ITT top tier science fiction films
>>64535697
/thread
>>64536062
Great film, but barely sci-fi in my mind. This was a horror film set in space.
seriously though 2001 is great but almost too great like it leaves me searching yearning and wanting for something of the same caliber yet am always left unsatisfied
I like this movie.
Am I a bad person?
>>64535697
You start, OP.
>>64536028
Just saw this tonight, really enjoyed it
>>64536028
This thread went off the rails quickly
No SFX bells and whistles, just a solid, cerebral story to make you think...
What if we made contact with aliens who claim to talk directly to God? How would the Earth's various nations and cultures react?
>>64537846
This anon knows it. 2001, pic related and >>64537969 have essentially raised my sci-fi standards to unreachable levels :/
>>64538193
That is one classic I still haven't managed to watch yet, and I have seen just about everything.
I wanna give it a go.
Haven't watched the remake of this one yet, as I am a bit cautious about remakes.
Also enjoyed the original film as well, and the prequel was okay, but not great.
Top tier thread guys
Gonna rewatch a lot and have picked up a few new ones.
>>64538342
Its shit
>>64538199
underrated
Kinda cheesy, but I thought the central premise was interesting.
>>64538199
This so much this. 2001 is great and everyone knows it. Blade Runner is great and everyone knows it. Dark City is great and like no one I know has even heard of it.
>>64538061
yes patrician taste senpai
Interesting main plot, but the execution wasn't terribly well done.
I enjoyed the movie, but didn't follow the TV series at all.
>>64538527
Ministry is in it too, for bonus score!
Bonus for me at least, and other fans.
>>64538656
Yep, was just waiting for this one.
>>64538462
Dark city is my fav film.
Release the original cut on Blu-ray please.
>>64538046
It's fucking riveting dude. I loved every second of it.
Old show, but I really like it.
I think of it as a predecessor to X-Files, in a way.
>>64538016
How's life, reddit?
>>64537947
You're not a bad person for liking it, you're a bad person for posting it in this thread.
>>64538855
>kek
Okay, fair enough.
>>64538285
Everytime I watch this, it makes me hope that they either 1) Remake this film or 2) Make a Sead Space film.
Yeah!
Have a few beers, and a lot of laughs.
>>64538922
Hmmm, I would be hoping for the second option.
I can understand the want for a remake though.
As it is, I still like it.
>>64538656
Is top tier as fuck
Not sci fi
Great premise, so-so execution. But I love these old posters.
>>64538927
Good one but NOT SCI FI
Nice thread, for the most part.
>pic not related at all
>>64539074
Holy shit Abigail Breslin was cute as fuck though! no pedo
>>64539024
The original short french fillm was better-mostly because it told the same story in 20mins
repo men
10/10 flick
>>64539109
Yeah, I have heard about it, but haven't watched it yet.
Is it free to watch?
Does this count?
>>64535697
This is a flick
The flying car chase is probably my absolute favorite scene in any movie ever.
>>64536028
>>64536125
>>64536300
yes
>>64535697
no
shit was so fucking boring I wanted to claw my eyes out
>>64539250
Indeed a cool movie.
>>64539104
>pedo
>>64539273
damn you have shit taste
>>64539236
>"fiction"
>>64539151
Its pretty old so you should be able to find it free somewhere
I know there are haters out there, but this was my first introduction into the whole Dune thing, and I thought it was very fascinating even though I wasn't really totally sure what was going on...until I read the books, and now I like it even more.
>>64538970
That is a great poster and a good movie. Got to love the bleak ending.
>>64538173
Time to put this on and drift off to sleep.
>>64537996
my nigga
>>64539250
You mean the one they stole from Attack of the Clones.
>>64539403
Other way around.
Fifth Element came out first.
>>64539365
Very underrated movie. Just about perfect in every regard except for a few glaring flaws that keep it from being the best.
When /tv & /b align
>>>/b/661677460
2spoopy5me
it was pretty good
>>64539365
>sandworms 1000 feet long
Adorable.
>>64538786
yuuuuuuup
>>64539365
I read the books first. This was also right after the original SW trilogy, Alien & Blade Runner, heralding a new golden age of special effects. David Lynch was coming off his triumph with Elephant Man. So many of us were hoping for great things, maybe the first of a long series adapting all the books.
