Greatest Sci-fi Film of All Time...

[Ben Thomas]

Its not a statement, its a question.

You see, I got round to seeing War of the Worlds on wednesday and the next day, a guy at work asked, "So, is it the greatest sci-fi film of all time?", paraphrasing a review that has been run on the ads on TV. "No," was the answer he got, but it got me to thinking, what is? And how could you possibly classify it? There are so many sub-genres within sci-fi, that to name one would be to ignore 100 others.

Some would say Star Wars, but that to me isn't even pure sci-fi. I mean, technically it is, but its more just fantasy and this is where the problem comes in. I still wouldn't put Star Wars tops.

To me the greatest sci-fi films are the ones that are sci-fi in concept only. Stuff like Seconds or Brazil or Primer. All absolutely classic. I'd throw in Blade Runner too, though that's little more than "gumshoe in the future", just for its design and its ruminations on memory and existence.

So come on, give me some good ones and let the arguing commence.

(Fifty bucks/pounds/euros to the person who can make a legitimate argument for Event Horizon over all others...)

[General Patton]

yes, there are tons of movies, but no matter what i keep always coming back to 2001: a space odyssey, that's such a great movie, there aren't any other movies in it's league when it comes to sci fi IMHO.

[Hot Black]

Ah, actually Star Wars is not sci-fi, not technically or in any other sense, it's pure 100% fantasy. Space ships and "laser blasters" do not a sci-fi film make. Primer is a great example of a sci-fi movie with neither of those things. Generally 2001 is considered the best of all sci-fi films. It's also the only film I can think of, off hand, that treats the environment of space correctly with correct physics, no sound etc.
Blade Runner is a very good sci-fi movie. At the near-fantasy end of the spectrum I like Wrath of Khan a lot. Right now I have to say my favorite Science Fiction movie is Ghost in the Shell: Innocence. I'm desperately waiting for a decent DVD release of it, hopefully a nice 2-disk special edition... where the hell is it already!

[Ravi]

I dunno if these flicks qualify with your definitions of sci-fi but here goes:

- Terminator 1 &2
- Alien/ Aliens
- Blade Runner
- Robocop
- 2001
- The Matrix
- Gattaca
- Contact
- Minority Report
- A.I.

[burt_frogblast]

To me, the best Sci-Fi is definitely Alien. It Beats out Blade Runner, 2001, Jurassic Park, Gattaca, and Event Horizon by a small margin. It really has everything you could ask for in a sci fi movie; Aliens, Robots, Spaceships, Windy Planets. And if I remember correctly, as with 2001, it deals with space physics correctly (it just doesn't show it off as much). Alien and Aliens are definitely the best one-two punch in sci fi.

[Fazer]

Total Recall...period.

"see you at the party Richter!"

[Hot Black]

To me, the best Sci-Fi is definitely Alien. And if I remember correctly, as with 2001, it deals with space physics correctly (it just doesn't show it off as much).

It has at least one flaw from a scientific angle - the ship has artificial gravity. It's hardly even mentioned. The gravity is even turned on when everyone is in those hybernation pods- why? They never discuss mucking with the grav as a way to foil the alien. It's still a sci-fi movie, and a great one at that, but it is primarily a horror film. Aliens has a similar problem. When the lander full of marines drops suddenly out the bottom of the mother-ship. There's no reason it would do that. You can't just suddenly fall out of orbit.

[teledork]

From the Earth to the Moon - old school using the state of the art in knowledge at the time. Dated, but still a fine effort.

2001 - The gold standard. Just excellent in concept and execution.

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Used the SF concept of selective memory wiping as a backdrop for a deep and powerful character piece. It made you think...and that's the best feature of a good SF story to me.

But my number one is and will likely remain - The Shape of Things To Come. Prescient in the extreme, with design equal in its day to Blade Runner (still one of my fave flicks ever...Rutger and Harrison *ruled* in that movie) and thoughtful in its approach. It's a personal favorite, but that's what this thread is all about, right?

[Jampry]

I would vote for ESB, but that is more Sci-Fi/Fantasy and is highly debatable, but still gets my vote.

Aliens
Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn
Terminator
Enemy Mine
The Thing


Some on my list are more sci-fi/horror, but whatever.

[Moltisanti]

I have to go with THEY LIVE. I'm always partial to Sci-Fi films that use satire within the genre to get across their message, which is probably why ROBOCOP is my #2 choice. Though I'll admit the fight scene in LIVE probably factors in somewhere.

[Charlie Brigden]

BLADE RUNNER.

I don't really see ALIEN as sci-fi. It's a haunted house movie dressed in sci-fi clothing.

[LightningLouie]

I don't really see ALIEN as sci-fi. It's a haunted house movie dressed in sci-fi clothing.

The basic plot is standard monster movie/haunted house fare, but the atmosphere and the attitude is pure SF. Alien was the first movie to present space travel as another crappy day job with no redeeming qualities.

[wydren]

I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but I didn't like 2001. Just because it spent long periods of time showing spaceships moving in a realistic manner with classic music playing doesn't make it a good sci-fi film. It's an acid trip of an excuse for a thoughtful movie.

Oh, and as for all the people saying it's so realistic, that shot where the monolith makes everyone try to cover their ears on the moon because of the sound it's emmiting: Sound waves can't propagate in space. Unless it's supposed to be some sort of "psychic" sound. But then, is articificial gravity that much harder to swallow?

Something like Blade Runner, on the other hand, is good sci-fi. In no other setting could you have the concept of artificial humans and whether they have a right to exist or not. The suprise ending on the director's cut just adds to the moral quandry.

