Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

nickboldrini This film eschews the fantasy and philosophical aspects of 2001 to show a scientifically realistic portrayal of space flight. The depiction of the realities of space travel make this seem like a more realistic nuts and bolts film, and the characters are more important than in the original which was more balletic in its depictions. This is a vastly different film to 2001, but one that is a good sci fi in its own right.

qmtv I'm not one to think 2001 was a great film. It was good and eerie, but I wouldn't call it a film masterpiece. A sequel may have been necessary to explain what happened in the first movie, but this films explanation is to put it mildly is mild.Best part of the film is the acting, fx and cinematography. The pacing is fairly slow, but that's ok. The setup on earth was good and thankfully didn't last too long. It put a human touch to Roy's character. One of the best scenes was when John Lithgow's character and the Russian are in spacesuits approaching the rotating Discovery, very tense, well done. The sling shot of the Russian ship around Jupiter was great. There's some very cool fx shots here.The death of the Russian in the probe could have been better.Worst part is when Bowman's mom in her death bed in the hospital sits up and a comb is combing her hair. Yes, it's Bowman. And it evokes some horror elements, but then it's a dead end, literally. Bowman appearing on TV talking to his wife was better handled. Explanation of HAL going paranoid/psychopath, that HAL was given contradictory order from the US government then what was given to the crew was lame. Really lame. In the first movie this was a mystery, perhaps the aliens controlling HAL. Here HAL is redeemed! HAL even helps the humans after it gets a explanation, and it's ultimate demise. LAME!Then in the end, the aliens turn Jupiter into a small star, turn Jupiter's moon Europa into a habitable planet and create life. This idea is fine. And it also matches what happened in the first movie where the aliens impart intelligence into the early apes. However, the whole production at the end was mediocre. And given the tension of the US and USSR, the two nationalities working together, then not, now the new life is formed US and USSR forget about their problems. And, the problems are never explained. So, it's hard to accept any of it. So, to me this is a B rating for a B movie. Maybe B-, 6 stars. But given the acting, cinematography, and Fx, the pacing was slow but not boring, rating is a 7.I won't give a lower rating because it may ruin the first movie. They are different movies. Better to watch the two movies separately. Also, I would like to mention that compared to Alien, 2010 is a masterpiece. Alien has some of the worst acting, characters, dialogue, crap story with huge plot holes EVER. Alien is basically a prop movie. Prop of the alien, the detonation mechanism, etc. Worst part of Alien is the dirtbag characters, always squabbling and smoking. Smoking on a spaceship! Ridiculous!Watch 2010 after seeing Alien and you'll see how much of a garbage film Alien truly is.

Jak 60 The fundamental problem I have with the movie is that it should not have produced; but the fact that some film-makers in search of easy money try to piggy-bag on a big success is not surprising to me. What amazes me is that A C Clarke, the creator of the original story, was behind this thing and wrote the book that gave birth to this movie. Now, if you have not watched (or read) 2001 a Space Odyssey, this might still work for you as an OK film. As a matter of fact, in most synopsis, 2010 is defined as the sequel to 2001; the simple reality is that there was not and there will never be a logical possibility to give 2001 a sequel. It is simply wrong, a huge mistake. 2001 is the epic of mankind from its very beginning to its future. The first "man" (actually, an ape) was selected by an external intelligence 4 millions of years ago to lead the specie from an animal level to a human one. The very same intelligence selects now another man to transition humankind as we know it to its next level - as we don't yet know it. Then instead what happens in this book? Only 9 years later, in2010, we discover that nothing has changed, good old earth is still the same good old thing, good old mankind is still hanging there as it was 9 years before... So what? The phenomenal cosmic fetus floating in the space at the end of 2001, the cathartic promise of the next step of humankind was a joke? Was it an hallucination? Come on, please...this was a huge mistake that I cannot justify...I'll try to recover by watching again 2001 a space Odyssey.

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.