Best science fiction film of the 21st century (so far)

[label]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for runner-up.

I don't think I've ever thought about considering this a "Sci-Fi" movie......though I really liked the movie quite a bit. Still, I think it's definitely far more of a romance/relationship study with a pseudo sci-fi plot device to facilitate the story but very little "sci-fi" per-se.

It's based on the premise that there is a technology that can erase memories, which does not exist in real life but probably could exist in theory, and then explores the realistic consequence of such a technology's employment.

How is that not science fiction?

Did you ready just that one, singular line out of my posts?? I spent several posts going into great detail about why I think it's not science fiction.

Cliff Note Version:
Eternal -> Replace the "technology"(plot device) with Hypnosis, you have exactly the same story. The point of the movie was never about the technology that was just there to allow the actual story to be told. In the end, it was all about the relationship and a study of human nature.

Inception -> The technology itself was utilized, talked about, and explored along side the human nature stuff and the machine wasn't just some one-off thing that happened in the beginning and then not discussed, it was prevalent throughout the entire movie.

 

[label]

As much beef as I have with Eternal Movie of the Pretentious Mind, I agree that it's obviously SF.

Well, apparently I need to go re-watch it.......especially if it earns the "obviously SF" tag.......

I've only seen it once when it first came out years ago and the only thing I really remember about the story was the relationship between Winslet and Carey and how they come together, what's they're relationship is like, how they reach an apparent impasse in their relationship and he tries to forget that they ever happened, and how he starts to have second thoughts about that choice and then how they overcome that......none of which to my memory involved a whole lot of "sci-fi". But, like I said, it's been quite some time since I've seen it.......perhaps a second viewing will make the sci-fi elements more "obvious" to me this time.

 

[exodus]

I don't think I've ever thought about considering this a "Sci-Fi" movie......though I really liked the movie quite a bit. Still, I think it's definitely far more of a romance/relationship study with a pseudo sci-fi plot device to facilitate the story but very little "sci-fi" per-se.

It's based on the premise that there is a technology that can erase memories, which does not exist in real life but probably could exist in theory, and then explores the realistic consequence of such a technology's employment.

How is that not science fiction?

Did you ready just that one, singular line out of my posts?? I spent several posts going into great detail about why I think it's not science fiction.

Cliff Note Version:
Eternal -> Replace the "technology"(plot device) with Hypnosis, you have exactly the same story. The point of the movie was never about the technology that was just there to allow the actual story to be told. In the end, it was all about the relationship and a study of human nature.

So Kristen Dunts using the evidience from that technology in the end to bring down her boss & the "dating company" doesn't factor in?

I'm going to have to disagree.
I see the use of fictional tech to erase minds as a catalyst to the plot, does put it within the sci-fi catagory.

 

[Dart]

I voted for Minority Report.

 

[Gaith]

^ Well done!

 

[Jetfire]

Iron Man uses a powered armor (in fact, much of the first movie deals with how this suit was conceived and built). Spider-Man is a guy who gets bitten by a genetically engineered spider and then mutates. Batman is a billionaire who goes into the Himalaya to learn how to fight criminals. Not much Sci-fi here. At least not as central plot device like in the other two movies. The most scifi-ish element of The Dark Knight is probably the "cellphone sonar network".

True.

I picked The Incredibles.

Wrong, Batman is often conceived in what is bascially an alternate history or near future world...the 1989 batman used this background heavily, Batman Begins also used it..Dark Knight was less obvious in this respect but takes place in the same universe. Also, he is almost completely a high tech crime fighter, using both tools and methods not available except to a self-motivated billionaire, albeit with physical/mental skills picked up in Tibet. Its a superhero movie, an action movie, a drama, as well as "sci fi".

RAMA

Compared to the other films on the list here...I can see why TDK wouldn't be considered SF...but you're right RAMA that was my thinking about both BB and TDK...I am torn.

 

[Harvey]

It had a few improvements on today's moving screens, but nothing like the very advanced stuff in Minority Report.

So, tech beyond our own has to be "very advanced" in order to qualify as SF?

I vaguely recall a few other technical things in the movie as well. Didn't Danny Huston's son have some sort of gadget when he's briefly seen?