It ended up not living up to expectations. But I've come around to it now. It is its own thing, and it works in its own way. Lynch himself isn't at peace with it, feeling the project was compromised from the start. So yeah, I do wish it had been made with an adulterated Lynchian vision, which would have been something else.
I still can't stop thinking about this film. You won't regret watching.
Name pretty much says it all.
>>64540346
>>64539365
Also the casting was magnificent.
I'm leery of calling it sci-fi, because it doesn't really deal with time travel thematically, but either way it's a great fucking movie.
>>64539273
>shit was so fucking boring I wanted to claw my eyes out
Fucking kill yourself, you tasteless cunt.
![youuywqt[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rLWgFRN.jpg "youuywqt[1].jpg")
>>64535697
Fassbinder's "World on a Wire" was pretty good.
>twenty minute docking sequence.
Come on. 2001 was great for its visuals in its time but it's modern art of films.
> Oh your just not cultured enough to enjoy it
Fuck off, people only say its great because they are told it is. Dr strangelove is ten times the film. 2001 is a great sound track and that's it.
God the state of science fiction today is pitiable.
>>64540491
Watched this a few years back. Shit was crazy.
>>64541111
Strangelove has too many "entertainment" scenes for my liking. I don't like a film to feel like it was constructed with satisfying a viewing audience in mind.
>>64536125
lol
>>64541225
Have you seen Fail-Safe? It's basically the plot from Dr. Strangelove played straight and it's one of the most intense films I've ever seen.
>>64537996
fuck off, no.
>>64536253
>I never saved anything for the swim back
Greatest of all time sci-fi.
![a90561oesgp[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KzD5lxU.jpg "a90561oesgp[1].jpg")
>>64535697
100+ replies and no Primer? You're slacking, /tv/.
>>64536125
>>64536195
>>64538656
Science Fantasy is not Science Fiction
that being said the rest of this thread is amazing
>>64541225
Fourth. You are the Fourth autistic person I've encountered in One hour here.
Fuck it, maybe I really should leave forever.
>>64538072
Came here to post this
The science is garbage in it but it is pure kinography in execution
Just saw pic related for the first time, and it's one of the most immersive scifi films I've seen.
Love Aronofsky's stuff, but wish he could do something similar to this in style again.
>>64541356
Never seen this or The Fountain
However I loved Noah despite everything that happens from the flood onwards
should I check out his other work?
>>64541341
Yeah, maybe you fucking should you video game enabling retard.
>>64541393
adopt a trip or a taught noose, one or the other and very quickly
>>64541383
At his best he's great; at his worst he's interesting. Haven't seen The Fountain, but his other works are wonderful.
>>64541312
Interstellar is literally a 2001 remake in 2014.
How can you like 2001 and not interstellar. It's not logic.
>>64541446
the irony is that the difference between 2001 and intersteller *is* logic
>>64541383
Fountain is shit. If you want a film of parallel lives watch Mr Nobody.
>>64541428
I am the art elite here. You are the invading force.
>>64541446
>How can you like 2001 and not interstellar
Think about which one works better as an art piece, anon.
>>64541482
autism and art cannot combine because art is about communication and empathy, that which you are medically disinclined from experiencing properly
you can be elitist about arbitrary values but by definition you cannot be an artist
>>64538503
There is literally one good scene, everyone knows which one
>>64538199
Not great...not even good.
>>64541521
The airplane crash, I guess? It's literally the greatest and only thing I can remember about the movie, it was visually stunning.
>>64541521
there's at least two or three great scenes and almost all of it is good. One of the mos underrated movies of the last 10 years IMO
>>64541483
well both
one was made in 1968 and the other in 2013 or 2014
>>64541468
what happens at the end of 2001 is the sale thing that happens at the end of interstellar
Everything is iterally the same.
in 2001 its HAL who turns crazy, in interstellar its Mann
>>64541446
uuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh?!?!?!?!
>>64540772
It's good until Joseph gets to the farm and it turns into some Little House on the Prairie shit.
