Ten Sci-Fi Flicks for the Thinking Man

[MontyCircus]

ROTTEN TOMATOES: Ten Sci-Fi Flicks for the Thinking Man

ROTTEN TOMATOES: Movies - New Movie Reviews and Previews! (great movie review site that takes all the critics' reviews and compiles them to get a percentage approval rating), recently had a feature listing 10 great sci-fi movies; "thoughtful pieces on what it means to be human."

Here's the list (I sorted it chronologically):


Planet of the Apes (1968)

Not sure I've actually seen it in its entirety. Would probably enjoy it though. My sister bought the whole series on VHS a few years ago...I don't think I even took off the cellophane.


2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

This might be my mother's favourite film. And it might be my father's most hated film. I should hate it. It's long'ish. It's very slow. And the ending is notoriously vague and "What the ****???"-inducing. But...I think the effects are cool. HAL is cool. I usually go into it reminding myself that the ending makes no damn sense...and that lets me appreciate it. I've read "the explanation" on this forum from Clarke's book, and it sounds interesting. I think the movie would be a lot less hated if the ending was more coherent.

@@@ / @@@@@


Solaris (1972)

Haven't seen it. Is the newer Clooney version crap?


Sleeper (1973)

A Woody Allen flick. Never heard of it before this list.


Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Saw this when I was very, very young. My memories of this and E.T. intertwine. I really should see it again.


Blade Runner (1982)

Was supposed to see it at a friend's birthday party about 15 years ago...don't think we ended up getting around to see it. So...I've never seen it *ducks everything thrown at me and bravely runs away*. Which is better? The Ford voiceover version or non-voiceover?


Gattaca (1997)

Was disappointed when I saw it in theatres. Saw it again today and was underwhelmed...again. It's a pretty boring movie. One rule of thumb I use, a tip off that I won't like a movie, is when critics spend over 90% of their review talking about how "pretty" the movie is, and using the word "cinematography" more than 12 or 13 times.

@@ / @@@@@


Dark City (1998)

I remember it being interesting and confusing. Would like to give it another go. Kind of like the "unsuccessful" version of the Matrix. Actually, I'm sure if the Matrix trilogy hadn't tanked that the first movie would definitely be on this list.


Primer (2004)

Oh my god. Heard Ebert (and maybe Siskel...was he still alive?) gush over this so I rented it. Hated it, hated it, hated it. The characters just kept repeating technobabble from the first frame to the last...not only that, but the technobabble could barely be heard because the movie was so damn low budget apparently they couldn't afford decent mics. Anyway, the story is about a couple of guys that invent a time machine by accident (I think), and they keep experimenting and paradoxes start happening and things get really complicated. Of course, they don't bother explaining why all these complicated things are happening, and frankly, I never cared. Basically the movie is a lot like Charlie Kaufman's Being John Malkovitch, just without ANY of the fun. BJM is every bit as complicated as this film...but BJM takes the time to be coherent. Something I appreciate in a film.

@ / @@@@@


Children of Men (2006)

Very disappointed by this one too. Had one great poignant moment towards the end (when a battle briefly stops...thought that was brilliant stuff), but nothing about the rest of the film grabbed me at all. Michael Caine's crazy weed growing character was just bizarre, like it was from a different movie.

@@ / @@@@@


So, of 4 I've seen enough to rate...I like one. Man I've got to see Blade Runner...

 

[littlemissattitude]

I'm not a Woody Allen fan, but I have to admit that Sleeper is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Not for the kiddies, though.

Otherwise...the original Planet of the Apes is a classic. One cannot be considered educated about science fiction films if one hasn't seen it.


2001 is also a classic. I don't think it would be if it didn't have the ending it does.

Close Encounters isn't the best first-contact film there is (the original The Day the Earth Stood Still is), but it is very close. One of the few films I stood in line to see first day, first showing.

I've never been able to sit through all of Blade Runner; not sure why. And I hated what I saw of Gattaca and turned it off before it was over.

 

[Michael01]

Blade Runner is and always will be one of my all-time favs. Okay, it may not be quite as interesting as the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (which is really really good), but I love it. If you do get the chance to see it, Monty, try to catch the director's cut.

I've seen all of The Planet of the Apes and can agree that they're worth watching, and I'm really not much for the older films (usually).

2001 is a classic, and I sorta kinda didn't exactly mind watching it ... but I must admit that I liked 2010 a lot more.

And Littlemiss, I couldn't agree more about first contact films: The Day the Earth Stood Still was extremely well done for such an old movie. I find myself wanting to ask Rotten Tomatoes why it's not in their list, and why they didn't mention "Super Carrot" either (just in reference to old but good sci-fi films, not necessarily first contact) ... Close Encounters? I guess I need to catch that one again. Don't remember getting into it all that much.

