What a waste of my time!!!

Dreadfully Boring

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

With the 50th Anniversary of the original film coming up we sat down to watch it a few weeks ago - it still stunned, inspired and left me in awe. So, why not watch the sequel, right? Well, I feel soiled now... even putting aside the fact that 2010 was made before CGI (and obviously so was the first film) the special effects we laughable. The sets were cheap, the costumes unoriginal and cheap, the acting was dreadful and WORST OF ALL the soundtrack was, was, was... I just wanted to drill my ears out. One of the many amazing parts of the film 2001 was the musical score coupled with the absolute lack of sound - as it should be in space... here we had endless canned orchestral tracks to "set the mood" which at times were so distracting it was hard to know what was going on. We had sound in space (which a lot of other films do too), but we already had the precedence of the first film - no one would have faulted Hyams for continuity there.The casting in this film is just so bad - John Lithgow CAN'T be taken seriously, Roy Schneider doesn't fit the role, the "Yakov Smirnoff " look-alike was dreadful. The dialog was idiotic - the lack of professionalism by the crew, their childish expressions, the pointless banter, etc, etc - all so unrealistic, pointless to the film and distracting. I still have no idea who that random female crew member was that popped into Schneider's bunk for the laughably cheesy depiction of the atmospheric deceleration.The entire opening sequence with Schneider and his family could go - especially since later in the film in his overlaid messages to his family, he barely expresses feelings about them or says any lovey-dovey stuff - instead he talks about the mission - so why did we have to suffer through "getting to know" his family? Then there are all the inconsistencies concerning gravity or the lack of. In one scene, Schneider puts two pens into a free float to illustrate the two ships - WAIT, WHAT? All this time I'm working on the assumption that there is false gravity in that module because there is ABSOLUTELY no attempt by the film makers to illustrate zero G! When Dr. Chandra is in HAL's CPU it looks like he is standing on a rotisserie with some low paid stage hand rotating him... and he looks constipated to boot. I could go on and on.And, "SAL"... PLEEAAAASEEEE!I'm so upset by 2010... If you love the first film, STAY AWAY from this one.

I saw this movie 33 years after it came out. The original, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is my favorite movie. This 2010 movie gave me nothing to think about. The writers threw us some sentimental images of Bowman and of the Discovery so we might be excited at seeing old friends. The outdoor spaceship special effects were far inferior to the 1968 version. Why did that have to be? A low budget? The monolith was not black at every appearance in the movie. And when the spaceships MADE SOUND in the vacuum of outer space, that is heresy! I chalked that up to a post-Star Wars mentality. I found it annoying that the scientist who initially programmed HAL protected HAL almost like a lover. The original movie made me think as I watched. This sequel only made me watch the story-line cliches unfold. I was waiting for some Ewoks to show up.

Some movies makes you ask the question "Why was this movie ever made?" even as you know the answer already.'2010' is one of those movies. It's obvious that Kubricks masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' was going to have a sequel, to milk the last money out of the concept. So Arthur C. Clarke wrote a follow-up on his original book that was the foundation for the first movie.'2001' was not an action movie or a drama. It was something rare, as a sci-fi thriller. What made that movie so special was not any alien monsters, laser-weapons or explosions in space. Instead it was a visual masterpiece in both the set and decor, and of course the magnificent scenes with spacecrafts slowly maneuvering in space. Almost like a space ballet.And it was a thriller. The fear of the unknown and the mystery of the alien monolith, combined with the malfunctioning AI, was more effective than any monsters and beasts. '2001' didn't need a sequel. It was perfect as it provided more questions than answers, giving the viewer a lot to think about after the end-credits.'2010' tries to answer all these questions, and that is a shame. It is as if Da Vinci had painted another painting, explaining why Mona Lisa is smiling. The end of the original masterpiece.'2010' is nothing close to a masterpiece. It's no thriller as it is not scary and the suspense is down to a minimum. It's not an action movie, nor is it a drama. The characters are way too shallow and especially John Lithgow is embarrassing himself.So, should you watch this movie? It depends on your alternatives. It is still less entertaining to sit and stare at a wall, and worse movies have been made. But I can't help the feeling, that this movie is an insult to fans of '2001', and if you regard yourself as such, don't let '2010' destroy that for you.

To those who play the game Kerbal Space Program, love The Martian, or astrophysics, this is a must see. Contrasting to the mystery of its predecessor (2001: a space odyssey), 2010 offers answers to the questions it posed. Based on the equally excellent novel "2010: Odyssey Two", it sticks to fairly accurate science (with some assumptions grounded in science). Notably, it deviates in some subplots from the book, simplifying the plot, which works just fine. Unlike the classical pieces used in 2001, the music is mostly original work (except for the franchise-defining use of "Also sprach Zarathustra"), composer David Shire does a great job capturing the sense of distance and grandness of space exploration. Arthur C. Clarke also wrote two further squeals, though they do not completely follow the exact same continuity between each other.