Of course, the movie deals with a collapsing civilization that isn't far out in the future (2027). It stands to reason that tech advances would be relatively minor.

 

[Gaith]

It had a few improvements on today's moving screens, but nothing like the very advanced stuff in Minority Report.

So, tech beyond our own has to be "very advanced" in order to qualify as SF?

No, but it helps. Mainly, as posters have said vis-a-vis Eternal Movie, the tech/science has to be at the heart of the plot.

There is no science at the heart of Children of Men, any more than there is science in Hamlet because the brain-waves of a dead person are able to warp sound and light in order to talk to a few people before fading away.

 

[label]

Kristen Dunts using the evidience from that technology in the end to bring down her boss & the "dating company" doesn't factor in?

I see the use of fictional tech to erase minds as a catalyst to the plot, does put it within the sci-fi catagory.

I'm not saying if you don't look for it, you can't find reasons to call it a science fiction movie. Was there a piece of tech in the movie that could be considered Sci-Fi? Sure. Did it a play large part in the main story? As far as I can recall, it didn't. Does it really matter if you want to consider it Sci-Fi? Not so much......you're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter and I'm certainly not trying to argue to the contrary.

All that being said, I don't personally think of that movie as primarily being a sci-fi movie any more than I see Star Trek being a romantic TV series even though the show occasionally had some elements of that genre in the story.

 

[RoJoHen]

[I]Children of Men [/I]was also excellent, but was more fantasy than SF.[/QUOTE]

Um...how is [I]Children of Men[/I] fantasy? Like, at all?

 

[exodus]

Kristen Dunts using the evidience from that technology in the end to bring down her boss & the "dating company" doesn't factor in?

I see the use of fictional tech to erase minds as a catalyst to the plot, does put it within the sci-fi catagory.

I'm not saying if you don't look for it, you can't find reasons to call it a science fiction movie. Was there a piece of tech in the movie that could be considered Sci-Fi? Sure. Did it a play large part in the main story? As far as I can recall, it didn't. Does it really matter if you want to consider it Sci-Fi? Not so much......you're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter and I'm certainly not trying to argue to the contrary.

All that being said, I don't personally think of that movie as primarily being a sci-fi movie any more than I see Star Trek being a romantic TV series even though the show occasionally had some elements of that genre in the story.

As you said yourself; if you look, you'll find it.
The device is a large part of the story.
The events within the film wouldn't be happening at all if they hadn't had their minds erased by the machine to begin with. The big reveal in the end is the fact this procedure was done to them and they've actually known each other all along.

 

[Alex1939]

I just looked up Evangelion 2.0 and seems like a weird entry to this poll.

Can anyone back this as a possible "best" sci-fi movie on the last 11 years?

 

[label]

As you said yourself; if you look, you'll find it.

The problem from my perspective here is that I shouldn't have to "look" for it....it should be obvious. Speaking for just myself, I didn't feel it was obvious, I felt it was just a plot device that only existed because it had to tell the story they wanted to tell.

The device is a large part of the story.

I guess the perspective I had when watching the movie last time was significantly different than yours because most of what I took away from that movie had to do with relationships, romance and human nature......the device, at least for me, was quickly forgotten and had they replaced the device with hypnosis.......the same exact story would remain...at least for me.

However, as I said before......each person brings a different perspective to any piece of art and if the device was a large part of the story for you - in fact, it sounds fairly central to the plot hearing you talk about it - that's fair too. I'm certainly not trying to argue that you, or anyone else, can't view that movie as a science fiction movie.....just that's not the way I viewed that movie that last time I saw it.

 

[Tulaberry whine]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is easily my favourite sci fi movie from the last ten years.

Some of the others I enjoyed in no particular order are:

- The Fountain (I just saw this last night so I'm probably a tad biased );
- 28 Days Later;
- District 9 (the final act really bothers me though);
- Children of Men;
- Serenity (not a fan of the series but loved the movie); and
- War of the Worlds (massively botched ending aside).

And personally, I found Wall-E to be a condescending piece of idiocy.

 

[TheBrew]

I was torn between Revenge of the Sith and Children of Men, but I feel that RotS gets enough praise here, so I thought I would be daring and go for CoM.

