sign in
register
Watch
Apple TV Google Play Movies Fandango At Home
+4
2010: The Year We Make Contact
2010: The Year We Make Contact
+4
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
2010: The Year We Make Contact

2010: The Year We Make Contact

1984
Sci-fi, Suspense/Thriller
1h 56m
A joint American-Soviet space expedition is sent to Jupiter to learn what happen to the Discovery. (imdb)

Directed by:

Peter Hyams

Screenwriter:

Arthur C. Clarke, Peter Hyams

Starring:

Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, Bob Balaban, Keir Dullea, Douglas Rain, Elya Baskin, Madolyn Smith Osborne, James McEachin

Franchise:

Space Odyssey

Genres:

Sci-fi, Suspense/Thriller, Adventure, Mystery

AKA:

2010

Country:

USA

Languages:

English, Russian
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

2010: The Year We Make Contact

1984
Sci-fi, Suspense/Thriller
1h 56m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 46.43% from 1259 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(1266)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 24 Jul 2012
75
65th
I should've taken more from this movie but I couldn't, I was focused on Roy Scheider having pet dolphins in his living room.
Rated 24 Jul 2012
spleenspleen
Rated 25 Oct 2010
67
35th
How do you make space boring?
Rated 25 Oct 2010
gravymaximusGravyMaximus
Rated 30 May 2007
70
66th
Seriously, what's with the low scores? Good fucking movie.
Rated 30 May 2007
begoniabolbegoniabol
Rated 11 Dec 2016
55
45th
Not that good. It's very slow at parts, quite 'American' at parts (that kiss, eehh), acting not that great, and the music didn't fit that well. Still, story was pretty good, but I'll definitely have to read the book.
Rated 11 Dec 2016
roofsrunnerroofs_runner
Rated 16 Feb 2015
66
29th
Too weak to be called 2001's sequel, too weak as a book adaptation, somehow OK as a standalone story.
Rated 16 Feb 2015
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 13 Jan 2012
74
74th
It gets a tough rap because it's so often compared to one of the finest movies ever made. "2001" should not stop you watching "2010". It is in its own right a stonkingly good piece of sci-fi. The performances are good, the atmosphere palpable & the concepts intriguing. It looks good too (not "2001" good admittedly!) There's so much scope for expansion in "2010", it's a shame Hyams didn't really push the boat out, but I think he was afraid of being accused of trying to out Kubrick, Kubrick!
Rated 13 Jan 2012
xacviantxacviant
Rated 21 Jul 2011
74
34th
I was pretty harsh on this film when I reviewed it years ago (I gave it a 45 and called it "2001, but shitty"), but it's really not that bad - it's just not on the same level as 2001. It tries to grapple with the essentially incomprehensible in its own way, and does so with a strong cast, some fine scenes and compelling themes, and a slick production. It's not a great film - but it is a good one.
Rated 21 Jul 2011
talyn_golicTalyn Golic
Rated 01 Aug 2010
70
29th
On it's own this is pretty decent, a realistic sci-fi movie with some good acting and an interesting plot that ties the political tensions of the cold war to the discovery of alien intelligence. The problem is that it's the sequel to the genre-defining 2001 and simply can't match it's predecessors ambition or intelligence. The ending also hammers you over the head with it's message to the point where it loses any relevance. The sequel to 2001 needed to be extraordinary, this is merely passable.
Rated 01 Aug 2010
mentaculusMentaculus
Rated 10 Mar 2010
55
28th
When it's not cowering under the Monolith's (Kubrick's 2001) mighty large shadow, this is a generally competent and good film. But when it does, and tries to explain the proceedings through listless excursive dialogue and trite narration, it fails miserably.
Rated 10 Mar 2010
deproductiondeproduction
Rated 04 May 2008
84
64th
The true value in 2010 is if you just didn't want 2001 to stop. 2001 was one of the best films ever made and 2010 is only a shadow of it. On its own 2010 would be good, but forgettable.
Rated 04 May 2008
pebapeba
Rated 14 Oct 2007
80
26th
Not as good as the original
Rated 14 Oct 2007
fyngyrzfyngyrz
Rated 20 Aug 2007
9
62nd
A decent follow-up to 2001. But see 2001 first.
Rated 20 Aug 2007
mrbeckmrbeck
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
25th
Although it was the sequel to 2001: A space Odyssey, there is really no need to see this. The explanation for Hal's malfunction in the original probably took all of 2 minutes to think up and completely trivialized the entire first movie, and nothing interesting was done to support the rest of the film. Not impressed. See it only if you're really curious after watching "2001:".
Rated 14 Aug 2007
