overated SCIFI movies

[Warped9]

2001: A Space Odyssey is a very smart film conceptually with gorgeous visuals, but it's goddamned slooowww in pacing. Blade Runner is also a smart film conceptually yet I find it even more snooze inducing than 2001.

I like The Matrix (and only the first one), but I don't think it's anywhere near as deep as many seem to hype it.

 

[Flibble]

Alien and the rest of the movies in the series.

 

[Warped9]

Starship Troopers and Star Trek 2009. Yeesh!

 

[Greg Cox]

I think you need to be in the right frame of mind to appreciate 2001.

Yeah, watching it on tv on a small screen, with commercial interruptions and the kids arguing in the background, it's not exactly a compelling narrative.

But in a darkened theater, on a big screen, where you can just settle back and bask in the cosmic scope of it all, 2001 can be a mind-blowing experience. Its rewards are not those of ordinary fiction: sympathetic characters, funny dialogue, exciting action. It's all about awe and sense of wonder.

It's not a story about people. It's about grand vistas of time and space and evolution. It's more of a symphony than a story.

Every science fiction film made that people compare to 2001 I love. Films that in my mind do exactly what you're describing here, I love. The type of thing you've written is something I would normally type to describe other science fiction films that I love.

But 2001 does nothing for me. I don't know why. It's something psychological I'm sure, something in it's construction that doesn't jive with me, or something in my cultural subconscious that turns me off from it. *shrug*

I can see that. I was mostly just describing my own experience with the movie. The first time I saw it, I was only nine years old and it utterly baffled me. I kept waiting for the mad scientist and his evil robot to show up.

(Really. I honestly expected Keir Dullea to land on Jupiter and run into some grey-haired scientist who would explain the plot to him on a blackboard--just like in the old 1950s scifi movies I was accustomed to.)

I saw it again in college and . . . whoa, I finally got it. It was a religious experience.

And, no, there were no mind-altering substances involved!

 

[davejames]

Matrix... not one-millionth as philosophically interesting or profound as many seem to think it was IMHO, and I think Keanu is simply pathetic. I famously watched it a 2nd time on DVD before the 2nd one came out and disliked it even more than the first time.. and talked my friends out of going to see the 2nd one.

I've never considered Matrix to be a very deep or profound movie. I just think it's an EXTREMELY cool and well-executed scifi action movie.

It's not a story about people. It's about grand vistas of time and space and evolution. It's more of a symphony than a story.

Agreed. I can certainly see why 2001 isn't for everyone, but personally I love it. It's beautifully directed, tells a damn cool story, and is mysterious as all hell (something I wish more scifi movies nowadays were).

I mean for me, the astronauts discovering the monolith on the moon is one of the coolest-- and creepiest-- scenes in the entire history of scifi.

Yeah the movie's pretty slow, and can be a bit of a challenge to get through in one sitting, but you could say the same about a lot of great literature. That doesn't mean those books aren't worth reading, or don't deserve the praise they get.

 

[Ethros]

Another for 2001 (though to be fair I've only seen it once, and that was a few years ago now)

But especially in regards to that "highly regarded" jumpcut from the bone to the space staton.
Skip to 6:50 here

I'm sorry but that's crap. It doesn't work. He can't even keep the camera focused on the friggin bone! It goes off screen and then very badly cuts to another shot of it. It's as if they couldn't be bothered getting it right
And the bones spinning like mad and the stations totally stationary. Doesn't do it for me.


I do love the moment in the film though when the ape discovers how to use the bone as a tool, and the ol' theme flares up. Now that's fucking brilliant; literally the birth of mankind right there, the first sign of intelligence. A great moment.
... then the film just drags on pointlessly for another 10 minutes of nothingness with the apes


Oh and also, Star Trek 2009.
me- "...so what?"

 

[davejames]

Starship Troopers and Star Trek 2009. Yeesh!

To me "overrated" implies that people consider these movies to be great works of art or scifi masterpieces.

I suspect very few fans of the new Trek (including myself) would ever think of it in THAT way. lol

 

[Vasquez Rocks]

Children of Men.

It was alright, but I didn't think it was great.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Solaris - The Clooney version...

 

[JuanBolio]

Query - what do the people here who disliked 2001 or found it overrated think of 2010?

I myself like both, but find the latter far more comprehensible and even enjoyable. Not many hard sci-fi adventure flicks out there, but 2010 pulls it off.