[myPandaNY]

Here's my vote. You cannot dismiss elements of futuristic science fiction based on what we know to be possible today. We didn't think it would be possible to get to the moon, yet we did. We didn't think it was possible to Mars, yet we did. We didn't think we'd have a computer small enough to fit on a desktop, yet we did.. We didn't think we'd have 'rocket ships' yet we have spaceshuttles (very similiar in design to some old science fiction movies). Good science fiction drives society to achieve what they see as 'fiction' into reality. Note, we didn't think we'd have flying cars... yet we have those also :) I've been following this one for almost 9 years now? maybe a little less.. skycar of tomorrow, by Christmas 2006! (http://www.moller.com/skycar/)

Here's an article for those haters who feel star wars is nothing but fantasy Star Wars Technology used today! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7864521/page/2/)

Best scifi films in no particular order:
WestWorld
Planet of the Apes
The Last Star Fighter
Tron
Star Trek: everything except voyager and enterprise
Star Wars Trilogy (first one)
Back To The Future 2. (take a look at it now and tell me how much of that is closer to reality)
The Day The Earth Stood Still(51)
Runaway(with tom selleck)
Terminator films
2010
2001
Alien movies (we've seen what happens when they are on earth... obviously, the sci-fi element works better)


thats all I can think of off the top of my head I have more in my collection that I could mention but I wouldn't say they're THE BEST :)

[Y3k-Bug]

The Guyver.

[Spike Marshall]

The Guyver.

http://maxtoons.com/fight03b.jpg

Gotta love it...

Anyways...I was always partial to Dark City although it is much more of a sci-fantasy than anything else.

Does Until The Ends of the Earth (World?) by Wim Wender's count as that was one of my favourite movies when I was younger?

[James Woods' Career]

Blade Runner
Solaris
Minority Report leading up to Anderton's arrest
I enjoyed War of the Worlds a lot ( the new one).
12 Monkey's

[Bemis]

[QUOTE=wydren]I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but I didn't like 2001. Just because it spent long periods of time showing spaceships moving in a realistic manner with classic music playing doesn't make it a good sci-fi film. QUOTE]


You're absolutely right. That's just a small element of what makes it the best sci-fi film ever. It has a jaw-dropping vision of the future and space travel, from the epic scale to the most banal design details, and it ultimately manages to align its plausible sci-fi plotline with our deepest spiritual questions. It is deeply thought-provoking, incredibly imaginative, and poetic. I love many of the films mentioned so far, but 2001 is the best, hands down.

[Lee]

Well to be honest if you discount Alien as Sci Fi and opt for pure Sci Fi as 2001 then really it can be argued that nothing is truely pure Sci Fi. After all 2001's Sci fi trappings were just extrapolations from research being done by NASA JPL at the time. So in the end 2001 is really a fantasy about contact with aliens with near Science Fact trappings on it...

And really from there you can argue that all SF is really another genre of story with a Sf cover of spaceships, aliens and virtual reality thrown on top... theres no such thing as a "pure" SF film.

Personally I have my favorite SF movies but are they pure Sf? Its arguable that they are not....

The list in no particular order is..

Akira
Blade Runner
Alien
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Empire Strikes Back

There are others like Solaris, The Thing, The Matrix and so on that I like but in the end none of them are pure SF and I honestly dont think such a film exists...

[Richard Dickson]

All of you should be ashamed that no one has mentioned Forbidden Planet.

[LightningLouie]

Oh, and as for all the people saying it's so realistic, that shot where the monolith makes everyone try to cover their ears on the moon because of the sound it's emmiting: Sound waves can't propagate in space.

It's a radio signal; the "sound" is feedback from the astronauts' comm systems in their spacesuits due to their close proximity to the monolith.

[Jampry]

How could "The Fifth Element" not be mentioned, I had forgot to mention it.

[B.G. JackONeill]

How could "The Fifth Element" not be mentioned, I had forgot to mention it.

Because it is utter garbage. Chris Tucker as the inspiration for Jar Jar Binks is the number one reason against it being near a quality film.

[Graham]

All of you should be ashamed that no one has mentioned Forbidden Planet.

...or 'This Island Earth'...[and 'Forbidden Planet' is just Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' with tinfoil suits and a hot alien chick.]

So...what is this thing you call Science-Fiction?

[Robert Hill]

[QUOTE=wydren]I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but I didn't like 2001. Just because it spent long periods of time showing spaceships moving in a realistic manner with classic music playing doesn't make it a good sci-fi film. QUOTE]


You're absolutely right. That's just a small element of what makes it the best sci-fi film ever. It has a jaw-dropping vision of the future and space travel, from the epic scale to the most banal design details, and it ultimately manages to align its plausible sci-fi plotline with our deepest spiritual questions. It is deeply thought-provoking, incredibly imaginative, and poetic. I love many of the films mentioned so far, but 2001 is the best, hands down.


2001 is as thought-provoking as a wet noodle. It not Forbidden Planet, planet of the apes(1968), Blade Runner, or The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). planet of the apes(1968) is probable the most thought provoking sci-fi film, and one of 5 or 10 most thought provoking film I seen.

[General Patton]

[QUOTE=eenin][QUOTE=Bemis]


2001 is as thought-provoking as a wet noodle.

goddamn i should've noticed that before!! now i'll have deep and thought provoking conversation with food :)

[fabfunk]

I seriously can't do anything but keep going back to 2001.

But really, this is merely the first in a series of sub-questions, and inevitably, the second question has to be, "What's the difference between science fiction and fantasy?"

[IAmTheDarkTower]

Normally I don't like straight sci-fi but for what I have watched I gotta go with
a total cop out. Star Trek 4.
Something about how bad a film it is apeals to me. It's so cheesey that I love it.

[Samurai Mike]

Anyone here seen "Zombies of the Stratosphere"?

Pure 50s B-grade sci-fi garbage. A police detective with a rocket pack (that he takes off with by utilising a not-very-obvious gym springboard) fights to stop a bunch of aliens (alright zombies, but they just look like normal humans) from blowing the Earth out of orbit with an "H-bomb".

It is not the greatest sci-fi film of all time.

[burt_frogblast]

It has at least one flaw from a scientific angle - the ship has artificial gravity. It's hardly even mentioned. The gravity is even turned on when everyone is in those hybernation pods- why? They never discuss mucking with the grav as a way to foil the alien. It's still a sci-fi movie, and a great one at that, but it is primarily a horror film. Aliens has a similar problem. When the lander full of marines drops suddenly out the bottom of the mother-ship. There's no reason it would do that. You can't just suddenly fall out of orbit.

