2010 Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Something wonderful is about to happen [Australia Theatrical]
Is there life beyond the stars? [Australia Theatrical]
We are not alone.
The year we make contact.
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
In the year 2001, Dave Bowman was taken by the Jupiter monolith and transformed into a powerful being. Now, in the year 2010, Dr. Heywood Floyd, the man held responsible for Discovery's failure, is going to Jupiter. He and his crewmates must reactivate the psychotic HAL-9000 computer, so they may learn what happened, and they must find out the meaning of Dave Bowman's last transmission... "My God, it's full of stars..."
| Roy Scheider | Dr. Heywood Floyd |
| John Lithgow | Dr. Walter Curnow |
| Helen Mirren | Tanya Kirbuk |
| Bob Balaban | Dr. R. Chandra |
| Keir Dullea | Dave Bowman |
| Douglas Rain | HAL 9000 |
| Madolyn Smith Osborne | Caroline Floyd |
| Dana Elcar | Dimitri Moisevitch |
| Taliesin Jaffe | Christopher Floyd |
| James McEachin | Victor Milson |
| Mary Jo Deschanel | Betty Fernandez, Bowman's Wife |
| Elya Baskin | Maxim Brajlovsky |
| Saveli Kramarov | Dr. Vladimir Rudenko |
| Oleg Rudnik | Dr. Vasili Orlov |
| Natasha Shneider | Irina Yakunina |
| Peter Hyams |
6.50 out of 10 (12865 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Better Narrative-Laughably Dated Politics
posted on 01 Jun 2009From a coherent narrative standpoint, "2010" absolutely blows away its somewhat overly lauded predecessor. The plot is understandable, characters behave with normal human emotions instead of being told by a director to act dull, and there are fine performances from several cast members.However, what makes "2010" a film that ultimately fails is its idiotic obsession with Cold War politics that has not only completely dated the film as a product of the 1980s (Kubrick by contrast wisely avoided all references to the Cold War in "2001" and thus enabled the film to still seem fresh today) but also dates it as an example of silly left-wing "moral equivalence" philosophy which saw the United States as equally bad as the USSR if not worse. One gets the feeling that Hyams is less interested in continuing the speculative look to the future as he is about making a statement about Ronald Reagan by having his unseen President take the world toward WWIII for following a tough foreign policy. It is worth noting that the original novel "2010" contains *none* of this Cold War subplot (Clarke saved his apologia for communism for his dreadful novel "3001") and the blame for this bad story element rests entirely on Hyams's shoulders. Also, there is an inexcusable continuity lapse from the first film where Dr. Floyd indignantly says, "I never authorized anyone to tell HAL about the monolith!" But in "2001", it's abundantly clear that the opposite is true. Since this scene is also tied into making a slam at the U.S. government though, you can't help but wonder if this lapse was deliberate on Hyams's part.As a look into a future society where space travel is the norm, "2001" still offers possibilities that might happen at a later date (I'm not one of those who buys its philosophy about the evolution of mankind though). Not so "2010", which was rendered permanently dated and absolutely dead wrong for eternity by the world events of 1989-91. That this point isn't recognized widely enough by people is a sad comment on how little we have really learned.
Unfortunate attempt that was dated before it's time.
posted on 02 May 2009This movie had the budget, support, cast and potential to be a wonderful sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The basic story of going back to Jupiter to find out what happened to the original expedition, finding evolving life and the birth of a new star all work well. Unfortunately someone determined that all the above didn't provide enough conflict or suspense, so they worked in a political crisis between the USSR and the US over Central America to continually heighten tension. Instead, this only dates the movie very badly and continually gets in the way of the "real" story, which of course is the explanation of the first movie.
Good sequel
posted on 14 Apr 2009Many people said that this movie is bad, but I found it very good. In my opinion 2001: A Space Odyssey is better and "smarter" than 2010. But if you didn´t understand something of 2001 maybe you´ll like the answers gave in 2010. Also it´s a good entertaining movie, with more dialogue and action than 2001. I rated it 8 of 10.
