100 Best-Reviewed Sci-Fi Movies

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by 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.

The AFI list in general is heavily skewed towards films that are a little older and for that matter had significant box office success (with some exceptions of course).

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by 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 )

While I generally agree, if I saw as many movies as they do I would probably go for those "hig-brow" movies as well. Reviewers relate to movies like people on this site relate to hockey. Both are generally annoyed by the superficial coverage and enjoy the more in depth, insightful analysis.

[troutman]

2001: A Space Odyssey is the best SF movie ever. IMO, it might be one of the best movies ever of any genre.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...1010362%2F1023

The genius is not in how much Stanley Kubrick does in “2001: A Space Odyssey,'' but in how little. This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, “2001'' is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.

Only a few films are transcendent, and work upon our minds and imaginations like music or prayer or a vast belittling landscape. Most movies are about characters with a goal in mind, who obtain it after difficulties either comic or dramatic. “2001: A Space Odyssey'' is not about a goal but about a quest, a need. It does not hook its effects on specific plot points, nor does it ask us to identify with Dave Bowman or any other character. It says to us: We became men when we learned to think. Our minds have given us the tools to understand where we live and who we are. Now it is time to move on to the next step, to know that we live not on a planet but among the stars, and that we are not flesh but intelligence.

#15 in AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE'S GREATEST MOVIES

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...TARY/706210301

94% on RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000...space_odyssey/

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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

To the point that Children of Men could be considered a 'better' movie than Star Wars? Do you think more people favour the former over the latter? It'd be news to me I guess... the world has changed a lot since I was a kid I suppose... I'm surprised Children made the top 50, I slot it just above Matrix 3.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

To the point that Children of Men could be considered a 'better' movie than Star Wars? Do you think more people favour the former over the latter? It'd be news to me I guess... the world has changed a lot since I was a kid I suppose... I'm surprised Children made the top 50, I slot it just above Matrix 3.

Well--and I think this is Jiri's point--this list doesn't measure which movies are "better"--they just measure what critics at that time thought about them.

Star Wars in its time may well have received a lukewarm critical reception, despite its popular success. It has stood the test of time somewhat, but I can see a movie critic in 1979 writing it off as pablum.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well--and I think this is Jiri's point--this list doesn't measure which movies are "better"--they just measure what critics at that time thought about them.

Star Wars in its time may well have received a lukewarm critical reception, despite its popular success. It has stood the test of time somewhat, but I can see a movie critic in 1979 writing it off as pablum.

Is this site actually distilling Star Wars reviews from 1977? I know for current movies they use contemporary reviews... has Rotten Tomatoes gone back and put together old newspapers/magazines to figure out what all the critics thought at the time? I figured these reviews were done after, say, the invention of the internet (or the founding of Rotten Tomatoes?). If they're using critic pieces from 1977... then wow, Star Wars was underrated at the time it came out.

And no, I'm not a raving Star Wars fan... but when I see it compared to (and lower than) Children of Men I've got to scratch my head a bit, regardless of how the list was compiled.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

To the point that Children of Men could be considered a 'better' movie than Star Wars? Do you think more people favour the former over the latter? It'd be news to me I guess... the world has changed a lot since I was a kid I suppose... I'm surprised Children made the top 50, I slot it just above Matrix 3.

You can't even compare the two movies. To me, this is the equivalent of the question: Which is better the Harry Potter series or 1984? You can't really say which one is better, but it's easy to say one is vastly more important. Children of Men's depiction of the future was sobering in its realism but also deeply facsinating in the less realistic metaphoric human project and the lack of any new births for years. To take the movie at face value is to get only a 1/10th of the exprience. The Human Project was left to be so ambigious for a reason, it was not simply bad writing. The screenwriters didn't want to give us any realistic depiction of the Human Project IMO. They wanted it to seem to the viewer as it seemed to the people in the movie. A salvation. They wanted to end the movie with idealism, not realism.

That's my take anyway.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

You can't even compare the two movies. To me, this is the equivalent of the question: Which is better the Harry Potter series or 1984? You can't really say which one is better, but it's easy to say one is vastly more important. Children of Men's depiction of the future was sobering in its realism but also deeply facsinating in the less realistic metaphoric human project and the lack of any new births for years. To take the movie at face value is to get only a 1/10th of the exprience. The Human Project was left to be so ambigious for a reason, it was not simply bad writing. The screenwriters didn't want to give us any realistic depiction of the Human Project IMO. They wanted it to seem to the viewer as it seemed to the people in the movie. A salvation. They wanted to end the movie with idealism, not realism.

That's my take anyway.

Obviously its up to each person to subjectively judge how 'good' a movie is. I found Children to be extremely boring, lacking in important plot/story points.

I suppose if people out there want to justify why Children of Men can be rated higher than SW on any list, whatever floats your collective boat, we'll have to agree to disagree. I find generally a lot of people have very wide opinions on most movies... I just never expected a group of critics to rate (what I consider to be) such a sub-par movie so highly.

Edit: man, debating completely subjective points and matters of opinion is so useless, and soooo fun!

[Agamemnon]

A quick search of Star Wars on RT's website shows almost every review on it is done well after 1977... the reviews being used for Children of Men are current, the ones for Star Wars (used by RT) appear to be done 20+ years after the movie came out. Maybe that has something to do with its skewed position on the list.