2010: The Year We Make Contact

In the long-awaited sequel to "2001: A Space Odyssey," Roy Scheider is sent back into space on a joint mission with the Soviets to try to find out what happened on the original mission. An attempt to answer the many questions left at the end of the first movie regarding the fate of one of the astronauts, the HAL 9000 computer and the spaceship Discovery on their journey to explore Jupiter. Now that enough time has elapsed since the release of 2010 for outraged 2001 fans to calm down, it can be seen that, while there was no decisive creative reason for Hyams' sequel to exist, it's not a bad movie. A good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space opera.

Should a helpful genie ever grant me a wish to have just one film obliterated forever from history and the memory of humankind, you may be sure that this appalling heap will be the one. '2010' serves as proof of whose movie '2001' was, because '2010' is definitely Clarke's, and it's a wretched thing indeed. Bad enough by itself, but a foul and shameful creation to seek to place itself alongside its predecessor. Now, Arthur C. deserves his title as one of SF's Great Men. In his heyday he knocked out some very fine SF, based on some brilliant extrapolative ideas. Nor were they just SF plots: this is the man who invented communications satellites, for instance. Good SF concepts, but mediocre execution. He's a Big Ideas man, and he doesn't fuss much with subtle plot-twists to get them across. If there's are no convenient pair of characters around to tell each other - and us - then he'll write lots of Dear Angela letters, and tell everything to her - and us. So it is with this film: a series of set pieces to show off Clarke's clever notions: aerobraking, Europa's subsurface ocean, Io's vulcanism and rebooting HAL - interspersed with Dear Maggie VOs to explain it all and move the plot along. Not only is it Clarke's film, but it's not really a sequel, except to a film that never existed: Clarke's film of 2001 - which, had it been made, would have been a very different animal indeed from Kubrick's magnificent opus. It would have been very like this feeble thing, and Bowman's last words would have been the tacky 'My God, it's full of stars!' The fact that no such film was ever made hasn't troubled the makers of this one - they've simply pretended that it was. But, happily, Kubrick made 2001 - took Clarke's core idea, added humanity, wisdom and wonder, and made of it a thing of beauty. Who knows what monstrous hubris moved Hyams to believe he had the stuff to carry the work onward, or Clarke to believe that he could architect it. Clarke had previously stood as the co-creator of 2001, but this film reveals him as a mere contributor. CD

This has for years been one of my go-to movies when I feel like I could detach from earth for a few hours. Kind of a guilty pleasure, altho there's nothing to be a shamed of really. This movie - while a bit dated - is a solid and an atmospheric experience from the beginning to the end. I liked 2001 also, I watch it maybe once every five years. 2010 I watch maybe every other year, so it does not hold any surprises, but I like the feel of it. While 2001 is somewhat heavy and artistic, 2010 is lighter and more accessible. Still, it's not a dumbed down Hollywood blockbuster, but rather quite an intelligent movie. In 2001 I still find different ways to interpret it, it holds time and renews itself, keeping a certain distance. 2010 is like your parents house, it never changes, you always feel like coming home. I didn't see 2010 in the theaters, I was around 10 when this came out, but I saw it later in the 80s as a rental. Back then it was a spectacular sci-fi movie. Now it has a certain nostalgia factor to it. If I now saw it for the first time, I'm not sure if it would stick with me as well as it does now. I've owned this on VHS, DVD and most recently on bluray. I have to admit I would rather probably watch it from VHS or DVD since bluray isn't very forgiving when it comes to fx shots. You can see a few times that the colors don't quite match. Despite of this I'd say the fx are pretty much on par with other sci-fi movies of that era. Most of them are flawless. All in all this was the time Hyams was on a roll. Outland is great movie and the sets here clearly utilize his experience gained with Outland. Altho not quite as industrial, but the lighting is dim and very atmospheric. Hyams is one of those directors that I'm waiting to make one more great movie. But like many of his contemporaries, he has fallen into a pit of low budgets and box office failures. Most notorious probably being the Sound of Thunder that looked very much unfinished. Acting is pretty good. Lithgow especially. Nothing spectacular, but solid show. The synth soundtrack is quite original.

This is the sequel of a masterpiece, 2001. So it has to be a mess, right? Wrong. Yes, the novel by Arthur C. Clarke on which the film is based is even better, but you know, something has to be rewritten to accommodate the Hollywood industry, focused on bigger audiences. But this is one of the very few sci-fi movies where pure astronomy and aeronautics are at the center of the scene, and not something ridiculously ugly and pathetic came from another world only to be owned by our heroes. It's made for two reasons: try to explain what the hell happened in 2001 and what the monoliths are made for, giving a damn good finale to the whole story.

