2010: Underrated Sequel or Just…Meh?

Okay, so I just re-watched "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (yeah, the sequel to the legendary "2001: A Space Odyssey"). And I gotta say, I'm kinda torn. Like, it's NOT "2001," let's be real. No way. But I also think it gets an unfair amount of hate. I mean, it's directed by Peter Hyams, not Kubrick, so instant letdown right there. But it DOES try to explain some of the weird stuff that happened in the first movie, which I found kinda satisfying, even if it took away some of the mystique. Specifically, does anyone else think Roy Scheider absolutely nails Heywood Floyd? I thought he did a great job following up on William Sylvester even if the character feels a little different. Also, the whole tension between the Americans and the Soviets during the Cold War, but in SPACE?! Pretty cool concept, even it's maybe a tad cheesy sometimes. The visual effects are decent for the time too, though the Jupiter monolith is kinda... blockier than the one around Earth lol. But here's my question: Did they REALLY need to explain everything about the monoliths and what happened to Bowman? Was leaving it ambiguous actually better? I kinda feel like the mystery was part of what made "2001" so amazing, and "2010" just kinda... over-explained it. Like, "Oh, it's just aliens guiding humanity"... ok, cool. But also, kinda... boring compared to the existential dread of the first one? So yeah, what are your thoughts? Am I crazy for kinda liking this movie? Or is it truly the cinematic sin everyone says it is? Let me know!