The best science fiction movies of all time

[tineared]

Brilliant film yes. I would agree about it portraying Man as a minor player.

My take:

I've always viewed it as being about technological development and the potential isolation of people when engaging with technologies.

The monolith is first seen by the apes, then finally by Dave at his deathbed. First nothing is known (the apes don't understand what it is); then omniscience is achieved (Dave knows what it is). That is, the monolith is omniscience. The last thing is discovered at Jupiter and there is nothing much to talk about. Man's story is over.

Maybe the star gate sequence is the terror of Dave realising what this means.

2001: A Space Odyssey is the kind of film I almost comprehend but it's slightly out of reach. I don't think it has anything to do with aliens.

My take:

The entire film 2001 is about the methodology of an alien that places a monolith on Earth to facilitate the intellectual evolution of life.
Once the intelligent life on Earth (us?) evolves enough for space travel, mankind discovers a different monolith buried on the moon.
Once uncovered, the lunar monolith emits a signal towards Jupiter which causes us to build a ship (Discovery) to investigate.
Once Discovery reaches Jupiter (after some unfortunate complications caused by the Hal 9000 computer), yet another monolith is discovered at the Lagrange point between Jupiter and Io.
This turns out to be some form of "stargate" which the only surviving member of the crew, Dave Bowman, enters and is transformed into a "star child" with highly developed sentience orbiting Earth.
So the movie is all about the influence of aliens on mankind.
In the sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact we learn that the aliens do this type of thing on a regular basis.
Arthur C. Clarke leaves it to the reader's imagination whether you want to interpret the alien as an advanced race or spiritual being(s)

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm a big Clarke fan. He actually invented the concept of the geostationary satellite for communication purposes...

 

[mhardy6647]

2001's humans, or hominids, are central to the story: Exposure to the first monolith transforms ancestors of humankind into tool-users, who go on to conquer neighboring territory, and evolve into space-faring humans. Exposure to the monolith in orbit near Jupiter triggers the next big phase, as Bowman is transformed into the celestial fetus. This is explained in greater detail in both the movie 2010, and Arthur Clarke's novels.

We don't disagree!
The fact that we're humans... that we're us... is what's unimportant.
It's what we managed to do that gives us cred with the monolith's keepers.
... and, like the Overlords in Childhood's End, tasked with a similar responsibility, they save us from ourselves so that we can become Something Else.

 

[pderousse]

Some oversights:

Deserve many more mentions:

Serriously, if not for the music. C'mon ASR, unquestionably H. Zimmer's magnum opus:

Finally, a break-glass SiFi curiosity, only. Do not under any circumstances view this. But, if you do, you will not survive the 10 minutes of Wookie dialogue without losing 30 IQ points. You have been warned:

Not quite as bad, from a generation earlier ("Essence of man", anyone?):

 

[Petrushka]

My take:

The entire film 2001 is about the methodology of an alien that places a monolith on Earth to facilitate the intellectual evolution of life.
Once the intelligent life on Earth (us?) evolves enough for space travel, mankind discovers a different monolith buried on the moon.
Once uncovered, the lunar monolith emits a signal towards Jupiter which causes us to build a ship (Discovery) to investigate.
Once Discovery reaches Jupiter (after some unfortunate complications caused by the Hal 9000 computer), yet another monolith is discovered at the Lagrange point between Jupiter and Io.
This turns out to be some form of "stargate" which the only surviving member of the crew, Dave Bowman, enters and is transformed into a "star child" with highly developed sentience orbiting Earth.
So the movie is all about the influence of aliens on mankind.
In the sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact we learn that the aliens do this type of thing on a regular basis.
Arthur C. Clarke leaves it to the reader's imagination whether you want to interpret the alien as an advanced race or spiritual being(s)

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm a big Clarke fan. He actually invented the concept of the geostationary satellite for communication purposes...

I have a love/hate relationship with Clarke.

He implied evolution is insufficient. He promoted ESP and FTL.

In the later Rama books he seemed to think humans could be digitized with a rather skimpy number of digits. Something touched on in the City and the Stars. I realize his numbers seem huge, but biology is orders huger.

 

[kemmler3D]

I have a love/hate relationship with Clarke.

He implied evolution is insufficient. He promoted ESP and FTL.

