As a reader who rarely reads science fiction anymore, I'd like to pose a question to the board: what sci-fi movies, particularly recent ones, have you particularly enjoyed and why? I should come clean here and admit that I like science fiction that's genuinely about IDEAS, but with engaging characters as well. I'll contribute a few of mine after the thread gets going. What do you look for in a sci-fi film? Which are your favorites? Which kinds of sci-fi films do you wish we had more of and why?

I've always enjoyed sci-fi films, and have particular affection for those with lots of sci-fi trimmings, SFX etc. so the advent of CGI has been great for me. Far too many films enjoyed for me to name, perhaps easier to say those which I felt were overrated - 2001 (wonderful effects, but not very good storytelling), Alien (yes, I know you spent a lot on the set, but you didn't have to show me every square inch of it before you started the story - again, poor storytelling), Independence Day (I am not that stupid, and how dare you assume that I am). I thought the first Matrix was a tolerable sci-fi story, told fairly well, and marred only by pretentiousness which, unfortunately, pervaded the sequels (particularly the middle film), both of which kind of forgot to get a story on board.

I guess my particular favourite of fairly recent years was Terminator 2 which I thought echoed, not aped, its original, and built a good follow-up story, dependent on but possibly better than the first film.

Reading back through this it's clear that much as I like eye candy, story has to be in the driving seat, and I guess that's why Phantom Menace disappointed so much.

See, while I can certainly see the appeal of the eye candy, if I'm gonna watch a sci-fi movie, the premise has to intrigue me to begin with. What I loved about "Alien" and "Blade Runner" was their ability to bend genres, horror and sci-fi with "Alien" and detective and sci-fi with "Blade Runner." I especially loved that the Alien was so completely out of their frame of reference, so completely, well, alien, that they have virtually no way to combat the son of a bitch. I loved the absence of blasters, space battles, and humanoid aliens in that film.
Perhaps I'm not a true sci-fi buff, then, cause what I look for, again, is the ideas. Two fairly recent films I enjoy more and more with each viewing are "Gattaca" and "28 Days Later," perhaps because they ARE set in the not-so-distant future. For me the thing about science fiction is that it's the only kind of fiction that actually comes true.

Blade Runner. There's another one. Let's not forget Legend, either. Three early Ridley Scotts, each of which was 100% visually convincing as to the world it inhabited, and each one of which told its story in such a muddled fashion that it was almost incomprehensible.

I began to think that Ridley Scott was incapable of actually telling a story, but perhaps it was just studio pressure each time. Loved the look of those three, hated how badly they told their stories. Thankfully, things improved by the time Gladiator came out!

You'd think that comic fans would be natural sci-fi fans. It's not true in my case, though. I enjoy sci-fi, but it's not my favorite movie genre. I'm generally more drawn to Westerns, action adventure movies and historical dramas. I tend to prefer earthbound heroes like Indiana Jones and James Bond to spacefaring ones like Luke Skywalker and Captain Kirk.

Anyway...

The sci-fi films I most enjoy are either ones that use a sci-fi backdrop for social commentary or include mythological "comic book type" themes.

My number one favorite science fiction film is the original PLANET OF THE APES. It's a great exploration of social themes, and when I saw it, I was totally engrossed in the story. The twist ending is well set-up, too.

Other favorites:

THE BACK TO THE FUTURE TRILOGY
DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL
TERMINATOR (I may be in a minority, but I thought that the first film was far superior to the second)
BLADE RUNNER (although I haven't seen it for years)

I'm not a huge STAR TREK fan, but I really liked STAR TREK II: WRATH OF KHAN and also the Next Gen. one with the Borg Queen.

Weird. It's like we're twins or somethin' Bob! I agree with 100% of what you just said, right down to your choice of movies!

I agree with you on <I>28 Days Later</I>. I happened upon this fine film by accident when it premiered on HBO.

