Lack of good storyline.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I'm not one to think 2001 was a great film. It was good and eerie, but I wouldn't call it a film masterpiece. A sequel may have been necessary to explain what happened in the first movie, but this films explanation is to put it mildly is mild.Best part of the film is the acting, fx and cinematography. The pacing is fairly slow, but that's ok. The setup on earth was good and thankfully didn't last too long. It put a human touch to Roy's character. One of the best scenes was when John Lithgow's character and the Russian are in spacesuits approaching the rotating Discovery, very tense, well done. The sling shot of the Russian ship around Jupiter was great. There's some very cool fx shots here.The death of the Russian in the probe could have been better.Worst part is when Bowman's mom in her death bed in the hospital sits up and a comb is combing her hair. Yes, it's Bowman. And it evokes some horror elements, but then it's a dead end, literally. Bowman appearing on TV talking to his wife was better handled. Explanation of HAL going paranoid/psychopath, that HAL was given contradictory order from the US government then what was given to the crew was lame. Really lame. In the first movie this was a mystery, perhaps the aliens controlling HAL. Here HAL is redeemed! HAL even helps the humans after it gets a explanation, and it's ultimate demise. LAME!Then in the end, the aliens turn Jupiter into a small star, turn Jupiter's moon Europa into a habitable planet and create life. This idea is fine. And it also matches what happened in the first movie where the aliens impart intelligence into the early apes. However, the whole production at the end was mediocre. And given the tension of the US and USSR, the two nationalities working together, then not, now the new life is formed US and USSR forget about their problems. And, the problems are never explained. So, it's hard to accept any of it. So, to me this is a B rating for a B movie. Maybe B-, 6 stars. But given the acting, cinematography, and Fx, the pacing was slow but not boring, rating is a 7.I won't give a lower rating because it may ruin the first movie. They are different movies. Better to watch the two movies separately. Also, I would like to mention that compared to Alien, 2010 is a masterpiece. Alien has some of the worst acting, characters, dialogue, crap story with huge plot holes EVER. Alien is basically a prop movie. Prop of the alien, the detonation mechanism, etc. Worst part of Alien is the dirtbag characters, always squabbling and smoking. Smoking on a spaceship! Ridiculous!Watch 2010 after seeing Alien and you'll see how much of a garbage film Alien truly is.

This is way too different than 2001. There isn't any realistic side of the film. There was too much Hollywood in it. Visuality was poor. The decoration was bad, like we weren't in 2010 at all. And the sound was just killing the whole thing. Yes, there are some answers but why? I mean these answers is just plain bad. It smears 2001: A Space Odyssey's perfection and its mystery. If you have already seen 2001 and liked it, please, don't watch this.

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.

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.