>>64538061
good movie but I wish Kubrick lived long enough to direct it like originally intended
>>64541610
>Everything is iterally the same.
>in 2001 its HAL who turns crazy, in interstellar its Mann
how can so much possibly go over ones head? And then how can a person like this tell themselves that they like science fiction and then go to a thread of people talking about it competently and babble like a retard, immediately outing himself as an outsider?
>>64541610
Have you even watched 2001?
>>64541673
I love both. I'm just saying they are very similar. It doesn't bother me at all that they are similar.
I'm just concerned when somebody hate Intertsallar but loves 2001. Like hiow do you even justify that ?
You can't.
>>64541772
you're stupid
>>64541772
Perhaps because 2001 doesn't solve its complicated storyline with a "Love transcends all dimensions" bullshit and instead embraces the unknown as an end by itself?
>>64541839
We are being led on here...
>>64541839
says the guy who can't even form one argument to reply to a non english speaker.
why are americans so fucking shit ?
>>64541893
in 2001 he comes back to talk to his wife via a tv.
>>64538978
Yes!
>>64541446
No kidding. I remember seeing people saying 2001 was better. I rewatched 2001 after Interstellar came out and just thought to myself
>these people are fucking retarded, Interstellar clearly is a love letter to 2001
>>64542432
>Interstellar clearly is a love letter to 2001
That's exactly what it is.
yet some people are like hurr interstellar is SHIT and RETARDED, but i love 2001 though.
how?
I asked this question in this thread, got no answers, they cant even say why. I just needed one reason, it wasnt that hard
>>64542062
>assuming the book matters more than the film
This is where so many Kubrick critics go terribly horribly wrong. Arthur C Clarke was a mercenary Author and mostly a boring nobody Kubrick hired to pen a book he ultimately rejected. I bet you think that hack Stephen King is good too.
interstellar obviously had a lot of problems. There was some cool sci-fi stuff, but most of it was sci-fi porn. There were problems with the story and characters which felt super obvious when I saw it.
Even if it was a love letter to 2001, it just wasn't a good film imo
>>64542752
What's your top10 core films? Curious
I just want you to name 10 films that are as good or more than 2001.
Plebs ITT.
Any good obscure/lesser known sci-fi films that have come out recently?
>>64542869
There's no point. You wouldn't ask that question unless you were trying to say that it just comes down to taste whether Interstellar was good or not, which could be true. To my taste, certain things about it felt campy and certain things felt "obvious," whether they be setting, or plot points, or character arcs, or whatever.
Its original points were overshadowed by a lot of poor choices and poor writing. Most of the time I just like to say if a movie is "solid" or not, and Interstellar definitely didn't feel solid to me. If you think people who disagree with you just have poor taste then I can't argue anyway
>>64543032
My diary desu
>>64543051
What's not "solid" about interstellar?
What poor choices are you referring to?
you're also talking a lot about your feelings Tbh, difficult in this case to avoid the whole taste argument
That's the thing when talking movies, when i don't like a movie for exemple sw7 recently i can say exactly why and name it and explain everything why this or that was stupid or why its not original etc. I can explain why.
When I ask you or other people about it, they're just like "oh its bad acting" "oh its not solid enough" "oh it has plot holes/bad writtting in it (but they never explain WHICH plot hole, what bad writting, and why is it a bad writting)
Again, just curious, maybe if you're right i'll just say "ok that was a smart critic of it, interesting point were made"
>>64535697
>2001
>good
nope
>>64537870
>>64536195
>>64538378
>>64538503
These are good science fiction movie. Just watched The Martian though.
>>64543218
>What poor choices are you referring to?
I'll list a few which turned me off from the start, but I saw the movie last in theaters, so some of these will only be approximately what was actually in the movie. The point is, the things that I list are cliches which were close enough to what actually happened in the movie to turn me off by a ton.
