Comments on: Why 2010 is better than 2001

By: jabberwocky

jabberwocky — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:01:31 +0000

I always though that 2001 is what happens if you do acid while filming a SciFi movie. and 2010 is the movie you make after you get out of rehab.

By: I Am Steven

I Am Steven — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:26:27 +0000

2001 is the art; 2010 is the class to learn about the art.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:34:28 +0000

Let me be clear, I personally don’t think 2010 is a BETTER movie than 2001…one film is art and fine tuned by one of the masters of the form, and the other is an entertaining bit of well-acted sci-fi. But 2010 IS easier to watch.

By: craig

craig — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:29:05 +0000

Of course 2010 is better! Why?… The olympics!
Go Canada!

(It occurs to me that sarcasm doesn’t always work in the written form, so if you could read this aloud in a sarcastic tone, I think my intent will come across.)

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:10:57 +0000

umm no. While it does have decent qualities to it 2010 is not even in the same field as 2001. I did like the Leonov ship design with it’s “real” world solution for gravity in space.

R.I.P. Roy Scheider