Rating: 
Summary: Movie Demonstrates What Has And Hasn't Changed Since 1984
Review: In the author's note of 2010: Odyssey Two, Arthur C. Clarke admits that it would be impossible for him to write a true sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Writing about what man became once the Monolith appeared again in 2001 would be like the apes writing about what they would become when the Monolith appeared the first time.The sequel is about as good a sequel that Arthur C. Clarke could write. Jupiter as a yet to be ignited sun seems fairly plausible, however the cold war tension that appears in both the book and in the movie appears very outdated by today's current world situation. Arthur C. Clarke also admitted when he wrote the sequel to 2001 that 2010 would not happen by 2010, but much, much later. He would have had no idea that the Soviet Socialist Regime would have collapsed due to serious economic problems long before 2010. The movie at the time it came out had cutting edge special effects. The movie is very, very true to the book. Unlike 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the book talks about the Discovery's mission to Saturn, which had to be changed to Jupiter in the movie due to the fact that they just didn't have the ability to repoduce convincing visual effects for Saturn's large rings that circle the planet. The only difference I remember between the book and the movie was the spacecraft that discovered photosynthesis on one of Jupiter's moons. In the book the discovery was made by a manned spacecraft launched by the Chinese government that landed on one of Jupiter's moons. In the movie, the discovery was made by an unmanned probe launched by the Leonov. This movie isn't one of the best science fiction films ever made, but the continuity between it and the original is impressive.
Rating:
Summary: Film: 5 stars, NOT Enhanced For Widescreen: 3 stars
Review: The box says one thing, the reality is something else. You are not getting the 400 lines of resolution in widescreen/letterbox 2.35:1 (in 16:9) with this dvd, but rather something closer to 200 lines, which is pretty awful. To make matters worse, the print's in dire need of remastering and digital touch ups. It's grainy and the colors & contrasts are not calibrated properly. I'd recommend THX standardized mastering. The optical matte boxes are visible in a number of shots and need to be digitally eliminated for future releases of this film. The quality of this dvd release is simply unacceptable for this caliber of film.
Rating: 
Summary: Much better 20 years later
Review: When this movie was orignally released in 1984 I was only 9 at the time, and even at that age I liked this movie. However, at that young age I only liked it because it was a "cool" story. I am now 27 and I just watched it again for the first time since I was a kid, and I am so glad I did because it all makes much more sense to me now. Now granted it does have flaws scientifically speaking *SPOILER*, I have always been kind of space buff and so I immediately picked up on how implausable that ending is. When Jupiter explodes and turns into a star, some how its moons are left untouched. Now anyone even slightly knowlegeable in space facts knows that it is impossible for planets and moons to exist that close to a star without being insinerated. Jupiter is a monster size planet and if it did become a star it would definitely consume all of its moons. Still despite this glaring inaccuracy I am able to overlook it and understand what it did for the story line. Today you often hear how if there is life anywhere else in our solar system then chances are it would exist on Jupiter's moom Europa, because underneath its layer of ice there could be an ocean. And so I believe that the point of having Jupiter explode and turn into a star was meant to draw you to the conclusion that this star would melt the ice of Europa and hence life would evolve. I get that now, even though I totally missed that as a kid. So I guess that what I mean by this rambling review is that this movie is outdated in its political undertones, and a bit inaccurate scientifically, but it is still a great story. And it is one that I still enjoy 20 years later.
Rating: 
Summary: Mission And Promise To Explain 2001 Fails Miserably
Review: The Promise To Explain 2001 Fails Miserably March 23, 2003
Roy Scheider leaves the hunting of sharks for a moment and joins a Russian crew en route to Jupiter. There in the orbit of Europa, one of the planet's moon, they park along-side Discovery, the now shut down spaceship that once was reigned by HAL 9000, the sinister yet pleasantly wacky computer that killed off the crew in 2001: Space Oddysey. Here, with the typical cold war bravado, this mix of Americo-Russian scientists promised the viewer to explain the Stan Kubrick's open-ended sequences from 2001 in which Dave keeps turning from an old man into a large embryo and back and, of course, the meaning of the mysterious black monolith slab. But no such promise is kept. On the contrary, the original quandary is further compounded. First, by the cameo appearance of the old Dave and his regaling Roy Scheider with his embryo-turning tricks. Then, by a sudden and a rather strange viral-like multiplication of these odd monoliths on the surface of Europa. Before anything is solved, understood, or explained the crew zips off back to Earth. Only a threat from Dave follows their speeding ship warning the mankind from ever attempting to land on Europa. This amalgamation of furthered confusion and the ever so apparent desperate try to match the cinematic surrealism of the 2001 film, is whipped into a frenzy in the last few frames of this flop by giving the Earth yet a second sun. But it appears that Roy Scheider enjoys the quicker tan the two suns offer him. You too best heed Dave's warning and never attempt to watch this flick.
