The Most Overrated '90s Sci-Fi Movies

Science fiction is one of the biggest genres in Hollywood, where they regularly pump out wildly successful, critically acclaimed movies. From sweeping epics like "Dune" to blockbusters like "Guardians of the Galaxy" and thoughtful dramas like "Everything Everywhere All at Once," everyone loves a good sci-fi story. But back in the 1990s, these films were still a bit more niche, and many of the biggest from that decade doubled as action movies, becoming hits with big-budget spectacle and alien invasion stories.

Over the years, some of the most beloved science fiction movies of the '90s have gone on to become all-time classics, while films that didn't strike it rich initially went on to become cult classics thanks to the rise of DVD and streaming in the years since their release. But how many of them truly live up to their reputations? You might be surprised that some of the so-called "best" sci-fi flicks of the '90s aren't all they are cracked up to be. Some are surprisingly bad, while others just don't quite deserve their reputation as the cream of the crop.

When reviewers roast "Starship Troopers," it's usually because they don't understand that the movie's a satire. But we get it: "Starship Troopers" — in one of the biggest differences from the book – is a blatant rebuke of unchecked military power and authoritarian governments who use the fear of outsiders to control and manipulate their citizenry. And as a satire, the movie totally works! The problem is, not much else does.

Sure, the action and FX are solid, mixing advanced robotics and puppetry with early CGI to deliver some fun space marine action. But the film's story is flimsy at best; the characters are always making nonsensical decisions; the three-way love triangle is head-scratching; and the characters are paper-thin cardboard cutouts. While some of that may have been intentional, it doesn't change the fact that, outside of the satire and a few decent action sequences, there's not a lot of quality here. The cast is filled with also-rans and never-weres like Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Jake Busey, and Denise Richardson, while the more talented cast members (Neil Patrick Harris, Michael Ironside, and Clancy Brown, for example) all turn in unremarkable performances.

Over the years, "Starship Troopers" has become a favorite for its political allegory. But in reality, it's little more than a big-budget B-movie, and not a good one at that.

After rattling off a pair of first-rate action movies in "Bad Boys" and "The Rock," director Michael Bay returned to theaters in 1998 with "Armageddon," a sci-fi action movie that sent a group of deep-core drilling experts into outer space to destroy an asteroid headed for Earth. The cast was led by Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, and Liv Tyler, and thanks to plenty of over-the-top action and big-budget spectacle, "Armageddon" became one of the highest-grossing movies of the '90s. But if anyone tells you it's actually a good movie, don't even bother responding — turn around and walk the other way.

The groan-worthy script is really the biggest issue with "Armageddon," as characters behave more like the cast of a Saturday morning cartoon than real people. Those three top-billed cast members, meanwhile, aren't exactly known for giving powerhouse performances, and with Bay behind the camera — rather than someone like Quentin Tarantino, or even Affleck — what they offer is some of the worst, most wooden performances of their respective careers.

In the end, it's not the preposterousness of the story that's the problem, but with so little else to keep you engaged, it's hard to overlook the incredible leaps of logic, cringey dialogue, and nonsensical plot beats. Is it entertaining if you shut off your brain? Maybe. Is it a good movie? No, and it was the first glimpse of the kind of vapid extravaganzas that Bay has since become famous for.

Released in 1995, the sci-fi horror movie "Species" was billed as a spiritual successor to the "Alien" franchise mostly thanks to the participation of creature designer H.R. Geiger. The man responsible for the iconic Xenomorph in Ridley Scott's 1979 classic, Geiger created a new, somewhat similar alien for "Species." Called "Sil," this alien can metamorphose into a seductive temptress who sucks the life from unsuspecting male victims.

With an impressive cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina, Forest Whitaker, and a young Michelle Williams, "Species" has a lot going for it — on paper. The dilemma, though, is that the story leaves a lot to be desired. Characters make strange choices and it's often slow and boring, so much of the movie's appeal relies heavily on the drop-dead good looks of model-turned-actress Natasha Henstridge — and a heck of a lot of nudity.

For those reasons, it was a hit, and while it never got great reviews, it was seen for years as a solid successor to the legacy of "Alien." But Henstridge never became a full-fledged movie star, so she's not a reason to watch it now, and with so many movies doing a better job at this kind of story in the years since "Species" was unleashed, looking back on it today reveals little more than a thinly-plotted movie that sometimes borders on softcore porn.

In the summer of 1996, there were two movies competing for the crown of best alien invasion flick: "Independence Day" and "Mars Attacks!." The latter ended up with the short straw, as the Tim Burton-directed sci-fi comedy was a disappointment at the box office despite boasting a sprawling all-star cast that included some of Hollywood's biggest names, including Glenn Close, Danny DeVito, Pierce Brosnan, Michael J. Fox, and Jack Nicholson (twice!). Since its release, the film has gained a reputation as a cult classic that deserved better and is often cited as one of the best sci-fi satires ever made. But we should probably go back to our original assessment: "Mars Attacks!" is just plain bad.

