Scientists pick the "best" sci-fi films

[stevetseitz]

1. Blade Runner (1982) Dir: Ridley Scott

I agree with this choice, no film before or since (save perhaps Fritz Lang's "Metropolis") has visually measured up to this lush and gorgeous portrayal of a dark (but plausible) near future.

2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Dir: Stanley Kubrick

I agree with the placement of this film also. It deals with immense themes and the treatment of space travel is close to what I imagine the future of space travel to resemble.

3. Star Wars (1977)/Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Many sneer that a "space opera" shouldn't be included and that it's more fantasy than sci-fi, but George Lucas made the bold decision totally immerse the audience into a futuristic and strange galaxy "far, far away". What he achieved was legend. I don't think any of us will forget the first time we saw this film. The effects still look good. Maybe "Star Wars" isn't a "sci-fi" film in the purest sense but it makes their list and mine.

4. Alien (1979) Dir: Ridley Scott

Alien is a horror movie at heart. Admittedly, the setting of the film is certainly a detailed and plausible future. The themes of alien life cycle and space commerce are interesting sci-fi fodder.

5. Solaris (1972) Dir: Andrei Tarkovsky

Good, cerebral stuff for the patient viewer. "Stalker" is also rewarding science fiction.

6. Terminator (1984)/T2: Judgment day (1991) Dir: James Cameron
7. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Dir: Robert Wise
8. War of the Worlds (1953) Dir: Byron Haskin
9. The Matrix (1999) Dir: Andy & Larry Wachowski
10. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) Dir: Steven Spielberg

I can't say that I would include any of the latter 5 films on my own list of best sci-fi films.


Films I WOULD put on the list include:

"Andromeda Strain"
"THX-1138"
"The Omega Man"
"A Boy and his Dog"
"12 Monkeys"
"Planet of the Apes"
"Ghost in the Shell"
"Dark City"
"28 Days Later"
Both versions of "The Thing"

and of course: "Metropolis"

[Johann]

Your on my enemy radar Steve, but even I have to admit you know your stuff when it comes to sci-fi.

Great picks. This would be a great starter list for a sci-fi DVD collection...

[oscar jubis]

2001
STALKER
LA JETEE
BLADE RUNNER dir. cut
BRAZIL
METROPOLIS
A.I.
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS ('57)
SOLARIS ('72)
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND

Runners-up
Aliens, Alphaville, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dark City, Forbidden Planet, Planet of the Apes.

[tabuno]

I don't think one can talk about "Alien" as a horror movie while at the same time avoid the same comment about "28 Days Later" or "The Omega Man." For me, "Alien" ranks as one of the best sci fi movies because it captures perfectly, realism, science, and fiction. Ridley Scott put a lot of effort into making "Alien" more than horror by incorporating serious science and fiction into the mix. "Alien," for me, represents one of the best efforts since "2001" for realism in the context of a possible exterrestial encounter. I actually had hoped, naively, that Mr. Scott would have received an Oscar nomination for best director for his capturing what I regard as some of the best performances of acting that year. I continually am amazed at how natural the actors were in the sci fi environment - it was real to me.

I am not a fan of the director's cut of Bladerunner as it diminishes the film noir character of the movie, except perhaps for the ending.

The Day the Earth Stood Still, remains for me one of the classic sci fi movies - representing an amazing theme considering the red scare of the times. It is solid science fiction and still holds up in its authenicity and its message.

I also believe that:

Brazil
THX-1138
A.I.
A Boy and His Dog (excellent)
12 Monkeys

as have been suggested are great choices.

Finally, I still add one more:

"Forbidden Planet" a sci fi movie whose special effects towards the end of the movie hold up to any of today's contemporary movies and its Monsters of the Id is one of the best lines of all sci fi time.

[stevetseitz]

>>I don't think one can talk about "Alien" as a horror movie while at the same time avoid the same comment about "28 Days Later" or "The Omega Man."<<


True. "28 Days Later" rises above the average zombie flick with it's science and biological themes and it's adherence to the Romero ethos, that is, when you severely damage or destroy a zombie's brain it's dead for good.

Unlike the earlier "The Last Man on Earth", "The Omega Man" eschews the vampirism found in "I Am Legend" and focuses on the biological warfare/plague aspect, so I think it qualifies as sci-fi.

>>Oscar nomination for best director for his capturing what I regard as some of the best performances of acting that year.<<

Yaphet Kotto was AMAZING in that movie. Also good in "Blue Collar".

[tabuno]

When is a movie a horror movie or a sci fi movie, especially if the source material is horror?