Well, as I was saying, Alien doesn't really flaunt the technology, it just uses it. There could be a number of reasons why it's always kept on; same with the alien mucking. One thing that makes a sci-fi go from cool to silly is the overuse of technology in conversations and plot.

[Hot Black]

Well, as I was saying, Alien doesn't really flaunt the technology, it just uses it. There could be a number of reasons why it's always kept on; same with the alien mucking. One thing that makes a sci-fi go from cool to silly is the overuse of technology in conversations and plot.

That's all true, and I was picking nits. The only reason I would have liked to see them maybe turn off, fluctuate or alternate the gravity on the ship is that it would have been a nifty IQ test for the alien. It's never been revealed to my satisfaction just how intelligent they are. Are they bright, or are they just amazing predators with superb instincts? Dumb animals have a tendency to react badly to free-fall or zero G. Would the alien figure it out like a human would, or just flail about?

[TheCynic]

who the fuck even mentioned event horizon? jesus christ.

alien is fantastic, but there arent many films ever made in any genre that stand up to 2001, imo. so my pick is 2001.

alien and blade runner are close seconds. what happened to you ridley? matchstick men and kingdom of heaven? double yawn.

[TheCynic]

"see you at the party Richter!"

without question one of the best quotes ever.

[Chris Hill]

For me it's Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I'm surprised it took 19 posts to get its first mention. I guess because it doesn't contain alot of the elements associated with sci-fi (other worlds, the future, robots, lasers). But it's got spaceships and aliens, and it's good enough that it's about more than contact with aliens. It's about people (that is, human beings-- aliens are people too).

[LightningLouie]

2001 is as thought-provoking as a wet noodle. It not Forbidden Planet, planet of the apes(1968), Blade Runner, or The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). planet of the apes(1968) is probable the most thought provoking sci-fi film, and one of 5 or 10 most thought provoking film I seen.

Planet of the Apes works fine as political allegory, but as science fiction it's painfully dopey. Why does it take so long for Charlton Heston to figure out what planet he's on when he's surrounded by Earth-like flora and fauna (including human beings) and all the apes speak English? I mean, the guy's an astronaut, fer Chrissakes. He should be able to look at the night sky and notice that the constellations are the same as seen from his home world. (They wouldn't have changed all that much in a few thousand years.)

As long as people go on thinking that Apes is a profound genre film, SF movies will be trapped in Fucking Stupidville, and we'll be stuck with credulously "relevant" shit like The Island and adaptations of whatever alarmist crap Michael Crichton turned out to pay his alimony bills.

[LightningLouie]

alien and blade runner are close seconds. what happened to you ridley? matchstick men and kingdom of heaven? double yawn.

I suspect that around 1996 or so Ridley and Tony Scott fused into a single, mediocre movie making organism.

[LightningLouie]

The Guyver.

"Ahhhh, Richard Dean Anderson's gonna be in my dreams tonight!"

[Charlie Brigden]

As long as people go on thinking that Apes is a profound genre film, SF movies will be trapped in Fucking Stupidville, and we'll be stuck with credulously "relevant" shit like The Island and adaptations of whatever alarmist crap Michael Crichton turned out to pay his alimony bills.

If thinking APES is great means you're a citizen of Stupidville, I guess I've been living there a long time.

[LightningLouie]

...or 'This Island Earth'...[and 'Forbidden Planet' is just Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' with tinfoil suits and a hot alien chick.]

Forbidden Planet is several degrees of magnitude better than This Island Earth, and its production values are much higher than the "tinfoil suit" aesthetic of most '50s genre movies. In fact, it's one of the few SF movies made before 2001 that actually looks like it had a decent budget; the visual effects are way ahead of their time, and MGM kept recycling the costumes, sets and props for years afterward. Sure, the acting is wooden and there are lots of cheesy touches, but it holds up really well for a nearly fifty-year-old flick.

Oh, and incidentally, the chick, while hot, is not an alien. Gene Roddenberry borrowed most of the core ideas in Star Trek from Forbidden Planet (especially the heroic troika of captain-doctor-science officer), but the alien babes were an original flourish.

[LightningLouie]

If thinking APES is great means you're a citizen of Stupidville, I guess I've been living there a long time.

I like Apes just fine, and I have a soft spot for the sequels as well. I just don't think the movies work at all as science fiction.

[Nabster]

The definitions of science fiction vary greatly. Some define it has fiction that is explained through actual science. Such as Michael Crichton, or Greg Bear. Some dont consider writers such as Orson Scott Card to be real Sci Fi since he doesnt really use science to explain concepts.

The other more often used definition is. Science Fiction is something that could be. And fantasy is something that couldnt be. I think I like this definition the best. Especially concerning movies. Movies just dont have the same opportunity as novels to explain the science. At best we have Jurrasic Park, or Space Oddysey, which try to have some real science behind it.

But the line between science and fantasy can definetly become blured, such as with Dark City, which is one of my favorite films. Gatacca, Bladerunner, and 2001 are probably my votes for best Sci Fi films.

[wydren]

It's a radio signal; the "sound" is feedback from the astronauts' comm systems in their spacesuits due to their close proximity to the monolith.
EXPLAINED!

[Gabriel Williams]

For me, one of the best sci-fi movies of all time, besides many of those mentioned above, is The Incredible Shrinking Man. Not only are the effects top-notch (for the time), but the story is one which I have always found to be emotionally powerful. It's perhaps the perfect B-movie. I can't see such a movie being made in the age we live in now.

[EvilTwin]

The id monster makes Forbidden Planet more than just The Tempest in space.

I'm surprised noone has mentioned Metropolis yet. Certainly the most visionary of science fiction films until at least Forbidden Planet.

Other favorites that spring to mind:

2001
The Manchurian Candidate (The brainwashing method is certainly beyond the scope of science at the time.)
Robocop
Star Trek II
Blade Runner
The Thing (either version)
Alien/Aliens

[Daughters]

Gattaca a film I have real appreciation for now that I didn't have upon the first time I watched it.
The Matrix(sequels not included)
Donnie Darko
Abre los ojos(Open your Eyes/Vanilla Sky)
Intacto
Cube

[Bemis]

[QUOTE=Bemis]


2001 is as thought-provoking as a wet noodle. It not Forbidden Planet, planet of the apes(1968), Blade Runner, or The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). planet of the apes(1968) is probable the most thought provoking sci-fi film, and one of 5 or 10 most thought provoking film I seen.