>Earth is arid and dying cliche
>this scene which i tried to describe but thankfully is on youtube (entire thing is riddled with cliches):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnlrK14OZn0
>main character follows a very unlikely hunch, abandoning his family, to miraculously find a nasa base or whatever
>Anne Hathaway's love speech
>the ending where they go inside a black hole (a cool idea but the execution is campy as fuck)
>seeing his daughter as an old lady scene
So much of this movie felt predictable and campy, and this is just listing the things which still annoy me a year later, much less all of the minor stuff which I've forgotten. Predictable alone is completely fine, but when they made it campy in parts it just ruined the movie for me
>>64541510
Not him, but art isn't "about" anything. It's purely subjective in form, and is a product of any form of outwords expression of creativity.
>>64542532
>I asked this question in this thread, got no answers, they cant even say why
The fact you don't agree with them doesn't mean people can't explain to you why Interstellar isn't as good as 2001. I'll do my best either way: 2001 was a cultural phenomenon that changed the history of cinema, introducing unrepresented themes and visuals in the medium that, to this day, are still impressive. Interstellar tried to follow its footsteps, and while it might have succeeded in displaying top-notch visuals and some interesting concepts, the overall movie suffers from a severe case of terminal Hollywoodness.
Ironically, Interstellar's greatest virtue is also its greatest self-conflicting issue: the desperate attempt to make everything as scientific accurate as possible. If you've seen the FlickSins video on it then you know what people talk about when saying wormholes and the string theory were brilliantly represented, there was a lot of effort in making it possibly the most astronomically accurate movie in history. That is, however, completely thrown to waste when your entire premise is defeated by pulling out love as an ex-machina element. You can't present a complex, credible scientific world and then simply say "fuck all" by solving everything through the magic power of love. That is pure bullshit, even if you assume that scientism doesn't exclude a metaphysical dimension to our conscience there is still a long stretch to using love as a deterrent to complicated time-space problems. It contradicts everything the movie worked towards establishing, and that is beyond frustrating.
(1/2)
>>64541772
Because 2001 doesn't solve it's premice with a paradox and throws all else aside by saying "love transcends all dimensions".
>>64543504
(2/2)
But an even more complicated issue arises from its scientific accuracy. Even if you ignore the baffling and pointless inclusion of love in the equation, there is a difference between exposing science and actually generating scientific thought. Interstellar explains in detail all these complicated physical theories, and it is indeed fascinating to see them at work on the big screen, but in the end, what do you take from it? Perhaps a little more knowledge on the field, assuming you never watched 15 minutes of any documentary about astronomy, but is acquiring factual knowledge about something a good condition for art? Personally, I prefer a film that actually makes me think about scientific matters instead of just displaying science. I had a Contemporary Philosophy lecture last semester, and in literally every class we talked about the problems of consciousness, singularity and artificial intelligence, 2001 was used by our teacher as the ideal example. The underlying questions the movie presents are great, you actually wonder about the possibility of intelligent machines and all the ethical implications it might have.
For modern standards, in a world of flicks where sequels are shilled out by the minute and experimental cinema is inconceivable, an arthouse film like like 2001 certainly wouldn't exist. It's not that we can blame modern studios for wanting money, if they are going to be financing a movie it's pretty obvious they want the best financial return possible, but we can definitely blame them for the lack of audacity in accepting new and ingenious ideas for fearing a weaker box office performance in comparison to Capeshit VII or Horror Franchise XII. The fact that making an art film is now seen as "indie" and "alternative" is a really, really sad thing in modern cinema.
>>64538199
The first act where it's still a murder noir mystery with some scifi elements in it was great. But when it got to the end with it's DBZ tier fighting, it's just made it really bad. The fights choreography is really awful. The special effects are also awful. The fact that Ebert compared it with 2001 is baffling.
Top tier sets and atmosphere, though.
>>64536062
Are those tan gay buff men holding each other at the bottom of the poster?
>>64539097
2001 of our generation
>>64538061
>>64538212
Great picks
>>64541647
He handed it over to Kubrick before he passed so rest easy
>>64543750
I meant to say Spielberg just fuck my shit up bro haha epic
>>64538173
This has such a wonderful soundtrack.
>>64538199
This is fucking garbage. It's basically an extended, shitty Stargate episode.
>>64543218
>>64543480
By the way, if you think any of what I said is bullshit you should really watch that youtube clip again. It's one of the most painfully obvious and boring attempts at characterization and world-building ever. Seriously.