supergloosupergloo
Rated 14 Aug 2007
2
4th
Talk about a film that didn't need to be made.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
irvinejumpirvinejump
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
34th
Less than impressed that HAL9000 saves the day after going psycho in the first film
Rated 14 Aug 2007
stainStain
Rated 30 Mar 2007
80
68th
Good but not a patch on the original
Rated 30 Mar 2007
sproostsproost
Rated 17 Feb 2024
70
66th
Really bad-ass looking piece of retro-futurism. The sets and graphic design keep the movie constantly interesting. It has a depth and originality that (most) computer generated background cannot achieve. Sure, it's faker than cgi generated backdrops, but still feels more real and present and tactile. Guess i'm a luddite now. The story is a reflection of the cold war tensions around the time it came out. At least they speak real Russian! I think it's a cool sequel, much better than i expected
Rated 17 Feb 2024
simhoopsimhoop
Rated 21 Aug 2022
70
64th
I kept putting this off knowing it would be terrible. Instead, it was pretty all right. Tense and fun, although seems to retcon some of the stuff that made 2001 so brilliant.
Rated 21 Aug 2022
wwallce4prezWWallce4prez
Rated 15 Feb 2022
74
56th
Too much effort is spent from viewers comparing this to the original. Taken for what it is, 2010 is a solid science fiction film with impressive visuals. It isn't a dream-like poem of mythic proportions that its predecessor is, but the film nicely straddles the post-Star Wars mid 80s with something that more resembles Alien aesthetics. Ultimately, the Cold War plot mechanics bog down the plot but I still really enjoyed this.
Rated 15 Feb 2022
mrcimrci
Rated 31 Oct 2021
54
38th
Pros: special effects, explanation of some uncertainties from 2001. Cons: plot, acting, Russian-American war.
Rated 31 Oct 2021
yamilvidalYamilVidal
Rated 17 Apr 2021
97
98th
Beautiful piece of hard sci-fi. So ahead of it's time when it comes to AI. People might be hard on it because of being a sequel to 2001 and being clearly a different type of movie. Less mystical and more down to earth.
Rated 17 Apr 2021
evilmangoesEvilMangoes
Rated 22 Jan 2021
30
14th
D
Rated 22 Jan 2021
montycircusMontyCircus
Rated 22 Jan 2020
40
38th
Like the book it was adapted from, it's not as good as the first. Helen Mirren does a great Russian accent, but I guess that shouldn't be much of a surprise.
Rated 22 Jan 2020
lance20000lance20000
Rated 27 Aug 2019
75
57th
It's a big ask, but try not to compare this movie to Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you are able to judge 2010: The YearWe Make Contact on its own merits, it's a decent film. It's missing the subtext of 2001 and it isn't nearly as captivating, but it is a no-nonsense hard-sci fi film that is a decent interpretation of Arthur C. Clarke's writing.
Rated 27 Aug 2019
jeffrawrjeffrawr
Rated 04 Oct 2018
45
22nd
why did they make this
Rated 04 Oct 2018
driscarpindriscarpin
Rated 16 Dec 2017
64
37th
Em honra do centenário de Arthur C. Clarke. BlurayRip no MakingOff.
Rated 16 Dec 2017
hotsakehotsake
Rated 16 Sep 2017
60
51st
This was a pretty good movie that tried to tie together some of the loose ends from 2001, should they had done that, not but it doesn't really hurt the original and this didn't really suffer that much from it either. It's a solid if not always entertaining science fiction film.
Rated 16 Sep 2017
skottnissSkottniss
Rated 19 Jul 2017
30
17th
It's watchable, but not very good in any way. It feels like a very typical american Hollywood flick, with little to no artistic value or depth. It does provide explanations for the loose ends in the first movie, although they're not very satisfying. The only good part of this movie were the dialogues with HAL. Wouldn't recommend it, if you need explanations/interpretations for the first movie, I suggest googling around some, there are far more interesting interpretations out there than this one
Rated 19 Jul 2017
buffratingsbuffratings
Rated 09 May 2017
64
36th
Peter Hyams' film never lives up to its predecessor, perhaps rightfully so, but 2010 is an underrated sequel with an engaging story and impressive visuals.
Rated 09 May 2017
bratingsbratings
Rated 29 Oct 2016
63
40th
Peter Hyams' film never lives up to its predecessor, perhaps rightfully so, but 2010: The Year We Make Contact is an underrated sequel with an engaging story and impressive visuals.
Rated 29 Oct 2016
letskillrobotsletskillrobots
Rated 10 Apr 2016
24
71st
