|
Directed by: Peter Hyams Starring: Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Bob Balaban Stanley Kubrick. The mere mention of the name will cause many filmheads to bow down and pray to their one and only god of cinema. The much celebrated film "2001 - A Space Odyssey" is widely regarded as one of the best sci-fi films ever made, and to some the best film ever made. Surely a sequel to the film could never live up to the original, especially with almost none of the original cast and crew involved? Well, you would be right, however this movie isn't a sequel to the film. Although there are some influences from Stanley Kubrick's 2001, it builds off the book 2010, originally written by Arthur C. Clarke, which in turn is a sequel to Arthur C. Clarke 's 2001. It's important to make this distinction, since the book and the movie both had distinct differences. Although 2010 the movie has some changes made in the process of adapting it to a screenplay, it sticks to it far closer than 2001 did. 2010 plays out far more like a traditional Sci-Fi drama. Unlike the cold, emotionless and claustrophobic enviroment that Kubrick wrote into his adaption, 2010 is rather wordy, has more character development, and feels more like a hollywood movie. This doesn't mean that the movie isn't good, in my opinion it has many advantages over 2001. It's more accessible, easier to watch, and more gripping and exciting. It's not stupid, it still has something to say, only you don't need to go to some university and study it to figure it out. I still respect Stanley Kubricks vision, 2001 was his movie, not Arthur C. Clarke's. I find it hard to figure out whats "better". 2001 was better "artistically", but that doesn't really matter to me. When I watch a movie I wan't to be entertained. 2010 may just barely edge out in that department. Film buffs will strongly disagree with the rating I'm giving this. 5/5 RATING: 5 PROS: Exciting plot, good direction and editing, a great explanation on the meaning behind the Monolith CONS: Artistically not as strong as 2001, but since it's a different movie I can't really hold that against it. SFX have dated a bit ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2005 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
We watched this movie in programming class, since I guess the instructor had two lectures to throw away, or something. Anyways, that's the only reason I even know about this movie, and it's a shame since it's pretty good. Where as 2001 was an experience that you forced yourself to sit through because it could theoretically be interesting if you though about it, 2010 is an actual movie that you can enjoy. Like the OP said, it's not dumb, you just don't have to think about it as much. It's still better than most movies even if that doesn't appeal to you. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2005 15:10
|
|
|
When I was young I rented 2001, having never read the book and only hearing the movie was one of the best made. After watching it I promply returned it and demanded my money back. The stores policy was if you didn't like the movie you could rent a free one, so I chose 2010. I don't know why I did but I am sure glad I did. 2010, as stated, is much more enjoyable, while not dumbing it down too much. It is unfortunate that most people will never have the urge to see it, let alone ever hear of it. Hears for 2061 and 3001! 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2005 16:39
|
|
|
2010 is a great sequel, but of course it couldn't live up to 2001. However, somehow 2010 did have the same feeling as the first one. I just wish it would have been just as dark and confusing as the first movie. Plus, the sound in space really is a setback. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2005 04:42
|
|
|
The film doesn't feel much like a natural sequel to 2001 (one of my all-time favourites). However, I saw this film as a fairly young kid before seeing 2001 so I can comment to an extent on it as a standalone film and it's really really good, really. As a companion to 2001, it's inferior but still very enjoyable. However, the echoey voice over clashes with the eerie silence that made the first film so haunting. It's not enough to ruin the film by any means but it could have been done with more subtlety if it had to be done at all, which is debateable. Visually the film is striking even today, with a genuine sense of vertigo brought on by many of the space sequences, the sheer scale of space well represented in a way rarely achieved in science fiction films. The climactic scenes are pretty incredible. The film is also well acted but unfortunately the cold war theme is very evidently out of date and a sign of the times the film was made in rather than the time the film is set. 4.5/5 Korenchkin fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Oct 26, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2005 00:35
|
|
|
As somebody once pointed out, 2001 poses questions, and 2010 answers them, which makes 2010 ultimately less interesting than 2001. But it is not a bad movie. I'd say it is more watchable and easier to follow than 2001. But it is doomed to be hated by people who think 2001 was the GREATEST THING EVAR, and people who didn't care about 2001 are apt to not watch 2010 to have all the ambiguities straightened out for them. 3.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2005 01:55
|
|
|
I wrote a long review for this movie as an assignment for a class alst semester, but I can't seem to find it. Instead of trying to rewrite it, I'll just say what my main problem with 2010 is: Half of the movie tries to be a sequel to Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, while the other half tries to be a sequel to Stanley Kubrick's 2001. It's still an entertaining movie, but it's fundamentally flawed because of this. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2005 02:06
|
|
|
Not bad, not bad. Roy Schneider and Richard Dreyfuss are both annoying shits but Clarke's plot keeps the movie above board. I think if you weren't a space nerd like myself you might not enjoy it so much. 2.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2005 10:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
I have loathed every Stanley Kubrick film ever made, with 2001 being the least loathed. At least I can make fun of the masturbatory directing. 2010 was pretty damned good. It was a film instead of just being art. I taped it off of cable and probably watched it a good 30 times. Very gratifying movie-watching experience with good pacing and directing that doesn't get in the way. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2005 20:25
|
|