All of the films you mention are terrific, and Blade Runner and The Day the Earth Stood Still would both make my top 10 list. But 2001 is still a more profound film to me (well, Blade Runner is really close, I admit). While the other movies you mentioned have some pretty big ideas, 2001 not only gets to the most elemental questions of being and evolution, and it does so in an unpretentious but elegant and entertaining (for me, anyway) manner. "Apes is us" just can't quite compare in my mind.

[Litmus Configuration]

alien is fantastic, but there arent many films ever made in any genre that stand up to 2001, imo. so my pick is 2001.

alien and blade runner are close seconds. what happened to you ridley? matchstick men and kingdom of heaven? double yawn.


I seem to remember Kubrick making some unpopular films in the wake of 2001 as well. I loved them, though.

My SF "best" list would have to include (in no order):

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
BLADE RUNNER
ALIEN
SOLARIS (both versions)
GATTACA
John Carpenter's THE THING
THE TERMINATOR
PLANET OF THE APES
FORBIDDEN PLANET
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND
THE ROAD WARRIOR

I know some of those are genre hybrids but if the stories are largely futuristic and/or extraterrestrial-related, I'm lumping them in regardless of how much action or horror they might include.

EDIT: Yes, good call on PRIMER. We'll see how it ages but it's certainly worth considering.

[Rene A. Moncivais]

I will go with 2001 and Primer.

[LightningLouie]

Some dont consider writers such as Orson Scott Card to be real Sci Fi since he doesnt really use science to explain concepts.

I don't think of OSC as a real writer of any kind. Ender's Game is like a bad South Park episode.

[Johnny Bola]

What about some sci-fi that have become cult classics? Brazil, Escape from New York, A Clockwork Orange, eXistenZ, and The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension come to mind. Maybe not all classics, but they have a cult-like following.

[Ben Thomas]

For the record, my favourites in the "genre" as wide as it can be cast are:

12 Monkeys - Willis' best performance by a mile, awesome viuals from Gilliam and the finest use of La Jetee's inspiration as a "straightforward" narrative. Bleak and uplifting and intelligent.

2001: A Space Odyssey - everything everyone has said is correct and that's why this film is truly one of the greats. Enigmatic, profound, beautiful, disturbing, brilliant. 2001 is all this and more.

Primer - Pure sci-fi with nothing but a killer concept going for it. No-frills example of the power of the mind in cinema. Destined to become a cult classic.

Seconds - surreal and haunting, for me this is the most potent example of sci-fi grounded in a very real world. Excellent performances all round, ground-breaking technique, thoroughly satisfying and accessible brain food for the masses. Arguably Frankenheimer's best and least recognised film.

Blade Runner - possibly the most influential film visually in this or any genre. Genius in either cut, there is too much to love here. My favourite Ridley film to boot.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind - Again, grounded in reality, this is a shining example of the wonder of the unknown and the tangibility of discovery. Beautifully shot and acted, it is by turns funny, scary, saddening, frustrating, clever and finally awe-inspiring.

Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein - Sure, they may be horror, but they are also about the science of man challenging God. Wonderfully eccentric and expressionistic in places, they still have the power to thrill, engage and shock.

This has been a pleasure to read and write, folks. And I was worried I would get laughed off for starting this thread. Thank you for your concise entries and for not allowing the 2001 debate to become a slanging match. I stlll have issues with that film, but I cannot deny its brilliance. And i'm not sure that I, nor anyone, will ever be able to say they fully understand it. Perhaps it really is the grandaddy. Or perhaps we just do not understand the awesomeness of Paul W S Anderson's Event Horizon yet. Or Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Ah well, here's to our kids...

[Sproing]

Things to Come (1936): Another Wells adaptation that forecast the outcome and consequences of World War II. The SFX, even if you're not looking at them in the context of the time period when the film was made, are astounding. The same is true of Forbidden Planet -- and both films are also dealing not just with technology, but with moral and philosophical concepts. THAT'S what good science fiction does.

[Buffalo Wildfire]

Definitions for Science Fiction are so variable that to exclude a film because it may
or may not be Fantasy is almost laughable ....Clarke sums it up quite nicely

* CLARKE'S "LAWS" *
1: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states
that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
2: "The only way to discover the limits of the
possible is to venture beyond them into the impossible."
3: "Any significantly advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."
4: "For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."

For me 2001 is not a great film but i can see why so many others think
otherwise and respect their opinions ... but

Fritz Langs Metropolis is the film i would choose(if you bastards force me to pick only one)
and even though opinion is divided about Alien it would be my second choice

[wydren]

All of the films you mention are terrific, and Blade Runner and The Day the Earth Stood Still would both make my top 10 list. But 2001 is still a more profound film to me (well, Blade Runner is really close, I admit). While the other movies you mentioned have some pretty big ideas, 2001 not only gets to the most elemental questions of being and evolution, and it does so in an unpretentious but elegant and entertaining (for me, anyway) manner. "Apes is us" just can't quite compare in my mind.
See, I think 2001 is pretentious. Those long, slow shots in space just seem to scream "Look at me, I'm deep!". It's just my opinion, but it's what I think. For that reason, I don't consider it even good sci-fi. Of course, I've never read the book. I'll admit that I do like that it is a true sci-fi movie, with the artificial intelligence possibly being the next step in evolution. But I think something like Blade Runner deals with that idea 10 times better, without being pretentious.

[Chun006]

What??? No love for Contact? Or The Abyss?

Say what you like about their endings, but both of these deserve mention in a list of top Sci-fi. (I actually loved the end of Contact once I got past the knee-jerk 'I want to see Aliens' feeling).

[Geoff Foster]

See, I think 2001 is pretentious. Those long, slow shots in space just seem to scream "Look at me, I'm deep!".

