2010

The otherwise average director Peter Hyams has pleasantly surprised me. 2010 is a film with very good visual effects, an interesting story and a well executed final twist. But it should not be compared with Kubrick’s 2001, that one is a league of its own. (27/06/2002)

I’d rate the second installment at a similar level of quality as the first one (and please don’t kill me for it). Yes, the visual aspect for 1984 is well done, but certainly not revolutionary (consider that the original Alien by Scott had already been known to the public for 5 years). In this regard, the first one wins hands down. However, the second one boasts a clearer, more linear story with a pretty impressive cast: Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren... Something Kubrick's film can't match. Some might find the linearity of the plot a drawback, but I welcomed it with open arms. The story flows smoothly without unnecessary pauses. There are also more high-stress situations (like the module shots of Europa). And I also liked the ending better, as it's a really well-done conclusion to the series. So, I’d rate it the same. A solid 7/10. (02/10/2023)

I would say that this movie shows which director is a genius and which is a routiner. While Stanley Kubrick has made a groundbreaking and legendary sci-fi in the late 1960s, almost 20 years later a routiner Peter Hyams made a solid but (compared to Kubrick) a very routine movie. However, although it is routine it is still a sci-fi classic. (03/04/2019)

Kubrick’s 2001 is a work of art that played with the medium in an unprecedented way, Hyam’s 2010 is nothing more than well executed science fiction, which I don’t mind at all. It was thrilling, it was entertaining, the effects are again perfect for its time, I’ve no reason to complain. Thanks to the clearer shifts in the plot, I’m planning to read the literary sequel because I’m curious about how it continues. If a film manages that, it’s a hit :) (07/07/2011)

Maybe I’m being too nice, but I liked this movie. It is, of course, completely different than the first part and any comparison is out of the question. Kubrick's trip into the future was a unique cinematic treat, an amazing play of effects with the director's infinite imagination where the actors were completely incidental. But there is only one Kubrick; Peter Hyams knew that very well and managed to create science fiction of quite a different kind that draws on Clark's excellent script, with a few moments that even continued the mystical atmosphere of the famous first film. The stunts and effects were again excellent, the actors were likeable (though I missed the Russian from Armageddon), and the final twist, which I was eagerly awaiting the whole time, was not badly thought out and didn't spoil the overall impression. I certainly don’t recommend putting on the second Space Odyssey without watching Kubrick’s film first, it’d be a great shame to write off this space adventure in advance. (08/03/2012)