Sure, you can appreciate Burton's decision to make the film a slapstick homage to 1950s sci-fi. As one of many movies based on unusual things, there's some validity to the approach, but it's a strange choice for a summer blockbuster. And while the cast is clearly having a lot of fun, that fun comes at the expense of a good movie. The acting is intentionally goofy, but that doesn't mean it works. The story is a mess, the characters are worse, and by the end, you'll realize it's just one long joke with a single, weak punchline.

There are some undeniably memorable moments in the film, and if you're just looking for a 90-minute diversion, you could certainly do worse. But it might be Burton's worst movie, missing the heart and soul of his best while delivering little more than non-laughs and bad wigs.

There was a time when "The Fifth Element" was considered one of the '90s most underrated sci-fi films. Starring Bruce Willis and directed by Luc Besson, it's certainly one of the weirder movies from the decade, a box office success that turned the nearly-naked Milla Jovovich into a bonafide Hollywood starlet. But while the film has since become a favorite of '90s "best-of" lists, it doesn't quite earn its title as a best of anything.

To be clear, we're not saying "The Fifth Element" is a bad movie, but its reputation as a beloved favorite of moviegoers mostly stems from how off-kilter it is. An unconventional story with quirky characters that feels incredibly different from anything else while still mixing in familiar sci-fi elements, the movie is best when seen through that lens, because when it's deconstructed, it's merely a compelling story executed in a weird way. The acting — even from more talented and experienced stars like Ian Holm and Gary Oldman — isn't the best, and the VFX often look downright cheap.

Many may point to the comedic performance of relative newcomer Chris Tucker as the reason the film is a success, but he's just one part of a movie that's fun because it's so different, not because it's good. Strip away the colorful veneer, and what you're left with is a slapstick farce and an average sci-fi flick that's far from deserving of its "all-time classic" moniker.

"The Matrix" is routinely hailed as one of the best sci-fi movies ever, and it's not hyperbole to call it a watershed movie that changed cinema. Its influence is far-reaching, and much of it's reputation is well deserved — but it's still overrated, mostly because of how it's become even more highly regarded in the years since its release.

In 1999, "The Matrix" presented the concept of a simulated reality that forever altered the zeitgeist, adding terms like "red pill" to the lexicon. In reality, though, the concept of simulated realities had been explored in science fiction for decades. Jack Chalker's "Wonderland Gambit" series utilized references to the Lewis Carroll classic years before "The Matrix" was unleashed, while another movie released in 1999, "The Thirteenth Floor," explored a similar situation to the one Neo finds himself in.

The VFX were certainly fresh and creative, but they now seem rather pedestrian. And without all of its groundbreaking elements — elements that mostly seem trite today — what's left is a fairly bog-standard adventure that's more vapid action than sci-fi mind-bender, as the script barely scratches the surface on its deeper themes. While it's definitely a good movie, the franchise's first film doesn't deserve its reputation as one of the best the genre has to offer. Proof positive is how the film's third sequel, "The Matrix Resurrections," takes a more thoughtful approach that does delve into the original's more esoteric concepts. Alas, with VFX and action that was no longer groundbreaking, 2021's audience was left with a cerebral sci-fi story instead of the action blockbuster they were hoping for, leading to a bullet-time backlash from fans.

As with "The Matrix," calling 1990's "Total Recall" overrated is sure to ruffle some feathers. Not only is it one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's best movies, it's also a legitimate sci-fi classic. The film, based on a more cerebral story titled "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" by luminary author Philip K. Dick, has the same pedigree as "Blade Runner" and "Minority Report." But it's also one of many Dick adaptations that simply isn't as good as its reputation would have you believe. Let us explain.

Set in a near future where experiences and memories can be implanted into your brain, the film poses a lot of interesting questions about the nature of reality and what it means to be a person. Are we just the sum of our memories, or are we something more? How can we ever be sure of what reality is, and does it even matter? That's some pretty heady stuff! Unfortunately, most of those issues go unexplored, as the film quickly devolves into '80s-style action, while the story's plot twists distract from the deeper themes at play. Ultimately, "Total Recall" is a solid action film, but one that is wildly overrated as a science fiction movie.

Widely considered one of the best films in the long-running "Star Trek" movie franchise, "Star Trek: First Contact" is consistently rated among the best sci-fi films of the '90s, with a whopping 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. With a high-concept time travel story and a straightforward mission for Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) and the crew of the Enterprise — stop the Borg from assimilating Earth in the past — it's easy to see why fans love it. But step back for a minute, and you notice some glaring problems that take it down a few pegs.

To be clear, nobody is going to claim that "First Contact" is an awful film; on the contrary, it's fun and filled with solid action. Part "Die Hard," part zombie movie, with elements of "Hellraiser" and even a little bit of "Indiana Jones" for good measure, it all works. But ask yourself: Does any of that sound like "Star Trek?" Decades before "Star Trek: Discovery" was excoriated by fans for being too dark and violent, "First Contact" turned the thoughtful, diplomatic Captain Picard into a murderous, John McClane-esque action hero in a grim story that introduces a nearly demon-like new villain, the Borg Queen (Alice Krige).

