Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umd5.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!louie From: louie@umd5.UUCP Newsgroups: net.movies,net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: 2010 review--non spoiler Message-ID: <264@umd5.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 11:12:58 EST Article-I.D.: umd5.264 Posted: Mon Dec 10 11:12:58 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:16:53 EST References: <1193@bbncca.ARPA> Reply-To: louie@umd5.UUCP (Louis Mamakos) Organization: U of Md, CSC, College Park, Md Lines: 21 Xref: watmath net.movies:5177 net.sf-lovers:5359 Summary: In article <1193@bbncca.ARPA> sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) writes: >Many people have argued that 2010 should not be judged against 2001, one >of the most influential movies of all time. Perhaps it IS an unfair >comparison, for 2010 is inferior in almost every respect. Perhaps it IS unfair, but when a film is obviously a sequal to a classic, people will expect more (a lot more!) than they would out of the run of the mill film. Peter Hyams should have been aware of this. It was a little too 'blinky-light' for my taste. Just contrast the instrumentation of the Leonov with the Discovery. I agree with Steve, the opening sequence was just a too easy of a way out of explaining what happened. Despite these criticisms, I'll see 2010 one or two more times. It's not a bad movie; it just doesn't stack up to what I expected from 2001. Louis A. Mamakos Computer Science Center - Systems Programming University of Maryland, College Park Internet: louie@umd5.arpa UUCP: ..!seismo!cvl!umd5!louie