The Ten Best Sci-Fi Films Ever Made

Since the first film exhibition near the end of the 19th century, a countless number of science fiction films have been released. Here, Russell Hill selects the very best of the genre...

Outer space has always intrigued mankind. Is there life outside of Earth? And will this life form be friendly? Apparently based on the director’s own experiences as a child, Steven Spielberg’s E.T. (1982) has always been highly regarded as a family favourite and is home to some wonderful moments. Picture one of the first opening scenes of E.T. being chased, and you’ll see likenesses with the forest scenes in Disney’s Bambi (1942) due to the director's fondness for it. Throughout, there is always the possibility that the alien will be captured by government figures and he won’t be allowed to return to his planet. At no point does he pose a threat to his human friends and this cinematic trait acts as very much a child-like character for Spielberg.

Following this same narrative aspect is Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). It too features aliens but they, like E.T., are friendly and only wish to communicate with the humans. Towards the end of the film when we see the aliens lit remarkably well, which is reminiscent of the aforementioned E.T. scene, they possess technology far beyond our own as they are able to fly countless light years just to return the humans they took. This shows immense kindness when, like in the films which will be mentioned later, they could have killed them instead.

One further example of this is Starman (1984). Telling of a friendly alien who is invited to Earth by the Voyager space probe, it’s quite a strange morphing of technologies in this film as our own technology both entices Starman to our planet but at the same time forces him to stay until he can be rescued by his own kind. The juxtaposition in this film is odd at times when compared to what is happening on screen such as the brightly shot scenes of Starman cheating on a casino fruit machine or making love with the wife of the dead husband he takes the form of.

A secondary sub-genre of science fiction which can be related to many films is what could be called “Horror Sci-Fi”. This is where Earth is visited by aliens who want to destroy humans, or they retaliate when provoked. Remade many times since its initial release, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) remains a classic. Telling of pod people who take over the bodies of small-town American citizens, thus killing them in the process, the film's anti-Communist tendencies struck a chord with audiences at the time largely due to the similarities with Senator McCarthy’s “Witch Hunts”. Unlike the “monster movies” released during this time, the evil creature could be anybody. Like Hitchcock did in Psycho (1960) four years later, the murderer could be a family member and it is scenes like this which make this film shocking over fifty years after its release. This occurs all throughout the white picket fenced town that this film is set in. Picture the scene in this particular film when Kevin McCarthy realises that the woman he loves has changed into this pod person with no physical change in her whatsoever.

Although mocked by many, Independence Day (1996) tells of how Earth is attacked by alien forces through no fault of their own. It is similar to the previous film as the humans see no reason why they are being attacked, and the special effects are spectacular fourteen years after its release. This film is merely popcorn material with no oblivious political message at all, but when you see the realistic scene of Will Smith’s character seeing the alien spaceship hovering over his backyard you see similarities with him and Kevin McCarthy shortly after he saw his loved one killed by the pod people.

It could be said that Arnold Schwarzenegger’s role in The Terminator (1984) uses the same character aspects of Starman and the pod people as he takes the form of a human but is more violent in doing so. This film features darker scenes, such as when The Terminator locates his target in a bar or at the films conclusion when Sarah is chased in a factory, and could be seen as an indication of the director's vision of how bleak the future will be if this machine is not stopped. What is interesting in this film is that the technology which is used to create The Terminator was originally designed by the humans after they allowed themselves to create machines which were that intelligent they could overpower us, and it was the humans’ fault that the machines could send such a machine back in time to destroy us.

Although not set on Earth, Alien (1979) seems to be the complete opposite of the previous films. Instead of Earth being attacked it is humans who seem to be the violent creatures especially when you consider that it is the AI life form Ash that was created and programmed by humans to invade a planet and take one of the alien life forms by force. But what seems remarkable about this film is its claustrophobic scenes. There seems to be no escape from the intensely packed spaceships and with the darkly lit scenes it creates an unfriendly situation that acts as the complete opposite of the serene surroundings lived in by Kevin McCarthy.

Apart from aliens, there is one other enthralling element to Sci-Fi and this is technology, particularly when it turns evil. Released as the first in a trilogy, The Matrix (1999) does not include aliens in its narrative but is the result of machines taking control over the world which humans once ruled and changing it so they can survive. This is best represented in the scene where the machines are seen harvesting humans. This is chilling to view, and seems to hark back to the artistic aspects used throughout Alien. Although this particular moment is created through CGI it has the potential to shock and make the audience believe that with the advent of one robot after another around the world this situation may become a reality.

