Top 20 Sci-Fi: The Best of the Best
Wrapping up our “Top 20 Sci-fi Films” freakout is a casual email exchange between the three of us regarding some of the films we shared across our lists. The three lists were posted early last week – Rottingcorpse’s list, Cassander’s list, and Nacho’s list.
Nacho:
Since we’re picking what we feel to be the best 20 sci-fi movies of all time, the movies on two or all three of the lists then must represent the absolute pinnacle of the genre, yes? While the “defenses” of our picks come easily, it feels a bit more challenging (to me) to analyze the films that appear on two or all three lists.
The trifecta movies – Terminator 2, the first two installments of the Alien franchise, the first two installments of the Star Wars franchise, and Sunshine.
Movies that share two lists: The Road Warrior, The Matrix, Back to the Future, Fifth Element, and Moon.
We’ll begin with the trifecta that became the hottest debate in the forums — Star Wars. Rottingcorpse picked Empire Strikes Back, and I did, initially. The argument was that we shouldn’t select sequels since, ultimately, they wouldn’t have existed without the first movie. But then we all broke those rules when it came to the Alien and Terminator franchises.
Alien and Terminator, of course, represent a very different sort of franchise approach. Instead of a cohesive trilogy or series, we get what are, essentially, remakes. Or reimaginings, perhaps. The sequel as a standalone movie and not just a chapter in a larger story.
So, Rottingcorpse — Why Empire Strikes Back over Star Wars? Can we apply the same rules to it as we did T2 and Aliens?
And, for both of you, why are T2 and Aliens so important? If we assume that the trifecta films are the best of the best by nature of sharing all three lists, then we’re saying that these are two of the three best sci-fi movies ever.
Cassander:
I’ll start with something right off the top of my head about T2 and why the three of us (and other guys within range of our generation) respond to it. The family structure that develops matters as much as the high stakes of changing the future and eluding the T-1000. The most obvious “movie” approach to John Connor would be to just have him be some kid that gets passed back and forth and needs protecting. Instead, casting him as a 13-15 year old troubled foster kid with his own ambitions and fears really allows the movie to approach a higher level. So guys like us get drawn in through his character and his fucked up relationship with his mom and his attraction to the Terminator. There really is only a brief part of the movie where things are kind of going right for them, but it really satisfies us somehow. And all that is in addition to the awesome action scenes and probably the only one that was able to contain Arnold’s penchant for overacting.
Rottingcorpse:
I think Cassander touches on something that probably informs most movies on our lists — the way these movies emotionally engage us. T2 is less about a robot coming from the future to save mankind’s savior than it is about three people (or two people and a robot) learning how to love, whether again or for the first time. The beauty of T2 is that it hits all the emotional buttons without you even realizing it’s happening. Like all the best stories, cinematic or literary, it carries you away. You get caught up in the action and the story and the “Jesus! Is she really going to kill Miles Dyson?!” Then the next thing you know you’re getting all choked up when Arnold fucking Schwarzenegger, who’s never going to get mistaken for Richard Burton, is about to drop himself into a molten lava pit. It’s brilliant really.
And since I’ve been such a champion of “historical significance,” T2 is also important in that for better or for worse, its success paved the way for CGI as a major factor in sci-fi movies. The liquid metal T1000 blew everybody’s mind in 1992. Sure Jurassic Park (the REAL game changer as far as CGI was concerned) was in production when it came out, but T2 firmly entrenched that there was no going back.
Cassander:
Let’s talk about Robert Patrick, too. T1000 could’ve been ANYBODY but Cameron found the right guy.
Rottingcorpse:
Cameron has always done well with casting and actors. And until Avatar, he had an uncanny knack for creating stories that yank you and take you for a ride in a way that doesn’t give you time to pick them apart. He excels at adding gravitas to silliness.
Getting back to emotional “frisson” for a second, the emotional core is also what makes Sunshine work so well. It’s not a new type of story. We’ve seen it in 2001, Solaris, and Event Horizon. All those movies are about the loneliness of space and distance. However, there’s often a sterility to them, an emotional distance. Sunshine is a movie about how distance and solitude effect emotion. I think I love Sunshine for the mood more than the story. Even when it’s thrilling (which is often) it’s melancholy too. The emotional reaction of the various characters seems very real given the circumstances. To me, that’s Boyle’s gift in all his movies. There’s always this layer of high emotion stakes just below the surface.
The other great thing about Sunshine is that the science, whether correct or not, feels genuine. That’s also something it shares with T2 (time travel paradox aside) and even Aliens.
On Aliens…I stand by my feeling that the horror elements trump the sci-fi elements in the original Alien.
Nacho:
So I suppose the last of the trifecta questions is to have Rottingcorpse defend Empire Strikes Back.
Cassander:
I just want to go on the record as saying I don’t oppose selecting sequels for the lists, I just opposed plugging an entire franchise in as one selection on the list (which none of us attempted to do) and the always iffy prospect of putting in a sequel without its originator, like we are doing with T2. Empire Strikes Back as a movie wouldn’t stand alone at all, I don’t think. I don’t know. If I start thinking about Star Wars longer than three minutes I start remembering midichlorians and “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!” and then I get depressed.
