Not a great sequel but actually quite enjoyable if you don't think of it as a sequel to 2001

This disappointing follow-up suffers from an overexplanation of events better left shrouded in mystery.

Journeyman adaptation of a stepdown sequel by Clarke. Hyams is good in some space scenes but awful directing people.

When it's not cowering under the Monolith's (Kubrick's 2001) mighty large shadow, this is a generally competent and good film. But when it does, and tries to explain the proceedings through listless excursive dialogue and trite narration, it fails miserably.

Aww the Soviets and the Americans get along. That's cute.

Decent space adventure. Don't compare it to Kubrick's masterpiece, and it will be okay.

"Not a masterpiece, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's pleasing to see a sequel strive so hard to reach the same heights. That it fails is through no fault of its own - the original simply raised the bar too high."

One of the greatest sci-fi movies of all times

Completely superfluous.

Of course it's not 2001, but at least Hyams was smart enough to not emulate that film. As it is, it's a pretty nice movie.

Pedantic and commercial, in no way a fitting follow-up to a movie that needed no follow-up anyway.

favorite line: easy as cake, a piece of pie..... not so easy to make a worthy sequel to a classic film however.........

Very bizzare movie. It is not very good as a sequel to 2001, but manages to be good as something completely different.

It gets a tough rap because it's so often compared to one of the finest movies ever made. "2001" should not stop you watching "2010". It is in it's own right a stonkingly good piece of sci-fi. The performances are good, the atmosphere palpable & the concepts intriguing. It looks good too (not "2001" good admittedly!) There's so much scope for expansion in "2010", it's a shame Hyams didn't really push the boat out, but I think he was afraid of being accused of trying to out Kubrick, Kubrick!

2010 could be summed up as 2001, but shitty. Where 2001 is timeless, 2010 is firmly trenched in the Cold War. Where 2001 is mysterious, 2010 is heavy-handed and muddled. Where 2001 is awe-inspiring, 2010 is sleep-inducing. But perhaps I'm being unfair, comparing 2010 so heavily to its predecessor. On its own terms, it has some ambition, and it's competently put together. But it's still very boring, and it's hard to care about the goings-on--and harder still to actually enjoy this film.