#15 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Shown in four parts, the film opens with The Dawn of Man, when ape-like humans roamed the Earth.  One day they awaken to find a giant monolith in the middle of their habitat.  After that, they learn to use a bone for both practical and savage uses.  The second part, TMA-1, transitions to the year 2001.  Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) is preparing to travel to Clavius Base, an American outpost on the moon, to investigate an artifact.  The artifact happens to be a black monolith.  The third part, the Jupiter Mission, occurs 18 months later.  Astronauts Dr. David Bowman (Keir Dullea), Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), and the ship’s computer, HAL 9000 (voice of Douglas Rain), are aboard the Discovery One headed for Jupiter.  “Hal” runs the ships operations and is supposed to be “foolproof and incapable of error,” however after falsely reporting the error of a certain device on board, Dave and Frank begin to doubt Hal’s infallibility.  It soon becomes a struggle between man and machine.  In the final part, called Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite, Discovery One reaches Jupiter.  Dave leaves his EVA pod to explore and finds another black monolith.  As he approaches the monolith, he finds himself in a disoriented state, where he can see himself rapidly age and evolve until the only place left for him to go is back to square one.

We all know the expression, “Save the best for last,” right?  Well, this movie is the exact opposite.  Until we reach the third part, there is barely any plot.  I am not sure if it is my aversion to monkeys that threw me off in the beginning or the fact that it is a sci-fi film to a very great degree, but I found it torturous to watch this movie.  Honestly, since there was very little dialogue, I fast-forwarded through several pointless minutes.  Maybe I missed out by doing that, but it was the only solution I saw for making it through this film.

I felt like I was back in science class watching a movie about astronauts, space, and technology.  The numerous shots of spaceships, moving in what appeared to be real-time, and all the shots of the planets and the universe sent me into a time warp.  I could barely understand what was going on.  If it were not for Wikipedia, I would have been totally lost during the entire movie.  One thing I understood was that the monolith held great importance and that it had something to do with the theme of this movie.  What theme you ask?  According to Wikipedia, the themes are human evolution, technology, artificial intelligence and extraterrestrial life.  I understood the evolution of humans, with the ape-men evolving to people, and  I understood the artificial intelligence and technology aspects, with the HAL 9000 as a model for both.  The extra-terrestrial life is non-existent, so I do not understand that theme. And how do they relate to the monolith?  I have absolutely no idea.

The only Academy Award 2001: A Space Odyssey received was for Best Visual Effects.  This is where I say I may have missed out by fast-forwarding because I was not visually impressed and had I watched the entire movie without skipping parts, maybe I would have had a different reaction.  There is a lot written about the visuals in relation to this film, but I do not feel like wasting my time reading it to get a better understanding.  I have no doubt director Stanley Kubrick spent an insane amount of time meticulously going over every visual detail.  He was a perfectionist and that is what perfectionists do.  I just was not impressed.  Space is one of the most boring topics to me.  I am grateful for the universe, without which I would not be here, and hope one day we really can have meetings on the moon, but for now I have no interest in watching spaceships fly around for several minutes at a time.

Kubrick lost both the Best Director and Best Original Screenplay awards.  At first, I asked, what screenplay?  With the lack of steady dialogue and extensive use of visuals, there does not seem to be much of a screenplay.  However, I will retract that statement because there is an idea behind the movie.  Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, a British sci-fi author who helped write the screenplay, deserve credit for their imaginative and unusual story.  It received extremely mixed reviews upon its release.  Some lauded it as the best science fiction film ever made, while others called it “dull” and claimed to have fallen asleep in their seats.  Though I call the screenplay imaginative, mainly because I have never seen anything like it and find Kubrick to be extremely ballsy for even daring to release it, it bored me to tears and reminded me why I shy away from sci-fi films.

The one thing I can appreciate, besides the amount of work Kubrick put into the film, is the soundtrack.  There was always music playing. The opening song, “Adventures,” as well as the closing song, “Zarathustra,” I recognized.  They are very uplifting instrumental pieces.  And another piece, “Lux Aeterna,” was very eerie and went nicely with the space shots.  I can agree that the sights and sounds matched perfectly, but the sounds were not enough to spark my interest in the imagery.

