2010 (1984)

Very disappointing...

Thanks for the memories!

Admirable film.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Some movies makes you ask the question "Why was this movie ever made?" even as you know the answer already.'2010' is one of those movies. It's obvious that Kubricks masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' was going to have a sequel, to milk the last money out of the concept. So Arthur C. Clarke wrote a follow-up on his original book that was the foundation for the first movie.'2001' was not an action movie or a drama. It was something rare, as a sci-fi thriller. What made that movie so special was not any alien monsters, laser-weapons or explosions in space. Instead it was a visual masterpiece in both the set and decor, and of course the magnificent scenes with spacecrafts slowly maneuvering in space. Almost like a space ballet.And it was a thriller. The fear of the unknown and the mystery of the alien monolith, combined with the malfunctioning AI, was more effective than any monsters and beasts. '2001' didn't need a sequel. It was perfect as it provided more questions than answers, giving the viewer a lot to think about after the end-credits.'2010' tries to answer all these questions, and that is a shame. It is as if Da Vinci had painted another painting, explaining why Mona Lisa is smiling. The end of the original masterpiece.'2010' is nothing close to a masterpiece. It's no thriller as it is not scary and the suspense is down to a minimum. It's not an action movie, nor is it a drama. The characters are way too shallow and especially John Lithgow is embarrassing himself.So, should you watch this movie? It depends on your alternatives. It is still less entertaining to sit and stare at a wall, and worse movies have been made. But I can't help the feeling, that this movie is an insult to fans of '2001', and if you regard yourself as such, don't let '2010' destroy that for you.

To those who play the game Kerbal Space Program, love The Martian, or astrophysics, this is a must see. Contrasting to the mystery of its predecessor (2001: a space odyssey), 2010 offers answers to the questions it posed. Based on the equally excellent novel "2010: Odyssey Two", it sticks to fairly accurate science (with some assumptions grounded in science). Notably, it deviates in some subplots from the book, simplifying the plot, which works just fine. Unlike the classical pieces used in 2001, the music is mostly original work (except for the franchise-defining use of "Also sprach Zarathustra"), composer David Shire does a great job capturing the sense of distance and grandness of space exploration. Arthur C. Clarke also wrote two further squeals, though they do not completely follow the exact same continuity between each other.

There is superpower tension about the failure of the Discovery mission. Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) was blamed and he's reduced to operating telescopes in central America. The Soviet ship is ready to launch first, a year before Discovery II. However they need American expertise to assess Discovery. Also the orbit of Discovery is deteriorating and the Americans can't get there in time. A joint American-Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to investigate the mysterious failed mission. Floyd is part of the American team along with Discovery designer Walter Curnow (John Lithgow) and HAL designer Chandra (Bob Balaban). The Soviet crew includes Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren) and Dimitri Moisevitch (Elya Baskin). Dave Bowman exists now in a non-corporeal form. They discover something on the moon Europa but they are blocked from exploring it.This is a continuation of the story rather than getting back to the amazing artistic originality of 2001. Without anything ground-breaking, this movie suffers from being too slow. The original 2001 was also dismissed for being too slow by some critics but its artistic marks were never in doubt. The effects and the style in 2010 never leaves the audience in awe. There isn't enough whiz bang and the times have moved on anyways. The story is fine in the Arthur C. Clarke novel but filmmaker Peter Hyams fails to inject excitement into the movie. As is the case sometimes, I am amazed to find Helen Mirren in this movie. Of course, she wasn't a big star back then and there's no reason I would know who she was when I first saw this almost 30 years ago.

Many have written that it is unfair to compare this film with Kubrick's 1968 film, but as both are ostensibly part of the same franchise, there is no running away from such comparisons, and Peter Hyams's effort comes up short in in some noticeable ways. 2001, the older film, manages to be beautiful, majestic, and timeless; 2010, by comparison, already seems quaint and dated, despite having special effects decades more advanced. One of my pet peeves, sound effects in space, has crept back into use. Kubrick thankfully never made this blunder, and what wondrous dramatic use he made of the absolute silence of space! The choice of accompanying music is generic Hollywood fare, so unlike Kubrick's clever classical selections. The plot is another impediment; it is more banal and limited in scope, giving the film more the feel of a conventional thriller movie, especially at the end, which has a contrived feel. That is not to say that this is a dreadful movie; there are a couple of decent performances, such as those of Roy Scheider and a very young Yelena Mirren. Being bilingual would definitely help the viewer, too, as a lot of the abundant dialogue is in Russian and there are no subtitles. In summary, how much you enjoy this film will depend on how much you demand of it--just take care not to demand too much.