The 25 Best Sci-Fi Movies of the Last 15 Years

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, A Quiet Place got dumped from my list because something had to so I could add the movies I wanted to put on there. Some movies (Alien, Event Horizon, The Thing) straddle the line so closely that arguments can be made either way about whether a movie is primarily sci-fi or horror.

I think "both" is the correct answer here.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Okay, when I did audio for a living the crew used to have a name for an act that was uninspired and poorly executed... Self-propelled scenery.

This sums up Fury Road. Wooden acting, poor writing, boring plot... Self-propelled scenery, with a good pyro budget.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I just came here to see if anyone mentioned Coherence. Someone did. I'm happy now.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Okay, when I did audio for a living the crew used to have a name for an act that was uninspired and poorly executed... Self-propelled scenery.

This sums up Fury Road. Wooden acting, poor writing, boring plot... Self-propelled scenery, with a good pyro budget.

Nah.

It didn't have any scenery, just a pile of sand.

 

[wicked cool]

If i had to rank -these i will stop and rewatch
A Quiet Place (2018)-i would argue the sequel is better
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) (2013)
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

these i might watch but hoping theres something better
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Gravity (2013)
The Martian (2015)
WALL-E (2008)
District 9 (2009)
Dune (2021)
Ex Machina (2015)
Interstellar (2014)
Inception (2010)
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)-
Ex Machina (2015)
Looper (2012)
Arrival (2016)
Pacific Rim (2013)
Annihilation (2018)
Colossal (2016)
Under the Skin (2013)

didnt see
Moon (2009)
her-didnt see
The Endless (2017)
attack the Block (2011)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And I don't think you are going to get very far by implying there is something wrong with me for not liking a movie you happened to like.

Woah. I think you're missing the point, but I apologize if I was putting you on the defensive.

Look, I am a firm believer in the concept that people like what they like. However, I also think it can be helpful to try and understand why you don't like something- especially when it's generally considered "good," or even "great."

Take, for example, how you blithely contrast Fury Road (boring, no characters, only dirt) with The Terminator (characters you care about). I mean ... sure.

But is that really why? If someone said, "I don't like Lawrence of Arabia because there was too much dirt," that would be weird, right?

And the idea that a chase movie (a chase movie!) is boring is almost orthogonal to the whole concept of a chase movie- there are many things people might say about Fury Road, but boring is almost never one of them.

The point is- your preferences are fine! You will like (and dislike) anything you want- for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason. No worries there! I will not try and convince you otherwise. What I would say is that, when you have the distinct minority opinion on a film, you might want to interrogate your own reasons a little more if you are trying to convince others that your reasons have validity, as opposed to being idiosyncratic and personal. In essence, Fury Road is a film that, unusually, was incredibly well-received by critics, by popular audiences, and by various year-end awards boards in multiple categories (winning the usual Oscars for an amazing visual film, and even getting nominations for picture, director, and cinematographer).

Again, that doesn't mean you have to like it. Tarantino makes amazing films, and some people just don't like them (they don't like violence). Kubrick makes amazing films, but some people find them cold and impersonal. Primer was one of the great indie films of the millennium, yet most people find the acting lacking and the plot difficult-to-follow. And so on.

No one will convince you to like something you don't like; but you might want to consider why you really didn't like it. Or not!

 

[Maxperson]

Woah. I think you're missing the point, but I apologize if I was putting you on the defensive.

Look, I am a firm believer in the concept that people like what they like. However, I also think it can be helpful to try and understand why you don't like something- especially when it's generally considered "good," or even "great."

Take, for example, how you blithely contrast Fury Road (boring, no characters, only dirt) with The Terminator (characters you care about). I mean ... sure.

But is that really why? If someone said, "I don't like Lawrence of Arabia because there was too much dirt," that would be weird, right?

And the idea that a chase movie (a chase movie!) is boring is almost orthogonal to the whole concept of a chase movie- there are many things people might say about Fury Road, but boring is almost never one of them.

The point is- your preferences are fine! You will like (and dislike) anything you want- for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason. No worries there! I will not try and convince you otherwise. What I would say is that, when you have the distinct minority opinion on a film, you might want to interrogate your own reasons a little more if you are trying to convince others that your reasons have validity, as opposed to being idiosyncratic and personal. In essence, Fury Road is a film that, unusually, was incredibly well-received by critics, by popular audiences, and by various year-end awards boards in multiple categories (winning the usual Oscars for an amazing visual film, and even getting nominations for picture, director, and cinematographer).

Again, that doesn't mean you have to like it. Tarantino makes amazing films, and some people just don't like them (they don't like violence). Kubrick makes amazing films, but some people find them cold and impersonal. Primer was one of the great indie films of the millennium, yet most people find the acting lacking and the plot difficult-to-follow. And so on.

No one will convince you to like something you don't like; but you might want to consider why you really didn't like it. Or not!

It seems like @Paul Farquhar might be conflating boring scenery with boring movie. There have been some movies that I've seen where I was like, "Man! I really didn't like that movie. A, B, C and D were bad, and the scenery dragged on. I wish they would have varied the scenery more." Then I've seen movies where I've been like, "That movie was fantastic! I just wish the same scenery hadn't droned on and on. That was the one part I didn't like." And yet more movies where the scenery was so integral to why it was good that I didn't care that it was repetitive.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It seems like @Paul Farquhar might be conflating boring scenery with boring movie. There have been some movies that I've seen where I was like, "Man! I really didn't like that movie. A, B, C and D were bad, and the scenery dragged on. I wish they would have varied the scenery more." Then I've seen movies where I've been like, "That movie was fantastic! I just wish the same scenery hadn't droned on and on. That was the one part I didn't like." And yet more movies where the scenery was so integral to why it was good that I didn't care that it was repetitive.

Maybe! But he also said he didn't like any of the Mad Max movies- so it's not just that. The thing is, a lot of times people have trouble identifying why it is that they don't like something. For example, horror movies and jump scares only work if they are done "correctly," and if they aren't ... they don't work. There's a film grammar to them that people instinctively grok, but most people don't break it down into the component steps- they just say, "That wasn't scary."

Or take this video essay-

It explores the idea of why Napoleon Dynamite is so polarizing (and why algorithms have trouble predicting if you'll like it or not). It makes the assertion, which I think is pretty well-founded, that it's a movie that combine unusual aesthetics with a traditional narrative, and for that reason is difficult to categorize and people react to it in unusual ways.

I truly believe Paul Farquhar doesn't like this movie, but ... I'd understand why, more, if he generally found chase movies boring (he doesn't). I'm guessing that there's some fundamental issue in the movie that he doesn't like that he hasn't fully identified- which is fine. Maybe it's as simple as a preference for more dialogue-driven films? I don't know, I'm not him.

(It makes me wonder, though, how he felt about the recent Dune film ....)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It seems like @Paul Farquhar might be conflating boring scenery with boring movie.

If the plot and/or characters are poor, at least its nice to have some eye candy to look at. But it's certainly less important than story and characterisation. And Fury Road doesn't even have that minor consolation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

(It makes me wonder, though, how he felt about the recent Dune film ....)

It was okay, but flawed. Some of those flaws:

Jessica was a wimp when she should have been badass.
Duncan was woefully miscast (Spoiler: doesn't bode well for future films).
Gurney Halleck was barely present.
Mentats where not explained.
The director expected the audience to be bowled over the climactic giant sandworm. News: it's 2022, we have seen it before.
Sand. I don't like sand. It's course and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere.

On the other hand, Timothée Chalamet was great as Paul, and the Ornithopters where great.