I don't think that was Kubrick's intention at all. To me those shots, like no others I can think of in cinema, perfectly capture the eternal loneliness and monotony of space. They remind us of our own insignificance to the barren, frozen, lifeless void that surrounds us.

There’s a very interesting book written by Andrew Smith titled Moondust: The Men Who Fell to Earth ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0007155417/qid=1121772081/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-8128613-9028110), which tells the stories of those astronauts who were part of the Apollo space program and returned home from the moon.

One of the men, whose name escapes me, tells Smith how he often likes to sit all day on a bench in some shopping mall eating ice cream and watching people go about their business. Only whilst standing on the moon, he says, is it possible to truly comprehend the true beauty of the earth and how it stands bright, colorful and defiant against the oppressive emptiness. Now he lives every day revering the cosmic miracle he’s part of.

Watching 2001: A Space Odyssey gives me some small insight into what that man must have felt staring down at the earth from the ash grey surface of the moon. No higher praise could I give any movie.

[tcjsavannah]

Am I the only one who liked 2010 better than 2001?

Just asking.

[Ron Vogel]

The definitions of science fiction vary greatly. Some define it has fiction that is explained through actual science. Such as Michael Crichton, or Greg Bear. Some dont consider writers such as Orson Scott Card to be real Sci Fi since he doesnt really use science to explain concepts.

The other more often used definition is. Science Fiction is something that could be. And fantasy is something that couldnt be. I think I like this definition the best. Especially concerning movies. Movies just dont have the same opportunity as novels to explain the science. At best we have Jurrasic Park, or Space Oddysey, which try to have some real science behind it.

But the line between science and fantasy can definetly become blured, such as with Dark City, which is one of my favorite films. Gatacca, Bladerunner, and 2001 are probably my votes for best Sci Fi films.

I tend to think of movies where science creates a philosophical or moral choice that the character or characters have to take because of that science. So I would put something like Primer or Vanilla Sky or Blade Runner in there, but not Star Wars, where their choices are human conflicts with sciency stuff thrown in as toys.

[Geoff Foster]

Am I the only one who liked 2010 better than 2001?

Just asking.

I think 2010 is a perfectly good nuts-and-bolts SF thriller with some delicious special effects (the space walk between Discovery and Leonov gives me vertigo) and competent performances from Scheider and Mirren, who is always good value for money.

It sheds a bit more light on why HAL goes bonkers in the previous film (trapped between his reason for existence “accurate processing of information without distortion” and his programming, which demanded distortion and inaccuracy), a fact which is missed by many who watch 2001.

Clearly the producers thought it would be commercially risky to aim for previous levels of realism and inaction (hence the return of sound to vacuum and explosions aplenty), but to their credit they didn’t dumb the whole thing down completely. I’m a bit meh about the benevolent-aliens-intervening-to-prevent-stoopid-humans-from-blowing-themselves-up angle (the intrusion of 80s cold war politics is the reason 2010 looks dated today whilst 2001 seems almost untarnished by the force of time). I do like the more sympathetic treatment of HAL and the underlying assertion that all intelligent life, no matter what its component elements, should be treated with the same respect we demand for ourselves.

A sequel to 2001 could only ever have attracted the ire of fans and critics alike so Hyams’ mission was one of damage limitation from the beginning. Whilst I don’t think 2010 comes anywhere near the visual, technical and intellectual achievements of its predecessor, I do feel Hyams, who has an eye for the visual aesthetic, delivered a substantial piece of SF that ranks above the mean for the genre.

[tcjsavannah]

I’m a bit meh about the benevolent-aliens-intervening-to-prevent-stoopid-humans-from-blowing-themselves-up angle (the intrusion of 80s cold war politics is the reason 2010 looks dated today whilst 2001 seems almost untarnished by the force of time). I do like the more sympathetic treatment of HAL and the underlying assertion that all intelligent life, no matter what its component elements, should be treated with the same respect we demand for ourselves.


I agree on the intervening aspect of the aliens (if they hadn't sent that message to earth and instead just blew up Jupiter, I still think you could believably say that people would stop fighting) but I'm interested as to why the cold war politics of 2010 date this film, while films like Wargames and the (maybe) impending Watchmen movie don't feel dated? Is it because they went into specifics while the other works are more theoretical - central america and the like? I don't even have a problem with that.

Maybe Wargames is still loved because they wanted to blow up Las Vegas and Seattle.

I watched the first 45 minutes of Day after Tomorrow on cable the other night. I wonder in 20 years how dated that movie is going to feel with its pseudo-science.

[Geoff Foster]

I agree on the intervening aspect of the aliens (if they hadn't sent that message to earth and instead just blew up Jupiter, I still think you could believably say that people would stop fighting) but I'm interested as to why the cold war politics of 2010 date this film, while films like Wargames and the (maybe) impending Watchmen movie don't feel dated? Is it because they went into specifics while the other works are more theoretical ...

Possibly, yes. And the specifics were a bit too contrived for my liking (I did enjoy Kubrick and Clarke on the front page of TIME, tho). Wargames' treatment of cold war politics is perfunctory. It's more concerned with the lunacy of attempting to turn war into an algorithm and the mechanization of human beings. I don’t know anything about Watchmen, so I can’t comment.

I watched the first 45 minutes of Day after Tomorrow on cable the other night. I wonder in 20 years how dated that movie is going to feel with its pseudo-science.

I don't think anyone will care too much, tbh. TDAT lays its cards on the table with its cover art.

[sweaterbydarwin]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (and I liked Puppet Masters)
The Thing
2001
Starship Troopers (bring it)
Andromeda Strain
AI

[Gabriel Williams]

What??? No love for Contact?

Contact is an interesting film. It's a far more interesting book, but I give the filmmakers credit for managing to translate most of Sagan's ideas on to the big screen. The continual chase after funds if you do hard science. The governmental paranoia. Whether someone who does not believe in God can be representative of the human race. Heavy stuff. The film also has the most realistic depiction of what it's like to be a working astronomer ever put on film (except for the stuff about listening to the radio signals: do that and you will go crazy).

