Showing posts with label family films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family films. Show all posts

Friday, May 1, 2020

The Great Muppet Caper (1981)

Director: Jim Henson

Another fun muppet movie, though one that I found to be a little too heavy on the musical numbers for my liking.

As part of our Coronavirus quarantine, my wife and I have not been above goofy, escapist movies. And even before the current quarantine, late last year, we had a good time re-watching the original The Muppet Movie. In this state of mind, we fired up The Great Muppet Caper, a film that I saw probably no less than a dozen times as a kid but hadn't watched in well over 30 years.

Rather than trying to continue the story told in The Muppet Movie, this one just takes the same basic characters and plugs them into a different tale. Here, Kermit and Fozzie are twin brothers (a hilariously nonsensical plot point of which the film is completely aware) who are a budding reporter duo. They chase a story of a jewel thief across the Atlantic, to England, where they become embroiled in the thief's shady plans, while Kermit meets Miss Piggy, an aspiring model. Along the way, the entire crew of familiar Muppets get involved for one reason or another, culminating in the gaggle of strange characters managing to foil the attempted theft of a nearly priceless diamond.

This one still has plenty of laughs for adult fans like me and my wife. Part of the fun is having decades-dormant memories jogged by certain jokes, physical gags, or iconic moments in the movie. There was one particularly subtle suicide joke that I found hilarious when I was about 8 years old but hadn't thought of since about 1983. Not that I knew it was a suicide joke back then - I was laughing at the goofy voice acting of the scene back then - but it was quite an experience to have a latent memory like that brought back to the surface. Oh, and that scene is still pretty damn funny to my 44-year-old self. There were more than a few moments like that upon this revisiting of the movie.

My favorite celebrity cameo in this one - Peter Falk as a
self-absorbed bum who takes a weird stab at helping Kermit
feel better.
Compared to The Muppet Movie, I found Caper to be a slight dropoff, mostly because there seemed to be far more musical numbers, some of which went on for several minutes. I'm generally not a big fan of musicals, so I found myself mostly waiting for the tunes to end and the regular zaniness to continue.

The overload of songs aside, the rest of the movie has plenty of gags that are right on par with some of the best moments of the TV show or the original movie. And of course, there are several solid celebrity cameos, though not as many as the 1979 movie. Charles Grodin is great as the villainous thief (who also falls in love with Miss Piggy), and we even get John Cleese, Peter Ustinov, and others. But the best is probably an uncredited Peter Falk as a know-it-all vagrant who tries to have a heart-to-heart with a disconsolate Kermit.

This is still a fun one for parents with young kids, or adults who don't mind some goofy family humor. These types of movies are rarely made anymore, but this one still holds up nicely. 

Thursday, April 30, 2020

The Muppet Movie (1979)

Director: James Frawley

Still a fun, clever, goofy flick that can still please adults as well as kids.

Considering that we watched The Muppet Movie, one might think that my wife and I have kids. We don't. One might also assume that we watched this during the Coronavirus quarantine. We didn't. No, we actually watched this late in 2019, well before the COVID-19 virus altered all of our lives and viewing habits. We watched it just because it was a movie that we had watched plenty of times as kids in the early 1980s but neither of us had watched in decades. So one evening, after a long week, we decided to return to what we remembered as a gem of our youth.

We weren't disappointed.

The actual Muppet Show on television, which ran from 1976 to 1981, was known as a wonderfully hilarious, all-ages show that was ostensibly for kids but had more than its fair share of broad appeal. It had cranky adult characters, thinly-veiled sexuality, and a roster of massively famous celebrity guests that most late-night talk shows would have killed to have. It was a variety show run by raucous, wild puppets, and it quickly became legendary.

The 1979 feature film carried over all of the zaniness and fun of the TV show, using a road show plotline to keep things humming along. Kermit the Frog is offered a chance to be a big star in Hollywood, after a movie producer hears him singing in his home swamp. As Kermit makes his way to Tinsel Town, he meets and befriends nearly all of the other characters familiar to those who know the Muppet Show - Fozzie the Bear, Miss Piggy, Gonzo, and all of the other memorable characters. They are pursued by the mogul of a fast-food franchise that sells frogs' legs, who wants Kermit first as a spokes-, uh, frog, but then to simply cook up and serve in his restaurant.

