The 10 Best Scifi Flicks of the 00s

Posted by Sean in Best of the Aughts, Featured, Movies & TV | 11 comments

I’m a SciFi geek in addition to being a music nerd. I admit it with glee! That said, I can fully acknowledge the fact that a lot of science-fiction film & television is absolutely terrible. This decade has seen a lot of great science-fiction, but it’s also seen the one network on TV dedicated to scifi try to distance itself by rebranding itself as ‘SyFy’ and devoting more time to shows about ghost hunters, Tracy Morgan pulling nasty pranks on strangers and wrestling matches. Go figure.

At any rate, I’ve decided to focus on the positive and give my rundown of the best science-fiction films that the Aughts offered us. In no particular order:

Serenity (2005)

I have no idea why Joss Whedon went back to work with Fox on Dollhouse after their disdainful treatment of his scifi gem, Firefly. It was a fun, inventive recreation of the wild frontier spirit of early science-fiction shows like Star Trek. While Gene Roddenberry pitched Trek as ‘Wagon Train to the Stars’, Whedon actually made ‘Wagon Train to the Stars’ with Firefly. It was a bizarre but entertaining mixture of western and scifi, with spaceship captains speaking like wild west gunslingers (gunslingers that also spoke Chinese, of course). Fox brought down the axe far too soon, and most of us assumed that was it for Captain Mal and crew.

By some miracle it wasn’t, and instead of the expected direct-to-DVD fare, we were treated to an honest-to-god feature film. A film that functioned as a major payoff for fans, but still managed to be inclusive to newcomers. In a scant 2 hours, Joss Whedon makes you care about this unknown group of ne’er-do-wells and misfits, just in time to scare you into thinking he might actually kill them all off. I’m not sure I could single out a single actor for a weak performance, as everyone seems to give everything they have and more. Particularly Summer Glau, who sells her character by barely saying anything at all. By the time the credits rolled, I was ready for more adventures with this crew.

Sunshine (2007)

I read that Cillian Murphy became an atheist based on his work on this movie. Reading that fact in print was the point at which I decided to sit back and enjoy Cillian Murphy the actor and not think much about Cillian Murphy the person, who apparently makes life decisions based on flimsy film narratives.

Yes, you read that right. I am starting off a discussion about one of my favorite scifi films of the decade by dogging it. Sunshine only makes sense for about an hour, at which point it stops trying to make sense at all. And you know what? That’s okay by me. I so thoroughly enjoyed the performances, visuals and brilliant soundtrack by John Murphy & Underworld that plot became less and less of a concern. Oh, supposedly screenwriter Alex Garland intended some sort of religion vs science subtext, but said subtext amounts to a tacked-on, stereotypical madman who claims he talks to God. Maybe the fact that Director Danny Boyle disagreed with that interpretation is why it’s less-than-clear in the film itself, or maybe he simply didn’t think it through as well as he’d thought. Either answer is perfectly acceptable to me, as it’s the characters and their reaction to isolation and impossible odds that captivated me from start to finish. Science-fiction – as a film genre – has always excelled at presenting ideas and concepts, rather than concrete science facts, and I think in that sense Sunshine succeeded as a science-fiction film. Oh, and it’s damn entertaining, too.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Here’s a perfect example of a scifi film that might not have a plot based in hard science, but still deals with the big ideas. Of course, if time travel really exists and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics holds true, who’s to say that a kid in a rabbit suit might not travel back in time from a ‘tangential reality’ created by a falling aircraft engine in order to warn us of that reality’s imminent collapse which will also destroy our own universe? Well, okay, it’s not likely. Still, quite the fun little brain teaser.

Of course, none of that explanation really tells us why Donnie’s ‘dark half’ – his consciousness from the tangential universe creeping in on his consciousness from the primary universe? – is encouraged by Frank to engage in various acts of vandalism, other than they’re amusing. Especially since the tangential universe is doomed from the start. Not to mention the fact that Frank’s presence in Donnie’s yard is what supposedly creates the tangential universe in the first place. I originally thought that might be a predestination paradox, but since Donnie ultimately decides to accept his death, Frank never exists and never lures him out into the yard. But then how do you explain Donnie’s apparent knowledge of what’s going to happen to him?