R. Friedman,
Bellvue, WA
Rating:
Summary: Great sci-fi movie, but....
Review: Even though 2010 doesn't even approach the artistry, symbolism, or suspense of 2001, it's a great sci-fi movie by any other standard. The acting, camera work, and storyline are all top-notch. I appreciated how they used unique camera angles and sparser, more enigmatic dialogue at the beginning of the film. This helped to capture some of the atmosphere of 2001, before they eased into the more "conventional movie" feeling that characterizes the rest of 2010. I really enjoyed most of this movie, and the scenes with the abandoned Discovery are particularly suspenseful and effective. BUT... The movie shouldn't have tried so hard to tie up the loose ends that 2001 left (I admit I have never read the book, so I don't know how much of this was up to the director). An example of this is the mysterious fate of David Bowman. In the end of the first film, we watch Dave go through an enlightening transformation that transcends time, space, life, and death, in the dreamlike final sequence. By contrast, in 2010, Dave pops up on TV screens, interacts with people, and talks to HAL. That seems a little cheesy, given the mysticism of his original transformation in 2001. Even worse is the scene where Floyd is talking to an apparition of Dave, who cycles back and forth from a middle-aged man, to an older man, to a very old man, and back again. It seems almost like they missed the point of Dave's transformation in 2001--there was meaning behind his rapid aging in the original. He wasn't just randomly jumping around from age to age. Also, the scene where HAL becomes a "good guy" seemed more than a little sappy. To me, the point of HAL in 2001 was to show how we can go too far with advancing our technology, how we can become too enamored with our own achievements, and how creating a practically living machine to serve us was crossing the line. This suggestion was underscored by HAL's dazed singing, "I'm--half-crazy---crazy in love with you---" as he was disconnected. Explaining and over-simplifying HAL's insanity undermines all that symbolism, and so does turning him into a "good guy." Or maybe I just like darker movies? Finally, while there were some things that were explained too much, there were other elements that weren't explained enough. I'm going to talk about the ending here, which I assume is O.K. because this movie is 20 years old, but if you haven't seen it, I might spoil it here so read at your own risk. The part at the end, where Jupiter is turned into a star, is simply not explained enough. I'm probably being a little bit of a science snob, but there is no way that Jupiter's moons could exist a few thousand miles from a star without being destroyed. And, for that matter, why weren't they destroyed in the blast that consumed the Discovery? More perplexing, how could life on Earth still be normal (i.e., not fried) with a second Sun in our system? Either way, the ending is too scientifically flawed (and trust me, I'm no scientist) for the viewer to suspend belief. To sum it up, I still think this film is well worth buying. The first 2/3 is fantastic. It doesn't try too hard to emulate 2001, but it moves into its technological-suspense-thriller mode gradually and seamlessly, so it doesn't feel inappropriate or out of sync with the original. It isn't until the last 1/3 of the movie that things start to go awry. And when they do, it's especially disappointing because the rest of it is so great! I am now very interested in reading 2010 to see if the ending was really what Arthur C. Clarke had in mind...
Rating:
Summary: right up there with 'my best friend's wedding'
Review: Wow.