It's way to paint the current government as corrupt and/or bad is to demonize things which modern Americans love: space landings and machines. They even call the main character's kid bad because she believes in the moon landings.
It's way to show the main character as smart, loving, and strong is to show him defending his daughter and dead wife: "If we had any of those useless MRIs left (you awful person, teacher, and arm of the government) then my wife would've survived her disease."
"My wife was always the calmer one."
Here is the response it is supposed to ellicit in any viewer: "Wow those government types sure are bad they dislike machines. Ha! What idiots." and "Wow that main character sure is a good guy. Here he is not only defending his daughter and dead wife but also showing restraint in his anger!"
This scene is a perfect example of that old writing idea that you should "show, not tell." This scene tells you exactly how to feel about the characters and world, and it shows you next to nothing about how the world and characters work. That makes it feel campy and boring. This is what I mean when I say that the writing of Interstellar is poor, and I hope it makes sense.
>>64543804
your momma's garbage
>>64543480
>>Earth is arid and dying cliche
there's an arid and dying earth cliche?
>>this scene which i tried to describe but thankfully is on youtube (entire thing is riddled with cliches):
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnlrK14OZn0 [Embed]
it was a smart scene, they bashed the Moon landing negationists, whats not to like
>>Anne Hathaway's love speech
showed how emotions are dangerous and/or a good thing because they alter judgement (turned out it was a good thing and they should have followed her "love") good stuff
>>the ending where they go inside a black hole (a cool idea but the execution is campy as fuck)
well yea a little bit
>>seeing his daughter as an old lady scene
it was obligated to have this scene but i wish they did it better yes, it could have been a better scene that what we had. Still it was an ok scene Tbh...
>>64543504
ok good critic.
I found the ending a bit strange too, with the book shelf thing.
However he was into a black hole, that we know nothing about. And they say it was intentionally "put" there.
Maybe they tried to answer the question of what's behing a black hole.
>>64543548
2001 was about intelligent machines and how they can fuck us up.
interstellar did the same thing but with human emotions, vulnerabilities to loneliness, family members becoming a weakness etc
it was pretty close, that was really ok and legit in interstellar.
i agree on the current state of hollywood and capeshits. But it's just one more reason to praise interstellar's existence dont you think?
>>64543920
well I mean wormholes not black holes
>>64543920
>it was a smart scene, they bashed the Moon landing negationists, whats not to like
See
>>64543811
Painfully obvious characterization and world-building is painfully obvious, basically. Almost the entire movie had that same level of story-telling. If you liked it, then okay, but personally, I've seen that same level of poor storytelling in hundreds of movies and it gets really old after a while. Maybe it really does just come down to taste
>>64543392
why the fuck are there trees in mars?
>>64538834
The original is really great btw.
>166 posts
>No Wrath of Khan
You're slippin' /tv/
>mfw a great sci fi thread degenerates into arguing the merits (protip: there are none) of interstellar
BRAVO NOLAN
>>64543811
I completely agree, this scene was 100% world building and characterization.
But you're attacking it for what it is, not how it is made or the utility of it. (it wasn't poorly made, it just exist)
Jokes on you, turns out i actually like world building and characterization, probably also why i open up my computer to watch a film in the first place, too.
Sorry that you don't like those type of scenes brah.
It's true that A LOT (if not all Tbh) films have them., so yes, it really is the same as hundreds of other films.
It just doesnt bother me when its well operated.
>>64536195
Just realized that people hate this movie just because it`s popular
>>64544271
This too actually.
>>64539250
I used to confuse this scene with one from Attack of the Clones lmfao
Oblivion often gets glossed over as a clean and mainstream movie, I'm convinced there is more there if we were look into it's symbolism. It hits all the great themes, basically draws from all the major sci-fi films like Moon, AI, terminator as side plots, totally bitching out the direction of technology while looking pristinely techno-glorious and finally it lands on:
bitches be easily manipulated | glory for the individual man.
>“To every man upon this earth
>Death cometh soon or late.
>And how can man die better
>Than facing fearful odds,
>For the ashes of his fathers,
>And the temples of his gods?
