CFE's 100 Science Fiction Film Countdown

I like Equilibrium but I agree with others that it was't as awesome as some people claim.

I do have some major disagreements with your opinions on the film though. You mentioned in one of your previous posts that it's a "ripoff" of Matrix and Fahrenheit 451. I still can't believe that's most people's biggest complaint about this film, that it "rips off Fahrenheit 451 and Orwell's 1984". Throughout time art whether film, literature or music has always had past influences. I still will never understand why people don't apply this to Equilibrium. It's like they hate it so much most other films get the pass but for Equilibrium...nope, it wasn't influenced by those past works, it copied them. :whatever:

Ok, rip-off was maybe the wrong term. But as I said, it was a somewhat dumbed down, spoon fed version of past stories, the mona Lisa scene being the prime example I recall.
It doesn't have enough of it's own going on to stand shoulder to shoulder with 1984.
Second thing. I still don't feel this was a Matrix ripoff at all. I think people say that solely because the stupid quote on the cover saying that it's better than The Matrix. The gun-kata was obvious not something that would actually work in real life but it was fun to watch, but I don't see how that was like The Matrix. In fact I always found it to be more stylish than any gun work in The Matrix films. Don't get me wrong, Matrix had some great wire work and the whole bullet time effect but the gun shootouts were cooler in Equilibrium.

Ok, neither of us can get into Kurt Wimmer's head and know what he was thinking when he came up with the gun-kata. But, if I was a betting man I would lay a bet atht in an alternate reality where the Matrix did not exist, this gun-kata feature would not exist.
I think he took influence from the Matrix, trying to find a new way onscreen of combining martial arts with gunplay, and what he did was make gunplay into a martial art.
The rolling Stones' 'Satanic Majesties Request' doesn't sound like 'Sgt Pepper', but SMR certainly would not have been done that way if SgtP's overiding impact on it's current culture had not happened.
We can only guess, it was just a gut instinct I had watching it, I think a few people would've had it too, hence that quote you are talking about.
The last thing is I am getting tired of people across the internet pulling out the overused and incredibly cliche' line about "hammering it's point home". As said before this movie is obviously inspired by 1984 and Fahrenheight 451, so the fact that they're burning items of art that can trigger emotions isn't out of the ordinary. The scene didn't shove it down our throats, it was a single scene in the film to show how bad and controlled things have gotten.

C'mon man, i could just as easily say 'I'm tired of people on the internet saying... I'm tired of people on the internet saying...so i won't, ok i just did. But, sometimes that critisicm is valid, onscreen with that Mona lisa, I had to give it a big pass as i wanted to take the movie seriously.
But, I'm sorry if I was attempting to write a screenplay about this kind of sci-fi trope and typed up that Mona lisa scene I would give myself a slap in the face and write it again. sometimes something is fine in concept but just has a cheeseball element to it, sometimes that's due to overfamiliarity with the image, or just not giving your audience credit for knowing what's going on here, and i think this is a bit of both.
ie choose another painting that is a classic of Renassiance art or whatever, the audience will recognise that there is something precious about this painting being destroyed given the nature of the movie.
It just looked like a bit of a joke, sometimes cliche is fine, sometimes it makes you groan.
I understand if you didn't like the film or just thought it was ok but a good number of those complaints I've heard time and time again and feel most of them are a bit biased.

No bias, just gut instinct and personal taste , the movie turned out to be a more enjoyable watch than I expected, i thought it was alright, but no classic.
 
C'mon man, i could just as easily say 'I'm tired of people on the internet saying... I'm tired of people on the internet saying...so i won't, ok i just did. But, sometimes that critisicm is valid, onscreen with that Mona lisa, I had to give it a big pass as i wanted to take the movie seriously. Choose another painting that is a classic of Renassiance art or whatever, the audience will recognise that there is something precious about this painting being destroyed given the nature of the movie.
It just looked like a bit of a joke, sometimes cliche is fine, sometimes it makes you groan.


No bias, just gut instinct and personal taste , the movie turned out to be a more enjoyable watch than I expected, i thought it was alright, but no classic.

I still don't get exactly how using the Mona Lisa was spoon feeding everyone. Especially when you say they should have chosen another classic painting. Would it have been any different using another famous/classic painting? I don't see how that would have all of a sudden made it better in regards to the spoon feeding the audience factor.