Released in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey tells of a future where machines have been invented to such a degree that humans think of inter-galactic journeys as the norm. Astronaut Dave is on such a trip to Jupiter and is assisted by fellow astronauts along with the ship's onboard computer HAL. HAL has evolved in such a way that it undertakes human emotions and kills one astronaut with it nearly being successful in doing the same to Dave. What is astonishing in this film is how the humans have become robotic and it is the machines they invented which have become the humans. Take the juxtaposition scene of the space ships docking, and it seems like they are dancing whilst The Blue Danube plays. This film made space travel a possibility for the future of the human race and its special effects were that realistic that many of them created for this very film, such as the huge projectors for the opening ape scenes, are still being used to this day by filmmakers.

Some argue that Blade Runner (1982) is one of the best examples of sci-fi and in many ways those plaudits are right. Set in a dystopian Los Angeles in 2019, the human race is up against an enemy it created; the Replicants. Invented to be slaves on Earth’s off-world colonies, Blade Runner uses many of the elements of the aforementioned films discussed and brings them together in a cohesive structure that has the power to terrify. As in The Matrix, the non-human life form depends on their inventors for life especially when the Nexus-6 models invade Earth in order to increase their life span. This point is represented best when the leader of the Replicants, Roy Batty, tells Harrison Ford’s character how he wants to stay alive for he has seen marvellous events, with perfectly good human emotions on display. Blade Runner was made before the advent of CGI so, just like in 2001, many hands were responsible for some of the exquisite shots seen in the film such as the gloomy Los Angeles street scenes with flying cars hovering around the dirty streets.

Whatever the future holds for sci-fi films, the likelihood is that directors, producers and filmmakers alike will continue to invent a new way of bringing their terrifying entertainment to the silver screen. What must be taken into consideration is whether or not they will include in these narratives the same aspects which have been present in previous films and if they do, will they build or improve on them?

Russell Hill

Thoughts on... Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, 2006.

Directed by Richard Donner.
Starring Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman.


SYNOPSIS:

The 1980 classic is reedited to its original director’s vision.


Having heard of this film’s very existence when it was released in 2006, I found myself longing to own a copy of it. A fan of the cinematic representation of the Man of Steel since first seeing Christopher Reeve’s debut as Superman when I must have been biting ankles, I was delighted to say the least when finding a shop that sold this movie as part of “The Christopher Reeve Collection” which includes all of Mr Reeve’s Superman films. Although I’m sure many of you know the storyline, I’m positive there are some who do not.

Three criminals (General Zod, Ursa and Non) from Superman’s former home of Krypton are released from their outer space prison after an explosion. Unfortunately for mankind, they are released quite close to Earth and decide to conquer the planet as they had failed to do on Krypton. Lex Luthor (Hackman), on the other hand, has been imprisoned along with his assistant Otis (Ned Beatty) after trying to make the land along the San Andreas Fault collapse into the sea with the new area owned by Lex. He soon escapes and embarks on a “mutual relationship” with General Zod and co after telling them that he knows how to find the son of their jailor Jor-El (Marlon Brando) a.k.a Superman. Unfortunately for the world, Clark Kent (Reeve) has fallen in love with Lois Lane (Kidder) and inadvertently displayed his secret identity, with his ghostly father Jor-El having removed his powers at Superman’s home, the Fortress of Solitude, after Superman requests for this to happen. Will the Earth ever be saved by Superman once again or will the world always be under the control of General Zod?

Having watched Richard Lester’s cut of “Superman II” many times, I found this version to be completely different but far better than beyond all belief. The alterations are quite remarkable and certainly evident for all to see. But first, a little backdrop about the film itself.

Whilst filming the first “Superman” film, Richard Donner also shot footage for its sequel simultaneously. The producers Alex and Ilya Salkind fired Donner and replaced him with British-director Richard Lester. The footage which Donner shot was pretty much thrown out, with a vast amount of new footage shot by Lester. Although the result of this was a commercially successful movie, the original vision of Donner was lost. Thanks to an internet campaign to get the original cut released, the vast amounts of footage which was shot for “Superman II” by Donner was shipped over from London to the USA. To say this project was ambitious is an understatement, as the production staff had to look through each and every reel and make sure that it was under Donner which this footage was shot.