>>64544645
Forgot pic
>>64544335
>almost the same thing as saying 2001 as no merit whatsoever
ouch
>>64536253
That movie is a visual masterpiece. It's a testament to the writing that I can remember anything at all about the plot.
>>64543703
What's there to choreograph? They're starring at each other.
>>64544714
eugenics of any kind is bad, we're all equaaaaal
>>64544806
haha
its more about having a passion something that drives you and dreams
cant deny you feel empathy for his struggle
Antje Traue is HOT
>>64544335
Interstellar its about as good as Spielberg's Close Encounters I think.
>>64545090
Except for support for the police state
>>64538115
>Get hyped for The Beaner
>He died in the first 10 minutes
I should have known.
>>64545122
>>64545144
>>64545162
>>64536253
Awful tagline, great movie.
>>64545178
>>64536253
>Uma Thurman
Wow, I completely forgot she was in it.
>>64545241
>>64543480
Her love speech was cute and it made a lot of sense within context. Only autists get triggered by stuff like that.
I think the part where Cooper is talking to the old man about looking up to the sky and dirt or something like that was actually very cheesy, but it still made sense cause it was farm romanticism
>>64541308
These two go together, pretty much.
>>64542532
I hated the awfull texan accent and the whole crop plague shebang. Got me bored out of my mind. Not the best cast for the main character too. Just wasnt convincing.
>>64544147
lol
>>64544147
I was disapointed when I saw they didn't filmed that on mars but actually in Jordania middle east. Like how low budget can you get?
>>64538212
That's my favourite film of all time (not only SF)
>>64541356
>>64541383
Pi is the best Aronofsky film, in my opinion.
The Fountain, on the other hand, is more of an experimental film. I didn't liked it when i've seen a couple years ago; it seemed uncoherent and lacking any kind of intensity.
>>64545410
Thats pretty pathetic. Anyone couldve just blocked out those trees or atleast root them out on the set.
What fucking logistical retards they hired for that.
>>64545365
Yes. That's one of the reason I Love being non english and watching voice-actors in my language.
>>64545461
listening*
>>64545365
also Conaughey is awesome
>>64545461
Film is a visual media not a radio
>>64540772
A classic for sure.
>>64544514
hmm I must be the only one who hated it because it sucked
>>64545460
i don't remember seing trees in the movie.
youre probably bitching about a behind the scene shot.
>>64538115
is this movie really good or pretty bad?
Probably my favourite film if I had to pick.
>>64545547
film has sound now grandpa and its in colors
>>64537796
Totally underrated. Probably the best Hard SF film that doesn't involve space travel.
>>64537870
Am I the only one here who respects Contact for what it did but thinks it aged horribly and doesn't hold up under tight scrutiny?
>>64545616
Maybe you should look betterer. Some film enthusiast you are.
>>64538199
Muh negro
>>64545730
Its not bad, but its not pretty good, its right there on the meh line. Some pompastic fight scenes and minimalistic visual direction, but ultimately it exits the memmory hole quickly.
>>64539977
Were they longer or shorter in the books?
As far as visuals go, modern sci-fi movies look absolutely fantastic, but majority of them fall short due to writing. To justify the production costs they need to attract wider audience, and you end up with all these dumbed down crappy movies. As much as I want to blame the creators, it's more of a problem how stupid the average person is. I'll stick to literature to get my dose of thought provoking sci-fi material.
>>64545302
I loved this movie
>>64541312
Most fantasies are fictitious.
You're a fucking retard.
>Ctr-F
>No The Terminator
It is without a doubt the best thing Cameron has ever done.
>>64543920
>2001 was about intelligent machines and how they can fuck us up
This is really only a single element of the film. The thread which binds the segments of the movie together is rather the monoliths, manifest destiny, a Lacanian encounter with a reflection, and the realization of being observed.
Not to say that Hal isn't a really significant part of this equation, but I don't think you can boil the film down to just that.
>>64545302
Coherence is a lot easier to understand though.
>>64545302
I didn't think anyone else had seen this. I thought it was pretty great but I wasn't exactly blown away.
>>64546543
this t bh pham
>>64546452
They dont look as fantastic when they dip the film tapes in blue/seagreen filters and call it a day.