I did watch Gattaca all the way through, but to this day I still wonder why.

Oh, yeah, I did really enjoy Dark City. Great movie.

 

[Connavar]

I liked Gattaca, i kept thinking that they finally made a new Sci-fi movie that actually is like a SF book. Not action blockbuster in space or the future but a thinking man's sci-fi movie.

One of the last good Sci-Fi movies imo. Interesting issues,characters in that movie and nice visuals.

I cant disagree with the list. I have seen most of them except Solaris,Sleeper,Primer.

 

[iansales]

MontyCircus, by your own admission none of these films were going to appeal to you. They're for the "thinking man" and you clearly prefer more action-oriented films. Hence your dismissal of cinematography (which is actually pretty important - film is a visual medium, after all), and your complaint that Primer was all "technobabble".

As for the list, I agree with most of them - Tarkovsky's Solaris is far superior to Soderbergh's remake; I thought Gattaca was a bit dull; can't stand Woody Allen; both Dark City and Children of Men are excellent; and the Planet of the Apes films vary too much in quality to belong on the list.

 

[Connavar]

MontyCircus, by your own admission none of these films were going to appeal to you. They're for the "thinking man" and you clearly prefer more action-oriented films. Hence your dismissal of cinematography (which is actually pretty important - film is a visual medium, after all), and your complaint that Primer was all "technobabble".

As for the list, I agree with most of them - Tarkovsky's Solaris is far superior to Soderbergh's remake; I thought Gattaca was a bit dull; can't stand Woody Allen; both Dark City and Children of Men are excellent; and the Planet of the Apes films vary too much in quality to belong on the list.

Planet of the Apes really only the first are of quality.


Gattaca was far from perfect but it was good to me. My real complaint about the movie is you didnt see much of the world. Almost too much focused on the characters.

 

[Happy Joe]

I rather like the first "Planet of the Apes" movie (and prefer it to the remake) the rest of the flicks in the list; while classic are not much, IMO. Iansales & Connavar are correct the quality of the Apes movies goes downhill rapidly after the first one.
I was disappointed in all of the movies on the list while still in the theater; except Planet of the Apes (it is also the only one on the list on my movie shelf).

Enjoy!

 

[Ghost Of Gernsback]

Loose Solaris and substitute with Quiet Earth. Other than that not bad, if not a touch predictable

 

[MontyCircus]

MontyCircus, by your own admission none of these films were going to appeal to you. They're for the "thinking man" and you clearly prefer more action-oriented films.

Yeah that's probably true. I don't mind thinking though. I do it from time to time.

For example, when The Island went from interesting plot and cool ideas to big, expensive chase & explosion scenes...I wanted to shoot somebody. Same goes for I, Robot too.

So...I like to think...at least hypothetically...that I could enjoy a "thinking man's" flick (oh, I liked the original The Day the Earth Stood Still too).

[/quote]Hence your dismissal of cinematography (which is actually pretty important - film is a visual medium, after all)[/quote]

But it shouldn't be the focal point of a review, or the one thing you take from a film. I mean, Road to Perdition is another great example. You show a couple of crane shots of some green fields and critics wet their pants. I'd rather see some interesting characters and a riveting plotline myself.

That said, I enjoyed watching the Citizen Kane bonus features (or maybe it was commentaries) about all the ground-breaking camerawork. It was cool how they broke it all down and explained "why this is amazing and why it was important in the history of film".

But anyway, call me crazy, I don't pay $10 for a great "set lighting and camera choices" experience. And I'd like to suggest that anyone who does is out of their god damn mind

and your complaint that Primer was all "technobabble".

Umm...it most definitely is technobabble..............did you watch the film? I doubt it, especially since you just mentioned how important cinematography is to you ($7,000 production budget...and my god does it show).

From Ebert's review (he liked it):

Shane Carruth's "Primer" opens with four techheads addressing envelopes to possible investors; they seek venture capital for a machine they're building in the garage. They're not entirely sure what the machine does, although it certainly does something. Their dialogue is halfway between shop talk and one of those articles in Wired magazine that you never finish. We don't understand most of what they're saying, and neither, perhaps, do they, but we get the drift. Challenging us to listen closely, to half-understand what they half-understand, is one of the ways the film sucks us in.

I could quote other critics that actually use the word "technobabble" in their reviews, but I think you get the point.

