Featured Audience Ratings

• Alexander D

  
  Bad

• Melvin W

  
  This is an interesting and entertaining sequel to 2001. It's nowhere near the masterpiece Kubrick made, but it is good in it's own right. Just didn't have the mystery and pure eeriness of 2001. Great cast, including a good performance by Helen Mirren.

• Aditya G

  
  An ordinary sequel to an extraordinary film: "My God..it's full of stars!" The film begins with this awful sounding recording...supposed to be Dave Bowman's last transmitted message before he "disappeared". Then there is the typical… More
  An ordinary sequel to an extraordinary film: "My God..it's full of stars!" The film begins with this awful sounding recording...supposed to be Dave Bowman's last transmitted message before he "disappeared". Then there is the typical "recap" from the last movie..in the form of a report by Dr. Heywood Floyd, clearly depicting all that happened in Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, "2001: A Space Odyssey". This is followed by the opening credits with a clearly altered version of the iconic "Also Sprach Zarathustra" theme by Richard Strauss. Now, in that film, Bowman doesn't really say anything like "My God..it's full of stars!" We are not really supposed to know how he was feeling then, when he went through what he did.... but he does say these words in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001..." novel. Now if only they had been that faithful to Clarke's "2010" novel when making this film, it probably wouldn't have turned out like this. What we get is a very emotional and sentimental "peace message" in the guise of a Sci-fi film...and what's more..it is not just another Sci-fi film..it is a sequel to arguably the greatest Sci-Fi film of them all.. In 2010, there is growing political tension between the US and the Soviet Union. In such an environment, a joint American-Soviet expeditions is sent towards Jupiter to investigate what went wrong with the Discovery, to try and reactivate HAL 9000 and find out why he malfunctioned and to find out the overall meaning of Bowman's last words! "2010" refrains from using anything and everything that made "2001..." a GREAT film. Some of that film's many qualities are the minimal use of dialog, the emphasis on soundtrack, fantastic visuals and the sheer enigma of it all... While making this sequel, however, director Peter Hyams throws all those aspects out the window and what we get is a proper "talkie" ordinary sci-fi "thriller" with the whole story explained from time to time in the form of Dr. Floyd's voice-over, some terrible dialog and some comic scenes (Sample this: Curnow: "No sh*t?" Floyd: "No sh*t!"). The effects look dated compared to the original which came out around 16 years before this! There was a reason why Kubrick ordered his sets of "2001.." destroyed! Also thrown in are some "tense" scenes very common to such kinds of "expedition" films, which I will leave unmentioned here. The film heavily relies on the acting as well..Dr. Floyd's role is played by Roy Scheider and he does a great job. Helen Mirren is great too, as Tanya Kirbuk. Keir Dullea reprises his role as Dave Bowman for a couple of scenes. Douglas Rain lends his voice again for Hal 9000. Then there are others like Bob Balaban and John Lithgow who are fine, really, but then the film itself doesn't make for the kind of magical experience that the original was. That said, this is not an entirely bad film. As a stand-alone, it is a decent film and does have its moments that make for a good one-time watch. But that's about it...nothing earth-shattering. As a sequel to "2001.." however, it heavily pales in comparison.. If only...

• Dan S

  
  A capable sequel to a bonafide classic. The cast is strong, the storyline is always interesting and arresting, and the mystery is still present. While it doesn't answer many questions that "2001" posed, it's still a visual delight and a fun journey back to what… More
  A capable sequel to a bonafide classic. The cast is strong, the storyline is always interesting and arresting, and the mystery is still present. While it doesn't answer many questions that "2001" posed, it's still a visual delight and a fun journey back to what made "2001" so special. Keir Dullea gives a creepy performance as the main character from "2001" who is yanked back into the storyline masterfully.

• Anthony L

  
  2010 stays true to the book but could never compete with Kubrick's masterpiece. Don't overlook it though as its full of suspense and intrigue and is a brilliant film!