I don't buy into sequels ruining an original. I just don't think you can undo what has already happened. However 2010 does seem to undermine what made 2001 great: the isolation, the overwhelming tense scenes, and the blurring lines of humanity. When the two films' themes clashed (last half) it was intriguing, but overall lacking and cheesy, almost gimmicky. Like piggybacking off greatness w/o having your own merit established. Basically, 2001 is Barcelona and 2010 is the San Jose Earthquakes.
Rated 10 Apr 2016
jarmannJarmann
Rated 15 Oct 2015
65
31st
Way too much a direct copy of the book. When it differs it is in the wrong direction.
Rated 15 Oct 2015
bofbof
Rated 04 Mar 2015
68
55th
It wisely doesn't try to be 2001 2: Galactic Boogaloo, instead settles for "just" being a well-made big-budget sci-fi movie that just happens to be set in the same world as its predecessor. It gets preachy, but hey, everything got preachy in 1984. And at least they didn't have the astronauts rollerskating to Pat Benetar.
Rated 04 Mar 2015
damildamil
Rated 18 Feb 2015
70
67th
It was actually pretty decent. Now, it hardly needs to be said, but it doesn't live up to the heights of 2001: A Space Odyssey by a long shot. And the director doesn't really try to either, which was a smart move. But as a continuation of the story, I thought it was a pretty good sequel. It's slow-moving, and the characters aren't terribly three-dimensional, but it has some truly great scenes, particularly towards the end. Overall, I think it's a good science fiction film.
Rated 18 Feb 2015
alcyonalcyon
Rated 24 Nov 2012
65
60th
The bastard child of greatness can only ever be mediocre at best. Story, acting and directing are so-so if not worse, but it does the whole hard sf space thing right and that's enough for a pass for me. Just.
Rated 24 Nov 2012
brandonsbrandons
Rated 03 Jul 2012
60
38th
Not a masterpiece, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's pleasing to see a sequel strive so hard to reach the same heights. That if fails is through no fault of its own - the original simply raised the bar too high.
Rated 03 Jul 2012
mervtaylorMerv_Taylor
Rated 15 Jun 2012
85
58th
Okay sequel that shouldn't exist
Rated 15 Jun 2012
gillsoloGillSolo
Rated 09 Jun 2012
80
73rd
Of course it does not live up to Kubricks masterpiece that is 2001. That being said I still like it for what it is: Fascinating Sci-fi.
Rated 09 Jun 2012
zachreviewsZachReviews
Rated 10 May 2012
89
62nd
Not as groundbreaking as the first, but great in it's own right :)
Rated 10 May 2012
pilgermannpilgermann
Rated 25 Jun 2011
75
64th
Of course it's not 2001, but at least Hyams was smart enough to not emulate that film. As it is, it's a pretty nice movie.
Rated 25 Jun 2011
paul_hPaul H
Rated 18 Mar 2011
88
51st
Very bizzare movie. It is not very good as a sequel to 2001, but manages to be good as something completely different.
Rated 18 Mar 2011
rthornhillrthornhill
Rated 17 Mar 2011
77
15th
favorite line: easy as cake, a piece of pie..... not so easy to make a worthy sequel to a classic film however.........
Rated 17 Mar 2011
frederFreder
Rated 11 Feb 2011
40
28th
Pedantic and commercial, in no way a fitting follow-up to a movie that needed no follow-up anyway.
Rated 11 Feb 2011
svnhfsvnhf
Rated 30 Oct 2010
66
43rd
One might almost call this a blemish on the 2001 legacy. However, I won't. It does not hold a candle, barely even a lit match, to its predecessor and Hyams added so much Hollywood drama that I almost vomited but all in all 2010 is just so average. There is nothing special about it, other than its the worthless sequel to the best movie ever made. It is a sci-fi adventure at its most basic, even the technical aspect was better in 2001. Hyams didn't write the story but he made the movie. For shame.
Rated 30 Oct 2010
suture_selfSuture Self
Rated 15 Mar 2010
4
34th
Aww the Soviets and the Americans get along. That's cute.
Rated 15 Mar 2010
lakefxdanlakefxdan
Rated 28 Dec 2009
75
20th
Journeyman adaptation of a stepdown sequel by Clarke. Hyams is good in some space scenes but awful directing people.
Rated 28 Dec 2009
mechatiggerMechatigger
Rated 09 Dec 2009
43
12th
This disappointing follow-up suffers from an overexplanation of events better left shrouded in mystery.
Rated 09 Dec 2009
sophiesophie
Rated 29 Nov 2009
75
68th
Not a great sequel but actually quite enjoyable if you don't think of it as a sequel to 2001
Rated 29 Nov 2009
isobelmoonIsobelmoon
Rated 03 Aug 2009
91
95th
One of the greatest sci-fi movies of all times
Rated 03 Aug 2009
canguroCanguro
Rated 01 Aug 2009
3
0th
Completely superfluous.
Rated 01 Aug 2009
chemical404chemical404
Rated 01 Jul 2009
67
75th
Decent space adventure. Don't compare it to Kubrick's masterpiece, and it will be okay.
Rated 01 Jul 2009
empiremagempiremag
Rated 13 Apr 2009
3
40th
"Not a masterpiece, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's pleasing to see a sequel strive so hard to reach the same heights. That it fails is through no fault of its own - the original simply raised the bar too high."