The reason I complained about the whole thing about *****ing about movies that supposedly spoon feed people is because that's the common fanboy complaint around the internet. I stand by what I said before about not agreeing the movie was spoon feeding anyone really. It was one scene simply showing how hardcore they are at keeping everyone's emotions down. I could understand if they stretched it across the entire film with multiple scenes just like it but to me it was a simple nod to Fahrenheight 451. Plus, it led to what I thought was a great scene when Bale's character hears the music and it brings tears to his eyes. Some may have found that cheesy but I thought it was a good moment in the film.
 
I still don't get exactly how using the Mona Lisa was spoon feeding everyone. Especially when you say they should have chosen another classic painting. Would it have been any different using another famous/classic painting? I don't see how that would have all of a sudden made it better in regards to the spoon feeding the audience factor.

Well, it's a creative call, it's taste, it's not science. As i said the scene is fine in concept, it just looked cheesey and cliche. Overfamiliarity with that particular image, and a spood feed to the audience, as it assumes they would not put two and two together about the movie's plot if they did not use the most famous painting in the world.
Yeah, i would have used a Monet or something, something that looked classic. As was it was like, 'they just happened to have the most reproduced painting in the world in their possesion.', I wonder why? Because the filmaker assumes we don't know any other paintings , or does not have confidence in his own abilities as a filmaker to imply that a work being burned is a timelessclassic of art history, unless it's the most reproduced painting in the world that we're all sick of seeing.

All in all, it's a simplistic cheeseball way of doing things and that feeling, for me, was throughout the movie, but I gave it a pass and enjoyed it as a half decent flick.
The reason I complained about the whole thing about *****ing about movies that supposedly spoon feed people is because that's the common fanboy complaint around the internet. I stand by what I said before about not agreeing the movie was spoon feeding anyone really. It was one scene simply showing how hardcore they are at keeping everyone's emotions down. I could understand if they stretched it across the entire film with multiple scenes just like it but to me it was a simple nod to Fahrenheight 451. Plus, it led to what I thought was a great scene when Bale's character hears the music and it brings tears to his eyes. Some may have found that cheesy but I thought it was a good moment in the film.

My dvd of the film has been lent out for a while, but i watched it a couple of times, I'm just expressing the general sense I got from the film, it was fine, but the Mona Lisa stuck out like a sore thumb of cheeseballness to me, and I thought it's use in that scenario was indicative of the mentality of the movie.
That's not to say you could not take the movie seriously and enjoy it in the way it was intended, it's just that it has a vibe of not being as smart as it thinks it is, and owes a lot of the smarts it does have to more intelligent works.
 
Well, it's a creative call, it's taste, it's not science. As i said the scene is fine in concept, it just looked cheesey and cliche. Overfamiliarity with that particular image, and a spood feed to the audience, as it assumes they would not put two and two together about the movie's plot if they did not use the most famous painting in the world.
Yeah, i would have used a Monet or something, something that looked classic. As was it was like, 'they just happened to have the most reproduced painting in the world in their possesion.', I wonder why? Because the filmaker assumes we don't know any other paintings , or does not have confidence in his own abilities as a filmaker to imply that a work being burned is a timelessclassic of art history, unless it's the most reproduced painting in the world that we're all sick of seeing.

All in all, it's a simplistic cheeseball way of doing things and that feeling, for me, was throughout the movie, but I gave it a pass and enjoyed it as a half decent flick.

Thanks for the explanation of why you feel that way. Makes more sense to me now. I still don't exactly agree with you but I definitely don't feel your view on the whole Mona Lisa thing is wrong in any way.
 
Thanks for the explanation of why you feel that way. Makes more sense to me now. I still don't exactly agree with you but I definitely don't feel your view on the whole Mona Lisa thing is wrong in any way.

Yeah, I'm glad you asked again, because looking back on my previous answer, it was pretty vague to say the least.
I'll have to get my dvd back and give it another watch, it's been a while.
One thing I really liked about it was it was a way for me to imagine what Bale would be like as Wayne/Batman, esp good as it came out on dvd just before BB came out.
 
You two need to cut. it. out.