Madelaine Kahn and Telly Savalas - just two of the many, many
great little celebrity cameos which were always been part of
the early Muppet movies.
Yes, it's all very silly, as it should be. But The Muppet Movie was great at the very thing that the TV was great at - breaking the fourth wall and cracking plenty of great jokes. There are more than a few puns and plenty of Zucker Brothers-style deadpan humor. And there are even a few solid jabs thrown at the entertainment industry here and there. And, of course, there are a few musical numbers thrown in, which is something that I'm always lukewarm about but certainly didn't mind, even in my mid-forties. The icing is always the many celebrity cameos, including names like Milton Berle, Mel Brooks, James Coburn, and plenty of others.

This was a every bit the fun, comforting stroll down memory lane that my wife and I wanted it to be. Jim Henson, creator of all things Muppet, was an absolute genius of family entertainment, and this movie will stand as testament to that for many, many decades to come. 

Sunday, April 9, 2017

The Harry Potter Series, Part 1: Sorcerer's Stone through Goblet of Fire

A few weeks ago, having fallen ill for about four days straight, I felt the urge to watch something that was entertaining, comforting, and didn't strain my foggy brain. Upon realizing that I had actually never seen the final film in the Harry Potter series, and I had my answer. I had seen all of the first seven movies, but not since they had originally been released in theaters.

I'm not going to go into the minutiae of the various plot points that run through the 7-novel/8-movie tale. I'll keep things rather short, assuming that most people already know the basics or would rather just watch the movies for themselves. Here's how I found them upon this rewatch:

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Director: Christopher Columbus

In this first movie, we meet Harry Potter, a mistreated orphan boy who is informed that not only is there a secret world of magic and wizards, but that he is a rather special young man who is destined for great things within this wondrous landscape. He is brought to Hogwart's School of Wizardry, where he befriends Hermione Granger and Ronald Weasley. The three eventually foil a plot by one of the school's teachers to help revive Voldemort, the presumed-dead evil wizard who killed Harry's parents 12 years prior.

Still an entertaining and faithful-to-a-fault adaptation that hasn't aged particularly well, The Sorcerer's Stone introduced all who hadn't read the books to the world of Harry Potter and the witches, wizards, and other dazzling elements around it. There are certainly clumsy elements to the story, and the three primary child actors had not really found their footing as performers. The special effects also haven't held up very well, with the CGI now looking rather garish and clunky. Director Christopher Columbus goes for fairly broad dialogue and comedy, as he's done in his other movies, which doesn't serve us older viewers terribly well.

All the same, the world that author J.K. Rowling created is still a lot of fun, and it provides enough wonder as it is revealed to us, even if the pacing is overly brisk. The plot also features enough amusing turns to keep things lively, and the adult actors are all absolutely perfect, as it's difficult to go wrong with actors the caliber of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and the like. The movie isn't flawless, but it is a solid enough beginning to this movie franchise juggernaut. 


Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Director: Christopher Columbus

Chapter two of the Potter series sees Harry return to Hogwarts and become embroiled in another mystery - this one involving various students turning up literally petrified around the campus. As Harry digs deeper, he learns a little more about his own history as well as the history of Voldemort, with whom he seems to be inexplicably linked.

Although still containing a few of the weaknesses of the first film, this second entry made some marked improvements. Main child actors Watson, Radcliffe, and Grint show a little more comfort with their roles and acting chops, even if they're not completely natural yet. Also helping matters is that the already-considerable adult cast is assisted by the inclusion of other top-notch actors like Kenneth Brannagh and Jason Isaacs. The effects are noticeably better, although the Quidditch match CGI still looks too artificially glossy and awkward.

As with the source novels, the tone and sophistication increases ever-so-slightly. This second volume features higher stakes, involving a bit more menace and some intriguing insight into the still-mysterious arch-villain Voldemort. The little plot turns reveal more clever updates of familiar myths and fairy tale elements. 

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2003)

Director: Alfonso Cuaron

This film sees a 13-year-old Harry in his third year at Hogwart's dealing with the presence of the ghastly Dementors as they hover around the school on the lookout for an escaped wizard convict. The convict, Sirius Black, has some sort of tie to Harry's dead parents, and strange and dangerous events start to unfold around the school.

I always remember this third film in the series as the strongest one, and this repeat viewing didn't diminish that opinion. Directed by highly accomplished director Alfonso Cuaron, Azkaban almost immediately offers a darker look and tone, quickly introducing the horrific Dementors, grim reaper-like beings which siphon the happiness away from those unfortunate enough to go to near. These terrible creatures are a serious part of a grimmer chapter in the Potter series, one which sees the inclusion of great British actors like Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, and a few others. 

