A very solid follow up to 2001: A Space Odyssey. A joint soviet-usa mission is launched to find out what happened to Dave Bowman when he mysteriously disappeared after his last transmission "My God! It's full of stars!" The scientists must re-activate the HAL-9000 computer on the now abandoned Discovery in order to find out the truth. WHile not as good as 2001, it's still a very good and worthy sequel.

B+

I saw the first 40 minutes of it in class. It was alright.

It's a decent sequel that falls far from Kubrick's artistic masterpiece, but, then again, what film doesn't? The story is much more straight-forward this time around, even though it tries to inject some spiritual mystery into it with the return of Dave Bowman. This mysticism is the highlight of the film, as it does a good job of echoing the original while furthering the story of the sequel. Unfortunately, the whole thing is bogged down by a ludicrous Cold War storyline that would be rendered obsolete only five years after the film's release. The effects are pretty impressive, especially at the end, and HAL is just as chillingly charming as in 2001, but Roy Scheider overacts terribly and the end is hopelessly cheesy. Still, it's got some interesting ideas, even if they're hidden amongst boring ones.

Caught it on TCM Last night. For sure, it wiLL never touch the grandeur of the originaL but I thought it did a satisfying job in terms of entertaining. The characters here were more reaListic, the pLot was easier to foLLow and I found it as scary if not scarier than 2001. Though the main probLem here was the direction; which what happens when you Lose a director Like StanLey Kubrick. IMO, if it had better direction, cinematography and stuff and FX that don't Look 10 years oLder than 2001's, it wouLd have had a chance at coming cLose to the first. OveraLL though, a reaLLy satisfying sequeL that did a considerabLe attempt in matching one of the greatest fiLms ever.

A-

Works fine as a novel, but as a movie? Totally lacking in any grandeur or mystery, or even at being compelling, despite looking good. 4/10.

Wierd as hell, and worse than the first film. Talk about WTF ending.

C

I can see why this might be have been a bit deflating back when it came out. After fifteen years of waiting, Arthur Clarke's second novel is finally adapted ... and it's nothing at all like the Kubrick masterpiece. They instead went with a very Spielbergian style of wide-eye-wonder, focusing on cold war paranoia rather than the terror that comes with the vastness of space. So yeah, 1984 Flava'd would have been all 'meh, I could've done it better.'

In 2022 it was a refreshing take on the material though. It has the same tone as the book and hits all the big notes pretty well. I didn't need another BWWAAAAAMMMMM type of delivery in an era where everybody wants to be Christopher Nolan (who himself wants to be Stanley Kubrick.) So yeah, over fifty years after the original movie's release and twelve years after the events in the story take place, 2010: The Year We Make Contact has finally found its place in time.

B+