Surprisingly incoherent and boring

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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.

I gave 2001 a 1 rating as I'm not into pretentious artsy foolishness. Probably an hour was given to long, loud videos of imagery that did nothing for the story. So this movie actually had a plot and told a story. It still leaves you hanging with questions, but at least I didn't fall asleep 4X while watching it, as I did in the original.

A sequel to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, though not directed by Kubrick. A US-Russian expedition is sent to Jupiter to see what happened to USS Discovery.Good, but not great. 2001 had an open-ended, anti-climactic and, dare I say it, unsatisfactory, random ending. While 2010 goes some way to fill in the gaps, it still leaves a few puzzles answered. More conventional action-suspense sci fi movie than 2001. More dialogue and plot development too. Less style than 2001, and a tad more substance.Still, it isn't overly profound, and pretty much just feels like another space exploration movie.

A fine, intelligent sci-fi movie that has the unenviable task of being a sequel to arguably the greatest sci-fi movie of all time. If it's at all possible for you to put aside comparisons to Kubrick's film, you should do so. 2001 certainly didn't need a sequel but, if it had to have one, it couldn't be much better than this. The story has Dr. Heywood Floyd (now played by Roy Scheider) joining a Russian mission to investigate the events of the first film. Basically the movie tries to spell out what happened in 2001 for everybody who didn't get it and provide some degree of closure to the story. It's a different movie than 2001 and, in some ways, a more accessible one. I say that knowing how many people hate 2001 for the very reasons many others (including myself) love it. The script here is not as enigmatic and the direction is less artful. The cast is very good and the special effects are excellent. It's not the experience Kubrick's masterpiece is but it is an enjoyable companion piece. Not necessary in any way but good nonetheless.