<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Good sci-fi]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Ex Machina</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>Dan_Garten</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 08, 2017 05:20 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">A good story well-told and doesn't get bogged down in action or special effects. It brings up some interesting ideas without being pretentious.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/241519/good-sci-fi</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 00:25:31 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/241519.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 17:37:21 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Good sci-fi on Mon, 04 May 2026 17:37:22 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>bernardinu</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 08, 2017 10:23 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Yeah, I thought so too. Very good on the eye, as well, as in, it looked credible. It wasn't sensationalist or dumbed down, had a good premise. I thought all the actors were exceptional</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2023623</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2023623</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 17:37:22 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>