Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Let's get the obvious out of the way first and compare this movie to its predecessor What made the original "2001: A Space Odyssey" so special was its cinematography, the extremely elongated shots, the use of complete silence in outer space while the camera is "outside the austronauts' helmets", the score made up of strange noises in the second half of the movie and the insanely slow pace, all of which drew the viewers into the movie and hypnotized them. This movie however is "just" a normal science fiction movie, the length of the shots is normal as we know it from most movies, not noticable to someone who hasn't seen the original movie in this franchise. We do get shots that attempt to recreate the silent shots from the first movie, however we're inside the astronauts' helmets, so there's several sounds - transmissions, talking and breathing. The score features classical music, just like the first movie did, however it features it throughout the whole movie, there's no strange noises that made the second half of the first movie so mystical. This movie is in no way the hypnotization the first movie was.However, I was still drawn into "2010: The Year We Make Contact", or as you might call it, "2010". Besides the first line that I genuinely thought was a glitch in my copy of the movie, which was very distracting, this is quite a good science fiction movie. You might be invested in it mostly because you want to know what happened after the original, but there's a few more reasons to care about the movie, such as the political climate that is set up in this movie or the family of our new main character. There's a creepy scene involving them that I really enjoyed. The best thing about it however is the suspense and we get a lot of it.In conclusion, this is quite a good, however very disappointing sci-fi movie. As it's based on the sequel novel on whose predecessor the first movie was based on, the story is still great, but it suffers from its biggest flaw - not letting Stanley Kubrick, the director of the original direct it, which led to a very different movie that didn't understand what made the original so special. It's definitely worth a watch though, but do NOT watch it if you didn't see the first one. You would hardly understand anything and it would spoil the ending of the first movie for you.

It is better to see 2001 before 2010. Then you should have known about HAL's multifunction & the mystery question in dark space.The shinning point in 2010 is that HAL finished its great turning, from a murder suspect to another role.Reasonably, the special effect seems ordinary in this film. And having the series which were once shot by Stanley Kubrick, that should be a lot of pressure for any other director.

the main failure of this film is that it fails to go from the build up to that "something wonderful", to some kind of stasis or moment that make you really believe that something has changed and governments would change from the war path they were headed towards.by showing so directly the "mystery" (therefore making it no mystery at all) the sense of wonder goes out of the window and what should have been a decent climax for the film collapses.as some people said before, technology and graphics might be outdated, but someone focusing on that might do better not watching films produced more than 6 years.as per the relationship with computers and AI, it is surprisingly handled in too little time even it is meant to be one of the main concerns since the beginning of the film. somehow it feels a rushed production, probably in order to keep it under the 2 hour mark. It would have been great seeing more development regarding that subject.

Greetings from Lithuania."2010" is good sci-fi movie. Not as bold and creative as "2001" of course, but a very nice sci-fi on it's own. It works as a sequel and it works as on it's own. Just don't expect the beauty, music of depths of it's predecessor - "2010" isn't classic. "2010" follows the storyline of "2001". We will eventually learn what is a monolith and what's his purpose. I didn't quite get what happened to Bowman, the thing i didn't get in the first movie neither.Special effects of "2010" are nice, but "2001" had definitely better special effects, and "2010" looks a bit dated now, the thing you can't said about "2001". The settings and and all other technical stuff works here - if you like sci-fi in general, you will like this stuff as well.Overall, "2010" isn't "2001" by any means. On it's own, it's a nice sci-fi movie and not bad sequel. If you like sci-fi, you will definitely will enjoy "2010".