100 Best-Reviewed Sci-Fi Movies

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

#1 is just wrong. There are a lot of other movies that could be #1 for a variety of reasons (changing the way movies are made, insights into the future, though provolking, and so on) but the #1 was popular, it was sci-fi, but when I think sci-fi I would probably never include it in a top 10, let along #1

It was also typical Spielberg heart string pulling. In a fairly obvious fashion. I'd rather see Alien there.

[JiriHrdina]

Regarding Children of Men - it seems that more recent movies always have a higher score on this list. How good a movie is, isn't known until years down the road when people have had a chance to see it a couple of times and identify flaws.

That being said I think it should be in the top 50. Didn't read the book but thought the movie was great.

That's a pretty flimsy reason to include Sunshine. Its not a Sci-fi movie no matter how you slice it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

You are seriously abnormal if you think Children of Men is a bad movie.

I must be seriously abnormal then, that movie sucked. I found the almost total lack of coherent story line boring, nearly fell asleep. I need more than a gunfight or two to keep me going.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Rotten Tomatoes... sometimes the critics get one badly wrong though, and this is (apparently) one case. Better than Star Wars? You'll have a tough time convincing me...

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Oh man is was brutal. Butchering of the book for no apparent reason with some ######ed Human league group that mysteriously bobs about the ocean only to come in from the fog conveniently at the right time.
They sacrificed a good deal of sensible plot for flashy battle scenes and violence.
They concentrated far too much on the desparity of the setting and not enough other elements. The entire connection between Clive Owen's character and the Steward of England wasn't there. The whole gradual break down of society wasn't there it was just Boom violence.
The book was amazing the film was terrible. (although the acting was excellent and it was filmed well the plot they created wes laughable.)

So essentially, you didn't like it because you enjoyed the book a lot better. Fair enough, but not everyone has read the book(like myself) and enjoyed the movie for what it was. Also, just because a movie isn't word for word the same as the book doesn't make it bad. Movies are based on books, they're not books on film. I always hate it when a movie comes out based on a popular book and people start critiquing every little detail that they read in the book. If everything in a book was in a movie, the damn thing would be 8 hours long.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Just admit it dude, thats why you liked the first one better.


And don't get me wrong, I love the first one, and yes, it was innovative and original for its time, but you know what, so was the second one. Those effects(the liquid metal stuff) were slightly used in the Abyss(another James Cameron flick) but T2 took what the Abyss did and blew it up exponentially. The story in the first was better, but that was mainly ue to the fact that so much background information had to be told. In the second one, we already knew what was what and they gave us a simple cat and mouse story and threw in a different message in terms of the Terminator learning the value of life and learning how to be more human.

I could ramble about T2 for hours, I'm gonna stop.

You people should subscribe to the CaptainCrunch's sure fire movie review, it ensures an enjoyable movie experience, and you rarely go wrong


Every movie is rated out of 100 points


10/100 car chase/shootout

10/100 major battle scene

10/100 somebody gets thier throat torn out with a gardening device or kitchen device

10/100 A good death scene

-10/100 prolongated romantic scene or long stare at the member of the opposite sex

10/100 a stunning never before scene special effect

10/100 at least one glib cool line after hero kills someone, or lights a cigar off of an incinerated body.

50/100 quality and quantity of boobies.

[Locke]

I thought Children of Men was pretty good, but "pretty good" isnt really good enough to be mentioned in the same sentence as some of the other classics on that list.

Really? Children of Men is more Dynamic and had more impact on the film industry over the course of 30 Years than Star Wars? No Dice. The list loses a lot of credibility there.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

So essentially, you didn't like it because you enjoyed the book a lot better. Fair enough, but not everyone has read the book(like myself) and enjoyed the movie for what it was. Also, just because a movie isn't word for word the same as the book doesn't make it bad. Movies are based on books, they're not books on film. I always hate it when a movie comes out based on a popular book and people start critiquing every little detail that they read in the book. If everything in a book was in a movie, the damn thing would be 8 hours long.

You're right, not following a book word for word doesn't necessarily make a film bad. But in this case the film is bad whether the book existed or not IMO. Take the book away and I think it's a poor plot on film no matter what. Like I said, well acted, good shooting, but ill-conceived plot.
Are you saying the you enjoy everysingle adaptation of a book and it's not possible for the film to be bad? Probably not.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Locke

I thought Children of Men was pretty good, but "pretty good" isnt really good enough to be mentioned in the same sentence as some of the other classics on that list.

Really? Children of Men is more Dynamic and had more impact on the film industry over the course of 30 Years than Star Wars? No Dice. The list loses a lot of credibility there.

I think people are misunderstanding what the list is. This is not someone's ranking of most influential films are even what they, or a group like.

This is a purely quantitative list based on the highest average review on RT. So I'm not sure how the list can lose credibility.

[Nehkara]

Well, if you look how the list is compiled it makes sense that there will be some abnormalities in there. I agree that while Children of Men was a great movie, I was surprised to see it so high.

Basically they take the reviews of hundreds of critics and combine them into a score... that can be misleading it seems.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

This is a purely quantitative list based on the highest average review on RT. So I'm not sure how the list can lose credibility.

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Basically they take the reviews of hundreds of critics and combine them into a score... that can be misleading it seems.

I see. I guess I should have paid more attention to the title, "Best-Reviewed" Movies.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think people are misunderstanding what the list is. This is not someone's ranking of most influential films are even what they, or a group like.

This is a purely quantitative list based on the highest average review on RT. So I'm not sure how the list can lose credibility.

I'm not misunderstanding it, I use Rotten Tomatoes all the time.

