As I’ve said on this Board many times, my favorite SF movie oscillates between 2001 and Forbidden Planet. One is the best movie adaptation of 1950s science fiction, the other the best of 1940s science fiction (the movies are a decade behind the literature).
I disagree with a lot of the other suggestions, but here’s a list of others I think good:
**The Terminator
The Day the Earth Stood Still
It! The Terror from Beyond Space
Quatermass and the Pit/Five Million Years to Earth
The Thing ** (both versions, ignoring the third film of the same name)
Robocop (1987 version)
**Aliens
2010
Source Code
Gattaca
Predestination
**
There are lots of others that I like, and lots of tried-but-not-quite-there films (Dune, both versions, The Puppet Masters, Destination Moon, Operation Moonbaseetc.) and films I love but wouldn’t classify as science fiction, like the original Star Wars trilogy.
To be clear, we can debate whether Star Wars was good. I don’t imagine there would be too many debators taking the “no” side, but it could be debated. But regardless of whether it was good, it was definitely great.
Screw Star Wars as Science Fiction. You have space craft “banking” in space as they turn, sound in a vacuum, blasters that seem to travel slower than bullets never mind at the speed of light. Nothing about it makes any sense from a science point of view. Those giant walking things? WTF is that about? You could take the story set it on earth and substitute ships for space craft and it would make more sense. It’s mildly entertaining, but not scifi.
Back to The Future has more science than Star Wars.
*Forbidden Planet
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Star Wars
Phase IV
Arrival
Dark Star
A Boy and His Dog
Galaxy Quest
Incredible Shrinking Man
The Fabulous World of Jules Verne
A Clockwork Orange
Time Bandits
E.T.
Brazil
12 Monkeys
Dark City
Looper
The Martian
*
And I’m going to be contrary Personally I much prefer the sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact, I fully recognise that 2001 deserves all the recognition it gets and that its certainly a more ‘worthy’ movie, but if I had to sit down and watch one or the other I would choose 2010 every day of the week and twice on Thursdays.
Also fav sci-fi movies:
Aliens (its pity that with such rich source material the sequels have been so poor)
Contact
Robocop (with the benefit of a bit of removal in time I think Robocop 2 isn’t nearly as bad as its generally thought to be, it has some of the best moments in the series, for example Robocop/Murphy turning his wife away because he knows he can never be a husband to her, that part of his life is over)
War of the Worlds (all versions have their merits, I don’t get the dislike for the 2005 Tom Cruise version)
Speaking of Tom Cruise, he has a record for choosing good or at least watchable Sci-Fi movies, I really hope something comes of the proposed Yukikaze movie he has been linked to.
Larry King agrees with you. Or so he said when he hosted a showing of 2010 on TCM.
You can now be ashamed.
2010 is a good movie, and true to the book, but not a great movie.
2001 number one, definitely.
Forbidden Planet comes close behind, especially since it was so far ahead of other movies made during that period.
SW:ANH because it was the first true space opera movie done with high quality. The science was no worse than most of Planet Stories and all of Ray Bradbury. That doesn’t make it bad.
The Day the Earth Stood Still, original version. Too bad they messed up Bates’ original ending, but still good. Remake was a total mess.
I’m also quite fond of ET, The Martian and Galaxy Quest.
Hands down the time travelers (1964.) It had everything a 5-year old needed for his first science fiction movie: the concept of time travel, robots, the first time I learned of hydroponics, the first time I heard of Alpha Centauri, mutation in humans. And Steve Franken as Danny McKee kept everything from looking too dire and frightful.
I really like the Fifth Element. While there are fantasy and comedy elements galore, the fact that the little, daily things have been given a thought, make the film special (long cigarette filters, fast microwave ovens, etc.)
I think the “greatness” of SW lies in its original impact on industry standards (production and marketing, esp. merchandising) and viewer expectations. As a movie, it’s not “great.” Indeed, most people tend to think The Empire Strikes Back is a better movie.
I would also point out that SW is a very derivative film, taking its cues from the movie serials of old. Yes, they have been dressed up in (what was then) state of the art VFX, but they are the same old thrills, the same old tropes. By way of comparison, this same criticism cannot be leveled at, for example, Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
I doubt you have seen Battle Wizard. It came out the same year as Star Wars. I will not try to describe this movie for you; the trailer should suffice:
Bottom line: I found this movie far more original, imaginative and fun than SW. And to preemptively clarify here, I do not take the position SW is a “bad” film; just that, as movie entertainment goes, it’s not really all that good and far from “great.”
Alien (1979, U.S., dir. Ridley Scott) Blade Runner (1982/95/2007, U.S., dir. Ridley Scott) E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982, U.S., dir. Steven Spielberg) Fantastic Planet (1973, France, dir. Rene Laloux) Forbidden Planet (1956, U.S., dir. Fred McLeod Wilcox) Her (2013, U.S., dir. Spike Jonze) Invaders from Mars (1953, U.S., dir. William Cameron Menzies) La Jetée (1962, France, dir. Chris Marker) Mad Max: Fury Road (2015, Australia/U.S., dir. George Miller) The Terminator (1984, U.S., dir. James Cameron) They Live (1988, U.S., dir. John Carpenter) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, U.K., dir. Stanley Kubrick)
