Not the masterpiece of 2001, but still one hell of a great story. I wish they would have made the two remaining books into movies.
Opposed to 2001: A Space Odyssey, this movie does have a compelling story, no endlessly dragged out scenes (more importantly no minute long black screens) and last but not least a cast which actually can act (my god, the dialogues in 2001 are just awful).
A much more standard affair compared to its predecessor.
Given that's the case, I honestly enjoyed this more than '2001: A Space Odyssey' - if only because it's more closer to what I'd personally want from a film than what that 1968 flick offers, which is moreso an attempted art piece. Of course, the original does things visibly and audibly far, far greater than this 1984 release - just plot-wise, this is better in my opinion.
That's not to say that '2010' is something I'd consider great, because I wouldn't. It is, though, solid sci-fi fare, one I had a decent time watching. I'm not a fan of recasts, but Roy Scheider does a good job in place of William Sylvester as Heywood Floyd. Bob Balaban does well, while it's neat to see John Lithgow and Helen Mirren involved.
I'm somewhat surprised (but agreeable) that this has, seemingly, been fairly well received. I was expecting it to be poorly thought of by the majority, as is usually the case for sequels of iconic movies that aren't cut from the same cloth; different director etc.
Correct continuation easier to digest.
AAN for Best Sound; M6S6
It's hard to judge this after just watching 2001. This is nothing like that and is very bland. It might not be a bad movie but being an unneeded sequel and not living up to its predecessor makes it worse than it actually is.
Well paced Sci Fi exploration. Enjoyable. Not a fullfilled feeling at the end but it was a decent ride.
Review by nutmacBlockedParent2018-11-14T21:10:54Z
2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite film of all time. It stands as a testament to finest of film making, with groundbreaking set designs and costumes. And 1968 practical effects still look competent, even by today's CGI standards. Its minimalist approach in story telling is certainly polarizing, but I find Stanley Kubrick's audacity astounding. 2001 is the benchmark of pure science fiction film.
2010: The Year We Made Contact is not a pure sci-fi. It looks and feels like Ridley Scott's Alien (minus horror elements). It's more of a sci-fi thriller. The look and feel of the movie, not to mention sound, take a radical departure from hyper realistic 2001. Computers in 2010 haven't evolved at all from 1980s Apple IIe and Commodore 64. There's sound in space. Newton's laws of motion are rarely observed. Heck, even "Also sprach Zarathustra" fanfare is poorly timed and the performance lacks the grandeur.
No doubt about it. 2010 looks very dated. This is an 80s movie but the film embraces it by wearing that badge proudly. The only exception is the depiction of outer space. Using newer telemetry images from NASA and other space missions, Jupiter and its moons look spectacular, especially in comparison to 2001 made more than 16 years earlier.
So a terrible sequel, right? If you watch 2010 soon after 2001 as I originally did, yes, 2010 may be terrible. But watching it with an open mind, you might find yourself enjoying it a lot more than many 2001 fans give credits for.
For one thing, 2010 dismisses all the pretense of its prequel. It aims for three goals: (1) explain the mysteries of its prequel, (2) entertain, and most of all, (3) make a strong case for science and humanity rising above politics. To me, the film succeeds in achieving all 3 goals.
One of the most remarkable things about the film is the cast. The film features who's-who of Hollywood. Roy Scheider may be a poor doppelgänger of William Sylvester. Yet it works. He is the prototypical stand-in for conflicted and righteous everyday man. He is just so personable and easy to sympathize. And we have John Lithgow, a master of expression, amazing Helen Mirren, who just fills the role perfectly even though it's essentially a bit part, and Bob Balaban, always lovable (even though he is playing a part that should've been played by Indian/Pakistan). The only misfire is Dana Elcar, whom I personally respect a great deal, but his terrible Russian accent is just too distracting. And there are a couple of standout cameos later in the film.
Most sci-fi films with transcendental climax often demand repeated viewings, as to shed its initial shock so that viewers can digest its intents more rationally. 2001 and Contact are prime examples and 2010 falls into this category as well. (Close Encounters of the Third Kind is perhaps one of few that immediately captivates and succeeds.) My initial impression of its climax was highly negative. But over time, its simplicity and earnestness won me over and 2010 became a worthy companion to understanding and appreciating 2001.