Redux: Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Review #126: Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Cast: 

Richard Dreyfuss (Roy Neary), Teri Garr (Ronnie Neary), Melinda Dillon (Jillian Guiler), François Truffaut (Claude Lacombe), Bob Balaban (David Laughlin), J. Patrick McNamara (Project Leader), Warren Kemmerling (Major “Wild Bill” Walsh), Roberts Blossom (Farmer), Philip Dodds (Jean Claude), and Cary Guffey (Barry Guiler) Directed by Steven Spielberg.

Review: 

“People are always looking for – I don’t know what you’d call it – I guess, the cosmic entertainment. More than the meteorological explanation. From the behavioral science point of view, I was just as interested in finding out why people looked to the skies, and want to believe, as I was in looking to the skies myself, to try to understand what’s happening up there, that the Air Force and the Government don’t want to tell us about.”

The 1970s were a hell of a time to make movies. Steven Spielberg became a major director during this time because of numerous features that he made, whether that involved television films such as Duel (1971) or his film debut with The Sugarland Express (1974), or more specifically, the big blockbuster Jaws (1975). Close Encounters of the Third Kind went from a development deal first done in 1973 to release in 1977, one with a script entirely written by himself that was inspired by a variety of factors, at least when it arose from script hell. The original idea was to have a script done by Paul Schrader, but troubles with the script led to re-writes by John Hill (each of which involved a cop as the lead) before Spielberg took over himself. David Giler, Jerry Belson, Hal Barwood, and Matthew Robbins all made suggestions or script doctoring, although only Spielberg is credited on the final script. One inspiration was Spielberg and his father seeing meteor showers, but one also has to consider Spielberg's previous 1964 film Firelight, which he wrote and directed as a 17-year-old living in Phoenix, Arizona. That film (not available to the public) dealt with an investigation of a series of colored lights in the sky that saw people disappear. Lastly, the song "When You Wish Upon a Star" also proved inspiration in the writing. His next film would come out two years later with 1941, the war ensemble comedy flop. There are numerous versions of the film, owing to how post-production was handled between Spielberg and Columbia Pictures. The film was rushed into finishing by the studio for a release on November 16, 1977, while Spielberg would've liked to release it the summer of next year. They made a deal together after its success that would see him re-edit the film how he wanted, provided that he include a sequence that showed the interior of the mothership. Spielberg regretted the sequence, which was first seen in 1980 as a "Special Edition" that apparently added a few sequences involving Dreyfuss and his character in the family time before his close encounter. A third edition labeled the "Collector's Edition" is basically the same re-edit but without the mothership sequence. Incidentally, Devils Tower, which had a couple of scenes filmed on location (minus the airstrip that was filmed on a disused airbase in Alabama), has a showing of the film on a nightly basis. Incidentally, Columbia Pictures tried to force a sequel, and Spielberg did conceive an idea called Night Skies on the off-hand chance they tried to make a film without him, which even saw John Sayles serve as a consultant for what would have been done after Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) that would've been about aliens terrorizing a family. The script did not go too far, save for one thing: an alien being depicted as befriending one of the terrorized people as a benevolent creature to someone living in a broken home eventually spiraled into E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982).

I wonder what was in my thought process when watching this movie all those years ago, since the only time I remember watching the film was in April of 2012, although being the first film that I wrote a review (brief as it was) after the passing of my dad. Maybe I dug the special effects, for which Douglas Trumbull was the visual effects supervisor while Carlo Rambaldi designed the extraterrestrials. Or maybe it was John Williams and his music score that got to me more than anything. Looking back, the movie is good, but it was not nearly as good as I imagined it was, although one can certainly see the appealing qualities in the 45 years that have passed since its release beyond the visually arresting imagination seen in plenty of Spielberg movies. It is the visual images that come from the movie that create the lasting impression of the film in awe, whether that involves a kid being distraught after seeing a fatherly meltdown involving mashed potatoes or the abduction of a little kid or the very first time that we see the alien lights. The scope of the film is quite involving, with effects that mostly back this vision up (I can see where Spielberg would think that digital effects of now might supercede what is seen here, but hey, effects made by human hands and tenacity work fine when it is executed well).