In the later Rama books he seemed to think humans could be digitized with a rather skimpy number of digits. Something touched on in the City and the Stars. I realize his numbers seem huge, but biology is orders huger.

Weren't the sequels mostly written by Gentry Lee?

I thought the first one was good but definitely screamed for a sequel. Then I found out the sequels were not as universally acclaimed and some consider them bad, so not sure if i'm going to read them.

 

[EJasonC]

Minus One:

And soon; Minus Zero:

 

[KenMasters]

Small shout out to some indies:

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

A sequel, but much better than the original:

 

[blueone]

The same director also did Starship Troopers which definitely also should make the list.

Starship Troopers is amusing, sometimes, but the notion that asteroids from the other side of the galaxy can damage the Earth is too dumb for me to watch.

 

[rolfrander]

19. ET (1982)
17. Alien (1979)
15. Back to the Future (1985)
10. Star Wars: A New Hope (1977)
6. Aliens (1986)
5. Blade Runner (1982)
1. Blade Runner: 2049 (2017)

Many good suggestions in this thread, and I won't try to comment on them all, but I have a couple of comments to the original list:

• I don't consider Star Wars to be a sci fi at all, there is no science in it (as several others also have mentioned). I have sort of the same view of Back to the Future and ET, there is some "science", but it's mostly a McGuffin.
• I consider Alien to be far better than any of the follow-ups
• And I consider Blade Runner to be better than 2049

 

[Tell]

Starship Troopers is amusing, sometimes, but the notion that asteroids from the other side of the galaxy can damage the Earth is too dumb for me to watch.

It's not supposed to be a documentary, far from it. There's a lot of things in there that doesn't make sense, just like in SO many other movies that people watch today (mostly looking at those superhero movies that grown up men apparently watch) but we can still watch them if we allow for that suspension of disbelief.

 

[Robin L]

My take:

The entire film 2001 is about the methodology of an alien that places a monolith on Earth to facilitate the intellectual evolution of life.
Once the intelligent life on Earth (us?) evolves enough for space travel, mankind discovers a different monolith buried on the moon.
Once uncovered, the lunar monolith emits a signal towards Jupiter which causes us to build a ship (Discovery) to investigate.
Once Discovery reaches Jupiter (after some unfortunate complications caused by the Hal 9000 computer), yet another monolith is discovered at the Lagrange point between Jupiter and Io.
This turns out to be some form of "stargate" which the only surviving member of the crew, Dave Bowman, enters and is transformed into a "star child" with highly developed sentience orbiting Earth.
So the movie is all about the influence of aliens on mankind.
In the sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact we learn that the aliens do this type of thing on a regular basis.
Arthur C. Clarke leaves it to the reader's imagination whether you want to interpret the alien as an advanced race or spiritual being(s)

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm a big Clarke fan. He actually invented the concept of the geostationary satellite for communication purposes...

What I recall from reading the novelization ages ago is that the Star-Child ends the book by setting off all the nuclear devices on Earth. The novelization was written as the film was made but published afterwards. It's worth noting that Kubrick's previous film was Dr. Strangelove. According to the Wiki article about the film, Kubrick decided he didn't want to repeat that specific theme in this film.

The movie came out in 1968. I was 13 and had been reading about the film and its development in periodicals like "Popular Science" as far back as 1966. I was lucky enough to see it soon after it came out, in a theater properly equipped for Cinerama. In addition to the giant, wrap-around screen, the "Warnors Theater" in Fresno had one of the best sound systems I've encountered, and one of the first. The bass in that theater was palpable, particularly at the very bottom of the pipe organ's range in "Also Sprach Zarathrustra". As I was just getting really interested in classical music at the time this was a crucial experience. Later, I was a recording engineering for classical ensembles, including full orchestra. Of course, the little excerpt of R. Strauss, always an audio demo favorite, is a sly nod to the Übermensch in all his implications. But you knew that already, right? I owned a copy of the Alex North soundtrack that Kubrick rejected. Kubrick made the right choice.

As a side note—my first "audiophile" speakers were AR-3s, purchased in 1973. 2001 gave me a taste for bellbottom flapping bass.