Underwhelming sequel still has some moments of greatness
posted on 27 Mar 2009'2010: The Year We Make Contact' (1984) is the sequel to the classic film '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968). However the only claim it has to being called a sequel is that it is based on the book that was a sequel to the book '2001' was based on ('2010: Odyssey Two'). Other than this link, the film shares none of the glory of the original - it had a completely different crew, which is manifested in the poor quality of its art, and it had a generally lower production quality, manifested in its poor effects, music, and execution.2010 isn't so much the year we make contact as the year the Space Odyssey story continues. After the USS Discovery spaceship was lost near Jupiter with its computer malfunctioned and its crew missing or dead, a joint US-USSR mission is sent out to discover what happened. Their only clue is the last transmission of the astronaut David Bowman - "My God, it's full of stars!" The story begins with the enigmatic atmosphere of the original and manages to maintain it, but with a lot less style. Despite there being plenty of room for the making of a powerful cosmic mystery, 2010 ploughs linearly through a step-by-step revealing of 2001's secrets in a way that betrays the depth of its questions by delivering overly simplistic answers. We discover why the HAL 9000 computer malfunctioned, and some of what happened to David Bowman - but thankfully the film leaves several questions open - and this is better than it answering every question in the same overly simplistic manner.Directed by Peter Hyams, the film has clearly attempted to be a commercial success of its own - it comes with an original subtitle, and doesn't even pretend to be making an attempt on the original, but rather focuses on getting the plot across in an easily digestible manner whilst tossing in some low-budget special effects. But Hyams was no fool - he realised that the attraction to the Odyssey stories lies in the mystery of the Monoliths - strange alien objects with an unknown purpose - and that it would be theatrical suicide to say too much about them; ultimately all he reveals is their dimensions - 1 by 4 by 9 - the squares of 1, 2, 3.The film still has its own moments of greatness. There are some incredibly tense scenes of difficult EVA manoeuvres, some poignant shots of the Monolith, and the iconic final transmission that literally echoes with mystery. Unfortunately the film still uses the "Thus Spake Zarathustra" title music - this is unfortunate only because it uses it to bad effect. Rather than the incredible title sequence of 2001, "Zarathustra" simply plays over a slow fade-in on a shot of a satellite dish. The rest of the music of the film is originally composed and utterly underwhelming, sounding like every other low-budget sci-fi movie.Rather than the grand cosmic themes of the original, 2010 focuses on the Cold War. The US and USSR must cooperate on the mission if it is to succeed, and even when they do their efforts are stifled by political strife back down on Earth. Ultimately the film's thematic climax is peace, not cosmic awakening or evolution. But whilst this may be less involved, it is still nevertheless satisfying, and not too far removed from 2001's ideas; global unity and peace is a clear next step in human evolution, and indeed in the '2001' book the final act of the Starchild is to destroy Earth's nuclear weapons.If you are looking for 2001, 2010 will disappoint you. But if you are looking for an enigmatic story in space, 2010 will deliver. Bypass the low-quality visuals and the low-quality music, and what you have is a story of a mission under pressure from political tensions whilst in the background a cosmic mystery unfolds, culminating in "something wonderful". The film closes on a satisfying climax that is nonetheless completely unexplained - the purpose of the Monolith remains unknown, and it is with the open question of its purpose that the film cuts to its credits.
Well-intentioned but poorly done
posted on 21 Mar 2009First of all, the actor playing the Russian agent at the beginning of the film didn't even attempt to sound Russian. Bozhe moj!!! Second of all, the movie deviates from the book at the worst possible moments. In the book, a Chinese spacecraft tries to beat Leonov to Discovery, only to meet its untimely demise on Europa. This is KEY to the book, yet it is completely left out of the movie. The book mentions almost nothing of the Cold War, and yet the movie seemed to dwell on it. Also, there's a climactic part in the book where Dave Bowman actually ventures INSIDE Jupiter. This too is left out of the film. There are many other discrepancies that I don't have the energy to indulge into (like Lithgow's character being afraid of heights--how the heck did he become an astronaut??). There's an old cliche--the book is better than the movie. With 2010, that is absolutely true. I'd give the movie * and a half. This for deviating from the book at so many unnecessary moments.