I beg your pardon? Having a little discussion on a movie that was brought up in CFE's list is not getting in the way of anyone commenting on the latest one District 9. And as far as I can see the only thing folk have done, yourself included, is come in and give a thumbs up to the movie. No discussion was being railroaded.
Sometimes no-one comes in and comments at all, I was the only person who came in and said anything about The Road Warrior when CFE posted up his review of that.
This is CFE's thread, and I respect that, but it's not a blog, it's posted on a discussion forum, so I fail to see what faux paux is being made here.

edit: anyway, it was pretty clear we'd finished up on that point, and if I got in the way I apologise, but with the nature of disscusion forums sometimes these things can carry on more than they were intended to.
 
Last edited:
As another discussion, it looks like CFE has excluded the Frankenstein family from consideration for his list. At least it certainly doesn't look like he has room for them based on what's still out there and judging from his opening graphic.

I find that slightly surprising as it's the iconic "scientist meddling with things man was not meant to know" story. Yeah, Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein could still show up, but I'd certainly make a case for Curse of Frankenstein, Young Frankenstein, and Re-Animator as belonging in a top 100.

I'm also slightly surprised by the absence of The Invisible Man, with the H.G. Welles pedigree, and Creature from the Black Lagoon. Those clearly aren't supernatural horror films. Again, they might still show up, but I'd have expected one or both to show up by now.

Did the above fall into the cracks of "it's horror not sci-fi"?
 
Yes...being a Universal Monster, I'd be more inclined to include Frankenstein within the horror genre. But that's just personal preference.
 
#23

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

23.jpg


[YT]OfpSXI8_UpY[/YT]

[YT]sIaxSxEqKtA[/YT]

[YT]1aK8I-CDQGQ[/YT]

[YT]rYbHpXca7U0[/YT]

Directed by … Robert Wise
Story by … Harry Bates
Screenplay by … Edmund H. North

Produced by … Julian Blaustein
Cinematography by … Leo Tover
Make Up Design by … Ben Nye
Costume Design by … Travilla and Clinton Sandeen
Art Direction by … Addison Hehr and Lyle R. Wheeler
Set Decoration by … Claude E. Carpenter and Thomas Little
Editing by … William Reynolds
Original Motion Picture Score composed by … Bernard Hermann

Michael Rennie ... Klaatu
Patricia Neal ... Helen Benson
Hugh Marlowe ... Tom Stevens
Sam Jaffe ... Professor Jacob Barnhardt
Billy Gray ... Bobby Benson
Frances Bavier ... Mrs. Barley
Lock Martin ... Gort​

An alien lands and tells the people of Earth that they must live peacefully or be destroyed as a danger to other planets.
----------------------------------------------

A robot and a man . . . hold the world spellbound with new and startling powers from another planet!

----------------------------------------------

It's odd to think that fifty years from now there may only be a handful of movies released during this past decade that will be remembered at all. I won’t presume to make any guesses as to what they may be (though perhaps “The Dark Knight” remains the most prominent).

But it's easy to see that, while so many other films from 50 years past sank into obscurity, one of them remains exceedingly prominent and relevant.

One of the most intellectual films of its kind, 1951’s “The Day the Earth Stood Still” is a superior and unique example of 50s science fiction that chooses to provoke its audience to think and remain as realist as possible rather than bamboozle them with flying saucers running amok and the traditional Ed Wood fair.

Interesting both in itself and as a reflection of its era, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" may seem unspectacular now to those who are used to the extravagant science fiction pictures of the present time, but it deserves its place as a cinema classic.

Don’t misunderstand though, it IS visually arresting…just that the visuals don’t dominate the proceedings and are only utilized in favor of the storytelling.

The story is worthwhile in itself, and as soon as you set aside any preconceptions about what science fiction should involve, it also builds up some pretty good drama and suspense. Its perspective is also interesting to see as a reflection of the concerns of its era, which have such obvious similarities with those of the present.

The film gets straight into the action.

Behind the opening credits, we briefly observe the approaching spacecraft's journey across the Universe, into the Milky Way, and towards a tiny planet Earth. The spacecraft steeps into our atmosphere, the clouds disperse and we glimpse the familiar open ocean. Radio and television stations announce the mysterious UFO's presence to the world. It travels at supersonic speed – 4000 miles per hour – and nobody can identify exactly what it is (to add another layer of reality, some of the era's most famous broadcast journalists were hired to provide cameos as themselves – including Gabriel Heatter, H.V. Kaltenborn and Drew Pearson). Miraculously, the spacecraft slows above Washington D.C., and, to the horror of onlookers, lands dramatically on the Ellipse at President's Park.

