Almost a "10" because I can't bring myself to rate it on the same level as "2001" which remains a confusing-classic masterpiece of film-making. Explaining most of the mysteries of 2001 takes away some of the wonder, such as explaining "The Force" and "The Phantom of the Opera". So Hal had a twin sibling computer named "Sal" and Hal had a nervous breakdown because of conflicting direction and programming? I never quite bought that! I prefer to think of "him" as an imperfect entity, like "Data's twin android" on Star Trek. A far more coherent, understandable story. Great special effects and a far more logical conclusion. The nations of Earth (primarily Russia and The U.S.) finally stop warring with each other because a superior being, perhaps God, tells them not to do so or face complete oblivion and utter destruction. Find out which planet "God" lives on! John Lithgow and Helen Miren, lead a great cast. Wonderful. Read both books by Arthur C. Clarke and be further amazed!

Perfect sequel of the legendary SCI-FI 2001-a space odyssey . Many unanswered questions are explained here . Visual effect is also very good. Unlike most space movies, it has a satisfactory ending. The clash between ultimate entity , human and super intelligent AI is presented perfectly. it would be marvelous if another sequel comes.

Some movies makes you ask the question "Why was this movie ever made?" even as you know the answer already.'2010' is one of those movies. It's obvious that Kubricks masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' was going to have a sequel, to milk the last money out of the concept. So Arthur C. Clarke wrote a follow-up on his original book that was the foundation for the first movie.'2001' was not an action movie or a drama. It was something rare, as a sci-fi thriller. What made that movie so special was not any alien monsters, laser-weapons or explosions in space. Instead it was a visual masterpiece in both the set and decor, and of course the magnificent scenes with spacecrafts slowly maneuvering in space. Almost like a space ballet.And it was a thriller. The fear of the unknown and the mystery of the alien monolith, combined with the malfunctioning AI, was more effective than any monsters and beasts. '2001' didn't need a sequel. It was perfect as it provided more questions than answers, giving the viewer a lot to think about after the end-credits.'2010' tries to answer all these questions, and that is a shame. It is as if Da Vinci had painted another painting, explaining why Mona Lisa is smiling. The end of the original masterpiece.'2010' is nothing close to a masterpiece. It's no thriller as it is not scary and the suspense is down to a minimum. It's not an action movie, nor is it a drama. The characters are way too shallow and especially John Lithgow is embarrassing himself.So, should you watch this movie? It depends on your alternatives. It is still less entertaining to sit and stare at a wall, and worse movies have been made. But I can't help the feeling, that this movie is an insult to fans of '2001', and if you regard yourself as such, don't let '2010' destroy that for you.

Greetings from Lithuania."2010" is good sci-fi movie. Not as bold and creative as "2001" of course, but a very nice sci-fi on it's own. It works as a sequel and it works as on it's own. Just don't expect the beauty, music of depths of it's predecessor - "2010" isn't classic. "2010" follows the storyline of "2001". We will eventually learn what is a monolith and what's his purpose. I didn't quite get what happened to Bowman, the thing i didn't get in the first movie neither.Special effects of "2010" are nice, but "2001" had definitely better special effects, and "2010" looks a bit dated now, the thing you can't said about "2001". The settings and and all other technical stuff works here - if you like sci-fi in general, you will like this stuff as well.Overall, "2010" isn't "2001" by any means. On it's own, it's a nice sci-fi movie and not bad sequel. If you like sci-fi, you will definitely will enjoy "2010".