This is the end-to-end sequel to the film 2001: A space oddysey. 2001 revolved around a strange object that appears above jupiter and the mission of the crew sent to investigate it. I wasn't the biggest fan of 2001, the end didn't make any sense and the computers actions were never properly explained. As a direct comparison 2010 is a much better film, it follows on from the end of 2001 but recovers the same plot points in a much more logical and believable sense.
The plot of the film is that a new crew has been assembled to continue on from the end of 2001. The film excessively focuses it's sub-plot - that the cold war never ended and the crew is a mixture of russians and U.S pilots restricted by cold-war mentality.
The actors in 2010 are much more established, giving the plot a serious and believable thread although there are no especially emotional or fantastic performances. The Sci-fi is the same standard, obvously plastic models in a lit studio but it's quite high budget and believable. Even nowadays is great to appreciate how people thought technology would be in 2010, all the controls are buttons with lights in and the system monitors are monotone with shrieking beeps.
I really enjoyed the film and would recommend it to any sci-fi fan that is happy to sit and watch a classic.
I just bought 2001 A Space Odessey, special edition, widescreen DVD. It comes in a nice silver box. It contains a DVD of the movie with very few additional extras (in fact there are none). It does, however, have a CD of the original soundtrack music. This has been specially re-digitised. It sounded pretty hissy to me, and when I read the small print on the enclosed 20 page colour booklet, it states that the music is recorded from the best available sources - I think this means someone went to watch the movie and sneaked a dictaphone in with them. As a major redeeming feature of the special edition, however, you do get a frame from the original movie film...er...well it's got sprocket holes in the side and you can stare through it and see an image of a space station in orbit over Earth...wow! They have gone to the expense of a presentation card to hold this frame, but it doesn't really make it any more collectable for some reason. The price is almost £35. This is a rip-off. I wish I had waited for the simple movie and paid just £15 for it (or even less). If you really want to throw an extra £20 away on a few trashy uncollectables, then go ahead and buy the special boxed version - you can have mine for £30 instead of £35, and I'll even pay postage! Don't let yourself get ripped off like I did. 2001 is a superb movie, but the packaging is unnecessary hyperdrive.
Made a decade and a half after Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark unveiled their classic science fiction vision to the world, 2010 actually had quite a muted impact when it debuted in the mid-1980s, and even today has not quite managed to forge much of a reputation for itself: as SFX magazine recently stated, 2001 was created by a cinematic visionary, whilst 2010 was brought to us by the man who helmed Timecop! The film was not a complete disaster, however, and any fan of 2001 (such as myself) would probably aim to buy it, even if only out of completeness. It was with mixed feelings, therefore, that I discovered that a region 2 edition of this film had been released on DVD under the Warner Home Video label. Warner titles, for the most part, have one major advantage and one major disadvantage, which have divided DVD consumers (and no, I’m not talking about oddballs who eat them) down the middle with regard to approval. The major advantage of a Warner release is that one can usually take for granted that the print contained on the DVD will be of the highest possible standard. The vast majority of Warner titles are released with their original theatrical aspect ratio intact, in anamorphic widescreen and with full Dolby 5.1 sound. On the downside, however, is the fact that the vast majority of Warner titles include absolutely nothing in the way of meaningful DVD extras: various subtitles and scenes selection, and that’s your lot. [A third point which always seems to raise its ugly head, of course, is the fact that many consumers do not like the cardboard boxes used by Warner to encase their titles, but this is of only peripheral importance, at least to me, compared with the way the disc performs once it is in my player]. With regard to this disc, the usual Warner limitations prove to be utterly correct: upon insertion of the disc, the (very clear and impressive) Warner logo comes into view, and the film loads. Upon pressing the Me
nu button we see the shoddy ‘extras’ with which we have been treated: audio in English, French and Italian and subtitles in a dozen or so languages, together with the requisite scene access. Unfortunately, however, the usual Warner strengths are not on full display in this title: whilst the title does indeed boast full Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, and the original aspect ratio of the title has been retained (in this case, cinemascope 2.35:1), this release has not been gifted with an anamorphic transfer, and hence anyone with a widescreen TV will be forced to zoom into the print, hence losing resolution. 2010 is hardly a masterpiece of modern cinema, but it is a modestly enjoyable film and did not warrant this kind of utterly shoddy treatment. To be accompanied by no extras whatsoever, and not even to get an anamorphic transfer from Warner, is nothing short of a slap in the face and shows the total contempt with which Warner must view the average customer. My recommendation: for 2010-fanatics only. If you are slightly more selective about your purchases then wait for a re-release, but don’t hold your breath.
