Friday, March 17All That Matters

2010: Odyssey Two – The Forgotten Sequel

by GoldenJoel


2010: Odyssey Two – The Forgotten Sequel




View Reddit by GoldenJoel – View Source

24 Comments

  • BranWafr

    Not forgotten by me. It played all the time on premium cable, back in the day, so I saw this movie quite a few times. 2001 was more iconic, but 2010 was a pretty decent sequel.

    Reply
  • Negative_Gravitas

    I actually thought this movie was quite good (and a reasonable adaptation of the book). It’s only problem was that, unlike it’s predecessor, it wasn’t one of the greatest films ever made.

    Reply
  • BW_Bird

    I watched this in a film class in high school. The teacher put it on while giving us some half-apology over it being a bad movie.

    Honestly, I love it. The movie doesn’t have the thick (heh) atmosphere as the first movie but it makes up for it with great character drauma and storytelling.

    Plus the ending was cool as hell.

    Reply
  • ajh6288

    Considering it follows a shining example of pure cinema I always tell people that 2010 is “not that bad!”. Like, it’s a little dull but it’s non uninspired and definitely is it’s own movie. I would recommend it for anyone remotely curious.

    Reply
  • VectorJones

    I’ve always appreciated this movie. Roy Scheider is great in it, as are John Lithgow and Bob Balaban. It fills in a lot of the gaps story wise from 2001 that Kubrick didn’t include in 2001.

    I recall back in the mid 80s we went to Universal Studios and they had a thing there where they selected a couple people from the audience to put on the space suits from the movie and get suspended from wires like Lithgow was for the filming of the movie. One of those selected was my older brother. It was a blast to see him getting dangled in space before the group, doing flips and whatnot on the rigging.

    Reply
  • Tatooine16

    I really like this movie! I loved the whole vibe and Roy Scheider and Helen Mirren were perfectly cast. No romance, but respect and admiration between their characters by the conclusion was subtle but palpable I thought. And John Lithgow, as always, dissolves completely into his character.

    Reply
  • H2Oloo-Sunset

    I have always thought that if this was a stand-alone movie with no ties to the classic 2001, it would have a much better reputation as a good solid Sci-Fi movie.

    Reply
  • WhereIsThatElephant

    did not need a sequel, first one was so dead in the water… minus the people looking for a meaning in a glass of twirling milk

    Reply
  • holymojo96

    Aside from something on the tier of 2001 itself, 2010 is exactly the kind of sci-fi movie I wish Hollywood would make more of. Give me more high concept sci-fi movies about space exploration! Please!!

    It feels like the only space exploration movies we ever get are cheap Netflix schlock and any attempt at realistic physics is totally absent. Ad Astra is the only movie I can think of in a while that’s gotten close.

    Here’s hoping Denis Villenueve’s Rendezvous with Rama movie actually happens and kickstarts a new trend!

    Reply
  • DrRexMorman

    I was surprised when I saw it – all the things I said when I thought I was quoting 2001 were from it.

    Also, the aerobrake and space walk scenes are stunning. I wish I could have seen them on a larger screen.

    Reply
  • Now_Wait-4-Last_Year

    Well, I didn’t forget it. Probably helped that we lived within walking distance of Arthur C. Clarke’s house and one of our relative’s husband was his PA. You bet I took advantage of that to wrangle a meeting and get a fully signed set of the books.

    Coincidentally, he had a copy of Jurassic Park 2 on laser disc on his desk the day I got to visit.

    Reply
  • pressplaynk

    I love this movie, a regular rewatch for me. It’s just a solid sci fi flick destined to be overshadowed by its masterpiece predecessor.

    Reply
  • ObscureFact

    One aspect 2010 and 2001 both share is that both films explore the possibility of humanity, just at different scales. 2001 explores how humanity can achieve amazing things through their use of technology, whereas 2010 focuses on what humanity can achieve by working together.

    If you remember the opening scenes of 2001 where our ancestors are fighting over a watering hole, well 2010 explores that violent and tribal nature of our species. In 2001 the conflict is resolved when our ancestors smash their enemy over the head with a bone, but in 2010 the conflict is solved through teamwork despite our differences. And in both cases the technology they are using (the bone and the nuclear weapon) represent the pinnacle of human technology and cruelty.

    Both films are remarkable and both films are very intelligent in that they respect the intelligence of the audience. It’s too bad we can’t get more films like either of them (though there are a few that are made from time to time).

    Reply
  • gogojack

    2010 is very much a film of it’s time. It can’t escape from the fact that it came out when the US and the USSR were toe to toe, and didn’t imagine a time (shortly thereafter) when this wouldn’t be relevant.

    That aside, the movie was very good. The only thing that still sticks out in my mind is…why couldn’t they get an Indian actor to play doctor Chandrasekhar? Nothing against Bob Balaban, but…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Like Us
Follow Us
Subscribe Us
Follow Us