For the haters... and those who are curious but have not checked this out thanks to the haters.

"The truth must be told: This is a good movie.

What we get in "2010" is not an artistic triumph, but it is a triumph of hardware, of special effects, of slick, exciting filmmaking. This is a movie that owes more to George Lucas than to Stanley Kubrick, more to "Star Wars" than to Also Sprach Zarathustra. It has an ending that is infuriating, not only in its simplicity, but in its inadequacy to fulfill the sense of anticipation, the sense of wonder we felt at the end of "2001."

But the truth must be told: This is a good movie. Once we've drawn our lines, once we've made it absolutely clear that "2001" continues to stand absolutely alone as one of the greatest movies ever made, once we have freed "2010" of the comparisons with Kubrick's masterpiece, what we are left with is a good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space opera -- a superior film of the Star Trek genre."

- Roger Ebert
Chicago Sun-Times, 1984

I could not have said it better myself - so I didn't bother trying. This is the best, as well as the most simple and concise, argument/explaination I have ever seen for why this is not only a good movie, but hardly deserves the backlash that it gets from Kubrick devotees. Yes, "2001" is a far superior film. A masterpiece. A classic. "2010," may not be all that - but did it want to be? Would it dare try to top the first film, or even be anything like it from an artistic, contemplantive stand-point? That would have been foolish. Even if it would have succeeded on some level (which it probably wouldn't have), it still would have felt secondary, unimaginative; a hack job copy-cat. So, being smart enough to realize that, it went in a more straight-forward direction in terms of storytelling and mystique, though it was no slouch in these departments, but turned the major efforts and attention into crafting an exciting conclusion of the themes Kubrick presented. For what this film was (and is), and at the time, it was far superior to most of its kind. And consider this: what if "2001" had never been made? What if this film had to stand on its own? It would have been hailed as pretty damn impressive. Which, looking at critic reviews, it was actually. It's this dumb, unnecessary backlash that would make one think otherwise.

Ebert gave this film three stars out of four. As did Leonard Maltin, and a host of other long-time critics with review books out there. I agree whole-heartedly with them.

Pedestrian

It's amazing how Kubrick's 2001 has barely dated.

This one, on the other hand, has dated badly: Every computer screen, every sound-effect is early 80's cheese. (Except when they are using elements of the original).

And instead of the cold, brilliant Kubrick style, we have a conventional aesthetic. Same with the plot: The astronaut must leave his family. The Russians and Americans must get along. Hal is kinder, gentler. No edge here whatsoever.

This is as different from 2001 as the second half of A.I. is different from the first half. (Which is to say: Nowhere near as good.)

Not the worst film if you want to waste a little time on something second-rate.

THIS, however, is pure genius:

Boundary at four another world beyonds of year.
The theme seems not to change.
I will feel the sense of crisis that might happen tomorrow.
I want to be pleased with alive in four years.

To the world that will be faced in the future

Boundary at four another world beyonds of year.
The theme seems not to change.
I will feel the sense of crisis that might happen tomorrow.
I want to be pleased with alive in four years.