Other improvements over the previous chapters include dialogue which is less clumsy and an overall reduction of sentimentality. The plot, still highly faithful to Rowling's novel, also shows a bit more care with its details. Of course, a savvy and mature fan of science fiction and fantasy tales can pick many details apart, but if one keeps in mind that this is a family movie, then it clearly stands superior to its passable predecessors.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Director: Mike Newell

The fourth movie in the series gets into the action more quickly than the previous installments, soon getting to the titular and lethal "Goblet of Fire" tournament in which Harry unwillingly becomes a competitor. Now 14 years old, Harry is dealing with not only the stresses of the tournament but also questions about romance and friendship. These latter life elements eventually take a back seat, though, as Harry ultimately comes face-to-face with Voldemort himself. 

Goblet of Fire is something of a blend of the strengths and weaknesses of the previous three movies. It generally overcomes some sappier elements in its first two acts with some deadly serious consequences and repercussions in its third act. While some of the first two-third of the movie is given over to teenage angst, the final act makes it clear that play time is over. Over in a way that includes a full-on murder right in front of Harry's face. Not exactly the stuff of kiddie movies, which is quite welcome to any of us viewers past puberty. 

The three primary characters of Harry, Ron, and Hermione are now acting as moody as nearly all 14 year-olds. The interpersonal drama can be a bit tedious at times, but it does create a deeper sense of character. Even if the sappier parts of the drama become a tad thick, they are dispatched in the final part of the movie, when the long-teased nemesis Voldemort finally makes his first true, full appearance. He brings with him the sense of terror that's been building through the previous three films, to be sure, and it sets up the rest of the series extremely well.

So the first half of this eight-film series was solid enough, although the earliest movies haven't aged as well. Fortunately, the general trend was that the quality improved, which boded well as I headed into movies five through eight (review coming in a couple of days).

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Coraline (2009)


Director: Henry Selick

Spoiler-Free Summary

Coraline is a precocious 10-year old girl who is bored out of her mind. Her parents move their family to a new town, into a large, shared house, where her mother and father can write gardening books. The house also gives residence to a few other odd denizens, including a former circus performer who trains mice to perform acrobatic feats, and two former burlesque performers who are now in their advanced years and have a fetish for Scottish Terriers.

On their first afternoon in the new apartment, Coraline discovers a small door covered over with wallpaper. After finding the key, she crawls through and finds a bizarre alternative universe, which appears much like her own but with startling differences. In this "other" world, her parents, who look the same except for the unnerving feature of having buttons for eyes, pay the utmost attention to her, give her whatever she likes, and dazzle her with various eye-catching antics and spectacles. Coraline goes right along for the fun-filled ride, right up until she grows tired and goes to bed in this happier version of her own world. When she wakes, she finds herself back in her own humdrum surroundings, complete with her dull parents.

Coraline's "other" parents sure act friendly and caring,
but those button eyes are creepy for a reason.
After a few more night of retreating to the other world, Coraline starts to figure out that something is amiss with her new-found paradise. Between her own intuition and hints from a mangy cat, she realizes that the "alternative" family's intentions are far from benevolent. She soon has to use all of her cunning and resources to evade the various traps set up by the other mother, who is far more terrifying than Coraline could ever have known.

What Did I Think?

Coraline is a wonderfully imaginative and novel children's tale that I would hesitate to show many children. To put it plainly - it would freak them the hell out.

I guess this is to be expected from the director that brought us The Nightmare Before Christmas. Obviously, Henry Selick is not afraid to mix elements of horror in with the more light-hearted whimsical tales that appeal to children. Pairing him up with Neil Gaiman - the brilliant storyteller behind many a popular children's and adults' tale - was bound to produce a singular type of film. And it did, in all the right ways.

The story is truly the stuff of an imaginative child's fantasy: an alternate world where your parents have all the time in the world for you and are interesting and fun. Of course, this veneer of paradise masks an insidious terror, but we can't know exactly what it is until Coraline does. Her uncovering of it carries the film along nicely.

