2010

Despite my strenuous effort, I was unable over the course of two hours to block out my awareness of the existence of Kubrick’s masterpiece, so it was difficult not to snobbishly dwell on the “not much better” special effects, the intellectual shallowness and frequent literalism (the most likely “function” of the monolith is even mentioned at the end). Nevertheless, I admire Hyams’ stubbornness and I am well aware that, with respect to his abilities, he made a remarkable film that suffers from thematic complexity. Earth is in the midst of the still ongoing Cold War (which is no longer so cold), while a crew composed of non-Russian-speaking Americans and English-speaking Russians deal with mutual hatred, HAL’s psychological games and a number of technical or, as the case may be, metaphysical problems (Dave Bowman hasn’t said his farewell yet). The result is a stylishly clean but excessively content-heavy sci-fi movie that lacks the “extrasensory” scenes of  the original 2001: A Space Odyssey, though it elegantly runs circles around its dumber genre cousins. What’s interesting is the composition of the crew (I didn’t recognise Helen Mirren at all, but Jan Tříska immediately), as well as the point, which will make your brain glow white hot if you know the original (was the last shot a symbol of a completely new beginning?), but anything more interesting cannot erase the fact that even if parts III, IV and V were to be made, there will always be only one Space Odyssey. 70% (08/01/2011)

A very successful adaptation of Clarke’s book. At the same time, it’s very hard to compare both movies (2001 and 2010) because they are both filmed in a completely different way (some people would certainly like to stone me to death for giving them the same amount of stars). While in the first one, the secretive Kubrick was more interested in presenting mysticism, the down-to-earth Hyams put his money on action, and that was a good choice (you simply can’t compete with a giant such as Kubrick, so you have to take a different path). Such a lot happens in the movie and it is pretty impressive visually. But the screenplay, where the story is set in the Cold War, in today’s world just isn’t so powerful. Clarke was much more forward-thinking. Oh, and one more thing, Roy Scheider is certainly a better Floyd that William Sylvester. Kuritsa. (08/21/2009)

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. (06/27/2002)

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)

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. (10/02/2023)