As an action movie, it's fine, and as a "Star Trek" film, it's acceptable. But while it does have moments of undeniable greatness, the film has been overhyped for decades.

The second of two alien invasion movies to invade theaters during the summer of 1996, "Independence Day" took home the proverbial award for the biggest box office hit of the year. It was instantly beloved by fans of action and sci-fi genres for its story of a race of seemingly genocidal monsters from outer space who bring war to our planet. Rousing action was its biggest strength, while the performances of Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, and Bill Pullman remain memorable in their respective careers, even if they're not considered their best. That cast, along with the movie's top-notch action, however, obscures the fact that it's really not a good movie.

One might argue that a film's action and cast are what make the final product good, but in our eyes, a movie has to have a lot more going for it if it's going to be considered as great as the reputation "Independence Day" enjoys. Those two factors just aren't enough to make up for this film's idiotic story, hammy characters, and plot twists that only seem clever if you're a 14-year-old boy. That was the bulk of the audience, though, so the movie was a big hit and remains loved by an entire generation of kids — kids who grew up wearing rose-colored glasses when reminiscing over what's ultimately a forgettable action movie with some spaceships in it.

The ultimate irony, of course, is that the long-awaited sequel, "Independence Day: Resurgence," isn't any worse than the original. And yet, it's lambasted by the same moviegoers who love the 1996 film. Now send us your angry letters.

When the sci-fi action movie "Demolition Man" was released in 1994, the movie probably wasn't trying to establish itself as the next "Star Trek" or "Blade Runner." It had its tongue firmly planted in its cheek and delivered exactly what was promised: a fast-paced action adventure with a couple of action superstars (Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes) facing off in a utopian near-future. It was a modest hit and got solid if unspectacular reviews, but years later it became a staple of '90s action-movie fans and a genuine cult classic. It shouldn't, however, be recognized as anything more than a decent Saturday afternoon TV movie (which is probably where an entire generation of fans saw it for the first time).

We agree that if you want a cheesy early-'90s action movie with two stars delivering ludicrous performances in even more ridiculous roles, then "Demolition Man" is for you. Like its box office haul, the action is good, if nothing special. There are some fun ideas — like the recent "fast food wars" — but the overall direction and visuals are ultimately flat and uninspired, and the story is kind of mind-numbingly bad when you actually sit down and think about it for more than 30 seconds. But the movie's fast pace and impressive on-screen matchup are an easy distraction that allows one to forget you're really just watching a direct-to-video shrug-fest.

A sci-fi franchise that rarely gets the credit it deserves, "Stargate" might be better known today for its multiple sequels and TV spin-off shows (there are so many, we've put together a guide detailing the correct order to watch the Stargate franchise in). But it all started in 1994 with a blockbuster summer tentpole from Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, the same duo who would later create "Independence Day." And like that later film, "Stargate" — starring Kurt Russell and James Spader — is a simple story built around a high concept. In this case, the discovery of portals on Earth leads to an alien world that reveals our entire evolution may have been influenced by a civilization from across the stars.

Praised for its sci-fi action, strong cast, and clever premise, "Stargate" might be Emmerich and Devlin's best work, but it doesn't mean it's a great movie. For starters, the film never really explores the consequences and complications that would naturally come with the discovery of a portal to an alien world; instead, the movie almost immediately becomes ordinary space marine action schlock. "Stargate," the TV show, did get around to really digging into the fallout from such a discovery, including government action, alien relations, and beyond, but the movie is basically a sizzle reel for the show, and its mindless action — though good — is never truly spectacular. In the end, we have to be honest here: the best thing about "Stargate" is that it spawned a series of far better TV shows.

The feature-length directorial debut for David Fincher — who had previously helmed dozens of music videos for such iconic artists as Madonna, Aerosmith, and Michael Jackson — "Alien 3" was the long-awaited follow-up to the '80s classic, "Aliens." Though a novice to film at the time, Fincher proved to be a capable successor to James Cameron, and with Sigourney Weaver and Lance Henrickson returning, anticipation was sky-high.

Though the film didn't enjoy great success with professional critics, modern reappraisals have shifted general opinion into positive territory. Often cited as an underrated sci-fi sequel, "Alien 3" has seen a lot of love in recent years, especially in comparison to so many less-than-stellar "Alien" sequels and spinoffs that have been released in the years since its debut. Praise is given to Fincher, who has a keen eye for nail-biting suspense that the previous films lacked. A recut, unrated version that is inarguably much better than the original theatrical cut has also served to improve the film's standing.

Like "Mars Attacks!," though, we'd suggest that the initial negative reaction is the proper one. The so-called 'Assembly Cut' is, for all intents and purposes, a different movie. The theatrical version was and remains a real mess, with wonky SFX that doesn't help it at all. While the film shows flashes of Fincher's brilliance, they're really only fleeting glimpses, as he is, indeed, merely "capable" at this point in his career. All of this adds up to a movie that's all bark and no bite; it's not terrible, but it's certainly not very good, either.