 

[Greg Cox]

I thought 2010 was unnecessary as a sequel to 2001, which stands perfectly well on its own, but I remember it being a good, solid, quasi-realistic space adventure. Complete with zero gravity and no convenient warp drive!

At the time, it was like the first realistic space exploration film in ages, as opposed to STAR WARS style space opera.

 

[Middle Earther]

Star Trek. The 2009 one.

Thank you! I approve of your dislike for it!

Most of the others mentioned so far, I've liked. So the most recent Trek is the only one I can think of.

 

[JuanBolio]

I thought 2010 was unnecessary as a sequel to 2001, which stands perfectly well on its own, but I remember it being a good, solid, quasi-realistic space adventure. Complete with zero gravity and no convenient warp drive!

At the time, it was like the first realistic space exploration film in ages, as opposed to STAR WARS style space opera.

Unnecessary? Without it, assuming you didn't read the books, you have little or no idea what the hell was up with HAL or the monoliths.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I thought 2010 was unnecessary as a sequel to 2001, which stands perfectly well on its own, but I remember it being a good, solid, quasi-realistic space adventure. Complete with zero gravity and no convenient warp drive!

At the time, it was like the first realistic space exploration film in ages, as opposed to STAR WARS style space opera.

Unnecessary? Without it, assuming you didn't read the books, you have little or no idea what the hell was up with HAL or the monoliths.

But that was what I liked about 2001...it didn't explain it nice and neat...and left it up to you to wonder what would happen next...

Rob

 

[JuanBolio]

Its not so much a lack of knowing what happened next that left me hanging in 2001... it was a lack of knowing what HAD happened and why.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Starship Troopers and Star Trek 2009. Yeesh!

To me "overrated" implies that people consider these movies to be great works of art or scifi masterpieces.

I suspect very few fans of the new Trek (including myself) would ever think of it in THAT way. lol

Yep. Neither one is ever gonna make my all time top ten. But I did have a good time watching them. ( and that might be more important). I've a feeling ST09 will be cropping up on lists like this for the forseeable future. At least fom a certain segment of fandom.

As for 2001, I saw it when I was ten. It was cool. I've watched it once every couple of years since then. Its still cool.

The Abyss is the one that alway makes me go "huh? This is a great film?"

 

[JuanBolio]

The Abyss is the one that alway makes me go "huh? This is a great film?"

The director's cut was considerably better.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

I've never considered Matrix to be a very deep or profound movie. I just think it's an EXTREMELY cool and well-executed scifi action movie.

See, that's the thing. There are a lot of not bad science fiction films out there.

Problem is, whereas a decent bit of drama or a thriller might end up with some good DVD sales, a decent bit (or even a lacking example) of SF builds cults and a minority group of fans who insist on foisting their deep dissections of the film upon you. Witnessing this, you might feel that you need to avoid the film altogether lest you're cornered by them and forced to join a group review.

It's not necessarily specific to SF. Irish television used to broadcast a classic film on a Friday night for a run of a few weeks (ironically enough there was a showing of 2001 in there). An over enthusiastic reviewer would tell you all about the film, in painful detail, just before the film started. So after a few minutes of this needless exposition, you were sick of the film already. I ended up seeking a cup of tea before the films, gladly swapping the boiling kettle for the killing bore. But unless you're living with <insert your national film reviewer of choice>, you don't really come across people droning on about other genres of films in the same way.

 

[Chrisisall]

2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner top my list. Both have some merit, but neither is as great as their reputation.

Another vote here for 2001. I like it just fine, but on an "Enemy Mine" kind of level.
Blade Runner comes off real dry & haughty if you don't watch the theatrical version with the spot-on monotone narration.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I can see why, with respect to today's viewers and movie aesthetics, that 2001 would be considered over-rated, at least in terms of the viewing experience. Heck, it even drew some pretty widely split reviews back in the day. However, its impact on films and sci-fi in particular stands pretty tall.

That said, considering the constant stream of praise, with minimal acknowledgment of the film's faults, leads me to say that it's probably the most over-rated. And, personally, I love the film.

Though The Matrix (and especially its sequels), aren't too far behind ... especially considering how often they are touted for their "deeply philosophical" content. I see them more as throwing a whole lot of pop-philosophical-spaghetti at the wall to see how much of it sticks. To me, Matrix goes for breadth, rather than depth, and ends up being rather pretentious in the process.