2001: A Space Odyssey is not a movie; it is shots of space set to a score.  It is slow, boring, and pointless.  The Wikipedia page on this film contains a plethora of information, but I can not bring myself to read it.  Maybe Wikipedia felt the need to convince viewers it was a good movie by putting all that information, or maybe I am totally missing the point and should not have fast-forwarded over half the film.  All I know is critic Roger Ebert wrote shorter-than-usual review on this film, mainly describing it versus giving readers his take on it, and the only people who should ever consider watching it are voracious sci-fi fans or astronomers.

#13 Star Wars (1977)

In a far away galaxy, a civil war is taking place.  Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), leader of the Rebel Alliance, steals the plans of a space station capable of destroying an entire planet and places them in a droid named R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) just before she is captured by the Imperial forces.  R2-D2 and his droid friend C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) are sold to Owen Lars (Phil Brown) and his nephew Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) by Jawa traders.  While cleaning R2-D2, Luke accidentally triggers a message from Leia in which she begs Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) for help.  Luke, struck by Leia’s beauty, wants to help her and through a series of events, he finds Obi-Wan.  The remainder of Leia’s message asks Obi-Wan to travel to the planet Alderaan, where her father is, so he can read and analyze the plans.  Obi-Wan explains to Luke that he once was a Jedi Knight, along with Luke’s father, and that there is a Force the Jedi draw their power from.  He asks Luke to help him get to Alderaan, which Luke agrees to do after finding his uncle and aunt killed by Imperial stormtroopers.  Luke, Obi-Wan, and the droids enlist the help of Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and his Wookie, Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew), to transport them to Alderaan in Solo’s ship, the Millennium Falcon.  However, it is not long before the team is tracked down and forced to defend themselves against evil lord Darth Vader (David Prowse) and his Imperial force, a “dark side” that may prove too powerful for them to escape from.

“The force will be with you…always.”  I still have goosebumps.  I am shockingly impressed.  I dreaded watching this movie for five and a half months, and it was all for nothing.  I based the fear on my “attempt” to watch Star Wars about a year and a half ago.  “Attempt” meaning, I put it on, watched one scene, said “no way,” and walked away thinking it was the worst film I ever saw.  I definitely was not in the right frame of mind that day, but luckily today was different.

I could not tell you what scene made me walk away a year and a half ago because there was nothing that made me want to turn my back on it this time.  The movie opens with action; the civil war occurring in the galaxy.  The first characters we meet are the droids and Leia.  I did not take much of an interest in Leia and I had my doubts about robots, but they were great.  C-3PO had quite a sense of humor, even when speaking for R2-D2.  I enjoyed starting the film with their journey, upon which we come to meet the rest of the characters.

This is by far the best performance of Alec Guinness’ life.  He had the poise, presence, and posture I’d want all Jedi Knights to possess.  One look at him and I knew he’d be playing the “great master” role, like Mr. Miyagi in The Karate Kid or Gandalf the Grey in Lord of the Rings.  However, he preceded both in talent and movie release date.  Another actor who continues to awe me is Harrison Ford.  He always has a charm and humor about him that makes his characters fun to watch.  I never know what is going to come out of his mouth or what his true plans are.  There is a selfishness to Han, as he is a criminal in need of money, but Luke and the droids bring out the kind, human side out in him.

I did not take much of a liking to Luke, just as I did not with Leia.  Over the years, I have heard the most about them since Leia often appears as a clue in my crossword puzzles and Luke is the “New Hope” for which this movie was later titled.  Yet, neither held a dynamic role in the film and I am happy about that.  They were the new kids and I found greater knowledge and strength in characters like Han, Obi-Wan, and even Darth Vader.  I also found more fulfillment and enjoyment in watching them.  Fisher was too masculine for me and I was shocked to find out she was five years younger than Hamill.  With his baby face, I assumed he was at least five to ten years younger than her.  That was too distracting for me and their sub par acting abilities did not help matters.

Director George Lucas not only directed this film, he also wrote it.  It took him three years and he began by creating odd names, characters, and their characterizations.  He’d take small notes and eventually started putting it all together.  He made several changes throughout the years and even while shooting.  I am impressed with his imagination and ability to relate it to the common man.  When I think of sci-fi and fantasy, humans are the farthest thing from my mind, which is something that deters me from watching those films.  I find nothing interesting about weird critters, odd props, or futuristic settings, but Lucas added a human element that kept my interest.  The civil war on the galaxy was like our war on Earth, except those fighting wore different uniforms and traveled around on space ships instead of tanks.  The ideas were not too far-fetched, but the creativity Lucas demonstrated proves he had a remarkable talent for writing.

