Saw this film for the first time today. I've seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" many times. Never read the books (except for 3001, for some reason).
"2001" was one of the most finely crafted pieces of film in existence. It took film beyond a simple, linear storytelling medium and transcended it into a world of visuals, music, and emotion. Details such as the explanation for HAL's 'malfunction' and the significance of the monolith or the starchild were superfluous and open to viewer's interpretation. It wasn't necessarily a brilliant story - it was a brilliant film. In terms of films to compare it to, it comes a lot closer to "Fantasia" than "Star Wars". You didn't watch it - you experienced it.
Now, for "2010". Sure, the Cold War subplot is dated and over-wrought, but I'll ignore that in light of when the film was made. It was a mistake, though, including something that so easily dates the film, in my opinion. Was the future of the Cold War really looking so bleak in 1984? Maybe, but it still seemed a little too implausible.
As a film, it not only PALES in comparison to Kubrick's masterpiece, it simply isn't very good overall. It's a little long, the acting is a little over the top, everyone seems to be working under the burden of what came before. The only really well-done scene by the actors is the exchange between the Russian astronaut and Floyd during the aerobraking sequence. The Bowman scene labours under attempts to re-capture the magic of the aging sequences at the end of "2001". The plot is sadly predictable (excepting, perhaps, the 'wonderful thing' which I knew about from the final novel in the series). The special effects are unspectacular. The uses of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" seemed to be in simply because it was expected, and the score otherwise is ENTIRELY mundane and un-notable. While it generated some tension at times, none of it even came close to the sound of Bowman's breathing juxtaposed with HAL singing 'Daisy', or being gently and unobtrusively informed that HAL was reading lips.
This movie is for fans of Clarke's books who want to see them realized on-screen, and perhaps conventional sci-fi fans. If you're a fan of the first film for it's sheer uniqueness, avoid it, especially if you're not a sci-fi fan. And if you're a fan of the first film looking for explanations, go rent it again and find them on your own. They'll be much more valid than those offered by this film.
"2001" was one of the most finely crafted pieces of film in existence. It took film beyond a simple, linear storytelling medium and transcended it into a world of visuals, music, and emotion. Details such as the explanation for HAL's 'malfunction' and the significance of the monolith or the starchild were superfluous and open to viewer's interpretation. It wasn't necessarily a brilliant story - it was a brilliant film. In terms of films to compare it to, it comes a lot closer to "Fantasia" than "Star Wars". You didn't watch it - you experienced it.
Now, for "2010". Sure, the Cold War subplot is dated and over-wrought, but I'll ignore that in light of when the film was made. It was a mistake, though, including something that so easily dates the film, in my opinion. Was the future of the Cold War really looking so bleak in 1984? Maybe, but it still seemed a little too implausible.
As a film, it not only PALES in comparison to Kubrick's masterpiece, it simply isn't very good overall. It's a little long, the acting is a little over the top, everyone seems to be working under the burden of what came before. The only really well-done scene by the actors is the exchange between the Russian astronaut and Floyd during the aerobraking sequence. The Bowman scene labours under attempts to re-capture the magic of the aging sequences at the end of "2001". The plot is sadly predictable (excepting, perhaps, the 'wonderful thing' which I knew about from the final novel in the series). The special effects are unspectacular. The uses of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" seemed to be in simply because it was expected, and the score otherwise is ENTIRELY mundane and un-notable. While it generated some tension at times, none of it even came close to the sound of Bowman's breathing juxtaposed with HAL singing 'Daisy', or being gently and unobtrusively informed that HAL was reading lips.
This movie is for fans of Clarke's books who want to see them realized on-screen, and perhaps conventional sci-fi fans. If you're a fan of the first film for it's sheer uniqueness, avoid it, especially if you're not a sci-fi fan. And if you're a fan of the first film looking for explanations, go rent it again and find them on your own. They'll be much more valid than those offered by this film.