A curious crowd begins to gather around the mysterious craft; squadrons of heavily-armed army personnel cautiously surround it. Along the spacecraft's perfectly smooth body, an entrance opens and a ramp is lowered to the grass. A spaceman, dressed in a shiny, silver suit and accompanied by a massive impenetrable robot named Gort, steps out into the view of the stunned crowd. His first words are friendly and reassuring: "we have come to visit you in peace and with goodwill." Nevertheless, at the first sudden movement, a soldier's pistol is fired and the spaceman is struck. Already, Man is demonstrating his uncanny ability for destruction.

As this mysterious spaceman, named Klaatu (Michael Rennie), reveals his intentions of saving the planet from potential obliteration, he is saddened to hear of the insurmountable gulfs between countries that hamper his plans. Embroiled in all their petty human politics, the countries of the world are simply unable to come to a mutual understanding, thus practically sealing their own demise. Klaatu quite easily flees from the detention of the hospital, assumes a new identity (as a Mr. Carpenter) and hires a room in a household full of with conspiracy theorists. It is here that he comes to know Helen Benson (Patricia Neal) and her son Bobby (Billy Gray).

It is the latter who – not knowing Klaatu's true identity – suggests that he visit Prof. Jacob Barnhardt (Sam Jaffe), purportedly one of the most intelligent men in the world. There is a familiar way in which Klaatu smiles at Barnhardt's complex mathematical calculations on the blackboard, as one would smile at a child learning addition and subtraction. It reminds us that, even with all our technological advancement, we are still but children in the eyes of the Universe. Nevertheless, Klaatu decides that, if anything is to be done to save the fate of the planet, it must take place through men whose judgment is not clouded by government policies and petty prejudices. He must approach the scientists of the world, the scholars of art, philosophy and culture; those whose only concern is the search for knowledge and happiness. It is not the bickering governments who will play any large part in this tale – the President of the United States doesn't even earn himself an appearance – but the uncorrupted hearts and minds of the rational thinkers.

Despite its low budget and stark design, it’s through the direction of Robert Wise (“Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” “West Side Story”) the themes and undertones of the story and the approach brought by the cast that makes “The Day the Earth Stood Still” shine as much as it does.

The movie deals with a theme that was at the forefront of so many peoples' minds in the early 1950s, in America and the rest of the world, and that is the conflicts between many different nations, and more generally the tendency for humans to fight each other. It was released at the time of the Red Scare and so soon after World War II that international tensions were still high. Also odd is that if you switch the last two words in the title, why, it's not very frightening at all!

Okay, that made no sense, but I couldn't resist.

My respect for the movie dimmed sharply when I saw that the alien was not only a man, but a good looking man who spoke perfect English, but then won back my respect completely when it took the time to explain that his culture had learned about humans through intercepting radio transmissions over many years. Unlikely, but it's an explanation, which is more than most science fiction films provide. Granted, not much time should be wasted on the science of science fiction, but in this case something had to be said. The alien didn't give may details as to his physical condition, but scientists hypothesized that since he so closely resembles a human, he must have a similar environment to our own on his planet.

Speaking of which, there is one thing about the science that I'm also curious about.

At what stage were astronomical studies in the early 1950s?

I'm wondering how far into space scientists were looking, because Carpenter, the alien, states with some grandeur that he has traveled 250 million miles to get to earth, which in astronomical terms is a tiny, tiny distance. Considering that the sun is 93 million miles from earth, this would mean that his planet is within our own solar system. And here's another little factoid – Earth makes a complete revolution around the sun every year, as you know. Pluto, on the other hand, takes something like 248 years to revolve around the sun. That has nothing to do with the movie, but is an interesting digression, I should think.

I found the political backdrop to be one of the most interesting aspects about “Day the Earth Stood Still,” and not only because of what the political landscape was like at the time. It was interesting to watch a movie about aliens that so quickly and completely dissolved into a close examination of volatile human relations, and without ever becoming preachy or devolving into peace propaganda (oxymoron intended). I actually think that a large part of what made up for the lack of aliens in this alien movie was the validity that its argument has.