Something that added to the “real” look of the galaxy was that Lucas created a “used universe,” as he called it, where ships and buildings were made to look dirty and old.  The costumes and sets, however, did not live up to Lucas’ initial vision.  Neither did the cinematography, which caused a great rift between him and main cinematographer Gilbert Taylor.  The cast also complained that though Lucas seemed unhappy, he did little to direct them towards the vision he had.  Yet, when production fell two weeks behind schedule, Lucas had little time to worry about all of that and had to focus on finishing the film.

Lucas’ first cut of the film turned out to be disastrous.  Thirty to forty percent of the footage from that cut is not in the final version of the film.  It was set to be released in December of 1976, but was held back until the summer of 1977 for editing.  It broke records upon its release and remains one of the most financially successful films of all time.  Ebert credits it with being one of the movies that helped shift the film industry’s focus from personal filmmaking to Hollywood blockbusters.  James Cameron was so struck by it that he quit his job as a truck driver to enter the film industry.  It has influenced numerous directors and movie makers over the years and continues to top movie lists all over the place.

I am not sure whether I will watch the rest of the Star Wars trilogy.  However, if Lucas kept the human aspect involved and if watching them means I finally get to see Vader say, “Luke, I am your father,” then I am all in.  My experience with Star Wars proves to me again that I do not know all there is to know about movie genres.  I watch one sc-fi/fantasy film, namely Lord of The Rings, and think they are all like that.  Star Wars is nothing like Lord of The Rings, thank God, and it deserves all the laud it gets.  I understand why Ford found the film “weird,” citing the buns in Leia’s hair as an example, but it works.  If you have never seen it, give it a try.  And watch more than the first five minutes.  I made that crucial mistake initially and if it had not been for this blog, I never would have gotten the full Lucas experience that everyone deserves to have.

#70 A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Alex (Malcolm McDowell) and his three friends, called “droogs,” are living in the near-future of London.  Every night, they wreak havoc by beating up homeless men, raping women, and stealing from helpless victims.  One night, the gang attempts to steal from a woman who runs a health farm (Miriam Karlin), but Alex is caught and sentenced to 14 years in prison for murder.  After two years, he volunteers for an experimental aversion therapy for rehabilitating criminals called the Ludovico technique.  Though he only did it to get out of prison early, the technique works and the now reformed Alex finds himself with a whole new set of problems upon his release.

Brilliant.  The screenplay, the plot layout, the characters, the script, the setting, the music, and the cinematography.  All brilliant.  I could not take my eyes off the screen.  If it was not the action I was watching, then it was the bold colors on the screen, the obscene props, or the futuristic sites of London.  And if the actors voices were not the main focus of the scene, I could be sure music was playing, whether it be Beethoven, the electronic synthetic music composed by Wendy Carlos, or ‘Singing in the Rain’, as performed by Malcolm McDowell.  Every second of A Clockwork Orange is filled with art of some sort, sometimes in more than one form, and it surely proves to be Kubrick’s finest film of all time, without question.

This film is not for everybody.  It was initially given an X rating in the United States for violent and sexually explicit footage.  Rape is candidly displayed and the female body appears quite often in its natural state.  Film critic Roger Ebert panned it, calling it an “ideological mess” and saying it, “pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex.”  Based on a novel of the same name, Ebert felt Kubrick took author Anthony Burgess’ work and altered its point of view to push audience’s towards a friendship with Alex versus hatred of him.  I never felt the hatred, but I also did not walk away from this film celebrating Alex’s criminal acts and absolving him of his sins.  I did not feel badly for him when he received a 14-year jail sentence, nor did I feel badly when his parents would not accept him back in their home.  However, I could tolerate him and I would rather have tolerance than hate while watching a film based mainly on that one character.

Ebert concluded his review by saying A Clockwork Orange “commits another, perhaps even more unforgivable, artistic sin.  It is just plain talky and boring.”  Ebert could not be more wrong.  I was enthralled from start to finish.  There is always action going on, the setting jumps out at you, and the talky?  Even that is entertaining because Alex and his friends speak Nadsat, a teenage, argot language composed of Slavic, English and Cockney rhyming slang.  Easy to figure out and fun to follow.  At this point, I am thinking somebody showed Ebert the wrong film because the phrases A Clockwork Orange and artistic sin could not be more oxymoronic.