Under-rated
posted on 21 Dec 2008There are a few quick things to point out about this movie - yes the acting is fairly sub-par, the direction is that of a typical blockbuster, and the artistry that filled 2001 to bursting is severely cut back. Be that as it may, here is a film that is so different than any other science fiction film of the last few decades, one can't help but appreciate how much more realistic and observant the story and layout of this movie are. This could have been your typical sequel, overblown with effects and featuring so many twists and turns it makes you dizzy. Instead, the twists and the pace are so fantastic it makes 2001 feel sluggish in comparison, even if 2001's direction is far superior. There is so much more that happens in 2010, so much more of a plot and character development, that those who dismiss this as "boring" or non-dimensional only say that because it takes a little while to develop, so stick with it and try not to be turned off by Roy Scheider's over-acting and you will appreciate the brains behind it.
Seems like everyone is in agreement....
posted on 06 Nov 2008....2010 is not really a sequel but another movie altogether that references the original.Spoiler warning.........I saw this movie when it came out and thought it was cool, not as good as the original but the first movie was so cerebral and cold it was hard to relate to it. Still, 2010 had some thinking points, or at least it seemed so at the time. 2010 has long since finished it's commercial appeal and only shows up every once in a while, and seeing it again recently it was surprising how dated and out of place it was.The "let's work with our Russian comrades to save the world" theme in so many Cold War movies never came across effectively, and is something younger audiences can't even relate to. The look and feel of the future (soon to be present) 2010 was uninspired. The computer screens were very much in the early eighties, and the space suits were squarely copies of NASA suits.
(What happened to the originals?) I also believe in the novel Dr. Chandra was an Indian and he should have been left at that, rather than a dorky looking nerd. Part of the appeal of the original was it was so distant, we saw the world almost as an alien visitor would, unconcerned and unrelating to politics or country. The monolith's purpose was largely left to your imagination, whether it be a doorway to a higher plane of existance, God, aliens, or whatever.2010 gives us a story strongly rooted in then-current 1984 values and ideology, with aliens making a new solar system out of Jupiter for some yet unknown purpose. Not a bad story in it's own right, but not in the same vein as 2001 at all. As several people have said, 2010 would have been better off as a separate movie on it's own. Instead, even the great for 1984 special effects look dated, and it comes across as Hollywood cashing in on Kubrick.
a purist's view
posted on 07 Oct 2008Of this thrilling sequel, I must say one thing: There is only one certainty...and it's not what you think it is. But there is much more meaning to point out to the world; now there is only one way to say it...use (these worlds) together, use them in peace! Aside from that, I truly believe that we must open our hearts to the physical possibility that time will tell us what we need to know...and this is what the movie personifies. From the humble beginnings that 2001: A Space Odyssey, this wonderful epic has and will always be the best interpretation of what may lie in our distant future...if that is what we choose to see or believe.
Thinking Man's Science Fiction
posted on 07 Sep 20082010 builds upon 2001, improves upon it, and creates an accessible, realistic and relatively exciting sequel.
Exquisite cinematography, even BETTER than the first film. Fine performances by Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, Bob Balaban and John Lithgow. A really fine movie.
The Year We Went Bland
posted on 01 Sep 20082010 has its good point and bad points. [possible spoilers ahead]Those of us who know anything about astronomy suffer when watching 99% of all sci-fi movies, in which the laws of physics and the realities of space are regularly distorted. One of the great things about '2010' is that is was inspired by real science - the discovery by the Voyager space probe of volcanoes on Jupiter's moon Io, and of a possible ice-covered ocean on the moon Europa that may contain life. The latter discovery formed an intriguing parallel with the plot of '2001' which was about evolution being kick-started by an alien intelligence, and you can understand why Arthur C. Clarke was tempted to write a sequel that took account of all this. The film beautifully reproduces the landscapes of Io and Europa in an accurate way (although Jupiter looks like a sherry trifle gone mad), and it is great to see a film where the laws of physics bind the characters utterly (except of course, the ultra-evolved Dave Bowman).The film thus had potential to be a worthy successor to '2001', and it's a tragedy that the film was given to a director with no vision at all. Hyams does a competent job, but shoots the film as a bog-standard space thriller, without a scrap of Kubrick's art or profundity. And whereas Kubrick saw that Arthur C. Clarke's clunky dialogue could only work if the actors were told to perform like robots, the characters in '2010' are played as real human beings, which is no fun if your lines consist entirely of techno-speak, plot-exposition and strained attempts at humour.Still, there are some very memorable moments, in particular the dizzying spacewalk toward the tumbling Discovery, and the black spot spreading across the face of Jupiter. And the ending is really rather beautiful. It would be good if there were more science fiction films like this - intelligent, philosophical and beautiful. But they need to be made by artists, not competent drones.