When Carpenter (who they stopped just short of simply naming Jesus) was greeted with the response that a meeting with all of the worlds leaders was impossible because of tensions between nations, he was genuinely surprised and saddened. He gives as his reason for visiting earth the fact that his civilization has noticed satellites being launched around the Earth's atmosphere and, since humans clearly are unable to get along, he was sent here to tell us to join them and live in peace or face our present course and face obliteration. Most importantly, if we chose the latter, they would be there to ensure that we would not export our violence to peaceful civilizations in space. The descending nature with which he speaks is truly revealing, it makes humans look childish because of our constant battling with one another.

This is also where the movie coincides with some of the themes that Jonathan Swift presented in “Utopia,” his novel upon which several failed civilizations have been attempted. They have created robots, which we see in the Iron Man, to prevent the rise of violence in their society. The robots have tremendous power, which cannot be revoked, and at the first sign of violence they react swiftly against the aggressor, which results in a peaceful society.

I'm also reminded by the film of “Gulliver's Travels,” also by Jonathan Swift, particularly the section where Gulliver lives among the Houynymns which, interestingly enough, are talking horses with a remarkable ability to live at peace. When at one point Gulliver describes lying, which does not exist to the Houynymns, one of them responds incredulously with something like, "Why on Earth would one say something that isn't so?" Carpenter displays exactly the same shocked surprise when he learns of some of the awful characteristics of human beings, which seems to suggest that before we look for other civilized worlds in the galaxy, maybe we should work a little more on civilizing our own world.

But for all the inspiration that “The Day the Earth Stood Still” may have taken or, at least was in sync with, it’s nice to know that the film gave something back to.

“Klaatu Baradda Nikto”

I’m sure “Evil Dead” fans will be thrilled to see the origins of those strange words that Ash had such a hard time speaking in “Army of Darkness.”

A Cinamatic Gem that seems to be timeless, and is as fresh when viewed today as it was at the time of original showing in the Movie Houses of 1951. It truly boasts of having hit the high marks in just about every category that we can think of. Starting with Director, one Mr. Robert Wise, who over his long career managed to make some of the best films in just about every category. War, Biopic, Musical, Western and Sci-Fi.

The B & W film looks really good through its Leo Tover cinematography and puts one's mind on newspaper and other archival collections of photographs. This subtly, even subconsciously adds to the realism. Executing the shooting on locations right in the District of Columbia made for a look that could not be achieved on a Studio sound-stage.

The genre of science fiction has a much larger than average ratio of bad films to good ones, and I think the best ones are the ones that have a concrete connection to either the real world…or at least real character and emotion, as “The Day the Earth Stood Still” obviously does.

Given the political atmosphere of the past decade, it's obvious that humans have not taken much advice from this movie, but then again, as Arnold stated in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,”

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."

The film takes a theme which could have been overwhelmed by high-minded dialog, and distills it to its most profound and simplest elements through editing, and the screen adaptation (by Edmund North, who would later write Patton, and many lesser films). Fred Sersen's special effects are great - never hokey or overbearing. It is also one of Wise's earliest major successes, and it is as much a tribute to his talent that this film remains a landmark in modern sci fi as it is a testament to the story's excellent ethical points.

“The Day the Earth Stood Still” has aged a bit since its debut in 1951 but this does, in no way, take away from its influence. It has deservedly earned its place in the long list of classics from an age where science fiction was at its most prominent.

The 2008 remake? Go ahead and skip that one…

But this is a film not to be missed.

----------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Okay, when exactly do you write these reviews? Because you've got a "here in the first month of 2005" in there before mentioning the 2008 remake.

The first "Day" interests me, although I've never gotten around to watching it.
 
Yeah, CFE, the science is a bit wonky in THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL as far as distances and speed. It wouldn't have gotten past someone like Asimov, for instance, but the movie is more allegory/parable than interested in the finer points of astronomical science.

The shadow of the saucer really sells the special effect. It's a telling attention to detail.

Robert Wise was a very talented director who was adaptable to a variety of genres. In particular his talent as an editor serves him well here. There's just enough special effects and he keeps the story humming along well when it could easily become talky and dull.
 
Well, it's a creative call, it's taste, it's not science. As i said the scene is fine in concept, it just looked cheesey and cliche. Overfamiliarity with that particular image, and a spood feed to the audience, as it assumes they would not put two and two together about the movie's plot if they did not use the most famous painting in the world.
Yeah, i would have used a Monet or something, something that looked classic. As was it was like, 'they just happened to have the most reproduced painting in the world in their possesion.', I wonder why? Because the filmaker assumes we don't know any other paintings , or does not have confidence in his own abilities as a filmaker to imply that a work being burned is a timelessclassic of art history, unless it's the most reproduced painting in the world that we're all sick of seeing.

