Watch 2010 For Free

Strong and Moving!

So much average

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

The first must-see film of the year.

It is better to see 2001 before 2010. Then you should have known about HAL's multifunction & the mystery question in dark space.The shinning point in 2010 is that HAL finished its great turning, from a murder suspect to another role.Reasonably, the special effect seems ordinary in this film. And having the series which were once shot by Stanley Kubrick, that should be a lot of pressure for any other director.

I went and saw this film with a couple of catholic fundamentalists (yes, I did, hard to believe, but true) whose knowledge of real science and science fiction varied quite a bit. And their one comment regarding Hal's transmission at the end was "It was god!"One is baffled by a lot of things in life, but that moment in time heading south home on the freeway, and hearing them make that statement, was one of the most perplexing things I had ever heard in my entire life. Mike C. and Mark C. were not then, and are not now, deep thinkers, irregardless of their technical training (one a computer scientist, the other chemist). They could not fathom the idea of an alien race seeding life elsewhere and beyond. To them it had to be a supernatural-cum-religious explanation for what was happening to Jupiter and her satellites. I often wondered how many other audience members had that same thought. I'm thinking perhaps a few, but not many. I think you have to be a real numb-skull to draw that specific conclusion, and I say that without apology because it's true.But, to the film; it does explain and clarify the story in Kubrick's efforts some twenty years prior, had far more dramatic tension and less exposition from, again, Kubrick's film. The clash of styles I think makes for an interesting original-sequel dynamic that is kind of interesting and entertaining.But, for all that, I would not have cast Roy Scheider in Dullea's role, the mother having her hair brushed scene was, well, spooky but also strange. How many sons brush their mother's hair? In usual Hollywood fashion the exposition of the story takes precedent over scientific fact, and there's just the usual Hollywood nonsense piquing here and there.I mostly think this is an okay movie. Each science fiction film has its faults, and this one, directed by what appears to be a humanist, places a great deal of emphasis on the character interaction and expression of emotion rather than the telling of the tale. Which, to me, gives it the usual Hollywood 80's sheen that I think a lot of audiences in the 1980s were a bit sick and tired of, though they put up with it because, hey, it's only a movie.As for any deity, or lack thereof, I think it's safe to say that there isn't any in this film, and that it is in all actuality a solid science fiction film from the 1980's, even if it was a bit saccharine in delivering a message about international relations.And I suppose that's the only real fault I find with this film. We were in contention with the Soviet Union for world domination. The Soviets wanted to expand communism, and we and the rest of the world were there to stop them. The idea that we would somehow be awoken with a passion for life because of a new sun strikes me as being naive, along with a lot of other descriptors. To put is in the language of another movie, "You can't make peace with dragons." For as we fought the Soviets in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, we were not there to fight them for the sake of fighting them. And if you watch this movie that's probably what you might think had you not been alive at the time this film was made and released.And I suppose that's the best assessment I can make of this film. It's an "anti war" or "anti cold war" film that believes that our rivalry with the Soviets was all a misunderstanding. That thinking is premised on the notion that communism and its permutations via the old Soviet Union, worked and were a good thing. They were not. And that's why this film's drama comes across as more old-guard Hollywood immigrant prattle about international relations, and the naivety thereof. It's why I acknowledge its artistry, but, as per this commentary, will caution the more astute audience member of why this film may come across subconsciously as a little untrue.Enjoyable on a certain level, but a bit of a sales-pitch for a bill of goods.

The fundamental problem I have with the movie is that it should not have produced; but the fact that some film-makers in search of easy money try to piggy-bag on a big success is not surprising to me. What amazes me is that A C Clarke, the creator of the original story, was behind this thing and wrote the book that gave birth to this movie. Now, if you have not watched (or read) 2001 a Space Odyssey, this might still work for you as an OK film. As a matter of fact, in most synopsis, 2010 is defined as the sequel to 2001; the simple reality is that there was not and there will never be a logical possibility to give 2001 a sequel. It is simply wrong, a huge mistake. 2001 is the epic of mankind from its very beginning to its future. The first "man" (actually, an ape) was selected by an external intelligence 4 millions of years ago to lead the specie from an animal level to a human one. The very same intelligence selects now another man to transition humankind as we know it to its next level - as we don't yet know it. Then instead what happens in this book? Only 9 years later, in2010, we discover that nothing has changed, good old earth is still the same good old thing, good old mankind is still hanging there as it was 9 years before... So what? The phenomenal cosmic fetus floating in the space at the end of 2001, the cathartic promise of the next step of humankind was a joke? Was it an hallucination? Come on, please...this was a huge mistake that I cannot justify...I'll try to recover by watching again 2001 a space Odyssey.

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.