Jim Lawless

Bob, Frank, see, these are the kind of movies I enjoy. I've never been a huge sci-fi fan myself, either of fiction or films, because characterization always takes a back seat to special effects or long, lengthy 2-3 page explanations of physics by the generic, unnamed Science Officer in books. While I certainly don't mind a big dose of hard science, the sociology and the characterizations are what draw me in. The only fiction I enjoy in any genre is always character driven. My problem with the Matrix (though I agree the visual effects were perfect) is that not only is there not enough story and substance for three movies, but also that the filmmakers hadn't really invested nearly the degree of thought in their film that the fans of that movie had. If you're like me and at all acquainted with epistemology or 17th Century literature, the whole What is Reality? theme is pretty much old hat. I'm not a big Star Trek fan of anything but the original Star Trek series, and I think that that series, along with the Star Wars franchise, was so successful simply because there were such distinctive characters used to tell the tale. No droning about quantum physics in those films -- just allegorical dilemmas about political power and society as a whole, which is as the genre should be. Big H.G. Wells fan here.

My four favorite sci-fi movies are

Robocop: Probably my favorite vision of the future. (Not one I'd want to see happen, but one that I found very entertaining.) A little dated today, but it still works for the most part.

X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes: I especially like the alternate ending!

Fritz Lang's Metropolis: German expressionism, baby.

Paul Verhoven's Starship Troopers: I'm a vet. A lot of vets like this movie.

Andrew, I am going to challenge you on your comments here...

I am both a fan of futuristic movies - explosions, special effects, and the word "star" in their titles, and of hard-core science fiction. I distinguish between the two, because they are actually very few true science fiction movies out there. Blade Runner (Director's cut) is probably the best of the newer ones I've seen, but the originals (1984, 20,000 leagues, War of the Worlds) are still best, because they were the most literal translation. Star Trek and Star Wars (and Battlestar, and Flash Gordon, and Andromeda, and ...) are space opera, not science fiction. And like your comments on the Matrix, most of the other concepts explored in the "SF" movies are done better elsewhere. SF's true medium is the novella, and doesn't really equate to film well, because if you pull out the real science - which is boring on film- it's not science fiction anymore. (eg. anyone who says ID4 is SF deserves to be taken out and shot for trying to repeal the laws of physics, electronics, biology, and aerodynamics)

I too enjoy seeing the sociological concepts done well in a futuristic setting, but I really, really hate how one is now fully equated with the other. It's the same argument that offends most of us when we see people doing sex and death in mainstream superhero comics. If you don't like SF, that's fine, but please don't demand that it change away from what it's supposed to be just so you will enjoy it.

Just a few examples of what I'm talking about: Starship Troopers; We Can Remember it For You Wholesale; I, Robot; and Dune (the movie), were all INVERTED from the authors original intent. The stories aren't just different - they're completely backwards. It's what I see as part of the on-going literary battle to destroy science that began with the famous quote: "It's Alive!! Alive!!"

Jason

I loved the movie ROBOCOP. To my mind good science-fiction has to have a solid base in reality.
For some reason I really enjoyed SOLDIER with Kurt Russell, oh sure it was just SHANE in space but it pushed my buttons.

Some sci-fi movies at the top of my list are:
Blade Runner
Forbidden Planet
Alien
Aliens
2001
2010
The Fifth Element
most Star Trek movies
most Star Wars movies

I was really disappointed with the Starship Troopers movie, I had been a fan of the book for many years before it made it to film and like so many other book -to-movie translations it should have been better.

Fritz Lang's Metropolis is one of the most imaginative movies I've ever seen. Thanks for remembering it, as I forgot for a moment that I own it on videotape!

Jason, I welcome having my comments challenged! That's precisely what' s wrong with IMWAN -- the lack of knock-down, drag-out, folding-chair-bashing-over-your-head, feisty bar-brawls that we find on other discussion forums! Prepare to defend your honor, scurvy knave!

But seriously, folks.... Jason, though you distinguish between sci-fi and space opera, you don't quite define what criteria you use to distinguish between them -- what you look for in sci-fi in the first place, in other words, which was my reason for posting this thread in the first place -- so in the interest of understanding your points, I'd appreciate the clarification on that point first.

