For the past few years, as I've been teaching honors freshman mechanics, I've tried to work in at least one homework problem based on a popular sci-fi movie. Broadening that definition to include the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I've done Iron Man, Captain America, the Avengers. Yesterday I saw Guardians of the Galaxy, and I've got a problem in mind already.
I've been asked before, does being a physicist just ruin science fiction books and movies for me? Does bad physics in movies or sci-fi books annoy me since I can't not see it? Generally, the answer is "no". I don't expect Star Trek or Star Wars to be a documentary, and I completely understand why bending physics rules can make a story more fun. Iron Man would be a lot less entertaining if Tony Stark couldn't build an arc reactor with enough storage capacity and power density to fly long distances. Trips through outer space that require years of narrative time just to get to Jupiter are less fun than superluminal travel. If anything, I think well-done science fiction can be creatively inspiring.
One thing that does bug me is internally inconsistent bad physics or bad science. For example, in the book Prey by Michael Crichton, it's established early on that any tiny breach in a window, etc. is enough for the malevolent nanocritters to get in, yet at the climax of the book the author miraculously forgets this (because if he'd remembered it the protagonist would've died). Another thing that gets me is trivially avoidable science mistakes. For example, in a Star Trek:TNG episode (I looked it up - it was this one), they quote a surface temperature less than absolute zero. I'm happy to serve as a Hollywood science advisor to avoid these problems :-)