Rating: 
Summary: From to 2001 to 2010, the space odyssey continues...........
Review: Like Stanley Kubrick's 1968 adaptation of British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's story, Peter Hyams's adaptation of Clarke's sequel to 2001:A Space Odyssey is just as magnificent and spectacular. Not only does it contain the cerebral elements of 2001, it also contains a very straightforward approach to the storyline. It also explains why HAL had malfunctioned, and committed the acts that he did. 2010 is definately a worthy and excellent sequel to the greatest science fiction film ever made. With Keir Dullea and Douglas Rain returning to their familiar roles, and joined by veteran actors Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Robert Balaban, British actress Helen Mirren, and a few Russian actors, this film is definately a classic. Most of all, it is certainly better than some of the other science fiction that has been coming out as of late. If you are a fan of Kubrick, Clarke, Hyams, and the others who were involved in both MGM productions, check out not only 2001, but also check out 2010. You won't be disappointed. I might also add, you, the reader, should visit Clarke's excellent sequel novels, 2061 and 3001. Without a doubt, this is the best science fiction saga ever created.
Rating: 
Summary: Transfer is not standard DVD resolution
Review: Once again, the stupid people responsible for doing transfers do an inferior transfer. Instead of using the standard DVD resolution of 720x480, they chose instead to use something more like 640x427. Honestly, I don't understand why they decide to do it this way, there should be plenty of room on the DVD, since they put the pan and scan version on the other side of the disc. I've run into a few DVDs like this and it pissed me off every time.
Rating:
Summary: Worthy sequel to "2001"!
Review: Many people do not realize that Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was mostly written by Arthur C. Clarke. The collaboration actually was more dependent upon Clarke than Kubrick. The sequel was also based on the written work of Clarke and the film, to be a worthy sequel, did not necessarily require Kubrick's touch (as special as that touch is). The first film (and the first book) were meant to stand alone -- there was no plan for a sequel. Therefore, the original works could not readily be expected to furnish the expository material that a sequel could ably do. Thus the sequel seems less vague and more "conventional" than the original. But this does not imply inferior! Upon the concluision of "2010" I was in a state of rapture -- the film truly was a DIRECT descendant of the original! Clarke wrote the sequel within the same philosphical context with which he had written the first work.
The production of "2010" is on a fairly grand scale and does not in the least disappoint as a sequel to its Great Predecessor. The two films could be conjoined and shown as one (long) film -- as far as I am concerned.
Peter Hyams must have had some reservations about following Kubrick in this project, but his success is complete! The direction, acting, effects and filming are all superb. We truly owe him a debt of gratitude!
Rating:
Summary: Take it on it's own terms
Review: As many other reviewers have stated, 2010 is nothing like 2001, but then, it clearly wasn't meant to be. The story is very engaging, the acting is good and the special effects are fine. That's all been explained in other reviews, so I'll only add a couple of points. There are two scenes in this movie that keep me coming back to view it again every couple of years. First, there was the aero braking maneuver that was required of the Russian spacecraft to insert itself into orbit about Jupiter. It's mentioned just before they initiate this that it had never been tried before with a spacecraft occupied by humans. I can't fully explain why this scene moves me so strongly, but the concept is truly fantastic. The audacity of the human mind and spirit is so eloquently captured in that visual sequence. That these naked apes could hurl themselves across the interplanetary void and then throw their flaming vessel across the sky of an alien world is a truly eloquent statement about the audacity of the human spirit. It's a scene infused with mythic undertones. The counterpoint where Roy Scheider's character and one of the Russian crew huddle together and comfort each other during this harrowing process was a very nice touch. Then, there is the aspect of Hal's (and Dr. Chandra's) redemption. During the hasty escape from Jupiter there is a quietly emotional conversation between the two that is really quite touching. This allows Dr. Chandra a chance to unburden himself of some of the guilt he has been carrying since the loss of the original crew in 2001. It also reveals how emotionally attached he had become to Hal, very nearly in the sense of a parent-child relationship. For me, it's these emotional engaging and thought-provoking qualities that lift 2010 above the level of most other science fiction movies. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable but Mundane Sequel
Review: If you expect 2010 to follow the style set by the original 2001, you are going to be extremely disappointed, for where 2001 was essentially an art film that took enormous risks, 2010 is an extremely conservative film that takes no risk whatsoever. This is not to say the film is bad. It just isn't 2001 or anything remotely like it. 2010 is very plot-driven, concerning a joint Soviet-American mission to Jupiter to recover the American space craft abandoned there in the earlier film--and the thrust of the plot hinges upon the ideaological conflicts arising between the two parties. Although the script is reasonably entertaining and the cast plays it well, the collapse of the Soviet Union has rendered much of the story obsolete, and this is certainly not in the film's favor--nor is the film's rather obvious conclusion. Still, the special effects are quite a lot of fun to watch, and that makes up for a lot. Enjoyable but dismissable.
Rating: 
Summary: Dull and uninteresting
Review: It does surprise me how many people come to the rescue of this lame movie. In the view of most sci-fi fans, the Arthur C. Clarke books ran swiftly out of steam after the first one. Kubrick can be credited with making 2001 a feast for the senses.