Skip this one... especially if you liked the first
posted on 17 Aug 2008Ever heard of the saying 'ignorance is bliss'? Well, apparently, Peter Hyams hasn't. Despite his own ignorance, he feels that we should be told a thin explanation of everything of the first AND the second film. Despite the first film being visual and symbolic, this tries to simplify every single little thing in the first through basic, I-told-you-there-was-a-simple-explanation-to-it Scooby Doo-like explaining. Why apply cold logic when the first did so well without it? Hyams tries to tell the story in a smart and funny way... failing terribly on both accounts. The guy who brought us the insipid Timecop and the plain awful Sudden Death once again manages to underwhelm us with his unbelievably stupid and quite unneeded explanation for everything that happened in the first. The film never caught my interest, even though I was quite intrigued to hear of a sequel to the visually stunning masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. The plot is dull and moves too slow. The pacing is just bad. The acting is not impressive in the slightest. The characters are poorly written and paper-thin. The film just screams 'Hollywood' from the top of it's lungs, and reeks of it from every single orifice. The language-barrier between the Americans and the Russians is nearly non-existent. The film throws in numerous completely pointless characters that could easily have been removed without impacting the film in the slightest, top of which must be that endlessly annoying kid. The film rationalizes and explains away everything that was interesting in the first. I really didn't see any point for this sequel at all. I urge any fan of the first to avoid it, as it may very well destroy your fond memories of the first. Don't go near this one. I recommend this only to those who watched the first and didn't like the way everything was left a mystery, who wanted to have all of it explained. I would recommend it to fans of Peter Hyams as well, but I doubt(and certainly don't hope) that they exist. 6/10
One Giant Step Back to 1984
posted on 14 Aug 2008This is THE WORST sequel to a film ever made. It goes out of its way to pay no respect to the style of the Kubrick classic. No doubt "2001" is a hard act to follow, but the film screams "I'm gonna be different!" from the very beginning.The editing is hyperactive and a deliberate 180-degree turn from its predecessor. the first appearance of the awesome alien monolith, which was alway so eerie in the first film, is given as much reverence as a cameo by an old movie star. The sets are even cheesy copies of the original film. Couldn't the set designers afford real velcro for Discovery's floors? instead they paint black patches on the floor. T-A-C-K-Y.A total lack of imagination and vision hopelessly dates the film in the 1980s. The beautifully stylized HAL9000 mainframe interior has a Radio Shack looking IBM-PC keyboard and CRT?! The U.S. and "Soviet Union" heat up the Cold War (little late guys!). This is a meaningless distraction from the plot. Most absurd is the idea that an international astronaut crew stationed 1/2 billion miles from earth would actually pay attention to the orders of mission control not to talk to each other. yeah right. Astronauts 200 up in the Space Shuttle are more independent.though it's 2010 the rescue ship is second-hand. apparently without the beefy nuclear engines on Discovery it has to use aerobraking in Jupiter's atmosphere. Guess the NASA budget got cut. The new ship inexplicably creates artificial gravity without an obvious centrifuge. the closing scene of the monolith on Europa is laughably uninspiring. it looks like someone plopped on oblong paperweight into a terrarium.this film is a monument to the director's "I'm better than you" ego trip. No such luck!A real stinker of a film, totally forgettable -- unlike its classy predecessor.