IMDb comment: downhiller Wrong time - wrong place Date: 4 January 2004. Summary: Read the novel - forget the movie.
I read the novel ("I am legend") by Richard Matheson many years ago which is gripping from the beginning to the end. In fact, it's one of my favorite science fiction / horror novels. I knew that "The Omega Man" is based on it but when I watched it for the first time, I was so much disappointed as the basic plotline (very basic) and a few names is all the movie has in common with the book. In the book, the mutants are vampires (result of ongoing biologiacal warfare), Robert Neville is a civialian and no military scientist who discovers by coincidence that he is immune due to an infection had inflicted during his army service, his archfiend isn't Matthias, the head of a freaky group of mutants, but his neighbor and friend Ben Cortman... and in the end, when the vampires are extinguished and a new society emerges which isn't immune but controls the virus, Neville comes to the point that he is obsolete and a threat to the new society due to his difference. Another movie version is "The last man on Earth", an Italian-American co-production starring Vincent Price which keeps a bit more to the novel but suffers from an incredibly poor budget. I strongly recommend reading the novel!!!

[cinemabon]

I believe Kubrick's end to 2001 is too ambiguous, and I say that as a great fan of Kubrick. I watched it again last night and I'm still baffled by it. I had to read the book to make sense of it.

Science Fiction... Space stuff? Fantasy? Horror? What is it? Can you define it? Just Star Trek and Star Wars type stuff? Or is it like Soylent Green or Planet of the Apes?

My Sci fi Pix in alpha order:

The Abyss
Alien
Back to the Future Trilogy
Buckaroo Banzai
Close Encounters
Contact
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Dune (2000)
Enemy Mine
Escape from New York (questionable)
E.T. the Extraterrestrial
The Fifth Element
First Men in the Moon
Independence Day
I, Robot
The Last Starfighter
The Matrix trilogy
MIB 1 & 2
Minority Report
Mysterious Island
Planet of the Apes (Original version)
The Right Stuff (as space docu-drama)
Robocop (borderline)
The Rocketeer
Stargate
Superman the movie (original version only)
Terminator 1 & 2
The Thirteenth Floor
The Time Machine (original)
Time after Time
Silent Running
Star Trek - ad nauseum
Star Wars - ditto
Total Recall
2001 - A Space Odyssey

Then there's all the B movies which have their merits like Forbidden Planet, Seventh Planet from the Sun, From the Earth to the Moon, Destination Moon, When Worlds Collide, War of the Worlds, and so on.

Many fantasy movies are borderline, like Mysterious Island and others. I included it because the of the "science" on the Island, or Robocop which has the science of Robots.

[stevetseitz]

>> I believe Kubrick's end to 2001 is too ambiguous, and I say that as a great fan of Kubrick.<<

Me too and me too.

>> I watched it again last night and I'm still baffled by it. I had to read the book to make sense of it.<<

The book made a lot more sense, but the book also lacks a lot of strong narrative at the end. It's hard to describe the "star-child", etc.

>>Science Fiction... Space stuff? Fantasy? Horror? What is it? Can you define it? Just Star Trek and Star Wars type stuff? Or is it like Soylent Green or Planet of the Apes?

My Sci fi Pix in alpha order:<<

>>The Abyss<<

Agreed. Very well done, with the director's cut being the more powerful version.

>>Buckaroo Banzai<<

As a former comic book reader this movie was so over-hyped and advertised in comic books that it was a let down for me.



>>Escape from New York (questionable)<<

It's worth putting on the list just to listen to Carpenter and Russell's commentary on the disc.



>>The Thirteenth Floor<<

Underrated and Overlooked because the "reality within a reality" genre was being taken over by "The Matrix" at the same time.

[tabuno]

cinemabon has produced a magnificent collage of sci fi movies in alpha order.

But I must still be enamored of hard core sci fi...and to believe that 2001 can be questioned in regards to its ending is to overlook the true basic theme in sci fi - that of wonder and awe at the vast unknown, alien landscape of things that go bump in the chaos and potentiality of the universe.

Solaris to be truly comprehended is impossible, as was its author Stanislaw Lem. To expect a classic like 2001 to be so straight forward as most sci fi movies would be to betray the most spectacular component of science fiction...that we exist in this universe that is larger and bigger than we can understand. As A.I. in its final moments, there is the hint of wonder, of "uncertainty" in the quiet moments at the end. If we expect all our movies to have neat and tidy endings, the answers to all our questions, than perhaps such individuals can be referred to hard core science and documentaries.

[oscar jubis]

I had almost finished writing a post here last night when power went out. Not a big loss given that tabuno is basically making the same point: Ambiguity, "unfinished" cinema, open to interpretation, fill-in the blanks=Good. Explaining and clarifying too much, telling the audience what to feel, crossing the Ts, doing the thinking for the viewer=Not Good.