I haven't seen Equilibrium, but I wonder if a more controversial work of art might have served the idea better. Something by Picasso or Pollock for example, Guernica for example. Or even a gathering of stuff like Mein Kampf and Triumph of the Will with more uplifting stuff.
 
Okay, when exactly do you write these reviews? Because you've got a "here in the first month of 2005" in there before mentioning the 2008 remake.

The first "Day" interests me, although I've never gotten around to watching it.

Oh god I'm so embarrassed...I wrote the "Day" review in the middle of the night about two nights ago before going to work the next morning and meant to say of the last decade...I must've been on dope or something.

Allow me...:doh:
 
Props CFE...making a list like this is not easy. Sci-Fi is an odd genre to attempt this cause since Sci-Fi films tend to take after other genres.

I do think Predator is a tad low. I might have put it a bit higher. However, it is an overall solid list so far :up:

I have 4 movies I personally hope to see at #1 - 2001: A Space Odyssey, Robocop, Blade Runner, or Brazil. If any 1 of them tops this list, I'll be happy :up:
 
EDIT: Double post
 
#22

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

22.jpg


[YT]oiQse9XibQw[/YT]

[YT]tUcOaGawIW0[/YT]

[YT]hXEjgObVjSA[/YT]

[YT]JbUGsbZWitw[/YT]

Written and Directed by … Steven Spielberg
Additional Material written by … Hal Barwood, Jerry Belson, John Hill and Matthew Robbins

Produced by … Julia Phillips, Michael Phillips and Clark L. Paylow
Cinematography by … Vilmos Zsigmond
Production Design by … Joe Alves
Costume Design by … James Linn
Art Direction by … Daniel A. Lomino
Set Decoration by … Phil Abramson
Editing by … Michael Kahn
Original Motion Picture Score composed by … John Williams

Richard Dreyfuss ... Roy Neary
François Truffaut ... Claude Lacombe
Teri Garr ... Ronnie Neary
Melinda Dillon ... Jillian Guiler
Bob Balaban ... David Laughlin
J. Patrick McNamara ... Project Leader
Warren J. Kemmerling ... Wild Bill
Roberts Blossom ... Farmer
Philip Dodds ... Jean Claude
Cary Guffey ... Barry Guiler
Shawn Bishop ... Brad Neary
Adrienne Campbell ... Sylvia Neary
Justin Dreyfuss ... Toby Neary
Lance Henriksen ... Robert
Merrill Connally ... Team Leader
George DiCenzo ... Major Benchley
Amy Douglass ... Implantee
Alexander Lockwood ... Implantee
Gene Dynarski ... Ike
Mary Gafrey ... Mrs. Harris
Norman Bartold ... Ohio Tolls
Josef Sommer ... Larry Butler
Rev. Michael J. Dyer ... Himself
Roger Ernest ... Highway Patrolman
Carl Weathers ... Military Policeman
F.J. O'Neil ... ARP Project Member
Phil Dodds ... ARP Musician
Randy Hermann ... Returnee #1 Flt. 19
Hal Barwood ... Returnee #2 Flt. 19
Matthew Robbins ... Returnee #3 Flt. 19
David Anderson ... Air Traffic Controller
Richard L. Hawkins ... Air Traffic Controller
Craig Shreeve ... Air Traffic
Bill Thurman ... Air Traffic
Roy E. Richards ... Air East Pilot
Gene Rader ... Hawker​

After an encounter with UFOs, a line worker feels undeniably drawn to an isolated area in the wilderness where something spectacular is about to happen.

----------------------------------------------

Close Encounter of the First Kind - Sighting of a UFO. Close Encounter of the Second Kind - Physical Evidence. Close Encounter of the Third Kind - Contact. WE ARE NOT ALONE

----------------------------------------------

Leaving a line of depressing (yet still fairly decent) 70s sci-fi fair such as “Zardoz,” “Rollerball” and “The Final Programme” in the dust, 1977 became a milestone of cinema…not solely with the release of George Lucas’ “Star Wars,” though that is admittedly the more prominent of the two…but also with fellow up and coming peer Steven Spielberg and his own early stab at the genre with 1977’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.”

