That must be a joke, how low were the standards of movie making that time? Right now this movie wouldn't have been even mentioned, it would have been a straight to DVD movie. The acting, the dialogue and the special effects were so cheesy. It was a step down even from a 2001 movie that was made by Kubrik 16 years earlier.
shareI much prefer this movie to 2001, that's for sure. How the hell can you bash this great movie? HOW??
At least it has lots of dialogue and an intelligent, nail-biting Cold War plot, instead of endless landscape, landscape, landscape, and space, space, space.
They're all technical nominations: production design, costume design, makeup, sound mixing, and best special effects. Nobody will ever confuse 2010 with Kubrick's original (much like Doctor Sleep will never seriously be regarded as a sequel to Kubrick's Shining) but the film has state of the art effects for its era and looks pretty damn good as a recent revisiting of it demonstrated. What's this about cheesy acting? It's got a great cast with Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Bob Balaban, and Helen Mirren (able to use Russian which was her father's native language). I've found over the years that the only way to appreciate 2010 is by disassociating it from 2001 and stop trying to compare them. One is an art house masterpiece on a grand scale. The other is popcorn entertainment coming out in the golden age of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg blockbusters.
shareThis, exactly! The test for any film with special effects is how well they did with what was available at the time. And 2010 did just fine in that regard. And I do separate it from 2001, which is not only the best science-fiction film made to date, but is simply one of the best films of any genre, period.
The only way to appreciate & enjoy 2010 is by taking it on its own terms. And on those terms, it delivers.
Agreed. I'd never bother going to see it reissued - as I have a few times with 2001 - but every now and I'll pop the DVD in and enjoy it again.
share2010 had an unthankfull job of being a sequel to Kubrick's hailed film. If you can look past that, 2010 stands on it's own feet just fine and is a great movie. Certainly career peak of the director, Peter Hyams. I especially like the clean tech future in the era when Alien, Star Wars and Blade Runner made old, rusty and dirty technology fashionable.
share2010 isn't all that bad and the nominations it received were not undeserving. Besides, '84-85 were arguably close to the bottom of the barrel in terms of high quality Hollywood cinema so there really wasn't much available to fill the slots.
Making a sequel to a singular, landmark masterpiece like 2001 was always going to be a tall order but while I haven't seen the film in years, on its own terms its enjoyable enough and well-mounted.