[pliny]

Does anyone doubt that it is Bladerunner. Not the director's cut, mind you, which is a piece of s.h.i.t. like 99.999999 percent of all other director's cuts. Why Bladerunner?

1. great plot
2. great execution--dialogue, action
3. great cinematography
4. great special effects
5. great characters
6. GREAT soundtrack
7. Sean Young & Daryl Hannah--SY beats out DH though for hottest babe in the movie (for those of you not so inclined, replace SY or DH with HF or RH)




Which other four would round out the top 5 greatest? Feel free to replace BR at #1 with your own even if doing so is a sure sign of impending mental instability.

[GRAFF]

Great topic! I'm still a sucker for "Forbidden Planet" (1956), especially the Krell Technology.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by pliny:
Not the director's cut, mind you, which is a piece of s.h.i.t. like 99.999999 percent of all other director's cuts.

Disagree.

[chris v]

Bladerunner, yes.

Followed closely by brazil, which is only marginally Sci-Fi.

CV

[Buck_Naked]

How about Metropolis
A very old movie from the 20's
Very well may be the first movie of its type.

[SimeyTheLimey]

2001: a space odyssey is in my opinion clearly the best pure science fiction movie. Last year I got to see it in a theater on a digitally remastered 70mm print. In a word, wow!



I will, however, admit that it is a little lacking in some of your categories. There isn't a whole lot of action and dialog, and the star of the show is HAL, who is only a little more human than the rest of the characters. But it does have the best soundtrack. Da da da da dum, da dum, da dum. Da da da da dum, da dum, da dum. Da da da da daaaaaa, da da daaaaa, da da da daaa da daaaa, da da daaaaaaa, da da dum dum, dum dum, da dum, dedum dum.

[voodoo]

Star Wars.

Star Wars is always up there as one of the greatest sci-fis of all time.

Blade Runner is also always mentioned (for good reason)!

Inner Space is one of my favorite sci-fi movies. I nominate it for the top 5 list.

[Anomalous]

I'm not sure if Star Wars is sci-fi, but if it is then it's the best. Otherwise I vote for The Matrix.

[Simon X]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
2001: a space odyssey is in my opinion clearly the best pure science fiction movie. Last year I got to see it in a theater on a digitally remastered 70mm print. In a word, wow!


I will, however, admit that it is a little lacking in some of your categories. There isn't a whole lot of action and dialog, and the star of the show is HAL, who is only a little more human than the rest of the characters.

Have to agree with 2001, but then again I'm just a Kubrick nut.

I too have seen the new 70mm print 3 time now, twice in as many weeks, it was like seeing the film afresh. Just love it.

[Sven G]

Silent Running is, IMO, one of the most "poetic" and emotionally impressive SF films of the last century (USA, 1971)...

[MrBenn]

I agree. Blade Runner. But the Directors cut is the best version by a long way. I loved the first release, but the Directors cut (without Deckards voice over narration and the lame ending) is a big improvment.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Silent Running is, IMO, one of the most "poetic" and emotionally impressive SF films of the last century (USA, 1971)...

. . . with special effects by the same guy who did them for 2001.

Another favorite from the same period is Dark Star, a great little low-budget film by John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon (of Alien fame).



"Bombed out in space, with a spaced-out bomb."

[yakkiebah]

Bladerunner (the directors cut) for me aswell. I can watch it over and over again.

top 5:

1. Bladerunner (Directors cut)
2. Space Odyssey 2001
3. Metropolis
4. Alien
5. 12 Monkeys

a good sc-fi movie is hard to find these days...

[Mac-arthur]

1.Bladerunner (Director's Cut) Harrison Ford's VO in release version is superfluous and awkward.
2.The Matrix
3.Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Mostly and action flick but still SCI FI)
4.2001 a Space Odyssey
5.The Time Machine (original version not last years crap)

[pliny]

I almost forgot about Star Wars! "Empire" is my favorite of those.
Nobody likes the VO in BR? I think it's awesome. I like the ending of the studio one too.

Hm. I'd have to also put Star Trek II on my list. Maybe Aliens as well--not sure which one I like more, Aliens or Alien. 2001, yes, Brazil, yes, that's a great one. I might have to make a top ten because 5's not enough.

Nobody's yet mentioned,



Look at that scary robot.

[El Pre$idente]

1. 2001
2. Bladerunner
3. Terminator.


NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

If you look at those three movies they were done with very little computer graphics (2001 used background paintings) or very old computer systems. Today we have such powerful computers and all sorts of software and we can't get close to the look of those films. Everything seems less real for some reason.