I think 2001's status as the "GOAT" of cinematic Science Fiction has a lot to do with the critical status of European art film in the mid-1960 and the way Kubrick used the visual and storytelling modes of such films as "Last Year in Marienbad" and "Red Desert". And I think that influence is responsible for the one scene that really turns me off, the 22 minute sequence where Bowman is trying to get back into the ship. I guess it's daring to stretch out the tension, but for me the mood breaks. A lot of the movie is about as good as it gets. I've got the Blu-Ray and am tempted to watch it soon on our new (to us) 4k screen.

I've got the Criterion Collection Blu-Ray of Barry Lyndon. Right now, that's my favorite movie by Stanley Kubrick.

 

[Robin L]

Starship Troopers is amusing, sometimes, but the notion that asteroids from the other side of the galaxy can damage the Earth is too dumb for me to watch.

Paul Verhoeven's movie makes fun of the macho/militaristic pretensions of Heinlein's source material. It's satire, that's the point, and it's pretty good satire at that.

 

[KenMasters]

Paul Verhoeven's movie makes fun of the macho/militaristic pretensions of Heinlein's source material. It's satire, that's the point, and it's pretty good satire at that.

Yip! Verhoeven's arthouse roots and over the top 80s machismo made for a unique pairing - his satire was too on point within the social milieu for most to catch onto.

The campy acting in Starship Troopers was a choice, he was looking to emulate shows like Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90210 - "If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships but it's only good for killing fucking Bugs!"

 

[Mart68]

I've got the Criterion Collection Blu-Ray of Barry Lyndon. Right now, that's my favorite movie by Stanley Kubrick.

Yes. Not sci fi but it is superb in every respect.

 

[mhardy6647]

What I recall from reading the novelization ages ago is that the Star-Child ends the book by setting off all the nuclear devices on Earth. The novelization was written as the film was made but published afterwards. It's worth noting that Kubrick's previous film was Dr. Strangelove. According to the Wiki article about the film, Kubrick decided he didn't want to repeat that specific theme in this film.

You are correct, sir.

EDIT: and who but Kubrick could've followed up a black comedy masterpiece like Dr. Strangelove with something like 2001? He's still my favorite director, even though I don't care for nearly half of his movies!

Of course, the little excerpt of R. Strauss, always an audio demo favorite, is a sly nod to the Übermensch in all his implications. But you knew that already, right? I owned a copy of the Alex North soundtrack that Kubrick rejected. Kubrick made the right choice.

Yup. And I have a copy of the original soundtrack, too. I've yet to listen to it all of the way through.

The Crystal Clear Direct to Disk Sonic Fireworks LP opens with a pretty brain-rattling version of the, what, prelude (?) to Also Sprach Zarathustra. I have a copy of the LP here somewhere (I hope!) but it's defied attempts to locat it for the past decade or so.

 

[thegeton]

This might be the Greatest Thread of All Time.

 

[Robin L]

You are correct, sir.

The Crystal Clear Direct to Disk Sonic Fireworks LP opens with a pretty brain-rattling version of the, what, prelude (?) to Also Sprach Zarathustra. I have a copy of the LP here somewhere (I hope!) but it's defied attempts to locat it for the past decade or so.

I do believe R. Strauss calls that episode "Sunrise".

I've got both of Fritz Reiner's Chicago Symphony Orchestra recordings, why BMG didn't pick the 1962 recording for their SACD series is beyond me. Zubin Mehta's LAPO recording for DECCA/London is also pretty brain-rattling and not that hard to find on CD, though there are LPs floating around if you must.

 

[tineared]

Weren't the sequels mostly written by Gentry Lee?

I thought the first one was good but definitely screamed for a sequel. Then I found out the sequels were not as universally acclaimed and some consider them bad, so not sure if i'm going to read them

I very much liked 2001 and 2010. I didn't much care for 2061 and don't remember whether I read 3001 or not
I don't know what Lee's contribution was, but I considered 2010 to be the end of the series as far as I was concerned

 

[Robin L]

I've read a definition of "real" sci fi that argues a story should allow at most one exception to or violation of known science. Project hail Mary pretty much achieves that, Star wars is pretty much the opposite...

My definition of "Science Fiction" as a genre comes from years of shelfing mass-market paperbacks at Borders Books. Not to mention what I read ages 13-35 or so. There's a blur between Science Fiction and Fantasy, thrillers, dystopian novels. Can't say Heinlein is all that science-y, but he is essentially Science Fiction. Same with Ray Bradbury or Arthur C. Clark.