The exact opposite of its predecessor in method and effect. Where Kubrick was mysterious, cerebral, graceful and evocative, Hyams is verbose, sentimental, clunky and simplistic. Even the use of 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' feels awkward instead of revelatory. All the wondrous cosmic enigma that made the '68 outing a cinematic milestone is reduced to a now outdated pacifist message against the Cold War. What a shame.
cold war... bad... peace good... durrrr.r..... the only neat part was the reencountering with hal 9000,the rest was quite uninteresting. If I had forgotten about 2001 or if the film had tried to distinguish itself from 2001 a little more, it might have been better since the comparison was inevitable.
While it has its moments 2010 is flawed starting with the book. Just imagine what the sky would look like to astronomers and telescopes with Jupiter glowing bright as a small star in the night skies. Somehow it just doesn't work well for me. However, I would like to see 2061 made into a decent film...;)
My God, it's full of something, but it ain't stars (lol). After the brilliant "Outland", I had expected Hyams to do much better than this weak tripe. Good spfx for the time, but the script and performances are as hokey as a Roy Rogers western. Dumbest moment: Dave Bowman visiting his ex-wife by television image to tell her that "something wonderful" is going to happen. He's wrong. Even HAL is irritating in 2010. **
Exceeds expectations. While the special effects haven't dated as well as the ones in its predecessor, 2010 is otherwise a pretty damn good sci-fi movie. Really what it boils down to is that 2001 had more of Stanley Kubrick in it than Arthur C. Clarke, whereas 2010 feels more like a straight-up Clarke sci-fi story.
It's good and serviceable. This kinda fits the tone of Clarke's novel, and Scheider makes for a good Heywood Floyd. The problem is that the film really didn't need to be made. What if we had had the films of 2061 and 3001? See it as a curio-just not connected to 2001.