The 25 Best Sci-Fi Movies of the Last 15 Years

[payn]

It depends on how a person would define, "Important to the zeitgeist," I guess.

Obviously, it's not a Marvel superhero movie. But it was a science fiction movie that was important enough to be nominated for an Academy Award, and it won the most prestigious writing award (best original screenplay)- in fact, it racked those awards up. I can't think of a single person (aka, critic) who didn't have it as one of the top movies that year.

Right, nobody says its a bad movie.

I would agree that it is very similar to Eternal Sunshine; then again, I also think that's another film that, because of the writing, acting, and plot, continue to be relevant.

Not a lot of people talk about either of these movies much. Unlike, Jurassic Park or Star Wars.

Who knows? I'm a film person, and I talk to other film people. I thought the particular choice to use Her was a particularly poor one. Look at the list- Colossal? A Quiet Place? The Endless?* Moon?** Rogue One.***

If someone chooses to take out that movie, out of the ones mentioned, that's definitely a choice.

Yeah im not saying Her shouldn't be on the list, just that you might be overvaluing the recognition and impact of the film in general. Which half the films on this list do hit that mass recognition level, albeit more on the popcorn level.

And it's interesting how one ranks popcorn movies, as well. I mean, I think that Pacific Rim, for a lot of reasons, had continuing cultural relevance that, say, Avatar never did.

Agreed. I dont think these movies should be compared to things like Her, but thats just my humble opinion.

 

[Deset Gled]

Moon?**
**Again, a good movie, but beyond Rockwell (always good) and the twist, not a lot there, there. IMO.

Adding to my earlier post, one of the reasons I think Moon belongs on the list is that it is really, really sci-fi. Not just in the setting. It's done in the style of classic sci-fi from the early (pre Star Wars) days, with all the tropes and tribulations of an episode of X Minus One or a 50s pulp movie. It's sci-fi for old school sci-fi people, and it does it well.

The same could be said about District 9, to a somewhat lesser extent.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Right, nobody says its a bad movie.

Not a lot of people talk about either of these movies much. Unlike, Jurassic Park or Star Wars.

Yeah im not saying Her shouldn't be on the list, just that you might be overvaluing the recognition and impact of the film in general. Which half the films on this list do hit that mass recognition level, albeit more on the popcorn level.

Two things here-

First, I don't think that any list of "greatest movies" (of a particular time, of a particular genre) tends to have an overrepresentation of "popcorn movies."

I think that most people are pretty comfortable understanding that a movies can be popular, and they can be good, and that while these qualities can overlap, they often don't. When Citizen Kane is regularly at the top (or close to the top) of most greatest movies list, I don't think people say, "Well, okay, but it was a flop at the box office."

The whole box office/commercialism fetish is kind of new. I would add that while the boundaries between "popular" and "good," have thankfully blurred, it is still the case that it is unusual for popcorn movies to be "high concept." Christopher Nolan being one of the notable exceptions.

Second, using Jurassic Park (assumedly the first one) and Star Wars as your examples is kind of ... not correct. It would be like me using Inception as the example of something that isn't a popcorn movie.

Both those movies are very important in cinema history for reasons other than just, "I got to sit in some AC, eat popcorn, and turn my brain off."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Adding to my earlier post, one of the reasons I think Moon belongs on the list is that it is really, really sci-fi. Not just in the setting. It's done in the style of classic sci-fi from the early (pre Star Wars) days, with all the tropes and tribulations of an episode of X Minus One or a 50s pulp movie. It's sci-fi for old school sci-fi people, and it does it well.

The same could be said about District 9, to a somewhat lesser extent.

Yeah, no.

I cannot disagree more with this attempt to cabin off what is, and what isn't, science fiction.

Let's see-

Her takes place in the future (check).
With technology that we don't have today (check).
The primary theme is using the future to tell us about today (check).
Oh, and one of the characters and a major issue in the plot involved artificial intelligence (check).

I could keep going on, but if that's not science fiction, then I can't agree with you on anything.

 

[Ryujin]

Speaking for myself, I see Her in that philosophical bucket. It hits with folks who like artsy movies, intellectual movies, culturally introspective movies, etc... It has more in common with Eternal Sunshine than Jurassic Park. The kind of movie nobody says is "bad", but plenty of people say "meh not interested." Some of your comments seem to indicate it's more important to the zeitgeist than most folks would agree with.

"The Best" tend to have real staying power, as opposed to being box office hits. How many science fiction movies to you remember form the 1950s, for example? My mind immediately jumps to 2, then another 2 sort of sneak in the back door when I'm not looking:

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" - Arguably the first anti-nuke movie made in the US. Sure, it has a beautiful girl and a big shiny robot, along with a little action, but it's more about taking a good, long, dispassionate look at ourselves.