In this case, this list is out to lunch. I know how it was compiled, but that doesn't change it from being essentially (imo) bogus. Star Wars is better than Children of Men on any 'real' list that anyone could have. As far as I'm concerned this list is telling me that 'on average' carbon is better than gold. Fair enough... just not true.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm not misunderstanding it, I use Rotten Tomatoes all the time.

In this case, this list is out to lunch. I know how it was compiled, but that doesn't change it from being essentially (imo) bogus. Star Wars is better than Children of Men on any 'real' list that anyone could have. As far as I'm concerned this list is telling me that 'on average' carbon is better than gold. Fair enough... just not true.

OK but even then the list is not out to lunch, the critics that are measured on the list are.

The list offers no opinion itself - its just a gathering of data.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Personally I liked "Children of Men". I thought it was an interesting concept, of what the world would be like if we didn't have children. I think that it's a great argument against the "I'm not going to have kids because I couldn't bring them into this world" BS.

Without children there is no future. Great theme.

I loved it the first time I saw it. And I don't think the boat came out of the fog at the exact right time, if so (spoilers warning I'll write in white) Clive Owen's character wouldn't have died.

The first time I saw the movie I thought it was great. The second time I got bored. I don't think it's a movie with staying power. It's not going to be in my DVD collection as I don't foresee me watching it over and over again.

That said, in a list with this methodology you're going to have a skewed #1 and Top 10 as you'll get reviewers that will trash the classic movies (ie: Star Wars) solely to show they aren't afraid to go outside the norm. So you'll never get an "Empire Strikes Back" or "T2" at number one.

On the other issue in this thread I loved, Loved, LOVED "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind". After seeing it I wondered if I'd ever do that procedure if I had the option. I thought it was a great story of heatbreak and loss (which I'm a sucker for, I might lose man points on this but I do want to see "Away From Her" because it looks like it'll have a tragic ending).
That said, is it a Sci-Fi movie? It has Sci-Fi elements, but what movie doesn't? "Silence of the Lambs" had science in it, it was fiction, was it Science-Fiction? No. So I don't think "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind" should be on the list.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

OK but even then the list is not out to lunch, the critics that are measured on the list are.

The list offers no opinion itself - its just a gathering of data.

The list sucks. This 'gathering of data', imo, has failed to provide an effective list. I understand its not the list's fault... though I'm not sure why that affects my thinking the list sucks. I'm not trying to make it feel bad, or hurt its feelings... just suggesting that it probably doesn't jive with most people's 'actual' top 10/100.

I'd also suggest that if you asked most critics individually, they would rate Star Wars over Children of Men. I assume this list is heavily biased towards contemporary movies... which is another reason it sucks. Just saying is all... mostly because I hated Children of Men, terrible movie!

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think people are misunderstanding what the list is. This is not someone's ranking of most influential films are even what they, or a group like.

This is a purely quantitative list based on the highest average review on RT. So I'm not sure how the list can lose credibility.

Well I'm not sure how they can rank these movies. Taken on its own, a rating is fine and gives a good representation of if a movie is any "good". But to then compare those ratings between different times and presumably different reviewers will not create a very accurate ranking.

It is like taking all the Presidents Cup winners of the last 30 years and then ranking them based on their regular season point total. It will give an interesting list, but the veracity of the list would be very much up for question.

Edit: But it does make for a good discussion starter.

[Burninator]

Me and my girlfriend at the time both fell asleep watching that sunshine movie...

Some of my favourites are:

10 - Aliens
15 - The Terminator
27 - Terminator 2
32 - The Matrix
62 - Jurassic Park
83 - Signs

I actually would have liked to see Contact on there, but the ending isn't exactly the best. And where the hell is Spaceballs?!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Me and my girlfriend at the time both fell asleep watching that sunshine movie...

Some of my favourites are:

10 - Aliens
15 - The Terminator
27 - Terminator 2
32 - The Matrix
62 - Jurassic Park
83 - Signs

I actually would have liked to see Contact on there, but the ending isn't exactly the best. And where the hell is Spaceballs?!

Wow... interesting that Signs made the top 100 and Contact didn't... I thought Contact was a pretty cool movie.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The list sucks. This 'gathering of data', imo, has failed to provide an effective list. I understand its not the list's fault... though I'm not sure why that affects my thinking the list sucks. I'm not trying to make it feel bad, or hurt its feelings... just suggesting that it probably doesn't jive with most people's 'actual' top 10/100.

I'd also suggest that if you asked most critics individually, they would rate Star Wars over Children of Men. I assume this list is heavily biased towards contemporary movies... which is another reason it sucks. Just saying is all... mostly because I hated Children of Men, terrible movie!

Actually a lot of people don't like Star Wars.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Well I'm not sure how they can rank these movies. Taken on its own, a rating is fine and gives a good representation of if a movie is any "good". But to then compare those ratings between different times and presumably different reviewers will not create a very accurate ranking.

It is like taking all the Presidents Cup winners of the last 30 years and then ranking them based on their regular season point total. It will give an interesting list, but the veracity of the list would be very much up for question.

Edit: But it does make for a good discussion starter.

I agree its not without its flaws but at least their is a methodology and its clear what this list is. most lists are just a seemingly random throw together based on the author's or a small group of people's opinions.

This is at least has some legitimate process behind it.

Not sure though why I'm defending it so much.

[Flame On]

The thing about sci-fi is that critics largely believe it's juvinile. So the gritty ones that are less fantastical like Children Of... are easy to get behind for them. Critics love "high brow" and seem to frown on others.
If; not to pick on it, Children of Men, is so great, why is it not on the American Film Institute's top 100 films above Star Wars, which is.
I'm actually surprised not to see Blade Runner in the top 5 for this reason. (An example of a film that's great and departs from the book )