Given no Kubrick and the inferior plot of the second book, the movie was going to be difficult to put next to the first. It does however fail on its own merits. The endless exposition in Scheider's monotone carries you deep into space. He really is very boring in this slow, slow movie. And check out Helen Mirren's Russian Commander! The add-on plot-thickener mid-80's Cold War Revival doesn't help either. A non-anamorphic transfer makes it complete, so that the few nice parts aren't all that nice.
Rating:
Summary: No 2001 but ok
Review: 2010 is worth seeing but it is no 2001. It's predecessor which I hold very high as one of the true sci-fi classics and also a masterpiece in both technical effects and pictures. 2010 starts out pretty good with Roy Scheider portraying one of the astronauts that went to the moon in the first movie. He and two other american scientists (one of which designed the Hal 9000 computer that returns in this movie). They take off together with a russian crew on a soviet spaceship to try and find out what happened to the Discovery and it's crew close to the moon of IO near Jupiter. And it's when they get on the Discovery ship that the movie really starts. Keir Dullea from 2001 also returns in his role and it's seeing him and Hal 9000 that makes the movie better to nothing for me. The ending is nothing more then ok. 2001 shouldn't be compared to 2010, I understand that but it is impossible not to. Especially when they in the beginning of the movie try to tell everyone what happened in the first one.
The first movie is despite the title 2001, timeless but 2010 is because of the political climate, the movie was made in 1984 when the cold war was still going on. And then it's the directors, well, I don't really like any of them but for me Stanley Kubricks 2001 was a really good film, despite the director's artistic necessity, and Peter Hyams with his action movies or sci-fi as in the case of Outland (which was also set on a moon close to Jupiter), doesn't really make 2010 to any more then a video rental or a late night watch on the tube.
But the best part, I have to say, is Keir Dullea repeting his message: "Something's going to happen. Something wonderful."
Rating:
Summary: Solid sequel, more literal than its predecessor
Review: No one could top Kubrick's masterpiece, and director Hyams didn't try to--he set out to make a sequel that would appeal to both fans of the original and a mass audience groomed on "Star Wars," with mixed results. Being more literal than the original, "2010" lacks the mystical qualities that made the original so appealing to audiences in 1968 (interestingly, we hadn't landed on the moon yet...bear that in mind when viewing the lunar scenes and the superb special effects), but has a compelling story to tell on its own. Simply put--Russia and the US cooperate on a mission to Jupiter to determine what happened to Dave Bowman and why HAL malfunctioned. Once they arrive, they encounter monoliths, the possibility of life on Jupiter's moon Europa, and an awakened HAL. A cryptic message from Bowman--"Something wonderful is going to happen"--sets up the (maybe) too literal finale (but that's what happened in the book...so complain to Clarke), but the payoff is satisfactory. Today's fans might find the Cold War political tensions between the US and Russia dated, but it really doesn't detract from the film. The effects (Richard Edlund, I believe) are very good, and the Jovian system looks remarkably true to life (but the producers of this film had the Voyager photos to refer to; Kubrick didn't, and still managed a realistic representation). The performances are fairly good, with Scheider and Mirren giving their best. And, it was nice to see Dullea again, and Douglas Rain (as the voice of HAL) is as unnervingly good as before. Few sequels approach the originals in terms of quality, and this is no exception. But it's a good film on its own, and deserves some merit.
Rating:
Summary: A WELL-CRAFTED SEQUEL TO "2001: a space odyssey"!
Review: The visual effects are awesome. The storyline, although totally fictional, is exciting and dramatic. The acting is superb! The way that Peter Hyams envisioned the adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's bestselling novel (which was written very well, and meant to be a sequel to both the novel AND the movie "2001: a space odyssey") is very unique, incorporating a possible nuclear war and re-working the ending to make this movie more exciting. The incredible film is, in my opinion, far superior to 2001. The DVD is interesting. It is well worth the price. Grade: A+
Rating:
Summary: 9 years later, a different Odyssey...
Review: When Stanley Kubrick created his science fiction space ballet, 2001, he broke new ground in story telling through scientific possibility, special effects and epic story scope. So, when Peter Hyams (RUNNING SCARED) chose to helm the sequel, he wisely made as different a film as he could. Gone are the long setup shots and expansive stretches without dialogue. In fact, this film runs at a more standard clip, bouncing through the story like most recent science fiction cinema. All of this adds up to a weaker sequel but a great stand alone piece. Mystical elements from 2001 are now presented as practical realities. When Bowman (Keir Dullea hardly aged 16 years later) makes an appearance onboard the Discovery, he inexplicably appears in all the different ages he took on in the final cerebral moments of 2001. But now, those moments are no longer thought provoking, just odd. Are we to believe the "Bowman at many ages" were the only fprms he took? Additionally, some of the 'cold war' dialogue now seems very stilted. The performances are sufficient, but the characters are hardly drawn out so Lithgow, Scheider and Balaban don't ever seem to kick in. There are some extremely positive elements in this film as well. Revisiting the now derelict Discovery was like stopping in on an old friend, and the distorted gravity secures the feeling even more. Hearing HAL9000 speak again and seeing Bowman again as if no time had passed also adds to that excitement. But, the greatest thing to come from this film is the third act payoff. And the final button on the film improves even on that with an awe-inspiring possibility well worth the price of admission. In short, the film is well worth checking out, especially if your expectations are low. Watch for Arthur C. Clarke (Author of the 2001 series) sitting on a white house park bench in the first ten minutes. "Something's Going to Happen."... "Something Wonderful."
|
