Jakester
I finally caught up to this film 30-plus years after its release - I've been eager to see it for all these years - I remember very well the positive critical buzz it got, back in the day, from Roger Ebert and especially Janet Maslin in the NY Times. I was heartened by a review here at IMDb that says something like "one of the best best science fiction movie ever made" - whoa, really? On par with "2001," "Star Wars," "Close Encounters"?? Well....no. Not at all. It's on the level of "Forbidden Planet" - worth watching if you've got some time to kill and/or if you're curious about the science fiction genre. I came away from the movie with exactly the same feeling I got from "The Fog" (another John Carpenter film) - cool premise, lots of potential, but ultimately air-headed with no deep satisfaction.The strong suit of Jeff Bridges is his affable American naturalness and accessibility; here, he is denied the chance to portray those things in favor of stiff alien chilliness and a modestly-charming goofiness that wears thin before their cross-country trip reaches Nebraska. He ends up merely showing off for Academy voters (they bought the shtick).Karen Allen is beautiful here - she's never been photographed better - those big eyes are amazing, every close-up is a masterpiece of lighting, composition, and makeup, and she wears jeans as well as any actress ever. But she's asked to carry way too much of the load. She's a good supporting actress but not really a leading lady, she hasn't got the likability chops. (In the wake of this film's mediocre box office performance, was she ever again asked to carry a big budget film?) Charles Martin Smith is OK but gets too much screen time (because Starman and Jenny don't have much to say to each other). He seems to spend an awful lot of time climbing out of helicopters and hiking across tarmacs. A little sprinkling of government agents goes a long way. The plot has too many holes. Starman can bring various lifeforms back from the dead but can't conjure up a way to keep Jenny awake? (I realize he needs to ration his little energy balls, but their stopping at the motel is just so obviously a plot device. Some better excuse needed to be found for their stop. (How about Starman has a need to watch TV to understand our culture? How about TV provides him with some sort of nourishment? How about he wants to observe the mating rituals of high school kids? Hardly any kids have been seen in the movie up to this point; surely he would need to understand age differences. So: they stop at the motel to buy Coke, he sees a young couple or two going into a room, he demands to know what's going on, Jenny thinks he's crazy but they get a room, she falls asleep, he watches TV and learns what he needs to learn from Burt and Deborah on the beach.)Would the government really institute a roadblock on a major freeway without posting many highway patrol cops telling drivers to slow down? (Answer: no possible way; the liability issues are massive.) Would the cops in the diner at the end of the film really not have a description of Starman?When the government team cracks open the alien spacecraft after much effort, would the whole team really gather around the capsule door as it opens, or might there be some cautious exploration first by a Haz Mat team? (Which could have been shown in the background.) Movie-goers of 1984 were almost certainly familiar with the radical steps taken by NASA in 1969 to protect Earth from possible space germs - these steps were one of the most marked and interesting things about the moon shot. To this day (2017) NASA has a full-time staff person in charge of protecting us from space microbes. The crater sequence at the end obviously cost a fortune, with more helicopters than "Apocalypse Now." But the sequence just kind of sits there, there's no electricity. (The musical score during the chopper attack might have evoked "Ride of the Valkyries" as a little nod to Coppola.) The film has its good moments of course; you can't spend $22 million and not generate at least a few such moments. The smoking-a-cigarette scene is hilarious. The railroad car sequence is sweet and charming; it could have been made truly witty if Starman had demonstrated superhuman sexual stamina (for example, Karen could check her watch at 5 p.m. and the next thing she knows it's 10 p.m., they're still doing it, and "Do That To Me One More Time" gets evoked in the score.) If you have a yen for a road picture and want really good entertainment, you have many choices in this splendid genre, including "The Sugarland Express," "Sullivan's Travels," "The Last Detail," "Thelma & Louise," "Y Tu Mama Tambien," "Borat," "Living Is Easy With Eyes Closed," "Almost Famous," "Pierrot le Fou," "The Motorcycle Diaries," "The Straight Story," "Journey to Italy," "Road to Morocco," "Mad Max: Fury Road," "Harry and Tonto," and "Easy Rider."
gheremond
Reportedly John Carpenter shot this movie as a way to show people that he could still understand what the audience wanted after the critical and financial disaster of his previous high-profile assignment, The Thing. Whether he proved his point or not is open to interpretation, although the fact that Starman was essentially his last big budget movie during the 80's and the director eventually kept spiraling farther away from the mainstream is probably evidence that this film didn't go as planned either. What Carpenter did accomplish though in the process, is craft the best serious take on an encounter with an alien civilization, at least until Contact came along.Compared to any other of Carpenter's films, Starman is perhaps the most singular and also the most genre-bending of any of his projects. You might have thought he pushed the envelope with Big Trouble in Little China, but Starman goes even further. The story is part alien encounter, part road movie, part romance and manages to mix its elements competently and switch gears expertly, propelled by two great performance by a young Jeff Bridges (this was his first Oscar nomination) and Karen Allen. Production values are also very high. Special effects, although not ubiquitous, are very imaginative and brilliantly executed whenever they occur. There are several shots in this one that have become iconic, such as the Starman transformation sequence early in the film, accomplished through a rare collaboration of two effects masters of the period, Stan Winston and Rick Baker. The movie is also graced with a spectacular score by Jack Nitzsche, elevating scenes like the finale into levels of otherworldly beauty.When it comes to Carpenter films, I consider this to be his finest, even compared to such gems as The Thing and Halloween. The fact that this isn't even remotely a horror film, so far from the director's comfort zone, makes it all the more remarkable. A classic and some of the most intelligent sci-fi you are ever going to find.
Pie CatLady
Yes! This is a marvelous movie about humanity - our fears, hopes, strengths and weaknesses. Jeff Bridges is amazing as the Starman - he really seems to be not of this earth. Karen Allen is lovely and so appealing as she overcomes her fear and proves that love is universal. Plus Charles Martin Smith - Terry the Toad (ugh!) in "American Graffiti" - really rocks it as a humanitarian scientist, one who realizes that we invited the Starman and owe him a little respect. Not exactly handsome, but he's grown so lovable since his early role as a clumsy nerd. Probably he played that unattractive part so convincingly because he's an intelligent and talented actor. I've seen the flick ten times or more but it never grows old. It always amazes me. The acting is convincing and the story is well told. Indeed it is a brilliant romance which warms and informs the heart.