Just one of the many lush, vibrant sets in which the story
takes place. The three dimensions truly do add a more
palpable sense of place, which is something that even
the very best 2D animated films lack. 
The stop-motion animation is wonderful. It's a labor-intensive art form, but one that sets films like this apart from most other animated movies. It may not have the smooth graphics of a Pixar movie or the simple majesty of the classically hand-rendered films popularized by Disney, but the three-dimensional settings and characters do add a sense of tactile richness to Coraline. There is something that I think we viewers, on an unconscious level, see as more impressive about these films. It enhances the wonder that is already a major part of the tale.

And like all great animated movies, this one is hardly just for kids. Sure, young people (who don't scare easily) will follow along with glee and amazement, but there's plenty of "adult" humor. The retired burlesque performers who live downstairs from Coraline are prime examples of this, but there are plenty of others.

Coraline is a really fun film that I would gladly sit down and watch with a kid who hadn't seen it before, provided they can handle some dark and scary imagery that might give a nervous youngster some serious nightmares. 

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Film # 80: E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial


Director: Steven Spielberg

Initial Release Country: United States

Times Previously Seen: 5 or 6, probably (Last seen – around 25 years ago).

Teaser Summary (No spoilers)

Young boy meets kindly little stranded alien. They bond by helping each other and getting drunk, among other things.

Extended Summary (Lengthier plot synopsis, including spoilers. Fair warning.)

In a forest just outside a Californian suburb, a spacecraft is on the ground. Its crew, a short and hairless species of extra-terrestrial, is gathering plant samples. When a group of very curious men arrives nearby, the visitors quickly retreat to their ship. One of their members, though, is left behind due to the need to escape detection. His ship departs, but this lone, stranded alien evades capture by scuttling down to the nearby neighborhood.

In one of the homes near the woods, a young boy named Elliot (Henry Thomas) is sent out by his older brother Michael (Robert McNaughton) and his friends to get a pizza. In doing so, Elliot follows a strange noise to the nearby storage shed, where he tosses a softball in. When some unseen thing tosses it back, Elliot dashes inside and tries to convince his family of what he saw, but to no avail. They find nothing, discredit Elliot, and they all go to bed.

The alien, in the woods as he's about to be left behind by his crew.

Later that night, however, Elliot goes back out to the shed, where he stumbles across the alien from the woods. Both are terrified of each other, and the alien scampers back to the forest. The next day, Elliot’s friends and family still dismissing his tales of the creature, he bikes to the woods and scatters candy about in an attempt to lure the creature out. The plan does not initially seem to work. However, late that night, with Elliot sleeping in a chair outside their shed, the alien slowly emerges. Elliot wakes and the two quietly size each other up. Eventually, the alien leaves a handful of the candy that Elliot had left for him.

Elliot uses more of the candy to lure the alien up to his room. Once Elliot sees the creature in full, he sees that it is a short (shorter even than him), brown, almost reptilian creature with large eyes. The creature seems totally peaceful and willing to follow Elliot around.

The next day, Elliot fakes being sick to stay home. He shows the creature around the house and tries to explain as much as he can about the objects around them. That afternoon, Elliot shows the creature to his older brother and their younger sister, Gertie (Drew Barrymore). After the initial shock, the siblings accept the creature as a docile curiosity and swear not to tell anyone.

Later that night, while the children attempt to explain where they are on a globe, the creature levitates several balls of play-doh and communicates through this and gestures that his home is in the distant stars. Elliot and his siblings now understand that the creature is, in fact, an alien or “E.T.”, for “extra-terrestrial”. On top of this, the E.T. (which becomes Elliot’s de facto name for the creature), instantly revives a dying plant simply by touching it with a glowing finger. Apparently, E.T.’s powers are beyond human comprehension.

Gertie and E.T., holding one of the plants that he empathically brought back to life.

The next day, while Elliot is at school about to dissect frogs with his class, E.T. explores the house. He starts scavenging various electronic devices to assemble a make-shift communicator, intending to contact his home planet and ask for rescue. He also downs several beers, becoming drunk in the process. Amazingly, Elliot starts to show the same effects of intoxication in his class. Clearly, some kind of mental and physical bond has emerged between the human boy and the alien he is fostering.

Upon returning home, Elliot finds that Gertie has taught E.T. to talk in a rudimentary form of English. E.T. explains his plan to contact his home world with his cobbled transmitter, and Elliot is eager to help. This is growing ever more important, as both E.T. and Elliot start showing signs of illness. Unbeknownst to any of them, though, is that there are shadowy government agents searching the neighborhood, and they have just pinpointed the alien that they are searching for.

