Ten Sci-Fi Flicks for the Thinking Man
Summary
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last four years, you know that the cheesy old sci-fi TV series known as Battlestar Galactica got picked up, dusted off, and given the all-time, grand champion, mother of all reboots. Solidly led by a couple of veteran movie actors (Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell), BSG has garnered a reputation as one of the best shows on TV. But don't just call it a sci-fi show; its so much more than that. It's about love and loss. It's about what it means to be a soldier, and what it's like to be a refugee. It's about religion and fanaticism. It's about government and corruption. But mostly it's about our own humanity, and what it really means to be human. Since some of us here are at RT are huge BSG fans (and we're betting some of you are too), in honor of the beginning of the end (starting next week), we thought we'd share a list of "thinking man's" sci-fi films; sci-fi stories that aren't about laser battles or rampaging mutants, but more thoughtful pieces on what it really means to be human. Back to Article
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last four years, you know that the cheesy old sci-fi TV series known as Battlestar Galactica got picked up, dusted off, and given the all-time, grand champion, mother of all reboots. Solidly led by a couple of veteran movie actors (Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell), BSG has garnered a reputation as one of the best shows on TV. But don't just call it a sci-fi show; its so much more than that. It's about love and loss. It's about what it means to be a soldier, and what it's like to be a refugee. It's about religion and fanaticism. It's about government and corruption. But mostly it's about our own humanity, and what it really means to be human. Since some of us here are at RT are huge BSG fans (and we're betting some of you are too), in honor of the beginning of the end (starting next week), we thought we'd share a list of "thinking man's" sci-fi films; sci-fi stories that aren't about laser battles or rampaging mutants, but more thoughtful pieces on what it really means to be human. Back to Article
(1-320 of 320 posts) | Reply
on Jan 07 2009 06:50 PM Nice work here, Jeff. I'm glad you mentioned Solaris. And I hope to one day have the pull in Hollywood to make a movie like 2001. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 06:51 PM "Thinking man's sci-fi" is a contradiction in terms. Not a bad list though. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 06:54 PM This list gives a visual representation as to why Sci-Fi is my favorite genre, yet I like so few sci-fi movies. Brilliant group of films. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 06:56 PM That's because most sci-fi is terrible. There are far more "Supernova"s than there are "Blade Runner"s. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 07 2009 06:58 PM Cool list, I actually have never watched Battle Star. Why isn't Alien or Aliens on this list?!? Especially Aliens?!? The final cut of Blade Runner is definitely my favorite Sci-Fi film, then 2001, then Solaris, then Empire Strikes Back, then Aliens, and finally Back to The Future. The Dark City Director's Cut is great and I like it more then the original cut which I already thought was great. Also of-course the T1 and T2, but those are more along the lines of action but offers a lot I think intellectually. I would say there hasn't been a great Sci Fi film since Children of Men, and I also really liked Minority Report which had a great concept. I cant wait til next year considering all the Sci Fi films coming out- Avatar, Star Trek, T4, and Transformers 2. Yes all of those wont be great films I think except maybe Avatar, I think Star Trek and T4 will turn out pretty good, and I am still unsure of Transformers 2- I just hope it has a better story this time and they could easily make a better sequel. I actually have not see Gattaca yet, I just never got around to it but I will check it out soon. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 07:04 PM The problem, as I see it Jokerboy, is that, much like literature, most sci-fi is a pastiche moved into the future: "Firefly" was a western with space-ships. "Blade Runner" is more film noir than anything else. You get the idea. In SF writing circles, this is sometimes known as "used furniture." (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 07:33 PM Glad to see Dark City featured so prominently. Of all the movies that did that artificial reality thing, Dark City did it best. At least it came up with something better than using humans for generating electricity. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 07:46 PM The Battlestar Galactica series will be the first television series in which I will buy. A must own in my opinion. It will be my pleasure to introduce this series to all of those whom I meet that have slept on it. I just hope that Caprica is as good as Battlestar. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 08:08 PM In reply to this comment (#2236531) Yeah I love it when Sci Fi combines with other genres like the awesome Firefly and Blade Runner, I don't get why filmmakers don't ever try that approach now when doing a Sci Fi film. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 07 2009 08:22 PM Okay my homeboys, I was like "This list is pimp!" until, the end. "Blade Crawler" and "2001: A Space Odyssey"... Okay, "2001" is very good, especially HAL 9000, but it's a little overated. I never sensed an alleged controversy about human battle such stuff AAAAAAAA!!!! The ending makes no sense, no frekin' sense. But like I said, ya otta love HAL. 7/10. As for "Blade Crawler", I only saw the theatrical version, and it was so dissapointing. I liked the Harrison Ford parts ( I liked Fords narration by the way) and the film looked great. But the replicants were so boring. What makes them different? I don't know. And there was too much emphasis on scenary instead action or plot. Massive letdown. 4/10. I agree with jokerboy, some stuff is definatley missing. Although, jokerboy I wouldn't worry about Transformers 2, I'm worried about Star Trek. I think the new trailer was shock full of cliches. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 08:27 PM In reply to this comment (#2236676) Go watch the final cut before you render any opinion on "Blade Runner" - one of my favorite movies of all time. As for why "Aliens" isn't on this list... it's a great movie, but it doesn't make you think, as in, contemplate any of life's various mysteries, which is what this list is supposed to be about. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 09:14 PM Gattaca is my favorite movie, period. I also haven't seen Battlestar, will have to check it out. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 09:27 PM Director Robert Zemeckis's adaptation of Carl Sagan's novel, 'Contact' should be on the short list as well....hopefully, Warner'll show some Bluray love for this title in 09'. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 10:10 PM You know, I'm not sure how people don't understand 2001... It's not meant to be fully understood because it deals with subjects that we can only wonder about. Very good list though, I haven't seen all of them, but I will definitely check the rest of them out. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 10:22 PM Where is "Sunshine"?!? Even "28 Days Later" has amazing social/human commentary. Danny Boyle deserves a little love on this list. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 07 2009 10:30 PM Great list! I'd also include the original sci-fi classic, though, Metropolis. I can't wait for the new DVD with so much of the old footage recovered! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 10:31 PM Good list, but where is 12 Monkeys and Brazil. Those are two staples of great, intelligent sci-fi. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 07 2009 11:20 PM In reply to this comment (#2236504) Is this a joke? Sci-fi when done well can produce some of the most cerebral fiction imaginable. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 12:18 AM Alien (space creature genre), Terminator and 12 Monkeys (time travel genre) should also make the list. Anyways, great list, could be my favourite movies list. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 02:16 AM In reply to this comment (#2237158) Uh, no...try looking up the difference between science-fiction and sci-fi; maybe do a bit of research before you say something. Most people even many casual fans, don't know that the terms refer to different things. There is a world of difference between something like Malzberg's "Galaxies" and crap like "Galaxy 666." Is there anybody in the world who knows anything about literary history any more? You're talking to someone who eats, breaths, and sleeps sf out of all proportion to reason. Like said, maybe next time it would help if you actually knew something about the genre before posting. Science-fiction, certainly, is never less than thought provoking even when it fails to engage on all levels. Sci-fi on the other hand is the pap that most people (almost usually rightly so) dismiss out of hand for being crap with aliens, laser guns, time travel, space-ships. You know the, silly stuff. That's not to say it can't be fun and moving in it's way. I refuse to call that a "guilty pleasure" because there's nothing guilty about it. Some of my favorite books are "mere" sci-fi ("The Man Who Never Missed," "Skinner," "War Games," etc), but they pale in comparison to things like "Kirinyaga," or "Dying Inside." Do you see what I'm getting at yet? If you want to know about SF, start with the name Hugo Gernsback and read the following, "Breakfast in the Ruins," "The Dreams our Stuff is Made Of," and "Critical Theory and Science-Fiction." Let me know when you want to get serious about this discussion. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 02:53 AM Furthermore, I should point out that the article you're commenting on is titled, "Thinking Man's Sci-Fi." Not, "Good Sci-Fi" in the sense that there are good and bad action movies, but that by implication that the bulk of visual sci-fi isn't very good. SF has long had a very intense stigma (like Philip Klass who had to publish pseudonymously to protect his academic career from being destroyed) whereas fantasy (and in case you didn't know, the two were originally bundled together as they both encompass ideas and ideals of the fantastic) in it's modern discreet genre, has, by dint of popularity thanks to things like The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, has some parity with the general public. Most people write it off due to the wrong-headed perception of what SF is and is not. In this case, sci-fi is usually seen as interchangeable with speculative fiction. Granted they are the reverse and obverse of a single coin, but they are about the same as Silhouette books are to something like "Ali and Nino." Ok, I'm done for now. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 04:00 AM Wow sounds like Detrs is channeling Harlan Ellison!!! He is correct of course on the difference between Speculative Fiction or SF and what Hollywood calls "Sci Fi". Nevertheless, a great list from Mr. Giles and RT. I was surprised to see so much of my personal favorites in this list. Glad to see "Primer" and "Dark City" get some love, and "Gattaca" as well. I remember one interesting thing the director of "Gattaca" said when the movie was released....he said that the look of the film was dictated by the small budget....they didn't have the money to make the film look "futuristic' so they gave it a "film noir" look instead. This means the film was actually improved (in my opinion) by having a smaller budget. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 04:24 AM Thinking man's sci fi? More like sleeping man's sci fi. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am going to be the dissenting voice here. I think almost all of these movies are over-rated snooze fests. In my opinion, the greatest sci fi flicks keep the action rolling, films like Alien, Aliens, The Terminator, Terminator 2, and The Empire Strikes Back. And the Tomatometer backs me up. The films I list have Tomatometer ratings of 97%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 97%, respectively. None of the movies listed in this article have ratings this high. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 05:34 AM Actually, season 1 of BSG was about all those things mentioned in the OP, but now its about religious toasters, drama, weed induced hallucinations, and who knows what else. There was even some anti-iraq war plot in there for a while. It stopped being a thinking mans sci fi in season 2, and turned into Lost (ABC show) in Space (not that tv show). I want to see more fighting, space battles, lasers, man vs machine, and less Desperate Housewives. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 05:49 AM I'm glad Gattaca is part of this list. I love that film. But i admit that i was very disappointed by the "sci" in Children of Men's sci-fi. They didn't even attempt to explain why there are no more children, if it's the men's fault what made them sterile or why that black chick is the only one who can get pregnant. How can Children of Men be called "thinking man's sci-fi" if it offers you nothing to think about? (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 06:24 AM Good list. I'll take thought-provoking excitement over uncomprehensible pretention any day. To say that "Children of Men" offers nothing to think about is a little short-sighted. There were plenty of indications as to why no more children were being born. The commentary on greed, fear, despair and hopelessness and eventual redemption gave me plenty to think about. What happens when a disposable society runs out of it's most precious and most vital replacement? The scene in the school is haunting. "Dark City" rightfully earns a spot on the list. I've liked it since I saw it in the theater years ago. The first time I saw "The Matrix," after the special effects started to wane, I realized that I had already seen much of the same story told in much better fashion. By the way,"The Matrix" also borrowed heavily from "The Terminator," which in turn owes a big nod to an old "Outer Limits" episode. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 07:23 AM I haven't watched this in about 20 years, so flame away if I'm way off base, but I remember really enjoying a movie called "Enemy Mine". I haven't thought about it in years, but just the title of this list made me recall it, which sort of speaks to how strong its message was, at least to me. Like some of the other movies on this list, it spoke of more important issues with only a backdrop in the realm of science fiction. Or maybe it was just that my silly, adolescent love for fighter pilot movies had me like Dennis Quaid & Louis Gossett Jr. at the time (i.e. Right Stuff & Iron Eagle). Either way I should try and find that movie to watch again. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 07:27 AM In reply to this comment (#2237303) Detrs: Your points would be much better taken--even thought-provoking, perhaps-- if you a) didn't attempt to force them with a sanctimonious windbag attitude and b) bothered to check your spelling or grammar. I normally give folks a pass on this site and god knows I make mistakes, too, but when you drop the 'My sh#t is bigger than yours' crap, especially when claiming a superior grasp of LITERATURE, it helps if you pretend like you've ever accurately written and punctuated a couple of sentences, yourself. As for this list, since RT did not offer their definition of 'Sci-Fi,' it leaves a fair amount of latitude on what belongs here. I generally like it, though. I agree with many of the submissions by others about what else should be here: 'Terminator (1 and/or 2)', 'Matrix,' and '12 Monkeys,' for example. I will say that I started off loving 'Sunshine' but thought the ending was such a pathetic, cop-out betrayal of all it started off with that I'm quite certain it was never considered for this list. '28 Days' is a much stronger representation of Danny Boyle's work. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 07:35 AM Wow only one I havn't seen and it's top of my Netflix instaplay list. Well I guess I'm watching Primer tonight, other than that great list. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 07:45 AM Brazil The Matrix Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 09:06 AM Oww, Detrs hurt my brain... I thought I was a sci-fi nerd. I guess I was just thinking about small potoes. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 09:10 AM I think we can all agree there is one genre that sci-fi hasen't meshed with... ANIMATION!! I bid you to name one good animated sci-fi film. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 10:25 AM In reply to this comment (#2237804) Wall*E Also could 'The Iron Giant' be considered sci-fi? That is an excellent animated film either way. Oh and 'Atlantis' was decent as well. I just saw a trailer online for an animated post-apocalyptic film called '9' that looks really interesting. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 10:37 AM 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is a given, but I would add Herzog's LESSONS OF DARKNESS to the list. It's only sort of a documentary on the burning oil fields of Kuwait post-Desert Storm. It takes a distant approach, has an otherworldly mood, and the narration is written as if spoken by an alien observer. At the risk of getting flak, I think A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is worthy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 11:24 AM Exactly Buck69!! I feel the same way about the "The Matrix" and "Dark City" that you do! Everytime some (younger) person starts raving about "The Matrix", I always suggest they check out "Dark City" and mention to them that it came out 13 months before "Matrix". Nine times out of ten, they have never even heard of it. I totally forgot about "Enemy Mine"....a great film I personally think "The Iron Giant" qualifies as alternate history, which would place it as Speculative Fiction or SF, so maybe it can be considered Sci Fi. A fantastic movie from the director of "The Incredibles". I think RT intentionally stayed away from Animated Features because then they would have to bring in Anime, and that's a whole 'nother list!!!! (Hint Hint RT Staff!!!!) (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 12:18 PM Great list, one of RT's best (if not THE best). Dark City is one of my all-time favorite films. I know you can't fit every sci-fi film on here, but there's a couple that deserve an honorable mention; THX-1138 and Silent Running. And I know this isn't a movie, but Farscape is worth mentioning as a great series that really messed with your head while exploring the possibilities of human potential. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 12:38 PM The real problem with sci-fi is that it has become inherently navel-gazing left-wing nonsense. Look at the show held up as the current gold standard: Battlestar Galactica. Although it started out as a decent show that could have become classic, with a clear-cut war between a ruthless enemy and the beleaguered human race, it quickly became another tiresome hippie screed. Every show the Cylons lecture humans about how 'destructive' and 'warlike' we are (didn't they nuke our home planet???), we have to listen to a bunch of new-agey 'gods' stuff, we are told that in a time of survival crisis it's more important to have a president (who is of course a woman dying in a Christ-complex scenario and taking alternative medicines to reveal her inner chakra) and to listen to career criminal complaints about humane treatment ... It's ridiculous. And it pervades all sci-fi. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 12:42 PM In reply to this comment (#2238082) While I appreciate counter-culture opinions as much as the next RT'r, I can't agree with you guys about 'Dark City' over 'Matrix.' I saw DC in theaters when it came out in the Winter of '98, when I was still pretty far into my own 'Dark'n'brooding' college years. Quite frankly, I was a little disappointed. I thought it was a bit too dour, self-important and convoluted for its own good. When I saw Matrix the following Spring I was not reminded of DC at all; I was merely geeking out on what to me was the ultimate cyberpunk hero fantasy. I do respect Alex Proyas ('Crow' is in my all-time top 5 and I am in the minority that *really* enjoyed 'I, robot'), though, and I'm perfectly willing to accept DC as a new classic. I just think Matrix was better. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 01:37 PM Umm.....I haven't read all of the posts....but what about The Matrix?! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 01:43 PM In reply to this comment (#2237539) TombstoneLawDog, A) First of all, how am I being sanctimonious? Do you even know what means, or did you just want to inflate your ego by throwing out a word with more than three syllables? Second, how have I attempted to *force* anyone to read my comments? I have not gone bodily to people's houses, turned on their computers, sat them down, and made them look over my comments. No, people can read them, not read them, even read them and respond with a few snide remarks (like you did!). B) Weird. Upon review, I can't locate a single misspelled word. Oh, I know my spelling isn't perfect, but in this instance, it seems you're grasping at straws. Now, my grammar is flawed, I'm happy to concede that since you are correct in that regard. I did not proof my comments before I submitted them. From what I can tell, I skipped a personal pronoun in one spot and missed a few commas. I could probably have stood to rephrase a few things for brevity's sake. Consider me chastened; I was unaware that one needed the editorial skills of Ron Drummond, the spelling of a champion, and the grammar of a strict junior high school English teacher to post here. I'll keep that in mind going forward. Better yet: how much do you charge for your services? However, one thing has been bothering me since I was first honored with your insightful response. You impugned the main argument of my posts by attacking my spelling and grammar (admittedly minor mistakes) which says to me that you, in fact, disagreed from word one but couldn't find any way to rebutt my statements. Instead, you dismissed it on superficial grounds. Dumber things have been said in ways far too stupid and numerous to recount. Could it be that you just wanted to knock me down a peg as you regard me as a windbag? If you disagree, say so; don't go sifting through the cosmetics of my words. Here's the thing: I've never claimed to have a better grasp of literature than anyone else, only a more thorough knowledge of SF. Next time time you feel a need to construct a strawman, pleases consult me; the resemblance will be stronger. Lastly, while you are correct that no definition was given, which allows for any number of subjective interpretations; this also renders the word meaningless. As such, we need a coherent definition in order for the discussion to advance even an inch. Why not one used both by the fandom *and* the industry (since there is frequent overlap)? That's the thing: these are not my personal ones. Rather, they are widely accepted terms that refer to differing expressions of the same concept. In the age of Google, there is no excuse for ignorance. There is one thing we agree on: the ending to "Sunshine" was wretched. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 01:47 PM In reply to this comment (#2238166) Dan Simmons and Gene Wolfe would disagree. Perhaps you should stop reading and watching material with political overtones? I can give you some recommendations if you'd like. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 01:57 PM In reply to this comment (#2238082) Most people don't know about 13th Floor, as well. That came out just before (like a year or so) the Matrix and had a similar plotline. It made you think a lot more though because the protagonists in this movie were also humans, not just robots that everyone could agree to hate. It does have a bit of an indy feel to it, though; not quite as polished as the Matrix. After the FX wore off, I decided 13th Floor was a way superior movie to the Matrix. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 02:03 PM In reply to this comment (#2238082) Most people don't know about 13th Floor, as well. That came out just before (like a year or so) the Matrix and had a similar plotline. It made you think a lot more though because the protagonists in this movie were also humans, not just robots that everyone could agree to hate, so it really held up a mirror to humanity far moreso than Matrix did. It does have a bit of an indy feel to it, though; not quite as polished as the Matrix. After the FX wore off, I decided 13th Floor was a way superior movie to the Matrix. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 02:05 PM In reply to this comment (#2237804) Akira? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 02:07 PM Anyone who has doubts about the validity of science fiction as a literary genre need only read Kurt Vonnegut's essay "Science Fiction" in his book "Wampters, Foma and Granfaloons". If he can't sway you, no one can. Oh, and you have an emaciated imagination, too. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 02:15 PM In reply to this comment (#2237804) Ghost in the Shell (1 & 2) Iron Giant Wall-E (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 02:19 PM I'm sorry but you guys missed the mark BIG TIME by excluding Brazil. It stands for many filmmakers as one of those Velvet underground sci-fi pieces; a smart ahead of its time film, that was butchered in the original edit and confounding to the first wave of critics. Filled to the gills with symbolism and visual metaphor,it's funny, disturbing profound and easily the best thing to ever approach 1984 on the big screen. One of Gilliams best. Big miss guys:-( (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 02:48 PM In reply to this comment (#2237994) A.I. was a travesty. Actually no, it was just plain dumb. The 45 minute blue fairy scene near the end actually made me yell outloud in the theater. THIS. MOVIE. SUCKED. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 02:54 PM Calm down internet nerds. no reason to go full retard over Detrs and his vast vocabulary and how he has to use it to make up for his small genitals. Some people get a big fast yellow car, some people go online into to take advantage of the vast anonymity of the net to show how smart they think they are, lol. F.uck, he sounds like that windbag reviewer Frank Sweitek (sic?). (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 03:11 PM Of course you can't make a sci-fi list without Blade Runner or 2001. But what happened to Alien or Aliens???? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 03:12 PM Of course you can't make a sci-fi list without Blade Runner or 2001. But what happened to Alien or Aliens???? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 03:20 PM In reply to this comment (#2238319) Aren't you clever? I guess you never considered that I might value both sf and good language. I never claimed to be smart, just more well read in one genre. Let me know when you're all grown up. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 03:45 PM In reply to this comment (#2237459) Yeah The Matrix borrowed a lot of ideas from other films, even TRON! I am serious go watch Tron and The Matrix and there are similarities- something tells me they weren't think of TRON when they wrote it but there are similarities.I would say it should be on the list though. I also liked Sunshine a lot but I just felt the last 20 minutes became a horror film and it felt abrupt. I also disagree to the man who said Aliens is not a thinking man's film, remember that scene with the alien and the elevator? That film was darwinism and survival of the fittest. More importantly guys, WHY THE HELL ISN'T BABYLON A.D and BATTLEFIELD EARTH on the list?!?! WTF RT?!? Honest Blog RT, Honest Blog?!? Also while not a perfect film I would say that The Fountain deserves a spot on this list, that is a total mind game. I don't know if I would chose Dark City over The Matrix, but maybe The Director's Cut. Road Warrior possibly, on how reliant we are on technology and oil. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 03:47 PM In reply to this comment (#2238319) While I thought AI was enjoyable, I also TOTALLY hated the last 30 minutes! It really hurt the film. Also yes, BRAZIL needs a spot immediately on this list. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 04:28 PM Okay, I forgot about WALL*E and Iron Giant. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 04:53 PM I'm legitimately surprised that Minority Report didn't make the list. The last time I watched the movie was about a year and a half ago, and I still have questions rolling around in my head. Considering it was made by Spielberg, written by Philip K. Dick, and it's high meter rating, you would think it would be a given. But I can't disagree with anything on this list. Children of Men and Blade Runner aren't films, they're film experiences. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 05:01 PM I agree that 12 Monkeys could fit on this list. It definitely explores human nature, and damn will it make you think. to Detrs: As far as your definition of science fiction goes, whatever you deem to be of quality is science fiction, and whatever you do not so deem is sci-fi pap? Well, you don't list any real means of comparison, only elements of which none is even implausible (laser guns?). What I see you 'getting at' is a show of your cultural superiority. But maybe you just thought that it was self-evident what science fiction consists of, and you neglected to set down real criteria. In 2001, one of the very few true science fiction movies made, Clark and Kubrick went to much pain to be scientifically accurate, and thus no big booms in space. That would be the criteria for HARD science fiction in the cinema, and so the Star Wars movies, which are really more like fantasy, are disqualified. There you have the beginnings of some real criteria. Okay? Let's not prop our snobbery up with obscure criteria serving arbitrary selection of an exclusive canon of high culture films. Mmm-kay? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 05:42 PM I'm no MENSA candidate and it took a couple of viewings, but I recommend "Primer" for anyone up for a movie that challenges the gray matter a little more than most. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 05:54 PM I like scifi or science fiction or whatever you want to call it if it is entertaining. I find myself looking for movies that mirror my personality so I prefer a heavy dose of mood and style with just a dash of analytical thought. Dark City is great. Maybe I like science fiction because it is fun to escape from all of the concrete answers every now and then. Maybe it is fun to wonder what if? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 05:56 PM Blade Runner is very overrated (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 06:04 PM In reply to this comment (#2238568) "As far as your definition of science fiction goes, whatever you deem to be of quality is science fiction, and whatever you do not so deem is sci-fi pap" No. It has to do with the modus operandi. SF is concerned with extrapolating an idea in the fabric of a society or culture. Sci-fi is interest in gimmicks and googaws. Again, this is not my own internal definition but one that is used by people deeply involved with the fandom. "Well, you don't list any real means of comparison, only elements of which none is even implausible (laser guns?)." That's part of the point: those implausible elements function as analogs of magic. It's about not ideas or characters, but essentially techno-porn, an excuse for bipedal, humanoid aliens, or all manner of silly things. "What I see you 'getting at' is a show of your cultural superiority." Uh...right. Why do people keep thinking that my lament is some sort of snobbery? If I was going to look down my nose, I'd do it. I'd set myself up as an authority? Have I done that? Do you all enjoy putting words in my mouth? "But maybe you just thought that it was self-evident what science fiction consists of, and you neglected to set down real criteria." Not really. I laid down broad criteria. This is not the appropriate forum for this sort of discussion. If you'd like to talk with me more about that, I'd be delighted in meeting someone new. :-) "In 2001, one of the very few true science fiction movies made, Clark and Kubrick went to much pain to be scientifically accurate, and thus no big booms in space. That would be the criteria for HARD science fiction in the cinema, and so the Star Wars movies, which are really more like fantasy, are disqualified. There you have the beginnings of some real criteria. Okay?" Yes, I know. Hard science-fiction is another beast altogether. Thank you for talking down to me. Remind me to return the favor some time. "Let's not prop our snobbery up with obscure criteria serving arbitrary selection of an exclusive canon of high culture films. Mmm-kay?" Good thing I wasn't arbitrary then yes? How is my criteria obscure in any sense? This should be common knowledge to anyone who thinks of oneself as an SF fan. In point of fact, that distinction was once used as a shibboleth to determine who had gotten into the fandom and how. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 06:43 PM Nice list but I would also include Total Recall. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 06:44 PM In reply to this comment (#2237303) @Detrs: You should consider carrying around a stool just in case you decide to step off of your high horse one day. Jeez. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 07:00 PM In reply to this comment (#2238756) Right. I must think myself better than everyone else. It couldn't possibly be that I'm genuinely distressed with the way science-fiction is regarded. That this is something I'm passionate about to the point of obsession. No, I must be some pompous a-hole in love with the sound of his own voice. How about you actually address my points rather than trying to insult me for a characteristic I don't have? At least you didn't put words in my mouth. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 07:00 PM Without getting into semantics, I like pretty well every film on this list. They have all entertained and made me think. Having said that, Detrs, step back for a moment and take a good look. You're practically writing a dissertation with every single post at this point. On a website. About movies. Enough. You feel what you say is valid, that's fair. Stop beating a dead horse. In a week, time itself will have forgotten. As for telling other people to grow up, you seem to be stuck in the mindset that you just cannot rest unless you get the last word. Queue the comeback. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 07:06 PM In reply to this comment (#2238708) Dude, Detrs, calm down a bit. The only difference between sci-fi and science fiction is a few letters. Sure there are different goals science fiction can take, but there's no reason to get up in arms about the label when it's pretty clear what we're all talking about. Aside from that, to all the people criticizing Sunshine's finale, I'd like to ask why. If you ask me, the finale is what made the movie, it was what brought together the ideas that had been stirring just below the surface up until that point. Yes, it used horror movie conventions to help deliver science fiction message, but there's nothing wrong with that. Alien did that. 2001: A Space Odyssey did it, too. (seriously, how many people were scared like hell of computers after watching that movie?) But I found the introduction of the insane, sun worshiping previous captain was what helped distill the ideas, especially when you consider the character traits of the entire crew (all of which were very well developed) and how that impacted the course of events and brought them to the point where they encountered and maybe even helped create that type of person. The last 20 minutes of that movie is by far my favorite. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 07:19 PM What the hell is this?! What a stupid argument! Sci-fi, Science Fiction, I like it all. And I gave a shout out to Eric G. Blade Runner blew. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 07:35 PM No more Mr.Quick! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 07:46 PM Great list. I even think some of the Planet of the Apes sequels are thought-provoking at times though very heavy-handed. For those who said 28 Days Later, I think it's an amazing film, but ultimately it qualifies more as horror. Now that would be a real short list: "Horror Flicks for the Thinking Man". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 08:45 PM Great list, but "Sleepers" could be easily removed. I could think of a half dozen or more great films not mentioned on your list at all. Start off with one of the best ever made, my personal favorite: "Contact" intelligent, well done, a pleasure to watch. Whereas Primer was intelligent, "Pi" was intelligent and mind blowing. "Colossus, The Forbin Project" was way ahead of it's time, following the pattern set up in the original, "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (still a masterpiece) "Forbidden Planet" was a wonderful combination of spectacle, entertainment and intelligence. Lesser masterworks need mentioning; "Phase lV", Cautionary tales like, "The Day the World Caught Fire" and "On The Beach" both good apocalyptic visions. the original, "The Thing", very intelligent human vs. alien suspense film. The Original, "Shape of Things to Come" and the original, "The Time Machine" wonderful entertainments, all thought provoking. Glad to see "Bladerunner", "2001", "Children of Man", and "Gattica". All worthy entries on the list. I can't get myself worked up over the original, "Metropolis" but it deserves mention as an early social, political Sci fi statement. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 08:53 PM Nice to see someone supporting Sunshine's ending, mouse_clicker. I like it too. It was a jarring shift in tone, which is why I think it didn't sit well with many people, and I personally didn't really like how those last scenes were edited (weird blur techniques and all that), but I think you're 100% right that the ending really fit perfectly with the theme of the movie. Everything that went wrong was the result of human weakness. The technology didn't fail, there wasn't any interference from outside sources, it all fell apart from within. Poor choices, forgotten considerations, infighting, plotting against one another, and eventually psychosis and murder. The movie was more an examination of human nature than any sort of science fiction (or sci-fi). I hate to get involved, but I can't resist. To Detrs: I agree with everything you said regarding the differences in genres, and I think it's unfortunate everyone's giving you a hard time. I believe some of them are putting words in your mouth or misinterpreting your reactions, but I do think you're coming off as always needing the last word, and your point-by-point responses to other's responses does get tedious. And a lot of people honestly have no idea about the differnce between true science fiction and sci-fi, so to them you really may appear to be stuck up or something by suggesting there is. I respectfully advise you to continue standing by your original point, but give up on the direct replies to other people's comments; they aren't getting you anywhere. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 09:00 PM In reply to this comment (#2238270) 13th floor was a decent movie...but you are wrong about the dates. Matrix came out at the end of March 1999 and 13th Floor came on in the middle of May 1999. Matrix was only one of many reasons 13th Floor faded away in 1999. As for Detrs...wow! You are now my idol. You are brave, well read, and arrogant beyond belief. You place your vast knowledge of Sci-Fi above EVERYONE elses? That is why people are calling you arrogant. You lose any credibility when you insult every other poster when you claim to be smarter than they. Being humble with your comments might make others more willing to discuss your ideas, instead of your attitude and grammar. As Socrates stated, "only a fool claims to be wise." (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 09:08 PM No, I don't. I'm generally more knowledgeable about science-fiction than some people, but if I thought my knowledge complete, I wouldn't be reading as voraciously as I am. Please, in the future, refrain from putting words in my mouth. I've never, NEVER claimed to be smarter than everyone else. That would be a lie, as I'm reasonably sure I'm of average intelligence, but with a drive to learn about something. Humility has never gotten me anything but being walked over. If someone wanted to discuss something, they would, regardless of my tone. Good thing I've never claimed to be wise. The funny thing is, I wasn't the first to insult someone. I exhorted someone to do research before copping an attitude. From then on, it was about the surface of my words, not the argument itself. It's a good thing I've never claimed to be wise. Is someone paying people to attack points I've never made? If you want to talk about SF v. sci-fi. I'd be delighted. Hit me up via PM if you want. Don't claim that my attitude has soured you on this as I'm much different in person than I am on forums. Ball's in your court now. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 09:13 PM best list ever, only one i haven't seen is solaris (the original) i happened to see the remake and it sucked so bad i think it kept me from seeing the original sleeper, while good, could have been removed though...i would have added "1984" or "thx 1138" or "the man who fell to earth" i probably would have taken off primer too even though i enjoyed that movie alot, and i would not have put in brazil because although visually stunning, i think it was a pretty sloppy movie, and at times was just trying too hard to be weird for the sake of being weird...that being said i liked it i just don't think its the classic some people make it out to be (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 09:19 PM Primer made it! I'm truly surprised in that I had forgotten about that movie. Highly technical, 9/10. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 09:46 PM In reply to this comment (#2237303) Wow. Okay, relax for a minute. First of all, I apologize for misconstruing your initial comment, as I thought you were maligning the entire genre of "science fiction", which was not an unfounded assumption given that you yourself stated that for many people 'science fiction' and 'sci-fi' are interchangable, and that many people tend to casually dismiss the genre based on their experiences with only limited and not-exactly-shining examples of it (most of which you would lump under the latter term). That said, although I am aware that there is a certain elite SF cabal which regards itself as "the fandom" (in exclusivity, doubtlessly) and which insists on the unabbreviated genre name as a sort of identifying secret handshake (although oddly, they seem to have little problem with shortening it to 'SF', which strikes me as even more dumbed-down), I have never felt the need to engage in this particular losing semantic battle, which seems to me as pointless as Trekkers attempting to distinguish themselves from Trekkies in the eyes of a general public that couldn't possibly care less. Frankly, I don't see the point, other than as some back-patting exercise in fanboyism. Every genre has more than its share of dreck; horror fiction has an even worse reputation than science fiction, yet you don't see serious horror aficionados insisting that they refer to 'good horror' with a specific moniker, it's just 'good horror' (or maybe they do, but that would just be more elitist goofiness). I'm less inclined to agree with Ellison's somewhat overdramatic appraisal of the state of science fiction as I am to just go along with Sturgeon and acknowledge that a lot of things are crap and come with their own associated stigmas (real or imagined), not just sci-fi. You understandably dislike the stigma, but it doesn't help matters to snort with derision when somebody is unfamiliar with esoteric genre distinctions (nor does assuming that indifference is unfamiliarity, either). To the point: I use sci-fi and science fiction interchangably, the former as an abbreviation of the latter and nothing more or less. If that earns me the contempt "the fandom", then so be it. With that in mind, however, and ignoring a certain amount of mutual condescension, I would say we are essentially on the same page here, as you are clearly not the science fiction-denigrating person I mistook you for. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 10:03 PM I should hope not considering that it makes up 60% of my diet. Well, I don't want to come off as pushing other fans out, just that many self-identified fans don't seem to know as much as they can. Imagine, someone who claimed to love architecture, yet could only name Frank Gehry and couldn't tell the difference between vaulted arches and the golden arches. That's what it's like for me. I can't adequately put into words my love for SF, so it's painful to see this happening so often. Contrary to popular belief, I don't do this to proclaim my own superiority, but because I want there to be more people out there who can discover books and make recommendations to me, who can teach me things, show me something I didn't see before. I'm just one person; I can't do this alone. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 10:04 PM 60% of my *literary* diet. How's that for an omission? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 10:31 PM Some minor confessions here.I find 2001 to be pretentious and tedious...always have. Solaris, which I saw when it debuted in America,I found impenetrable. Friends tell me it is stellar...perhaps I should look again. Point is, no one will agree as to the thinking mans Sci-Fi and much of the best Sci-Fi winks at itself...Night Of The Comet or Critters anyone? But here are some I would submit for consideration: The Day The Earth Stood Still(1951) Sure the special effects look cheesy now, but superb acting and crisp direction propel this thoughtful thriller. The nuclear proliferation message was overpowered by the thought " What would happen if electricity didn't work for an hour." There's a reason why "Klaatu...Nicto...Barada is part of the language. The Hidden Kyle McGlaughlin plays an FBI agent again, this time pursuing an alien slug who occupies human hosts until he burns them out, and then moves on to the next. Bloody, violent, and loud but ultimately human in a surprisingly affecting ending. Invasion Of The Body Snatchers ( Original Version ) Again modest by modern standards, and downright clunky in spots, it still raises questions about what it means to be human. In the garden scene,with Kevin McCarthy wielding a pitchfork, it doesn't just blur the lines, it erases them. The Terminator Admit it. The first time you saw it your mind got seriously bent. Perhaps the most seamless blending of careening action and convoluted plot, it is the perfect pretzel of a movie. And was there ever a funnier scene than a rotting , motel bound Arnold sorting through responses to a neighbors complaint and coming up with " **** you,***hole?" Repo Man Not a Sci-Fi movie? Au Contraire Mon Ami. With a glowing classic Chevy Malibu, and a glorious, goofy, blissed-out ending, it more than fits the bill. The War Of The Worlds ( Steven Spielberg ) Yeah it's got Tom Cruise. Forget that. It manages to work up more real scares, and a more frightening version of the decimation of Humanity than Children Of Men or Independence Day ever dreamed of. Credit Dakota Fanning, whose performance grounds the movie Serenity There's a lot to chew on here. Human engineering gone awry on a galactic level creates a savage breed that feeds on human flesh. A fervid believer ala Inspector Javert pursues an innocent, and devastatingly capable girl. A surly, independent Captain becomes her champion. Everyone here commits themselves admirably, but the real star is writer Joss Whedon, who has created a true ensemble of characters, with the snappiest dialogue in space. Others abound, and I would welcome others additions or subtractions. I simply don't believe that for a movie to be " thoughtful " precludes it being entertaining. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 10:45 PM In reply to this comment (#2237804) Akira = awesome (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 11:01 PM I'm a little surprised that Total Recall didn't make the cut. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 11:01 PM I'm a little surprised that Total Recall didn't make the cut. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 11:05 PM In reply to this comment (#2239538) No Matrix, either? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 11:39 PM You forgot two films in your list: "Colossus" and "Andromeda". Both about losing control about the world and bringing doom unto mankind by itself. Maybe that´s what all good films are about. The drive to be creative and be hunted by your creations and what they do to you as their inventors. And then there is "Zardoz". A really thought provoking film, that maybe only europeans (like me) understand. ;-) (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 11:39 PM Great list, just want to respond to the posters requesting an addition for Sunshine. Sunshine classifies itself more as a simple action movie than sci-fi. Just because it has science and spaceships doesn't mean that it exhibits characteristics of the sci-fi genre. Ya sure it does ask "some" questions...but for 90% of the film it just relies on chase sequences, cool effects and the trite crazy guy who loves the sun for some reason. For the record I want my 2 hours back from that movie, huge disappointment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 11:44 PM In reply to this comment (#2237804) Random thoughts: -Thanks for including "Primer"! It is one of the most thought provoking time travel films I have seen. AMAZING -I am saddened by the absence of "Brazil" and "Contact" -"Alien" and "Terminator" are good movies but they were right to leave those off the list. Not very heady, though very entertaining. -"Dark City" didn't really make me think too much, but good choice. Definitely underrated. -2001 must be on the list. Classic. PERIOD (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 11:49 PM In reply to this comment (#2239284) Contac is a watered down version of the book that keeps faith and science in balance. In the film both become two sides of the same medal. But in the book science wins a clear victory because science finds the creators message in natures constant PI. Something no man of faith could find without using science. But never the less it´s one of my favorite scifi films! (Reply to this) |
on Jan 08 2009 11:51 PM seeing sleeper on here was a nice surprise. this is the first top 10 list in a long time that hasn't infuriated me. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 08 2009 11:54 PM In reply to this comment (#2237058) amen (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 12:18 AM Hey you forgot Dark Star, the Matrix (no thinking in 2 or 3 unfortunately..where did the mythology go...) and dare I say it here, Star Wars - if for nothing else than for giving us the concept of 'The Force'. However Star Wars certainly made a lot of directors and film production companies think about the way things can be done, for good or ill. Star Trek made a lot of people think but I'm not too sure about the movie tie-ins - they were mostly fluff or fuel for zealots. The Man who fell to Earth made me think - and surely A Clockwork Orange can be seen as a futuristic film (does it then fall into the cyberpunk category though)... I guess this posting made me think :) Detris, I think you are being a little too self-righteous and pedantic for a simple movie review blog. The difference between sci-fi and science-fiction is really just subjective and 99.9% of the world doesn't really give a **** either way. Just like they don't give a **** by distinguishing between the terms cracker and hacker, but I still call myself a hacker anyway in spite of the popular media being wrong every single day. Let it go my friend and be free... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 12:40 AM While there are certainly a decent amount of great films, and loads with complex subtexts, I really miss The Man From Earth on that list. Perhaps it's disqualified for nor being set in the future, or showing us any spaceships? Regardless, it's one of the most interesting films I've ever seen, and it has enough elements to brand it sci-fi to my mind. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 12:49 AM What about Contact? It would have been good for rounding off the list, if placed at the beginning. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 02:53 AM I can't believe I even have to say it, but has everyone here forgotten about Dune??? Love it or hate it, it made you think and had such a great story line, paving way for decades of novels still to this day. Also, I would like to submit the following Mission To Mars Event Horizon Sphere The Abyss Jurassic Park Honestly, I don't think you can only make a top 10 list for this genre, as well as many other genres. but some of these definately deserve to make it to top 10. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 02:58 AM Oh, and to that guy Detrs, or whatever his name was... get a freakin life. there, I said it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 02:58 AM I agree Jame1183. I love Dune, the novel but the movie didn't make me think in the way that it should have. It made me think more wtf? :) The mini-series was closer to the book but I still kind of found it lacking. I guess it's a hrd book to make into a movie because of its complexities. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 03:05 AM I don't know if you're aware of this, but there is a useful literary tool called abbreviations. science fiction = sci(ence) fi(ction) also, if your brain can't handle that there is.. New Jersey = NJ... there isn't a difference between the two. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 03:11 AM haha yeah, the movie was a bit weird and I did like the mini series as well. I still think science fiction is conveyed best through novels..gives your mind a chance to think of the crazy limitless visuals that books like Dune and countless others can make you think of. But they make for great pop corn fest entertainment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 03:37 AM Nice short list, but immaculately reviewed. Thanks a lot! Personally, I would've included a few other films (totally down to individual choice...): 1. Event Horizon 2. Westworld 3. Logan's Run 4. Back to the Future Any comments, film fans? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 05:44 AM In response to Detrs, 90% anything is crap. Science fiction is no exception. These are obviously in the 10%. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 05:53 AM A lot of omissions: - Silent Running - Demon Seed - Forbin Project - Soylent Green - Stalker (Tarkowsky) - The Quiet Earth Just to name some, all of these movies address important issues I believe. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 06:38 AM I'm not sure about Prime, because I didn't really care for that movie, but I'm glad you included Gattica. The 12-fingered pianist was a little hokey, but, hey, that's Hollywood. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 06:57 AM Good list. I think many people have mentioned movies I'd place in this list over "Children of Men", which I also found not to be thought provoking. It was a film with great cinematography as is mentioned, but it's a single concept beat into the ground. For me the movie was a little tedious and completely non-haunting. If you find that single concept just mind-blowing and thought provoking, then you probably think it should be on this list, but I don't. I'm guessing the book is more creative, at least I hope so. As others have mentioned, Sunshine is very close to being a great thought provoking SF film, but the last 30 or 20 mins ruin it for me also. 13th floor was much more thought provoking than Children of Men. Good to see Dark City and Primer. Although I've seen Primer twice and still think that I haven't followed the movie completely yet, it is thought provoking. Aliens and Terminator movies are great Sci-Fi films and some of my very favorites, but I wouldn't consider them thought provoking enough for this list. Total Recall could be argued, even though it's mainly an action film. One borderline movie for this list for me would also be "The Fountain". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:00 AM Why is The Matrix not on here? Say what you will about the sequels (don't hate because there still pretty good), the first made me think differently about life and why were such slaves to it. Almost 10 years later and I can still watch it and find something new about. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:10 AM Hm...your list is excellent, but I'm curious about the criteria you used in choosing the flicks. "2001" has always irritated me. It's NOT that it's incomprehensible; it's more that it's seemed to me to have taken many times the amount of time needed to flesh out a fairly obvious premise. The SFX were, of course, great. I've always liked "Forbidden Planet". Yeah, I know, it's hokey, but the premise (monsters from the id) was fascinating, and Walter Pidgeon's performance in particular was flawless. I also wonder from the entertainment aspect (perhaps it's not for the "Thinking Man" but I'm not sure) about the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". I still find the final scene of the doctor running on the freeway and trying to make people listen to him haunting, and the transformation when his fellow town-dwellers were taken over was extremely well directed. What this may come down to is that perhaps what makes classic cinema is a combination of intellectual content and cinematic flair. "Thought-provoking" is important, but I personally go to the movies first and foremost to be entertained; a trivial premise leaves me departing the theatre feeling empty, but so does a boring, "meaningful" movie. I'd rather spend the money on a meaningful book I can return to over and over. OK, gang...throw rocks. That's what makes blogs like this fun. Cheers, GatN (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:13 AM Goog call ncguitarplyr. THX 1138, great film. Very thought provoking and definitly underrated. Plus, it was done by Geaorge Lucas before he sucked (star wars prequels, latest indy jones flick). Also, I forgot to put an "it" at the end of my last comment. Sorry for any confusion. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:18 AM 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best Sci-Fi movie ever! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:23 AM Hats off for raising the intellectual dander on how to define and list the top 10 "Thinking Man's" Sci-Fi films! I am getting a kick out of this thread. First off I have to defend Detrs. -Detrs has my respect, not for being so abnoxious, verbose & defensive, thats boring, but for trying to draw the line between true Science Fiction and Sci-Fi, although that's a bit cryptic perhaps Science Fiction Vs. Science Fantasy may be clearer terms to use for his argument? i.e.; 2001 Vs. Starwars, (Hypothetical Scenarios vs.implausible fantasy) I think its important to recognize the difference between these sub genera for the sake of the dialog around what "Thinking Mans Sci-Fi " should be, however I wouldn't rule out fantasy or metaphysics altogether, Science fiction flourishes with a moderate degrees of supernatural circumstance. God knows Religious has long been catalyst for thought and Science... Think Oppenheimer and the "Trinity" tests -Mouse Clicker has suggested the obvious missing cornerstone of the top ten list: "Metropolis", Fritz Lang may be largely responsible for establishing the Genre of Science Fiction Film in the first place, although I would strongly recommend his 1929 "Woman in the Moon" that was true Science Fiction of its day and may fit the criteria better? -Racer Z for mentioning George Lucus' only true Science Fiction Film- THX1138 and Douglas Trumbull's classic - Silent Running. Trumbull is one of the most uncelebrated heros of Sci-Fi and I believe that "Brain Storm" should be on the Top Ten list for sure! -Vitajex for: suggesting Akira, anime or not thats a Mile stone! -Ivor1 for: laying down the foundations of coldwar period thinking Sci-Fi with: Colossus the forbbin Project, The Day the Earth Stood Still (original), Forbidden planet, Phase IV, and one of my all time favorites- The Day the Earth Caught Fire if you haven't seen this its a must, also consider Val Guest's The Quartermass Xperiment for the Thinking mans scifi film library. -Nyriat for also mentioning Colosus, and The Andromeda Strain (1971) a must for the list! Michel Criton RIP! So I recommend these alternate Top Tens for your consideration: Stalker, Dir. Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979: (If you liked Solaris, try chewing on this one!) Brain Storm, Dir. Douglas Trumbul, 1983: Al Th Co Cr Vi T Co La Jet'ee, Dir. Chris Marker, 1966: (sc Please Excuse my Longwindedness and bring on the critique but spare the defense! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:26 AM In reply to this comment (#2236504) I'm sad that you think science fiction and "thinking" are contradictions in terms. While it is true that there is much "pulp" science fiction out there, there is also still much that is not. If you see only the legions of books based on Star Trek, Star Wars, and/or various gaming properties (Mechwarrior, Shadowrun, etc), then I could, perhaps, see your point. The problem, perhaps, is Hollywood. After all, they're visualizing the future. Many "cool" things will be around in the future, and they want to show them all right now. That's a problem, however, because I believe that in the future, most of these "fantastic" items will be as commonplace and boring to use as anything in your own kitchen, and with as many flashes and bangs (to wit: none). Not flashy. Not exciting. But Hollywood takes the opportunity to turn everything into something new. Take "I, Robot". This could have been an excellent thinking man's movie. The book(s) certainly present interesting ideas and stories about man's relationship with machines. However, Hollywood takes the idea and runs with a single story, and a bastardization of the story at that! While it was indeed a fun movie, it wasn't particularly "good". The idea, good. The execution of the movie, good. The execution of the idea...meh. It's often the movies that take the future and its technology for granted that end up being the "smartest" movies, because they realize that the future will be a lot like now...just with different toys. The books that do this are often the best as well, (as well as a smattering or slathering of real science) because the authors realize that tomorrow won't be all that different from yesterday, which wasn't all that different from the day before. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:48 AM I did also want to comment on "The Matrix". I think it could be on this list, but I think it should be pointed out that its two sequels were actually more thought provoking and overall much less liked. The Matrix did borrow many elements from many places, but that doesn't make it any less thought provoking. The first movie didn't sell itself being a thought provoker, even though it has that kind of depth. Most fans of the Matrix that I talk to are into it for the action and like the more shallow thought provoking elements such as the reality within a reality, humans being betrayed and fooled by machines type stuff, but don't see the whole Mind vs. Body vs. Spirit aspects of the movie that are there and more prevalent in the sequels, along with a more complex plot. I always advise people to watch the Matrix trilogy with the commentaries that shed some good light on these movies. Overall I think it can be argued that the Matrix is thought provoking enough to be on a top ten list like this. It had plenty of shock value and produced plenty of thought in people that don't even like to think about their movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:01 AM I'd also like to nominate the vastly underrated "Sunshine," Danny Boyle's pre-"Slumdog Millionaire" pick from 2007 that received little acclaim, press, promotion, distribution, or really, viewership, but far exceeded my expectations for a sci-fi film (especially as a non-sci fi fan). In some ways it was more of a psychological study or character piece than drama, but the sci fi elements were mostly plausible and the introspective questions about the nature of humanity and its right to survival were well-executed. The film has a claustrophobic feel that only heightens the tension, and I appreciated Boyle's devotion to method acting and the organic motivations and behaviors his actors created for their characters. I really wish more people had seen this little gem of a film. I'll also add that "Soylent Green" mostly made me laugh, but did make me think when it was over. It's one of the few films I think deserves a modern remake that could really hammer home the rather frightening point it tries to make. In today's climate obsessed culture, it could resonate even more. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:28 AM Not sure how the "Matrix" trilogy did not get included. Squarely in the camp of "thinking sci-fi" those films were also brilliantly crafted, visually appealing, robust, action packed, and thought provoking. Many of your picks, as one commenter pointed out, were snoozers. I can't get through "Children of Men." Won't provoke much thought if the movie is so bad no-one wants to watch it. On the other hand I appreciate you not including films that while good sci-fi were not "thinking experiences," for example Alien or Terminator. The Matrix needs to be on this list. It was as profound and as ground breaking as "2001 A Space Odyssey" and "Blade Runner". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:40 AM Though this list seems pretty good, I think there are some films not being considered. Equilibrium for starters! Christain Bale and Angus McFayden did a great job and the film sneaked by American audiences, because the film had already made a profit and they didn't want to spend money on a possible bomb from American cinema goers. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be here. Even if you are not a fan, it ask several pertinent questions about humanity, age, duty, friendship, and revenge. I will also say the European version of "Dune" was great! It spanned the breadth of Frank Herbet's book and what could be cut was. Sure the special FX were not great but where a limited budget was painful to work with, they got the most of the least. Great performances too, including Ian McNiece and Giancarlo Gianinni! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:41 AM Dets... You're being a bit willfully academic here...the slangy "sci-fi" is still used by most as a shorthand reference to ALL science fiction, and it was quite clearly used as such here. I don't really think a "serious" debate about the differences between "sci-fi" as opposed to "SF" is necessary here. This isn't a forum for those who eat, breathe, and sleep SF, and it is kind of naive to think that people commenting generally on this list need to "know something" about the genre before commenting, since clearly your implication is that to "know something" someone would need to have as thoroughly researched and studied literary theory as you clearly have. Most "sci-fi" fans WOULD object to a generalized comment about thought and "sci-fi" not going together, and they are hardly looking for an academic debate on these forums. Seems to me you were trolling for an argument here. I can send you a list of excellent academic forums for the discussion of SF if you really want to engage in debate with others who possess your extensive background. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:48 AM Good effort, but where the hell is 12 Monkeys? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:48 AM In reply to this comment (#2240145) Great title for the list, "Ten Sci-Fi Flicks for the Thinking Man," because it has obviously sparked lots of thinking, judging from the comments. I'm actually glad to see recommendations on the list and in the comments for films I've never heard of. My Netflix queue is growing by leaps and bounds. Thank you to all. Here are some comments on films on the list and some films which have been mentioned in the postings: SOLARIS: I'm commenting only to say that I saw the original years and years ago when I was probably too young to appreciate it. Now that I've seen it on the list, I've got to see it again. Maybe I'll "get it" this time. I stayed away from the remake based on the reviews I read. SOYLENT GREEN: I just saw Soylent Green again, because I recently attended a performance piece at the Guggenheim Museum which was based on the movie, believe it or not. I wanted to refresh my recollection. Well, I now get all the references that the performance piece worked in, but I've got to tell you it was a god-awful movie. I expected a lot better acting than I got from Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson. I didn't expect much from Chuck Conners, and my expectations were met. CONTACT: I agree with the person who posted that the movie missed one of the most mind-blowing aspects of the book, which was that the message from the alien culture came not from deciphering signals from space but from deciphering hidden patterns in very deep solutions of irrational numbers. Not to be a name-dropper (OK, I'll be a name-dropper), but back in the spring semester of 1969 I took a freshman seminar in Astronomy at Cornell with Carl Sagan - half a dozen kids with the master communicator who had not yet appeared on the Johnny Carson show. It was both fun and inspirational. He shared with us that as a kid in Brooklyn he had been fascinated by the Edgar Rice Burroughs' "John Carter of Mars" books (I just did a Google search and I see that he must have divulged that trivia to more than our little freshman seminar). I wonder if those books might be given some cinematic treatment. COLOSSUS, THE FORBIN PROJECT - The theme of technology taking over was very well done, and certainly preceeded 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY(an all-time favorite of mine). It's certainly hugely better than the similarly themed EAGLE EYE from 2008. ZARDOZ - I remember enjoying this at least for seeing Sean Connery in non-James Bond mode and also for its surprise ending, which is similar in the shock category to the ending of the original PLANET OF THE APES, but not nearly as impressive. I have two movies to add for your consideration, and I'm surprised nobody has mentioned either of them yet. THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN: It has great special effects for its era, but most important to me, and to the concept of "Thinking Man's Sci-Fi" is how it first lulls you into enjoying a sci-fi roller-coaster adventure and then, instead of giving you a happy and neat resolution that you might have been expecting, clobbers you with an ending that is mystical and mind-blowing. I think about that ending at least three times a year. I'm one of those guys who believes he's got a novel to write, and I communicated a few years ago with Richard Matheson (there I go name-dropping again), author of the book and the screenplay, to ask for permission to quote from the narrator's final soliloquy. He graciously wrote back granting consent, so long as I give him a copy of my book when (and if) it's published. BEING JOHN MALKOVICH: This is not a traditional sci-fi movie in terms of space, aliens, time travel, etc. Instead, someone discovers the means for anybody to inhabit another person's body. The possibilities which are explored certainly bend the mind, and that's why I would put this on a list of sci-fi for the thinking man. And finally: THE HELPING STONE - OK. It's not yet a movie. In fact, I haven't written more than a few chapters of the novel yet. But I promise you it will be enjoyable and will make you think. You heard it here first. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:53 AM What happened with 'The Matrix' trilogy: undoubtedly the most celebrated 'thinking man's Sci-Fi' movie/movies after '2001' and 'Solaris'?. It went down to the basic meaning of our existence and the ways we can emerge from our cave's shadows as the last two films did: the 'trashuman' way (reborn as an star)('2001') and the 'merely human' way (recreate our emotional bonds to our fellow human beings)('Solaris'). 'The Matrix' postulate the 'awakening' way (take the red pill to exit to the 'real' world) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:05 AM I love this list, thank you so much for making it! I would have also included Serenity (but I'm a Joss Whedon man-whore), and, while I LOVE Sleeper, I could have lost it in favor of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which some people think is a sci-fi film, I don't really agree, but it's a loose enough fit I think). (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 09:06 AM As the name suggests, I'm a big follower of Japanese animation, and a lot of very high-level sci-fi has been done there. "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind" is pretty much the "Ben-Hur" of animation in general, and there wouldn't even be a "Matrix" trilogy if it didn't borrow its main tropes and a lot of visuals from Mamoru Oshii's 1995 masterpiece "Ghost in the Shell". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:23 AM jame, jame, jame. Mission to Mars is one of the worst films ever made. It's my second to least favorite of all time. (Jungle 2 Jungle is the worst movie ever.) Seriously, Mission to Mars could be on the most insulting sci-fi's ever. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:35 AM In reply to this comment (#2237303) "Uh, no...try looking up the difference between science-fiction and sci-fi; maybe do a bit of research before you say something. Most people even many casual fans, don't know that the terms refer to different things." Uh, no. You are making an unnecessary and pointless distinction. Forest Ackerman created the term "SciFi" as his license plate and it became shorthand. You are splitting hairs. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:35 AM In reply to this comment (#2240213) Rtolz.. Just a note. "John Carter of Mars" is getting the Pixar treatment, from what I understand. Blend of live action / CG animation. At least, that was the latest word. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:37 AM There have been so many GREAT suggested additions that I wonder if "Top 10" is even a valid paradigm to follow. How about "Top 25 and Bottom 25" instead? (I have a hunch the competition would be much heavier for the Bottom 25 than the Top.) By the way, I liked both Tarkovsky films listed here, however I think I'd have been lost if I hadn't read the original stories from Stanislaw Lem and the Strugatsky brothers (in translation - their lnguages of original publication not im my quiver) before seeing the movies. The American remake of "Solaris" failed to retain the lyrical visual beauty and mysticism of the Tarkovsky film (not to mention the political commentary) but was a good thought at least, and (perhaps) better than remakes usually are. GatN (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 09:44 AM In reply to this comment (#2236504) Not if you read books and are slightly picky about what you watch. How is Sci Fi braindead material when much of it consistently predicts the future as far as a hundred years out? Oh wait. Sci Fi isn't short for Science Fiction. (????) Thanks for arbitrarily making that up and into canon law. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:51 AM In reply to this comment (#2238166) First, PornAgainChristian - your user name confuses me. Second, Science Fiction, or Sci-Fi, deals with some weighty topics that question the very nature of humanity - something the right wing is loathe to do, as it goes against the lock-step mentality of their thought processes. As as far as the rest of your comment goes, having a show about "gods" and a Christ-complex, etc - that is not "hippie crap", by which I can only infer you mean liberal thinking. That sort of stuff is directly at ODDS with "hippie crap". You seem to think that the only way to beat an enemy is to remove them from the gene pool. Your comments prove you to be a short-sighted non-thinker that belongs firmly in the neo-con camp you apparently reside in. Please, try to be more thoughtful in further postings - you sound like you could probably have some interesting comments if you really tried. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:58 AM Great list! How about a list of movies that should have never been remade? Like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 10:37 AM Where is "12 Monkeys?" Really.... how did "12 Monkeys" not make the list? I don't get it. Great choices, otherwise. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 10:42 AM I didn't take the time to read all 125 comments but I'm really surprised that Soylent Green is not included in the list. It is gripping and frightening; perhaps you overlooked it because it doesn't seem like sci-fi any more. Pity for us! (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 10:42 AM Pretty darn good list, and certainly thought-provoking in its own right. Likewise the comments on this forum. In regards to all the arguments regarding "Sci-Fi" versus "Science Fiction," I've always found a useful working definition of the two to be: "Science Fiction" requires a plot device that is scientific and/or technological in nature. (The "science" can be of either the hard or soft variety; the "technology" can be extrapolated from a made-up premise [e.g. warp drive], but should be logically consistent.) The resolution of the plot should likewise depend on a scientific and/or technological device. In a broad manner of speaking, a real Science Fiction story would not be able to be told in any other genre. "Sci-Fi" uses the trappings of science fiction as window dressing, but otherwise tells a story that could be told in other genres (horror and westerns being two of the more popular crossovers). IMHO, these two terms are completely neutral in terms of perceptions of quality, entertainment value, intellectual content, etc. CE3K and ALIEN are excellent movies, but (again, IMHO) aren't really Science Fiction. SOLARIS and PRIMER are honest-to-god "real" Science Fiction, but are rather opaque and (IM-effing-HO!) ninvolving, and not particularly entertaining. It always comes down to opinion and taste; as the old saying goes, "if this is the sort of thing you like, then you'll like this sort of thing." (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 10:58 AM (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 11:13 AM Nice list, no doubt. However, since I am also entitled to my favorites, here I go with my own list. First, I do not think that any of the films in this list compares in scope, drama and "sci-fi realism" to "Alien", an absolute masterpiece. Second in the list we could debate between "2001" and "Blade Runner." Kubrick's vision is absolutely mindboggling, maybe a little too much and you may slide and fall asleep in the cracks of this astounding simphonic masterpiece. And about "Blade Runner" the darkness in the characters and the images of this film has been a permanent challenge for the generations to come and very few have been able to even get close to it. Not so serious, but absolutely into the genre's concerns is "Twelve Monkeys," an unparaleled exercise that introduces humor in a brilliant way into the genre, with performances that are among the top ever in the careers of the actors involved (Let's not forget Brad Pitt's "twisted" look). I absolutely agree that "Gattaca" is one of the finest films ever in sci-fi. A tremendous achievement in acting and cinematography. The romantic esence of the protagonist's view of space exploration is, I think, the quintessential sentiment behind science fiction-- something that all of us who love the genre identify with. Also, let's not forget about other Michael Crichton' classics. I am talking about "Andromeda Strain" and "Westworld". If you are not familiar with these titles just go ahead and rent them with your eyes closed. You'll get a wonderful surprise and we can talk about that later. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 11:16 AM Jeff, I can't take your list seriously if you left out the greatest sci-fi movie of this decade, Sunshine. Nothing even comes close to the stunning visuals, sound selection, and ethical dilemmas presented in this movie, and nothing brings about more tension and introspection than the atmosphere and villain of this film. Just try to comprehend the crew's situation when they are too low on oxygen to reach the sun and have to decide on what crewmen need to die for the sake of Earth. That's a thinking man's movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 11:17 AM Jeff, I can't take your list seriously if you left out the greatest sci-fi movie of this decade, Sunshine. Nothing even comes close to the stunning visuals, sound selection, and ethical dilemmas presented in this movie, and nothing brings about more tension and introspection than the atmosphere and villain of this film. Just try to comprehend the crew's situation when they are too low on oxygen to reach the sun and have to decide on what crewmen need to die for the sake of Earth. That's a thinking man's movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 11:20 AM Great list...most of my favorite films are on this list (Close Encoutners, BLade Runner, 2001, Children of Men)... Also great mention on Dark City...this is still a pretty unique movie in terms of the style, pacing, the acting...to me this is likely the closest any movie has reached to being a literal comic book on screen-the style of editing of this movie, and the continuous music throughout, is pretty unique still undecided on "Primer"- I guess this is one of those that people either loved or hated...I thought the movie had some interesting visuals, a very interesting plot, and good sound effects- but was lost in the bad sound, occasional bad acting, and often unintelligible dialog... I do think that it was an extremely impressive debut film overall, especially being finished for only 7000 dollars (unheard of)...But I do hope that for his next film, Carruth gets to hire some more expeirinced actors and gets some help with the screenplay, but doesnt compromise the realistic science- (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 11:39 AM In reply to this comment (#2240423) To Detrs: single mispelling: "BreathEs" Grammer: It's not nearly bad enough for me to charge you that much, were I to write for you. You'll be fine. ..you're obviously a bright guy so it is disingenuous for you to claim ignorance of your 'holier than thou' nature-- "s there anybody in the world who knows anything about literary history any more? You're talking to someone who eats, breaths, and sleeps sf out of all proportion to reason. Like said, maybe next time it would help if you actually knew something about the genre before posting." Little melodramatic, little rhetorical, little bit more condescending. No big evil. Nothing that others, including myself, haven't done in this life. I merely find it irksome when folks come onto a public forum like this and feign--or deign to actually feel-- outrage based upon the perceived lackings of others in their chosen field of expertise. I might as well piss on you if you can't dissect the nuance of the Court's dicta in Miranda v. Arizona (assuming you're not a criminal lawyer). Anyway, I NEEDED to post again simply to disagree with the people defending 'Sunshine.' It started great. It maintained my interest and high expectations. And then when it went for that seizure inducing horror NONSENSE, it jumped the shark, the couch, the pony, the duck and it's own @ss. It ended up as an anger-inducing disappointment. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 12:06 PM Blade Runner is perhaps the most overrated film of all time. What exactly made it so deep? I thought it must have just gone over my head, but I've read all about what makes it so "deep", and I noticed pretty much all of it. I really don't think it was as deep as people make it out to be. It didn't challenge my mind or make me "think" like it seemed to everyone else. I will probably watch it again one day, and maybe then it will click, but I doubt it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 12:07 PM I thought the list was good. I'm glad someone mentioned Enemy Mine. I haven't seen the movie about 15 years but remember really liking it. I also remember liking Rollerball with James Caan. I would have to check both out again to see if they aged well. GATTACA was one of my all time favorites. I'm glad it made the list. Make sure you spell it right though. G.A.T.T.A.C.A. is DNA sequence so you can't spell with an "I" and have the same effect :). I need to check out Primer as I've never seen it. I think there are a lot of movies that could have made the list but he could only pick 10. Donnie Darko- One of my all time favorites and one I do think should have made it. The Abyss (Directors Cut)- Can't remember if it was thought provoking? Contact- Book was better 12 Monkies Matrix/13th Floor Eternal Sunshine- I don't really consider it Sci-Fi Event Horizon doesn't deserve the list but the topic was interesting. It's one of those movies that could have been really good. Cheers! Does Bubba Hotep count? Probably more horror. Jurassic Park- Book is better. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 12:09 PM Cheers! should be at the bottom of my post...Sorry (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 12:15 PM I presume any of these top 10 movies are going to have their detractors. For the most part, I wouldn't complain too much of those I've seen. I definitely disliked Event Horizon, Dune, and Mission to Mars but that doesn't mean they couldn't be stellar to someone. I'm a big Firefly fan. I consider it my second or third favorite tv scifi series of all time, but I wouldn't put Serenity in a top 10 movie list. I thought it was OK and I enjoyed it, but it wasn't a classic by any stretch in my mind. I don't know if Blade Runner was 'deep', but I enjoyed the Director's Cut immensely. Westworld was a kick to watch. I like to believe I enjoy 'thinking' scifi, but Close Encounters and 2001 bored me. I can appreciate the skill that went into their production though. I will give Primer and Sunshine a go as I never really heard of them prior to this list/thread. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 12:18 PM I'd just like to say thanks for putting Primer on the list. While this movie may be somewhat less entertaining than many of these others, I have to say that it is one of my favourite movies of all time. For me it was quite viscerally stimulating, while also being easily one of the most cerebral movies I have ever seen. In my opinion, it clearly (ignoring the 2 or 3 times you have to watch this masterpiece to understand it) demonstrates an intriguing possibility for technological advance which is both chilling and, perhaps, a little plausible. This movie is anything but cliche and exemplifies the more enigmatic side of Science Fiction in a maner that has yet to be replicated in modern cinema. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 01:22 PM In reply to this comment (#2240460) "'Sunshine.' It started great. It maintained my interest and high expectations. And then when it went for that seizure inducing horror NONSENSE, it jumped the shark, the couch, the pony, the duck and it's own @ss. It ended up as an anger-inducing disappointment." lol, TombstoneLawDog, you worded that perfectly for me. I had exactly the same reaction, I went from, wow this could be the best Sci-Fi movie I've seen in years, to WTF! in an amazingly short amount of time. The great tone, flow, and atmosphere of the movie was just blown up. It wasn't the concept so much as the complete disruption of what the movie was accomplishing up until that point. Major disappointment. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 02:50 PM Ignore ledawg. He apparently has the IQ of a warm can of Budweiser. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 03:06 PM In reply to this comment (#2237433) Thank you! I feel the exact same way about Child of Men. There was plenty of opportunity for some thought provoking work, but instead it was an exhausting chase movie illustrating everything we've seen a billion times; corrupt government, cruelty of mankind, bla bla bla bla. I still think this is a great list over all. We could all argue a case for our personal favorites, but the relevance of these films stands the test of time and circumstance. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 03:57 PM I know this was mentioned multiple times before, but I am not siply going to cry 'why wasn't this on the list?' No, with only ten movies I think you did a marvelous job, I simply wish to point out a film I would have included. 'Alien'. Not "Aliens'', I agree quite with the above comenter who pointed out that while 'Aliens' is a triumph of Sci-Fi, a lovely creature feature, it is not intelegent science-fiction. 'Alien' however is. 'Alien' makes you think. It is a comentary, of course, on the dark side of human nature. It also speaks about the relationship between humans and machines, about the replacement of humanity with machines, or imitations. Not as acute as 'Blade Runner', but it certainly contains the roots of 'Blade Runner' in the sub-plot involving Ash. (I am aware that 'Blade Runner' is in fact a suposed 'adaptation' of 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' but it is more of a film based on the idea of the novel.) 'Alien' also deals with ideas about isolation and confinement. The entire film contains nine characters if you count the monster and Jones the cat, and takes place entierly in three locations, the desolate plantiod of LV-426, the Nostromo, and the Nostromo's shuttle. I mearly mean to say that I would have included this film, were I making the list... of course I also would have included '12 Monkeys' and 'The Day the Earth Stood Still', and prehapse some other, older films. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 03:58 PM In reply to this comment (#2239469) Nice to finally see someone mention the 50's classics Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the DAy the Earth Stood Still. Both amazing thinking movies for the times, comments on both society and politics in the time of McCarthy and Communism. Not to argue Detrs, but whatever you call it you are never going to satisfy everyone with your definition. I have heard various people call the field SF, Sci-Fi, Speculative Fiction, Science Fiction, Space Opera. It is one of the most wide ranging fields in any literary genre. No one can truly classify the genre into one or two simple categories. Any fan of literary science fiction recognizes cyperpunk, hard science fiction, space opera and at least a dozen others as comprising the books we read. I don't try to classify the SF for lack of a better term into all these categories, just as stuff I enjoy. I like Douglas Adams (SF comedy or social commentary), Philip K. Dick, Ian McDonald, Arthur C. ClarkeIain M. Rankin, Frank Herbert, Robert Heinlien, Robert Sawyer, David Gunn, John Ringo, John Scalzi and at least another 3 dozen to long to list here. Good writing is good writing, good movies are the same, we will all disagree which is best and why, relax a little. You make good points but need to lecture a little less and people won't attack you on the little things. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 04:17 PM Oh, and I don't know if these have been mentioned, sorry if they were. (I admit to not reading all the coments, too many, and that little war between Detrs and what seems like the rest of humanity... not for me.) Akira- A beatiful anime, it has never been reproduced it style, thought, or plot. Ghost in The Shell- Most americans who praise 'The Matrix' have not seen this, since it is the movie that 'Matrix' seems to have borrowed from- a lot. In fact, it makes 'MAtrix' look not like not a bad film, but sort of un-origional. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 04:35 PM w@velength, stop being a douche. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 05:08 PM Here is my list of the best sci-films I've ever seen: 1-Stalker (Tarkovsky) 2-Solaris (Tarkovsky) 3-2001 A Space Odyssey 4-A Clockwork Orange 5-Blade Runner 6-Children Of Men (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 05:56 PM "'Thinking man's sci-fi' is a contradiction in terms." Not at all. A man who is not open minded is not a thinking man. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 06:01 PM Children of Men is awesome! But you forgot Sunshine. DANNY BOYLE FTW! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 06:02 PM Children of Men is awesome! But you forgot Sunshine. DANNY BOYLE FTW! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 06:11 PM WHERE THE **** IS FANTASTIC PLANET!!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 06:21 PM This is a good list with notable omissions: Contact, ET, Akira, A Clockwork Orange, Minority Report (very underrated in my book), Wall-E, The Day The Earth Stood Still Star Wars, Alien, Matrix....yes, very well made Sci-Fi and relatively good Sci-Fi flicks, but take away the sheen and you have standard popcorn flicks with your typical Hollywood endings. On top of that, these movies essentially set the definitive standard as far as Sequelitis is concerned. Star Wars, Alien, Matrix, had terrible sequels. The movies in this list with the exception of Planet of the Apes, were one-offs. They would probably fit in most INFLUENTIAL, but not the most intelligent. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 06:38 PM I'll probably be pilloried or pitied for mentioning Total Recall. Arnold and the special effects were worth the price of admission. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 07:12 PM In reply to this comment (#2236676) You like the voice overs probably because you can't understand a plot unless someone spells it out for you. Those VO's we're put in due to the studio altering Dick's/Ford's/Scott's vision. Maybe you don't like it because you saw the theatrical cut, the worse of the three. you should probably see the REAL movie before making a judgement. And of course 2001's ending doesn't make sense, that's the point. That's like saying "hey, is it me, or was Tyler Durden imaginary all along?" (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:29 PM Hold up Kevin J. Alien was followed by Aliens, and Star Wars was followed by Empire Strikes Back. (Return of the Jedi is pretty good.) And I haven't seen The Matrix sequels... I'd give em a chance. But, seriously Alien and Star Wars had some great sequels. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 07:41 PM Well, if you didn't get anything out of Children of Men you weren't paying attention or you are incapable of deep thought. And most of the films people keep bringing up are action films with scifi trappings. Not that they can't have some deeper meaning, but they primarily exist to deliver a thrill, not a thought. And not that they are bad movies - I have seen almost every film being mentioned and they are, for the most part, good films. I may have included Brazil or Pi or one or two of the others mentioned, but this is still a good list. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 09 2009 08:11 PM I was hoping to see Event Horizon on the list. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:19 PM And I even made my own mistakes, since I KNOW people were scanning meticulously: 'Grammar.' I'm bringin' nerdy back.. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 08:51 PM I don't really think there is a difference between Science-Fiction and SCi-Fi. Eck, Sci-fi is not even a term! It's just an abreviation of Science-Fiction. I love Doc_Tourneau definition of Science-Fiction. I think it's true and complete ""Science Fiction" requires a plot device that is scientific and/or technological in nature. (The "science" can be of either the hard or soft variety; the "technology" can be extrapolated from a made-up premise [e.g. warp drive], but should be logically consistent.) The resolution of the plot should likewise depend on a scientific and/or technological device. In a broad manner of speaking, a real Science Fiction story would not be able to be told in any other genre." However, his definition of Sci-Fi, in my Humble Opinion, is wrong. "Sci-Fi uses the trappings of science fiction as window dressing, but otherwise tells a story that could be told in other genres (horror and westerns being two of the more popular crossovers)" Sci-Fi, according to Doc_Tourneau definition (wich seems to be accepted by most) is not a different genre. It's just Science-Fiction mixed with other things. So, there is no "Science-Fiction" movie and no Sci-Fi movie. There is pure Science-Fiction movie and Mixed Science-Fiction/another genre movie. For example, Star Wars is SF/fantasy, Blade Runner is SF/Noir, 28 days later is SF/Horror and Back to the Future is SF/comedy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:28 PM In reply to this comment (#2236676) There's something seriously wrong with you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:48 PM i agree with whoever asked about sunshine, that movie is so moving i cant watch it without crying at the end (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 09:50 PM and 'contact' (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 09 2009 10:36 PM Congrats Detrs, you made twice as many people write on this page just to argue. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 12:44 AM In reply to this comment (#2236504) The statement that "'Thinking man's sci-fi' is a contradiction in terms" shows quite a bit of ignorance regarding the science-fiction genre. While there certainly are some "ridiculous" works that have contributed to the stereotype on which you most likely base your statement, much of science fiction is both intellectual and imaginative. This list is decent, but it should have at least made you recognize that sci-fi extends far beyond cliched alien/time travel/etc movies. The setting of an alternate/fictional reality (future, re-imagined present, etc) can provide us with the context for important philosophical and ethical discussions, such as the potential consequences of genetic manipulation (e.g. Gattaca) or how we define our humanity. The "thinking man" would recognize that "sci-fi" encompasses a wide range of topics and not make assertions based solely on cliches or popular stereotypes. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 12:51 AM In reply to this comment (#2241560) I find it funny that by making such an ignorant statement, Detrs is making it clear that he, himself, is not a "thinking man" :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 01:04 AM You know after a quick research on this little topic of "Sci-Fi versus Science Fiction". I can see that Detrs is right, it is a term made by individuals within the field. However, it is not a term by the populace. Sci-Fi, if you look up in the dictionary is an abbreviation for "Science Fiction". If someone is pounding on your door and saying they are from the FBI, are you going to not care, because they didn't say Federal Bureau of Investigation? This is a frivolous argument. Frankly, you do come of as being hostile and rude from the get go. The wise thing would be to let this go, and realize that a small minority of people are not going to decide the language of the populace. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 01:09 AM As for the list, it is a good list. We had to watch Blade Runner and Dark City in my Philosophy and Film class. Dark City was our final. Dark City, was limited by its budget and time, but it was enough for me to write a paper on it. Blade Runner was definitely one that made you think. Although, Matrix, THX 1138, and Equillibrium are a few movies to consider. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 01:56 AM A good list all around. I was glad to see Blade Runner on there too even though I never enjoyed it much, it does make you think and the acting is believable. I also understand why a great deal of science fiction films never made the cut, as most can be easily classified under "action." Just because a cyborg travels back in time to assassinate a woman and her unborn child, doesn't mean it's a "thinking-man's Sci-fi movie" but more of a stylish "fantasy-action thriller." But this genre itself is enormous in spectrum and is opted primarily for television series where the stories can be done right, without the pressure of reaching box-office expectations. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 02:43 AM In reply to this comment (#2241760) Did you read what I wrote when I elaborated on that point, or did you just read one of the many things I've said in this thread and jump to a conclusion? You're talking to someone who, by his own admission, and as stated earlier in the thread, eats, breathes, and sleeps, science-fiction out of all proportion to reason. Read what I wrote later on. Do a google search for "sci-fi versus science fiction" (without the quotes). Be amazed at what you can learn with a tiny bit of effort. I don't suppose I'll be getting an apology for a snap judgment and insult. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 03:17 AM Generally, I like the list, but I'd have to add one that hasn't gotten much mention yet: THE FOUNTAIN. Sure. It's different and enigmatic. But it IS a film for the thinking man or woman, ... and remarkably done. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 04:25 AM In reply to this comment (#2237232) This is a really good list, and you guys stop putting this: "oh, where are Aliens/12 Monkeys or something like that. Does films are not existential. They don't made you think: "oh my God, what's my purpose in life."... maybe 12 Monkeys... but, we know that time travel's not yet possible, so it remains to pure SF. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 05:58 AM No life altering comment here... but I do find it interesting that, with these lists, so many people seem to focus on what films they think got snubbed instead of celebrating and talking about the films that did make it... personally, I enjoyed the list and was glad to see a small film like 'Primer' get a little pub. It's lack of budget and distribution makes it a more difficult "find" then some of the others. Same with the inclusion of the original 'Solaris' as subtitled films sometimes get pushed out of the mix in states side lists. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 06:37 AM Gattaca was definitely a thought provoking (almost disturbing) sci-fi movie. I have yet to see Children of Men, but that is on my (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 06:42 AM I second 1984... still the list is quite fine. Quite dissapointing to see how much idiots write on tomatoes... (Reply to this) |
on Jan 10 2009 06:46 AM In reply to this comment (#2237433) I agree with Bloody Mathias... Children of Men is the one weakness in an otherwise fine list. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 07:14 AM In reply to this comment (#2237397) Your list of films kind of punctuates the point of this list. Although I love all of the films you mentioned, I wouldn't put any of them in this class. The greatest emphasis in all of them is action and entertainment, not thought. Nothing wrong with those things, but they just don't qualify for this category. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 07:35 AM Detrs, could you please post your top 10 science fiction and top 10 SF movies? Same for books? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 08:30 AM In reply to this comment (#2242054) I liked Children of Men, personally. It raises some good sociological and ethical questions. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 08:52 AM In reply to this comment (#2241894) I really didn't insult you that much. I just pointed out the fact of the matter. Before I posted, I googled the topic. Which is why I confirmed what you were saying. In other words, there are individuals who are like yourself, and divide Sci-Fi and Science Fiction. If you considered what I wrote to be an insult, then you don't realize how you had been writing. The very first post you wrote, without realizing you were distinguishing between Sci-Fi and Science Fiction, sounded like you were insulting the genre. One person responded asking if it was a joke, a way of fishing out what you meant by the comment, without fully insulting you. Your opening response "Uh, no...try looking up the difference between science-fiction and sci-fi; maybe do a bit of research before you say something. Most people even many casual fans, don't know that the terms refer to different things." When he didn't know the reference in your comment, you insulted him. He retaliated as most do when insulted. And you know how it has gone since then. Your more recent posts have been better, and others have been far ruder and inconsiderate than others. These are not insults, these are observations of the conversation. If I came off as insulting, I apologize. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 09:14 AM Vikingsia20, my response was directed at Annalisa B. Sorry if that was unclear. I sent you a PM, by the way. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 09:16 AM In reply to this comment (#2241894) Here is my list of thinking "Science Fiction" movies (in no particular order. Also: Movie series are counted as one.): Blade Runner (Director's Cut): The regular edition misses valuable pieces to making it a thinking movie. Blade Runner raises the question, of artificial intelligence, it makes you ask "What does it mean to be human?" Dark City: It plays into the question of how memories play a role into who we are. How much of our personality and life is dictated by our memory? Terminator films: Raise some of the same questions of Blade Runner. It also raises the question of fate. Especially in light of the third movie. John's mother tried to prevent the rise of the machines, but in the third movie we find it to be pointless to try to stop. It was inevitable. Star Wars films: Excellent use of the Aristotelian three act model, especially in the third film. Raises questions of politics, religion, philosophy. Although the prequels seriously lacked in dialogue and acting. It does a good job of drawing from history. Matrix films: This deals with a laundry list of philosophical thought. Artificial intelligence, ethics, free will versus determinism, etc. THX 1138: Not a popular film for general audiences. It isn't action packed or emotionally appealing. The movie is actually quite void of emotion. It has light action, but nothing major. This, I believe to necessary to the film. This utopian society is made up of nihilistic individuals. They took pills that made the characters lack emotion. Everything is white, no one had hair. It was unity to extremes. The movie seems to intentionally keep emotion out of the film. You never have the close up shots required of an emotional film. It is designed to make you feel like one in the society. It is amazing that the same guy that created Jar Jar Binks could make a film like this. (There just a few films. A lot of films are not listed, simply because I haven't seen them.) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 09:55 AM In reply to this comment (#2237303) Putting aside all of the anti-intellectual whines aimed at Detr's postings, I think he's got an excellent point in pondering the difference between skiffy and science fiction. Yes, "Blade Runner" is a good movie, but it achieves its narration by jettisoning nearly all that is unique in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Re-imagining the story as a noir detective story was an interesting approach, but it damn near erased the point of the book. The theme "what is human?" barely survives the jump. Comes to that, virtually all film adaptations of Dick's work turn his very human and vulnerable characters into boring supermen. The only exception that comes to mind is "A Scanner Darkly." (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 10:10 AM In reply to this comment (#2242093) Bob S., I'd be happy to if you're willing to grant me some time to mull over it. If you can give me a week or so to do a bit of reading and watching, then I can PM it your way. That's actually the reason I've refrained from adding my own contributions. Just let me know what you want. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 10:36 AM In reply to this comment (#2242404) I can't compare it to the book. Which, you are probably right. The film rarely is as good as the book. Anyways, the move did do that for me, personally. I had to write a paper on the film, and that was my main question. What does it mean to be human? Spoilers (Blade Runner) : : : : : : : In the end, you are left with an element of doubt as to whether or not Harrison Ford is even human. The director's cut doesn't outright say, "Hey, he is an AI." It eludes to it, but you are not 100% certain. Some of the characters are judged inhuman because they lacked emotion, but all one has to do is watch some politicians speak, and see that is not a requirement to be human. It made me think on what it is that defines humanity, beyond mere issues of DNA. : : : : (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 10:50 AM In reply to this comment (#2241413) collex, thank you for your support of my definition of "Science Fiction." I have to admit that it's relatively easy to define, giving up the narrow parameters that I did. I came up with this definition after hearing Harlan Ellison, on a radio interview*, compare the term "Sci-Fi" to calling a woman "a broad" or -- his words, not mine -- a Jew a "kike." Unnecessarily strong words, even for Harlan! But it occurred to me that "Sci-Fi" could be used as a critical term, not the pejorative Harlin implied (he's a legendary Star Wars hater). I think you and I are defining "Sci-Fi" pretty much the same way, although coming to it from opposite directions. When I used the phrase "trappings of science fiction as window dressing," I didn't mean it as an insult to the (sub)genre. The main part of the definition is that a Sci-Fi story could be told, and usually has been told, just as easily in other genres. There's more "Fi" than "Sci" in Sci-Fi, that's all. You say: "So, there is no "Science-Fiction" movie and no Sci-Fi movie. There is pure Science-Fiction movie and Mixed Science-Fiction/another genre movie. For example, Star Wars is SF/fantasy, Blade Runner is SF/Noir, 28 days later is SF/Horror and Back to the Future is SF/comedy." I would argue that STAR WARS is pure fantasy (as is probably any story dealing with a galactic empire; same goes for "Star Trek"). BLADE RUNNER is pure science-fiction. Whether it succeeds or not is open to argument. And "noir" isn't a genre, just an adjective. BACK TO THE FUTURE, likewise, is also pure in its science fictional construction, even though it succeeds also is a very funny comedy. (I haven't seen 28 DAYS LATER, so I can't comment.) In the "Sci-Fi" camp, I would also add ALIEN (basically a haunted house story, only set in space); CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (substitute angels for aliens and you have the same story, only in a religious allegory); and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (same as CE3K). There's plenty more, and that what makes discussing/arguing all the stuff so much fun! :-) Thanks for responding to my post. *"Hollywood's Sci-Fi Summer," 6/23/05, CNN Radio, hosted by Renay San Miguel. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 10:50 AM Interesing. I've always seen it as a statement on both love and mortality. One could easily make the case that the bulk of "serious" literature busies itself with declaiming upon the human condition. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 10 2009 10:56 AM I would have included Brother From Another Planet? Good call on CoM which was my 2nd favorite 06 movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 10:57 AM I would have included Brother From Another Planet. Good call on CoM which was my 2nd favorite 06 movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 11:08 AM Great list; Blade Runner is probably overrated but still deserves to be on this list. Also, I loved the Matrix and watch it every time it%u2019s on television but I never find it thought provoking, more just a whole lotta fun. I like seeing people putting their two cents in on the difference between genres; sci-fi, science fiction, alternate history/future, etc. It%u2019s always an education to see others reaction to the same film. I've always found film genre categories limiting and misleading. The initial reaction to a film does not require an exacting category. A film%u2019s genre is completely unnecessary in order for the viewer to react to the art, to appreciate it or call it disappointing. I believe unnecessarily stereotyping a film, especially to a specific sub-genre can spoil the first viewing. Very specific sub categories of %u201Csci-fi,%u201D i.e. space western or science fantasy are frequently derogatory and dismissive. Additionally, setting a film in a genre really is an academic experience post viewing. Which serves a useful and significant purpose. But not for the initial reaction to a film. So when the RT list was for %u201Csci-fi%u201D flicks for the thinking man; my response would be: "did the film make me contemplate something unique?" Whether a film is thought provoking exists regardless of it being big budget, low budget, scientifically based, probably or improbable. So the genre sub-category arguments previously mentioned seem to obscure the greater question; did the movie make you think. This was a fun string of posts to read. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 02:05 PM "Children of Men" is a poor choice because, although it does indeed contain some interesting ideas and is fairly well acted, it engages in the current fad of wobbly, hand-held cinematography...not in the extreme, perhaps, but enough to make the award it won for cinematography (I don't remember which) more of a sad comment on today's low standards than anything else. More than just a suggestion of randomness is never really successful or valid in any art because it signifies that the artist is giving up control of the work's medium and vision...i.e., that he doesn't really have a very coherent vision at all. Who listens to John Cage any more? But we still watch Hitchcock and Bergmann..who knew how to use their cameras. First and foremost cinema is an art. Thank goodness there are still cinematographers (I could name several) who know how to use the potent language of cinema to allow the viewer to luxuriate in and be both subtlely and not-so-subtlely enlighted by what he/she is watching. The current sad trend--mostly seen in action movies and, ironically, in the more pretentious pseudo-intellectual films--caters essentially to the naive misconception that a movie is just a story and that it doesn't really matter much how you see it or even if you are able to focus you eyes on anything for more than two seconds. The naive viewer is suppose to think (subconsciously) that "this must be real" because it looks like a documentary, whereas the trained viewer who thinks about camera placement, angles, takes, textures, and sequencing, etc. is merely distracted and irritated that the stupid director has not caught up to basic steady-cam technology. The bottom line is that the random lurchings of the camera mean absolutely nothing and the "thinking man" must then learn to ignore what he sees. The term we have for this is "dumbing down." Clearly there are much more egregious examples of this unfortunate pseudotechnique, but then this is supposed to be a list "for the thinking man." (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 02:14 PM I'm glad to see Gattaca and Primer on this list. I really enjoyed Gattaca a lot. It's definitely one of my favorite films. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 02:19 PM Missing is "The Incredible Shrinking Man". In its own low budget way it has an open ended finish that bogles the mind as much as 2001's. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 02:51 PM I am always baffled when Blade Runner is deemed "overrated". This is a film that tanked at the box office, and yet, is now commonly thought to be one of the better films in its' genre. This did not happen overnight. It was built over time as people were able to absorb the material and then develop their opinions. You can love the film or hate it, but I find it difficult, given the films history, to define it as overrated. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 04:06 PM Wre not talking about "Blade Runner"s box-office. It's 97 on AFI's greatest films. That's overrated. (That's not the only mistake AFI made.) But I don't hate it, I was just so damn dissapointed. I'm glad you like it, you did what I can't. Enjoy it. Maybe if it kept it's name, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" No, "Blade Runner" is better. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 04:44 PM I'm surprised Akira wasn't on the list. It definitely qualifies (or comes close anyways). I think it's too easily qualified sometimes by "Western" audiences because it's an animated feature, but it's certainly one of the best Sci-Fi features to come out within the last 30yrs. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 05:00 PM In reply to this comment (#2242423) I'll wait Detrs. Hopefully the thread will still be up. Thanks. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 05:00 PM In reply to this comment (#2242423) I'll wait Detrs. Hopefully the thread will still be up. Thanks. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 05:31 PM In reply to this comment (#2243297) Bob S., Really, I think private correspondence would be the most convenient manner to do this. I don't wish to rejuvenate the thread once its course has been run. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 06:18 PM I loved Planet of the Apes. I have to say though, I only realized that at the very end. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 07:26 PM film_fanatic, I totally aree. "You blew it up, damn you, DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!" Great line. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 08:35 PM The entire time I was reading this I was thinking "where the hell's blade runner and 2001?" And they were both on the last page... yessssssss (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 09:25 PM 200! I'm number 200!... sorry. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 09:35 PM In reply to this comment (#2237303) ROFLMAO "Literary history"? Oh give me a break. Your "history" doesn't go back terribly far, Detrs. With due respect to Verne, Wells, et al., the genre as most of us recognize it was a mid-20th century development, and the "difference" between science fiction and sci-fi originated when SF writers got their panties in a wad because they felt the shortened term was disrespectful and suggested that maybe they weren't serious, Pulitzer-worthy, authorly types. Just like other genres, there's good science fiction and not-so-good science fiction. Those with literary pretensions like to suggest that the latter is "sci fi" while *they* read/write/critique/discuss "science fiction" or even better "speculative fiction." Apparently, more syllables = more literary. The difference between science fiction and sci-fi is the difference between romance novels and bodice rippers, or movies and cinema. Call it what you will, it's the basically the same stuff. It's just that some of it's better than other of it. "Literary history" indeed.... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 09:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2237536) 'Stache Attack, I remembered "Enemy Mine" very fondly as well. Saw it again a couple of years ago. It didn't hold up terribly well. Still enjoyable, but not as memorable as remembered... or something like that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 09:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2237536) 'Stache Attack, I remembered "Enemy Mine" very fondly as well. Saw it again a couple of years ago. It didn't hold up terribly well. Still enjoyable, but not as memorable as remembered... or something like that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 11:06 PM This article was designed as a "Thinking Man's List of Sci-Fi", which is not really the same as "Sci-Fi which provokes thought". However, not having any trustworthy insight as to who Thinking Man is, I'll resort to those movies which forced serious thought. In no particular order: 12 Monkeys [Gilliam's true masterpiece of science fiction. Brazil was a fine film, but far more an inspired imagining of 1984 than it was an effort at science fiction]. Solaris [The original version. As perfect a meditation on loss as I have ever seen in the genre] Blade Runner [I've enjoyed it both in the "film noir" narrated version as well as the "pure" later version. Beautifully conceived, and never losing sight on what haunts all human effort-- the awful brevity of life ]. The Matrix [Only the first movie. The sequels were laughable. More obvious and predictable than most on this list, yet raises effectively some very deep questions] 2001: A Space Odyssey [Ok, a little mannequinish in its acting-at times- but funny, very intelligent, and carries us along to a Hallish ending that won't let go of its grip, even many years later ] Gattaca [The engineering of human heredity is rushing pell mell at us, and this film was prescient in forcing us to look at what this may mean for a man and his soul. Ultimately both rich in tragedy and hope]. Sunshine [It has been criticized for its ending, but I found that ending deeply appropriate even if enigmatic. As a movie there were some problems in the body of the story, but intensely provocative and human. And, yes, there will, one day, be "the last man, before God"...... it is a thought I wish I had thought of]. Minority Report [This film was a complete surprise to me. I had not heard of the story before seeing the movie, and had not known it would be a Tom Cruise movie. The first 4/5ths of the work, with the questions of fate and chance strikingly set out, it is top notch science fiction. Then it loses its way to what feels like a hokum ending. But, yes,those 4/5ths made me think hard over hard things. It makes the list] Eight. That's enough. There were other movies seen which almost made this list. AI, for example is very good for 1/2, and worthy for another 3/10th, but the last part of the movie [anything after "the freeze"] is so awful, so comically bad, that it cast a pall over the previous story as to make it irrelevant. That is, whenever I think of the movie the Spielbergian crud at the end drown out all that largely Kubrickian goodness that came earlier. Others were clever, striking, fun, but did not push quite deep enough to seriously contend for the above list. This includes a great variety, from Firefly to Planet of the Apes to Pitch Black to Metropolis to The Omega Man. Favorites of some here, such as Contact and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, left me cold. Have never thought about them since watching. Definitely not on the list. Finally, some I've never seen so can say nothing. This includes Primer, Children of Men, 28 Days After. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 11:28 PM I completely agree with lamremote and rushmore. 28 Days Later was brilliant and unique in its approach to the horrors of a zombie infested reality. And Brazil is one of my favorite movies. It is one of the few movie responses to 1984, which is one of the best futuristic society novels ever written. This list needs to be supplemented with those. Also, what about "The City of Lost Children", which is a beautiful French film. This list has the basics and few good others, but ultimately it is too short and does not give enough credit to some truly wonderful and insightful sci fi films. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 10 2009 11:28 PM A thankful call on "Primer," what a flick!!! I'd have enjoyed seeing "Donnie Darko -- Director's Cut." And where not blatantly genre, I agree with the person who mentioned "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," too; a film relevant to our integrity in the reset-button generation. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 12:01 AM In reply to this comment (#2236519) "I would say there hasn't been a great Sci Fi film since Children of Men" Have you seen Sunshine? Also, Gattaca's on Hulu. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 12:32 AM In reply to this comment (#2236516) You can say that about any genre Detrs. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 12:39 AM No mention of Contact? FAIL (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 12:43 AM In reply to this comment (#2237303) First off could you possibly come off as any more of a condescending, arrogant, prick? Secondly sci-fi is most often defined as simply an abbreviation for science fiction so spare us your contrived definition. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 05:16 AM Children of men was plain awful. The rest of the list was pretty spot on. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 05:37 AM I love your premise, because good science fiction is what you say, it asks us to think about what it is to be human, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly. "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" certainly does. I like the original best, but the 1970s version with Donald Southerland is good too. They keep making the film again and again because it is a story that haunts us. I show "Sleeper" in class sometimes: Woody Allen's satire at his best. I love the humor is "Star Trek: First Contact" as well. One of the best Star Trek movies they made, except of course Captain Kirk's and Spock's visit to San Francisco in their past our present. "2001 : A Space Odyssey" is a bit slow by today's standards, but so is the story of mankind, which is its subject. Great film. It was ahead of its time when it was made and still is. "War of the Worlds" did not get its due, I think because of all the controversy surrounding Tom Cruise when it was released. No one ever mentions the sub-plot that contemporized the film and gave it emotional depth: war on the working man's world, which certainly has been a major story of late. And then there is "Artificial Intelligence." What other film asks us to consider what it is to be human more than this one? I can't think of any. I keep waiting and hoping for an excellent film version of Ursula Leguin's "The Left Hand of Darkness." (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 06:52 AM I remember the day Bladerunner was released, and I was stunned by its depth and the questions it asked. This is IMHO the best movie that asks the question about our existence and how we live our lives. Brilliant beyond words! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 06:53 AM To 90% of post'rs on this string: As corny/hokey as it sounds, I am actually taking a second to say 'thanks.' The vast majority of the responses on this string were of such a calibre that I almost forgot what site I was on; thoughtful, articulate and--most importantly-- open-minded. This discussion goes a fair distance to removing the taint of some of the lesser "You don't like my move=you're a f@g/douchebag/retard" screeds that litter this site. Well Done. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 10:54 AM In reply to this comment (#2236676) Yeah, you really can't judge Blade Runner until you watch the Director's Cut and let it percolate awhile. I'm surprised this article didn't make more out of the fact that the Director's Cut wasn't released, originally, because it was judged to be too subtle for the "average viewer." The theatrical release WAS dull, not to mention frustrating, in light of what the Director's Cut accomplished. Frankly, the movie doesn't hand its conclusions to you the way most people want a movie to, which is what makes it such an enduring classic. Once you get a sense of the human/replicant story, the sets and effects are window dressing, as mindblowing as they are. I think the movie was tighter than the book. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 04:21 PM I was never as impressed with "Blade Runner" as most, and consider the book vastly superior. The film merely hints at ethical issues that the book fleshes out. To my mind, the greatest value of the film was its depiction of Dick's disintegrating future earth--a truly original concept for film, at the time, which tended to make all futures look like either post apocolyptic nuclear wastelands or ultra-polished stainless steel distopias. But I'm pleased the film was made, not least because it increased the value of my first edition of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by a few thousand bucks (g). Would Dick have become such an industry without it? I suspect not. My guess is that he'd be just one more decades-gone science fiction writer remembered by an ever-diminishing fan base. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 04:22 PM I was never as impressed with "Blade Runner" as most, and consider the book vastly superior. The film merely hints at ethical issues that the book fleshes out. To my mind, the greatest value of the film was its depiction of Dick's disintegrating future earth--a truly original concept for film, at the time, which tended to make all futures look like either post apocolyptic nuclear wastelands or ultra-polished stainless steel distopias. But I'm pleased the film was made, not least because it increased the value of my first edition of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by a few thousand bucks (g). Would Dick have become such an industry without it? I suspect not. My guess is that he'd be just one more decades-gone science fiction writer remembered by an ever-diminishing fan base. Instead, he's become part of "the canon," taught in colleges, republished in fine editions. Would that Alfred Bester had achieved the same. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 04:40 PM And Barrington Bailey. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 04:42 PM In reply to this comment (#2244487) Schnoogs, That's true to an extent, but the difference is that there aren't people who talk about love stories and romance (to select one example). In this instance, something like "Lolita" is regarded first and foremost as literature, as love story second. What marks out SF is that much of the reading public conflates the two terms. for anything else, people understand that the various genres and sub-genres exist in their own stratum: no one will mistake supernatural romance for horror despite their common elements. Yet the execrable is lumped in with the extraordinary when it comes to SF. Imagine if fantasy was judged, not by the works that the public loves (LotR, HP, etc) but by "The Hunters of Gor" or "The Eye of Argon," and you'll begin to understand why I'm rather passionate about this. That is why a dispute happens. This was a debate long before I was born. they are not my own personal terms, and a quick google search will confirm that. Go ahead and call me all the names you can think of. Better people than you have leveled more biting criticism. One thing you can't do is say that I'm wrong. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 04:44 PM In reply to this comment (#2244037) Pittipat, Try 1926. But thank you for proving my point. I addressed some of your claims in my response to schnoogs. If you'd like more detail, let me know. I'm always happy to share. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 05:16 PM The 10 "BEST" SCI-FI and all so deadly serious and ironic save for the Woody Allen satire. How about some with real humor such as: FIFTH ELEMENT, SPACED INVADERS or BUCKAROO BANZAI. I guess the 4 ALIEN pics would actually be horror films. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 05:55 PM What is this? Is it really necessary to split this into more than 1 page? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 09:14 PM I am extremely partial to Philip Dick novels and god knows Hollywood has destroyed the majority of them (e.g., Paycheck, Next, Total Recall). However, the good adaptations are always well made and thought provoking. Two in particular are often overlooked Minority Report and A Scanner Darkly I also agree with many of the above posts regarding Contact and 12 Monkeys and would also submit Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Vanilla Sky, Donnie Darko, and The Fountain. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 09:42 PM Don't believe the hype on Solaris. I think that movie's reputation has been built on critics hatred of Kubrick. It has a 10 minute shot of driving on a freeway. Maybe you have to be in the mood for that movie, but it bored me to tears. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 10:20 PM Might be the best list yet. I always wondered in Total Recall whether the adventure was real or an implant (they implant blue skies in the beginning) and how could you tell. Donnie Darko is another thinker, although the time travel might have been too little to make it a clear member of the genre. I agree with 12 Monkeys but not Contact [ended badly, IMHO, with Jodie admitting she and science are weak.] (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 11 2009 10:30 PM In reply to this comment (#2244721) Having seen both the Directors cut and the original release with voice over, I truly liked the original better. The narration was for me, very moving. In the Original cut Ridley Scott included a Unicorn sequence that was later used in his film, "Legend"(to better effect) I thought the Unicorn seemed out of place in Bladerunner. The only reason for this tie in seems to be the Orgami unicorns left by the investigator. I did not find the Directors cut final, ambiguous at all. Nor did I find it as sweeping in grandure. Other great movies that have voice over narration at the end, "The Incredible Shrinking Man" and "Things To Come" (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 01:37 AM Alien has no business on the list. Talk about overrated. Contact, that was one that is definitely missing. Great call on Dark City and Gattaca. And 2001, there is just something about that movie. It hypnotizes you. It's so beautiful to look at, and so eerie at the same time. It's intoxicating, it just draws you in every time. I remember watching Blade Runner when I was younger. It confused the hell out of me and I became dissinterested. I would like to re-watch the final cut now with an open mind. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 02:01 AM Wow, these are all my favorite sci-fi films as well. I'm amazed you even had "Primer" in there. "Dark City" and "Blade Runner" are two of my favorite films. Excellent picks. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 03:40 AM nice list Jeff....I would have also liked to see Minority Report in this list...but thanks a lot for including the original Solaris (Solyaris) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 04:56 AM good job. I haven`t seen most of these films yet but it really gives me point what I really should see. Films which I like and recommend to those of you who haven`t seen them yet are Vanilla Sky, Twelve Monkeys, Contact (I think everybody should see it at least once because it talks a lot about us, humans, but actually it bored me as a film. It has almost no action. Book would be much better I think.), The Matrix (I know everybody has seen it, but I very like it and - you may laugh - but it really changed my point of view on some things. I mean part one of course. The others are hopeless. ). One of you have also mentioned The Fountain. Well, I don`t know if it actually should be in the sci-fi category, but if you mentioned it I must say that it is one of the best film I`ve ever seen and it really makes you think about a lot of things. Although it`s only my opinion and it may bored you if you`re not interested in such a topic. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 06:19 AM I love the list, but I have to throw in what I see as the one glaring omission, especially given that most of these movies were major and well-funded Hollywood productions. So my addition: Contact. I'll grant you that Carl Sagan's novel was, in fact, substantially more thought-provoking than the movie version, going so far as to have Ellie find proof of the existence of God at precisely the moment she loses faith in her own existence, however the improvements to the plot, and the lightening of Sagan's heavy-handedness, more than make up for it. It's the only sci-fi movie I personally know of that directly pits faith against science, and comes to the conclusion that the two can, should, and must coexist, and can coexist within the heart and mind of one person. There are some who'll surely dismiss Contact as being a bit too main-stream (I mean, God, it co-stars Matthew McConaughey) and frankly simple, yet taken for all its shades of meaning and with its source material, I think it deserved a place on this list. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 06:21 AM Unfortunately, this list seems to be of baby-boom era films, and many selections are the FX-laden optionrather than its more cerebral (and usually older) counterpart. I find it upsetting that films such as Metropolis, Forbidden Planet or Andromeda Strain are not represented. I guess what is not established for me is the criteria for a Thinking-Person's SciFi. Technically all SciFi is thinking-based, taking its cues, antagonists, protagonists, plot, premise from science, scientific method, and scientific theory. Alien is a classic film, however it is a horror and social commentary film that just happens to use an alien, rather than some other vehicle. It's basically Jaws meets King Kong in space. Where are films that such as Godzilla, which now seems to be a blanket joke, but which were so thought-provoking as to create entirely new genres, and help us to collctively express unspoken shared social fears? How is GATTACA selected over Altered States, Blade Runner over The Road Warrior or Logan's Run or even 28 Days Later. All of these are based far more in exploring the questions raised by the possibilities or the promise or abuse of science than many of the films on this list. I'll take Brainstorm over Dark City if I can't turn down the sound and play music. I wish more thought was put into thee Thinking-Man's List. Unfortunately, SciFi is used as a blanket term for films that either have lasers and/or spacecraft and or robots (sorry, I mean Androids), or for films that bore the pants off of everyone who can't do long division in their head. I'd far more prefer to see a list of the Thinking-Person's Chick Flicks. Or the most thought provoking Romance films... there's where you're going to have to do some digging. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 06:50 AM where is star wars? :( (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 06:51 AM In reply to this comment (#2247852) Chris E. wrote: I'd far more prefer to see a list of the Thinking-Person's Chick Flicks. Or the most thought provoking Romance films... there's where you're going to have to do some digging. "Here, how about this leaflet on famous Jewish Sports Greats?"* -Airplane! (1980) *Lest anyone think I'm picking on Jewish people, I AM a member of the tribe, so 's all good... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 07:50 AM This is a great list. I was very glad to see Gattaca and Solaris in with the sci-fi norms like 2001, Blade Runner and Planet of the Apes. Of late, Children of Men has probably been the best sci-fi films, but I feel Minority Report by Steven Spielberg and Sunshine by Danny Boyle are amazing films. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 08:07 AM This is a great list. I was very glad to see Gattaca and Solaris in with the sci-fi norms like 2001, Blade Runner and Planet of the Apes. Of late, Children of Men has probably been the best sci-fi films, but I feel Minority Report by Steven Spielberg and Sunshine by Danny Boyle are amazing sci-fi films deserving equal recognition with the great modern sci-fi films of our time. I was surprised to see Invasion of the Body Snatcher (1946) and The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) not on the list. And, althought it's sort of an underdog, but The Man Who Fell to Earth was a great films as well. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 08:58 AM In reply to this comment (#2247886) I probably should've tossed this out there about ten pages ago, but I once took a course in Science Fiction literature-- yes, they gave credit for such things-- and they defined Science Fiction as "A story that uses technology (teleportation, etc.) or a state of affairs (population gone sterile) that does not yet exist in order to make a social commentary on the world that does currently exist. Keep in mind, I'm merely suggesting this as a definition that makes it easier to categorize. I'm not asking anyone to join this particular church. ...It does, however, make it easy to explain why at least the original 'Star Wars,' which does not offer commentary but rather tells a fanciful 'David and Goliath' story, would not be considered Science Fiction any more than 'Lord of the Rings' would be considered 'Historical Fiction.' SW was identified as a 'Space Opera.' (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 09:14 AM Hey Jeff, thanks for the list. I read these things to find out if there's any awesome movie I've missed out on. Thanks to the others who have replied with films that they love, I might give 'em a watch too. It annoys me (but is somewhat also comforting) that there's always some ******* in the comments who throws out political and literature references to justify his/her/it's condescending snobbery. Kinda ruins the internet for me. But whaddya gonna do? Not be sucked in to an argument with a douchebag, that's what. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 10:26 AM Gattaca was just an awful, awful movie. I felt like I was on board the Satellite of Love with Joel and the bots screaming "MORE SWIMMING!? NOOOOOOO" just an awful piece of s**t. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 12 2009 10:26 AM Nice, but a list of "The Thinking Man's SF" is hard to compress the down to only ten movies. I could add a dozen more which would include the original versions of War of the Worlds and The Day the Earth Stood Still. Forbidden Planet and Logan's Run also deserve shout outs. These were innovative for their day, either for their message or the way they establish a precedent that is copied to some degree over and over. However, SF movies like T1, T2, Independence Day, and Aliens, which I truly adore and consider very entertaining do not exactly fit that definition. Alien might fit since it made SF surprisingly dark in a realistic way. Old classics like George Pal%u2019s Time Machine and First Man in the Moon deserve their do as well. No, ten just isn%u2019t enough%u2026 (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 10:30 AM In reply to this comment (#2236998) Contact!? OMFG That was a horrible, horrible movie, ending with one of the most horrendous let down cliche's in science fiction history: The alien takes the form of her DAD! LA-LA-LA-LAAAAAME Talk about some scifi cinematic blue balls. I had to sit through THAT for THAT!? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 10:32 AM Lame generic list of of some decent but mostly boring movies featuring painfully hackneyed themes. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 12 2009 10:53 AM In reply to this comment (#2236516) The same can be said of any genre of film. There are more "Glitters" than there are "Citizen Kanes". There are more "Dungeons and Dragons" than there are "Return of the Kings". The trick is to recognize the brilliant and discard the wastes of time. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 11:33 AM Not a bad list. The only glaring omission I see is that you don't have "Contact". There's an intelligent Sci-Fi movie. Heck, it was written by the late great Carl Sagan. Feel free to change it to the top 11 list. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 12:38 PM Primer is a great inclusion in this list. Recommend for all sci-fi fans. Nice list Jeff (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 01:11 PM In reply to this comment (#2241894) actually, yes, you do get an apology. I had never commented on RT before, and I (stupidly) assumed the first posts were the newest, as is the case on a few other sites. Therefore, I do apologize for my snap judgment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 01:47 PM What about "A.I"? I think it rally deserves to be among these movies too. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 02:14 PM Ok, with thinking man's sci-fi, let us not forget Frank Herbert's Dune, and though the 1984 movie was dubbed "the worst" by Siskel and Ebert, the concepts it presents are as epic as the mythologies created by Lucas and Tolkien. Plus, read HP Lovecraft and his circle of friends. There is a good blend of horrific sci-fi/fantasy in those short stories. While there are few good Lovecraft style films, many decent films and B movies are heavily influenced. I would recommend "Dagon" and Roger Corman's "Haunted Palace". And with all respect to you BSG fans.....I can't wait for that show to end and just go into its rerun afterlife to be forgotten on the already forgettable scifi channel, and here's why: 1) The old series had some redeeming values in its characters and there was as much drama (in terms of 1970s restraint) as the new BSG. I don't watch the new BSG, but I get irritated when I click on a link to these articles where all you critics see is "cheesy 70s" and "laserblasts", and you applaud the ridicule of character performances of respectable actors like Lorne Greene, applaud the symbolic slapping of Richard Hatch for his efforts, etc. The fact that Old BSG came out in the 70s with a sense of value based in the decade seems to give you guys of RT and EW and TV guide,etc the right to just slam dunk it for no good reason other than it being a part of the disco era. Did you ever actually watch the old show? Did you ever have any Heroes growing up as a kid? Human beings will always have shades of gray, and if you need more grit to your TV characters, fine. But stop doing the whole "this ain't yer daddy's _____" nonsense. Just remember what happened to the new Bionic woman.... 2) New Humanlike sexy blonde cylons = we're too cheap to make them into killer robots like the old series. Cut the costume budget by letting them wear modern suits and let's write in how sexy robots enjoy threesomes, cuz THAT's keepin it real. Yea, thinking man's scifi. 3) Everything you admire about the new BSG, plot twists, religious matter, character flaws and moral ambiguity, etc. was DONE BETTER ON BABYLON 5, and done years ahead of Ron Moore's supposed TV epiphany. Ron Moore's creation is simply his chance to vent frustration after working years on the sadly bloated Star Trek franchise, and it shows. Now, if it fits your idea of thinking Sci-fi, I won't argue against personal taste. I will, however, shoot down this misguided notion that BSG is the best show on TV. Straczynski pulled 5 seasons in a row (none of this ridiculus 6 month delay stuff), created respectable scifi WITH lasers and space battles. And was able to make it fun to watch. No sir, my friends. New BSG has no business being associated with this list. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 02:58 PM Balls McHammer, by knowing MST3K you're good in my book. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 03:20 PM Great List! MINORITY REPORT should've been mentioned though (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 12 2009 08:05 PM Other than the glaring omission of "12 Monkeys," a film that actually runs circles around "Close Encounters" when it comes to intellect, this is a decent list. I would second the sentiment offered for "28 Days Later" since it's an excellent movie, but I think the sci-fi element isn't as prevalent in this film as this list seems to require. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 13 2009 12:48 AM OMG, Dark City is one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I kept waiting for some interesting revelation because the movie was soooo long. When all is revealed in the end, it is soo corny. Got to give them credit though because Matrix got away with it. I thought both films were corny in that respect, but Matrix at least had great action. Dark City was more like, how-do-u-keep and idiot in suspense. I'm especially talkin about the washington post critic that says that anybody that can't fall in love with this movie has never loved a movie before. What a schmuck. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 12:54 AM In reply to this comment (#2236931) Yeah, Gattaca is pretty amazing. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 12:56 AM In reply to this comment (#2236676) man, bladerunner was so deliberate and atmospheric. its a real masterpiece of film, especially sci-fi. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 01:00 AM I can't believe Children of Men is on this list. That film was so heavy-handed and sappy with so many unbelievable moments/characters that could only exist in a movie. Sleeper? Bwahaaaa. That movie wasn't even funny. It rehashed so many sci-fi cliches. Why don't they put Spaceballs on the list while they are at it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 02:54 AM Where's "The Matrix" ? Almost any movie buff I know who grew up around the 2000s and are now in their twenty-somethings now would cite the Matrix as their thinking-man's movie. The sequels may have dropped the ball, but back when there was just the first Matrix movie and a few comics, it was a pretty big deal in terms of cyberpunk and existential theories- and it still is. Doesnt anyone remember little geek events where people would come together and discuss crap about the Matrix? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 06:29 AM good list (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 06:45 AM A.I. and The Fountain were missing. Those two films were remarkable in most every way. Critics might say "flawed" in some ways, ... but they were brilliantly different from anything else ever seen. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 06:55 AM In reply to this comment (#2236504) "'Thinking man's sci-fi' is a contradiction in terms." %u2014 Detrs Not really, but sci fi movies make so much money doing their worst that they cannot afford to do their best (with apologies to Fred W. Friendly). There is a plethora of good science fiction out there, but a real dearth of studios and directors who have the vision to take it and transform it into successful cinema. The list above shows a few notable exceptions. One must ask oneself why the viewing public must settle for the likes of "Short Circuit" and "Wall-E" when Andre Norton's "Teddy" (a short story with a similar theme, but a far better story) could just as easily have been adapted for the screen. There is a simple reason why there are so few films based on the sf writing of Asimov, Niven, Le Guin, Gibson, and yes, even Clarke: the movie industry is afraid to take chances. It would rather pass off special effects schlock as sci fi than challenge its audience to think. Wait a minute %u2014 if audiences actually started thinking, they might stop going to movies. But that is another sci fi story... (Reply to this) |
on Jan 13 2009 08:57 AM In reply to this comment (#2236998) I agree, Contact should have made the list. It absolutely fills the definition of "thinking man's sci-fi" or woman in this case, since the thinker in the movie is Jodie Foster. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 11:36 AM You forgot one of the greatest thinking man's sci-fi films, "The Man Who Fell to Earth" and not including "A Clockwork Orange" is almost criminal. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 11:48 AM No Donnie Darko? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 01:28 PM In reply to this comment (#2250315) C B, Not to be rude, but did you read my explanations? Yout wouldn't be the first person here who has leapt to conclusions about what I said. Believe me, I've long lamented the appalling lack of risks taken by studios. They don't require large budgets for every film. I could name a dozen books right now that could be made for "only" between 30 and 50 million. Some for far less than that. I think the best course of action would be a close adaptation of a moderately popular work with enough of a budget to get decent effects, a cast and crew who care, and a decent ad campaign. I think it all comes down to what is chosen and how it's promoted. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 02:16 PM In reply to this comment (#2237804) Fantastic Planet, perhaps? Total mind****. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM Hang on, what? "The Man Who Fell to Earth" is nothing but drunken self-pity and misanthropy, just like most sci-fi. The plot is that an alien comes to Earth to reshape us criminal, horrible humans, with no real plan except becoming fabulously wealthy, but he loses his way and becomes a drunk, commiserates with a drunk, until horrible mankind does something horrible to him. Wow, such thinking. And "A Clockwork Orange" is the most ridiculous left-wing nonsense: rampaging violent youth kill a man and rape his wife, and we're supposed to feel bad for him because the state "re-educates" him? Really we should all be free to rape and kill. That's the best of all possible worlds. The sad thing is that people watch this idiotic, self-defeating propaganda and actually believe it's "thinking man's sci-fi". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 03:14 PM Great list - I'm glad Dark City made it. 11-20 might include Minority Report, Sunshine, The Fly (1986), Brazil. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 03:30 PM Close Encounters is a masterpiece. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 03:40 PM In reply to this comment (#2236504) This comment says more about the commenter than the sci-fi genre. What genre is he comparing sci-fi too? Documentaries? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 06:32 PM In reply to this comment (#2250976) Good god, do you people not read on past the first page? There have probably a dozen back and forth posts between me and others. You would do well to read them before making a comment. I clarified my position not even 20 posts later (scroll to the bottom of the first page to see where the fun begins). I'm getting real sick of everyone jumping to conclusions about what I did and did not mean. One would think that I'd be used to it by now. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 13 2009 06:36 PM In reply to this comment (#2250910) PornAgainChristian, why are you bothering to post here since you seem to have nothing but disdain for science-fiction? I guess expecting reasoned discourse is too much from someone who sees liberal ghosts under every rock, in every tree, and apparently, in every film. (Reply to this) |
on Jan 13 2009 11:01 PM This list is a work of beauty in itself. I now have '4 more films to see before I die' because I trust this list and the thoughtful intelligent explanations therein. Any one who names 2201, Solaris, BladeRunner & CE3K I will trust their recommendations on the rest. I do agree Metropolis should be on .... for historical education alone it is essential viewing, quite apart from being ahead of, and standing the test of, time. So we need a longer list, with subdivisions to entertain those who want Aliens and StarWars - they have their place, but not top 10. Explanation for me please.... I recall 2 versions of CE3K. Being the sort of guy who liked this list, I also preferred the first CE3K, with the slower buildup and the ambiguous ending. Who can assist with more info on this? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 12:52 AM I'm not too thrilled by this list so I decided to create my http en (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 04:56 AM A good list - as a Sci-Fi fan it's good to know I have at least seen all of these. It's a pity we are limited to 10 - I would agree with 'ambientcafe' and include Contact, but I'd also include Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and 13th Floor - something I always thought was a much better take on the virtual reality than the Matrix (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 07:44 AM I agree with some, but not others: I nominate: Contact, Soylent Green, On the Beach, and most especially, THE MAN FROM EARTH!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 08:05 AM I would have put Paycheck, 12 Monkeys, Contact and Minority Report on the list. The final Cylon will be .... drum roll please .... The shiny new Viper that Kara thrace showed up in! lol SciFiGuy (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 08:24 AM How can AI not be on the list. AI not only was a movie that made you think, it made you feel! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 08:55 AM In reply to this comment (#2237804) I can agree with that statement when it is directed towards American produced animated films. There is an incessant need in the film industry to market animation strictly towards children such as "Titan AE", or provide fan-service such as "Heavy Metal 2000". Even when foreign animated films are brought to US markets, they are generally hacked in editing for the US distributors. This is evident in the treatment of "Kaze no Tani no Nausicaa" from New World Pictures when it released "Warriors of the Wind". However, if SF doesn%u2019t blend well to current animation in the US, the problem is more indicative of the market and not the medium. "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within" is par for the course. Like the series of games it is named for, the movie relies more on the philosophical, but is panned for its lack of action and complex story. While "Akira" received a limited theater release with two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert, most foreign animation is only available to the US market via DVD. Consider that South Korea%u2019s "Wonderful Days" (US title "Sky Blue") only opened in five US theaters at its widest release in 2004. Then balance out that fact against "Transformers: the Movie" as the second highest domestic grossing foreign animated sci-fi after "Final Fantasy" to see that the problem in very little quality animated science fiction lies in both distribution and the market demand. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 10:46 AM Now that I have spent 2 hours going through all the comments I have concluded that I definitely need to see Primer. As far as some of the other movies mentioned... A.I. are you kidding? It was 40% ok, 30% poor and 30% complete and utter trash. The only thinking it caused was "Why the bleep did I waste my time and money on seeing this?" Star Wars was my favorite movie as a kid but this Space Opera meets spaghetti western is not at all thought provoking. Alien/Aliens were simple horror/action movies set in space and not even SF/Sci-Fi/Science Fiction. (This line added for Detrs so he can spam me lol) The one movie on my list I would have added (Paycheck, 12 Monkeys, Contact and Minority Report) that was only mentioned once in a post and only in passing was Paycheck. What if you could see the future and let what you saw control your destiny? I think that is one of the better "thinking-man" movie ideas in quite a while. My favorite poster is the one who compared Babylon 5 to BSG. How right you are! B5 was the best SF/Sci-Fi/Science Fiction (another poke at Detrs) show ever made and one of the best TV series ever made. And Detrs, you need to improve your diet. I voraciously read approximately 90% SF/... you get the idea SciFiGuy (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 01:05 PM Cool...but no 1984? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 02:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2251511) "PornAgainChristian, why are you bothering to post here since you seem to have nothing but disdain for science-fiction?" I don't have disdain for science-fiction. I have disdain for the eminently political sci-fi that is always called "thinking man's sci-fi", which nowadays almost always reflects a misanthropic, anti-authoritarian, and generally left-wing viewpoint. "I guess expecting reasoned discourse is too much from someone who sees liberal ghosts under every rock, in every tree, and apparently, in every film" I realize someone pointing out the rampant bias in a medium is probably shocking when you're too sheeplike to see it yourself. But few people are in the dark about sci-fi's general political tone. Most writers are proud of it and point to sci-fi 'classics' like "Brave New World" as if they were prophecies. And there are sci-fi stories that are openly pro-establishment, such as Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", but these are always dismissed as some form of subtle comedy or 'parody' of being pro-establishment (it's not, Heinlein truly believed in the citizen soldier). Certainly there is good sci-fi; the novel "Starship Troopers" comes to mind (not the movie). The movie "Primer" which has been mentioned here is very good. The first two Terminator movies were excellent. My comment wasn't condemnation of sci-fi, but condemnation of overtly left-wing political dogma masquerading as sci-fi, or writers sticking non-sequitur references to their views of political events and situations into otherwise good sci-fi. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 03:00 PM I wanted to like "Dark City" but did not. Maybe it was Sutherland - he sounded just like the kid in the wheelchair in "Malcolm in the Middle"... I very much want to like "Event Horizon", but it is just so bad in so many ways. Really hated "Contact". I do very much like the Solaris remake, I think I'm the only one though. "Equilibrium" was very good, so was "12 Monkeys". I think the best thinking man's sci-fi (SF) movie has not been made yet... hopefully it will soon. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 06:16 PM In reply to this comment (#2252781) SciFiGuy213, Thanks for the concern, but it's not a problem. I use supplements (to extend the metaphor): attending conventions, corresponding with fans and writers, and working at getting my own novel published. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 11:06 PM In reply to this comment (#2237303) Detrs writes: "Uh, no...try looking up the difference between science-fiction and sci-fi; maybe do a bit of research before you say something. Most people even many casual fans, don't know that the terms refer to different things... Science-fiction, certainly, is never less than thought provoking even when it fails to engage on all levels. Sci-fi on the other hand is the pap... Let me know when you want to get serious about this discussion..." What? I thought Sci-Fi was simply Science Fiction shortened. Is Detrs now redefining Sci-Fi? Perhaps I'd better do some research before I post! Ok, below is my 5 minutes of research on Google on what Science Fiction means and what Sci-Fi means. I was disappointed that I could not find any distinction between the terms. Perhaps Detrs could provide some reference where the terms are htt " globe, see Sci Fi Channel. Science-fiction books, magazines, film, TV, gaming and fannish material. Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and capitalization) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or h I answered this for my non-fiction book The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies. There, I said something is science fiction if at least one of the following three conditions are met: 1. It takes place in the future (or what was the future at the time of writing); 2. It uses technology that does not exist (or didn't exist at the time of writing); 3. The speculative elements of the story largely have a rational rather than magical basis. This is a fairly inclusive definition. There are lots of folks who will include puffery about how SF is a true literature of ideas, etc., but it's fairly obvious there's a goodly amount of brainless science fiction about.... htt S draws upon earlier kinds of utopian and apocalyptic writing. The term itself was first given general currency by Hugo Gernsback, editor of the American magazine Amazing Stories from 1926 onwards, and it is usually abbreviated to SF (the alternative form %u2018sci%u2010fi%u2019 is frowned upon by devotees); htt science fiction 1929 (first attested in "Science Wonder Stories" magazine), though there is an isolated use from 1851; abbreviated form sci-fi is from 1955. Link for Web Ad on Dictionary.Reference.com Science Fiction Forum Join other insane Sci Fi fans Talk about your fav ww http sc n. pl. sci-fis Informal Science fiction. adj. Of, relating to, being, or similar to science fiction: a sci-fi movie; a sci-fi weapons system. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. sci-fi Noun - short for science fiction Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006 (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 07:34 AM So does thinking man's movie mean, you need your brain to dig in to the material as you are watching it or does it mean you think deeply about it after the movie is over, and spend the next days or weeks digesting what you have seen? To me it is more the later. Missing are a few of my favorites, 12 Monkeys, it hung in my brain for a long long time. Minority Report, aside from the hokey flying police the concepts are great. Event Horizon, borders on sci-fi/horror, but the movie haunts your brain. As for 2001 I understand why I should like it, but don't. A technical marvel, for sure, but it just does not make me care at all about the story. I will avoid the wall of text and leave it at that. Over all the list is pretty good, I will have to watch some for the first time and re-watch a couple others. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 09:31 AM In reply to this comment (#2254411) Tom H, Do a google search for "sci-fi versus science-fiction" look up Forrest J. Ackerman and Harlan Ellison. I've said how many times now that these aren't my personal definitions and that these terms pre-date me? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 11:42 AM Tom H, if you bother to read the entire wikipedia article, and not just the first paragraph, you'll see that it does discuss how some in the field attribute the term 'sci-fi' to hack work and differentiate it from 'real' science fiction. Yes, Detrs came on strong and that can be annoying, but come on people, don't be ridiculous. He didn't make this stuff up. Just because you're not familiar with what he's talking about doesn't mean it's BS, it just means you're not as well informed as he is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 12:41 PM I would propose THX1138 and Dark Star. Two movies made by big directors with big ideas before they had big budgets. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 01:03 PM What about the Matrix, Terminator, and Alien? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 02:57 PM In reply to this comment (#2255159) Detrs: I don't think anyone's arguing that you initiated the naming convention, just that it's a really, really stupid naming convention come up with and used by people (like the talented but insufferable Harlan Ellison) who think much more highly of themselves than maybe they should. And I think the point has been made that it's pointless to argue words when it's clear everybody's on the same page. Just some thoughts. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 04:38 PM In reply to this comment (#2255747) mouse_clicker, I'm not going to review the entire thread, but I can tell you that several people have (including Tom H who only a few posts above opines, "Is Detrs now redefining Sci-Fi?") said that very thing. Again, it would behoove you to actually read the discussion. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 08:24 PM In reply to this comment (#2256176) Why does it even matter? So you've proven that you did not coin a ridiculous naming convention, you merely uphold it in circumstances where it's not called for. (Which would be ALL circumstances, I believe.) I'm proud of you for that. Now could you stop making science fiction fans look so contentious and arrogant about insignificant details? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 08:44 PM That's funny coming from a guy who couldn't get his accusation right. The thing of it is, as I explained in an earlier comment, I don't think it's an insignificant thing. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 09:34 PM In reply to this comment (#2256765) Right, because you're one of those contentious, arrogant science fiction fans I was talking about, who puts undue stock in labels. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 09:54 PM It's not about the label, but about the baggage that comes with it. Look, I explained this in another post. Did you scroll back and read it? I can trade glib barbs all night, but I'd rather have a substantive discussion. And for the record, the accusation was in saying that people weren't claiming that I was using my own definitions (quite a few people were). Once again, you get my words wrong. Like I said, I addressed the reason why I think the convention is valid. If you're going to dispute what I said, do that. Don't just say, "it's stupid," because that's not a reason to me any more than me claiming that I'm absolutely right would work with you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 11:31 PM Love all these movies, but what happened to Star Trek: First Contact? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 12:58 AM Detrs, I wonder if the reason you're getting so much heat from people is because your tone isn't necessarily coming across as you intend. Clearly you're a smart person, and you obviously have an extensive knowledge of the topics being discussed in this forum. But I can tell you from extensive personal experience that messages posted through electronic media don't necessarily convey the author's intended tone. Many are the times when (what I thought was) my fiendishly clever sarcasm in an email was horribly misinterpreted, once almost costing me a good friend. So maybe you're like me...you hear it one way in your head, but when you post it, people don't hear it the same way at all. Your intelligence and depth of knowledge can easily be read as arrogance, even though I honestly believe that is not your intended tone. The childish insults directed at you should not be forgiven, but the sheer number of people who don't seem to understand your message shouldn't be ignored, either. (Not that I'm accusing you of ignoring them, but you see what I mean.) For what it's worth, although I know you're correct about the literal difference between SF and sci-fi, I think part of the problem is a significant number of people don't really care. It's all just sci-fi to them, and their opinion should count for something, too. All that said, I'd be interested to see your favorite films in what you consider to be both the hard SF genre and the fluffier sci-fi genre. I think I read all your posts, and I don't remember if you shared. I'm intrigued. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 06:51 AM Hasn't anyone seen THE MAN FROM EARTH? Talk about a thinking man's movie! It is mostly discussion and theory, and ends with a real bang! Thought it would be boring, but hung on every word. PLEASE PLEASE see it if you haven't and you will agree with me. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 07:47 AM Wonderful concept as Sci-fi was always meant to be about a suspension of belief that let us explore different thoughts and ideas. Bladerunner was and always will be one of favourite films. While there are so many more that could make this list I would like to mention just a few that also moved me me%u2026..The first , for the record also begs for a re-make%u2026The 1976 classic %u201CThe Man who Fell to Earth%u201D, and the other Wim Wenders %u201****il the End of the World%u201D with its haunting soundtrack, incredible cinematography, and outstanding cast. Here is a tip to all screenwriters%u2026%u2026.take a close look at James Halprins %u201CThe Truth Machine%u201D and know that is belongs to be made and join this list of great films. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 08:52 AM I love the list, looks like a page from my dad's list of favorite movies. Actually I still think he watches Blade Runner once every two months. I would have added Sunshine and 12 Monkeys. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 08:58 AM I love the list, looks like a page from my dad's list of favorite movies. Actually I still think he watches Blade Runner once every two months. I would have added the very underrated Sunshine and 12 Monkeys. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 09:07 AM shush..... Ten Sci-Fi (underground) Flicks for the Thinking Man The Lathe of Heaven 1984 The Time M Fahr Being John Malkovich Donnie Darko *Note : The other three are so secret even I do not know them. IMHO the ostensive definition of the term Science Fiction: Science Fiction - (the)Science = 'Attack of the Killer Tomatoes' (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 01:42 PM In reply to this comment (#2257336) Wow, Detrs. Scrolling back through your posts. Such hostility, and honestly, you seem to have waaaaaaay to much free time on your hands. A suggestion: Go for a walk and keep telling yourself, "they are only movies". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 02:46 PM While I agree with most, I have to add two under-appreciated ones to the list: Equilibrium and The Man from Earth (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 02:53 PM Hell yeah Gattaca, and Children of men. 2 very quality movies. how bout They Live with Roddy piper! nah, im JK but it was a cool movie =) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 02:57 PM I can not believe you forgot Star Trek. Of all the SF, the best one of all is Star Trek especially if you are a "thinking man" (Reply to this) |
on Jan 16 2009 02:57 PM Where's The Matrix? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 04:24 PM Definitely the Matrix. Maybe the top 'thinking man's' sci-fi of all time. I also thought Total Recall had some thought to it, e.g., when the brain implants and 'reality' seemed inseperable. eXistenz was like that, too. especially in this day of 'virtual reality.' (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 04:34 PM And if you can put sleeper into the top 10, i would assume for humor, then i thought robocop & starship troopers could be in, since there was a lot of humor in those. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 16 2009 09:12 PM This is Detrs: "Hello, everyone. In response to a one-sentence post made by some completely random person, I will post multiple walls of text on the comments section of an Internet article hoping that everyone reads and fully digests every single one of them so they can understand my deep grasp of the difference between the name of a genre and an abbreviation of said name - which is actually NOT an abbreviation because apparently it sounds less intellectual than the actual genre term, and therefore is. This difference in terminology was created by insignificantly small groups of people who believed the public would share their remarkable devotion to said genre, automatically making their position irrefutable. And yes, knowing this difference makes me into a near-godlike human being because it involves the citation of obscure writings and enables me to use big words in the process." (Reply to this) |
on Jan 16 2009 11:15 PM Matrix!? Aww come on, who doesn't love the Matrix? P.S. Children of Men was my favorite out of that list. Good film. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 17 2009 12:56 PM Code 46, anyone? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 17 2009 04:48 PM Great List!! Where's A.I.????? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 17 2009 05:47 PM In reply to this comment (#2237397) I have noticed a distressing tendency to assume that films that are not mindless action and actually require thought are boring. The fact that the films you listed are high on the Tomatometer merely indicates that people like to park their brains at times and have a good time. AS for films that provoke thought lets get serious. Alien and Aliens are space gothic horror, fun but mindless. Terminator and Terminator 2 are action flicks and if anything even more mindless. As for the Empire Strikes Back, yup great fun, but Star Wars is not by any stretch of the imagination thoughtful Sci -Fi it is a mindless, fun fantasy, Cowboys and Indians that happens to take place in space. The fact that mindless escapism is rated so high is a interesting phenomena and indicates just how difficult it is to do thoughtful stuff has against mindless escapism. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 18 2009 12:55 PM To steal from my friend Jon's profile, where he quoted a Black friend of ours, Susan: (In reference to GATTACA) Susan: its so funny how the white man Susan: needs to make this far off space aged version Susan: so that they can understand prejudice (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 19 2009 07:24 AM No Matrix. Ha. Ha. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 19 2009 11:15 PM @Detres Wow, you posted a lot... So you know, the post wasn't Top Ten Thinking Man's Science Fiction Films. It was Ten Sci-Fi Flicks for the Thinking Man Not Science Fiction, Sci-fi. Your definition has some merit, but it obviously isn't the one used by Rotten Tomatoes Staff, as they consider this list to be sci-fi. Those posters who asked why Alien wasn't included were actually agreeing with you, as sci-fi carries the connotations of a more effects-driven movie. And for agreeing with you, you beat them to death with a thesaurus. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 20 2009 06:49 AM No Star Trek movies here? IV: Voyage to Home should be on the list, also "Enemy Mine". Hmm, I don't know, I think the movies on the list are pretty good, but a lot are missing. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2009 04:31 AM Nice list, checked it out hoping to find some buried gem I haven't viewed but unfortunately I've seen all these films. I do think THE MATRIX deserves note on this list. I'm referring to the original. The most common argument used by detractors from this film is "the sequels sucked." I think they have their own merits and are enjoyable cinema but the original seriously blew my mind in a way no film has before or since. It sent me off on explorations in all manner of esoteric and philosophical thought. That gives it a high spot on this list in my book. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Articles
- Five Favourite Films with Diego Luna (10)
- RT Interview: Director Carlos Cuaron on Rudo and Cursi (0)
- Exclusive: McG Talks Terminator Salvation (24)
- Ten Sci-Fi Flicks for the Thinking Man (318)
- Neil Marshall's 10 Post-Apocalyptic Picks (22)
-
Children of Men Scribe Committing Timecrimes
(0)
- RT-UK Exclusive: Alfonso Cuaron talks Mexico and a Return to Harry Potter (117)
- Explosions! Tigers! Strippers! It's the Teaser Trailer for Diesel's "Babylon A.D."! (47)
- "Cowboys & Aliens" Graphic Novel to Become a Movie (19)
- "Superman" Reigns at The Saturn Awards (14)
Most Discussed
- Total Recall: Natalie Portman's Best Movies (65)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (43)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Vampires and Football Break Thanksgiving Records (42)
- Five Favorite Films with Jesse Ventura (39)
- Five Favorite Films with Jason Reitman (38)
- Critics Consensus: Everybody's Fine Is Just OK (38)
- Weekly Ketchup: Zombieland 2 in 3D? (28)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Terminator Salvation and a Smithsonian Battle (21)
- Awards Tour: National Board of Review Winners List! (16)
- 2010 Sundance Film Festival Lineup Announced (10)
Latest News
- Awards Tour: National Board of Review Winners List! (16)
- Critics Consensus: Everybody's Fine Is Just OK (38)
- Five Favorite Films with Jason Reitman (38)
- Sundance Announces Out-of-Competition Films Screening At 2010 Festival (1)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (43)
- Awards Tour: Independent Film Spirit Noms Here! (6)
- Awards Tour: Annie Nominations, Up and Coraline lead (7)
- 2010 Sundance Film Festival Lineup Announced (10)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (1)
- Five Favorite Films with Jesse Ventura (39)
Latest Interviews
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (1)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (11)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (21)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (15)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (22)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
- Wolverine Creator Len Wein Talks About the Film (28)
- Gavin Hood Talks Wolverine; Possible Sequel (28)
Latest Features
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (43)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (1)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (103)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (101)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (24)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (21)
- Five Favourite Films with Ang Lee (35)
- 10 Movies That Changed The (End Of The) World (36)
- Ho-ho-horror! 10 Scary Christmas Movies (39)
IGN RSS Feeds