2010

Name: 2010
Genre: Adventure, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Thriller
Released: December 7, 1984
Duration: 116 min
Rating: 53
Cast: Bob Balaban, Dana Elcar, Douglas Rain, Helen Mirren, James McEachin

1984

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 15 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 28 Ratings

See All

7.3

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.3	Your Score
7.3	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 28 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

2010

Now Playing: 2010

Movie Details & Credits

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) | Release Date: December 7, 1984 | PG

Starring: Bob Balaban, Dana Elcar, Douglas Rain, Helen Mirren, James McEachin, John Lithgow, Keir Dullea, Madolyn Smith Osborne, Roy Scheider, Taliesin Jaffe

Summary: A joint U.S.-Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to glean what happened to the Discovery.

Director: Peter Hyams

Genre(s): Adventure, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Thriller

Rating: PG

Runtime: 116 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Hyams has not come up with a climax to match Kubrick's rush through the star-gate; but this is still space fiction of a superior kind, making the Star Trek movies look puny by comparison. Read full review

Danny Bowes

2010 is an essential text of the late Cold War. Read full review

Roger Ebert

You have to make some distinctions in your mind. In one category, "2001: A Space Odyssey" remains inviolate, one of the handful of true film masterpieces. In a more temporal sphere, "2010" qualifies as superior entertainment, a movie more at home with technique than poetry, with character than with mystery, a movie that explains too much and leaves too little to our sense of wonderment, but a good movie all the same. Read full review

David Ansen

Hyams's attempt at a cosmic conclusion is about as earth shattering as yesterday's weather report. [10 Dec 1984, p.94]

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

As a standard science-fiction film, 2010 is fine. It has all the right plot elements, dramatic tension, and eye-popping special effects. The performances are uniformly good, the space-adventure scenes are excitingly handled, and the reappearance of HAL 9000 and Dullea is downright eerie. Yet it's hard to get over the fact that the purpose of this film is to tear down all the awe-inspiring effects of 2001. The sequel simply fails to fascinate and awe us like the original did. Read full review

Staff (Not Credited)

In Peter Hyams’ hands [working from a novel by Arthur C. Clarke], the HAL mystery is the most satisfying substance of the film and handled the best. Unfortunately, it lies amid a hodge-podge of bits and pieces. Read full review

Paul Attanasio

2010 is a one-man tour de fizzle, a yawnfest so plodding it seems to have been made by the famous monolith itself. [7 Dec 1984, p.D1]

SEE ALL 15 REVIEWS

Write a Review

Negative:

User Reviews

Kai82

Sep 26, 2021

This movie stands in the shadow of the prequel 2001: A Space Odyssey. However it has its merits. It has an immersive story, great cast and good effects for its time. I have to admit that the movie poster is a bit strange and unappealing and I never complaint about this in any previousThis movie stands in the shadow of the prequel 2001: A Space Odyssey. However it has its merits. It has an immersive story, great cast and good effects for its time. I have to admit that the movie poster is a bit strange and unappealing and I never complaint about this in any previous reviews. It would not have convinced me to see the movie. Like the prequel it is based on a book of Arthur C Clark named 2010: Odyssey Two which is part of a bigger story (The last two books have not be made into movies or not big enough that I heard of). It has the hard job to follow a prequel that is considered as one of the most influential movies of all time and a must see classic. I think it does a good job. The story starts approx 9 years after the events of 2001. On Earth no one knows what happened to the Discovery One and its crew on the mission to Jupiter. This is a huge mystery as the mission of the Discovery One was to investigate where a signal from a mysterious monolith which is far older than mankind's history went. Both the USA and Soviet Union are preparing a mission to investigate what happened. Because the orbit of Discovery One is unstable a joint venture between the super powers was made with the Soviets ship carrying the US crew as their ship can be finished faster. More complicating is that there are tensions as the cold war is becoming hotter than before (The movie was made in the cold war era when no one expected the Soviet Union to collapse before 2010). The journey will challenge the crew and the answers will change everything. I stop here with the set up. I like the story and build up. It is excellent and does work well. Also you get answers to mayor questions from 2001 like why did Hal 9000 do what he did. I never understood why people say that this movie is mediocre even with 2001 in mind. To be sacrilegious it has a bit of a better pacing than 2001 and explains what happened better (Mainly referring to the ending of 2001). Of cause it is also weaker than 2001 in some if not many regards and Stanley Kubrick is hard to replace even when Peter Hyams is a talented director. The cast is really good. There is Roy Schneider as Dr. Heywood Floyd. A strong and immersive performance, Bob Balaban impressed we as Dr. Chandra. Douglas Rain as HAL (voice) is again remarkably good. Helen Mirren as Tanya Kirbuk delivers a praiseworthy performance. The rest of the cast also delivers and I see no missteps here. The special effects were really good for its time and I think they hold up well enough. The sets are immersive and I never doubted the setting. The soundtrack enhances the atmosphere. Now to the hard question. Is it a weaker movie than 2001? I say that depends. It is easier accessible, answers more questions and is well made. 2001 has some weaknesses but those are depending more on preferences. Not many people will claim that 2001 is not carefully made and impressive. I say 2010 is a great movie but overshadowed by the prequel. Overall I give a 10/10 because I think without 2001 it would be better received. It was quite entertaining, well made and tells a relatable story with clear answers.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

eva3si0n

Feb 16, 2022

2010: The Year We Make Contact is a good sequel, which a priori cannot get better than the original. The sequel treats the original source well, has a good plot, does not defame the Soviet Union and at the same time develops history. This is a real adult Sci-Fi. The story of HAL9000 will2010: The Year We Make Contact is a good sequel, which a priori cannot get better than the original. The sequel treats the original source well, has a good plot, does not defame the Soviet Union and at the same time develops history. This is a real adult Sci-Fi. The story of HAL9000 will remain in my memory for a long time. You can recommend absolutely everyone, there is no such great timing as in the original, a more dynamic plot development and a bright ending.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Mahmus

Sep 25, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It can't be easy being a sequel to one of the greatest movies of all time.

2010 is a decent movie, but it doesn't even try to recapture the epic scope of the original. While I think it should be judged on its own merits (and there is a lot of merit to this movie), it's still hard to see it as more than a huge missed oportunity.

It was nice seeing the Discovery again. Keir Dullea as a now omnipresent Dave Bowman is probably the pest part of this movie. HAL gets a nice little redemption arc, which was surprisingly touching.

This movie isn't bad, it just had a lot too live up to. The final result is entertaining enough, but there's a reason it isn't as well remembered as its presecessor. I wouldn't be surprised if some people didn't even know this film existed.

It's a fine science fiction movie, but a Space Odyssey movie should be a lot more that just "fine".… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

DirigiblePulp

Sep 29, 2018

I absolutely applaud this film for not attempting to be “2001”, it’s the opposite in most respects. But it’s also pointless as a result. It’s a plot driven retread for the majority of it, and while the finale is interesting, it’s too little too late.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 4 REVIEWS