Page 4 of 4

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:32 pm
by ONeillSG1
I have a three way tie between Empire, Serenity and Blade Runner.

But, as always, I default to Star Wars.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:43 pm
by DennisMM
Shane wrote:
The Vicar wrote:Which Fly?

David Hedison or Jeff Goldblum?


David Hedison.

The Croenberg one was neat at the time, just to see a new Fly movie, but is sadly just a cheap immitation of the greatness that started it all.

The Movies went down hill in order of when they were made.

The Fly was perfect. Return of the Fly less perfect, but still cool. Croenbergs' Fly good movie. Fly II not as good but still the Fly. Now it's time for the best Fly, my fly I rambled on in the directing in your head thread.


What about Curse of the Fly? Or have you not seen that?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:57 pm
by King Of Nowhere
has to be Ai !

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:25 pm
by minstrel
2001.

It's the one with the grandest scope and conception. It has the most powerful imagery (of the ones on the list that I've seen). It means the most, because it doesn't come out and tell you what it means.

And it's very, very beautiful.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:51 am
by Proinsias
mister six wrote:Am I alone in being an Enemy Mine fan...?

How about Hardware? Bonus points for a Lemmy cameo..

Bad Taste must surely be up there with the greats too! Laughed my arse off the first time I saw that...


Gaa!, Enemy mine! of course..Red Lizard people!, someone getting mashed in a mashing machine...and THE QUAID!. Awsome experience.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:19 am
by tapehead
RogueScribner wrote:Well, I didn't mean to pick on Aliens. I only mentioned it because it has so many votes currently. But Aliens is just an action thriller. It's a very good one, but it's neither challenging in its ideas or emotional development. Eternal Sunshine takes a wonderful what-if scenario and explores the true emotional verisimilitude of it with engaging characters and concepts that actually make you contemplate your own actions and how you conduct your life. What's important and what isn't and what it means to share a life with someone. The movie affected me on a deep personal level and I can't say that for any other film on the list. There are many good movies on that list, but none so great as Eternal Sunshine in my opinion.


I see what you mean - I guess I think of Eternal Sunshine (one of my faves from last year, or the year before I guess) is a movie that depends on a small science fiction trope - kind of like Vanilla Sky, whereas Aliens is all Science fiction, science fiction proper. I would have to say that Alien and Aliens hit me on a deep personal level, its got a lot of abject horror that hits you at a very basic level of your fears and instincts, and stays with you as a viewer after you've seen it. But it's not about romantic love, that's for damn sure.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:26 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Hmm, well Aliens' IS a love story in a way, there's no way you can't call it a film that works on an emotional level. It's all about Ripley having her motherhood ripped away from her by the Aliens (her daughter has now died after all the time she was in hypersleep) and how she now is trying to find comfort in being a surrogate mother to Newt, and how Newt also needs this as her entire family were killed by the Aliens. There are traces of Alien 3's themes too, in which Ripley is trying to sever the Hell of living in a relationship to the Aliens too. The fight between her and the Queen gives aplomb to this and her struggle of motherhood.

Not meaning to contradict you, but this is simply my take on it.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:40 am
by tapehead
No, this is true Kirk, I was trying to engage Rogue's comment without getting to the Psychoanalytical and symbolic readings of the film, and ending up sounding like some academic wanker. It is a kind a love story, and it does hit you on that really basic emotional and instinctual level. There's a lot of stuff in these movies about sex, identity, bilogical procreation and all that, but it's not a romantic love story like Eternal Sunshine.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:46 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Hokay Dokay. So, we're all correct then.

Anyway, where's Wrath of Khan on this poll?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:50 am
by tapehead
Actually I am the most correct-est
Wrath of Kahn? Best Sci Fi Movie ever?
Surely you jest?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:55 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
SPACE CAMP!!!!!!????????????

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:26 am
by ZombieZoneSolutions
Yes, of course, it is 2001. Its so much more than a sci-fi film, its
a goddamn prophecy; a minimalist epic of mind-bending, soul-expanding,
infinite wisdom; the closest approximation of how I understand the
metaphor of God; God as a metaphor for the binding intelligence /
conciousness of the universe...

(btw, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE needs to be on the poll.)

