Another Earth is what I would call "fake sci-fi". The other Earth in the movie has almost no impact whatsoever on the story. It doesn't affect anything, the characters don't really react to it in any way, and the movie ends before anything actually happens.
It's actually a pretty decent movie, but it's a drama, not sci-fi. It uses "science" purely as an aesthetic device without actually exploring any scientific effects. If the film didn't have the other Earth in the sky the script would be identical. It would just be forgettable indie drama instead of on people's great sci-fi lists.
> It's actually a pretty decent movie, but it's a drama, not sci-fi. It uses "science" purely as an aesthetic device without actually exploring any scientific effects.
Fair assessment, but I beg to differ on your definition of "sci-fi"; I find it quite restrictive. You can say the same for Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles". Mars might as well be Narnia as he just uses the notion of it being an alien planet to set-up tension and make a point about human behavior. It's more philosophical/psychological than scientific but I'd still call it sci-fi.
I guess you are entitled to expect a harder integration of science from a 2011 sci-fi film but I think "Another Earth" definitely takes from established, if outdated, cues in the genre.
But potaytos and potahtos. We can differ in opinion.
It's actually a pretty decent movie, but it's a drama, not sci-fi. It uses "science" purely as an aesthetic device without actually exploring any scientific effects. If the film didn't have the other Earth in the sky the script would be identical. It would just be forgettable indie drama instead of on people's great sci-fi lists.