good but can't match 2001
posted on 05 Aug 20082010 is a very well-made sequel to Kubrick's masterpiece, with excellent special effects, a good plot-line and above-average acting (for a sci-fi movie). Standing on its own, it could have become a classic in itself (in my opinion, it's far superior to the overrated comic-book epic "Star Wars"), however, 2010 was doomed before it was even made because there is no way that any movie can live up to, never mind surpass, the cinematic marvel 2001, especially one that attempts to "answer" the many questions raised in the earlier movie. This is its primary mistake. The ending is disappointing, not because it's a bad ending (it's actually quite good), but because any "answer" posed by mere mortals--no matter how inspired--is still a "human" one and cannot possibly hope to reach the level of the intelligence that opened these questions to man in 2001. The questions are better left unanswered--at least until (and if) humans reach a much higher level of intelligence in the far distant future. This is a good movie and well worth watching, but it's better to forget it's a sequel to 2001 and try to enjoy it in its own right. Those expecting the same surrealistic atmosphere and strangley flat human characters that were present in Kubrick's film will be disappointed, as it is an entirely different style of filmmaking. And that's just it: this is a *movie*, not a cinematic work of art, as Kubrick's was. Standing on its own, an above-average sci-fi film, but unfortunately it stands in the shadow of its predecessor and as a result, fails on that level.
Stop being so pretentious about 2001
posted on 30 Jul 2008First, 2001: I cannot believe the pompous drivel people write about this tedious pile of self-important schlock. Kubrick's movies, and 2001 in paricular, are sacred cows, yet am I the only one to notice how boring they are? Dr Strangelove excepted, almost nothing of substance happens, while he fiddles around with irrelevant technicalities. I appreciate it is intentional in 2001, but his movies are so cold. They do not involve, because they are less like art and more like arhitectural blueprints - structure and form, but no substance or texture. Getting Jack Nicholson to cross a road 75 times does not make the Shining any good!2001 comes accross as a mass of special effects searching for something to say about humanity, in the most uncourageous manner imagineable. heaven forbid, that as with 2010, we should be allowed any clue as to what is going on. The deadheads arguing what 2001 'means' miss the point: it doesn't try or want to mean anything. Kubrick must have been laughing his socks off atthe fans - they have invented all the context and dramatic colour that he couldn't be bothered to think of. 2010 is clearly superior, because it offers wonder not beweilderment. It is about an epiphany, a glimpse of something new and potentially enobling. That is why the cold war context is important, and I am greatly angered by people who want to rewrite history and suggest that somehow the cold war never happened. Further, how can you expect filmmakers to ignore the world they live in? Good sci-fi is about now, not the future. That is the approach that leads to rubbish like Battefield Earth.Rant over, but one final point. 2001 is not based on an original novel, the novel is based on the film, so you cannot contrast it unfavourably with 2010 in that regard. The original short story inspiring 2001 is Clarke's 'The Sentinel', which hypothesises the discovery of an alien archaeological site on the moon - The Monolith.
Soviets . . . OOPS
posted on 12 Jul 2008The year is 2010, and the US are still fighting the Soviets (which disappeared in 1989). Oops. One of the Soviets tells Roy Scheider (as Dr. Floyd--sounds like an Asian person saying Dr. Freud at times), "A lot has happened while you were asleep." Yes, the USSR crumbled. Who could've known, but is a problem while watching the movie in 2008 (two tears shy of 2010). This reminds be of John Carpenter's "Escape from New York" in which Snake Bliskin (Kurt Russell) lands a glider on top of the World Trade Center in order to enter Manhattan Island which had been converted into a prison colony. The only problem is that this was set after 2001, so, either the Twin Towers were rebuilt or there is a problem with chronology. However, not to fret, this is a common occurrence with science fiction: predicting the future is iffy guesswork at best.
