The sentence is:

This is not some science fiction movie come to life.

Is this sentence grammatically right? If this sentence is right, please tell me what the grammatical rule about the word come is, why does it use form come rather than the others like to come.

Thanks in advance!

  • 7
    "Come to life" is a past-participial clause modifying "movie", It has the same meaning as the relative clause "that has come to life".
    – BillJ
    Mar 11, 2020 at 14:35

3 Answers 3


The verb come has an irregular past participle, which is also come. It is being used in your example as a past participle.


"come to life" refers to: "to make something more real or exciting, or to become more real or exciting."

"Come to life" is an idiom, which is "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g. over the moon, see the light )."

The sentence is grammatically correct and you can think about it as a short version of: "This is not some science fiction movie that has come to life."

  • 5
    Arguably we should understand it not as “…that has come to life” but rather as “…that is come to life”. This ‘deponent’ usage of the participle is archaic, surviving in only a few such constructions. Mar 12, 2020 at 6:06

As an English person, this feels like US parlance (though we probably use the expression these days as well); especially with the "some noun" before it. It is valid, grammatically speaking.

You can think of it a bit like this:

this is not some science fiction movie that has just come to life

or, probably in the given context:

this is not some science fiction movie that has just come to life [apropos of nothing]

hope that helps!

  • 1
    As a British English speaker in his 60s, the only thing that sounds American to me is the use of "movie" (BrE usage would be "film"). Mar 13, 2020 at 11:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .