**2001: A Space Odyssey** is my favorite film of all time. It stands as a testament to finest of film making, with groundbreaking set designs and costumes. And 1968 practical effects still look competent, even by today's CGI standards. Its minimalist approach in story telling is certainly polarizing, but I find **Stanley Kubrick**'s audacity astounding. **2001** is the benchmark of _pure science fiction_ film.

**2010: The Year We Made Contact** is not a _pure sci-fi_. It looks and feels like **Ridley Scott**'s **Alien** (minus horror elements). It's more of a _sci-fi thriller_. The look and feel of the movie, not to mention sound, take a radical departure from hyper realistic **2001**. Computers in **2010** haven't evolved at all from 1980s Apple IIe and Commodore 64. There's sound in space. Newton's laws of motion are rarely observed. Heck, even "Also sprach Zarathustra" fanfare is poorly timed and the performance lacks the grandeur.

No doubt about it. **2010** looks very dated. This is an 80s movie but the film embraces it by wearing that badge proudly. The only exception is the depiction of outer space. Using newer telemetry images from NASA and other space missions, Jupiter and its moons look spectacular, especially in comparison to **2001** made more than 16 years earlier.

So a terrible sequel, right? If you watch **2010** soon after **2001** as I originally did, yes, **2010** may be terrible. But watching it with an open mind, you might find yourself enjoying it a lot more than many **2001** fans give credits for.

For one thing, **2010** dismisses all the pretense of its prequel. It aims for three goals: (1) explain the mysteries of its prequel, (2) entertain, and most of all, (3) make a strong case for science and humanity rising above politics. To me, the film succeeds in achieving all 3 goals.

One of the most remarkable things about the film is the cast. The film features who's-who of Hollywood. **Roy Scheider** may be a poor doppelgänger of **William Sylvester**. Yet it works. He is the prototypical stand-in for conflicted and righteous everyday man. He is just so personable and easy to sympathize. And we have **John Lithgow**, a master of expression, amazing **Helen Mirren**, who just fills the role perfectly even though it's essentially a bit part, and **Bob Balaban**, always lovable (even though he is playing a part that should've been played by Indian/Pakistan). The only misfire is **Dana Elcar**, whom I personally respect a great deal, but his terrible Russian accent is just too distracting. And there are a couple of standout cameos later in the film.

Most sci-fi films with transcendental climax often demand repeated viewings, as to shed its initial shock so that viewers can digest its intents more rationally. **2001** and **Contact** are prime examples and **2010** falls into this category as well. (**Close Encounters of the Third Kind** is perhaps one of few that immediately captivates and succeeds.) My initial impression of its climax was highly negative. But over time, its simplicity and earnestness won me over and **2010** became a worthy companion to understanding and appreciating **2001**.

_**Another trip to Jupiter to find answers**_

After the mysterious failure of the Discovery One mission to Jupiter in 2001, Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) resigned his position as head of the National Council for Astronautics. Several years later, the Soviets send the spacecraft Leonov & crew to Jupiter along with three Americans, including Floyd, to help investigate Discovery and the malfunction of the vessel's sentient computer, HAL 9000. Keir Dullea returns as the missing astronaut David Bowman while Helen Mirren plays the captain of the Leonov. Bob Balaban and John Lithgow also appear as the other two American astronauts.

"2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984) is realistic science-fiction that’s less artsy and more dramatically compelling compared to its predecessor, “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968). That doesn’t make it better, of course, just different. “2001” raised questions while this one provides answers, which some people inevitably won’t like. The questions include: Why did HAL malfunction? What was the real reason for Discovery's original mission, unknown to Floyd? What happened to Bowman? What is the purpose of the colossal monolith orbiting Jupiter?

Both films compliment and counterbalance each other. This one’s more of a straightforward space adventure in the near future. Unlike Star Wars, which is space fantasy, “2010” is space-oriented adult science-fiction. Star Trek is too, but “2010” is far more realistic, which I appreciate. In other words, don’t expect any Klingons or spacecraft dogfights. This is more along the lines of “Mission to Mars” (2000) and “The Martian” (2015).

The film runs 1 hours, 56 minutes.

GRADE: B

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.