← Back to Reviews
in
#186 - 2010
Peter Hyams, 1984
Nine years after the events of 2001: A Space Odyssey, an expedition team of Americans and Russians sets out for Jupiter to find out the truth behind what happened.
It still seems weird to think of 2001: A Space Odyssey as a film that ever actually needed a sequel, but I guess Arthur C. Clarke and Peter Hyams thought differently. At least the premise of a rescue team finding out just what happened at the end of the first film made some degree of sense, even if it does ultimately play out like a somewhat generic space-faring mission for the most part. The rest of it, well, it gets a bit worse considering how 2010 seems dedicated to taking every single unique element from 2001 and providing a more concrete explanation. What actually happened to Bowman? Why did HAL malfunction? Why do those monoliths exist? While the relative ambiguity of the original film served both the film and audiences just fine, this film's lack of it just seems like a fairly basic attempt to justify a sequel. The inclusion of a Cold War allegory as a result of having Americans and Russians team up for a secret mission does seem especially on-the-nose, even if it does guarantee a possible source of tension between the astronauts.
There are some decent actors in the mix like Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren and John Lithgow, but they generally aren't given all that much material. In Scheider's case, there's too much to work with as the first twenty minutes take place on Earth and establish that Heywood Floyd apparently has a whole new family and home life, which makes me question how much of that was really necessary to the film. Granted, the effects work is decent enough, especially exterior shots set in space and the production design does a decent enough job of replicating the design of the original. The problem is that 2010 can't seem to make up its mind over whether or not to fully replicate 2001 or try to strike out on its own with a much more conventional space explorer's narrative, but its attempts to compromise the two distinct sides makes for a rather boring mess of a film. The effects may be decent, but they don't do all that much to help a film that wouldn't be of any significant interest without its connection to a much more renowned film.
Peter Hyams, 1984
Nine years after the events of 2001: A Space Odyssey, an expedition team of Americans and Russians sets out for Jupiter to find out the truth behind what happened.
It still seems weird to think of 2001: A Space Odyssey as a film that ever actually needed a sequel, but I guess Arthur C. Clarke and Peter Hyams thought differently. At least the premise of a rescue team finding out just what happened at the end of the first film made some degree of sense, even if it does ultimately play out like a somewhat generic space-faring mission for the most part. The rest of it, well, it gets a bit worse considering how 2010 seems dedicated to taking every single unique element from 2001 and providing a more concrete explanation. What actually happened to Bowman? Why did HAL malfunction? Why do those monoliths exist? While the relative ambiguity of the original film served both the film and audiences just fine, this film's lack of it just seems like a fairly basic attempt to justify a sequel. The inclusion of a Cold War allegory as a result of having Americans and Russians team up for a secret mission does seem especially on-the-nose, even if it does guarantee a possible source of tension between the astronauts.
There are some decent actors in the mix like Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren and John Lithgow, but they generally aren't given all that much material. In Scheider's case, there's too much to work with as the first twenty minutes take place on Earth and establish that Heywood Floyd apparently has a whole new family and home life, which makes me question how much of that was really necessary to the film. Granted, the effects work is decent enough, especially exterior shots set in space and the production design does a decent enough job of replicating the design of the original. The problem is that 2010 can't seem to make up its mind over whether or not to fully replicate 2001 or try to strike out on its own with a much more conventional space explorer's narrative, but its attempts to compromise the two distinct sides makes for a rather boring mess of a film. The effects may be decent, but they don't do all that much to help a film that wouldn't be of any significant interest without its connection to a much more renowned film.