Though I don't know what your criteria are, as I said above, I think you may be off the mark that hard science wouldn't easily be made interesting on screen. With the possible exception of Blade Runner or maybe Minority Report, I have never seen a sci-fi film that uses hard science the way that CSI uses the police procedural genre, and if you've seen any episodes of that show, I think you'll have to agree that there is a very high level of technical scientific analysis indeed sprinkled very liberally throughout each episode on that show every week. So I think a similar blending of sci-fi concepts and the crime genre procedural could, hypothetically, be used to tell a fascinating story indeed for techies and laymen alike. I was merely explaining that the cardboard-cutout school of scientific explication -- with the generic science officer who drones on about quantum physics or how a black hole theoretically comes into being or how a worm holes and string theory theoretically "work" -- makes for deadly dull reading if it's parceled out in one lump payment, as it often is in less distinguished sci-fi prose. For me, my eyes glaze over when reading Chaucer's lengthy descriptions of a character's wardrobe (which means nothing to me here in the 21st century, not knowing the customary dress of the times) or 2 page descriptions of landscape in 19th Century literature as well. My point here in not that hard science is dull, which it definitely isn't, but that "seasoning," for lack of a better term, is a more digestible and palatable narrative technique than an outright lecture, sermon, or science lesson.



Don't know if you mean "you" to mean me, exactly, but I haven't "demanded" anything, merely stated a preference. Since H.G. Wells and Jules Verne invented the sci-fi genre in the first place, and Wells, in particular, being a sociologist himself, used the genre to examine the moral dilemmas inherent in the advance of technology and its powerful impact on society, I don't know what you mean by that statement. Again, without your definition of your criteria, I can't follow you here. What is SF "supposed to be"?

And what the heck is "ID4?" Whew! My ignorance may have just saved my life!

I look forward to your comments so we can continue this discussion...

ID4 is Independence Day, the film which has made me angrier than any other film ever, because of how thick and stupid it thinks its audience is.

In some respects I hate these "What is your favourite...?" threads, because I simply don't remember things until I read them in other people's lists. Add the Back to the Future films (I love time travel stories, especially convoluted ones and those which play with the time travel paradoxes).

Add Journey to the Centre of the Earth - undemanding fun.

Add Starship Troopers - loved it, loved the book, interesting to note how the film was dressed in many of the same clothes but was a completely different person (and whatever happened to powered armour? Silly little pop guns!)

Add 20,000 Leagues under the Sea - sci-fi or adventure? Or both?

Enjoyed 2010 very much, thoughts on 2001 recorded above.

Enjoyed much of 5th Element, would have enjoyed it much more without the screeching Ruby Rhod character who seemed to have wandered in from a completely different film.

Quite enjoyed Puppet Masters - seems to have been overlooked/forgotten almost everywhere.

A few of my favorites...

The Thing From Another World
Flash Gordon
War of the Worlds
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Matrix

Would you really class 28 days later as sci-fi? I know they use a science macguffin to kick it all off - but it's a pretty straight (running) zombie movie.

And you're a Beatles fan, too, huh?

Okay. Maybe there's some hope for you.

Tim - I almost picked FLASH GORDON, as well. It's not a brilliant movie, perhaps, but it's great, campy fun.

Campy fun definitely sums up Flash Gordon, along with kooky and colorful.

"Tell me more about this man Houdini...."

I would categorize it as SF.

There was a somewhat brief look at the societal impacts of the introductory event which were peppered through the first part of the show ( the parents' suicides, the man and daughter holed up in a secured apartment complex, the military group ... ).

Then, it seemed to degenerate into your standard us vs. them battle.

I still really enjoyed the film.

Jim

28 Days Later is centered around a fictional disease that turns the infected into zombie-like creatures. I certainly think it counts as science-fiction, due to the disease aspect if nothing else.

-Comp