These are the actors that were presented the chance to play the main role before Dreyfuss and his lobbying paid off: Steve McQueen (said no because he couldn't cry on cue), Dustin Hoffman, and Gene Hackman, and Jack Nicholson. Truffaut, as you probably know, was a famous French director. Spielberg wanted him for this role from the first moment of casting, although he apparently put it off until the last minute (incidentally, he appeared in four feature films as an actor, but this was the only one where he was not the director). Dreyfuss is technically the best part of the film when it comes to the acting, although I would argue that Dillon holds just as much weight despite less than half of the screentime. As much I despise the character in the long run, he does play it with conviction to where one does have the semblance of sympathy of seeing an obsession drive a family man into a curious place where imagination is only half the story. Garr isn't given too much to really do besides being the skeptic (i.e., a level-headed person that has to be shown as a foil because the movie doesn't have an answer) with worry and fears. Dillon is the one to appreciate in panic, one that we are always on the side on in the pained parental fear held most: a missing child. I almost think that the film might have worked better with her on the mount rather than Dreyfuss, but you have to remember that the character is distinctly one that reflects the director in his curiosity more than anything.

It is the ending that doesn't quite bring things together to a great finish. Not to beat a dead horse, but the fact that a character like Roy decides to just galivant across the galaxy is a bit weird when you remember that most of the film saw him try to raise two kids with his wife. Regardless of how the film presents the family, it just comes off as a bit too selfish to really work as an ending in the way that I'm sure Spielberg wanted. In fact, Spielberg has been quoted as saying that he wouldn't have made the film the way it was after he started his own family, as he had a "privilege of youth" when making the original film (Dreyfuss has stated in recent years that any idea of the ending being different if Spielberg was a family man to be "nonsense"). I felt that the story between Dillon's character and the desperation and obsession she has over the alien encounter is far more interesting to consider than deadbeat Roy tearing down his whole life on Earth, unless one is meant to take it as the tragedy that it sounds like. But this is a movie where the way to deal with a massive spaceship is to trade musical notes. As a whole, the movie kind of just ends with parts that seem more like possibilities for further curiosity rather than a complete story such as missing men from long ago brought back to Earth, or the idea of just how one reacts to seeing their son get snatched and get returned to them. As a whole, the movie has endured for the imagination it inspires within the unknown with mostly skillful execution, one that is at least a contender for the first tier of interesting sci-fi movies of the past 50 years and a worthy effort from a soon legendary director. It inspires a curiosity in the exploration of what lies beneath knowing that one is not alone in this world beyond the people inhabiting the Earth, which is crisply presented in a solid enough manner by Spielberg and company.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

On Sunday: Turkey Week III, a collection of "turkey" movies from November 20th until November 26th.

Altered States.

Review #1754: Altered States.

Cast: 

William Hurt (Dr. Eddie Jessup), Blair Brown (Emily Jessup), Bob Balaban (Arthur Rosenberg), Charles Haid (Mason Parrish), Thaao Penghlis (Eduardo Echeverria), Drew Barrymore (Margaret Jessup), Megan Jeffers (Grace Jessup), Dori Brenner (Sylvia Rosenberg), Peter Brandon (Alan Hobart), George Gaynes (Dr. Wissenschaft), and Jack Murdock (Hector Orteco) Directed by Ken Russell (#687 - Tommy)

Review: 