That being said, here are more of my all time faves (in no partiklar
order, offa the top o' thee gulliver):

STAR WARS (1-6; 3, 4, and 5 being the best; 5 being the ultimate best)
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
BLADE RUNNER
THE MAD MAX TRILOGY
ALIENS
12 MONKEYS (yes, its better than LA JETTE)
BRAZIL
BATTLE ROYALE (I think that counts as sci-fi; near-future dystopia style)
FAHRENHEIT 451
STARSHIP TROOPERS (best satire of Imperial American foreign policy EVER)
ROBOCOP (best satire of Imperial America's failing infrastructure EVER)
A.I.
XMEN Trilogy (its as much sci-fi as it is superhero, imho)
28 DAYS LATER (I see it as a sci-fi / horror film)
V FOR VENDETTA (a sci-fi / political thriler)

lest we forget, the ANIME!!!:

AKIRA
NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF WIND
NEON GENESIS EVANGELION: DEATH/REBIRTH and END
SPACE CRUISER YAMATO
GALAXY EXPRESS 999
MY YOUTH IN ARCADIA
MACROSS: DO YOU REMEMBER LOVE?
COWBOY BEEBOP: KNOCKIN' ON HEAVEN'S DOOR

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:39 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
A small nod of appreciation for Nicholas Roeg's The Man Who Fell To Earth - a movie which comes across (IMO) as simultaneously infuriating, complex, unjoined and hypnotic; and visually one of the most beautiful in it's genre.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:25 pm
by tapehead
Nice choice HollywoodBabylon - I've waded through that one a few times myself - where's Metropolis?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:56 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Metropolis is more of a futuristic film rather than Sci Fi isn't it? Suprised that Blade Runner and The Terminator are on this poll.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:55 pm
by monorail77
Andromeda Strain would have been my vote for "hard" sci-fi (as opposed to, say, ESB, also a great film)

Has anyone mentioned Solaris? I thought it was pretty good. But then, I also liked Sphere (please don't kill me for that)

edit: I also give props to Minority Report (ugh, I just know I'm slitting my own throat now...)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:06 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
monorail77 wrote:Has anyone mentioned Solaris? I thought it was pretty good. But then, I also liked Sphere (please don't kill me for that)


Tarkovsky, or Soderbergh?

I won't kill you for liking Sphere, but I may have to go all Ludovico on you...

monorail77 wrote:edit: I also give props to Minority Report (ugh, I just know I'm slitting my own throat now...)


I really liked Minority Report...until the last 10minutes.

I don't think the Philip K. Dick robot was stolen, I believe it achieved sentience in an attempt to hunt down and destroy Spielbergo and Cruise for ruining the ending...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:09 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
monorail77 wrote:Has anyone mentioned Solaris? I thought it was pretty good. But then, I also liked Sphere (please don't kill me for that)


I really liked Tarkovsky's original SOLARIS... never saw the Clooneee...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:16 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:I really liked Minority Report...until the last 10minutes.


Yep! Never underestimate Spielbergs power to completely ruin even his
most successful films with a drollop of treacle so painfully forced, it causes
Care Bears to roll their eyes in ironic-distance revulsion...

Still, it was a good up until the end; treacle aside, I enjoyed it very
muchly...

muuuuurrrrrrdeeeerrrrr

(i love that spooky chickee poo)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:40 pm
by monorail77
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
monorail77 wrote:Has anyone mentioned Solaris? I thought it was pretty good. But then, I also liked Sphere (please don't kill me for that)


Tarkovsky, or Soderbergh?


I've only seen the Soderbergh remake. How does it compare?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:48 pm
by monorail77
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:I won't kill you for liking Sphere, but I may have to go all Ludovico on you...


Don't recognize this reference, sorry ignoramus that I am. I googled it, but came up with several possibles, none really fitting with your comment. Much obliged if you would 'splain.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:02 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote:Never underestimate Spielbergs power to completely ruin even his
most successful films with a drollop of treacle so painfully forced, it causes
Care Bears to roll their eyes in ironic-distance revulsion...


IPAMPILASH!

good one Zombie...

monorail77 wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
monorail77 wrote:Has anyone mentioned Solaris? I thought it was pretty good. But then, I also liked Sphere (please don't kill me for that)


Tarkovsky, or Soderbergh?


I've only seen the Soderbergh remake. How does it compare?


hmmm, where to begin...

Soderbergh's film focused WAY more on the relationship between Kelvin and Rheya (sic?)...fact is, I consider it more of a "love story" than a Sci-Fi flick.

Tarkovsky, as his wont, was much more interested in the philosophical implications of Lem's novel. A longer, much more demanding film (i.e. if you don't like long takes and having to think while film viewing, don't bother).

Found This link, which sums it up far better than I can.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:06 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
monorail77 wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:I won't kill you for liking Sphere, but I may have to go all Ludovico on you...