See what I mean? Whatever you think of the movie itself, it works because I’m still thinking about it nearly a decade later.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Let me start by acknowledging the fact that a lot of people probably don’t even think of this as science-fiction. Admittedly, I’ve waffled in my opinion on that from time to time. But ultimately, the framework of the story – a doctor that invents a device/means to remove unwanted memories – falls under the science-fiction blanket. That the story and performances are so good that most people didn’t notice they were watching a scifi flick only goes to Director Michael Gondry’s credit. His as well as Jim Carrey’s, who has never before and likely never will be as good as he is here.

Despite that science-fiction framework, the heart of the story is the doomed relationship between Joel and Clementine, and how we relate to it through our own wonderful or slightly awful past relationships. The humorous romps through Carrey’s slowly fading memories are surreal and wonderful, and Winslet is outstanding as quirky Clementine. She’s not there merely to push Joel along or transform him in some way; as we see at the end, both Clementine and Joel haven’t really changed at all. They’re essentially occupying the same emotional and mental state as they did at the start. In fact, that’s the setup for the film’s big payoff – the moment where they decide to try again, despite knowing that it’s all gone so horribly wrong before. How many times did they wipe their memories and begin again? Who knows. But it makes for a fantastic story.

Children Of Men (2006)

I think no decade list can reasonably omit this beautiful, sad and – depending on your interpretation of the ending – hopeful film. I do remember criticism at the time of its release about the premise being implausible – all women are suddenly incapable of producing offspring – but as I said in my blurb about Sunshine, I believe scifi films have always excelled at ideas rather than details. Who cares if a premise is likely or even possible? What’s important is that it be interesting and moving, which this one was. I’ve rarely found a dystopian future so convincing as the one depicted here. Clive Owen’s wrong-place-right-time everyman always felt real to me, as did Michael Caine’s defiant-to-the-end hippie. From a technical standpoint, you have to marvel at the film’s multiple single-shot takes, even if some have been assisted by CGI. They compliment the urgency and intensity of the scenes they’re used in, instead of coming across as a gimmick. And given my generally optimistic slant in life, it will probably come as no surprise that I saw the ending as incredibly hopeful.

Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Oooh, look at me, being all contrary! Well, not really. There are plenty of people out there that enjoyed this Kubrick/Spielberg hybrid, warts and all. One of those people was me. Sure, there’s plenty to pick apart here (did we really need a cameo by Robin Williams?). The fact that this film is the product of two very different men means there is a sometimes disconcerting shift in tone and style, but the compelling, tragic story of David – a robot who wants nothing more than to be loved – shines through too effectively to be outweighed by those flaws. Say what you will about Haley Joel Osment, but he’s in top form here, and utterly convincing. When ‘mommy’ abandons David and Teddy in the forest, you’re absolutely gutted.

And to be fair, many of the sentimental aspects of the film that are commonly blamed on Spielberg actually came from Kubrick (verified not only by Spielberg, but by the numerous treatments Kubrick worked on prior to Spielberg’s involvement). Teddy as well as the perceived warm – and admittedly in need of a trim – ending both came from Stan the Man. Still, if the film had ended where several critics have suggested – with David slowly freezing at the bottom of the ocean – it would have been an incredibly pessimistic, nihilistic production. I’m sure Dustin Hoffman’s character in Stranger Than Fiction might have argued for it, but I think I’d much rather keep it as it is. Besides, it ignores the fact that ending is not that happy. Sure, David ultimately gets something resembling wish fulfillment, but the film’s reflection on humanity isn’t exactly flattering.

Oh, and for the last time: the creatures seen at the end of the film are mechas, not aliens. It makes me absolutely mental when I read reviews that call them aliens. Way to miss the point, critics!

The Fountain (2006)

Here’s another one that’s difficult to classify. The Fountain is usually called science-fiction, likely because it presumably depicts…a future? With spaceglobes? It’s more metaphysics than physics, honestly. And I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t something of a mess. It’s absolutely beautiful to look at, but try to find a coherent narrative and you’re likely to go cross-eyed. I think there’s a little bit of every religion and belief system in existence thrown in for good measure. But you have to admire the sheer audacity of it all. The core story of a man losing his wife and doing anything he can to deny mortal existence makes for a compelling movie, chestbursting flowers and floating snowglobes aside. It seemed to divide critics pretty evenly, but it’s hard for me to understand how someone couldn’t, at the very least, appreciate the film as a work of art. Then again, I imagine if you look too closely at ‘Starry Night’ you’ll start noticing all those clumps of paint, too.

Pitch Black (2000)

Saying this is Vin Diesel’s best film isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for it, is it? Still, the fact remains that it is. A lot of that is probably due to the interesting ensemble cast, including the excellent Claudia Black (oh Farscape, how I miss thee) and Keith David. He also essentially shares the lead role with Rahda Mitchell. Maybe Vin would do well to make more films where he’s not taking the lead? If you’re reading this Vin, I mean it in the nicest way possible.

