My decade end list of top pure, live action SF movies

[RAMA]

No this doesn't include vampire movies, Saw movies, or other genre movies, an no animation...

2000s:

1. Star Trek(2009)
2. Minority Report(2003)
3. Matrix Revolution(2003)
4. Matrix Reloaded(2003)
5. Dark Knight(2008)
6. District 9(2009)
7. Iron Man(2008)
8. Day the Earth Stood Still(2008)
9. I, Robot(2004)
10. Sunshine(2007)
11. Avatar(2009)
12. Moon(2009)
13. War of the Worlds(2005)
14. X-Men 3(2006)
15. V for Vendetta(2006)

 

[Robotech Master]

How is 'The Dark Knight' a pure SF movie?

 

[Broccoli]

And why no animation? Or, rather, what do you consider animation? I mean, Avatar had a majority of it in CGI. To me, that's animation.

 

[T'Baio]

The inclusion of Day The Earth Stood Still, I, Robot, Sunshine and X-Men 3 makes this list a little...silly, in my opinion. *shrug*

 

[Kegg]

And why no animation? Or, rather, what do you consider animation? I mean, Avatar had a majority of it in CGI. To me, that's animation.

It's a live action film in that they're intended as effects rather than as a cartoon. It's true with 3-D cartoons and 3-D people the line between animation and SFX is becoming blurry, though (I rewatched Wall-E the other day, and it struck me how much all those space scenes really would not look out of place in and in fact surpassed many sci-fi CGI scenes).

So, yeah, Avatar isn't a film eligible for best animated movie if you know what I mean.

The inclusion of Day The Earth Stood Still, I, Robot, Sunshine and X-Men 3 makes this list a little...silly, in my opinion. *shrug*

What, no hate for Matrix Revolutions?

As far as Sunshine goes, press me to make a long enough list and it might get in. I don't think it's as good as its fans claim it is (I mean people who think the first two-thirds or so are fantastic), but it's alright.

Anyway, yeah, there have been some great sci-fi films this decade, but probably not enough for a particularly long list.

 

[T'Baio]

The inclusion of Day The Earth Stood Still, I, Robot, Sunshine and X-Men 3 makes this list a little...silly, in my opinion. *shrug*

What, no hate for Matrix Revolutions?

Oh, I hate much of it...but things like the siege on Zion make it really entertaining in a popcorn kinda' way, and therefore I find I can't hate it too much. Same reason I didn't add Minority Report and War of The Worlds to the list of silly selections.

 

[RAMA]

How is 'The Dark Knight' a pure SF movie?

Are you joking? Alternate worlds are a central SF theme...add to that a technology based superhero using advanced technology, and science created super villains and you have a pure SF movie...

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

The inclusion of Day The Earth Stood Still, I, Robot, Sunshine and X-Men 3 makes this list a little...silly, in my opinion. *shrug*

Actually a lot of thought went into in the last 10 yrs...I, Robot surprised a lot of people I think...its genuinely a good action movie take on the Asimov mythos. I have no problems including it, its extremely re-watchable. X-Men 3 to me is far darker and far superior to the previous 2 X-Men movies, because I have no qualms about the killing of major characters, which otherwise colors most fanboy perceptions of the film. I've reviewed The Day the Earth Stood still here before and I've already laid out the 3 main reasons why I consider it superior to the 1951 version...and therefore ranks highly on my list. Sunshine would have ranked in the top 5 if the ending had been more to my liking, but since the first 4 fifths of the movie was so excellent I ranked it where it is.Any list that didn't rank those movies would be silly in my opinion.

 

[RAMA]

And why no animation? Or, rather, what do you consider animation? I mean, Avatar had a majority of it in CGI. To me, that's animation.

Mianly because it was the first attempt to merge the two into a reasonable facsimile of real characters and background...The Star Wars prequels come to mind as a comparison, but I don't think they were nearly as successful at it.

RAMA

 

[T'Baio]

X-Men 3 to me is far darker and far superior to the previous 2 X-Men movies, because I have no qualms about the killing of major characters, which otherwise colors most fanboy perceptions of the film.

You think that's why people don't like it!?!

 

[Rowan Sjet]

Yeah, kind of missing the forest for the tree there.

 

[Broccoli]

How is 'The Dark Knight' a pure SF movie?

Are you joking? Alternate worlds are a central SF theme...

The Dark Knight had alternate worlds? What version did you see?

add to that a technology based superhero using advanced technology, and science created super villains and you have a pure SF movie...

So, every James Bond movie is a pure SF movie?

You may want to rethink this one as "pure sci-fi".

 

[T'Baio]

I'm also trying to remember where a "science created super villain" is.

 

[Kelso]

Day The Earth Stood Still

I really enjoyed that movie.

 

[Canadave]

I'm also trying to remember where a "science created super villain" is.

Well, you know... Harvey Dent got burns. That's sort of science.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

No this doesn't include vampire movies, Saw movies, or other genre movies, an no animation...

2000s:

1. Star Trek(2009)
2. Minority Report(2003)
3. Matrix Revolution(2003)
4. Matrix Reloaded(2003)
5. Dark Knight(2008)
6. District 9(2009)
7. Iron Man(2008)
8. Day the Earth Stood Still(2008)
9. I, Robot(2004)
10. Sunshine(2007)
11. Avatar(2009)
12. Moon(2009)
13. War of the Worlds(2005)
14. X-Men 3(2006)
15. V for Vendetta(2006)

Any "Top 15" list should include Children of Men IMO. Other candidates are Serenity, Watchmen, and at least Revenge of the Sith.

