2001 is an overblown, avant-garde art project. Credit where it's due, it absolutely was groundbreaking in many aspects in its time, and thus it remains a pioneer. But it's hard to argue that not all of those aspects have stood the test of time, indeed it's rather likely to test the modern viewer's patience, if anything.

2010 sheds all that chaff though, and instead offers a genuine movie experience, on that merit alone it can already be considered better when viewed through a modern lens. That doesn't mean it's cut to absolute pieces either, as it still boasts an almost two-hour long runtime, so there's plenty to see and get lost in. There's time to build a solid foundation to start with, something beyond jumping off the "we're going back to discover what happened" block: we start off from Earth, and that connection remains throughout the movie, with links and flashbacks and events back home very much having an effect on the crew out there. On one hand, I think this constant background oppression, without much direct presence, greatly contributes to the atmosphere of the movie, especially with the inclusion of actual Russian chatter. The viewer gets a rather persistent sense of being stifled, being suffocated, as if there's not enough air to breathe... which is very apt, literally and figuratively. Amidst all this, we do get answers: the crew does manage to return, they do figure out what happened (which in itself is also a rather realistic situation, all things considered)... but at the same time they also fall down the proverbial rabbit hole, and soon enough we find ourselves facing the mystery yet again. And it's this inscrutability of it all, on the other hand, that we still don't really learn what's going on or why, who's doing it or how, the fact that scientists themselves are left scratching their heads as they're forced to observe and feel - this is the other thing that makes the movie work very well. The answers we get only lead to yet more questions, but we barely even have time to ask those, only to ponder them afterwards, off-screen as it were, just like those details influencing the fate of the crew happen on Earth. Everything works together incredibly well to create - not necessarily a sense of immediate threat, not necessarily a sense of direct urgency... but definitely a sense of under-the-surface unrest, tension even, something that never really lets the viewer relax. And that's certainly a strong concentrate of the cold war era.

Having said all this, 2010 isn't without faults. It really is an 80s movie, which can be highly subjective hit-or-miss. Some things do look dated, perhaps even illogical. The mirroring of real-life events, of real-life relationships, the obvious political messaging - these aren't necessarily the ingredients of science fiction as such, so that's just one more reason not to like any of it. Both the visual and abstract elements are realistic enough to potentially make some viewers uncomfortable, for one reason or another. Especially when watching it after 2001, there's enough of a disconnect to question whether this is a sequel at all: whereas 2001 aimed and being grandiose and meticulous, 2010 wears its "product of its time" badge with honour, like the thick layer of dust on Discovery.

Fwiw, it's certainly quite an experience to dive into that particular world, that particular atmosphere, without the usual clichés of bullets flying all around, or spies and their impossible gadgets.