Review of 2010 (1984) by Graham P — 23 Jun 2010

Right. Cards on the table here: I prefer Peter Hyams sequel to Stanley Kubrick's renowned science fiction epic 2001 to that film. It's tighter, it's better paced, it has characters who are portayed as human beings (rather than mannequins who spout wooden dialogue) and it's not confusing and ambiguous for the sake of being confusing and ambiguous. In short, it's not style over substance - it's not Kubrick.

This is intellient science fiction that is, at it's heart, a very human drama. Importantly, it makes an effort to get the science right. It has been, of course, and will likely continue to be looked down by pureists and eliteists who consider it to be a film aimed at less demanding viewers who don't like to be challenged by an ambiguous ending. By casting these assumptions, film snobs are able to reinforce their own conceited opinions that they are far smarter than the rank and file cinemagoers.

I call bullshit on such arrogant views. I base my ratings on films solely by the enjoyment I gain from watching them and I found this film to be considerably more enjoyable than it's predecessor. Anyone looking for a good film in the science fiction genré should give this a go.