Well, as the saying goes...sometimes you just have to see it to believe it. This seems doubly true when looking at the output that came from the divergent creation of its director in Ken Russell and its writer in Paddy Chayefsky. But let us get back to the beginning, specifically in 1978. By this point in time, he was a screenwriter that had won three Academy Awards for his screenplays (Marty (1955), The Hospital (1971), Network (1976)). He had his inspiration to write a novel from a conversation he had with his friends Bob Fosse and Herb Gardner, who apparently wanted to make a monster movie in the guise of reality because King Kong (1976) was being made at the time. A three-page treatment eventually turned into a novel, with research being inspired by the work of John C. Lilly, best known for his work within isolation tanks (his work with dolphins inspired the book and su subsequent film The Day of the Dolphin (1973), incidentally). The book was a fair seller, and so it originally fell to Columbia Pictures (later Warner Bros. because of the rising budget) to try and make a film, with Arthur Penn tapped to direct. However, disagreements with Chayefsky led to him leaving the project. Apparently, when it finally came time for ask Russell, he was the 27th choice to be approached. He was picked because of his visual approach (remember that while he was the director of acclaimed films like Tommy (1975) and Women in Love (1969), he was also known for controversial works like The Devils (1971) and failures like Valentino (1977)). Keep in mind that Russell would have to film the script as written, since Chayefsky had full control. It would not go well. 

It was the last script from Chayefsky to be produced, as he died from a heart attack the following year at the age of 58, and he would be credited as "Sidney Aaron" (referring to his actual first and middle names). Russell would obviously defend the film from Chayefsky and his criticisms, stating that he had done "great justice" to the script without many modification, albeit without shooting or lighting the film the way he wanted; as quoted by Russell, "He would make suggestions, and I would listen courteously, and then disagree." (the producer of the film stated that Russell was fair with Chayefsky until filming began, while Russell related an experience of said producer asking the writer how he spelled "benign" and received "W.I.C.K.E.D" as a response). In other words, when you combine two highly-opinionated people who like to tell a story with their vision...you get something like this. The film made $19 million on a $14 million budget, although it would take Russell four years for his next project (for which he would remain busy as he had done in the previous decade).

The one horror (or science fiction, one would argue) work that Altered States seems to draw upon the most would be The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; you might consider it more sci-fi than horror, but screw it, this is a movie about a guy who looks for the true self that ends up turning into a creature and all sorts of things that could result losing all of oneself, that seems suitably fair for horror. Of course, the funny thing is that one can see both sides of the argument for how the material was handled because of how much of a curiosity it ultimately proves to be in its off-kilter execution of trying to find the scope of man within interesting imagery (as done by Bran Ferren) and a particular way of handling dialogue (which with a different acting style could have really reached further pretentiousness). Curious folks might wonder how this falls even slightly into horror when the dialogue wants to go a row over the nature of just what man is or something like that, complete with imagery that harkens to what one might see in a trip with certain substances...then a caveman comes into the picture to go with primordial goop. Heightened performances from a handful of the folks present only goes to show that sometimes one really can make a weird studio movie and get away with it, particularly with all the discussion that comes from trying to reach some sort of ecstasy. Trust me, you have to go with what you hear, no matter how weirdly laced it all seems. With 103 minutes to use, Russell handles the material that comes from having to strive for semi-serious sci-fi mumbo jumbo laced with "trip" material likely the best way one could have done, provoking interest more than stone-cold confusion (one can respect the writer for his contribution to screenwriting while also trying to hold back terming it as massively esoteric). It should be mentioned that this was the feature film debut of Hurt, who actually handles the material fairly well, all things considered. It could have been one of those roles that could have made for amusement on the weirdo joke circuit (imagery or not), but he keeps things right where they need to be in terms of confidence that makes this pursuit go right. Brown does fair here, possessed with material that would have become hammy with less matched folks or perhaps folks who like to watch weirdo imagery to go with pseudo-legit lines about love and the human experience. Balaban is fairly casual with what is seen here, but I find more interest with Haid and his approach to hearing such weird material as the semi-skeptic (at least in terms of someone who isn't on the magic mushroom train). The ending will certainly hit differently depending on the perspective of the one who watches it, if only because it has to stick to Chayefsky's intent of making (in overall sense) a love story. Whether it accomplishes that in a climax with a bunch of (not nearly as timeless) effects is up to you to go with; I shook my hands and went with it, if only because the only other conclusion would have been too darkly amusing to contemplate actually seeing on screen. As a whole, the movie balances the tightrope between passable mumbo jumbo scifi horror and wacko mumbo jumbo scifi horror, but it is at least always watchable when it needs to be, serving as a strange concoction of vision and heightened tone that you won't quite forget for quite a while.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Ring Two.