With great power, comes great responsibility said Uncle Ben in the recent Spiderman movies. The legion of fans which regard Mr Reeve as the finest Superman ever to wear the red cape must have had high hopes for the release of this movie, and they mustn’t have been disappointed. With yours truly counting himself in this camp, I found this film to be superior when compared with Richard Lester’s original cut. The reasons for this are as follows:

The one element of the 1980 version which really bothered me is the dated comedy. Gone are these scenes, such as the man talking in the phone box after General Zod and co blow away the Metropolis citizens attempting to defeat them with whatever they could find, and are replaced with dark moments which Donner is so good at putting in his movies. The second element which this movie improves on is the fact that it is not just about Zod and co invading Earth. Their destructive nature is split up over the course of the narrative to much success, and replaced with previously unseen footage of Marlon Brando. Due to his exorbitant fee for appearing in the first movie, it was made forbidden that Brando should not appear in the sequel and the result of this was that new scenes of Superman’s mother Lara (Susannah York) should be replaced. To even think of replacing a screen legend such as Brando with a lesser-regarded actress is unthinkable, but then again that was the mentality of the Salkind’s. Money over common sense, the Salkind’s should be ashamed for what they did. Details of such footage will not be divulged, but trust me it is worth watching.

The way in which the movie is edited is quite contemporary, with the ending changed considerably and less patriotic but it is Donner’s vision which is most important, and some might argue that it is a much more suitable ending indeed. A respected and better version for the great man Christopher Reeve, but due to the Salkind’s dithering over who to direct the sequel an opportunity for Mr Reeve to view it in his own lifetime has been lost forever.

Russell Hill

Thoughts on... Hannah Montana: The Movie (2009)

Hannah Montana: The Movie, 2009.

Directed by Peter Chelsom.
Starring Miley Cyrus and Billy Ray Cyrus.


SYNOPSIS:

The world famous singer is forced to return to her hometown in order to rediscover her roots.


I’m sticking my neck on the line here because I am offering Hannah Montana: The Movie to you, the cinephiles of the world, as a prime example of a classic; not of quality but of complete and utter nonsense which makes you want to vomit. It is a movie which sees you yearning to tear each and every copy into small pieces using the sharp edges of a shaving razor, then pouring gasoline onto said pieces and shoving it down the movie’s producers mouths just to show to them what an abomination they have unleashed onto the world. Heck, I would go as far as to blacklist those who greenlighted this for production. The poor souls of the McCarthy witch-hunts never put a foot wrong, but here the producers have.

The premise of the ‘film’ is laughable; a famous singer named Miley Cyrus is tricked into leaving her affluent existence and heading back to a country farm which looks much more appealing than any skyscraper. After all, this is a Disney film and any film made by this once-great company could make a Bernard Madoff investment look enticing to your average Joe. Upon arriving at said farm she walks into her grandmothers’ house and, who should appear, but the country music band Rascall Flatts. As anybody knows, Rascall Flatts has this tendency to arrive unannounced at regular people’s houses (it’s their thing you see). Fast forward to the evening, and Miley sees herself attending a barn dance in aid of rescuing the town. And, gosh darn it, who is playing there but another famous country singer named Taylor Swift. Is this a vehicle for other teeny bop music? Of course not. They just turned up, and weren’t hired for millions of dollars to appear for the most fleeting of moments. Then, because she mentioned she could sing, Miley is ushered to sing some horrendous R & B track. And, this being Disney everyone, down to the frail old grandma on her last legs, has the strength to break some moves. After all, everyone loves R & B music. I do, but only the same way I love my leg being amputated or eating a batch of black widow spiders. I admit I am digressing.

Roll on to after Miley’s ‘singing’ and the bad guy of the piece appears; the stereotypical Englishman who wants to ruin it for everyone else by finding out the truth about Hannah Montana (why anyone would want to do such a thing puzzles me). Accompanied by the guy who wants to tear down the town they are in than you have a shit full of bad guys on your hands. The rest of the film was a blur to me as I was trying to eat my own head to avoid seeing what would happen next, but what I understand is that a happy ending prevails. Bless.

Like the bubonic plague, this film is one you want to avoid but if you want to see a cinematic car crash at work than by all means part with a couple of dollars for a copy of it. But, then again, you could buy yourself some pliers and pull out your eyes so that you could avoid seeing this film. I prefer the pliers.

How the heck does this type of nonsense keep getting made? When I was a boy, I had classics from Disney such as Pinocchio to watch on my trusty VHS player. Now, the VHS player is no more and movies like Pinocchio are sadly not around. In fifty years time, around the same period I myself saw Pinocchio after it was first released, children might look back on this movie and see it as a classic. That thought petrifies me, as if movies like this are regarded with such love than something is going wrong. C’mon Disney, get your act together. If for anybody, at least for the children. You owe it to them after releasing a ‘movie’ like this.

Russell Hill