Stanley Kubrick has had my attention ever since I watched Full Metal Jacket. He takes his time with the layout of his films, making sure everything from the music, to the actors, to the setting fits just right. Kubrick was a perfectionist, so it makes sense.  He took hundreds of photographs of potential locations in London and had to make sure each shot was just right.  Filming occurred between September 1970 and April 1971, making A Clockwork Orange his quickest film shoot to take place during his later years.  Honestly, I am blown away by how perfect it all appeared.  This is the only film that has inspired me to use the word “layout” in my boast.  When I use that word, it encompasses the whole package.  And the whole package takes my breath away.

I am shocked this film was not nominated for Best Music or Best Cinematography.  I noticed the music the entire time and the electronic synthetic compositions gave the film an eerie, seductive tone ideal for the plot.  The use of ‘Singing in the Rain’ also was an act of brilliance, improvised by McDowell during a scene in which he is raping a woman.  Kubrick said the scene was too stiff, so McDowell chose a show tune to lighten the mood.  The music also becomes a part of the story line when Alex adopts an aversion to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony after receiving treatment.  And the cinematography, with the use of wide-angle lenses and fast and slow motion shots, is amazing.  Kubrick used the wide-angle lens to create a dream-like quality, which reminds audiences that the film is futuristic.  The variance in speeds helped to either move time along quicker, such as in the one scene where Alex is having sex with two women, or accentuate a certain act by slowing down time.

A Clockwork Orange was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Film Editing, and Best Adapted Screenplay, but it lost in each category.  I think that is just sad, but it helps to keep it a cult classic.  Though generally regarded as a dramatic satire or science-fiction, many in the horror community call it the best horror film of all time.  I do not see it how it relates to horror, but I am proud to know that community thinks it is the best.

A Clockwork Orange is not your average film.  In 1971, it broke many sexual and violent barriers audiences were not used to seeing.  It does make me uncomfortable during certain scenes, but never to the point where I am disgusted or turned off.  It is Kubrick.  He is sensational; he is mad; he is an artistic genius.  It is what you get when you watch one of his films and I would expect nothing less.   Should you watch it?  Definitely.  Will it offend you?  Maybe.  It is artistic brilliance at its finest and the only sin Kubrick committed was not creating a sequel.

#50 The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

In an age of Middle-earth, Rings of Power were designated to three elven-kings, seven dwarf-lords, and nine mortal men.  Yet, One Ring was created by the Dark Lord Sauron of Mordor that controls them all.  During a battle, Prince Isildur cuts off Sauron’s finger with the ring on it and gains its power.  Over the years, the ring passes through the hands of the Hobbit Smeagol, Golem, and finally to Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm).  At the urging of his friend, Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), Bilbo passes the ring onto his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood).  The problem is that though the Dark Lord Sauron died once the ring was cut off his finger, his “life force” is bound to the ring and the ring must be destroyed in the flames at Mordor if he is to truly be defeated.  Frodo, along with his friend Sam (Sean Astin), the Wizard Gandalf, a raider Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), the Elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), the prince of Stewards Boromir (Sean Bean), and two other hobbit friends, make up the Fellowship of the Ring.  Frodo agrees to take the ring to Mordor and destroy it, while the rest of the Fellowship protect him and the ring from all the evils along his path.  This film depicts the first leg of that journey.

I want to present an incredible list of reasons why this movie should have never made the list, let alone earned millions of dollars at the box office, but I can not.  I can state the fact that I am not nor have I ever been a fan of this film or any other fantasy film.  The genre turns me off and bores me.  This film felt like three hours of hell spent mainly in my head wondering when it was going to end.  With each half hour that passed, I rejoiced.  Afterwards, I felt proud of myself for getting through it and only having fast-forwarded through a few battle scenes.  My fast-forward allows me to still see what is happening, but at a little quicker pace.

Five years ago, I watched thirty minutes of this film and turned it off.  Not for me.  Yesterday, once I reached that thirty minute mark, I hoped this film was one of those described as, “slow in the beginning, but it picks up later.”  Nope.  Slow in the beginning, slow in the middle, and even slower at the end.  The only part I really enjoyed was the first three minutes where the history of the Ring is described.  After that, the film can be summed up in one sentence: hobbits, dwarfs, and a wizard must destroy ring as monsters attack.  Essentially, it is a video game.  It is like Super Mario World where he must defeat various evil creatures to save the Princess in the castle.  In The Lord of The Rings, Frodo and his posse must defeat evil creatures to destroy the Ring in the fires at Mordor.  There is a goal and obstacles to the goal, and when I, the viewer, could care less about reaching the goal, the journey to it becomes pointless and uninteresting.

