2010

1984 "In the very near future, a small group of Americans and Russians set out on the greatest adventure of them all...to see if there is life beyond the stars."
6.7| 1h56m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 06 December 1984 Released
Producted By: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

While planet Earth poises on the brink of nuclear self-destruction, a team of Russian and American scientists aboard the Leonov hurtles to a rendezvous with the still-orbiting Discovery spacecraft and its sole known survivor, the homicidal computer HAL.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Hollywood Suite

Director

Producted By

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Trailers & Images

Reviews

nickboldrini This film eschews the fantasy and philosophical aspects of 2001 to show a scientifically realistic portrayal of space flight. The depiction of the realities of space travel make this seem like a more realistic nuts and bolts film, and the characters are more important than in the original which was more balletic in its depictions. This is a vastly different film to 2001, but one that is a good sci fi in its own right.
jacobjohntaylor1 This movie is overrated. 6.3 is overrating it. It is a sequel to 2001 a space odyssey. It better then 2001 a space odyssey only because it is easy to better then 2001 a space odyssey. It is not a good movie. It badly written. It is very slow past. People go to space to look for things. It is very boring. It so boring. Scenes fiction movie should be entertaining. And this just boring. I think all movie should be entertaining. Life is to short for movie like this. Do not see it. Great actors wasted there talent being in this bad movie. Do not see it. Unless you like boring movies. This movie is a wast of money. I almost fell asleep watching it.
Clark Hecker 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.
Reviewer746 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.