001; A Space Odyssey, goes for a more direct and mainstream approach to the story while keeping the wonder of the mysterious monolith intact. Film deals with a joint American/Russian space mission returning to Jupiter to discover the fate of the USS DISCOVERY, Dave Bowman, and the computer HAL.Good acting and great production values are all at work here. Visual effects done at ILM. The DVD has a good picture and wonderful sound quality, as well as a 15 minute documentry film on how the movie was made.However just to set the record clear, this movie was made by MGM, not Warner Brothers.
Rating:
Summary: different but good
Review: This is a sequel, yet it feels different from the original. The original "2001" had such an air of civility. "2010" is still civil, yet slightly more of a hotdogging movie. Considering the fact that only few things were carried over from "2001" (the monolith, the Discovery/Hal, and Floyd...), they could have put more effort into keeping these few things the same, particularly in the Dr. Floyd character who has taken the main role. In "2010", he became a totally different person, in look and attitude. Also in the 9 years, Floyd's little daughter disappeared and replaced by a son. "2001" is more spectacular than "2010", but both have some things in common: both are thought provoking and both achieve in making the out-of-this world events feel natural or at least not so far-fetched. The first movie asks the question. The sequel attempts an answer to that question, but it makes its distinction by not meerly providing that answer, but making a different point altogether. In addition, I consider "2010" to be a suspense movie. There are some scenes that make the skin crawl; there's a definite climax and release near the end. I like some brain-dead movies as well as some that are violent, etc., but I think that I like this movie on several levels especially when considering that it doesn't rely on the typical Hollywood ingredients. There's nothing in this movie that would make you feel dirty or embarrassed like many of today's movies. There are no teenie romance, gratuitous sex, hormonal violence/action, or juvenile profanity. The characters in the movie are decent and intelligent people. Even Hal, the computer, seem alive, refined, and lovable. Some people think that the technology of "2010" looks backwards compared to what's shown in "2001". I think they miss the fact that "2010" brings one back to earth where "2001" doesn't spend any time and much time is also spent on the Soviet space ship, not the US space ship, which is analogous to comparing the Enterprise to the Klingon battle cruisers of Star Trek. The complaint does highlight the fact that "2001" is so far ahead of its time. Considering when "2001" was released, it looks so futuristic and still does today 2002. Some people complain of what they call the "kiss and make up ending", or how the movie puts the Soviet ahead of the US in the race to Jupiter. Here too, I think they miss the point. With the latter point about the race to Jupiter, note that the U.S. has already been there 9 years before, i.e. race won, and note also the budget problems for doing the same program twice in addition to the time needed to try to figure out what went wrong so as not to screw up again. Note also that the Soviets was first to space long before the US was ready, so it's not so farfetched to think that other countries can be "first". With regard to the movie ending, I think that those people who understand the point don't see it as simply "kiss and make up" ... The movie could have been a 5-star movie if the DVD quality wasn't so VHS. For the relatively cheap price, the movie is still worth spending the money even if the DVD isn't.
Rating: 
Summary: Able-bodied sequel to sci-fi epic
Review: First off I have apologise for the grammer as I'm rushing to get this finished.Okie-dokie,first up this film was released nearly 18 years after its bigger longer brother.Put against 2001 and it fails poorly.Put against a film released around the same time ,like say ALIENS,and it fairs better.The reasons are this:against 2001 its not thought provoking enough and against ALIENS its beats it in terms of plot excution and source material.Thats not to say ALIENS is a bad movie,far from it.However ALIENS is an action,sci-fi sequel to the (in this reporters opinion) best sci-fi horror ever where as 2010 is the sequel to the GREATEST SCI-FI MOVIE EVER! Director Peter Hyams acquits himself excellently but you can help but feel that he could have made a better film if he hadn't been sadled with the whole cold-war us against the pig-headed Russians(or vice-versa if you voted for the other side) story-line that all 80's action/thriller/sci-fi movies suffered from. Roy Scheider is a good replacement to 2001's William Sylvester's character of Heywood Floyd.Elsewhere Helen Mirren applies herself well to the role of the Soviet captain of the Alexi Leonov Tanya Kirbuk(but she had an unusual name in the novel of the same name).John Lithgow is excellent as DISCOVERY systems specialist Walter Curnow.As always Keir Dullea looks ageless as Cmdr.David Bowman and of course Douglas Rain returns as the mentally unbalanced computer but whos always finding ways to make you feel at ease in its company HAL 9000. Final thought:While 2010 fails to live up to the expections of the original's fans,if all sci-fi sequel failures could be like this,us here in TV land would have an entertaining Saturday evening in.
Till next time,Carpe Diem(Seize The Day)!
Rating:
Summary: When in doubt, rent it first!