The following day is Halloween. Amid the revelry, Elliot takes E.T. to the forest, where the alien sets up his communicator and sends his S.O.S. into the stars. In the night, however, E.T. and Elliot get separated. Elliot wakes in the forest, but E.T. is nowhere in sight. Later that day, Michael goes back to the woods and finds E.T., face down near a storm drain, pale and barely alive. Michael brings the shallowly-breathing alien back home, where Elliot is also showing the effects of severe illness. Not knowing what else to do, Michael reveals E.T. to their mother. In shock, she grabs the weakened Elliot and tries to run out of the house, only to be met by an entire squad of government scientists and soldiers.

The government scientists quarantine the entire house and begin to study E.T. and Elliot, attempting to save both of them. One of the men who was first looking for the aliens in the forest arrives and explains that they want to help. Eventually, despite their efforts, the bond between E.T. and Elliot dissipates, and E.T.’s health declines further. All of his vital signs stop, and he is declared dead.

Before the scientists take E.T. away, the lead scientist allows Elliot a private moment to say goodbye to the alien. As he is doing so, Elliot tells the dead E.T. that he loves him. Immediately after, E.T. regains consciousness and explains to Elliot that his fellow crew members are returning to rescue him. Quickly pulling a ruse, Elliot and Michael manage to get E.T. out of the house and into an ambulance, escaping the government agents.

After being revived, E.T. assists in his own escape, about to levitate his rescuers into the air.

Several of Michael’s friends quickly catch up to the fleeing trio, and they manage to further evade the government agents. The ultimate moment is when E.T. levitates all five of his rescuers and their bicycles high into the air and into the forest. When night falls, E.T.’s ship returns to the spot where they first had to leave him. E.T. is now rescued.

Upon their farewells, E.T. finally points to Elliot’s heart and tells him that “I’ll be right here.” E.T. then boards his mother ship and the craft returns to the skies.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (Done upon this recent viewing, before any further research.)

This one has lost quite a bit of luster, in my eyes. This is probably for a few reasons.

First, let me lay out the things that I still like about E.T. For a PG-rated family flick, there is still a great amount of wonder to be found in the movie. Since there are certain things that are never fully explained, mostly about E.T.’s race and powers, the viewer is left with a very healthy amount of curiosity. Because I hadn’t seen the movie since I was about 10 years old, I noticed things like the fact that E.T.’s crew all seem to be intergalactic botanists. This is an interesting, pacifist portrait to paint of a group of aliens, and one that you wouldn’t expect in a massive-budget Hollywood movie.

More than E.T’s seeming job as an interstellar sample gatherer, though, are his strange powers and abilities. What can the viewers make of the clear psychic bond between E.T. and not only his own species, but with seemingly all living things around him? Despite the fact that they appear to be a stunted and physically handicapped, the species is clearly possessed of abilities far beyond human reach. You can have a field day thinking of the ramifications or imagining just what E.T’s home-world and civilization must be like. The fact that these questions are never answered is probably the most indelible piece of magic in the movie, to me.

E.T's ability to communicate and empathize with other living organisms, signaled by his glowing chest and finger, are left for us to puzzle and wonder over.

The other clear strength is more general and about Spielberg himself. While I often have my gripes about his films (I’ll get to those in a paragraph or two), no one can fault the man’s technical skill as a director. From his earliest movies in the 1970s, Spielberg showed himself able to set up crisp, clean shots that told a story through pictures as much as dialogue. Let’s face it – his films are almost always pleasurable to look at and take in. This is because his framing of shots and choreographing of action is virtually flawless. It may not always be creative or interesting, but he always knows how to use film technique effectively. E.T. is no exception.

So why doesn’t E.T. hold the same spot in my heart that it did 30 years ago, when at six years old I had my parents take me to see it three times in the theater? Well, the easy answer is that I’m not a kid anymore. But this doesn’t tell the whole story. Number one is that in the succeeding three decades, I have grown into a more sophisticated fan of science fiction. Rather than a heart-warming story about a boy and his alien, I now usually go to science fiction novels and movies to find interesting speculations about the very real ramifications of scientific discoveries. E.T. doesn’t offer any of this, giving us something that is more a blend of fantasy and sci-fi, rather than pure sci-fi.

