I liked this movie when it came out. It seemed a decent sequel to the original Kubrick classic. This Hd version doesn’t look very good. The monolith they encounter near Jupiter is green! The special effects in 2001 look better even though that movie was released in 1969.

This review is an excerpt from my book “Killer B’s: The 237 Best Movies On Video You’ve (Probably) Never Seen,” which is available as an ebook on iBooks. If you enjoy this review, there are 236 more like it in the book (plus a whole lot more). Check it out!

2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT: Imagine being asked to write and direct “Citizen Kane II,” and you’ll have a clue to the obstacles Hyams faced in fashioning this sequel. “I know ‘Citizen Kane,’” some critic is bound to write, “and you’re no ‘Citizen Kane.’”

“2001” is inviolable; an absolute: hypnotic, mystical, visually brilliant; one of the finest films in the genre—perhaps even one of the finest films in all of cinema history. “2010” naturally suffers by comparison—but only by comparison. Taken on its own, as a stand-alone story, “2010” has much to recommend it. At the top of that list are the flawless and beautiful special effects by Richard Edlund. And Hyams (who adapted Clarke’s novel, produced, directed and did his own cinematography) deserves a lot of credit, not just for taking the risk of attempting a sequel to “2001,” but for making such a [expletive deleted] good one.

While “2001” was a detached, emotionally frigid film, “2010” concentrates on character and action, and excels at both. Not that it’s devoid of ideas, however. Quite the contrary: In any other film, ideas like a computer learning what it means to perform a noble sacrifice, or wondering if it will dream when it’s unplugged, or of life arising elsewhere in our galactic neighborhood, would be enough to hang an entire plot on. But comparisons are inevitable, and in any contest between mystery and clever explanations, mystery always wins. Even in this contest, however, “2010” offers a subtle touch: the mystical implication that Starchild Bowman might become the anima mundi of a new planet, or the consciousness/life-force of its emerging species.

The real secret of “2010” is that it is essentially an old-fashioned, ‘50s style space adventure movie (well-)dressed up as an ‘80s action and effects extravaganza. (The film’s political subtext sets it squarely in that Cold War era—and is the one part of the film that seems dated.) It’s a space adventure that is intellectually stimulating, emotionally compelling, visually interesting, tense and suspenseful—and which even touches wonder in its climax.

So it’s not “2001.” So what? It’s still a thrill to see our old friends the Discovery, Bowman and HAL (featuring his original voice, Douglas Rain), once again—a trio of veterans who provide the film with a poignant finale in their ultimate reunion.

Such a beautiful movie.

Tried to down load it twice & still never got the movie, had space in my I pad for it to down load, so I got charged for it & never got it.

I truely liked this movie, but, what happened to Roy Scheider, never seen him perform like he was broken, waiting for the director to cue him to start. John Lithgow and Helen MIrren provided stellar performances and should have bene recognized as future super stars. This SD downloaded version has very poor definition, it looked as though you were watching a poor VHS play on an older low definition tube TV. Still liked the story which was a fairly good effort to wrap up Kubrick's first mystery of 2001.

Truly one of the best movies of all time!

Ok, I like good cinema. I’m a film junkie. I always avoided this one, but I just rented it and I have to admit that it’s a good watch. The Cold War crap is crap, other than that it is a fine film to watch. It isn’t Kubrick on the visual end, but it also isn’t Kubrick (thankfully) on the story telling end. I guess there are three books in this series, and it kind of makes me wish the third book would get made into a movie.

when i was 15 years old i couldn’t understand the original 2001 and i found it boring. as an adult, i think the original 2001 kubrick movie is a timeless masterpiece, an amazing piece of art. because i recently watched the original 2001 i made the mistake to watch 2010 too. it’s horrendous, childish, commercialized. the constant narrative spoils the whole experience, it threats the viewers not as enlightened beings (like 2001) but more as dumb consumers. takes out the fun, this sequel should never be made. if you like the original 2001 do a favor for yourself and just don’t even think about to watch this one.

…in almost every way to the original. No surprise there -- 2001 is one of the best movies of the 20th century. I love when people say don't compare it to the original. It BEGS you to. But even if this wasn't a sequel it wouldn't be good. The pedestrian, workaday script dumbs things down for the multiplex, including an egregious voice-over that spoon-feeds every plot point so the least intelligent audience members can keep up. Half the movie is spent coming up with lackluster explanations for the mysterious goings-on in the first movie. The other half is Cold War nonsense that was already dated when the movie came out in 1984. Director/writer Hyams is no Kubrick. He's a plodder who specializes in hack, derivative sci-fi and horror flicks -- basically B movies (Outland, Timecop, End of Days, A Sound of Thunder, etc). This is probably his best picture, but that's not saying a lot. Even though it was made more than 15 years after the first, the art direction and effects are inferior, neither as handsome nor as convincing nor as scientifically accurate. (Repeat after me: In the vacuum of space there is NO SOUND.) About all it has going for it is a decent cast who try hard to lift it out of its mediocrity, but there was only so much they could do. This is not the worst sci-fi movie ever made, but it's far, far from the best, or even good.