[EchoBase]

The Quatermass Experiment - I think you can get the original BBC series on DVD now, seminal Sci-Fi. Same for Day of the Triffids.

And I agree with the 2010 love. Great movie.

Others on my list incl;
Akira
Matrix 1
Dark City
Jurassic Park
Day the Earth stood still
ST2;WOK

[geek.ent.]

... we'll be stuck with credulously "relevant" shit like The Island and adaptations of whatever alarmist crap Michael Crichton turned out to pay his alimony bills.


Which brings us to The Andromeda Strain. This is one of the most underrated genre films primarily because of a the lack of any action pieces, big name stars, or attractive people. It's a handful of scientists trying to identify, understand and ultimately stop the spread of a contagion. They work in a steril underground bunker with their test subjects, and the only two survivors of the contagion... an old man and a baby. It's a delightfully tense puzzle in which all the pieces fit together.

It's a toss up between that and Gattaca, which mixes sci-fi with romance, mystery, and triumph over adversity. It's a beautifully shot picture with an affecting score and wonderful acting all around. Many other films have a similar feel to this (1984, Handmaids Tale, Code 46) but none really put it quite as perfectly together.

On 2001, I was disappointed upon my initial viewing of it (in my late teens), and upon subsequent viewings (and watching 2010) things started to come together a little more. But Clarke's novel is what really made me appreciate the film. The novel and the film (Clarke created the ideas for film and worked on the novel after the screenplay, iirc) differ in many respects, but they work as fine accompanyment to one another. I can't say the book is better than the film, because they're completely different experiences. Clarke's a great writer, 2001 was a smooth read, while Kubrick's film is an experience in sight and sound, dealing less with the complexities of plot or concept.

I love trashy sci-fi/fantasy stuff, but Andromeda Strain and Gattaca are easily tops.
One that's not completely awesome but still a good watch is the 70's flick Capricorn One, about the faking of a Mars landing (which plays upon the urban legend that the Moon landing was faked). It's a neat film, with a curiously abrupt ending (it's a long film, but I could still have handled a 20 minute Spielberg-esque epilogue).

[geek.ent.]

The Quatermass Experiment - I think you can get the original BBC series on DVD now, seminal Sci-Fi.

Ah, Quatermass is fantastic, brilliant stuff.
Two of the films (Quatermass and the Pit, and Quatermass 2 are Hammer films from the 50's?) are available from Anchor Bay in one package on DVD, and the 70's tv mini series just came out on DVD from A&E (cudos to them for the amount of classic Brit tv they are putting out...) although I hear it's not as great. The first Hammer Quatermass film, the Quatermass Experiment isn't yet available on dvd, at least not in Region 1 (I note that amazon.co.uk has the trilogy packaged together)

<----The original Quatermass productions were live TV and apparently there are no videos of them anywhere (as they were broadcast live without tape). ---->strike that, I was thinking of early Dr. Who...

[Sproing]

A great resource for this search is "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" by John Clute. A great book that looks at SF from every angle, works hard to define it, breaks it down into subgenres, includes biographies of every major author, and tracks every thread of the movement up until about 1995. The film sections alone are great stuff. It was a Dorling-Kindersley publication; I regret to say that it's probably out of print now.

[Geoff Foster]

Which brings us to The Andromeda Strain. This is one of the most underrated genre films primarily because of a the lack of any action pieces, big name stars, or attractive people.

Minus marks for asphyxiating the monkey, IMO.

[geek.ent.]

Minus marks for asphyxiating the monkey, IMO.

It was a different world back then. Doesn't excuse it, though...

[tcjsavannah]

Contact is an interesting film ... The film also has the most realistic depiction of what it's like to be a working astronomer ever put on film (except for the stuff about listening to the radio signals: do that and you will go crazy).

Yeah well he's blind.. what else does he have to do?

Seriously, Contact is one of only a handful of works where I enjoy the movie every bit as much as the book. I understand the problems bringing a lot of Sagan's ideas to the screen yet I'm not offended with the changes they made to make the movie.

It's not top top but upper eschelon IMO.

[LightningLouie]

See, I think 2001 is pretentious. Those long, slow shots in space just seem to scream "Look at me, I'm deep!". It's just my opinion, but it's what I think. For that reason, I don't consider it even good sci-fi. Of course, I've never read the book. I'll admit that I do like that it is a true sci-fi movie, with the artificial intelligence possibly being the next step in evolution. But I think something like Blade Runner deals with that idea 10 times better, without being pretentious.

There is no "original" 2001 novel. The 2001 book is a novelization that Clarke wrote after collaborating on the screenplay with Kubrick.

Also, where are you getting the "artificial intelligence is the next step in evolution" theme? That's not the point of the movie at all. HAL isn't necessarily smarter or better than his human crewmates. The central idea in 2001 is that human society is dependent on its tools for survival and progress. (Note that after the monkey man tosses the bone in the air, we never see another natural earthbound environment again; all those spaceships and habitats are direct descendants of that thrown femur.) The problem is, once humanity becomes too dependent on technology, it can stagnate and become vulnerable to simple errors of judgement. When Dave Bowman risks his life to return to the Discovery and pull HAL's plug, he's demonstrating to the aliens in orbit around Jupiter that homo sapiens is capable of relying on its own instincts and self-preservation, and thereby earns the right to evolve to the next stage of human development.

Feel free to criticize 2001 all you want. But don't put it down for not being Blade Runner, which really deals with totally different philosophical issues.

[wydren]

There is no "original" 2001 novel. The 2001 book is a novelization that Clarke wrote after collaborating on the screenplay with Kubrick.
I never said there was an original novel, I just said that I never read the book. I've heard the book actually gives meaning to the random visuals tossed into the movie.

