nickboldrini 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.

nurchowdhuryhimel-18574 Perfect sequel of the legendary SCI-FI 2001-a space odyssey . Many unanswered questions are explained here . Visual effect is also very good. Unlike most space movies, it has a satisfactory ending. The clash between ultimate entity , human and super intelligent AI is presented perfectly. it would be marvelous if another sequel comes.

Blueghost I went and saw this film with a couple of catholic fundamentalists (yes, I did, hard to believe, but true) whose knowledge of real science and science fiction varied quite a bit. And their one comment regarding Hal's transmission at the end was "It was god!"One is baffled by a lot of things in life, but that moment in time heading south home on the freeway, and hearing them make that statement, was one of the most perplexing things I had ever heard in my entire life. Mike C. and Mark C. were not then, and are not now, deep thinkers, irregardless of their technical training (one a computer scientist, the other chemist). They could not fathom the idea of an alien race seeding life elsewhere and beyond. To them it had to be a supernatural-cum-religious explanation for what was happening to Jupiter and her satellites. I often wondered how many other audience members had that same thought. I'm thinking perhaps a few, but not many. I think you have to be a real numb-skull to draw that specific conclusion, and I say that without apology because it's true.But, to the film; it does explain and clarify the story in Kubrick's efforts some twenty years prior, had far more dramatic tension and less exposition from, again, Kubrick's film. The clash of styles I think makes for an interesting original-sequel dynamic that is kind of interesting and entertaining.But, for all that, I would not have cast Roy Scheider in Dullea's role, the mother having her hair brushed scene was, well, spooky but also strange. How many sons brush their mother's hair? In usual Hollywood fashion the exposition of the story takes precedent over scientific fact, and there's just the usual Hollywood nonsense piquing here and there.I mostly think this is an okay movie. Each science fiction film has its faults, and this one, directed by what appears to be a humanist, places a great deal of emphasis on the character interaction and expression of emotion rather than the telling of the tale. Which, to me, gives it the usual Hollywood 80's sheen that I think a lot of audiences in the 1980s were a bit sick and tired of, though they put up with it because, hey, it's only a movie.As for any deity, or lack thereof, I think it's safe to say that there isn't any in this film, and that it is in all actuality a solid science fiction film from the 1980's, even if it was a bit saccharine in delivering a message about international relations.And I suppose that's the only real fault I find with this film. We were in contention with the Soviet Union for world domination. The Soviets wanted to expand communism, and we and the rest of the world were there to stop them. The idea that we would somehow be awoken with a passion for life because of a new sun strikes me as being naive, along with a lot of other descriptors. To put is in the language of another movie, "You can't make peace with dragons." For as we fought the Soviets in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, we were not there to fight them for the sake of fighting them. And if you watch this movie that's probably what you might think had you not been alive at the time this film was made and released.And I suppose that's the best assessment I can make of this film. It's an "anti war" or "anti cold war" film that believes that our rivalry with the Soviets was all a misunderstanding. That thinking is premised on the notion that communism and its permutations via the old Soviet Union, worked and were a good thing. They were not. And that's why this film's drama comes across as more old-guard Hollywood immigrant prattle about international relations, and the naivety thereof. It's why I acknowledge its artistry, but, as per this commentary, will caution the more astute audience member of why this film may come across subconsciously as a little untrue.Enjoyable on a certain level, but a bit of a sales-pitch for a bill of goods.

Mr-Fusion "2010" avoids the existential questions that were laid out by its predecessor and goes for the literal approach. Which is a smart move - imitation is not the way to go here. It's pretty straightforward and raises the important narrative questions: What happened to Dave Bowman and HAL9000 during the ill-fated mission? That mystery tugs at the audience from the very pre-credits sequence, and one of the things I love about this movie is finally arriving at Jupiter's moon and seeing the shipwrecked Discovery spinning in place. It's a striking image.Does the movie answer that question? It does, as plainly as possible. And it seeks to leave us with another big scientific development by film's end. This is ultimately a worthy sequel, and the Cold War atmosphere helps add tension. Above all, this is a good cast, and that's what brings me back to this (Roy Scheider has a nice presence here).7/1010