Terminator 2 is the anomaly. But modern CG would probably ruin 2001 and Bladerunner.

[pliny]

Hm. So far we have several key directors:

Ridley Scott (Bladerunner and Alien)
Terry Gilliam (Brazil and 12 Monkeys)
Stanley Kubrick (2001 and *shudder* AI[I forgot: just the idea, he had passed on])
James Cameron (Aliens, T1-T3)

[El Pre$idente]

I was very disappointed with AI. It wasn't that much better than Bicentennial Man and definitely not a Kubrick film. Speilberg, as great as he might be for family entertainment and some war films, does not have a Kubrickian style. He's too politically correct to do that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by pliny:
Stanley Kubrick (2001 and *shudder* AI)

I liked AI, but AI was really Spielburg. Kubrick was, after all, dead.

[cjrivera]

Many of the ones I would have said have already been mentioned.

Another would be Logan's Run.

Even Planet of the Apes.

[pliny]

Wow, I totally agree (with AI thing). Kubrick is pretty dark, right? Doctor Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, etc. Then he has this dark-ass movie idea about ai (like simey says he was a dead) that Spielberg picks up and into the mix of darkness and dystopia throws in cotton candy tear jerker stuff. Ruined the movie. Some cool stuff in there though.

[euphras]

Quote:
"2001: a space odyssey is in my opinion clearly the best pure science fiction movie. Last year I got to see it in a theater on a digitally remastered 70mm print. In a word, wow!"

agreed! Also: Dark Star (remember: the folks lurking around and destroying "unstable" solar systems until the day the release of the bomb fails and the ignition sequence can�t be stopped....)

and: Blade Runner

Pat

[PB2K]

ALIEN

as 2001 showed us a sterile future, Alien was the first SciFimovie that resembled more of a rusty space-truck. I like it like that.

[mrtaber]

In no particular order:

Blade Runner
2001
The Matrix
12 Monkeys
Brazil
Terminator, Terminator II
Alien

and out of left field, Phase IV.

More to come.

Mark

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by pliny:
Nobody's yet mentioned,

The Day The Earth Stood Still

As I was reading through folks' lists, this one came to mind. I'm a huge fan of early sci-fi literature and this was one of the few movies from that era that holds up to the literature. It was more than giant ants disturbing the Cleaver's picnic and had something important to say.

Others on my short list, in no particular order because that depends on my mood:

- Blade Runner
- Star Wars
- The Matrix

And of course who can forget these:


(this movie is hilariously bad )

And of course:


Bela dies part way throught production of the movie...solution? Bring in another actor to play the character, but run around covering his face with his cloke so we can't see that it's not Bela. And I always got a kick outta the cemetary scenes. The gravestones wobble back and forth as the actors brush by them

Sure, they're not classic in greatness, but they're classic in their timelessness.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
I'm a huge fan of early sci-fi literature and this was one of the few movies from that era that holds up to the literature.

How about the 1957 classic The Incredible Shrinking Man? The movie is pretty faithful to the book by Richard Matheson and it stands up well as a film in its own right. The sets are particularly good.

[denim]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:

Disagree.

Me too. Strongly. The Director's cut drops the silly voice-over and the ridiculous ending. MUCH better. Also leaves it more clear that Dekard might be the remaining replicant they didn't talk about.

[Eug]

The original Blade Runner was lame. I remember thinking the first time I saw it (even though just a kid) that the sugar-coated ending ruined it, as did the narration to explain this self-explanatory movie.

I was soooooooooooooooooooo happy when the Director's Cut came out.

The current Blade Runner is a GREAT movie, even if it is overacted and isn't perfect.

Other great SCI-FI movies.

Terminator. (Terminator II was OK, with nice effects, but didn't have the same impact.)

Brazil (if you can call that Sci-Fi)

2001. Probably tops Blade Runner.

But modern CG would probably ruin 2001 and Bladerunner.

It depends on the CG. If done well (unlike the useless CG in Star Wars rehashed) can be very good. However, one must note that some of the computer screen stuff in 2001 people had never seen before.

Star Wars.

Star Trek II. (Not in the same league as some of the others, but one of my faves nonetheless.)

Alien was pretty good.

The Matrix was good, but I found some of the wire work a little too irritatingly obvious.

AI's ending was too sucky for my tastes.