Look, Pitch Black is not the most original film. We all know it. It borrows liberally from the Alien mythos, parts I & II, mostly. Mostly (har har). We have a female pilot faced with an alien infestation that’s forced to make difficult decisions in order to keep herself alive. In fact, there’s a scene early on which Carolyn must decide whether to eject the passenger cabin but is stopped by another officer. It echoes a similar scene in Alien where Ripley denies Dallas access to the Nostromo because of quarantine rules but Ash intercedes. Not a direct lift, mind you, but certainly a familiar touch.

But of course, we all expect familiarity in a movie theatre, we just want the variations on a theme to be engaging. ‘There’s nothing new under the Sun’, after all. Given that fact, Pitch Black could have been a total dud. What lifts it above the din is – believe it or not – Vin Diesel’s character of Riddick. Not exactly a killer with a heart of gold, as there are several scenes where he merely sits idly by as passengers (kids, in some cases) are viciously vivisected by nasty xenomorphs. In some ways he’s closer to The Dark Knight’s Joker toward the end, testing whether Carolyn is really as decent as she wants to be. Ultimately, he’s impressed enough with Carolyn’s resolve to give humanity another chance. But that still doesn’t mean he’s a hero. It’s fun to watch it all play out, and the hammerhead shark aliens are an interesting twist.

I should mention that of all the movies out there begging for sequels, this wasn’t one. That’s not to say the sequel wasn’t kind of entertaining (as a dumb action movie), but it was totally unnecessary.

Dune (2000)

Okay, I’m kind of cheating here. This flick wasn’t released into theatres. Rather, it was presented as a mini series on SciFi…er SyFy. But then that’s part of why I’m including it. Before they put all their cash into steampunk’d versions of Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz, SyFy sometimes invested their money into great science-fiction stories like this. In fact, I’d wager it was the success of Dune and its sequel, Children of Dune (the two films hold record ratings for SyFy) that allowed the network to try out a little experiment called Battlestar Galactica.

A lot of Dune fans hate Lynch’s 1984 adaptation, though I’m not among them. I don’t think a film should ever merely be a slavish adaptation of its source material. Otherwise, what’s the point? Film is a different beast than literature, and by its very nature should set its own course. Otherwise, you end up with serviceable but tedious affairs like Watchmen. That being said, I do like this version’s attempts to stick more closely with Frank Herbert’s original storyline. They change a few things, too, but I think most of the changes are necessary and appropriate. Any faithful adaptation of Dune would be 12 hours long and put anyone but the most diehard Herbert fans asleep.

I also love this film because it achieves a rare feat – the unknowns in the cast manage to outshine the established actors like William Hurt. Not that he gives a bad performance, I’d say it’s more understated than anything. But Saskia Reeves, P.H. Moriarty, Barbora Kodetova and particularly Alec Neuman give outstanding performances. Neuman is really put through the paces as he has to navigate Paul from a teenager to adulthood to godhood, and he handles the shifts incredibly well. There’s also Ian McNiece’s deliciously demented Baron Harkonnen, which fits Herbert’s descriptions to a tee (other than that weird rhyming thing). If they’d had just a wee bit more money, I’m sure it could have been a film release. As it is, I think they make great use of what they have. Some of the CGI effects look a bit Babylon 5 now, but the use of backdrops and matte paintings actually adds to the atmosphere somehow. You often feel like you’re watching a stage production with a larger than usual budget.

Wall-E (2008)

It doesn’t matter if you bought into Wall-E’s conservation message or not; if you have any blood still pumping through that little heart of yours, you undoubtedly loved that adorable, rusted waste collector. A lonesome robot that watches ‘Hello Dolly’, falls in love with a pristine vegetation collector and manages to save humanity from its sedentary ways & return them to earth – what’s not to love?

Wall-E also manages to be a little scary. After all, the world depicted in the ‘toon – that of an Earth drained of all resources and the human race lazy and placated by having their every need fulfilled at the push of a button – seems eerily possible. But the great thing about Wall-E is that whatever messages contained within aren’t so preachy or pushy that they overwhelm the narrative. Ignore the dead earth and flabby humans, and you still have a wonderful story about exceeding your limitations and following through on your dreams. I enjoy a bit of dystopian desolation as much as the next science-fiction fan, but a little optimism here and there isn’t so bad, is it?