Rated 13 Apr 2009
skiewulfyskiewulfy
Rated 26 Feb 2009
50
56th
I actually liked this better than 2001, but it was also far more typical and unfortunately, forgettable. It also didn't help that it follows the cold war message that had been done to death, and seems less relevant in modern times. But nonetheless I have to give the film credit for not needing an antagonist other than the environmental dangers and sticking with the science and exploration theme, rather than devolving into an action thriller.
Rated 26 Feb 2009
fudgiebfudgieb
Rated 31 Jan 2009
83
50th
I think this film deserves a little more recognition than it gets. It's really cool to watch directly after watching 2001. There are some genuinely unsettling moments.
Rated 31 Jan 2009
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 22 Dec 2008
65
69th
good movie
Rated 22 Dec 2008
janusjanus
Rated 15 Dec 2008
70
52nd
It lacks the hypnotic qualities and memorable images of 2001, but this film works in its own little ways, as a decent adaptation of Arthur Clarke's novel and as a way of tying up some of the loose ends of 2001 while posing new, unanswered questions. Considering how audacious and arrogant it is to attempt to follow up a classic, I'm surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did.
Rated 15 Dec 2008
optimusmikeOptimus_mike
Rated 02 Dec 2008
60
34th
Obviously far weaker then 2001 but on its own it is a decent Sci-fi movie.
Rated 02 Dec 2008
somnivoresomnivore
Rated 05 Nov 2008
75
25th
It doesn't begin to measure up to 2001.
Rated 05 Nov 2008
jebJeb
Rated 21 Oct 2008
80
64th
As a sequel to 2001, this fails miserably. But as a film on it's own, this is a spectacular and wonderful achievement in the sci-fi genre. I know I'm overrating it, but I was thoroughly enjoyed and thought this was a very incredible movie that really shines.
Rated 21 Oct 2008
garlonussGarlonuss
Rated 21 Oct 2008
73
37th
If you're not a sci-fi buff, this may not interest you at all. But this was quite a fun one for me. You don't really have to have seen "2001: A Space Odessy" to watch this one, but it could help. They give you what information you may need in order to understand what is happening.
Rated 21 Oct 2008
hstephen9hstephen9
Rated 24 Aug 2008
30
24th
Terrible. Clarke (RIP) should have protested the director's choices - and he even appeared in a cameo!
Rated 24 Aug 2008
recklessmessrecklessmess
Rated 07 Mar 2008
60
37th
The cold-war stuff was just too hokie to get past. That, and Roy Scheider was grossly inadequate as Heywood Floyd. "You're gonna need a bigger spaceship!"
Rated 07 Mar 2008
astralartistAstralArtist
Rated 23 Feb 2008
70
6th
They should've left well enough alone.
Rated 23 Feb 2008
doctor7doctor7
Rated 14 Dec 2007
73
57th
While nowhere near as good as 2001, 2010 does provide a good sci-fi adventure. It is clear that Peter Hyams has a far different style from Kubrick and, where Kubrick uses slow-pacing, Hyams employs rather fast cuts. This can be quite jarring at times but there is some good cinematography. Still the overall story of 2010 is quite good, with decent explanations of events from the first film and memorable characters. Certainly worth a watch so long as you don't expect the greatness of 2001.
Rated 14 Dec 2007
dustydDustyd
Rated 17 Sep 2007
60
39th
decent sci-fi
Rated 17 Sep 2007
geopoopGeopoop
Rated 19 Aug 2007
62
64th
Unlike it's predicessor, this one isn't worth it
Rated 19 Aug 2007
spacecadetSpaceCadet
Rated 14 Aug 2007
35
11th
I don't know how Hyams could have possibly thought he would have lived up to Kubrick's amazing 2001. Bad plot comes head-on with cheesy 80's special effects.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
lachapellelachapelle
Rated 14 Aug 2007
48
15th
This film is dated and and is a very poor follow up to the Kubrick classic. The acting is weak, even Lithgow, who is always good, delivers a cardboard performance. The book on the other hand is quite good, but also can't compare to 2001.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
djrossdjross
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
44th
Faced with the impossibility of living up to the first film, the filmmakers took the conservative option of not trying. Distant recollection is that any science fictional-type themes were largely replaced with a rather ho-hum exhortation to peace and cooperation in the context of the Cold War. Perhaps that's what Clarke preferred, given that the novelist communicated extensively with the filmmaker prior to production.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 22 Feb 2007
65
73rd
Good film.
Rated 22 Feb 2007

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...