I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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.

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.

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.

There is superpower tension about the failure of the Discovery mission. Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) was blamed and he's reduced to operating telescopes in central America. The Soviet ship is ready to launch first, a year before Discovery II. However they need American expertise to assess Discovery. Also the orbit of Discovery is deteriorating and the Americans can't get there in time. A joint American-Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to investigate the mysterious failed mission. Floyd is part of the American team along with Discovery designer Walter Curnow (John Lithgow) and HAL designer Chandra (Bob Balaban). The Soviet crew includes Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren) and Dimitri Moisevitch (Elya Baskin). Dave Bowman exists now in a non-corporeal form. They discover something on the moon Europa but they are blocked from exploring it.This is a continuation of the story rather than getting back to the amazing artistic originality of 2001. Without anything ground-breaking, this movie suffers from being too slow. The original 2001 was also dismissed for being too slow by some critics but its artistic marks were never in doubt. The effects and the style in 2010 never leaves the audience in awe. There isn't enough whiz bang and the times have moved on anyways. The story is fine in the Arthur C. Clarke novel but filmmaker Peter Hyams fails to inject excitement into the movie. As is the case sometimes, I am amazed to find Helen Mirren in this movie. Of course, she wasn't a big star back then and there's no reason I would know who she was when I first saw this almost 30 years ago.