the movies a nice film looking at it from a family perspective, but kids dont really want to sit through it now.

aside from that its pretty funny. now its 2012! haha i cant wait for 2013 and look back and say " yup, the world was spose to end that day "

I really enjoyed this film - much more than 2001, which stands as one of the most avant-garde mainstream films of all time. How do you make a sequel to 2001 that retains the same kind of impact? You don't. Not even Sir Arthur C. Clarke tried to do that - why should the filmmakers in 2010? As it is, I believe the filmmakers accomplished exactly what they set out to do, and wonderfully so. It strikes just the right tone, expressing wonder and awe at the unknown while also keeping its mental and emotional state firmly grounded in the realities of modern life as it was before the fall of the Soviet Union. Bravo to everyone involved.

I have to ask: what was James Berandinelli of ReelViews thinking when he wrote his review? There were plenty of good creative reasons to make this film, just as there were for writing the follow-up novels. And it's not only not a bad movie, it's quite a good one. Given the concept it would be difficult to make it a great one by many people's standards, but you can only squeeze so much melodrama out of the situation without making the alleged cure worse than the alleged disease. As it is, the acting, the set design, the visual effects, everything is solidly done. You feel as if you are there, participating. Even HAL 9000's acting was superb. :)

I just wish someone would explain one thing: How did the design of the LEONEV carry over so nearly exactly to the Omega-class destroyers of EarthForce in BABYLON 5? Or did it work the other way around? :)

I was left decidedly mystified after Kubrick and Clarke's 2001 so I decided to read the book. It was the same, yet so different in style and voice. Everything is laid out clearly. I read the sequel afterwards and enjoyed it as much as the first novel. This film was wonderful, and I'm glad that it was made, but with all the science fiction films and remakes of today, it just makes me think:

This would be the perfect film to remake.

It touches on 2001, of course, so it would be almost like remaking that but in an indirect way. This film had great special effects for its time, and great performances, and I can only hope that in the hands of skilled film crafters it could achieve a better status as a remake. I would have liked this film more if it had stuck even closer to the original novel. There were some great unexplored sections that would be much easier to film and articulate today.

We don't need remakes of classics like The Thing, but movies as great and overlooked as this should see the new light of the 21st century.

This one had everything 2001 didn't. Namely a plot and decent acting. This movie doesn't force you to sit through over-analyzed, screen-saver type special effects for 10 minutes to arrive at an obviously rushed ending.

The first time that I saw this film, I was terribly dissapointed. It was nowhere as good as its predecessor, 2001: A Space Odyssey. But then, I realized that 2001 had set such high standards for a sequel, standards that would be near impossible to fulfill. So, I tried to think of the film as a standalone, and I discovered that it was actually quite good. If you think of it in that mindset, it's a solid film.

UM...IT'S THE LAST DAY OF 2010(LAST!)

TOMMOROW IS THE FIRST DAY OF

2011,

SOMEHOW I THINK I MISSED THE CONTACT lol

2010 has arived ye humans. Aliens shall contact us!! >.>

Sorry to burst your bubble but its the year 2010 and no contact has been made haha!

When i was a kid I used to watch both this and 2001 on VHS ALL the time. They were my favorite movies. This one is my favorite of the two, but that had more to do with Roy Scheider than anything. (I had such a crush on him) But that aside these movies are both beautifully done even by today's standards, and even after having watched them hundreds of times i'm still fascinated by them.

Its already 2010 and that hasn't happened yet has it and i only wish we had that level of technology but it is Imaginative

It was a brillliant film however one tiny flaw kind a made me feel a little wired at the part with the slingshot around Jupiter and that russian girl. I mean nothing further developed between the two of them. Bit over all VERY great movie a must have if you like space thriller type films.

This was a very good movie that followed the book fairly closely. The only major difference was the cold war stuff. This movie was made at that time though so I figure they wanted to make a point and Clarke just wanted to tell a story about space. This movie entertained and told the story it set out to tell. I enjoyed it.

This movie exceeded all expectations. It matched up closely to the book 2010: Odyssey 2. Although it is similar to 2001, you can't compare the 2 movies. Beautiful, Amazing, Moving.

The original 2001: A Space Odyssey is still a brilliant film that stands the test of time. This movie was made at the behest of bankers who wanted to see if they could squeeze a few more dollars out of the original premise. You will be let down. Rent the original again instead. You won't be disappointed.

Please make this available to rent!

iTunes, get 2001 too!!!

Apple if you are checking... Please include the 2010 soundtrack on the line-up.

this movie is so trippy i love it.

