Review of 2010 (1984) by James P — 28 Jul 2007

This would be a great movie if there wouldn't be 2001. The 1968 Stanley Kubrick films is tons better (I'd even say the best Sci-Fi film ever). On it's own, 2010 would be great, but in comparison to the first part, it sucked.

First of all, the FX. Although made 16 years after 2001, the FX are lot worse than in the original one. 2001 looked like the future, 2010 looks like 1980.

Second, the story. It's cool of course, because it's by Arthur C. Clarke as well. But anyone who hopes this movie clears all the questions about 2001 will be disappointed. In the end there are more new questions than answers.

All in all not a bad movie with a nice story but you defintly better go for 2001: A Space Odyssey.