12 Monkeys seemed like a direct stylistic copy of Gilliam's own Brazil. I felt like I was watching a remake at times.

[ink]

Originally posted by denim:
Me too. Strongly. The Director's cut drops the silly voice-over and the ridiculous ending. MUCH better. Also leaves it more clear that Dekard might be the remaining replicant they didn't talk about.

Well, hopefully we'll be able to choose which version to watch on the 20th anniversary DVD:

DVD Vision (01OCT) French DVD Magazine interviews Ridley Scott who has the following to say:
Q: Is the remaster finished?
A: Yes, the movie should be released as a 3 DVD set, there will be 3 versions of the movie:

* The Workprint from 1982
* First theatrical with the happy end and the voiceover
* And a new version with new scenes added but without the voiceover

From http://www.brmovie.com/BR_Special_Edition.htm

[Eug]

P.S. I also loved the movie 1984. (Loved the book too course.)

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:

Disagree.

Totally. The original plays like a bad Raymond Chandler knockoff in comparison.

[Leia Shoots Like a Girl]

1) The Abyss
2) Aliens
3) Contact
4) Gattaca

[pliny]

wow, I forgot Gattaca--a great one.

Ok I have to ask--what is so great about the dr of BR?

there's no voice over. this gives it context.
the ending--the elevator door closes on Deckard and Rachel. wtf is that? *chortle*

in the studio version they live happily ever after (or at least until Rachel is turned off) in a land of green hills and blue skies.

[Mars_Attacks]

By all means Silent Running. It followed the book accurately.

I read the book in high school after seeing the movie on TV back in 1980.

Very tragic ending indeed.

[denim]

Originally posted by pliny:
Ok I have to ask--what is so great about the dr of BR?

It leaves room for the viewer to come to his own conclusions. The lack of a voice-over, again, allows the viewer's own intellect to figure out what's going on. Y'know, like most movies.

If you need the voice-over, you're letting them do your thinking for you. Bet you never even considered the idea that Dekard is a replicant himself, though clues were given.

there's no voice over. this gives it context.

I can't understand how the video and audio on its own didn't give you enough context.

the ending--the elevator door closes on Deckard and Rachel. wtf is that? *chortle*

That's the real world. We don't know what happens to them after that. They could both be blown away once they reach the street, or they might be immortal. It's none of our business after that point.

in the studio version they live happily ever after (or at least until Rachel is turned off) in a land of green hills and blue skies.

Adults don't believe in that crap. If you want to believe in cartoon characters and pastels everywhere, feel free, but don't expect a lot of agreement.

[pliny]

Originally posted by denim:


Bet you never even considered the idea that Dekard is a replicant himself, though clues were given.

Sure I did, but the clues are, well, pretty dumb, and the idea is silly (IMO).

Originally posted by denim:
We don't know what happens to them after that. They could both be blown away once they reach the street, or they might be immortal. It's none of our business after that point.

No, it can't be! *whine* They live, and happily.

Originally posted by denim:

Adults don't believe in that crap. If you want to believe in cartoon characters and pastels everywhere, feel free, but don't expect a lot of agreement.

Bah! You're too cynical.

I do like the idea of the 20th anniversary dvd carrying both versions, though.

[El Pre$idente]

The idea for Bladerunner /Do Androids Dream of Sheep actually came from the slave trade and bounty hunters who would find and/or kill slaves who had escaped from colonies or their masters.

Ridley came up with the idea that Deckard should be a replicant completely unaware of what he is to illustrate the power and deception of implanted memories - what are we? Are we currently a result of our past experiences? What if those experiences weren't real?

Ridley kept his idea a secret because otherwise Ford would have played the character as a replicant. He wanted Ford to play it as a human who didn't know who he was. But due to arguments and bust ups on set, Scott hardly spoke about the film until years later and didn't speak to Ford for many years. Thus, it was an enigma whether Deckard was a replicant or not.

When the Director's Cut came out they inserted the unicorn scene which was in the original cut anyway. Finally the last scene of the film made sense when Deckard picked up the origami unicorn and smiles knowingly (sadly Ford didn't know why he was being told to smile). And then the six replicants Bryant mentions - four are the replicants Deckard has been chasing. The other two are Rachel and Deckard before they were relocated and given new identities.

The police use the two replicants, Deckard and Rachel, to try and sniff out and destroy the other four. Their reward for it was to have their lives expanded past the four year expiry date. How long they would live for is unknown.

[FXWizard]

Originally posted by Eug:
P.S. I also loved the movie 1984. (Loved the book too course.)

Which version?

BTW, I'll cast my vote for THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL -- not only do you have giant robots but you also have Bernard Herrmann's score, plus a Theremin...it doesn't get any better than that!