Compare the horrible bore of Primer to something like Being John Malkovitch, which had me positively giddy in the theatre. It was like brain candy. Watching it was like downloading awesomeness through your eyes and directly into your brain. Both answered outlandish "what-if" questions in stories that are...essentially...about magic holes that go somewhere. Both had very complicated scripts. One was boring and confusing ON PURPOSE. The other was endlessly fun and imaginitive and rewarded the viewer's "what would happen if..." thoughts.

I'll lump Primer in with movies like Donnie Darko, where people like it (or more likely only "say" they like it), because it's confusing and impossible to understand...so therefore it must be deep.

Primer is not deep...it's a movie with cheap cameras (actually I think just camera...singular), bad sound (honestly, at times I had my system cranked and couldn't friggin' hear the lines)...and probably bad everything else quality-wise. It's boring, and confusing on purpose. On purpose.

I could write a mystery novel and delete every fifth word in it and call it The Fifth. Some people might like the challenge of figuring out the plot of a book like that and call it "challenging" and "inventive". I'd probably call those people retarded, gullible fools myself.

Primer sucks. Hard. In every conceivable way. You've been warned y'all

 

[iansales]

Umm...it most definitely is technobabble..............did you watch the film? I doubt it, especially since you just mentioned how important cinematography is to you ($7,000 production budget...and my god does it show).

Yes, I've seen it. In fact, I have the DVD. And I thought it was a good, cleverly-done film. The so-called technobabble established characters, plot and the film's central premise.

But if you hated it, nothing I say is going to make you like it.

Both answered outlandish "what-if" questions in stories that are...essentially...about magic holes that go somewhere. Both had very complicated scripts. One was boring and confusing ON PURPOSE. The other was endlessly fun and imaginitive and rewarded the viewer's "what would happen if..." thoughts.

First, Primer was not about a magic hole - if that's what you think, you've misunderstood it. Second, it was not boring on purpose. In your opinion, it was boring. That doesn't mean the film-makers deliberately made it that way.

Second, I've also seen Being John Malkovich. And I didn't like it.

I'll lump Primer in with movies like Donnie Darko, where people like it (or more likely only "say" they like it), because it's confusing and impossible to understand...so therefore it must be deep.

Donnie Darko is a lot more straightforward than Primer, and not difficult to understand at all. Just because you failed to understand it doesn't mean that people who do are liars. The fault is yours, not theirs.

Primer is not deep...it's a movie with cheap cameras (actually I think just camera...singular), bad sound (honestly, at times I had my system cranked and couldn't friggin' hear the lines)...and probably bad everything else quality-wise. It's boring, and confusing on purpose. On purpose.

It's a low budget film. It was not made by a major studio. That has nothing to do with the quality of the script or acting. And again, to claim it was made "boring and confusing" on purpose is stupid.

Primer sucks. Hard. In every conceivable way. You've been warned y'all

If you like films that make you think, really think, that aren't just some muscle-bound oaf with a gun running round shotting things, then you might enjoy Primer. It's a fiercely intelligent film about time paradoxes, and towards the end, when paradox builds on paradox, it can get confusing. But it's worth persevering.

 

[Michael01]

Um ... okay. Getting a little hot in here, isn't it? Here, first let me open a window...

Never seen Primer. I saw Being John Malkovich and wasn't very impressed, I must admit. I'm usually the odd man out on these things (really - I liked Catwoman), but I thought The Island and I, Robot were both great movies - especially I, Robot (even thought the movie was a big improvement on the book).

Still ... it's all in fun right? Besides, anyone who likes The Day the Earth Stood Still is okay in my book...

Ooh, is there anyone here who likes the Super Carrot? It's not as much of a "thinking" movie as the others we've mentioned, but I thought it was cool. I am so going to start reading "Who Goes There?" tonight.

If you haven't noticed, I'm being deliberately obtuse. I can't help it; I just really really love that line. "Super Carrot..." [rolls around on the floor laughing uncontrollably like an idiot]

 

[Ursa major]

I think (yes, really ) we're allowed to like more than one type of film.

I enjoyed I, Robot for what it was, a CGI sci-fi romp. I knew before I'd seen a single frame that it wasn't going to capture much of Asimov's SF work.

I'm more bothered about remakes that, basically, trash the original. I haven't seen new The Day the Earth Stood Still, but from what little I've heard, it shares only its title with the original.

My reasoning (not very deep, I'm afraid) is that if you go into a bookshop and want Asimov's work, you're not going to be given anything to do with the film (unless there's a newly written tie-in, heaven forbid, that "captures" the film). Look for the film, though, and the ignorant** will probably end up with the remake, not the classic, which would be more than a shame.



** - I'm not trying to be perlorative here, merely realistic.

 

[Michael01]

No, please don't scare me like that. As much as I prefer the movie to the book, it just wouldn't be right. A tie-in like that would be a different book. The book does have its moments, and it would be a shame to miss them.

