Comments on: Top Ten Science-Based Sci-Fi Movies (Revised)

By: Greg Miller

Greg Miller — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:33:51 +0000

I know it’s more in the super hero genre than SF but “Iron Man” deserves a mention. Science is making progress on such a suit, thought the power source for the suit may be a long way off. Also, I think it would take a large team several years to build it, as opposed to the one man who did it in the movie.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:48:56 +0000

Hey, I enjoyed checking out the list, and am really glad to see Primer on it. Red Planet, while I initially liked the movie, I think has many science screw-ups. The whole medical thing at the end when Val Kilmer is resusitated is total BS, though so is every other medical instance in most movies. You’d think that with the budgets these films have they could get an expert to make sure things are believable. My other question would be, if you catch fire to all the alga and bugs and it sweeps across the planet as shown from the ship, I doubt you’d have enough O2 available to breath if the levels were so low to begin with. Also, what is the surface temperature on mars. Me-thinks it may be a little to chilly to be breathing the air and walking around with no helmet on. Correct me if I’m wrong!

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:38:12 +0000

What about 1971′s The Andromeda Strain?

By: will

will — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:16:08 +0000

Probably the best ending to any sci-fi film I ‘ve seen is the ending to ‘The Quiet Earth’. I think a New Zealand film oddly enough. Unfortunately some versions have the title credits rolling over the top of it. Check it out

By: River Sol

River Sol — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:34 +0000

Just watched Sunshine. Some bad science for sure…but a good hard science at its core….so to speak.

Aliens and Blade Runner also captured a edgy future without going too fantasy overboard IMHO.

Children of Men and Gattaca get my thumbs up too!

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:05:35 +0000

tony, I haven’t seen Sunshine. Probably will at some point. But frankly I didn’t go to see it in the first place because the basic premise was ridiculous. Stars don’t “go out” and even if they did, human-made bombs would’t restart them. So I’d have a hard time suspending my disbelief even if the rest of the movie was superb.

By: tony

tony — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:22:53 +0000

i m surprised that SUNSHINE is not in the list.its one of the best sci-fi movie i have watched in a long time.its special effect and the finer details about science was used to great effect

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:29:49 +0000

I haven’t seen Sunshine, although I read a lot about it (which is why I didn’t see it). They TRIED to get the science right, but it was a case of “we have this dumb idea that makes no sense…can you science consultants try really hard to make some justification of any kind to support it?” Because the premise is ridiculous from a science perspective.

By: Blake

Blake — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:40:54 +0000

Sunshine isn’t on this list? I’ve heard from some that the science is meticulously researched and by others that it’s somewhat unsound. What’s the consensus here?

By: Mike Brotherton

Mike Brotherton — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:35:07 +0000

Weird, a whole lot of comments just showed up at the same time last night…oh well. At least they showed up.

Solaris has long been on my “to watch” list and I will get to it. Silent Running I saw once long ago, and need to rewatch, which I will (have it recorded on the DVR) right now. A Clockwork Orange doesn’t have any physical science in it really, although it’s a great movie and great book.

Red Planet, despite a few missteps, has surprisingly good science, yes (and I can’t recall if they good on the DNA thing or not).