More to the point, as a better-versed fan of science-fiction, E.T. raises a few too many “techy” questions that I can’t let go. How, exactly, does E.T.’s spacecraft even sniff the ground in California without getting blown to bits by the Air Force? Why did E.T.’s species not wear any type of insulator suits to prevent transmission or contraction of diseases, as the title character seemed to? These are the kinds of questions that I couldn’t have even thought of as a kind, but I can now. And when I do, the lack of answers lets the balloon out of my disbelief’s suspension.

Another one of my little bugaboos is related to one of the movie’s strengths – Spielberg’s direction. I praise Spielberg’s direction for being very crisp and clean, but in E.T., this is a mild detriment when it comes to plot, themes, and characterization. By now, it’s easy to figure the Spielberg story blueprint for family films: amazing, supernatural events + sympathetic child(ren) + a mild dash of humorously crass dialogue + sentimentality. Voila! Summer blockbuster!! Sure, E.T. shows much more imagination, heart, and production value than the endless copycats that followed, but it’s all a tad too adorable for me now.

Honestly, who could resist those big ol' baby blues?

Speaking of adorable, E.T. might be the single best example of Spielberg’s mastery at emotional manipulation, and it all comes down to one, simple decision about the way the E.T. looked – his eyes. What better way to ensure that everyone and their brother can empathize with a creature that otherwise looks like some mashed up reptile? Give it massive, blue, human eyes. Hey, it’s worked in Japanese anime and manga for all these decades, so why wouldn’t it work for Steven Spielberg?

One final note of distaste. This is the first film that I’ve done for this blog that features something that has become standard is a lot of commercial movies – product placement. Anyone who was alive when E.T. came out remembers how sales of Reese’s Pieces spiked. This, no doubt, helped push the rock of marketing even further towards the cliff.

This is another film from the “All-TIME” list that does have me wondering why it was included on their list. Sure, it was a massive hit, and it was a different take on the tale of the alien visitor. Is this enough to consider it one of the “all time great” films and rank it with the likes of Citizen Kane, Ikiru, Persona, and the like? My hunch is no, but I’ll do some more research for my “Take 2” (below).

So, as it stands, I don’t see myself watching E.T. again for a long time, if ever. I would certainly watch it with a young child who had never seen it before, and I suppose that a young would really enjoy it, just as I did long ago. But on my own, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Take 2: Why Film Geeks Love This Movie (Done after some further research on film.)

Apparently, I’ve become a bit of a jaded cynic.

In digging into E.T.’s original reception, I have rediscovered the insanely positive reactions that the film inspired. As we all know, it was massively popular, setting box office records that stood for many years. More than this, though, is what I learned about critical responses. E.T. was nominated for NINE Academy Awards, including “Best Picture”. The capper for me was that Richard Attenborough, the director who beat out E.T. with his remarkable biopic Gandhi, said that he not only thought E.T. would win, but that it should win Best Picture. Over Gandhi, for Pete’s sake!!

It doesn’t stop there. The E.T. character was nominated for TIME Magazine’s “person of the year”, the first time a film character had ever been nominated. In late 1982, the film was screened at the United Nations, and Steven Spielberg was given a U.N Peace Medal.

Sheesh! That little brown dude seriously stirred up some love!

Many were stunned when Gandhi beat out E.T. for Best Picture. Maybe the Academy people just got confused by the physical similarities between Ben Kingsly and the cute, bronzed little alien.

Lest anyone think that this was simply a “right place, right time” kind of movie, it was re-released on big screens in 2002, and it raked in another $60 million. From my own personal experience as an English as a Second Language teacher, I have seen the ubiquity of E.T. Nearly all of my students, from the farthest reaches of the globe and many of them born long after E.T. first came out, have seen and know the movie. Clearly, this film story has some serious staying power.

Despite all of this evidence to its “greatness”, I still can’t sign off on it. I suppose that I can agree that it is “great” in that the film makes an enduring connection with young people all over the world. In this sense, it transcends so may of the boundaries that prevent our different cultures from appreciating each others’ art forms. From a personal perspective, though, I can’t place E.T. anywhere near the level of bolder, more imaginative films, either within or outside of the science fiction genre.

Here endeth my mild skewering of the world’s most beloved, dumpy, glowing alien.

That’s a wrap. 80 shows down. 25 to go.

Coming Soon: Blade Runner (1982):


 I follow up family-friendly science fiction in the form of E.T. with a trip to the dark, twisted side of science fiction. This one, an adaptation from a story by the brilliant, paranoid writer Philip K. Dick, is all high-concept and sleek style.

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.