I can say the acting was good.  No one really blew me away, but I was not repelled by any of the characters either.  I know this film contains a few very well-known and respected actors, such as Ian McKellen, Ian Holm, and Cate Blanchett (she plays the elf Galadriel).  And the performances of Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, and Orlando Bloom in these films all received praise from critics and fans.  Yet, I’d still just say it was decent.  The acting neither enhanced my viewing pleasure nor did it add to my dislike of the film.  For me, it is basically a non-issue.  The movie was well-cast and the actors did their jobs as they were supposed to, but no one shined.

I did like the scenery and costumes.  The Shire, which is where Frodo and Bilbo lived, is a beautiful town with small cottages for the hobbits, radiant green grass, and plentiful land.  The costumes are different for each type of creature.  The Elves are all dressed in white, flowing outfits that make them seem like the delicate, loving creatures of the land.  Dwarfs are in brownish, tough, leather looking apparel which adds to their brutishness.  Wizards wear the long robes and have long hair and beards just as we’d imagine a wizard.  And the hobbits dress in more fun, mismatched clothing.  The rest of the scenery was all very elaborate, but never too over the top.  In watching a fantasy film, I understand the imagination can be stretched further and I do appreciate that.  Special effects were used as well, especially when there were battles between the Fellowship and various creatures, but even those were never too extravagant and it was all very realistic looking.  It is sure a far cry from the obvious fake ape in King Kong to the very real looking gremlins and ogres in this film.  Technology has come a long way.

I gave this movie a chance, but it failed to spark my interest.  I wondered whether going into it with a negative attitude about fantasy films may have tainted my view, but I went into Charlie Chaplin films with a negative view of the silent era and as I popped Unforgiven into my computer I remembered how much I despised action and guns.  And I loved all those films, so I do not believe I ever truly watch a movie with a closed mind.  If I did, I would say I am completely incapable of writing reviews because I’d be a biased critic.  The Lord of The Rings bored me and that is the memory I will associate with it.  I do not care whether that Ring ever reached the fires in Mordor and if one day I do, I will read about it on Wikipedia versus watching the second and third installment.  I could read the books too, but I am not much a fan of fantasy literature either.  No, I do not recommend this movie.  I recommend A.F.I. takes it off the list and replaces it with a film that deserves to be there.

#97 Blade Runner (1982)

Early in the 21st Century, the Tyrell Corporation produced genetically engineered replicants that were identical to humans.  Created for slave labor, they were eventually declared illegal on Earth and special policemen, called Blade Runners, were established to kill them.  Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) retired from that position, but in November 2019, his former supervisor (M. Emmet Walsh) asks him to come back after four replicants escaped.  He accepts the job and is sent out to “retire” (that is what killing them is called) the replicants for wanting to be human.  Along the way, he meets Rachael (Sean Young), a replicant who does not know she is a replicant until Rick tells her.  After she escapes, Rick is supposed to kill her, but they fall in love.  As the film goes on, his hunt for the other four replicants continues and his love affair with Rachael grows deeper.  The final scene leaves much to the imagination.

This film reminded me of a Choose Your Own Adventure book.  There were many details left unexplained, such as Rick’s status.  Was he human or replicant?  Did Rachael only have four years to live like the other replicants or was her life span longer?  Where did Rick and Rachael go in the end?  Why was the Tyrell Corporation still making the replicants?  They were not using them for labor, so what was the point?  Weren’t they scared the replicants would take over like we have seen in other futuristic Sci-Fi films?  Replicants were programmed to die after four years so their emotions would not kick in, but Roy (Rutger Hauer) said he feared his death.  How can one fear death if one can not feel?

Such intentionally ambiguous questions, but when you get to answer them on your own, what is there not to like about the plot?  This is coming from someone who HATES the Sci-Fi genre.  I literally went onto Wikipedia before watching the film and read the plot just so I knew what I was getting myself into.  And I kept reading it throughout the film because I do not always follow Sci-Fi very well.  I just wanted to make sure I knew what was going on, but to be honest I stayed glued to the film and though I doubted myself, I caught on to most of the themes and was able to follow the plot easily.  The replicants look like humans, so there are not alien forms or anything to that extent.  Though Los Angeles, where the movie takes place, is dark, dreary, and the cars looked odd, it is not unbelievably futuristic.  It is comparable to real life.  And the way the characters act is just like we do now.  So though the story line is technically Sci-Fi, it did not take me so far out of reality that I felt lost or confused.