Review: I decided to rent the DVD for 2010 first, based on the reviews I read here. I am glad I did. This film was more intriguing in theory than in fact. 2001 was visually stunning; 2010 was just another scifi flick. A number of things were offensive to me in this film. First, the United States was incapable of building a ship that could return to Jupiter first to learn about what happened to the Discovery; instead, the U.S. had to rely on the Soviet Union to get there. U.S.-Soviet joint ventures is space were a popular film themes in the 1980s and early 1990s before the country collapsed, and this is just one more. Most offensive, was the absurd "let's kiss and make up and we will all live in peace" ending. I wanted to throwup. I was glad I had not made the mistake of buying this DVD and rented it instead. 2001 will always remain a high water mark in science fiction films. 2010 will most certainly not.
Rating:
Summary: Sticking To The Plot.
Review: I realize that I am in the minority here, but I have never much cared for the movie 2001. Granted there are some breathtaking picturesque scenes and the score is one cinema's great masterpieces, not to mention the grand special effects (tame by today's standards, but that was in 1968). However, the movie dragged on forever and the plot was paper thin. There was a great deal in the movie that made no sense whatsoever. 2001 was like trying to eat plastic food; it looks really nice, but it serves no function except decoration. Happily 2010 is not like that. The movie is very much plot driven (as movies should be) and is far more enjoyable to watch than it's predecessor. Roy Scheider is always a joy to watch and it's interesting to see John Lithgow in a "regular Joe" role instead of the quirky parts he usually plays. The movie not only has a decent plot of it's own, but it answers many of the questions that 2001 left unanswered: What happened to Dave Bowman; why did HAL go berserk; what are those monoliths near Jupiter doing. The film never reaches the artistic achievements of 2001. However, movies should be more than just about art and 2010 succeeds where 2001 failed.
Rating:
Summary: If it weren't for 2001, I might have liked this movie more.
Review: If it weren't for 2001: A Space Odyssey, this film might have received a higher recommendation from me. DaVinci never painted another Mono Lisa for the collector plate market. Michaelangelo never followed up the Sistine Chapel by doing the ceiling of his local [retail store]. In other words, this was a movie that didn't need to be made, a sequel that exists on a completely different plane from the original. It seeks largely to explains things best left to the individual interpretations of the audience. If, by some miracle, you are able to put the original film out of your head, you'll find a fairly effective, intelligent science-fiction film, devoid of their pyrotechnics that a lot of filmmakers feel obligated to stick in there in order to appeal to 13-to-18-year-old males. About the only flaw from a strict filmmaking perspective is John Lithgow's performance. He chews so much scenery here... Another negative is the unnecessary Cold War subplot that was not in the original novel. Less that five years after the movie was released, this element was already passe. Taking the film as a companion to the original, 2010 suffers by comparison in many ways. As I said before, the biggest knock on this film is that it seeks to make explicit everything that Kubrick trusted his audience to figure out for themselves. I had my own ideas about what the monolith was and why HAL went bonkers. I don't need Peter Hyams to connect the dots for me. Visually, the look of the film is all wrong. It's supposed to be 9 to 11 years after the events of the first film, but technology seems to have taken a giant leap backward. The look and feel of the hardware is probably more "realistic" but if you extrapolate a decade forward from the first movie, you shouldn't get spacesuits that look contemporary for 1984. Roy Scheider was also a poor choice to play Heywood Floyd. He didn't give a bad performance, but he seems to playing a completely different character. Floyd in the first film was an unctious, slightly sinister company man, not a colorful and eccentric academic. The movie also lets Floyd's character off the hook for what happened in 2001 when the first film makes it clear that he was as involved as anybody (it's about the only thing Kubrick did make clear). I still enjoy watching 2010 from time to time, but it's still just a rental for me, while I've owned a copy of 2001 almost since the day I bought a VCR.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Greatest Sequels Out There
Review: There are few sequels that have managed to live up to or even improve upon the original. This is one of those movies. 2001, while a spectacular film in the most literal sense of the word, lacked pacing and character. HAL always felt to be the most "real" individual in the film. Shots would drag on into eternity. 2010 follows up on the concepts started in 2001 but takes the theme in a new direction. A politically divided world that is crumbling upon itself must unite in order to understand one of the greatest mysteries mankind has ever encountered. A father must leave his wife and son for years so that he may accomplish his mission. Dave Bowman humanity pushes him to return, not only to give one final warning, but to say his last goodbyes. A computer scientist searches out his "prodigal son". While perhaps not visually stunning by today's standards, this continues Arthur C. Clarke's tradition of well thought out, realistic science fiction. 2010 maay not share quite as much of the sense of wonder of 2001, and in some ways is not as thought-provoking, but it proves, not only just as intelligent as its predecessor, but quite a bit more entertaining.
| 