I watched 2001 for the first time in college. I had no intention of seeing the sequel because I knew it was not made by Kubrick and felt it would probably be very inferior. However, my roommate, decided to rent it and I watched it. Even though my parents gave it to me a couple of years ago, I have had no desire to actually watch it. But since I have vowed to review all the movies in my collection I did my duty this evening. I was mildly surprised, but not at all impressed. In watching this movie I did my best to remove the idea that this is a sequel out of my head and just tried to enjoy it as a science fiction film. This was increasingly difficult since a great deal of time in this film is spent going back and explaining all of the events in 2001. This is probably my greatest complaint about the film. Where 2001 works not by not giving any answer, 2010 works too hard to give meaning not only to itself, but also 2001. Where 2001 is silent, allowing images to tell the story, 2010 fills nearly every moment with noise. The visuals of 2010 were very well done. I felt the images of the space ships, planets, and space travel were quite nice. The special effects, in general, were also very nice. The film does get severely dated with it's cold war subplot. Americans and Russians working together in space while their political counterparts wage war on the Earth below may have been effective at the time, but today it only seems cheesy. I have not read the books to 2001 or 2010 so I do not know if their explanation of HAL's "malfunction" are the same as the movies. I can't help but feel disappointed with the explanation either way. I have always felt that part of the power of 2001 was how it didn't answer many of the questions it asked. How there was no explanation of where the monoliths came from, no explanation of what went wrong with HAL, no explanation of what the long sequence at the end meant. It's as if by not giving us explanations, the viewer has to fill in the gaps. In 2010 we get more answers than we need. Any real explanation of why HAL went bad, no matter how logical, seems to dull the experience of watching 2001. Now again, I haven't read the books, where I believe those very things are explained. So those who have read the books may not feel the same way, but this is my experience. In the end, that is the better way to sum up my feelings on this movie. If you have never read the books, but find 2001 to be an immensely satisfying film experience then 2010 is most likely to be disappointing. However, if you have read the books and have already had much of the meaning behind 2001 explained to you, then you may find more enjoyment out of the sequel. Likewise, if you have never seen the art that is 2001, or found it too heady to understand, then 2010 may be an enjoyable piece of science fiction. Like this review? Go to www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com for more.

The reactions to this film sum up a problem of perception that many film buffs seem to have. To such people, Kubrick was a genius. Kubrick made 2001. 2001 is a *Kubrick* story. Therefore 2010 is by definition a presumptuous attempt to explain what Kubrick deliberately left unsaid. etc. etc. Sorry, 2001 is an *Arthur C Clarke* story. He wrote a sequel to his own story, called it "2010" and *he* explained what Kubrick left unsaid. I'd say he had a right. Then someone buys the film rights and produces a fine movie from it. And it *is* a fine movie. Intelligence far in excess of the usual Hollywood SciFi garbage (Independence Day or Starship Troopers anyone?). The scenes with Keir Dullea were far more chilling than anything in the original. Arteur theory is still alive and well, I see.

I'm amazed that none of the comments I read bothered to pick up on the religious significance in the film. To me it seemed rather obvious and it is one of the reasons I liked the film so much. I'm surprised the Christians weren't outside protesting it -- the second coming of the "sun". That alone was worth the price of admission for me. The second thing was the dialog between Bob Balaban and HAL near the climax of the film. For me it was the most touching dialog EVER between a man and a machine. Hands down. It brings tears to my eyes. As mentioned in another comment the dialog between Scheider and Dullea is also great. I realize the film looks dated now as do a lot of films due to technology. But the acting I felt was topnotch. Look who's in it -- Mirren, Lithgow, Balaban and Schieder. Great actors. Also the script was very good and I thought inventive especially the religious idea. The reasons mentioned above put the movie in a separate class to me. If people haven't seen it I always tell them it's one of my favorite films.

I looked this film up before renting it since I had never seen it. The comments I saw for a review saying it was boring as the original (first one) and ..."uninvolving"? This movie blew me away, I really thought it was great. This is NOT an action movie and for that matter neither was "2001". If you're looking for a fast paced and, well.. shallow movie this isn't that either. You thinkers, this movie is for you. The acting is wonderful and special effects are very convincing and not diverting. The story is very interesting although it certainly dates it more than special effects. I can probably name about 120 sci-fi movies that aren't as enjoyable to me as 2010 and most of those are still more than worth seeing. Not only worth seeing but for genre fans it is worth owning on DVD.

A fine, intelligent sci-fi movie that has the unenviable task of being a sequel to arguably the greatest sci-fi movie of all time. If it's at all possible for you to put aside comparisons to Kubrick's film, you should do so. 2001 certainly didn't need a sequel but, if it had to have one, it couldn't be much better than this. The story has Dr. Heywood Floyd (now played by Roy Scheider) joining a Russian mission to investigate the events of the first film. Basically the movie tries to spell out what happened in 2001 for everybody who didn't get it and provide some degree of closure to the story. It's a different movie than 2001 and, in some ways, a more accessible one. I say that knowing how many people hate 2001 for the very reasons many others (including myself) love it. The script here is not as enigmatic and the direction is less artful. The cast is very good and the special effects are excellent. It's not the experience Kubrick's masterpiece is but it is an enjoyable companion piece. Not necessary in any way but good nonetheless.

Once again, we see (1) a sequel that isn't even close to the greatness of the original film; (2) Hollywood once again bashing the U.S. government with conspiracy theories; (3) low-class people playing astronauts; (4) another left-wing agenda promoting a secular version of the origin of man; (5) another horrible movie in which John Lithgow starred. Yup, 1 - The original film, 2001: A Space Odyssey is much better; 2 - they claim the government hid something from the good guys and caused the current problem in this story; 3 - in addition, the promote life being on other planets, another ludicrous secular hope; 4 - when have you ever heard a real-life astronaut talk like the dirt-bags in this film (or the "Alien" films, Pitch Black, etc.); 5 - I stand corrected: Lithgow actually was good in one movie in his career, but that's it. The only redeeming quality of this movie was the brief scene with 2001 star Keir Dullea, the co-star of the first film. That was a nice touch. Overall: a very disappointing sequel.