November 4th, 2010
I’m giving a university talk today “Science in the Movies.” I decided I wanted to be able to leave the audience with a list of good science-based movies to watch, whether science fiction or not. I not only want the science as good as possible, I want to see a realistic and generally positive portrayal of science in them. That means no arrogant scientists playing god to their doom (e.g., Frankenstein, Jurassic Park), no wussy guys in lab coats and glasses who play second fiddle to a less intelligent but courageous hero (e.g. Stargate, Armageddon — which wouldn’t qualify on other grounds), etc.
So here’s my top ten, labeled “good” in no particular order.
The Good:
2001: A Space Odyssey. Too slow for many younger viewers, unfortunately, but it gets the science right. The sequel 2010 isn’t bad either.
Apollo 13. The weightless scenes were shot in the “vomit comet” for perfectly realistic “special effects.” A true story, and a testament to NASA in its glory days.
October Sky. A nice adaptation of Homer Hickam’s autobiographical book Rocket Boys.
Contact. Based on Carl Sagan’s science fiction novel, it features a female scientist who actually says things and does things like a scientist would.
Destination Moon. It’s dated now, but really awesome for 1950. I particularly love the Woody Woodpecker cartoon used to educate the audience about how rockets work, something necessary at the time.
The Dish. An Australian radio telescope is used to relay signals from Apollo 11. A nice glimpse into what astronomy is like. The Arrival also deserves some honorable mention here.
Inherit the Wind. A gripping, well acted film about the Scopes Monkey Trial that lays out a convincing case for evolution, which has only been strengthened since.
Real Genius. I’m not sure that all the science in the movie is perfect, but a lot is, at least conceptually, and it catches the spirit of curiosity and fun that many scientists possess.
Primer. If we give the movie its premise of time travel, you get a nice portrayal of experimentation and a smart plot.
Manhattan Project. Smart kids and science fairs, plus nuclear weapons.
Those are the good ones. There are a handful of others that could make a longer list, and a number of films on my “to see” list that are supposed to be good. I’ve probably skimped on the biological sciences, where I feel less qualified. Any more suggestions?
If I were to continue to the traditional classes of the “bad” and the “ugly” here they are:
The Bad:
Almost every other movie ever made that relies on “science” for plot points or includes “scientist” characters.
The Ugly:
Armageddon
The Core
The occasional super stinker from the SyFy channel, like that one about the black hole eating St. Louis from a few years ago? Ugh!
I plan to write some essays based on a few points in the talk that I’ve been thinking about a lot and want to play up some more. Which will probably be reminiscent of some past posts, but hopefully sharper and more useful.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The Core did contain one of the best lines EVER directed to an obnoxious stuffed-shirt movie scientist type when said character was floundering in a morass of unknowable stuff – another character walked up to him, placed a tender hand on his shoulder, and said in a gentle placating voice, “Repeat after me: I – DON’T – KNOW…”
And while we’re on the subject, how about various volcano movies which rely more on a nice lead macho man and a damsel in distress than they EVER do on the actual science of, you know, volcanic eruptions…? Eh, hey, lava happens, everybody dies. What? It’s ENTERTAINMENT…
I am glad to see that you included October Sky. It usually gets put in the late ’50’s nostalgia catagory. I totally agree with your ugly catagory.
Destination Moon is available at Youtube. Its an official upload (only one 1:30 hour video) thus you legality guys who avoid pirated stuff on Youtube dont need to worry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsisGSBlQqo&ob=av1e
worth noting its based on a Heinlen novel.
On the “ugly” or rather beautiful but still unrealistic the atomic physicist in “The World Is Not Enough”. Denise Richards is hot to be a physicist.
I’d add “2012” to the Ugly batch. Egads, that was horrible!
Could only make it halfway through.
[…] 10 Science-based movies that won’t insult you’re intelligence. @ Mike Brotherton […]
Ah, cool, about Destination Moon! I bought the DVD a few years back, but not everyone else did. Parts are really corny and badly acted, but there’s a lot of interesting things, too.
I haven’t seen the Volcano movies, 2012, or The World is Not Enough. Sounds like I should keep them at low priority!
I always thought Gattaga was pretty good.
I kind of like Gattaca myself, but didn’t include it for these reasons. See this website:
http://sciencefictionbiology.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-better-science-movie-gattaca-or.html
Basically, it shows science as a scary tool. Also, the astronomy part of it was kind of dumb — astronauts are chosen by the infrequency of keystroke mistakes?