Gattaca: A great example of what I call "Humanist sci-fi." It doesn't highlight, or even feature any of the whiz-bang, techie stuff that many would normally associate with the genre. Instead the focus is on the social and personal ramifications of genetic engineering becoming common place. An additional plus would be that the movie does this without immediately resorting to depictions of dystopia and sanctimony.

    stream26 "Humanist sci-fi."

    Love that moniker and love the cerebral films that have no bells, whistles, guns, crap blowing up. (not saying bells whistles guns and crap blowing up is bad in any way🙂).
    It's got to have a taut psychological angle, not necessarily a morality play to make my day. I'd stick 2001 in that category as well. Nolan's Memento as well (its guns were barely noticed). Michael Clayton too. Dig it.

    edit: you put gattaca on my to-see radar

        6 months later

        Did anyone see the last Matrix movie? Seemed to disappear in thin air after release?
        Care to review, mini-review, or describe in a sentence?
        (I trust y'all more than I trust a random reviewer..)
        Graci--

          brent I am waiting patiently too. ... , I heard it was good, but from where, who did I hear such news. You know what I have come to despise after all these years, .. trailers !! just show us the movie .

          I do trust you used your best Smith voice. 🤣

            Lots of good suggestions here, but sadly not much love for the classics. Here are a few to consider::
            The Day The Earth Stood Still -1951,
            The Thing From Another World - 1951,
            The War of the Worlds - 1953,
            Them! - 1954,
            Forbidden Planet - 1956,
            The Blob - 1958,
            The Fly - 1958
            and Planet of the Apes - 1968
            This one's also a bit newer, but it belongs on everyone's list: 2001: A Space Odyssey - 1968.
            Honorable mention goes to The Twilight Zone - '59-'64 and The Outer Limits - '63-'65.

              Recently watched matrix resurrection and found not interesting and good..... Looks over-thrown...

                WetGeek
                I thought about adding the classic "mad doctor films," such as Frankenstein, The Invisible Man and Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but these are typically considered to be horror films. I suppose they could go either way, because The Fly and X: The Man With X-Ray Eves are also essentially mad doctor films. There aren't any mad doctors (the science element of sci fi) involved in The Mummy, The Wolf Man, Dracula and (a personal favorite growing up) The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Where do you draw the line?

                Any way, special effects aside, they don't make 'em like they used to, eh?

                EDIT: Oh, and how about King Kong and the original Japanese version of Godzilla? Do these count as sci fi? They are classics, none the less!

                    GumbyDamnIt Any way, special effects aside, they don't make 'em like they used to, eh?

                    I think I was about 6 years old when my older brother and sister (16 and 15, respectively) took me to see The Creature from the Black Lagoon. I didn't sleep for three days afterward. At the time, the special effects were very effective, because we knew no better.

                    Keeping that in mind, I've also thoroughly enjoyed streaming the original Star Trek recently, with Captain Kirk, Spock, and all the miniskirts. Even knowing that the sets are all made of styrofoam, cardboard and plywood, with meaningless colored flashing lights, the actual stories were excellent. I'll never forget The Trouble with Tribbles.

                        alanwake82 Recently watched matrix resurrection and found not interesting and good..... Looks over-thrown...

                        explain when you have time. loved the trailers but this one vanished down the internet hole before I could see it..

                            brent this one vanished down the internet hole before I could see it..

                            Yeah. A search couldn't even find it on Netflix.

                              WetGeek
                              While modern special effects can be dazzling, they are sometimes (too often) used as a crutch to prop up an otherwise less than stellar production. I'd put Alfred Hitchcock up against any modern film maker. That man knew how to tell a story!!! Back in the day film makers were working without a net, so to speak, which is why so many of these classic films still hold up, all these years later.

                                  GumbyDamnIt I'd put Alfred Hitchcock up against any modern film maker.

                                  In an article about Alfred Hitchcock, someone wrote about his being the "master of suspense." And defined "suspense" as "knowing what's gonna happen, but just not know WHEN it's gonna happen."

                                      GumbyDamnIt if I could give you more than a thumbs up and a like I would. I run like the plague from CGI. Charlie Theron's stump arm in Mad Max is the only time I've been impressed with it. Other than that CGI is so painfully obviously fake most of the time I get embarrassed watching it. Without a net the only way to roll.

                                        WetGeek Hitchcock also the pioneer of indirect graphic violence, often alluding to it rather than showing it which packs its own psychological wallop.

                                            brent
                                            The shower scene in Psycho is a perfect example of this. All you see is the knife and the drain. Everything else is implied, but it's both shocking and terrifying, none the less, without all of the gratuitous gore (the net) that is so common these days.

                                            EDIT: Mind, I'm not saying that blood and gore is necessarily a bad thing, just that it doesn't make up for a poorly told story.