To make a sequel to one of the most well-regarded science fiction epics of all time was always going to be difficult. The fact that the task was given to a hack like Peter Hyams was unforgivable, although he made a reasonable job of the movie. The storyline is definately of its time, with a big deal being made of the joint Soviet-American space mission. We see the return of Dave Bowman (played by the usually excellent Keir Dullea) and although Arthur C. Clarke was still involved the movie is somewhat disappointing. I heard a rumour recently that someone is making the film of the 4th book in the series (3001) - whatever happened to the third (2061)?
2010 is obviously the sequel to 2001 and are more character orientated movie that pits the Russian's and NASA joining forces to explore the Jupiter monolith. Although not as visually stunning or ground breaking, 2010 answers a lot of the questions left in your mind after seeing the original. And finally we get to closer to the 'Alien's are Amongst Us' story line. It is great to see Hal9000 back in the picture, and even Sal the younger sister of everyone's favourite mad computer. We see Hal's creator who is part of the mission to restart Hal and find out what went wrong the first time. All the while trying to regain contact with Dave, the astronaut sucked into the monolith at the end of 2001. The acting is solid in this one with better characters and a still very imaginative plot that widens the monolith's scope of power, oh and by the way there is a new star in the sky...
Kubrick's '2001' was a classic SF film, for all its many faults. '2010' is, at best, a run-of-the-mill sci-fi movie which bases its success on the predecessor, rather than any merit of it's own. There's none of the long, dramatic, speechless effects of 'A Space Odyssey' with Richard Strauss in the background - this is a film with some acting in it! That's not to call it a bad film: based on Arthur C Clarke's solid novel, '2010' is a good movie. It follows the investigation, led by Roy Scheider, into what went wrong in the mission nine years earlier. Naturally things spiral out of control, leading to a spectacular climax. Worth seeing, but don't expect 2001 again.
2010 (or ten past 8 as Barry Norman dubbed it), the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey is boring Boring BORING. The original had an excuse - it was made in 1968 when everyone was on drugs and felt there was a subliminal message when, in fact, there was just a very bad film. 2010, on the other hand, has no such excuse; it was a made a lot later by someone less artistically challenged than Kubrick and it's still a crap film. A team are sent up into space to discover what happened to the Discovery and HAL 9000, it's wilful on-board computer, all set to a backdrop of a possible civil nuclear war back on earth. Ho, hum, NEXT!
No director could ever have hoped to repeat the artistic achievement of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and nobody knew that better than Peter Hyams, who made this much more conventional film from the first of three sequel novels by Arthur C Clarke. Whereas Kubrick made a poetic film of mind-expanding ideas and metaphysical mysteries, Hyams shouldn't be blamed for taking a more practical, crowd-pleasing approach. In revealing much of what Kubrick deliberately left unexplained, 2010 lacks the enigmatic awe of its predecessor, but it's still a riveting tale of space exploration and extraterrestrial contact, beginning when a joint American-Soviet mission embarks to determine the cause of failure of the derelict spaceship Discovery. Having arrived at Discovery near the planet Jupiter, the American mission leader (Roy Scheider) and his Russian counterpart (Helen Mirren) must investigate the apparent failure of the ship's infamous onboard computer, HAL 9000, as well as the meaning of countless mysterious black monoliths amassing on Jupiter's surface (an interpretation Kubrick originally left up to his viewers). Meanwhile, Earth is on the brink of nuclear war, and an apparition of astronaut David Bowman (Keir Dullea) appears repeatedly to promise that "something wonderful" is about to happen. --Jeff Shannon, Amazon.com