2010 (1984)

not horrible nor great

Lack of good storyline.

Good idea lost in the noise

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

This is way too different than 2001. There isn't any realistic side of the film. There was too much Hollywood in it. Visuality was poor. The decoration was bad, like we weren't in 2010 at all. And the sound was just killing the whole thing. Yes, there are some answers but why? I mean these answers is just plain bad. It smears 2001: A Space Odyssey's perfection and its mystery. If you have already seen 2001 and liked it, please, don't watch this.

To those who play the game Kerbal Space Program, love The Martian, or astrophysics, this is a must see. Contrasting to the mystery of its predecessor (2001: a space odyssey), 2010 offers answers to the questions it posed. Based on the equally excellent novel "2010: Odyssey Two", it sticks to fairly accurate science (with some assumptions grounded in science). Notably, it deviates in some subplots from the book, simplifying the plot, which works just fine. Unlike the classical pieces used in 2001, the music is mostly original work (except for the franchise-defining use of "Also sprach Zarathustra"), composer David Shire does a great job capturing the sense of distance and grandness of space exploration. Arthur C. Clarke also wrote two further squeals, though they do not completely follow the exact same continuity between each other.

Many have written that it is unfair to compare this film with Kubrick's 1968 film, but as both are ostensibly part of the same franchise, there is no running away from such comparisons, and Peter Hyams's effort comes up short in in some noticeable ways. 2001, the older film, manages to be beautiful, majestic, and timeless; 2010, by comparison, already seems quaint and dated, despite having special effects decades more advanced. One of my pet peeves, sound effects in space, has crept back into use. Kubrick thankfully never made this blunder, and what wondrous dramatic use he made of the absolute silence of space! The choice of accompanying music is generic Hollywood fare, so unlike Kubrick's clever classical selections. The plot is another impediment; it is more banal and limited in scope, giving the film more the feel of a conventional thriller movie, especially at the end, which has a contrived feel. That is not to say that this is a dreadful movie; there are a couple of decent performances, such as those of Roy Scheider and a very young Yelena Mirren. Being bilingual would definitely help the viewer, too, as a lot of the abundant dialogue is in Russian and there are no subtitles. In summary, how much you enjoy this film will depend on how much you demand of it--just take care not to demand too much.

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.