Don't recognize this reference, sorry ignoramus that I am. I googled it, but came up with several possibles, none really fitting with your comment. Much obliged if you would 'splain.


Image

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:16 pm
by monorail77
Ahhh, the Ludovico Technique. It becomes clearer now. Thanks.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:42 am
by The Vicar
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:Image


Hey, that's from my wedding night!!
You bastards!

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:13 pm
by monorail77
The Vicar wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:Image


Hey, that's from my wedding night!!
You bastards!

Your wife has lovely hands.

Re: The Zone's Fave Sci-Fi Film (w/ Thoroughly Scientific Poll!)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:54 am
by TheButcher

Re: The Zone's Fave Sci-Fi Film (w/ Thoroughly Scientific Poll!)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:30 am
by papalazeru


Oh yeah! Some last minute action from Enemy Mine.

I watched this religiously as a kid.

Wolfgang cops out and plugs in a crazy-ass rescue mission in which Davidge says the word "Zammis" no less than two dozen times.


Yes, I remember that bit too :shock:

Re: The Zone's Fave Sci-Fi Film (w/ Thoroughly Scientific Poll!)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:07 am
by magicmonkey
I find it interesting to consider the Sci-fi films that have been released since this poll went live. Obviously it was always missing Star Trek for some odd reason, is it seen as science fact in the US? I don't blame you if this be the case. However, now, with Children of Men, Moon, Avatar and Sunshine being released we seem to be getting more quality sci fi action at least. Personally, "Moon" is my fave of the current crop, with "Children of Men" coming an obvious second, but whereas that movie is simply a tour de force of startlingly good effect work, with a bit of pseudo-religious iconography and right-wing paranoia, "Moon" has considerably more depth.

In the age of the internet and disconnection through connection, the film takes on a relevance, examining notions of self, identity, purpose and family, and its the startling bleak juxtaposition of the faceless megacorp, rather than the alienation of the technology itself, that ultimately finds humanity in mankind. The ending to the flick is simply exhilarating, and as folks in later years watch the movies of this time and the politics, current affairs of the time they reflect, be it religious intolerance/wars, medieval torture and lost oblivion then at least they'll also be able to watch "Moon" and see that there was at least some degree of escapist, righteous indignation.

Re: Invasion of the Body Snatchers

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:12 am
by TheButcher
cockknocker wrote:Audition almost made one of my mates throw up, though he had been smoking a bit. I quite like it, there is some really disturbing imagery. I liked it a lot more than ichi the killer, not sure what all the fuss was about that.

One that hasn't been mentioned, Dont Look Now, i found that quite disturbing. Also thinking of Sutherland I have a lot of love for the Kaufman remake of invasion of the body snatchers. I really like Leonard Nimoy's (great to see him in a different role) and Jeff Goldblum's performances in that film.

Collins’ Crypt: It’s Always OK To Remake INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS
Every 15-20 years we get another Body Snatchers - and that's a good thing.
BRIAN COLLINS wrote:It's interesting how many of the movies people tend to name-check when citing great horror remakes (even better than their originals in some cases) are actually adaptations. John Carpenter's The Thing is probably the most famous/respected, a "remake" of Christian Nyby's The Thing From Another World but really just a more faithful adaptation of the story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell Jr. The Fly also has its roots in literature; the 1958 film (remade by David Cronenberg in 1986) was credited to a short story by author George Langelaan, and The Ring was famously based on a Japanese film (spawning an endless wave of Asian remakes, none of which lived up to Ring's acclaim or popularity), which in turn was based on a novel by Kôji Suzuki. There are exceptions, of course (Dawn of the Dead certainly comes to mind), but as I've said in a previous column, I think having a meatier source to draw from results in better remakes than when all they have is a 90 minute movie that was probably good to begin with.

But even before those above examples came along, there was a precedent set by Philip Kaufman with 1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, an update of the 1956 film by Don Siegel - and both based on a published story, in this case The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney (originally published as a serial; since collected as a relatively brief novel). Finney's work isn't exactly the best sci-fi novel ever written, with inconsistent character actions and cliched plot points overshadowing his intriguing (if not entirely original - Robert A. Heinlein's Puppet Masters tackled similar territory in 1951, and 1953's feature film It Came From Outer Space was an even closer cousin) concept of aliens taking over human bodies for their own mysterious purposes. By pretty much anyone's count, Siegel's film improved on the novel, casting Kevin McCarthy as the only man who has seemingly caught on to the fact that everyone is being replaced by "pod people". In an era where much of the horror and sci-fi films involved creatures or traditional space aliens, it stood out with its creepier "human" antagonists.