Okay... I didn't see the movie, but, I have to say those are the worst looking Science Fiction robots ever.

There have been some bad ones in the past. K-9 anyone?

But god, those are just two blocks of metal. How is that thing even supposed to balance?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

But from what I gather that pretty much sums up the whole movie.

Skip the beginning stuff up until the rocket ship takes off, and then stop watching after they fly into the black hole. There's also a bunch of stuff in between there that you could skip, but it's too scattershot.

Really, out of the 2 and a half hour runtime, there's about 40 good minutes, and that's just for the special effects.

I really don't see why so many people liked it. The directing was pretty good, the acting was good, but the script was awful. Mostly, I'm just salty because they were hyping it up as "hard" science fiction, but it wasn't too far removed from Star Trek, really.

Change the last line of that piece to, "Project EXACTO is designed to line the pockets of wealthy defense contractors. Nobody really cares whether it provides a tactical advantage on the battlefield."

Really? What's the per-shot price on these things? Couldn't that money be spent on better training and higher wages for troops so you attract a better quality of personnel in the first place? If the US military spent half what they do on these boondoggle science-fiction experiments on their troops they'd be far more combat capable.

Really liked Animal Kingdom too. Some great recommendations to check out.

Also thought Gone Girl was one of the best of last year.

Bit disappointed by Interstellar. Great setup and first half, but the ending just veered way too far into wacky territory for a movie that was grounded in plausible science fiction.

I think having a conversation about evolution versus creation can be fruitful. As a former lifelong agnostic who has experienced it, I can testify of the brainwashing that goes on the other side of the fence. It starts out early in childhood books and cartoons, then through public education, television, science fiction and movies. You're raised all of your life to believe the secular creation narrative, and your friends and family who believe as you do reinforce this belief. You are self-deceived into thinking your information filter is very large and sophisticated when it is very small and full of personal bias.

That can be why people have an adverse reaction when evolution is called into question. To them it is reality and if you were to remove that cornerstone their idea of the way the world is would come tumbling down with it. If someone doesn't understand their need for Jesus, it is a hard thing to consider accepting.

Inception. A 'science-fiction' film for morons who think Harry Potter might happen.

Automata bothered me that they had their own "Rules of Robotics", but felt like trimming those back to only 2, leaving even wider loopholes for creative drama, but still following it to the same conclusion.
I liked The Machine a bit better because instead of a fictional portrayal on AI finding a way through it's man-made cage, it was about experimenting with an AI that had no cage and seeing what self-discovery brought it.
Ultimately both those films just devolved into meaningless action in the end. I hope this one doesn't. Otherwise the premise looks almost identical to The Machine, right down to the robots name (Eva/Ava, same phonetics).

Lots of interesting science fiction out the last couple years though. Lots seem to be dealing with our infatuation of deconstructing our physical bodies to explore what's left. Between this film, The Machine, Robocop, The Signal, and I'm sure at least one other I'm leaving out, they all have viscerally imagined portrayals of human figures with as little recognizable human traits as possible.

@xxovercastxx I can understand your point, but in terms of unique film making it was head and shoulders above most modern science fiction. I thought he did an amazing job transitioning from a more 'realistic' documentary-style to an action setting, though I would have preferred if it were a bit less of an action flick myself.
I didn't mind the "love" aspect so much simply because, well, it was his wife! If you're own life-partner pushed you away for the insanity of it all, you'd probably pine for her as your only sanctuary as well. But now I'm just making excuses for the whole thing. Overall it wasn't perfect but it was still a shining gem in the genre.
Elysium on the other hand... . guh...

anyone asking a question as dumb as this deserve the stupid answer they get.

Star Wars is fantasy, not science-fiction

I Robot was the first sci-fi novel i ever read and Asimov's Science Fiction was the first magazine I ever subscribed to. Boom.

I love 'Utopia' and I can add the Canadian science-fiction show 'Continuum' to that list, which criticizes the rise of corporations and portrays a dystopian future in which corporations have taken over the government and police force. Season 3 deals with a villainous corporation not so subtly named Sonmanto and also addresses the issue of GMO.

Sounds like you only like fiction, not science-fiction.

Me, I like my science-fiction when they don't cheat and make up silly stuff like a 'selectable' blower. Anyone who knows even a tiny bit about how a roots supercharger works sees those scenes from TRW and groans. The blades of the impellers need to spin because the carburetor is sitting on top of it. No impellers turning, means no air or fuel passing it, means the engine no worky .

That being said, I could see how a Paxton (basically a belt driven turbo) style supercharger could be set up to work, using an electric clutch from a air conditioning pump and some interesting intake plumbing. Instead of the best of both worlds, it's probably the worst of both.

You'd be better off with a variable boost NO2 system.

Now, don't think that I don't know about the 1920s Mercedes engageable roots superchargers, it's just that the one on the Interceptor in the movie isn't that style, and they merely shot the engine starting up when Max "pulled the switch".

German Channel ProSieben - Galileo featured Miroslaw Magola who promotes Telekinesis. Real Magneto, X- Men, Miroslaw Magola's telekinesis is achieved by projecting a portion of his consciousness in the object that he want to move.

Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku : THE FUTURE OF THE MIND: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind.” And his quest to promote: “Telepathy. Telekinesis. Mind reading. Photographing a dream. Uploading memories. Mentally controlled robots.”

Kaku claims all of “these feats” have already been achieved. “These feats, once considered science fiction, have now been achieved in the laboratory, as documented in THE FUTURE OF THE MIND,” Kaku’s website declares.

Kaku notes that his “book goes even further, analyzing when one day we might have a complete map of the brain, or a back up Brain 2.0, which may allow scientists to send consciousness throughout the universe.” Miroslaw Magola alias "Magnetic Man," ( Magnet Mann ) known form Stan Lee's Superhumans - MInd Force who allegedly exhibits telekinetic powers aired on History and Discovery Channel born in Poland and now living in Germany. He claims he can lift objects off the floor, transport them through the air and force them to stick to his body - all using the power of his mind .

He was investigated by Prof. Dr. Dr. Ruhenstroth-­Bauer and Dr. Friedbert Karger of the Max Planck Institute and Dr. David Lewis (psychologist), a neurophysiologist at MindLab, one of the United Kingdom's leading neuro-research centers and Dr. Konstantin Korotkov, professor of Physics at St. Petersburg State Technical University in Russia and Alexander Imich from USA. More [url redacted]

Not that this is even remotely a new idea. I remember reading a science fiction short story several decades ago, where they powers-that-be committed to the idea that the best way to handle terrorists was to make them a laughing stock. They were all to be called "Charlie", and all the news organizations promised to treat them as nothing but incompetent fools.
Sadly, that doesn't appear to be enough info to find the name or author of the story, but it had to date back at least to the 80s, and more likely the 70s or even 60s.