• Chris G

  
  You can't start a review of 2010 without referring to Kubrick's masterpiece 2001. What Kubrick created with that film was create an opera with the stars, polishing the story by Arthur Clarke and giving us a film that's a feast for the senses and in typically Kubrick… More
  You can't start a review of 2010 without referring to Kubrick's masterpiece 2001. What Kubrick created with that film was create an opera with the stars, polishing the story by Arthur Clarke and giving us a film that's a feast for the senses and in typically Kubrick fashion leaves us with more questions than answers when the closing credits roll. What 2010 does is try to explain what happened to Discovery in the nine years since HAL seemed to go mad and Dave Bowman disappeared. The world is on the brink of destruction between the United States and the Soviet Union (you have to remember this is 1984), but there is one moment of cooperation between the two countries when there is interest to investigate the monolith and the Discovery by the Soviets. The Soviets can get there faster, but the U.S. knows the systems better. The standard Rocky IV "us vs. them" mentality begins as the crew featuring Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, and Helen Mirren revive HAL and try to discover what happened near Jupiter nine years before. The first thing you need to do when watching this film is to distance yourself from Kubrick's vision in 2001. You will be disappointed and feel negative from the opening credits. Look at this film as a sequel to Clarke's story (which Clarke wrote, along with several sequels). The film explains things while leaving others still under a veil of mystery. I've always been an opponent to explaining every aspect of a film with its sequel, but with 2010 it seems less like a crutch than with other films that have done this (I'm looking at you Halloween II). 2010 is a solid sci-fi tale with some breathtaking effects (even though the dreaded black boxes appear in some shots). It's only crime is that it was a follow up to 2001 and, to be perfectly honest, there is no follow up to that film.

• Lafe F

  
  It explains away many of the mysteries of 2001. Good electronic soundtrack by Andy Summers of the Police. Dated with its Russian-American Cold War tensions. Thankfully, the ending is left open for more interpretation and discussion.

• Stuart B

  
  A let down

• Tom E

  
  a very well-done Sequel

• Ross C

  
  Awesome sci-fi film about a joint Russian-American mission to recover Discovery.

• xGary X

  
  A decent stab at Arthur C. Clarke's novel, that's well worth watching for anyone who had trouble grasping the plot to 2001. Here it's all explained, and as such, makes a good companion piece to the original.

• Steve B

  
  Interesting, if unnecessary, sequel to Kubrick's classic.

• Michael G

  
  A pointless sequel that has none of the spirit of the original.

• Dillon L

  
  Ruins a lot of the mystery that made Kubrick's 2001 the masterpiece it was, but as a stand alone science fiction film, I wouldn't call it terrible. It gets a few things right, but gets a lot of things wrong. A competant by unneeded for sequel.

• Jeffrey M

  
  It doesn't have the same wonder, magnificent visuals, or sense of intrigue as Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but 2010 does have some merit as a sequel. It's a far more traditional narrative than 2001, which makes it more accessible to some, while turning off… More
  It doesn't have the same wonder, magnificent visuals, or sense of intrigue as Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but 2010 does have some merit as a sequel. It's a far more traditional narrative than 2001, which makes it more accessible to some, while turning off hard-core fans of the highly-regarded original. I found the story here to be pretty well done, save some occasionally corny and overbearing monologues, staying true to the original, and always managing to be interesting. Although ultimately it didn't provide enough "answers" to make it especially satisfying, I do appreciate the attempt to offer some sense of closure without negating all the mystery. 3.5/5 Stars

• Cameron J

  
  I don't care how scientifically significant it is, that star child freaks me out. Making contact sounds good, if you mean contact explosives. Well, regardless of what "Star Wars" will have you believe, explosions can't survive in space, but I'm sure we can… More
  I don't care how scientifically significant it is, that star child freaks me out. Making contact sounds good, if you mean contact explosives. Well, regardless of what "Star Wars" will have you believe, explosions can't survive in space, but I'm sure we can figure something out. But seriously though, the long-awaited follow-up to Kubrick's legendary adaptation of "2001: A Space Odyssey" suffers from cliches, a lengthy development segment and slow spots. In spite of this, the film is supported by compellingness, excellent visual effects, a decent ending and good performances. Something that needs to be discussed is how this film is more consistant and less complex than its predecessor. This gives it the edge to an extent, but it also works to its detriment. This makes the film more tradionally enjoyable and less hard to follow, but also strips it of the thought-provoking and memorable complexities that made "2001" stand out from most films of its genre. It's this key difference that makes both films extremely different in feel. In conclusion, those expecting more of the complexities of the classic will be disappointed. However, if you're looking to cool-down by watching an entertaining and strong companion piece, then "2010: The Year Make Contact" is the perfect follow-up.

• nefnie l

  
  Not as remarkable as 2001, but it's entertaining and has a good solid cast.

• Barry L

  
  Prefered the first one.

Read all 18 featured audience ratings