A much more standard affair compared to its predecessor.

Given that's the case, I honestly enjoyed this more than '2001: A Space Odyssey' - if only because it's more closer to what I'd personally want from a film than what that 1968 flick offers, which is moreso an attempted art piece. Of course, the original does things visibly and audibly far, far greater than this 1984 release - just plot-wise, this is better in my opinion.

That's not to say that '2010' is something I'd consider great, because I wouldn't. It is, though, solid sci-fi fare, one I had a decent time watching. I'm not a fan of recasts, but Roy Scheider does a good job in place of William Sylvester as Heywood Floyd. Bob Balaban does well, while it's neat to see John Lithgow and Helen Mirren involved.

I'm somewhat surprised (but agreeable) that this has, seemingly, been fairly well received. I was expecting it to be poorly thought of by the majority, as is usually the case for sequels of iconic movies that aren't cut from the same cloth; different director etc.

Correct continuation easier to digest.

AAN for Best Sound; M6S6

It's hard to judge this after just watching 2001. This is nothing like that and is very bland. It might not be a bad movie but being an unneeded sequel and not living up to its predecessor makes it worse than it actually is.

Well paced Sci Fi exploration. Enjoyable. Not a fullfilled feeling at the end but it was a decent ride.

Opposed to 2001: A Space Odyssey, this movie does have a compelling story, no endlessly dragged out scenes (more importantly no minute long black screens) and last but not least a cast which actually can act (my god, the dialogues in 2001 are just awful).