IF YOU are expecting to see a film like its predecessor, 2001: A Space Odyssey,2010 is definitely a disappointment. While building on the plot evolved in 2001, it's much less of a genre definer and groundbreaker than its predecessor, and more of a straight action adventure movie. Whatever its box office appeal, 2010 has major deficiencies that keep it from being a great movie.

It may be a mistake to compare 2010 to 2001, but it is after all a sequel, despite director Peter Hyams' claims to the contrary. The long, even tedious, introduction at the beginning, explaining the action of 2001 belies Hyam's statement that he intended to make a completely independent film, 2001 may have left you wondering what exactly Stanley Kubrick was trying to say, but it was definitely an intriguing film and helped define the science fiction genre. It must be remembered that when the film opened in 1968, man had yet to walk in space, put laboratories and reusable space vehicles into orbit or even land on some of our neighboring planets. New cinema to graphic techniques and plot design helped to make that film a true classic.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of 2010. Peter Hyams attempt to receive the old classic and explore some of the unanswered questions at the end of the original simply does not stand up. The new film is all too similar to so many of today's films, with an easily digestible plot and cardboard cutout instead of real characters. All the mystery of 2001 is completely lacking in this film.

Nine years after the original mission, a team of Soviets and Americans set out to discover the answers to the big questions left at the end of 2001. What happened to David Bowman? What is the true nature of the monolith? Why did Hal go crazy and try to kill the crew members abroad Discovery? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are intermixed with so much topical information on the state of the world today that they end up playing a secondary role to the film's political message.

This overt message, none too subtly integrated into the work, is that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. ought to work together for peace on the Earth. The Kremlin and the White House are portrayed as places of ignorance, unable to see the importance of cooperating for a better world. The specific instance in the film is the brewing conflict in Central America between the two superpowers. The cooperation of the scientists in space opposes this state of affairs. Told to break their vital connection and separate because of the conflict on Earth, the commanders refuse, symbolically showing the value of working together. This action is supposed to stand as a sign for the rest of the world to follow. But it remains frustratingly unclear in the movie why the Soviet commander capitulates to the head of the American expedition, Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider), without any explanation at all.

Now, there is nothing wrong with this message of hope, but the film deals with the intricacies of modern diplomacy in a naive and simplistic manner. The problems of the world aren't going to be solved by the cooperation of U.S. U.S.S.R. space teams, nor by the discovery of new life in the Universe. Men will be men, no matter how many monoliths litter the asteroid belt.

The acting maintains a generally high level, but the limitations on character growth are written into the script. Roy Scheider turns in a respectable performance as Dr. Heywood Floyd, head of the American team, displaying his usual macho character and coolness in all situations. But the best acting in the movie definitely comes from John Lithgow '70, who portrays Walter Curnow, an engineer who is totally out of his element in a spacesuit. Playing the paranoid role, Lithgow at one point fumbles hilariously with the oxygen mixture controls on his spacesuit and floats helplessly in space hiccuping uncontrollably.

Technically, 2010 is excellent. The cinematography is first-rate and the sound truly phenomenal. The special effects are also interesting, but not up to the exciting level of Star Wars and other science fiction movies. One very unsettling and careless moment, however, comes when the spaceship is about to return to Earth and the engines are thrusted while Lithgow is still outside. Still, he manages to climb back in. So much for reality.

THE PRESS PACKET for the movie opens with the lines "For how many years did we gaze into the night sky, wondering 'Are we indeed alone? Is man nothing more than an accident in the Universe, an orphan race lost forever in the void of space?'" This movie hardly seems capable of answering such profound questions. It is too stereotypical and too simplistic to address effectively these philosophical perplexities. The few hours go by pleasantly enough, and there are some suspenseful moments that will keep you on the edge of your seat, but don't expect anything like 2001.