Tough to even compare this "sequel" to 2001, as it's simply a whole different type of movie. Whereas 2001 was a surreal fantasy, who's enduring charm was it's mystery, 2010 is simply another action-adventure film. 2001 was the very definition of "grandeur" in filmmaking, in scope & breadth of story, taking the audience thru man's evolution from ape to "modern man" & beyond. By contrast, seeing 2010 is more like scanning the newspaper, very pedestrian & "safe". While 2001 still largely seems fresh and "timeless", 2010, made 16 years later, looks more dated and less relevant.
Worse, 2010 is simply far too literal for it's own good. It plays like a space age "Dragnet", pouring out all the facts, trying to answer (believable or not) the questions of it's predecessor. By the end everything is neatly wrapped up in a nice package... which makes 2010 about as sterile as a NASA clean room.
Of course 2010 is horribly dated now, with the USSR and Cold War references. But more to the point, it seemed dated even when it came out in 1984! This was set in the future, and judging from the (thankfully) few topical allusions in 2001, the Cold War was long over, replaced by cooperation. Yet in 2010 we get a running subplot about another Cuban missile crisis threatening to bring on World War III, and stereotypical mistrust between Russian and American crewmembers? At the time I recall thinking how out of step this was with the whole concept of 2001. The world crisis of 2010 would have been at home in the 1960's, but not by the 80's era of détente. Odd that in 2010 we're actually thrust back into Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" territory -- something I doubt Kubrick himself would have done if he'd been involved in this project.
Next, there's an over-abundance of information bombarding the audience throughout 2010... almost like Hyams felt his audience was too stupid to figure anything out for themselves. So we're given a running monologue of events by Dr Floyd, which is monotonous to the point of annoyance. The plot device used are recorded "letters" home to his wife and son (wonder if they found them as tedious as the audience?). This whole thing comes off as a bore, and a cheat -- a truly good screenwriter can convey necessary technical info without having to read it off cue-cards to the audience. Then we get long-winded messages from earth, giving us details of the unraveling world situation... always ending with some homily like "Just hope there's an earth left for you to return to..." YAWN.
Sorry, but I found Dr Chandra's "explanation" for HAL's murderous behavior far-fetched, like he was really "reaching" to excuse away the psychotic HAL's actions with double-talk. Having Chandra overprotective of his surrogate "child" HAL might, I suppose, have made a mildly interesting subplot, had Hyams cared to explore it. And Chandra's blaming the government's lying for HAL's malfunction was not only very self-serving (casting blame away from him, as HAL's creator) but also a bit too "standard" and convenient in the post-Watergate era. Hardly original, to say nothing of believable. What, merely ordering HAL not to reveal the purpose of the mission until they reached Jupiter's orbit would send this super-sophisticated computer into a tailspin of mistakes and miscalculations, culminating in murder? (If Chandra had grafted his own "personality" into his "child" HAL, as the movie suggests, then one must really wonder too about Chandra's mental state). Evidently the death of five people (Poole & the 4 hibernating scientists) didn't much trouble Chandra as he gave the all-too-standard rant against govt "duplicity".
Whereas 2001 was very spare on dialog, and therefore didn't come off as too "pedestrian", in this movie we get altogether too much talk. Not only Floyd's droning on and on in his "letters", but folksy reminiscences about baseball & hot dogs, Kentucky, and his son getting together with a woman cosmonaut's daughter -- IF there's a world left for them... yeah, right (zzzzzzz). Vapid and out of place. Even worse is the running gag of Chernow's Russian buddy getting American sayings all mixed up... "easy as cake" (ha ha ha) "piece of pie" (ho ho ho). Hyams falls back on the Hollywood tradition of throwing in "comic relief"; yet ultimately it cheapens the movie. Can anyone imagine Kubrick including such junk in 2001? Kubrick not only disdained comic touches, but went to pains to show that Bowman & Poole had reached the point, during the 18 month mission, where they barely even talked to each other. Compared to them, HAL was a chatterbox. There was no cloying sentimentality in 2001; in fact Kubrick actually satirized such muck when he showed Poole's birthday message from his folks, and Poole's blasé reaction to it.
2001 actually benefited from the ensemble cast of character-type actors. William Sylvester (Dr. Floyd) & Robert Beatty were little-known outside of England. Keir Dullea & Gary Lockwood were journeyman actors who had not really "made it" by that time (nor would they ever achieve stardom) so they appear fresh. In contrast, everybody's seen Roy Scheider & John Lithgow in too much movies and TV, so it's hard to take them as seriously in these roles.
Can't blame Kubrick for "steering clear" of this mess! Trying to top 2001 would have been difficult under any circumstances; this tepid script certainly wasn't gonna do it. And, to date, no one's filmed Arthur C. Clarke's third book of the "2001 Trilogy": 2061. I can only assume that the public reaction to this film (to say nothing of 2001 aficionados, Kubrick devotees, and sci-fi fans) doomed any such project. Whether you liked or disliked 2001, you certainly couldn't ignore it. It was big, it was different, it was an "Event"! Sadly, 2010 was just another run-of-the mill action movie, a couple hours of mild distraction, then quickly forgotten.
