- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted October 1, 2010
I Also Recommend:
A Fine Effort to Make a Mediocre Story Interesting
If you read the novel you will find there is one thing in common with the film, both are sequels that seem to have potential but do not live up to one's expectations. Having seen the film in 1984 the one thing that remains is its mediocrity. The film really has not aged well, which is one thing it does not share with it's predecessor, which having been produced some 22 years or so prior, remains a masterpiece film. It is not the fault of the director of this film, Peter Hyams. Nor may it be suitable for comparison but the movie is the sequel. The story is just mediocre. It seems that my choice to purchase this film was completely obligatory in some ways but I cannot say I completely dislike the film. The film tries to add some subtlties that were in the "2001" novel but not in the "2001" film (probably should have been). The one thing that is interesting is that the tension portrayed in the film between the U.S. and Soviets was a necessary addition to the plot because the plot in the novel lacks any sort of tension or significant adversity. This fact, actually makes the film better than Clarke's novel. Overall, if you were impressed by "2001" and looking for a bit closure to the story than definitely take a look at "2010".Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 1, 2010
A great book made into a half-baked movie.
What is faithful to the book is spectacular, in particular the scene where they find the Discovery spinning end-over-end in Jovian orbit. But Peter Hyams' half-baked politics kill a lot of the fun of the book. In the book, while there still was a Soviet Union, there was a far greater level of comraderie between the crews and there was NO impending nuclear war! And what was with that bizarre whirly-gig on the Leonov? They also cast a white guy as the Indian creator of HAL. The movie is best where it sticks closely to the compelling novel, which it does only half the time. The sad part is that Arthur C. Clarke did collaborate with Hyams in the making of the film, much as he did with Stanley Kubrick in the FAR better original film.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.