Also, where are you getting the "artificial intelligence is the next step in evolution" theme? That's not the point of the movie at all. HAL isn't necessarily smarter or better than his human crewmates. The central idea in 2001 is that human society is dependent on its tools for survival and progress. (Note that after the monkey man tosses the bone in the air, we never see another natural earthbound environment again; all those spaceships and habitats are direct descendants of that thrown femur.) The problem is, once humanity becomes too dependent on technology, it can stagnate and become vulnerable to simple errors of judgement. When Dave Bowman risks his life to return to the Discovery and pull HAL's plug, he's demonstrating to the aliens in orbit around Jupiter that homo sapiens is capable of relying on its own instincts and self-preservation, and thereby earns the right to evolve to the next stage of human development.
I think of that movie as almost three separate stories with the connected theme of evolution. The monkey beginning, the HAL middle, and the acid trip ending.

Feel free to criticize 2001 all you want. But don't put it down for not being Blade Runner, which really deals with totally different philosophical issues.
I wasn't criticising it for not being Blade Runner. I was criticising it for being boring, pretentious, and pseudo-philosophical as opposed to truely-philosophical. Like I said, I'm probably alone in this opinion, but it's the one I got upon viewing the film, and I don't think anybody telling me how deep they think it is is going to change that.

[Geoff Foster]

I never said there was an original novel, I just said that I never read the book. I've heard the book actually gives meaning to the random visuals tossed into the movie.

The weirdness is interspersed with planets, exploding stars and alien spacecraft. The book isn’t a bad piece of work (working with Kubrick clearly gave Clarke extra angles to his pen).

Before reading the novelisation you could try the short story which, whilst seeming a million miles away from 2001, is much closer in spirit than people give credit.

[ShortRound]

I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but I didn't like 2001. Something like Blade Runner, on the other hand, is good sci-fi.

Well at the risk of being blasted as well, I agree. 2001 never really interested or entertained me, I found it too slow and unengaging. If Star Wars is off the table, then I would give a nod to: Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Bladerunner as well as Back to the Future and Donnie Darko if they qualify.

The greatest Sci-Fi story I know is Enders Game, but we'll have to wait and see if the movie can measure up to the book.

[Sproing]

Well at the risk of being blasted as well, I agree. 2001 never really interested or entertained me, I found it too slow and unengaging. If Star Wars is off the table, then I would give a nod to: Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Bladerunner as well as Back to the Future and Donnie Darko if they qualify.

Probably the reason for this disconnect is that there's no embraceable human element in 2001. The human characters are all Kubrickian ciphers, as cold as HAL, around whom hugely consequential events take place. Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, SW:OT and all the others mentioned by ShortRound may fall short in some areas, but their characterizations are gold and their heroes are people we can relate to.

I love 2001, for the record, but there's not a Han Solo, Rick Deckard or Jeffrey Goines anywhere to be found in it. Dave Bowman is just a pivot point for the fabulous cosmic shitstorm. Maybe the definition of GREAT sci-fi has to include humans who not only react, change and grow, but are emotionally accessible from their very first scene.

[OhioJones]

Soylent Green (I don't think it's been mentioned yet) is another terrific sci-fi movie. Like Blade Runner, Soylent paints a bleak and plausible vision of the future with over population and starvation as major issues. One of the best scenes from the movie is when Heston's friend is ready to die and is treated to a serious of video footage of Earth accompanied by classical music. Things he hasn't scene in years and things that Heston's character has never seen, including numerous animals, green pastures, oceans and flowers.

[Geoff Foster]

I love 2001, for the record, but there's not a Han Solo, Rick Deckard or Jeffrey Goines anywhere to be found in it. Dave Bowman is just a pivot point for the fabulous cosmic shitstorm. Maybe the definition of GREAT sci-fi has to include humans who not only react, change and grow, but are emotionally accessible from their very first scene.

I’m not sure about that. To me, it seems, the taciturn Dave Bowman and Frank Poole aren’t too dissimilar from those people we see around us every day. Why should characters be ‘emotionally accessible’ when the human norm is anything but?

Philip Kaufman tells a very interesting story in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers commentary. Originally they planned on hiring hundreds of extras to play the stone-faced pod people who subvert the humans. Very early in the production they realised there was no need for such expense. Just catch regular people going about their daily business on camera. The big joke at the end of the movie is – nothing’s changed.

We already are pod people – reflections or perhaps products of our increasingly sterile, emotionless and mechanical environments.

In 2001 Kubrick took things one step further (ten or more years earlier) with what is a pretty accurate social commentary.

[Hot Black]

I would maybe add that 2001's Bowman and Poole are not really regular people in space, they are professional astronauts doing a job they were specially trained and chosen for. They were probably picked partly or largely because they were so neutral, cool and precise... and bland. You really would not want to end up with the odd couple stuck in a confined spaceship for months on end- it would end in blood rather quickly. This may even be the most realistic part of the film, that there was no "wacky guy" (maybe he was one of the "frozen people"). What ended up going space-crazy was the computer, something that was rather unexpected hence the lack of a good contingency plan. (Something they solved by 2010 with the HAL "Guillotine".)

[Sproing]

Yes, the characters in 2001 are true, real characters, but that doesn't make the huggable as Han Solo. My point was that their very remoteness, which is true to the overall picture unfolding around them, is probably what creates a distancing effect other posters here have cited: "I can't relate to the characters, and without that the overall package is boring." Mainstream moviegoers don't want movie characters to be object lessons; they want them to be their buddies.

To cite a specific scene, witness Heywood Floyd's conversation with the Lunar Base team in the moon shuttle to the monolith. "We figure it's been buried there about twenty million years." "Twenty million years, huh?" "Yep. Well, who wants some coffee?" Very Kubrickian characterizations, very cool in the face of the astonishing, which doesn't ring true to life.

You wouldn't necessarily want to hang out in a bar with Frank Poole. You'd do shots with Han Solo until last call. That doesn't mean 2001 is a bad movie; it means it's not Star Wars. It is possible to love both, for different reasons, but your feelings toward the Original Trilogy are likely to be a lot "warmer" than your feelings toward 2001. Because Han Solo is your pal, dammit.

And Invasion of the Body Snatchers (both versions) does, in fact, kick ass, for all the reasons cited.

[Geoff Foster]

That doesn't mean 2001 is a bad movie; it means it's not Star Wars.

This almost made it into my sig.