There is not too much action, nor are the killings very brutal.  There are no long, drawn out chase scenes and I felt each scene included in the film was absolutely necessary to the plot.  The plot is simple – kill the replicants. There is then the love story on the side, which sparks questions of morals and ethics in both the audience and characters.  And the ending is enigmatic.  Being a writer, I love that I get to choose where the characters went.  I get to answer my own questions.  Develop my own stories.  This also leaves everything up for debate.  I can just see people leaving the movie theater back in 1982, arguing over what happened, was Rick a replicant or not, should he have killed Rachael, etc.  Movies that make me think – another trait I love in movies.

For those out there who fear Sci-Fi as much as I do, do not be afraid.  ‘Blade Runner’ is not as off the wall or completely unbelievable as I feel ‘Star Wars’ is.  The themes run deeper, making it something much more than just another old Sci-Fi flick.  And you do not need to be a writer, nor do you need to possess even one creative bone in your body to choose your own adventure.  It just kind of happens with this film.  We, as humans, hate being left in the unknown.  It is unsatisfying, so you will be able to naturally make up what you wanted to happen.  Imagination not needed.  I am still scared of Sci-Fi and totally dreading the day I need to watch ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (it’s number 15), but if you are going to give just one a chance, try this one.  On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being Superly, Gigantly Sci-Fi-orific, ‘Blade Runner’ is a 3.  Am I qualified to rate Sci-Fi?  Not at all, but just take my word on this one.

#24 E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (1982)

I am pretty sure I saw this movie start to finish when I was younger, but I can not remember.  My most recent memories come from a trip we took to Universal Studios in Florida when I was in grade school.  There is an E.T. ride where you sit on a bike and go through the story line and at the end, E.T. says goodbye to you personally.

So, how did the movie compare to that?  I have to say I would choose going on the ride versus watching the movie again any day.  The film kept my attention, however once was enough.  I was first startled by the fact that here was a single mother raising three children on her own.  I got over that fact by remembering the 1980’s were probably more advanced than I initially thought.  When Eliot encounter’s E.T. for the second time with the Reese’s Pieces, I was impressed by his bravery and found myself thinking about what I would do if I were in that situation.  I am terrified of loose animals, so if I saw an alien I don’t know what my body is capable of doing.

I enjoyed Drew Barrymore’s connection with E.T.  It made sense since they related to each either height wise and she was more so in the phase of playing with dolls and animals than either of her brothers.  Each child had a different connection with E.T.  I was confused during the scene where E.T. is getting drunk and it was affecting Eliot.  I thought I had missed a relevant scene where they had literally bonded with one another during an experiment, hence Eliot now felt what E.T. felt.  After doing some research on Wikipedia, I realized it was more of an internal bond the two had made with one another.  Growing up hearing about E.T., I always knew it was Eliot that had the strongest bond with the alien.

The movie kind of lost me after they first tried to help E.T. go home.  I am not sure if I stopped paying attention or what, but I can not remember why he never made it home that time.  I actually thought it was the end of the movie because Eliot’s bike lifted in the air and E.T. was saying “E.T. phone home,” but it was not.  I also did not understand whether those men in the woods in the beginning of the movie that saw E.T. were the same astronauts that came to Eliot’s house to capture E.T.  And their mother’s reaction to the alien shocked me.  I absolutely thought she would be accepting, however she completely freaked out.

So then they go to the astronaut’s work place and managed to break the bond between E.T. and Eliot, I think.  That part left me a little confused as well.  How did they break a bond that was built internally through external objects?  And when they pronounced E.T. dead, I believed it.  Since there had already been the bike scene and E.T. had said his famous line, I figured it was like the ending of ‘Lassie’ or start of ‘Bambi’.  A movie to teach children about death.  I never remembered hearing E.T. died in the end, but then again I never really knew what happened in the end.

Needless to say, Eliot brings him back to life and his red spot glows, which I think meant his call from home was answered?  Another bike scene follows, which is the one we emulated on the ride in Universal.  Then there is the final goodbye, reminding me of another movie I will be watching from the merry old land of Oz, and E.T. goes home.  I am not saying it is a bad movie, but it is not for me.  Something about sci-fi and fantasy leaves me confused.

I feel like I did not do a good, in-depth review.  However, this is my first ever and I assume by the time I reach my 100th review, I should have it down.  I wonder how many it took Ebert?