Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren, Bob Balaban,
Keir Dullea, Douglas Rain
1984, 114 Minutes, Directed by: Peter Hyams
question that comes to mind with this film is Why? Why
make a sequel to film, that well, doesn't need one? Why make
sequels in the first place except for motives of pure avarice?
Sure, Kubrick's 2001 was
intentionally ambiguous and left many unanswered questions in the
viewer's mind, but that was the magic behind the film. And then,
more than a decade later, they decide to do a sequel . . .
sequel doesn't add anything to the original story. It still
leaves (thankfully) some issues unanswered. Like its predecessor,
there are some great moments of visual beauty to be found but
this film is the ideological opposite of Kubrick's film: whereas
there was twenty minutes of dialogue in the more than two hours
long 2001, 2010 suffers from verbal diarrhea.
Characters in this film talk a lot! And it is at moments like
these that one wishes that they would rather have shut up,
letting the stunning visuals speak for themselves.
But director Peter (Capricorn
One, Outland) Hyams is telling an adventure tale and not scoring
obscure philosophical points as Kubrick did in his film. All of
this, of course, illustrates the difference in film making
between the 'Sixties and 'Eighties: the 'Sixties proved to be a
time of experimentation whilst the film makers in the 'Eighties
seems more concerned with safe formulas and box office returns.
this Hyams film is imminently watchable and is recommended for
those who disliked Kubrick's obscurity and found his film
pretentious and slow-moving. Huge fans of 2001 will
disappointed and outraged.
Sci-Fi Movie Page Pick:
Not "ten-past-Eight" as some wags claim!
2001: A Space Odyssey purists may complain and sneer disdainfully, but this 1984
sequel based on the Arthur Clarke novel isn't as bad as it's often made out to be by
Kubrick devotees. Taken purely on its own terms it's a rather well-made space adventure .