POLL: E.T. -- great movie or not?

No vote from me. I don't consider E.T. a great movie, but I wouldn't call it sappy either. It's certainly more deserving of a Best Picture nomination than Gandhi.

 

The only time E.T. becomes sappy for me is when E.T. is presumed to be dead. Spielberg goes a little overboard there. But then the movie recovers and soars again.

 

SPR & Munich are my personal recent Spielberg faves. Not seen E.T. since the eighties.

 

I thought it was great when i first saw it, but i don't think it's aged very well.

 

I saw ET when it was first released and I thought it was sappy when everyone else seemed to rave about it. Sure, I recognized that it was good film making, but I didn't get caught up in the magic of it at all.

 

I enjoyed ET when I saw it at the theater. I was 12 years old at the time and I haven't seen it since. In truth, I find a lot of Spielberg's films to be sappy and overrated-even though I like some of them.

 

I haven't seen E.T. since I was a kid. Perhaps, if I watched it now, it might come across as sappy to me - I dunno.
I think adults should approach this film with their adult sensibilities completely switched off to fully enjoy it.

 

I guess that explains why I still love it. I'm always doing that. My immaturity knows no bounds.

 

I watched Frenzy the other day. It's pretty ugly, but it's also riveting. But The Birds was post-psycho, which I love. But I agree his worst movies were Marnie, Torn Curtain and Topaz.

 

I think "Birds" was Hitch's real last gasp. I actually kinda dig "Family Plot" but I couldn't call any of the post-1963 films really good - they're decent to bad, IMO.

"Birds" is awesome, though - it's in my Hitch top 5...

 

They spent a ton of money on advertising for War Horse, including a huge budget campaigning for Oscar nominations, which didn't happen. I was surprised to learn from an acquaintance of mine that the biggest flaw I saw in the film -- the absence of the farm boy for about an hour in the film -- does not happen in the original Broadway play. I felt the movie lost a ton of energy when it was only about the horse, who ultimately I didn't give a crap about. I think their decision to alter the movie screenplay to adopt a completely different structure than the play was a huge mistake.

TinTin was a weird, weird film, but I liked it a lot more than I suspected I would.

That's very true. Spielberg is acutely aware of his responsibility as a filmmaker to make the film at least profitable. Still, it's interesting that when people talk about his bombs, they forget about Hook and Always, which were enormous flops for their time. They remember 1941, though Spielberg is quick to point out that this film eventually did break even overseas.

 

Alert the newspapers: I agree with you 100%. I thought it was corny in 1982, and it's more corny today.

 

Did you hear the story about how Spielberg milked audience "shock reactions" in "Jaws"? There's one scene that got a big reaction in previews - can't recall which one - so Spielberg added another one earlier in the film; I think it was the discovery of Ben Gardner's corpse that was added.

Anyway, the first scene got a huge reaction so he assumed the second one would receive the same, but it didn't - the first scene made the audiences wary and they were "watching" for more "boo" moments, so the subsequent scares weren't as effective.

You'd think he would've learned a lesson, but I guess not, since he went to the well one too many times in "ET" with the bikes...

 

And there we disagree! I didn't care about the humans - especially not the dull farm boy - and liked the movie better when it went "horse POV":

"Once war begins, however, that changes and the title becomes more logical. (Hey, it’s not called Farm Horse, is it?) When Joey leaves Ireland, we lose Albert much of the time and focus on the animal.

That’s an interesting twist and a reasonably successful one, as I’m not sure how much I’d want to spend two hours down on the farm with Albert and his family. Not that they tell a bad story, but the notion of war from the horse’s point of view offers intrigue, and the movie takes us down a variety of fairly good paths."

 

But the major print critics agreed with me on War Horse, the public didn't spend money on tickets, the movie won very few awards, and the Broadway play on which it's based stays with the kid for 90% of the story. That's my point.

I'm not sure it could've been a bigger hit because I think a historical drama about WWI is going to distance itself with contemporary audiences no matter what you do. It's a very hard sell. I liked sections of the movie, but I'd call War Horse a classic example of a movie that falls apart due to structural problems. It wasn't until a year after the movie was released that I found out that the original play did not make the same mistake as the film screenplay. It's not a terrible film -- just a disappointing one.

Spielberg has a tendency every few years of making films that I suspect are heavy-handed bids to try to win awards. I'd say Color Purple was one of those (and he was heavily criticized for it back in the 1980s), as was War Horse and Lincoln. I think Lincoln, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan were each much more successful efforts for a lot of reasons, mainly in that they were more accessible to mass audiences.

Some of Spielberg's films to me just leave me shaking my head in dismay. AI was one of them, as were Hook and Always. Each of them has some terrific moments, but at the end, I'm muttering, "what were they thinking?"

About the only two forms Spielberg hasn't tried yet are making a Western and making a Musical, and it'd be interesting to see him attempt that. Both are very, very hard to do, especially today (and doing it under a given budget), but I'd like to see him try.

 

To me, a great example of a movie that I thought was amazing when new, and no interest in seeing it now. Don't think my kids liked it either, very dated but it sure wasn't when it was new. Will never forget those days when ET, Star Wars and Indy were all new. What a great time for the movies. Liked the effects in those movies better, in the day, than the CGI that permeates everything now, much of the time done just because it can be. It's often more about the effects than telling a good story. But, clearly I'm in the minority!

 

Great movie

 

In my opinion — and probably speaking from a European cineast’s point of view — undoubtedly Mr. Spielberg knows the craftsmanship of making movies, but he’s not exactly known for his subtle, understated style.

 

It's hard to argue with that. For example, I mentioned earlier that I like Jurassic Park quite a bit, but there are quite a few moments in the film that are done with a very heavy-hand. I feel like I'm watching a heavily story-boarded film that's very, very calculated, rather than just a story that's happening in front of my eyes.

And there's a lot of that Spielberg Face stuff going on:



Tons of stuff from E.T. in that. I admire Spielberg very much, but once I realize that I'm being jerked around like a marionette, I'm not always happy about it.

 

When was the last time you watched it? Not just "you", but all of you who feel this way.

There are too many brilliant moments captured in this film which have held up so well for so long to let a Hollywood ending ruin it. Good grief, it's sci-fi fiction! E.T. is pitch perfect.

I recommend viewing on a reference plasma with decent surround. It is beautiful.

 

I disagree. I think that "Frenzy" was Hitch's last really good film. Certainly "Frenzy" has its flaws as well but it works well for the most part. "Family Plot" is enjoyable but its nothing special and I always thought it looked more like a TV movie than any other late Hitchcock films.

I know Robin Wood championed "Marnie" but its badly flawed in a number of ways including the casting of Tippi who I've always felt just was t a good actress. The role required someone that could play a ice princess but still generate sympathy something I feel doesn't occur.

 

So are you trying to tell me I'm not entitled to my own opinion because the critics agreed with you and the movie didn't make much money?

 

I think "Frenzy" is okay but it's just too inconsistent to be a really good film, IMO:

http://www.dvdmg.com/frenzy.shtml

And while I kinda get your "TV movie" notion about "Family Plot", I thought that it was playful and entertaining:

http://www.dvdmg.com/familyplot.shtml

 

Loved ET at the time. On rewatching it again one thing is certain...

Dee W. Stone cannot act.

 

Hated it. When I left the theatre, I told patrons in line for the next showing, "It's like being force-fed a gallon of caramel."

I'm now more forgiving, as it's a children's film. At the time I was expecting more of a CLOSE ENCOUNTERS movie.