An early indication that these two men would become trailblazers in their own right, it’s incredible to see where they came from in accordance with where they eventually went to.

Initially titled "Watch the Skies," after the final words from Christian Nyby's sci-fi classic, 'The Thing from Another World (1942).' The newly-chosen title referred to the three types of alien "encounters," detailed by author Dr. J. Allen Hynek in his 'The UFO Experience (1972),' upon which the screenplay was based (Hynek was also the film's technical adviser, and has a cameo appearance in the final scene).

A "Close Encounter of the First Kind" refers to a sighting of a UFO.
A "Close Encounter of the Second Kind" refers to physical evidence of UFO visitation.

And the third kind of close encounter, with which Spielberg's film in concerned, involves actual contact with extra-terrestrial beings.

“Close Encounters of the Third Kind” centers primarily on three groups of characters, with each being inexplicably drawn together to the Devil's Tower for the film's brilliant climax. The first character is Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss), an everyman who is representative of all middle-aged men in America. He has an uneasy relationship with his wife, Ronnie (Teri Garr), and three children for whom he has very little time. After a spectacular UFO encounter in his car alongside a railway crossing, Roy becomes obsessed with a specific mountainous shape he keeps seeing in his mind, and his growing obsession begins to spell trouble for his marriage and his family.

The second key set of characters in the film are struggling single mum, Gillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon), and her young, intelligent, bright-eyed son, Barry (Cary Guffey). Gillian was also present at the time of Roy's startling UFO encounter, and it is soon apparent that her own son is of particular interest to the visitors from outer-space. During a chilling, brightly-lit, absolutely dazzling sequence set in their home, Barry is harrowingly abducted from Gillian's arms, and she comes to realise that her only chance to see her son again will be to identify the mysterious mountain image that has also been strangely implanted into her mind by the visitors.

The third group of characters are a team of world-travelling scientists, headed by Frenchman Claude Lacombe (played by acclaimed French director François Truffaut, and based on real-life UFO expert Jacques Vallee) and accompanied by cartographer-turned-translator David Laughlin (Bob Balaban). Throughout the film, these men travel all over the world tracing the bizarre movements of the suspected extraterrestrials, their search ultimately leading them to the eerie shadow of Wyoming's Devil's Tower, whose silhouette had been planted into the minds of Roy and Gillian.

For a film widely hyped as being "the extraterrestrial follow-up to Jaws!" Spielberg is incredibly daring, providing a remarkably inexplicit and non mainstream effort, especially for a director who normally exemplifies the aforementioned qualities. Lengthy, leisurely and never once spelling out the scope of what is actually happening, the film adapts a hypnotic, haunting quality one would hardly expect from the director of "Indiana Jones." Instead of a far easier to sell, pulse pounding alien invasion action film (an idea he would revisit to lesser effect in 2005's "War of the Worlds") Spielberg focuses almost entirely on the surprisingly credible human side of the gradual progress towards alien contact, painstakingly doling out enticing tidbits of the looming confrontation while resisting the typical Spielberg trademark of money shots flat out exposing the aliens in all their glory. In fact, for a film so captivated with their inevitable presence, we see next to nothing to do with aliens whatsoever - a bold and surprisingly effective directorial move, grounding the situation in reality and making it all the more compelling as such.

Of course even in such a comparatively realist film, which for the most part shuns showy spectacle, Spielberg can't quite resist downplaying the sheer awe factor involved with an otherworldly presence, and certainly knows how to judiciously work a moment accordingly - the few fleeting glimpses of any trace of alien life are truly stunning, captivating and often terrifying (Spielberg proves near peerless at generating tension seamlessly), enough to rival any of Spielberg's other more overt emotional wrenching without ever resorting to the treacly earnestness of his later "E.T." Of course Williams' classic, simply magical score infinitely adds to the splendour, showing surprising restraint compared to his usual soaring orchestral bravado: a simple five note theme (usually played on an unspectacular reedy keyboard within the film) building into an engrossing orchestral rendition which perfectly captures the fascinated awe for the unknown of the film.

All of Steven Spielberg's hallmarks are on show here. The ordinary mundane setting as a basis for slow suspense-building, an emphasis on family values, an everyman hero (in this Neary) and a carefully-instilled sense of wonder.

