Rating: 
Summary: Mystery Cloaked in Cliche
Review: For a sequel that's supposed to "explain" things, this wasn't much clearer than "2001". It doesn't tell why there were thousands of black slabs congregating on Jupiter, or where the message about Europa and universal brotherhood came from, etc. etc. So there are still a lot of questions at the end, but the vehicle for imparting this ambiguity is a film that incorporates a bucketful of cliched movie motifs, e.g. lots of fake "countdown" suspense (will the spaceman reach the spaceship/will Hal agree with the new program, all resolved just in the nick of time), outdated Cold War stuff, and lots of things "get blown up real good" as John Candy used to say.
If I'm going to watch a movie that leaves me scratching my head, I'd rather it be something with some creativity and originality--like 2001--instead of something that's 100% formula like 2010.
Rating: 
Summary: better than the first
Review: 2010 is far superior to 2001. Some say it's "too new age" but the truth is that the original could be called "too psychedelic" and 2010 is a fine film that continues the story from the first film and improves upon it. The basic charges put forth against this film are that Arthur C. Clarke has no right to continue writing about the characters and scenarios he created in 2001 and those writings should not become films. I think Clarke has every right to do what the hell he wants with characters and scenarios he created. He is an excellent writer and 2010 is a great book. It was was made into a fine film which is an improvement over the film version of 2001 even if the cult of Kubrick wont admit it.
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood Shlock Attack
Review: Who thought it would be a good idea to superimpose "Close Encounters" on top of "2001"? What a dumbed-down exercise in movie-making stupidity. Even Hal the Computer is dull-witted and smarmy, with a Richard Dreyfus look-alike as his programmer buddy. "2001" raised questions, left them unanswered, figured the audience was intelligent enough to chew them over; "2010" barges into the room like a loud, unloved In-law with ham-fisted, moronic answers to all those questions, tries its best to kill off any of the mystery or poetry in "2001" (how did they ever get the rights to use replicas of the original sets?), then stomps on the broken pieces with a bunch of New Age, Talk-To-You-From-The-Other-Side garbage. The only useful thing about this movie was that I learned the Russian word for "idiot" is "durak", which would certainly apply to everyone involved in the production of this abomination. The horror, the horror...
Rating: 
Summary: More comprehensible than the first...
Review: While the first movie was o.k., it is not a good movie to watch on Saturday night with a few friends. It was meant to be watched, pondered, and repeated until you realize that the ending is impossible to understand.While this movie may not be as scientific, it's still not totally unbelievable. You can enjoy it fairly easily, and it's overall just a fun movie, with good acting and plot.
| 