Isle of Dogs.

Review #1582: Isle of Dogs.

Cast:

Bryan Cranston (Chief), Koyu Rankin (Atari Kobayashi), Edward Norton (Rex), Liev Schreiber (Spots), Bill Murray (Boss), Bob Balaban (King), Jeff Goldblum (Duke), Scarlett Johansson (Nutmeg), Kunichi Nomura (Mayor Kenji Kobayashi), Tilda Swinton (Oracle), Ken Watanabe (Head Surgeon), Akira Ito (Professor Watanabe), Greta Gerwig (Tracy Walker), Akira Takayama (Major Domo), Frances McDormand (Interpreter Nelson), F. Murray Abraham (Jupiter), Courtney B. Vance (The Narrator), Yojiro Noda (News Anchor), Fisher Stevens (Scrap), Mari Natsuki (Auntie), Nijiro Murakami (Editor Hiroshi), Yoko Ono (Assistant Scientist Yoko Ono), Harvey Keitel (Gondo), and Frank Wood (Simul-Translate Machine) Directed by Wes Anderson (#1553 - Fantastic Mr. Fox)

Review:

"Jason, Roman, and I started this project with wanting to do a movie about some dogs abandoned on a garbage dump, a pack of dogs who live on garbage. But we had also been talking about wanting to do something in Japan, about Japan, something related to our shared love of Japanese cinema, especially Kurosawa. The story could have taken place anywhere, but it came together when we realized it should take place in a fantasy version of Japan.”

It is not often that a director known for live-action work makes a bon-a-fide classic on their first venture into animation, particularly with stop motion, so undeniably there was anticipation to cover another Wes Anderson film, with this serving as his second in stop motion. For all the information one could say about him or his films, it was certainly still interesting to hear him once state his top three filmmaker influences as Francois Truffaut, Orson Welles, and Bill Melendez. Oh sure, there are likely others that Anderson has also stated an influence, but it is the fact that he wanted to make a self-contained world like those Peanuts specials (stating this once during an interview about Rushmore) that Melendez (who in addition to directing was also a producer/voice actor and animator for over 60 years) helped to make over numerous decades that will undeniably stick with how one could see Anderson's films as a whole. He is an eccentric director with his own visual and narrative style that balance comedy and drama in their own distinct way.

The film was written by Anderson, Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman and Kunichi Nomura. It takes inspiration from the films of Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, as well as the stop-motion animated holiday specials made by Rankin/Bass Productions, with the fur here being made from alpaca wool (there were other inspirations in terms of dog-centric films like 101 Dalmatians and The Plague Dogs). There will be quite a few references to look upon in interest, such as name-drop references to Seven Samurai (1954) alongside a selection of music that mixes songs from Japanese cinema alongside work from Alexandre Desplat as composer. Is it as great as his previous animated work? Not quite, but it sure is a welcome treat regardless, one that proves interesting as a standout piece for its decade. There is quite a fascination to be had with a film that makes an interesting atmosphere come across with flourish and respect for establishing what needs to come across with a dystopian setting of a futuristic Japan. It relies on deadpan humor that makes for clever moments without needing a heavy nudge, relying on casual conversation between its group of main voices / supporting voices that show up, while the nature of language also helps in some interesting subversion (having both English and Japanese with certain moments of translation) that makes a useful 111 minute adventure. There is quite a diverse amount of voices to hear sprinkled through the film, ranging from Anderson regulars like Murray, Goldblum, Norton, and Swinton to go alongside new ones like Cranston and Gerwig. Cranston (familiar for his roles on television such as starring on Breaking Bad) proves quite well here, engaging with careful tenor that leads the way in gruff charm. Rankin does fine with a performance (primarily in Japanese) with wistful curiosity for what is needed here (mainly acting alongside a voice pack of dogs). Schreiber is warm in parts in terms of snappy devotion. The meat of the film is split between them alongside the group of Norton, Murray, Balaban, Goldblum, who make for an interesting group to exchange a few amusing lines together in casual warm conversation. Johansson shows up for basically three scenes and does alright with use towards small cute moments with Cranston. Nomura proves a worthy focus on the mainland storyline, while Gerwig (actress-turned-director) shows some pep to go against that. Others have brief lines in highlights, such as with Abraham, Swinton, Ito, or translators with McDormand and Vance (alongside ones to listen closely to hear, like with musician Ono, Stevens, or Keitel). As a whole, I found it to be mostly successful in maintaining balance of charm and humor with a mostly-put together story that will at the very least make a viewer go home happy by its ending without decrying artificiality. Whether a dog-lover or not, it will prove a useful experience for its variable amount of audience reach, working just as well for children or adults without seeming too much in its visual and story language.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Monuments Men.