"Forbidden Planet" - Another one with action and a big robot, but it's based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest." It covers the nature of man, good and evil, etc..

The others...

"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - A movie with multiple remakes. Thinly veiled allusions to communism and the Cold War, the nature of being, etc..

"The Thing From Another World" - aka "Invasion of the Carrot Man from Outer Space." A good enough shoot-'em-up SF that it has been remade, twice. More thinly veiled allusion to communism and McCarthyism.

These films are watchedd again and again, debated over, or just plain enjoyed. I don't know that many movies that rely too heavily on special effects, rather than story and character development, will be able to say the same.

 

[Ryujin]

Yeah, no.

I cannot disagree more with this attempt to cabin off what is, and what isn't, science fiction.

Let's see-

Her takes place in the future (check).
With technology that we don't have today (check).
The primary theme is using the future to tell us about today (check).
Oh, and one of the characters and a major issue in the plot involved artificial intelligence (check).

I could keep going on, but if that's not science fiction, then I can't agree with you on anything.

I think that people have difficulty seeing something as SF when the tech is close enough that they can imagine it happening now. There's an expression that was used in the TORG RPG that I've always liked, as a partial explanation of their setting; "The Near Now." It's still SF.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think that people have difficulty seeing something as SF when the tech is close enough that they can imagine it happening now. There's an expression that was used in the TORG RPG that I've always liked, as a partial explanation of their setting; "The Near Now." It's still SF.

I think a lot of people confuse or conflate two concepts in science fiction.

The true roots of science fiction, AFAIC, have always been about using stories set in the future to tell us about the present. This was one of the main concerns of golden-age science fiction. If you're not familiar with it (Martian Chronicles is a great example), think of any TOS episode of Star Trek.

 

[Deset Gled]

I cannot disagree more with this attempt to cabin off what is, and what isn't, science fiction.
..
I could keep going on, but if that's not science fiction, then I can't agree with you on anything.

What is going on?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What is going on?

See emphasis-

Is it? I would classify Her as a movie for movie people; I don't think it's particularly well known. Maybe common in certain circles, but not to the general public. You have to go down to #76 to find it on IMDBs top movies of the 2010s.

And it's sci-fi by technicality, but in a world where people debate if superhero movies belong in the genre, it's barely there. Definitely a romance and drama first. If I asked asked someone "What's your favorites sci-fi movie" and they said "Her", I would respond "You don't really like sci-fi, do you?"

I didn't say Her wasn't sci-fi. I'm perfectly okay with things being in more than one category.

But I'm also okay with saying one thing in more sci-fi than another. A Quiet Place and Alien are both horror movies that happen to take place in the sci-fi genre. But Alien is definitely more sci-fi than A Quiet Place. Star Wars and Monster's Inc are both technically sci-fi and fantasy, but Star Wars is a lot more sci-fi and Monster's Inc is a lot more fantasy.

And when I make a list of "Best Sci-fi Movies", I consider how much sci-fi something is when it goes on the list. I think there's a reason the original article included Guardians of the Galaxy instead of Thor: Ragnarok. And to the specific context I made that post in, I will say that I consider Avatar to be more sci-fi than Her. YMMV.

Adding to my earlier post, one of the reasons I think Moon belongs on the list is that it is really, really sci-fi. Not just in the setting. It's done in the style of classic sci-fi from the early (pre Star Wars) days, with all the tropes and tribulations of an episode of X Minus One or a 50s pulp movie. It's sci-fi for old school sci-fi people, and it does it well.

The same could be said about District 9, to a somewhat lesser extent.

I am not comfortable telling other people that their science fiction isn't "really, really" science fiction, and I would never tell someone, after they told me their favorite sci-fi movie (which is most assuredly a sci-fi movie and one of the best ones of this millenium), "You don't really like sic-fi, do you?"


That would be weird, to me. I don't have the need to police those boundaries, because in my experience policing those boundaries always means that people are using artificial boundaries to assert that their preferences are the correct ones.


Finally, I find it more useful to provide more information than to say something isn't science fiction. For example, The Lobster is a great and wonderful science fiction film that uses surrealism and black humor to explore a dystopian near-future. But it's not, at all, interested in technology or pew pew pew, and it's closer to "magical realism" than to "hard science fiction."

 

[Ryujin]

I think a lot of people confuse or conflate two concepts in science fiction.

The true roots of science fiction, AFAIC, have always been about using stories set in the future to tell us about the present. This was one of the main concerns of golden-age science fiction. If you're not familiar with it (Martian Chronicles is a great example), think of any TOS episode of Star Trek.

Though when you say "future", it doesn't have to be a thousand years in the future.

EDIT - And you're discounting a Golden Age movie like "the Day the Earth Stood Still" which is clearly SF, but effectively takes place in the (to them) modern world.