This is achieved through strong central performances from the cast. Richard Dreyfus wonderfully inhabits the human heart of the film as electrician Roy Neary, haunted by visions of mountain-like structures after a chance encounter with an alien vessel. As Dreyfus' unique energy alternates between wryly comical and heartwarming when interacting with his family to manic and obsessive when yearning to discover the meaning behind his visions, never once does a false note ring, a wonderfully fitting and perfectly charismatic lead. Visionary French New Wave director François Truffaut proves a strong acting presence as the head investigator of the alien encounters, his grim determination mixed with awed reverence making for a compelling and sympathetic authority figure.

Unfortunately, the acting credibility does not stretch to the female castmembers, as Melinda Dillon playing a woman whose son is lost after an alien encounter and Teri Garr as Neary's resoundingly unsympathetic wife both give unconvincingly imbalanced performances frustratingly out of synch with the film transpiring around them, seldom realistically responding to the events befalling them. However, Bob Balaban is amusing as a befuddled translator continually taken aback by the fantastic events transpiring around him.

Not surprisingly, considering the time it was released – not too many years after the Watergate scandal – the film harbors a healthy dislike for the intervention of the government, a general theme would continue with Spielberg for “E.T.”

Notably, however, the film is one of the few science-fiction films to portray alien beings in a positive, nonthreatening light; indeed, even his own precursor, the aforementioned amateur film, "Firelight," detailed a town terrorized by UFOs.

By using his film to inspire wonder rather than fear, Spielberg showed extraterrestrials in a light they had rarely before experienced, something he would repeat, once again, five years later in “E.T'” (And again for his spectacular yet bloated thrill-ride of destruction in his remake of “The War of the Worlds.”)

The concept of humans and aliens communicating through music and light is also a wonderfully inspired touch of humanity in the proceedings.

The film’s technical building blocks are amazing, considering that this was right on the cusp of Industrial Light & Magic’s birth (though they had their plates full with finishing “Star Wars” at the time).

Sci-fi visual effects master Douglas Trumbull does a superb job of rendering the mothership of the aliens, one of the most lovely ships I’ve seen in contemporary science fiction. His effects work is heightened in its majesty through Vilmos Zsigmond’s saturated cinematography. That shot of the young lad opening the front door to a blinding golden light has become one of the most iconic shots of the past 30+ years.

All of this is made even more breathtaking with one of John Williams’ most effective and empathetic scores for Spielberg and it ranks among my favorites alongside “E.T.,” and “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.”

Spielberg’s first film since the smash hit “Jaws,” “Close Encounters” has become quite influential in and of itself. The alien beings of the film cropped up once again…this time as inter-dimensional beings…in Steven’s 2008 adventure “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” (to much controversy…for some reason) and the very phrase ‘Close Encounter’ has been completely permeated in consciousness.

Not to mention that audiences of late were suspect to a film about abduction, or a ‘Close Encounter of the Fourth Kind’…dubbed, appropriately, ”The Fourth Kind” whose title harkens right back to this film.

An uplifting, positive motion picture, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is thoroughly entertaining, as well as thought provoking. Spielberg draws you in as few filmmakers can, with a great story and with characters who are readily accessible and with whom it is easy to identify-- all of which adds up to an absorbing, memorable and enjoyable experience.

And a perfect example of the real magic of the movies.

----------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Excellent film. A nice up lifting sci-fi which is rare.
 
Nice review as always.

This is a classic I grew up on and I still think it's one of Spielberg's best.
 
Can't say I've seen it, when I was younger I gave up after the first hour, might have to watch it sometime soon.http://soon.gl
 
This list is getting more and more exciting. For me my number one sci fi is lol, of course Blade Runner.

But to Vengeance, I recommend re-watching Close Encounters, though sci fi is one of my favorite genres period, many of them tend to be darker/bleak sometimes. And Close Encounters is actually quite the opposite, it takes a positive look into the idea of another world visiting us. Not with the normal aggression or "Take us to your leader" kind of mentality, but something much more upbeat and looks at the possibility of a race that wants something better for us.

Truly a masterpiece in film. And forever after watching that movie, you will have a certain sequence of musical cues stuck in your head.
 
Well I'll definitely give it a chance, grown up a lot in my film sense in the last few years :D Bleak & dark is greats although can get a bit flavour of the month sometimes you need a good old upbeat positive sci-fi film.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"