Review #851: The Monuments Men.

Cast:
George Clooney (Lt. Frank Stokes), Matt Damon (Lt. James Granger), Bill Murray (Sgt. Richard Campbell), John Goodman (Sgt. Walter Garfield), Jean Dujardin (2nd Lt. Jean-Claude Clermont), Bob Balaban (Pvt. Preston Savitz), Hugh Bonneville (2nd Lt. Donald Jeffries), Cate Blanchett (Claire Simone), Serge Hazanavicius (René Armand), Sam Hazeldine (Colonel Langton), and Dimitri Leonidas (Pvt. Sam Epstein) Directed by George Clooney.

Review:
Don't worry, the next review will be something in horror. This one just happened to come up.
It's clear that Clooney (who also wrote and produced the movie along with Grant Heslov) wanted to make a good movie about a real life event (while based on the book "The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History" by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter), with a fairly established cast and a fair budget of $70 million. The end result however comes off as just an average kind of production that really seems lacking in its own kind of personality. The light-hearted barbs throughout the movie are good, but there really isn't much to these characters that you wouldn't see in any other corny kind of work. It's not so much that these characters are uninteresting, it's that the actors (such as Murray) can only stretch it as far as the script wants them to go (with the set up for these characters also being a problem). Clooney is vaguely there as a main character, with only the end scene being noteworthy, in showing some sort of emotion. Damon is only interesting when paired with Blanchett, but it doesn't go anywhere unexpected. Murray and Balaban are fine, but I still wish there was something to the background of even just one of these characters. Even taking into account some of the historical quibbles, it's not really anything that entirely special. The movie is just a bit under two hours, but it feels so long to the point where I was wondering when it actually will get to to some sort of action. It's not that the movie would've been better with more war action, it's that the movie takes its time to actually get to searching for the art. While I admit that I didn't hate the experience of watching it, I kept feeling that reading a book or documentary based on the real life Monuments Men would've been a bit more substantial. The movie does have wonderful scenery, but it is wasted in a movie that really seems to go nowhere other than just through some vague sort of motions. If you're looking for a movie to watch late at night to sleep on or watching it for an Art class (like I did), I suppose it could work on some level for you, but you might be better off researching the subject matter instead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 2010.

Review #233: 2010.

Cast
Roy Scheider (Heywood Floyd), John Lithgow (Dr. Walter Curnow), Helen Mirren (Tanya Kirbuk), Bob Balaban (Dr. Chandra), Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman), and Douglas Rain (HAL 9000) Directed by Peter Hyams.

Review
It has been a while since I have discussed 2001: A Space Odyssey. So let me give a little discussion here. It's one of those films to describe it a few words: Grand. Special. Thought-provoking. Epic in scale. Effects-galore. Classic. As for 2010, what would the be the words to describe it? I'll say that later, but anyway, the film is an adaptation of the novel 2010: Odyssey Two, which was a continuation of the movie (It's weird saying this...) The performances are alright, conveying well. Dullea and Rain return, 16 years after 2001 to reprise their performances here, which works out well. While it isn't as thought provoking as 2001, it does has enough flares of thrill and skill (and strangely recounting the events of the first one) to make you watch it on its own without much stigma. Now then, what would I describe this film in a few words? Decent-looking. Some interest. Decent. 1984 (literally). And there we go.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.