**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**.

Not the masterpiece of 2001, but still one hell of a great story. I wish they would have made the two remaining books into movies.

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).

Pretty good, but nowhere near the masterpiece of the first one, [spoiler] and it just kind of left you hanging.[/spoiler]

An epic space fairytale about humanity.