 

[AJ86]

It was a toss up for me between District 9 and Moon. I went with Moon.

 

[Sci]

As you said yourself; if you look, you'll find it.

The problem from my perspective here is that I shouldn't have to "look" for it....it should be obvious.

I think a device that can selectively erase memories is fairly obvious as far as markers of science fiction go.

Also, the fact that this is a piece of technology, rather than, say, a form of hypnosis, is very important. Had it been a form of hypnosis, or a magic spell, we would not have gotten the detailed journey through Jim Carrey's character's past and psyche as he tried to resist the device's effects, nor would we have seen the doctor's assistants fucking around in his absence and eventually discovered his manipulations of Kirsten Dunst's memories.

I guess the perspective I had when watching the movie last time was significantly different than yours because most of what I took away from that movie had to do with relationships, romance and human nature......

There is no contradiction between being a science fiction film and being about relationships, romance, and human nature. In fact, the question of how a theoretical piece of technology impacts our sense of identity and our relationships is a fascinating topic that only science fiction can do.

the device, at least for me, was quickly forgotten and had they replaced the device with hypnosis.......the same exact story would remain...at least for me.

I don't think they would have been able to do the same story. If it had been hypnosis, then Carrey's character would by definition have been able to stop the memory erasure at any point (since hypnosis can't force you to do anything), and we would not have had the extended separations of Elijah Wood's and Kirsten Dunst's characters from their boss during the night they used the device on Carrey.

 

[Amaris]

For me, a top five would be:

The Man From Earth (2007) (voted)
Star Trek (2009)
Wall-E (2008)
Serenity (2005)
Moon (2009)

I love most of the movies on that list, but these five are my favorite. They're not really in any particular order, as I love them all, but I had to vote for "The Man From Earth", it's just a terrific movie.

 

[Kirkman1987]

My favorites were A.I. and Inception.

I just watched A.I. again a few weeks ago. What an underrated movie. Maybe Spielberg's best of the last decade.

 

[label]

Also, the fact that this is a piece of technology, rather than, say, a form of hypnosis, is very important. Had it been a form of hypnosis, or a magic spell, we would not have gotten the detailed journey through Jim Carrey's character's past and psyche as he tried to resist the device's effects, nor would we have seen the doctor's assistants fucking around in his absence and eventually discovered his manipulations of Kirsten Dunst's memories.

I suppose that's true. I had forgotten about the sub-plot with Dunst's character being affected by the tech as well. Perhaps it's time to watch that movie again with a new perspective on it........refresh my memory because clearly there are things I forgot about the movie that deal more directly with the tech.

There is no contradiction between being a science fiction film and being about relationships, romance, and human nature.

I didn't mean to imply there was any contradiction between the two, just that I didn't catch any sci-fi influences the first time I watched it. Having spent a fair amount of time in dialog on the the issue now, I'm quite sure when I rewatch it I'll have a different take on it.

Upon reflection, I guess the tech used in the movie was so seemingly plausible and something we might actually see in our lifetimes that I didn't give it much thought as being this futuristic technology like teleporters or warp drives which at least at a macroscopic scale are quite far away and would radically change society.

The point of Sci-Fi, according to most definitions is this:
This fiction deals with the influence of real or imagined science on society or individuals..

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+science+fiction

The type of tech used in that movie didn't strike me as being significantly different than what occurs now when two people break up. The only real difference is this tech represents a more conscious, explicit decision to remove memories immediately whereas now we do so in a more gradual, natural way sometimes escaping into drugs, alcohol or other pursuits that help us temporarily forget instead of the more painless machine-enabled way portrayed in the movie.

With Teleporters, for instance, there'd be a huge impact on society and how we live. If this memory wiping tech really did exist....and who knows with brain-washing or hypnosis, you probably could achieve about the same effect.....I'm not convinced we'd be significantly impacted by it in virtually any way. And, while it's true that the movie couldn't be told in exactly the same manner because of Dunst's character memories being a part of the story, I do think the Jim/Kate part of the story would remain very similar if a non tech method was used.

Still, all that being said, I guess I can see more clearly why some people look at this is a Sci-Fi movie. It certainly didn't strike me as such when I watched it, but I can start to see why it might have for others.