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