Nacho:
Which gets to the Great Question of our generation — Have the prequels and special editions forever tarnished the originals? Are they now or will they ever be in danger of not being able to maintain a spot on our lists?
Rottingcorpse:
I sort of agree with Cassander’s point that ESB doesn’t exactly work as a standalone movie, but to not put a Star Wars film in the top 20 seems to be wrong. At the very least it’s ignoring the elephant in the room.
Cassander:
That’s why I put Star Wars on my list and just shut up. We’re not going to say anything about Star Wars that hasn’t been said before.
As far as tarnishing goes….in my mind, yes. But only for the generation of people who grew up with the originals. I know it’s hard to wrap your head around, but there are kids who watched the whole saga “in order.” Who knows what they think of them. For them the movies start to get better instead of worse! All I know now is that I’ll never feel like sitting through another Star Wars movie ever again, and that might have happened even if the prequels had never been made. As you get older they really lose their sparkle, especially Jedi, which I used to think was the best when I was a teenager. The franchise really is for kids, and the fact that there are forty or fifty year old people out there obsessing over the films is beyond sad. It’s almost a crime that we’ve let this one little runaway underdog success story become, in essence, a corporation that makes more than the GDP of several countries. And it wasn’t because it was marketed well…it was because people just convinced everyone else that it was as culturally important as Christmas or Baseball or Ford Mustangs. I don’t know. It’s a really odd phenomenon when you distance yourself from the emotional associations you made when you were a kid.
Rottingcorpse:
I sort of wish I had never watched the prequels. It wasn’t until the Matrix sequels betrayed me that I adopted my policy of not watching sequels to movies I really loved. And by that point, I was already engaged in the prequels enough to see it through. Plus, I kept hoping they would get better.
Walter Cronkite said something interesting about Star Wars in the Empire of Dreams documentary Lucas made a few years back. I’m paraphrasing, but in essence he said that, as a cultural moment, Star Wars pulled America out of the funk left over from the turmoil of the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, and Watergate. As Cassander says, that may be pretentious hindsight. However I do think it’s significant in that it was immensely popular and that it launched the special effects era. And up to that point, there had really been nothing like it.
Nacho:
Now, on to Road Warrior. I picked it because I had a ton of post-apocalypse shit on my list, paired it all down to make the list more “sci-fi,” and just couldn’t let go of Road Warrior. It was there from the start, though.
The Mad Max films have this weird aspect of being three standalone movies that seem to have very little relation to each other. The things that carry over are just little nods to the last film – a leg brace, recurring characters, the inference that we’re watching the progression of an ongoing apocalypse over roughly 15 years. Of the three, Road Warrior has the highest level of entertainment and story. Mad Max is one of dozens of similar films at the time, and saw only a limited worldwide release. Road Warrior, though, played on the more entertaining aspects of Mad Max and, essentially, rebooted the franchise with a worldwide release in mind. For many, it was the first Mad Max movie they saw…and it’s written with that in mind. Mad Max was a dystopia, with a civilization still (barely) keeping the world together. Road Warrior is pure post-apocalypse, and full of all the trappings – weird super-villains, feral children, utopian cults in uniform, and proto-steampunkness. In many ways, it’s a refreshing post-apocalypse flick if only in that the apocalypse was a conventional war that exhausted our oil reserves and pitched the world into chaos. (This, of course, was utterly ruined by Thunderdome where an apparent nuclear war was the cause.)
Why did you pick it, Rottingcorpse?
And, Cassander, you instigated the discussion as to whether or not PA films could truly be considered sci-fi. An argument that, ultimately, led to me trimming some PA films from my list… Is that the only reason the Mad Max franchise isn’t on your list? What list should they be on?
Rottingcorpse:
Honestly? It’s on my list because it’s been ripped off so much it’s obscene.
Road Warrior is the template that most modern PA films borrow heavily from. The melodrama of it all is sort of silly now but at the time of its release, it (along with Blade Runner) brought a punk “future shock” aesthetic to sci-fi. In fact, you could say it went as far as to begin the mainstreaming of punk in general. That aside, it’s not too hard to imagine everybody going native over gas when the oil dries up.
Cassander:
To be honest, I’ve only seen Mad Max and Road Warrior once each when I was about 17 or 18, and neither really impressed me, and I didn’t feel like re-watching them either. I couldn’t even tell you which one is which. So if it didn’t grab me at 18, I really doubt I’m going to be all about it now.
But my initial thoughts on PA remain. Is a movie sci-fi just because there was a nuclear apocalypse in it? Just because it’s set in the future? I wouldn’t consider Last Night sci-fi or The Road or even Waterworld. I know you explained a little more about how Thunderdome ret-conned some sci-fi elements, but, well, whatever. The line gets a little blurry in a few places, but overall I think PA is its own deal. So if you want to do a PA list down the road, that’s fine with me. But even then I think Road Warrior would have to be a “legacy” entry on the list like Star Wars. It’s not a movie I ever considered to be truly great.