[stevetseitz]

>>Ambiguity, "unfinished" cinema, open to interpretation, fill-in the blanks=Good. Explaining and clarifying too much, telling the audience what to feel, crossing the Ts, doing the thinking for the viewer=Not Good.<<

I agree and I disagree. There are far too many movies that hammer the viewer over the head with the "point" of the movie. That's precisely why I didn't like "A.I." but love "Blade Runner". Narrative film is storytelling and anyone listening to a story has the ability to interpret and "fill in the blanks" for themselves. The director never has the ability to take the viewer's creativity away by his or her lack of it. That's why people can view the same movie and come away with completely different impressions. What some view as deep and substantive, others might consider trite and shallow. For example, everyone has a movie that they saw as a kid that had a great effect on them, but upon seeing it as an adult you wonder "How did this movie have any effect on me?"

Part of the storyteller's job is to relate that story with his or her own flair, personality and method. Otherwise, every film would be a documentary style exercise. Anything the director left unfinished or unplanned could simply be thought of as "ambiguous". That doesn't make it good. At the same time, some things can be overplanned and lack all spontaneity. I think the best films find a balance of careful, meticulous planning and the incorporation of improvised and spontaneous input from the cast and crew.

[tabuno]

Two of the more intriguing components of A.I. were William Hurt's role that went against type...here we find a more complex character that the audience wanted to be sympathetic with but it inevitably became "ambigious."

The emotional overtones of loss, innocence in this movie are much greater, much more mature than in E.T. The ending to A.I. is also ambigious...does David continue to exist or not?

Perhaps, A.I. is too mature for children, but is lost on those who have matured too much.

This movie plays on a number of different levels and is brilliant for its focus on a topic that will become a major bioethical issue in the coming century. I believe, like Bladerunner, that A.I. will be rediscovered not for its comparison to Kubrick's films (for which it has been criticized) but for its Speilberg's ability to capture just as with Jaws a different voyage, a different vision that our world is now entering...not one into outerspace, but a journey into ourselves and our machines.

[cinemabon]

Oscar and I went round and round before on A. I., so I must refrain from making any remarks that will pull me into that quagmire. I wrote a seven page, single spaced paper that just wouldn't be appropriate here.

I wanted to get back to 2001 (which my buddy Rick on the Hollywood Report called the greatest film ever made). I originally saw 2001 in 70mm at the Cinestage in Chicago the summer of 1968 (remember the city then? A few other things were going on that summer). We heard rumors, I'm not sure how true they were, that Kubrick had shown 2001 in April in Washington, D.C. at a special showing in Cinerama, which was supposed to be its original format. The Cinerama logo was even on the poster out in front of the theater. Then I heard, he pulled the film because it got slammed by the preview audience, and he recut it. MGM, the distributor, backed out of making so many Cinerama prints, and had Kubrick reframe the picture for 70mm anamorphic or Superpanavision 70. Now that is just what we heard. I'm not an authority so this is where our Canadian friend who is an authority on Kubrick usually comes in and sets me straight.

I can only give my visceral reaction to that first of many screenings. The caveman stuff was just fucking brilliant (front projection, rarely ever used). The transition from flying bone to space now considered one of the greatest segues in the history of editing. The space station was so incredible thanks to a very young Douglas Trumbull who suggested to Kubrick overcranking on the model instead of undercranking giving it that "slow motion" feel of weightlessness. The segue to Jupiter is good too. The models look great, even in 70mm. This is probably the only film in history about space where the rockets make no noise in space (it's a vacuum! There can't be any sound in space! Tell it to Star Wars) No detail was left out. Then Dave goes at the speed of light. That's when everyone in the theater lit a joint and I tuned out Kubrick. The light show is pretty but it doesn't make any sense unless the filmmaker gives us something, anything, to make it mean something. At that time, there was no book, so we didn't know what we were looking at. Nobody did. Now, of course, we know.

Many people saw this movie dozens of times. It was re-released two years later as "The Ultimate Trip" giving the "light show part" references to being high on LSD or something else while watching the film. Oh, those marketing people at MGM! I still love the movie after all these years. I just wish Kubrick hadn't made the ending so ambiguous.

[stevetseitz]

I attended the "Cinerama" film festival in Seattle this summer. I saw several films in the format and was blown away by the picture and sound quality at Paul Allen's showcase theater. The incorporation of the effect of peripheral vision would have been amazing if
"2001: A Space Odyssey" had been made in the process. Also IMDB lists "2001" as being made in Todd AO which is incorrect. True Todd AO was 30 fps and only used in "Oklahoma!" again I am going off memory here.