|
Post by Ganymede on Apr 6, 2002 13:27:48 GMT -5
I never really understood why ET was such a great movie. I mean, it was good, but it didn't seem as great as everyone said it was.
Then again, I haven't seen it in years. Also, it isn't a childhood favorite. I first saw it when I was a teenager.
What do you think? (Please feel free to prove me wrong! Believe me, I wish I liked it as much as everyone else.)
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 6, 2002 16:15:31 GMT -5
In all fairness, I haven't seen it since I was a wee-little one, but I saw it in the theatre numerous times back then. I think the magic of ET is largely the sentimental memories we have of it. Most of us grew up on it, and so we think highly of it. Critics have often called it Spielberg's kiddie version of Close Encounters, and they may be right. I remember this was a time period in which the film companies were cashing in on family movies that baby-boomer parents were taking their kids to see. Close Encounters attracted a narrow range of sci-fi loving theatre-goers. ET got most kids in America, plus at least one parent. Not bad.
|
|
|
Post by nolablue on Apr 9, 2002 15:49:13 GMT -5
That's the second time I've seen someone protest the legend of ET. Good-o. Roger Ebert has it on his list of 'great movies', right up there with Some Like It Hot and Citizen Kane. About.com's guide to SciFi absolutely hated it. (Then again she was also a teenager when it first came out.) I don't think much of it, myself. I can remember first seeing it when I was 8, and being irritated with it even then. Spielburg, though a great director, tends towards the maudlin, and I suspect if he thinks inserting soaring music will make us cry, he'll insert the music, whether or not the scene merits it. I tend to get annoyed with movies that I feel are unfairly playing with my emotions (I've been known to throw things at the TV during viewings of certain Disney movies), and ET annoyed me.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 11, 2002 17:11:42 GMT -5
I tend to get annoyed with movies that I feel are unfairly playing with my emotions Ditto! This is why I've set certain standards for films I see. They go as follows: 1. Never see a potentially moving film starring John Travolta or Meg Ryan 2. Never see a film that plays Enya in the coming attraction (I love Enya, but it's a bad sign) 3. Avoid non-animated fims made by Disney 4. Avoid films with trailers that contain the phrase "In a world..." and aren't sci-fi/fantasy 5. if Oprah loved it, you won't Those five simple rules tend to keep me a safe distance from over sentimentalized films. I'm all for crying during a film, but not when the film is blatantly expecting it.
|
|
|
Post by nolablue on Apr 12, 2002 8:31:46 GMT -5
I quite agree on all those points. Though I would say the move 'Restoration' could be an exception to the Meg Ryan rule She has a supporting role as a STARK RAVING INSANE Iriswoman in England during the Plague and Great London Fire, and I think she does quite a good job. The movie definitely gets overly sentimental at points (ooo, let's cure the victims of the Plague by letting sunlight in and making them smile!), but...but...Charles II!!!! And those crazy costumes doctors wore during the Plague that made them look like big leather birds!!!! And Quakers! And spaniels, oh my!
|
|
N.N.W
Money Lender
Posts: 35
|
Post by N.N.W on May 29, 2002 8:59:11 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300] Does anyone else find Spielberg overrated...? Jaws was fantastic, so was Close encounters... but since then... [/glow]
|
|
N.N.W
Money Lender
Posts: 35
|
Post by N.N.W on May 29, 2002 9:01:36 GMT -5
I quite agree on all those points. Though I would say the move 'Restoration' could be an exception to the Meg Ryan rule She has a supporting role as a STARK RAVING INSANE Iriswoman in England during the Plague and Great London Fire, and I think she does quite a good job. The movie definitely gets overly sentimental at points (ooo, let's cure the victims of the Plague by letting sunlight in and making them smile!), but...but...Charles II!!!! And those crazy costumes doctors wore during the Plague that made them look like big leather birds!!!! And Quakers! And spaniels, oh my! [glow=red,2,300] She was working with a stirling cast... I think she just rose to the standard... [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 29, 2002 9:03:42 GMT -5
I would have agreed with you until I saw A.I., which is one of the most surpisingly amazing films I've seen in my life. I suppose you could credit Kubrick for much of that, but Speilberg is the one who put it on film. I do agree that anything he puts out becomes an instant classic though. No one deserves that sort of acclaim, especially when much of their success is based upon high budget special effects instead of story, acting, and directing.
|
|
N.N.W
Money Lender
Posts: 35
|
Post by N.N.W on May 29, 2002 9:42:28 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300] I haven't seen it, but I'd credit most of it to Kubrick - he's consistantly fantastic! [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 4, 2002 11:11:17 GMT -5
I would have thought so too, but I've done more research on the film since my last post in this topic, and have discovered that Speilberg and his team were responsible for writing roughly two thirds of the film. Kubrick had simply purchased the rights to a short story with which he had no idea what to do. Speilberg made a strong effort to give the film a very Kubrick feel though, and I think that's where the film succeeded. If you go see Minority Report (good, but nowhere near as good), you'll see Speilberg doing a lot of borrowing from Kubrick there, as well. Again, it becomes the strength of the film. Speilberg will never be Kubrick, but Kubrick had his own failings, as well. Perhaps, if Speilberg continues using Kubrick as a source of inspiration in his films, we'll get an amalgam that's stronger than either of the individual directors originally were.
|
|