Jesus or Santa is on their way
posted on 13 May 20082010. Uptee doo something special is going to happen.... Santa Claus has a gift...or maybe Jesus is on his way. I know it because a comb appeared in midair and some old bat died with a smile on her face.Why would a superior intelligence make its intentions all secretive? I think most humans could follow what a track to a better life might be and imagine how misery might be eliminated. I am not so sure I want to be transformed into some ooey gooey touchy feelie sugary blob of energy. I kind of like all my moods not just the joyous brotherhood ones. What has always bothered me a bit about the whole "thesis" of the Odessey (2001, 2010 ad nauseum...) sequence is why a superior intelligence would have let the last few million years happen. This superior intelligence appeared and decided apes should be the chosen species and showed them how to kill some poor hyena with a rock. Then the next few million years passed filled with endless violence misery pain and disease and suddenly oppps we are ready to move on...this time to some sugary Christian hell (oppps heaven). Arthur C. Clarke was a fairly good science fiction writer in the 50s. Not nearly as imaginative (nor intelligent) as someone like Larry Niven but decent. His characters were about as deep and forced as cut out paper dolls, but that isn't what you read his books for it was for the scientific possibilities of the near future. Some where along the line he sold his name to Hollywood and Elmer Gentry etc etc.... After that every imaginable piece of garbage was then produced or coauthored "by Arthur C. Clarke"....try reading some of the later Rama Series if you don't believe me. They make Jerry Springer look fresh and bright.It makes me angry that this greedy old fart stole several hours of my life by letting his name be misrepresented in later works.
A nice try to explain "2001: A Space Odyssey"
posted on 22 Apr 2008"2010" was made as a sequel to "2001". Of course Peter Hyams, as many other people, thought it was a great movie that trembled the universe of the SyFi, so a sequel could be successful. Knowing that Kubrick destroyed all material used in the original film for the special effects (spaceship miniatures) in order to prevent anyone from making a second movie, they had to use the man's new best friend, the computer, to reproduce the spaceships. A difficult task, but successfully achieved.By trying to explain the mystery of 2001, this new movie is obviously inferior to the original one, but doesn't give a wrong explanation. I think that 2001 didn't need a sequel. A Kubrick film is hard or impossible to be continued. And for sure 2010 is more commercial so it's easier to watch. But I am sure that Kubrick hadn't had in mind Europa when he made 2001, so 2010 tries to stick with the reality, with the mystery of Europa's ice ocean, and tries to associate the process of life on Europa with the anomalies in 2001. In fact I think that Hyams did not understand pretty much of the last 20 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but he brings in a new idea so the movie is saved.
Not as good as the novel...
posted on 17 Mar 20082010 certainly works as a sequel to 2001. My problem is that - ironically, unlike 2001 - 2010 is not more faithful to the original novel. The wonderful characterisations of the Russian crew are seemingly lost in the film, appearing two-dimensional. In fact none of the characters come across as well onscreen as they do in the novel, with the exceptions of Roy Scheider (always a joy to watch) and Helen Mirren - although her character is renamed from the novel (Orlov) to Kirbuk - a rather obvious play on a certain late director's name, oh please... An entire subplot of the book (the Chinese ship Tsien) is removed, and Clarke's canny vision of Russia and America cooperating in harmony is lost due to the pointless "Cold War" scenario. Sure it adds dramatic tension, but this sort of drama was not what the book was about. One of the Russian crew is killed in the film as they investigate the monolith - this doesn't happen in the novel. Worst of all, one of the books' best characters - Dr. Katerina Rudenko -is turned into a male. Nevertheless, Peter Hyams has delivered a good science fiction thriller.
This has to be one of the worst sequels ever made.
posted on 28 Feb 2008This has to be one of the worst sequels ever made. I can't believe Arthur C. Clarke lent his name to this american stereotype adventure movie. It has none of the poetry of the first and of course assumes its audience are 11 year olds.
2007 Now???.........2010 Still Holds It's Own!!!
posted on 25 Jun 2009I've read other comments on this sequel to 2001.Some pass it off as outdated,acting not up to par,comparing Hyams with Kubrick,disappointment with this version explaining narratively our ride to Jupiter.I consider nit picking criticism like that pure rubbish.This film does have a modern day look to it as I am writing this in 2007,in spite of it being released some 23 years ago.The visual effects are still outstanding as well as the sound.Back in 1984 surround sound was in it's infancy,only some 7 years old maybe?I think director Peter Hyams' telling of this extraordinary story is marvelous.Stanley Kubrick was at the helms on 2001.Did it his way,why compare the styles?They both did fantastic jobs.2010 carries us further on into the mystery of the Monolith.We were left with all sorts of questions in 2001.This film gives us both an enlightening and spiritual insight to the real nature of the black puzzling object.I love this movie.