[thunderous_funker]

The Deckard-Replicant idea has always bothered me. To me, it cheapens the message of the film considerably--specifically when Roy displays his humanity by saving Deckard and speculating about the value of memories.

I find it funny that Riddley tried to put that point across in the film because, to me, he failed miserably. I hardly know anyone that ever got that idea from the film (they always heard it presented later based on interviews, etc). I'm not sure it even makes much sense within the context of the film. Deckard apparently believes he's human so vividly that his body suffers all kinds of abuse when in reality it was just in his mind? Drunkeness, broken bones, blood, bruises, etc?

What makes a person a person? Can a replicant be more human than a human? Can a human display more rigid programming than a replicant? None of those ideas carry much weight, IMO, if Deckard is a replicant.

[denim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What makes a person a person?

That's the main point of the movie. As such, the idea of Dekard being a replicant adds to it, IMO.

[wdlove]

I vote for Star Wars!

[derien]

Originally posted by pliny:

Nobody's yet mentioned,



Look at that scary robot.

KLAATU BARADA NIKTO!

I'm only lukewarm to the movie, but the short story it was based on--"Farewell To Master," by Harry Bates--had quite an interesting twist.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by denim:
That's the main point of the movie. As such, the idea of Dekard being a replicant adds to it, IMO.

Not to argue as if one of us is right and the other wrong--it's a film open to interpretation. I'm just curious in hearing more of your interpretation since it's something I have a hard time seeing. I'd like to see it more clearly

That said, if Rachael represents the replicent that doesn't know it's a replicant in the story--what purpose is Deckard?

As I see it, Deckard is the Greek Chorus, the Everyman, the audience. He is presented with these ethical dilemmas as the sounding board. He carries out justice and in the end is shown mercy by the condemned. His humanity is shown to be more social programming while Roy Batty overcomes his programming and shows humanity.

To me, Roy sparing Deckards life is key to the whole thing. Gaff is judged by Deckard to be an unfeeling primitive too, but then we see that he too is capable of mercy or at least of offering second chances.

I also like the idea of God (Tyrell) being killed his creation because he's deemed a less moral creature passing judgement.

Anyway, i'm rambling.

[denim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Not to argue as if one of us is right and the other wrong--it's a film open to interpretation.

Yes, of course. I hope I haven't been coming across otherwise.

That said, if Rachael represents the replicent that doesn't know it's a replicant in the story--what purpose is Deckard?

Other than "protagonist"?

Rachael is a replicant who gives us a chance to learn that it's possible for a replicant to not know better. The dream sequences tell us that Dekard probably is one too.

Why does this emphisize the "what is human?" you mean? Well, just so: both of them thought they were human. Their reality wasn't what they thought it was. Kinda like in The Matrix.

How do you know you're human? Maybe we're all putting you on. Maybe you're really a simulation, or all alone and the rest of us are figments of your imagination to make it more bearable. What is human?

As I see it, Deckard is the Greek Chorus, the Everyman, the audience.

Yes, the protagonist. Maybe. Or maybe the "everyman" is Roy. Used and thrown away.

He is presented with these ethical dilemmas as the sounding board. He carries out justice

Does he?

and in the end is shown mercy by the condemned.

Yes. But not necessarily "condemned" by Dekard. He dies on his own. As do all of us.

His humanity is shown to be more social programming while Roy Batty overcomes his programming and shows humanity.

Again, different from the rest of us, how?

To me, Roy sparing Deckards life is key to the whole thing.

It is. Again, what is "human"? Is Roy more human than that fat slug of a police officer who aims Dekard? Or the other way around?

I also like the idea of God (Tyrell) being killed his creation because he's deemed a less moral creature passing judgement.

Or, more directly, Frankenstein being killed by his monster.

Fascinating stuff.

[MacGorilla]

I second Bladerunner. My (distant) cousin Joe Turkel was in it.

The Day The Earth Stood Still was cool, too.

[thunderous_funker]

Ok, I'm seeing that view a bit now.

I'll try to force myself to think that way (Deckard-replicant) and watch it again soon and see what plays out.

Cheers

[denim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Ok, I'm seeing that view a bit now.

I'll try to force myself to think that way (Deckard-replicant) and watch it again soon and see what plays out.

Have fun. It took me a while to get into the idea too.

[nredman]

Doctor Who - The Five Doctors

[ringo]

Rinse Dream's original Cafe Flesh

[malvolio]

THX1138!