2010

D-Man · September 12, 2007, 08:50:53 PM

I know I'm probably going to draw the Ire of the Kubrick loyalists and sequel haters, but I actually liked this film. Sure, it may not be on the same level as 2001, but they weren't trying to top it in the first place. If you forget about 2001 and look at this film on its own, it's actually pretty good.

Yes, the plot does take its time to get going, but once HAL is back online, and Dave starts making his appearances, it draws me right back into it. On top of that, the payoff at the end is, I think, well worth sitting through this film for.

At the very least, 2010 can make for a memorable rental, so I say give it a shot if you can find it on the shelf. It's really one of those decent sequels that never really gets the credit it deserves.

Torgo · September 12, 2007, 09:05:26 PM

It's not that bad of a film per se, but it is one of the most pointless and unnecessary sequels in the history of cinema.

Pilgermann · September 12, 2007, 10:08:06 PM

I don't know why but I always come close to buying this film and never do, even though it's cheap. I've seen bits of it on TV, including the last 15 minutes or so, and it does seem like a very good sci-fi film in its own right.

Doc Daneeka · September 13, 2007, 05:55:48 AM

Quote from: Torgo on September 12, 2007, 09:05:26 PM
It's not that bad of a film per se, but it is one of the most pointless and unnecessary sequels in the history of cinema.

Is it also one of the most pointless and unnecessary sequels in literary history?

Jack · September 13, 2007, 09:32:12 AM

I really enjoyed it. I thought the acting was top-notch and the story unfolded at a good pace. There was some good science in there too, like the aerobraking around Jupiter, something I think was actually used by a recent Mars probe. Personally, I think it was "necessary" (as necessary as any sequel), because I was left completly confused at the end of 2001. The explanation of HAL's actions towards the crew were explained masterfully, and the whole thing with Jupiter built from my expectations and was fairly satisfying.

Loved it

D-Man · September 13, 2007, 11:11:28 AM

Yeah, I was confused at the end of 2001 as well...I guess that makes us both ignorant twits.

Torgo · September 13, 2007, 01:48:03 PM

Quote from: Mr. Briggs Inc. on September 13, 2007, 05:55:48 AM
Quote from: Torgo on September 12, 2007, 09:05:26 PM
It's not that bad of a film per se, but it is one of the most pointless and unnecessary sequels in the history of cinema.
Is it also one of the most pointless and unnecessary sequels in literary history?

Yeah, your more all encompassing post is more on the mark.

trekgeezer · September 19, 2007, 11:23:35 AM

I liked the movie, but probably not enough to buy it. It did encompass some scientific theories of the day. It is badly dated now though, with the whole US vs. USSR conflict so central to the plot.

Peter Hyams is what I consider a very pedestrian director. Technically his movies are well made, but there is something missing from them that would make them great.

Gerry · September 19, 2007, 02:51:15 PM

The movie is actually quite faithful to the A.C. Clarke novel. One of the better book-to-film adaptations.

Torgo · September 19, 2007, 09:22:35 PM

Quote from: trekgeezer on September 19, 2007, 11:23:35 AM
Peter Hyams is what I consider a very pedestrian director. Technically his movies are well made, but there is something missing from them that would make them great.

Oh, c'mon now, The Relic is a bona fide classic completely deserving of all praise it garners..........................or not.

At least it has an evil snuffleupagus in it!