Ah, and strike the Matrix sequels, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Sunshine, and X-Men 3 please. You may include the first two X-Men movies if you like. And if you really count The Dark Knight as sci-fi, Batman Begins has to be on it too.

 

[RAMA]

How is 'The Dark Knight' a pure SF movie?

Are you joking? Alternate worlds are a central SF theme...

The Dark Knight had alternate worlds? What version did you see?

add to that a technology based superhero using advanced technology, and science created super villains and you have a pure SF movie...

So, every James Bond movie is a pure SF movie?

You may want to rethink this one as "pure sci-fi".

Duh, it IS an alternate world...the very city is an alternate NY, complete with non-existent elevated trains, buildings and technology. Batman's tools are grounded in the real world but do not exist.

James Bond is often ranked as Science Fiction, yes. Several of them speculate quite fancifully about future tech inlcuding: space based lasers, underwater, camera,s hovercraft, huge space stations, spacecraft eating rockets, and so on. If you think the world that Bond exists in is anything like the real spy world, you really have another thing coming.

I suppose I should have included my "definitions of SF" post dating from Sept 2000 with this list:

A great question
Sun Sep 10 18:05:00 2000

There are lots of definitions for SF, and I myself tend to be rather strict
about it, though within the definition the range of stories is quite broad.

SF is a story about change; a new paradigm. Its fiction set in a world that
differs from our everyday world in a way that importantly involves science or
technology. This can include sociological changes as well as changes in
hardware. It can include stories set in the past, but mainly in the future. I
would include doomsday scenerios and post-apocalyptic movies of every kind (On
the Beach, Dr Strangelove). It includes alternate worlds and stories that exist
in the modern day but with slight twists(Fahrenheit 451; Truman Show) It differs
from pure fantasy in that even seemingly magical changes should have some
rationale beyond simply saying its so for its own sake, as long as its fairly
internally consistent(such as Star Wars). Scientific accuracy is a plus, but may
take a back seat in favor of excellent high concept or speculation.

As far as rating them goes, its a mix. Obviously I had to have some personal
enjoyment in watching it, entertainment value is basic and important, but I also
like intelligent, sober movies or movies that totally twist reality: A range
which includes Andromeda Strain, a dry but engrossing presentation; and Matrix,
which totally turns every expectation on its head. A movie with complex themes
that may not be executed as well as another, less demanding film may not rate as
highly, as in the case with Slaughterhouse 5 compared to Star Wars. I tend to
like movies with a message..some sort of relevency, these will rate higher
usually for me. A sense of wonder is perfect for the visual medium and I also
think its important. Basic filmmaking techniques and the normal aspects of any
good film also applies.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

No this doesn't include vampire movies, Saw movies, or other genre movies, an no animation...

2000s:

1. Star Trek(2009)
2. Minority Report(2003)
3. Matrix Revolution(2003)
4. Matrix Reloaded(2003)
5. Dark Knight(2008)
6. District 9(2009)
7. Iron Man(2008)
8. Day the Earth Stood Still(2008)
9. I, Robot(2004)
10. Sunshine(2007)
11. Avatar(2009)
12. Moon(2009)
13. War of the Worlds(2005)
14. X-Men 3(2006)
15. V for Vendetta(2006)

Any "Top 15" list should include Children of Men IMO. Other candidates are Serenity, Watchmen, and at least Revenge of the Sith.

Ah, and strike the Matrix sequels, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Sunshine, and X-Men 3 please. You may include the first two X-Men movies if you like. And if you really count The Dark Knight as sci-fi, Batman Begins has to be on it too.

Eh nope, the Matrix movies are essential watching, and very good completion to the groundbreaking original, even if they aren't as good. If Day the Earth Stood Still ranks near the top of the 50s list, then the new version must too, its a MUCH better movie in almost every aspect of production. I like the new version of Watchmen, but I'd have to probably rank it just outside the top 15.

 

[T'Baio]

If Day the Earth Stood Still ranks near the top of the 50s list, then the new version must too, its a MUCH better movie in almost every aspect of production.

Production values better in a film from 2008 versus a film from 1951? You don't say!?!

Of course, if by production values, you mean acting, plot, theme and steady direction in comparable ways versus the times they were made...you'd just be wrong.

The original is considered, by and large, from Arthur C. Clarke himself to the vast majority of science fiction fans to plain film buffs in general to be not only an outright classic of the genre, but of cinema history period.

The remake? Umm...not so much.

 

[Broccoli]

Are you joking? Alternate worlds are a central SF theme...

The Dark Knight had alternate worlds? What version did you see?

So, every James Bond movie is a pure SF movie?

You may want to rethink this one as "pure sci-fi".

Duh, it IS an alternate world...the very city is an alternate NY, complete with non-existent elevated trains, buildings and technology. Batman's tools are grounded in the real world but do not exist.

Actually, it was Chicago and they did very little to change that fact.

In any event, because it is set in a fictional town, that makes it sci-fi? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. What about other movies, like a RomCom that feature fictional towns? Does that make it a sci-fi?

James Bond is often ranked as Science Fiction, yes. Several of them speculate quite fancifully about future tech inlcuding: space based lasers, underwater, camera,s hovercraft, huge space stations, spacecraft eating rockets, and so on. If you think the world that Bond exists in is anything like the real spy world, you really have another thing coming.

No, it is not like the real spy world. It is fiction. Fiction does not automatically equal science fiction. True, some Bond movies, like Moonraker have veered into the sci-fi genre, but the overwhelming majority of them are just action films with little-to-no sci-fi elements. Personally, I don't really count the gagets being used to make the whole film into a sci-fi film.