2001 was a masterpiece. A subtle, awe-inspiring and timeless masterpiece. 2010 is awe-inspiring for how pathetic it is. The acting is terrible, and it is as subtle as a sledgehammer. Amazingly, the effects of 2001 are many times better than 2010 even though the sequel was made about fifteen years later. Horrible movie. 2001 is timeless and speaks to all generations. 2010 is a cheesy 80s flick, especially with the Cold War subplots and bad Russian accents. If you need a paperweight, or a doorstop, then go out and buy 2010. Otherwise, let it rot in peace.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty Good Sequel
Review: This is another one of those cheap DVDs that I bought because I loved the movie when I first saw it. I saw the price, and it was mine. This film, obviously the sequel to 2001, follows Dr. Floyd, one of the directors of the mission that took place in the first film. He goes on a mission to determine what happened to the Discovery, the ship that was lost in 2001. This film, although not the same caliber as 2001, is good in it's own right. The crew discover the monolith that was found in 2001, and find that a higher intelligence has placed it there. Ultimately, they make contact with the intelligence and something happens, something wonderful. Roy Scheider plays this role as he plays every role he takes, with every ounce of strength he has. This is one actor I can't see enough of. There isn't a movie, or TV show for that matter, he's made that doesn't show his talent. All the actors in this film, John Lithgow, etc., did the book justice. If you're bored, have a few bucks to spend, go out and pick this up. The DVD has both full screen and widescreen versions, but no extras. I wouldn't pay more than $.. for a DVD with no extras, and this one is no different. It's a good story, with good special effects. You won't be disappointed if you get it for what I paid for it. The reason being, if you rented it once or twice, it would cost you as much as buying it!
Rating:
Summary: More convetional but still engrossing
Review: Not so much a sequel as an extension of Clarke's ideas from the novelization, 2010 should really be viewed as a film all its own. Only Keir Dullea and Douglas Rains return from the previous film. Although much of the awe and mystery of the original film is missing (and spelled out in this film), Hyams does a credible job adapting Clarke's interesting but often difficult novel. The visuals are stunning and the performances full bodies and powerful. Schieder makes Heywood Floyd come alive something that couldn't be said about his predecessor's performance in 2001. John Lithgow and Helen Mirren provide an interesting contrast to Scheider's riveting performance. Bob Bablan brings a number of subtle touches to his role as Hal's "father". While 2010 may be a more conventional science fiction film, it's narrative and action also make it less like it's predecessor. 2010 is intelligently written and directed. Hyams doesn't try to duplicate what Kubrick did with 2001 but, instead, tries to examine many of the same themes from a slightly different perspective within the format of an action film.
Rating:
Summary: The poetry is gone but much of the beauty remains.
Review: Of course it isn't as good. One guy was Kubrick and the other wasn't. However, this isn't 2001:REDUX. This is a completely different story! Arthur C. Clarke wrote a less ambiguous story, therefore the movie, if adapted faithfully, should be less ambiguous as well. The movie is, in fact, a faithful adaption in spirit. Many of the scenes and sequences from the book were excised but not at the expense of the story. It remains a beautiful picture with imaginative special effects from Dennis Mueren that is an entertaining reflection on the questions raised by a far superior movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Widescreen alert! This DVD is not 16:9 encoded!
Review: This film is a long-time favorite of mine, but I give this DVD edition (Warner 65053) a 2 star rating because of the deceptive packaging and the DVD digital encoding used. The wording on the DVD package is as follows: "...WIDESCREEN VERSION...preserving the 'scope' aspect ratio of its orignal theatrical exhibition. ENHANCED FOR WIDESCREEN." There is a lot of confusion in the marketplace due to a lack of agreement among the studios regarding the labels for the various DVD aspect ratios and their encoding, but on all other DVDs that I've seen, which bear the description "enhanced for widescreen", the higher resolution 16:9 digital encoding was used. Despite the presence of this label however, this DVD is plain old-fashioned letterbox. Even for those of us with true wide screen capability, this DVD looks like low rez letterboxed VHS. As a result of this experience, I will be far more circumspect of all Warner editions from now on, and if I have any doubt of their being 16:9, I'll skip them. So much of this material is already on my shelf in VHS format. If I am to upgrade these titles, I insist they be true 16:9 encoded for widescreen TV. I also dislike the cheap cardboard "snap case" used on nearly all Warner titles. When it comes down to choosing between which movies to buy, the bonus of an Amaray style keep case is often the deciding factor. By saving a penny or two on these cheap cases, Warner is hurting their bottom line, over-all. Most people I know prefer the keep case. In the competition for the consumer's dollar, why does Warner put themselves at such a disadvantage by using such cheap and nonstandard packaging? Come on Warner,get with the rest of the industry with your packaging, and please quit making us guess which video encoding is used. Those of us who have widescreen gear are savvy enough to understand what 16:9 means, whereas "enhanced for widescreen" is now anybody's guess.
| 
