2010 (1984)

Almost a "10" because I can't bring myself to rate it on the same level as "2001" which remains a confusing-classic masterpiece of film-making. Explaining most of the mysteries of 2001 takes away some of the wonder, such as explaining "The Force" and "The Phantom of the Opera". So Hal had a twin sibling computer named "Sal" and Hal had a nervous breakdown because of conflicting direction and programming? I never quite bought that! I prefer to think of "him" as an imperfect entity, like "Data's twin android" on Star Trek. A far more coherent, understandable story. Great special effects and a far more logical conclusion. The nations of Earth (primarily Russia and The U.S.) finally stop warring with each other because a superior being, perhaps God, tells them not to do so or face complete oblivion and utter destruction. Find out which planet "God" lives on! John Lithgow and Helen Miren, lead a great cast. Wonderful. Read both books by Arthur C. Clarke and be further amazed!

I saw this movie 33 years after it came out. The original, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is my favorite movie. This 2010 movie gave me nothing to think about. The writers threw us some sentimental images of Bowman and of the Discovery so we might be excited at seeing old friends. The outdoor spaceship special effects were far inferior to the 1968 version. Why did that have to be? A low budget? The monolith was not black at every appearance in the movie. And when the spaceships MADE SOUND in the vacuum of outer space, that is heresy! I chalked that up to a post-Star Wars mentality. I found it annoying that the scientist who initially programmed HAL protected HAL almost like a lover. The original movie made me think as I watched. This sequel only made me watch the story-line cliches unfold. I was waiting for some Ewoks to show up.

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.

There is superpower tension about the failure of the Discovery mission. Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) was blamed and he's reduced to operating telescopes in central America. The Soviet ship is ready to launch first, a year before Discovery II. However they need American expertise to assess Discovery. Also the orbit of Discovery is deteriorating and the Americans can't get there in time. A joint American-Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to investigate the mysterious failed mission. Floyd is part of the American team along with Discovery designer Walter Curnow (John Lithgow) and HAL designer Chandra (Bob Balaban). The Soviet crew includes Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren) and Dimitri Moisevitch (Elya Baskin). Dave Bowman exists now in a non-corporeal form. They discover something on the moon Europa but they are blocked from exploring it.This is a continuation of the story rather than getting back to the amazing artistic originality of 2001. Without anything ground-breaking, this movie suffers from being too slow. The original 2001 was also dismissed for being too slow by some critics but its artistic marks were never in doubt. The effects and the style in 2010 never leaves the audience in awe. There isn't enough whiz bang and the times have moved on anyways. The story is fine in the Arthur C. Clarke novel but filmmaker Peter Hyams fails to inject excitement into the movie. As is the case sometimes, I am amazed to find Helen Mirren in this movie. Of course, she wasn't a big star back then and there's no reason I would know who she was when I first saw this almost 30 years ago.