[LightningLouie]

To cite a specific scene, witness Heywood Floyd's conversation with the Lunar Base team in the moon shuttle to the monolith. "We figure it's been buried there about twenty million years." "Twenty million years, huh?" "Yep. Well, who wants some coffee?" Very Kubrickian characterizations, very cool in the face of the astonishing, which doesn't ring true to life.

I think the scene is psychologically credible. These are middle-aged bureaucrats, not hot-rodding space teens; sobriety is part of their profession. But, if you pay close attention, you can tell that deep down, they are awestruck. Listen to the way Floyd says "deliberately buried," and the long pause before he speaks again.

If 2001 were directed by Roland Emmerich, the Floyd character would be an excitable twentysomething whiz kid, probably played by Topher Grace, and the line would go, "Omigod! Do you know what this means? Aliens came to our solar system millions of years ago, and planted artifacts for us to find! Now they know we know they've been here! Is that fucking cool or what?!" None of the dialogue in the movie is so telegraphed, so on the nose. It's one of the reasons it's held up so well over 35+ years.

[Geoff Foster]

It’s also worth recalling the suppressed looks of puzzlement, alarm, panic and ultimately grim resolution that spread across Bowman’s face whilst barred from entering Discovery by HAL.

The easy way out would be to have Bowman punching the console and screaming profanities, but that would be totally out of character for a man who, as Hot Black points out, has been picked for his ability to function in extreme and perilous circumstances. Astronauts can’t afford to lose their cool. If they do they run the risk of making mistakes in an environment that doesn’t tolerate mistakes.

In Bowman’s trembling face you can almost see the analytical mind weighing-up the situation and calculating, in clinical, machine-like fashion, possible avenues of escape. His ultimate decision is derived from a HALesque calculation of probabilities: probability that HAL won’t have locked the door x probability the explosive bolts won’t damage the ship x probability of not passing out on exposure to vacuum x probability my blood won’t begin to boil before I’ve closed the exterior hatch = the best chance I’ve got.

Dullea portrays, quite realistically, a man drawing upon every last scrap of will to prevent his powers of reason, the only thing that’s going to keep him alive, being subverted by the insanity of his situation. How anyone can suggest this isn't a 'human performance' is beyond me.

[Sproing]

It’s also worth recalling the suppressed looks of puzzlement, alarm, panic and ultimately grim resolution that spread across Bowman’s face whilst barred from entering Discovery by HAL.
I agree. Of all the characters on offer, Bowman is the easiest to relate to, and Keir Dullea is a great actor. I wish someone would find better uses for him now, in his more mature years, than "Alien Hunter."

Dullea portrays, quite realistically, a man drawing upon every last scrap of will to prevent his powers of reason, the only thing that’s going to keep him alive, being subverted by the insanity of his situation. How anyone can suggest this isn't a 'human performance' is beyond me.
Again ... I'm not saying the performances are bad or unrealistic, or that 2001 sucks. I will defend it against all comers. I'm just positing a theory for why some moviegoers -- perhap raised on the milk of Michael Bay -- find it boring and inaccessible. (If memory serves, it didn't do phenomenal business upon its first release either.) 2001 is many things, but action-packed and full of warm fuzzies (Armageddon, Back to the Future, Independence Day) it is not.

This almost made it into my sig.
I will aim higher. Thanks.

[Frylock]

Begins and ends with "Blade Runner"

But honestly, chosing "the greatest of all time" anything is tough. I would throw these out as all pretty equal in terms of great movies standing on their own, movies influencing the direction of sci-fi overall, and having the most cultural impact:

In no particular order:

Metropolis
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Forbidden Planet
2001
Planet of the Apes
War of the Worlds (The original)
Star Wars
THX1138 (low on cultural impact but very influential in the genra)
Tron
ET
Blade Runner
Alien/Aliens
Terminator
Matrix

[Turd Ferguson]

Not a single mention of Logan's Run? I'm not saying its the greatest movie, but it's an interesting story. They took the notion of "Don't trust anyone over 30" to a whole new level.

And Jenny Agutter was HOT. Maybe hotter than when she was in American Werewolf.

[Geoff Foster]

And Jenny Agutter was HOT. Maybe hotter than when she was in American Werewolf.

That's a tough call.

Can't I pick both?

[LightningLouie]

Not a single mention of Logan's Run? I'm not saying its the greatest movie, but it's an interesting story. They took the notion of "Don't trust anyone over 30" to a whole new level.

Maybe not all that interesting. To me, it's one of those "prophetic, cautionary tales" that now seems rooted in the era it was produced. (Hell, rooted in an even earlier era than 1975!)

A much more interesting treatment of the idea is in Bruce Sterling's Holy Fire, in which the U.S. is effectively ruled by a gerontocratic leisure class that can afford youth-sustaining pharmaceuticals, while everyone else works all their lives in the hopes of being able to afford the drugs. This is a much more likely scenario than wan hedonists living in giant computer-run domes. Unfortunately, it's too complex and realistic for movie producers who can only see SF as simple allegory.

And Jenny Agutter was HOT. Maybe hotter than when she was in American Werewolf.

No argument here, that's for sure.

[Grumz]

Good question for the topic mate, though hell'va tough to come up with a real answer.

Firstly my own top 5 all time favs are just about all sci-fi of some form or another, but if you were asking about real Sci-Fi, which is just another version of Fantasy, which is really just a renamed version of the old romance genre.... I'd have to go for something that actually was either based on science or the quest for science knowledge. Within and without.

Where would all of our new films be without all the oldies having asked the important questions first?

Here (In my biased and worthnothin opinion).....

In some bizzare order:

War of the Worlds (Original version) {why? because the new one sucks but is pretty}.
The day the earth stood still
2001
Akira
Start Trek 1
They Live
The Thing
Alien(s)
Dune

But these are not necessarily my favourites. Robocop for one is one of my favourites. Plus I'm deliberatly taking out Star Wars cause Lucas ruined it for me with his editing nonsense and re-releasing of different edits. THX1138 was a great film and he's done nothing but fiddle with Star Wars since back when he made decent thought provoking films.