Worse, 2010 is simply far too literal for it's own good. It plays like a space age "Dragnet", pouring out all the facts, trying to answer (believable or not) the questions of it's predecessor. By the end everything is neatly wrapped up in a nice package... which makes 2010 about as sterile as a NASA clean room.
Of course 2010 is horribly dated now, with the USSR and Cold War references. But more to the point, it seemed dated even when it came out in 1984! This was set in the future, and judging from the (thankfully) few topical allusions in 2001, the Cold War was long over, replaced by cooperation. Yet in 2010 we get a running subplot about another Cuban missile crisis threatening to bring on World War III, and stereotypical mistrust between Russian and American crewmembers? At the time I recall thinking how out of step this was with the whole concept of 2001. The world crisis of 2010 would have been at home in the 1960's, but not by the 80's era of détente. Odd that in 2010 we're actually thrust back into Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" territory -- something I doubt Kubrick himself would have done if he'd been involved in this project.
Next, there's an over-abundance of information bombarding the audience throughout 2010... almost like Hyams felt his audience was too stupid to figure anything out for themselves. So we're given a running monologue of events by Dr Floyd, which is monotonous to the point of annoyance. The plot device used are recorded "letters" home to his wife and son (wonder if they found them as tedious as the audience?). This whole thing comes off as a bore, and a cheat -- a truly good screenwriter can convey necessary technical info without having to read it off cue-cards to the audience. Then we get long-winded messages from earth, giving us details of the unraveling world situation... always ending with some homily like "Just hope there's an earth left for you to return to..." YAWN.
Sorry, but I found Dr Chandra's "explanation" for HAL's murderous behavior far-fetched, like he was really "reaching" to excuse away the psychotic HAL's actions with double-talk. Having Chandra overprotective of his surrogate "child" HAL might, I suppose, have made a mildly interesting subplot, had Hyams cared to explore it. And Chandra's blaming the government's lying for HAL's malfunction was not only very self-serving (casting blame away from him, as HAL's creator) but also a bit too "standard" and convenient in the post-Watergate era. Hardly original, to say nothing of believable. What, merely ordering HAL not to reveal the purpose of the mission until they reached Jupiter's orbit would send this super-sophisticated computer into a tailspin of mistakes and miscalculations, culminating in murder? (If Chandra had grafted his own "personality" into his "child" HAL, as the movie suggests, then one must really wonder too about Chandra's mental state). Evidently the death of five people (Poole & the 4 hibernating scientists) didn't much trouble Chandra as he gave the all-too-standard rant against govt "duplicity".
Whereas 2001 was very spare on dialog, and therefore didn't come off as too "pedestrian", in this movie we get altogether too much talk. Not only Floyd's droning on and on in his "letters", but folksy reminiscences about baseball & hot dogs, Kentucky, and his son getting together with a woman cosmonaut's daughter -- IF there's a world left for them... yeah, right (zzzzzzz). Vapid and out of place. Even worse is the running gag of Chernow's Russian buddy getting American sayings all mixed up... "easy as cake" (ha ha ha) "piece of pie" (ho ho ho). Hyams falls back on the Hollywood tradition of throwing in "comic relief"; yet ultimately it cheapens the movie. Can anyone imagine Kubrick including such junk in 2001? Kubrick not only disdained comic touches, but went to pains to show that Bowman & Poole had reached the point, during the 18 month mission, where they barely even talked to each other. Compared to them, HAL was a chatterbox. There was no cloying sentimentality in 2001; in fact Kubrick actually satirized such muck when he showed Poole's birthday message from his folks, and Poole's blasé reaction to it.
2001 actually benefited from the ensemble cast of character-type actors. William Sylvester (Dr. Floyd) & Robert Beatty were little-known outside of England. Keir Dullea & Gary Lockwood were journeyman actors who had not really "made it" by that time (nor would they ever achieve stardom) so they appear fresh. In contrast, everybody's seen Roy Scheider & John Lithgow in too much movies and TV, so it's hard to take them as seriously in these roles.
Can't blame Kubrick for "steering clear" of this mess! Trying to top 2001 would have been difficult under any circumstances; this tepid script certainly wasn't gonna do it. And, to date, no one's filmed Arthur C. Clarke's third book of the "2001 Trilogy": 2061. I can only assume that the public reaction to this film (to say nothing of 2001 aficionados, Kubrick devotees, and sci-fi fans) doomed any such project. Whether you liked or disliked 2001, you certainly couldn't ignore it. It was big, it was different, it was an "Event"! Sadly, 2010 was just another run-of-the mill action movie, a couple hours of mild distraction, then quickly forgotten.