Straight out ruins a movies look. Sure lighting a scene might be difficult, but slapping an excessively saturated filter like that will fix the incompetent cgi and film blending is just offensive.
>>64542532
>>64542432
So why Interstellar and 2001 aren't the same movie even though there are similarities?
Let's put it this way. You make a movie about astronauts in space, largely based on hard scientific ideas about what future spaceflight would be like.
How would you do that *without* some parts of the movie resemble 2001: A Space Odyssey?
You might as well argue Gravity was a "love letter" to 2001 because both of them featured astronauts, zero gravity scenes and space stations.
>>64545849
But only the 4 hour cut
>>64546574
I liked it, but wasn't blown away either. The premise is pretty good and it kept my attention, but I just feel that I wouldn't been freaking out a lot more if I was some of the characters lol
>>64546800
Would have**
>>64539097
Never seen this and I've been wondering of it's really good or is it some sort of meme?
>>64547044
It's really good, Rockwell does a hell of a job.
>>64535697
Yes - 5/5
>>64536028
No - 3/5
>>64536062
Yes - 4.5/5
>>64536125
No - 3/5
>>64536195
No - 2.5/5
>>64536300
No - 3/5
>>64537942
No - 3.5/5
>>64537969
No - 3.5/5
>>64537996
Maybe - 4/5
>>64538027
Yes - 5/5
>>64538115
No - 2.5/5
>>64538173
Maybe - 4/5
>>64538199
Yes - 4.5/5
>>64538342
Maybe - 4/5
>>64538212
Yes - 4.5/5
>>64538978
Maybe - 4/5
>>64539024
No - 2.5/5
>>64541356
No - 3/5
>>64544218
Maybe - 4/5
>>64538834
Yes - 4.5/5
>>64546543
Yes - 4.5/5
>>64535697
>pic unrelated
>>64547044
Its pretty good. Worth a watch just for visual design and general execution. The story digests easily and is a good watch in general. I'd say it was closer to 2001 in elements than interstellar. I wouldnt even make the connections for the latter.
>>64547154
Nobody asked and nobody will look through your spamreviews cunt.
>>64541312
>fantasasy
>not fiction
>>64548511
Fantasy*
>>64548511
Star Wars - Science Fantasy
Star Trek - Science Fiction
It's not a hard concept.
>>64535697
2001 is pretentious dogshit.
>>64549292
Both are fiction and both are fantasy, one just has more grounding and world building.
>>64549416
I don't care about your opinion. These terms and many more like Hard Sci-fi or Speculative Fiction are used to give a clearer description of the content.
>>64543032
Beyond the Black Rainbow is legitimately my favourite film of the last ten years.
http://youtu.be/vQS3IaR1NVU
Also pic related, I don't care if it makes me a pleb but Robocop is my favourite film ever. I acknowledge that much of what I've seen from Pasolini, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Truffaut, etc is probably better on an objective level of artistry, emotion, etc but Robocop is a film I'll literally never get bored of. It's perfect in terms of achieving everything it sets out to and feels like it was made just for me.
>>64544564
The Motion Picture is actually god-tier if you want a visually-stunning, thoughtful sci-fi film. Prefer Wrath of Khan though, muh space Moby Dick.
>>64538285
>tfw this is the closest thing we have to a 40k film
>>64549915
>>64545302
>Primer: genuinely intelligent time travel movie made by a mathematician/engineer
>Coherence: pseudointellectual pap made by people who saw Primer and read an introductory quantum physics textbook
I don't trust anybody who actually likes Coherence, it's shit.
>>64538625
>I enjoyed the movie, but didn't follow the TV series at all.
Watch SG1 right now or gtfo.
>>64547154
no one cares m9
>>64549416
One of them is actually about scientific concepts (some of the time)
The other is about magical heroes in a battle of good versus evil.
>>64543020
I'm 40min in and I don't even know... but I can't stop because it's too interesting.
>>64539250
god tier flick
>>64536253
Masterpiece tbqh
>>64547154
>Solaris
>4.5/5
It's one of the few films I'd give a perfect rating to be honest.
Not even that much of a Tarkovsky fanboy, but Solaris put me under some kind of spell. I liked the highway scene in particular.
