Rating: 
Summary: Nice sequel
Review: I really enjoyed this sequel. In fact, I liked it more than the original, which, judging by the huge acclaim "2001" has generated over the years, probably puts me in the minority. The first movie had too much music for my tastes, had a sloooow pace, and was confusing. "2010" explains matters more clearly, has interesting characters and the story moves along more briskly.
Rating: 
Summary: Misses the mark
Review: I really think that this movie was soo bad that is good, terrible acting, it's completely excessivly boring, and it incredibly consufsing, but i don't know why i liked it.
Rating: 
Summary: Unnecessary Sequel
Review: I wish they never made this move. "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY" was a great innovative, thought provoking and enigmatic stand-alone space epic. This film totally destroys Stanley Kubrick's vision in one fell swoop. It is the exact opposite of what Kubrick presented to the viewer in every respect. Uninspired sequels have a way of diminishing the impact of the original. Luckily "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY" still stands the test of time and remains unblemished by this inept sequel.
Rating: 
Summary: All the story without the drug-inspired aura of 2001
Review: How lame is 2001, anyway? The first 20 minutes are a bunch of monkeys going nuts over the monolith, and you're wondering why. Too bad 2001 never explains that...that's where 2010 comes in. Roy Schieder, as usual, is awesome. Who didn't crap their pants when he looked behind him to see Dave Bowman standing there? It's got a hint of horror in it to go along with the sci-fi. I hate movies that leave things unexplained (i.e., Pulp Fiction). If I want to think about the meaning of something, I'll go to work.
Rating: 
Summary: The Book is Much Better...
Review: Read the book first, it is much better than the movie. I read the whole thing in one sitting, it was that interesting. The movie is a perfect example of a Hollywood creative compromise: Changes to the ethnicity of some of the characters, fluff added to the story. But I was surprised to discover that the producers left most of the story alone. And the special effects were very well done, nominated for an Oscar in fact.
Rating:
Summary: I love this film...
Review: I watched 2010 when I was 10 years old... It isn't a extraordinary thing. At this age I discovered a new huge world. What's that?: Science Fiction and philosophy mixed? And... in the same film? That was too much and I had to see the first one (yeah, I saw it after 2010): 2001 Kubrick's film -> I didn't understand 2001 completly(I promise: i was 10) Now my favorite film is 2001 and when i recall 2010, a little kid raises again and I remember how SF can be so great!
Rating:
Summary: A fairly interesting story, but...
Review: The movie completely ruins Kubrick's masterpiece. Why? It takes the allure away from the original. It forces viewers to conform to Arthur Clark's view of what happened in 2001. For people who love being spoon-fed, and love not thinking, 2010 is a much better movie that 2001. But what makes Shakespeare so great, or the Bible such a literary masterpiece? Much of it is multiple interpretations readers can form in their own mind, which also carries over to film. In 2001, I was perfectly content believing that HAL really did have a problem and covered it up by killing crew members. Well, 2010 ruined that with the terrible story line of HAL being programmed to do it by 'the bad guys.' No thanks... stay away free-thinkers, this will ruin the original.
Rating:
Summary: 2010: the year we make contact
Review: i still don't fully understand 2001!! but i understood and liked 2010... (if anyone can help on the underlying tones of 2001, pls let me know.)
Rating:
Summary: Not as good as the original, but what is?
Review: This DVD i just got done watching tonight. It is a very well paced film. There arent many extras, but it is still a fine DVD. It is presented in its widescreen aspect ratio (as well as pan & scan) and has a all-too-short featurette on the making of the film. The picture quality is very good, and i would recommend this DVD to any sci-fi fan. It is no where near as good as 2001: A Space Odyssey Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, and as pointed out it is very to the point. While 2001 left more unanswered then answered 2010 answers all those questions and then some. However, viewed alone, it is a very entertaining flick, some good sequences (especially the space-walk between the russian station and the Discovery from the first film.) This is a beautiful, well crafted picture that would look nicely on everyone's DVD shelf (just make sure it is next to 2001) Note: The graphic on the DVD that is in a snapper case looks nothing like the one pictured here. (A least mine doesn't)
Rating:
Summary: More Commonplaceness from Peter Hyams
Review: This is a totally inept and unnecessary sequel to "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY." Director Peter Hyams continues to demonstrate his predilection for mediocrity. This film is a total inversion of the original. Stanley Kubrick's vision of the future that he established in the original is totally scraped and revamped in this second film for no good reason other than dollar signs. I suppose the producers of this film thought that approach would have been too cerebral for the 80's audiences. Kubrick created a sterile environment for his astronauts of the future. Here we see a continuing trend in films to create a lived in and grimy environment for space travelers. Kubrick's astronauts were the consummate professionals. They were the clean-shaven, cool headed, clear thinking professionals. They were never verbose going off into unnecessary dissertations on baseball and hotdogs and mustard like occurs in this film. Kubrick's astronauts restricted their dialogue to the requirements necessary to complete the mission successfully. Verbosity has always been a trademark in Hyams' films and a detriment to his abilities as a director and screenwriter in my humble opinion. Verbosity runs rampant in this film and it becomes nauseating to the point where I often turn this movie off. John Lithgow's Walter Curnow is the guiltiest of this. Roy Scheider is totally miscast as Dr. Heywood Floyd. Of coarse the character of Floyd is scripted entirely wrong in this film, so you really can not blame Scheider. William Sylvester's performance as Floyd in the original was one of the most realistic performances ever given by an actor up till then. I never once saw a review even mentioning his performance. That was a shame. Bob Balaban as Dr. Chandra seemed totally unnecessary and not believable. That character was a mistake. It's hard to believe that Arthur C. Clarke had some collaborative input on this film. I will admit that it was good to see Keir Dullea reappear as Dave Bowman for purely sentimental reasons. Helen Mirren as the Soviet Tanya Kirbuk gave a somewhat acceptable performance. It was dramatic but contained enough stoicism to be believable. My biggest complaint however with this film and it my seem trivial, was the presence of sound in outer space. The images in the original 2001of massive spacecraft floating in space traveling at incredible speeds all to either dead silence or majestic musical accompaniment was deafening. Who can ever forget the image of Gary Lockwood as astronaut Frank Poole grasping for air hurtling into deep space after Hal 9000 has cut his airline? Again this scene was played to dead silence and still lingers in my memory. That is a tribute to the concept of pure cinema. And remember Peter there is no sound in the vacuum of space.
| 