Nacho:
Okay… The rest of the films that appear on two of our lists… The Matrix (RC and Cass). Why’s it on your lists?
It’s not on my list because I don’t see it as the big revolutionary freak-out that others do. I can’t quite explain why, except that maybe the Superman ending really rubbed me the wrong way. When I saw it in the theater, everyone just bust into laughter after sitting there being wowed to death for two hours. It was kind of sad, really. This great movie with this huge black mark against it in the final 10 seconds. And I know I shouldn’t judge it on that alone, but…
Keanu is also laughable. “Woah. I know Kung Fu.” Pandering to the audience, at best. Sci-fi’s answer to rope-work Asian action cinema (which was then just beginning to break through into the US). It’s all in a beautiful package, and I love it, but I can’t put it on the list. Plus, it’s another example of being tainted by the sequels. I hate the idea that they made this movie with no real plan. Or, perhaps, the wrong plan.
Back to the Future (Cass and Nacho):
Back to the Future has the same sort of threat…but those two sequels came five years later. They feel like the afterthoughts they are and can be removed from the playing field. The movie isn’t the mega-monster that Star Wars is, and the sequels aren’t really that bad, so the taint isn’t really there. I don’t have much to say about it except that it’s just a perfect little movie. Why’s it not on your list, RC?
Fifth Element (Cass and Nacho):
Fifth Element: RC mentions it in his intro. Anything else to add? Cass: I assume you share my love for a scantily clad Milla. What are your thoughts?
I’ve always loved the “natural” feel of it. A dystopian future in the same way Transmetropolitan is dystopian — to us, it may seem horrible. But it’s just the world these people live in. Oh, and, it’s solid, wall-to-wall fun.
Moon (Cass and Nacho):
Like Sunshine, I don’t think there’s any need for those of us who picked Moon to say anything… But, unlike Sunshine, it’s not on RC’s list. So…what happened there?
Cassander:
Well, I think everything you said about Back to the Future applies to The Matrix, as well. It was such a cool, conceptual movie that it doesn’t matter that Keanu can’t act or that Joey Pants tried to eat all the green screen scenery…I don’t think better actors would’ve pumped this movie up into “Eternally Classic” or anything. And, again, this is a movie that spread its influence across multiple genres for at least another ten years. Movies that do that always have to be considered one of the greatest. Black leather, wearing sunglasses inside, Fight the (substitute) Power, feisty rebels, and hackerpunk all in one movie? Now that I think about it, the Star Wars parallels are kind of strong.
Rottingcorpse:
I didn’t put Moon on my list because I haven’t seen it. I suppose this is the point where the two of your berate me violently?
While “classic” status of The Matrix is no doubt tarnished by the two mortifyingly awful sequels, it’s still an amazing piece of work. In fact, I’ll be so bold as to say that if it wasn’t for the sequels, I could make an argument for the inclusion of The Matrix on a list of the top twenty movies of all time. (Okay, now that I look at that statement written, maybe it’s a little hyperbole.) The Matrix was one of a small handful of movies that blew my mind in such a way that it actually questioned my own reality while sitting in the theatre. (The others are Memento, and, much to Nacho’s horror I’m sure, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me.) When Lawrence Fishburne told me that we were all Duracells, my brain short circuited.
To Nacho’s point about the ending, it doesn’t bother me. It’s stupid, but it doesn’t bother me. Keep in mind that I’ll give a totally shitty movie a pass for one scene of brilliance, so maybe I’m the wrong guy to make this argument. Then again, as a guy who’s spent some time writing screenplays, I know how hard endings are. I very rarely hold endings against a movie unless it’s something utterly unforgivable like say, the hero “dying” and being sucked into a metal octopus cloud before having two ancillary characters talk about him for ten minutes or however The Matrix: Dance Dance Revolution ended. Keanu turning into Superman and flying way? That’s fine. It could have been worse. Way worse.
Back to the Future is also a movie where the sequels didn’t ruin the original at all for me. In fact, I’ll let you on a little secret: I’ve only seen about twenty minutes of BTTF: Part II and none of part III. Part II never got a hold of me. In fact I was wholly underwhelmed and decided not to follow through. I’ve never regretted that choice. (I’m also fairly certain that my alternative to watching BTTF II was the opportunity to fondle girl parts. Which would you have chosen?)
I have no good reason why it isn’t on my list. It’s a great movie. It fits both my main criteria. (The science is sound and it’s a time travel classic. Maybe the time travel classic? Or Nacho, would you have it trumped by the original version of The Time Machine?) If I had to pick a reason, I would use the Alien defense. Where I still feel Alien is more a horror film than anything else despite staying true to all the proper sci-fi elements, I feel that BTTF is a John Hughesian teen comedy even though it’s in some ways the perfect time travel movie. Maybe that’s all the more reason it should be included in the list. You’re not distracted by the “sci-fi-ness” of it. You just get wrapped up in the story.
And don’t assume that I don’t like The Fifth Element. I just don’t really consider it serious sci-fi. It’s loads of fun and I love it. Again though, love isn’t enough.