Rating: 
Summary: Great special effects made this movie.
Review: Although it is not as awesome and riveting as 2001, it makes for great entertainment. The special effects were wonderful, especially the scene where Jupiter ignited into the "Lucifer" sun. Although it does not completely follow the classic book's storyline, the one Peter Hyams made was just fine. I recommend this movie to everyone who likes this sort of thing.
Rating:
Summary: Worthy heir to Kubrick film
Review: This is a great film , and a worthy succesor to 2001. It should have been on the AFI 100 greatest movies list.Superb !!
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Science Fiction Movies of the 80s!
Review: One of the Best Science Fiction Movies of the 80s! This elaborately conceived science-fiction film is generally overshadowed by it's predecessor 2001. But unlike that film, you did not have to read the novel beforehand to understand its story line. Written, Produced, Cinematographed, and Directed (total creative control) by Peter Hyams, this superb science fiction classic was easily 20 years ahead of its time, and therefore unappreciated by many except the cinema and science fiction purists. Including a mesmerizing original sound score by David Shire, and academy award winning visual effects by futurist Syd Mead, this movie is so rich in theme and detail, you will be compelled to watch it over and over again! Billed, of course, as the sequel to 2001, this film managed to accomplish what that one did not. It created an absorbing, COHERENT, and spell binding FEAST for the senses. Watching this movie in 5 channel Dolby Surround is practically a religious experience, a theme touched on in the movie. If you are one of the many who missed this cinematic experience, treat yourself to a movie that is sure to become part of your private library. You'll be amazed while you're watching it, that you are watching a film made in the 80s! One of the best science fiction films ever made! Excellent!
Rating:
Summary: hjklklhjlfhlfhjljnmhklhj,b,m,,mm,m,m,mm,mm
Review: m,vm,m,hjhjm,m,m n hm,hmhjm,fhjm,hjmjm bm,n mgjhk gn gmnbr hfdmjlhbbvsc nbs bs bbvsgbgasfbsd fwdjfdcyc d vsdjfvhjvbcvsfvf vsdcv jdfdvymdfjsdfg sdfvulfaefb asbdvcuadfvasd,fcaefjcyasgfsdfhdhhdhd
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing Much
Review: When I saw 2001: a space odyssey I thought it was one of the most awe inspiring sci-fi movie in existence. Because if this I was expecting quite a lot of 2010. I was sorely disappointed. It was extremely slow, had a quite boring USA vs Russia theme throughout and nothing truly great happened until the end. This movie does not make you think - unlike the original. I then read the book of 2010 and found that it was excellent. What went wrong with the film? Around a third of the plot was cut and the Russia vs USA theme was added for no apparent reason. The characters were destroyed and all of the humour and suspense was forgotten. It is sad that what could have been am excellent movie was let down due to sloppy script and directing. The ironic thing is that 2001 has aged less than this movie! I think I will just try to forget that a movie was made of this excellent book - it lets me read the rest of the series in peace.
Rating:
Summary: No "2001" sequel at all!
Review: Count me with the folks who see this film as falling way, way short of "2001." I don't even think of it as a sequel, it so undermines all the intentional ambiguity, symbolism and directing style of the original. I agree with the viewer from Moscow that the re-casting of HAL subtracts substantially from the "horrific" elements of his character in "2001." It also negates the original film's cautionary speculations about man and technology. Some nifty special effects, yes... but c'mon folks... is that all it takes for you to go gushy over a movie?
Rating: 
Summary: It was good, but it should never have been made becaue....
Review: It was good, as I said, but the movie kinda makes 2001 seems different because in the movie 2001 HAL was presented like a horror character, and in 2010 they take away our thoughts of awe, and change them into phyisical science. Although that would be the better way to see things, it is NOT the more interesting. Anyway, the movie was good becuase of the acting and how realistic it was, but trust me, the book is 10000x better, and the book keeps HAL as a horrific charicter in a way. READ THE BOOK, 2010: ODYSSEY TWO!! it is a must for science fiction lovers!
Rating:
Summary: Cheesy flim makes bad follow up to 2001
Review: This movie isn't 2001 at all, in this movies space ships go Whurring by, peter hyams did a bad job on this one, he completely changed the perfect story line Clarke set up for him, gosh that was a bad idea
Rating:
Summary: almost as good as 2001 more people will understand this
Review: as good as its going to get without kubeck at the helm not as thought provocing as the first but still a good film.
Rating: 
Summary: almost as good as 2001
Review: It was much more straight forward like the normal style of Aurther C. Clarke. It had a lot more action, but lacked in the scenery that triggers other thoughts. Schieder was quite excellent in his role. He gave the movie an element of an every day man.
|
