Aside from 2001, which goes without saying, I’ll vouch for Contact and Solaris. There really aren’t many GOOD science fiction movies.
My biggest gripe about AFI’s recent list is it’s consideration of animation as a genre. It isn’t.
contact - no, i hated it.
i own 2001, and solaris is at home right now from netflix.
Did Matthew McConaughey touch you when you were little?
My comments on the most recent AFI lists of shit.
Fantasy: I fucking hated the Fantasy list. They had stupid sentimental shit like Miracle on 34th Street, Field of Dreams, It’s a Wonderful Life, and Harvey. I would rather Conan the Barbarian than most of the movies on the list. Also, when I think of Fantasy, I think of like elves, dragons, magic swords,etc. They should have had a top 10 swords and sorcery list.
Epics: Fuck this too. Ben-Hur sucks outside of the chariot race, Titanic is a piece of shit, Gone With the Wind is overrated tripe, Lord of the Rings is practically unwatchable, and The Ten Commandments is just horrible. Grow some fucking balls list makers.
Westerns: Why in the name of the motherfucking mother of god are shit like Cat Ballou, Stage Coach, McCabe and Miller on this list? Where is the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? Fuck I would rather watch Tombstone than some of these movies.
Sports: Ignorant listmakers need to learn that Rocky III and IV are the best Rockies as they get rid of all the unnecessary filler.
Mystery: A good list. My only complaint is Blue Velvet which sucks except for Dennis Hopper.
Gangster: The best of the lists. Predictable but is free from bad movies.
Sci-Fi: Get rid of the 50’s shit and Star Wars. Put in Brazil, RoboCop, and The Empire Strikes Back.
the original solaris, not the stupid clooney version
the russian one? yeah, that’s what i have at home, the criterion cut.
edit: did you actually read the list, es? where, under epics, is lotr listed?! and isn’t the good, the bad and the guly a spagetti western? you know…italian made…not part of the AMERICAN film institute? the top 3 westerns should have been high noon, shane and unforgiven, imo…
i mean its sci-fi hahaha come on now…and regardless should still be watched no doubt, it was like one of the tightest movies of 2007 imo…so does this mean you are not going to watch it??? because i still think you should…
also gorath you is tripping solaris was fucking amazing imo…
i would recommend it as a sci-fi flick…
im outi
Roberth
Either one. Soderbergh/Clooney Solaris is more of a psychodrama than a sci-fi. Either way, it’s a better example of sci-fi than Star Wars, Back to the Future, or other resoundingly stupid answers people usually give to this question.
oh no, i’ll watch it…i mean, if i watched event horizon (i have a serious obsession with black holes), i’m gonna watch this. i hated event horizon, btw.
also, people please remember that it is much more than just the quality of the film that weighs in on people’s opinions. star wars is an epic film in the history of movie making. plain and simple, and to deny this influence on modern cinema would be quite ignorant.
As a science fiction film, Star Wars fails and fails hard. As a fantasy film, it can’t be fucked with.
yes, but to the masses - space = science fiction and thusly, it has always been classified as so. i mean, techically you could call any science fiction, fantasy…
The masses also think Ride of the Valkyries, the Requiem Mass, and Toccata and Fugue in D Minor are all in the same genre.
If you’re specifically asking for QUALITY sci-fi, I’m going to assume you’re asking for the kind of stuff that didn’t just wind up in the genre because of heuristics. I would not call Star Wars quality sci-fi at all.
People don’t want to see another Hulk film.
Superman is meant to be superman. We don’t want to see something a normal human can do when it comes to Superman… Let Superman be Superman.
Like in the first film, when Superman rewinds time so he could save Lois Lane because he loves her. That is what we want to see.
And also, aside from Kevin Spacey, the whole cast was weak.
well, i think the point is that sci-fi is such a broad sweeping catagory, that an accurate list would siply depend on the perception of the genre by the reader. compare how broad the scope of “sci fi” is to something like “courtroom drama” - it specifically defines the sub genre of drama, leading to a much more focussed result. in the case of defining a list of sci-fi, you have to take into account the broad scope of the genre and try to accurately represent the whole scope of the genre. star wars is clearly science fiction/fantasy - the definitions of both genres can easily be applied to the movie.
anyways, i’m not defending the afi’s choice, just the fact that star wars is sci-fi.
Not that it ultimately matters to me, but you thought that the whole bit where he caught a falling airplane or lifted an entire island (made of shit that hurts him, no less) in order to save the world was just Superman doing the stuff any old Joe can do?
I’m not necessarily saying that Star Wars can’t be sci-fi, but I am saying that insisting on viewing it through that lens is not the best way to watch it. It’s like attempting to classify A Fish Called Wanda as a crime drama.
both me and the definition of science fiction disagree with your comparison.
“The definition of science fiction?”
Okay, I’ll bite: let’s hear it.
Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and capitalization) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology.
sounds a whole lot like star wars (space ships, hyper drives, light sabers, lasers, interplanetary travel)…maybe it’s just me…
Spaceships in Star Wars fly like they’re in WW2 dogfights. There is no attempt to explain any technology or fictional powers (except in the Prequals, and it sucked). The humans aren’t called humans, and Earth doesn’t exist. The story begins “Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away”.
You’re just looking at the superficial. Break it down, and you’ll see that Star Wars is MUCH closer to fantasy than sci-fi.