In most cases I'd say that's true, though, about remakes, but I like the remake of Super Carrot almost as much as the original.

 

[iansales]

My reasoning (not very deep, I'm afraid) is that if you go into a bookshop and want Asimov's work, you're not going to be given anything to do with the film (unless there's a newly written tie-in, heaven forbid, that "captures" the film).

Don't scoff too much. Philip K Dick's story 'We Can Remember It For You Wholesale' was adapted for film as Total Recall, and then the film was novelised by Piers Anthony. So it does happen.

 

[Ursa major]

I know that it happens, Ian; I was simply hoping that it had hadn't happened in this case.


(And sorry, Michael01, I didn't mean to scare anyone. )

 

[Michael01]

Don't scoff too much. Philip K Dick's story 'We Can Remember It For You Wholesale' was adapted for film as Total Recall, and then the film was novelised by Piers Anthony. So it does happen.

Oh, you're not kidding, are you? I read the Piers Anthony novelization, and I was okay with it since I like Piers Anthony. Now I'm disappointed, and I will have to find the original story. If Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is any indication, I'm betting "We Can Do It For You Wholesale" is pretty good. Incidentally, do you also know the name of the story on which Minority Report was based?

 

[iansales]

Same title.

 

[Moonbat]

Planet of the Apes (1968)

I have seen this and have to admit that it is a classic, it was kind of tainted by the other three, but still as a stand alone film, very good. What a beard that Heston has


2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Always a classic, but slower than a trip to Jupiter. I have watched it start to end once, when I was younger, but I don't think I could handle it all again. I do want to see 2010 though.


Solaris (1972)

Not seen this, I have seen the remake and I didn't like it, too much of an event horizon type thing, and just got a bit boring. Not enough beards for my liking

Sleeper (1973)

Brilliant, if somewhat odd film. I did like this alot, but I usually like Woody's films, especially the older sillier ones.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

hmmm, never really liked this, it was too, ET(ish) kind of all lights and sounds and little action, also it is long, but saying that the communication with musical notes if genius, it's just the whole people coming off the ship at the end I didn't like.

Blade Runner (1982)

A classic, but have been flooded with directors cut, directors newer cut, directors final cut, directors final never to cut anymore cut. But still a classic and looks great even without the recent developments.

Gattaca (1997)

I didn't like this much, it started well, with a welld efined future, but got a bit slow, and the whole thing sort of fell apart slowly. I think I didn't make it to the end!

Dark City (1998)

Now this is interesting, I tried to watch a copy of this on my PC and it stopped after 5 minutes, but I thought it looked really interesting, I might have to look for another copy now.

Primer (2004)

Again, I rented this out once but never got round to watch it, so might have to check it out again. Hopefully it'll be worth it.

Children of Men (2006)

Yeah, sort of liked it, but not great. I agree the fighting stopped scene was good, and bits of it were interesting, but I think it lacked the power it was intended to have.

What sort of arrogant person came up with this list and then suggested it was for Thinking Men? Robocop, now there's a sci-fi film,

 

[Michael01]

What sort of arrogant person came up with this list and then suggested it was for Thinking Men? Robocop, now there's a sci-fi film,

You've got a point.

Same title.

Thanks, Ian.

 

[BookStop]

Planet of the Apes (1968)- great film
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - at the time, I liked it, saw it years later and was bored
Solaris (1972) - saw the Clooney ersion and was not impressed
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) - it was good for its time, but I'm not sure how well it has held up (not that I'm suggesting a remake)
Blade Runner (1982) - Classic
Gattaca (1997) - was ok, no big complaints, but hardly a favorite either
Children of Men (2006) - was, hmm, ok, not my favorite, but a story I wasn't familiar with before. I think I had high hopes and left the theater disappointed. Had I not been looking forward to it, I might've enjoyed it more.
Being John Malkovich - Nope, didn't care for it at all
Donnie Darko - this is one of my favs, and I'm being sincere. It's not difficult to understand if you actually watch.
I enjoyed Minority Report and I, Robot, though I would hardly call either a thinking man's film.**
Total Recall - excellent movie, although the outdated special effects now look cheesy, and the acting isn't all that great.

**What exactly is it that makes a film ideal for the 'thinking man'?
There are plenty of Sci-Fi films out htere that cause one to pause and think, plenty more that mix that thinking with high action, and some that are all about the idea with little plot. I quite enjoyed The Abyss, The Arrival, The Terminator, Vanilla Sky, and 12 Monkeys, but they aren't on the list. Would they qualify?