Peter Hyams' "2010" suffers from the need to give solid answers to questions for which only a fool would want a flat explanation. Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" respected the viewers' intelligence and left all interpretation up to them. The most fascinating works of art are the ones that inspire intense conversation and debate, and to this day people are still arguing about what "2001" meant and what can be deduced from it. After watching "2010," however, there is not much to discuss. All the answers have been provided, and they are simplistic explanations that reduce the complexities of the original film to meager Hollywood plot devices. The worst example is how HAL is made out to be a victim and is eventually redeemed into a hero, a pathetic betrayal of one of the screen's most mysterious antagonists.
As for the whole conflict between the Americans and the Soviets in the film, it did not add any interesting dimension to the plot. It came off more as a product of the cold war era rather than something that could be read into years later. "2001" still shines bright after three and a half decades, but "2010" is a generic, concrete, and ultimately forgettable. If you want to see a much more interesting science-fiction interpretation of a classic, try watching Hyams' "Outland," which is a creative take on Zinnemann's "High Noon."
As for the whole conflict between the Americans and the Soviets in the film, it did not add any interesting dimension to the plot. It came off more as a product of the cold war era rather than something that could be read into years later. "2001" still shines bright after three and a half decades, but "2010" is a generic, concrete, and ultimately forgettable. If you want to see a much more interesting science-fiction interpretation of a classic, try watching Hyams' "Outland," which is a creative take on Zinnemann's "High Noon."