Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

ShangLuda Admirable film.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

nurchowdhuryhimel-18574 Perfect sequel of the legendary SCI-FI 2001-a space odyssey . Many unanswered questions are explained here . Visual effect is also very good. Unlike most space movies, it has a satisfactory ending. The clash between ultimate entity , human and super intelligent AI is presented perfectly. it would be marvelous if another sequel comes.

Henrik Stilling 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.

Reviewer746 The way to gain the greatest appreciation for this film is to completely clear your mind of the existence of 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you spend the entire film drawing comparisons, you will be soundly disappointed as many people were in 1985 upon its release.The movies simply have different purposes. 2001 is a work of art that attempts to elicit an emotional response to abstract concepts. Kubrick intentionally leaves questions unanswered so we can decide for ourselves what the answers are or if they even exist. 2010 is an adventure story that lays out the plot details of its predecessor probably in a way similar to what Arthur C. Clark would have envisioned for a film adaptation of 2010: Odyssey Two. 2001 was based on Clark's short story (the Sentinel) but the artistic beauty of the film comes completely from Kubrick. 2010 is more a of straightforward, nail on the head adaptation of the novel.All that being said, 2010 is not a bad movie by any means. It is certainly much more accessible than the prequel and Peter Hyams does a good job reproducing the awe that should be affiliated with a good space opera. Roy Scheider is clearly trying his best to put on a good performance but I personally think he was the wrong casting choice. The acting in general is unremarkable.The best part of the movie has to be the finale of the last 10 minutes. This is really when the sense of wonder begins to pick up again after a few hours of straightforward, linear plot progression. However, unlike 2001, the open ended questions asked are not as philosophical as they are plot related. Most are clearly answered and explained in 2061: Odyssey Three (which, by the way, is worth a read as is Clark's entire series).If the fact that I've been referencing 2001 throughout this review despite saying we should put it out of our minds in the first sentence wasn't indication enough, I will go ahead and reiterate that 2010 is not in the same league as its predecessor. There can be only one 2001, but that doesn't prevent 2010 from being a noteworthy installment in the body of science fiction. It is a must see for anyone interested in the genre but as to whether or not it qualifies as one of the "greats"... I'll leave that for you to decide.

arminhage Despite the common belief, this movie has no answer to unanswered questions of the 2001 nor it helps the audience to better understand the original movie. This a cheap flick, an attempt to make some money on the success of the 2001. I would say it is something like Terminator 3 or 4, cheap movies based on awesomeness of the originals however it was good entertainment on it's own. Plays were cheesy, Roy Scheider appears as "NAGGING MR ALWAYS RIGHT" which why I despise him because he had absolutely no talent, playing 100 movies and he has the same character in all of them! The opening scene is probably the most ridiculous when Dr Moisevitch approaches Floyd (Scheider) on the telescope. There is no way that someone could hear Moisevitch's voice while standing on top of the giant telescope! Seriously, how a director or screen writer can make such an obvious mistake? Movie is too noisy, inside spaceships are too dark as of most sci-fi of the period and instead of having an imitation of futuristic electronics, there are monitor screens straight from mid 80s but probably the ending was what made me go ballistic! A new sun was created in the solar system! Sounds cool except that in reality, such phenomena would cause the earth to be over heated and almost all life on planet earth would be destroyed! I'm a great fan of Sci-Fi and I hate open ended movies in which the ending would be left open to be guessed by the audience but what I hate more is cheesy and obviously unscientific answers. I believe an open ended is far better than a sham like this. If you watch this movie as a sequel to the 2001, you'll despise it immediately but if you try to forget about the 2001 and what it as a stand alone sci-fi, there is some entertainment value in it.