Rating: 
Summary: My GOD it's full of Stars!
Review: Scheider,Mirren,Lithgow, and Bob(CE3K) Balaban contribute to this fine sequel that is more plot driven than its magnificent predecessor. I love the opening, which shows the report on Discovery Mission(submitted by Dr. Heywood Floyd).The first time I saw it I got chills as it is a very haunting scene.Other key scenes(Bowman's wife is greeted via 21st century television by the "essence" of Dave.Scene of Bowman's mother revived in hospital bed.Touching comic exchange between Lithgow and Russian.) Visual effects should have won an oscar.This is a fine production all-the-way around.Alright, maybe 2001 did not need a sequel(After all, Kubrick destroyed all plans and designs of sets and models after he finished 2001), but since it is here let us sit back, crank up the DVD digital Dolby and enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: Great effects, aged well, in many ways better than 2001
Review: The best thing about this movie is the special effects. You don't notice them! That's what is so special about the movie - it's very "matter of fact" about going to Jupiter - everything feels realistic and looks realistic (from what we've seen of Jupiter and its moons from the Voyager and Pioneer flybys).An additional positive point - the movie aged well. The cold war conflict between the US and Russia sounds dated to us now that the cold war is over, but the premise is realistic enough to those of us that remember the "Godless commies". But everything about the ships and mission seem very realistic, and it's fascinating to watch the probe they send to Europa, entering Discovery the first time, the aerobraking, and even the tensions of the crew reflecting the tensions of their respective countries on Earth, and the climax is really quite exciting. It is, of course, a different movie than 2001. It's more traditional in that more things happen, there's a real payoff (as opposed to the weird aging thing beyond the Monolith in 2001), and with more characters, it's got more dialogue/interactions. I personally like it better than 2001. As for the DVD edition, there's not much else here, except a short (10 minutes) featurette on meaking the film, which looks VERY dated... =) Even at the short length, though, it's much better than a lot of "making of" segments that I've seen.
Rating:
Summary: Was that Kubrik on the cover on TIME with Clarke?
Review: This was not as engrossing as 2001. Of course I wasn't interested in seeing another 140 minutes of what I saw in 2001. We have more accurate views of Jupiter and the moon, IO, thanks to the Voyager missions since the movie "2001". There were a couple of engineering tricks I thought was fun to watch. There is an aerobraking scene and the crew came up with a way to safely leave the Jupiter system two weeks ahead of schedule, the implementation of which was fun to watch. The reason given for HAL's murders was a bit of a letdown. I think that perhaps that mystery should have been left unanswered. I would suggest that anyone with this movie pause the film the moment the nurse puts down the TIME magazine. That looks like Clarke as the President of the United States! Opposite Clarke is what appears to be Kubrik as the Soviet leader. But Kubrik didn't direct this movie. The magazine cover says "WAR". Maybe there is some inside joke. Clarke also supposedly makes a cameo on a park bench.
Rating:
Summary: The Same (but different)
Review: Although overshadowed artistically by its less-literal predecessor, '2010' works well on its own terms - it's much more mainstream and literal, and although it explains away most of the plot of the original it feels much slighter, less substantial - ordinary, in short. It's basically an old-school science-fiction film - not a horror film, or an action film, or a soap opera, but a science fiction film, with an epic grandeur to it, and some excellent special effects. The rising cost of film production, and an increasingly blockbuster-orientated market mean that proper sci-fi films now come out once in a blue moon - the 90's gave us 'Contact' and 'The Bicentennial Man' (which is stretching the argument a bit), and you might count 'Pi' as science-fiction, but that's about it. On the downside, it all seems very slight, and it doesn't really stick with you after it is over - a bit like the book, really, which this follows closely (with the addition of a cold war sub-plot). It's also a fascinating comparison of two different eras of space travel - it's nice to see the sleek, gorgeous 'Discovery' again, and it's a very 1960's view of the future, antiseptic and clean, whereas the functional, brutal 'Leonov' is closer to the earthy reality of life in space. As with '2001', the technology of '2010' is grounded so far in reality that it hasn't really dated, although the genuine computer graphics look extremely clumsy compared to the animated mock-CGI of the first film. The non-technology doesn't look too bad, either - the film sticks to functional exteriors and plain interiors, although Roy Schieder's apartment is very 'Miami Vice'. The cast is good, too, although this isn't really an acting film - Roy Schieder is Roy Schieder, John Lithgow reminds us that he was once an Oscar-nominated motion picture actor, Helen Mirren talks in Russian, and Keir Dullea makes a welcome re-appearance, looking exactly the same as he did 16 years before. Really, it's frightening. The minimal soundtrack isn't as effective as the extensive classical music used in the original, although there is a memorable 'twannnnng' noise that will make you shout 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture'. It's interesting to compare this with the recent, vaguely similar, but utterly inferior 'Mission to Mars'. Both films are NASA-approved, technically impressive, and feature proper actors and a name director (Peter Hyams did the post-modern 'Capricorn One', Brian De Palma is sort of post-modern-ish, depending on whether you like him or not), but whereas '2010' succeeds in being an entertaining drama, 'Mission to Mars' fails utterly on so many levels.
Rating: 
Summary: A very dissaponting sequel to a true classic
Review: Well, 2001 was the premier science fiction film and without doubt one of the most ambitious movies ever made. This movie, said to be it's sequel, fials to reach the revolutional geniousness of the fisrt one, and stays as a typical boring scifi-piece. Better plot wouldn't harm...
Rating:
Summary: An inspiring movie by Peter Hyams
Review: This movie, the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, is probably one of the best sci-fi movies of all time. The movie explains the "loose ends" left behind by Stanley Kubrick on why Hal, the foul-proof computer, malfunctioned and killed Frank Poole and the other astronauts, what happened to David Bowman and what the monoliths are all about. The music of this movie is absolutely great. David Shire and Craig Huxley did an outstanding job with the great music in the background when Heywood Floyd is sending one last message to his son Christopher explaining the "new distant sun in the sky" as well as the end credits. This is the movie to see!
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: This is a great movie... i read reviews and some people might say "A boring movie" those people have no intelligance. If you're going to understand this movie you have to know atleast a thing or 2 about our solar system. My e-mail is Honey_bee53@hotmail.com, if you have anything to say about the movie or review.
Rating: 
Summary: Mediocre
Review: This is a good sci-fi movie, but pales into insignificance in comparison to its predecessor, but if sci-fi is your thing, you'll probably enjoy it. My main criticism is that the character of Dr Chandra was changed from being an Indian to being a white American, which I found to be racist- there must have been some Indian-American actors !
Rating:
Summary: The LSD-free version of 2001
Review: If you still haven't figured out 2001, this movie explains it for you. Much more Hollywood than its big brother, but you can't blame the stars or the special effects. Hint: NEVER watch a sci-fi movie in pan&scan format. The only real flaw is Kier Dullea's embarrassing "something wonderful" schtick, but Peter Hyams gets snaps for an attempt that merits more than one viewing. Not as bad as the "professional" reviewers say it is.
Rating:
Summary: Unexpectedly good sci-fi movie
Review: Personally I found 2001 to be very very dull. However when I saw this video on the shelf I rented it not quite sure how good it would be but hoped that maybe it would answer some of the questions from the first one. It was very good and alot more enjoyable then 2001. The conflicts between the Russians and the Americans was a great idea. Fun movie
| 