I was aware that this film was made to be a little more instantly gratifying than its predecessor, but after about an hour and fifteen minutes into this I was bored out of my mind. My first quibble is with this film's views on russia: the cold war aspect is played so heavily in this that it makes this movie feel twice as old as 2001. Also, in its attempt to answer the questions of the first one (the monoliths, HAL's motive, etc.) this movie lost the mystery that really drew me to the original. But, to be fair, there were some entertaining space travel sequences, and the effects have noticably improved since 1968. A solid rental, but a questionable buy. Click yes if you want "2001" to be put on iTunes!

I clicked to preview before deciding to rent the movie, but only got two growls of the lion and the screen closed. So, I don't know. I guess I'll have to rent the movie blind and put up with it if it doesn't turn out to be what I wanted to see. If they offer to preview the least they could do is show us all of 2 minutes and thirty seconds to see if we would be interested.

Classic movie but please dont try to compare this to the origional.

Some people want to sound like a conisure chanting origional-origional..

The origional is a totaly diffrent movie. Remember those long standing scenes of a guy running around "yawn" and around. It just made you guess to much as did most movies of that era. This movie is very entertaining. On par with the likes of the Abyss.

Sure the movie "2001: A Space Odessey" is better, by a long shot, 2001 was a materpiece, but that doesn't mean this movie isn't good. 2001 was a hard act to follow, however, 2010 has a lot more going on, for those of you without the attention span to enjoy the symbolism of the previous film. It also contains a little light comedy and some compeling plot twists. Some people need a little more action than is found in 2001 adn this movie doesn't leave you hanging. Its a decent follow up, though totally different in style, to the previous film and gives you a satisfying ending for those of you who hate to be left hanging. I was relieved after watching this to get a taste of my favorite characters again. I suppose you could always read the books, since there is one more that no film was made of, but who is going to? Don't knock it before you try it.

i tried watching this one but fell asleep, pretty quickly at that! now as for 2001 a space odyssy...definatelly one of the greatest masterpieces of science fiction ever made. do not accept subsitutes.

COME ON PEOPLE!!! REQUEST THE ORIGINAL!!!!

When I saw this movie as a kid, I was thrilled. mostly 'cause I loved the genre, and had just read Arthur C. Clarke's worthy sequel. But Kubrick should have made this sequel, BUT he didn't, so it blows. I missed the shark for Roy too

... this movie was never made, considering the movie that it pretends to be the sequel to.

Perhaps iTunes might post a movie whose title is similar only in that it happens to contain the same first four numbers of this movie's title except that they are arranged in a different numerical sequence to indicate (using the anno domini dating reference) a point in time nine years previous to the point in time indicated by this movie's title. That film was shot by a different director. 
 I admire that Roy Sheider was brave enough to be in the sequel to

'Jaws'. After all he was playing the same character as he did in 'Jaws', so that kinda made sense...in that circumstance. I mean, Roy Scheider was still alive when 'Jaws 2' was shot, so why not offer it to him? How much credibility would the filmmaker of 'Jaws 2' be risking if he cast someone else..say maybe Steve Guttenberg, who may have been willing and ever over-eager to take the part, as Chief Brody. But would Spielberg have cast Steve Guttenberg?...oh, sorry.. I forgot. Steven Spielberg didn't direct 'Jaws 2'. Now, one wonders why Spielberg would have forgone such an opportunity to exploit...err, I mean continue the story of what happens out near the moons of Jupiter...err I mean, Amity Beach. After all, he had Keir Dullea returning to reprise his role as Brody's wife...oops, I mean he had Lorraine Gary returning to reprise her role as immortal astronaut David Bowman who is now able to turn invisible in order to administer a seemingly fatal hair brushing to his nursing home-resident mother. Wait..I’m confused? Wasn’t there a big mechanical computer named Bruce who cast Bowman’s crewmate Frank Poole adrift in the first Jaws? I tell ya, that first ‘Jaws’..or maybe we should start calling it ‘Jaws 1’ so we don’t confuse it with one of it’s sequels, considering how good the sequels are. We all remember Jaws 2, Jaws 3D, Jaws 4. One of those was so good that Michael Caine starred in it and because of that was unable to accept his Oscar for playing the role of Heywoody Allen-Floyd’ in ‘Europa And Her Sisters’ That’s one great tragedy the world can pin to sequel-itus. Maybe they will stop making sequels to Jaws when they get to 'Jaws 2001'? I mean, no one wants to see any more great cultural tragedies resulting from making bad sequels. It would be tantamount to a Discovery of such Monolithic proportions that the planet Jupiter might collapse in on itself and become a star. As grim a prospect as Lucifer Rising from the abyss. Odd how such a good science fiction writer would choose to overlook how such an event would wipe out all (seemingly) sentient life when the shock front of severely radiated matter that was once most of Jupiter’s mass arrived at Earth mere hours later. Well, the cockroaches would survive; an odd fact of nature is that cockroaches can withstand levels of radiation that would kill all mammals many times over. Then the roaches could evolve into a movie making society. They might even wish to make a film concerning the cosmic event that gave rise to their ascendance. Maybe they would call it “The 2010 Commandments”….