I'm almost 40 and just watched this and I have to say it's extremely overrated. The special effects are terrible and I was practically bored to tears. The end was ok but not worth the buildup. This is one of Spielberg's worst movies.
shareSorry you missed out on the era of great film making where emphasis was put on the characters, rather than cause and effect. Seems you grew up in the era where action was king and effects made the movie great.
It's sad really. Movies are made today to where I just don;t care what happens to the characters anymore. Let the slasher kill them. Let the hero die. Let the family dissolve into isolation. I just don't care what happens to them anymore. They are simply cardboard cut-outs that move around the screen doing cool things, saying cool stuff or setting up the next witty retort.
**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.
Way to assume my tastes there, I actually prefer dramas and arthouse films over anything, especially stuff from the 60s and 70s. This movie had bad acting and bad special effects. The characters in this movie were not that developed either, they just ran around chasing the spaceships, traveling to Wyoming, and having ominous discussions in foreign languages.
2001, Alien, Contact, Interstellar, Mission to Mars, Minority Report, and Signs are all great sci-fi movies. This is not.
This movie had bad acting
Your initial post did come off as trollish. You start with the cliche of "overrated" and move in with bad effects, boring, lame payoff and then finish with it being the director's "worst".
But since we agree on great sci-fi movies, as per your list (other than 2001 which, after several attempts, I have given up on and "interstellar" which i have not yet seen) , I have to ask a couple questions:
other than the pipe-cleaner alien at the end (which i agree was a poor special effect) what other special effects did you find to be lacking?
I thought the characters were fairly well-rounded. Of course there wasn't a series of drama that would offer them a lot of growth throughout the film. What would have fleshed out the characters more for you, than what we saw?
I found the tension throughout the buildup to be quite riveting. What bored you to tears?
I find it hard to fathom this being Spielberg's worst when I find it one of his best before he started rotting in the 80's.
**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.
...the pipe-cleaner alien at the end (which i agree was a poor special effect)
[deleted]
In the film, the skinny-ass Tall Boy alien was meant to be about 9 feet tall. All of the freakiness about it vanishes when you see how it looks without the extra lighting. It's basically a puppet, maybe 3 feet tall. The body itself is partially see through, and by looking at the torso, you can see the rib cage and some internal organs.
http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/57275/in-close-encounters-wha t-happened-to-the-tall-alien
[deleted]
I love 2001, it is probably the best 'hard' science fiction film of a generation, but they do leave some things unexplained.
Alien is not 'science fiction' in my opinion. It uses a science fiction motif to make a horror film. I love it anyway.
I loved Contact.
Interstellar is Contact redux; I enjoyed it a lot less.
I haven't scene Mission to Mars. I hope to one of these days. The trailers look great.
Minority Report was very intriguing in ideas and suspenseful in presentation. I enjoyed it.
I found Signs to be a let down. I think that M. Night Shamalyan is overrated as a creator of surprising suspense. I've watched "The Sixth Sense," "Signs," "The Village," and one other the name of which I forget. I found the twist of each of them early on, less than half way, obviously telegraphed. I think his ideas are kind of cool, but not original. I think the reason I found them obvious is because they were all done before by Rod Serling in "The Twilight Zone."
I enjoyed Close Encounters of the Third Kind fun and exciting, even though I also found the overall concept silly. The special effects worked for me at the time and still do.
Heck, people were able to watch stage plays with duels, stabbings, and poisonings in the Elizabethan Era and even back in the Age of Greece and people seemed to be able to enjoy them without CGI. I think people ought to be able to do as well with movies today.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I completely agree with you, Killerdominoes. There is too much snark here for anyone who fails to love the choices of the dominant group. This movie is touted as great "character development" at the expense of story line, but I think it lacks both. It's fine if people see something in it I don't but why the insults? I don't want more explosions or car crashes, just an actual story line. Where something happens, a character grows... Like many, I still have no clue what Francois Truffaut's job was, what they were doing--how did they get the authority to poison Americans and their livestock in their homes? Lie to the country about a nerve gas being released? And once anyone ignores the warnings, they are flown out or allowed to meet the aliens? And no one is mad at anyone for what they did in the past? Dreyfuss jumps on board the alien ship with the military's help, no one holding grudges? Not likely. I kept waiting for a story. I wanted to meet the aliens or hear about the adventures of those abducted. But nothing but silly notes, hand signals, lights. Like a girl scout troop wrote it--to me. I expect more technology, history. That's my thing. I've watched this a number of times, tho I tend to fall asleep through the middle. It does not grow on me. I never see another layer, or a deeper meaning. If it weren't for the millions of dollars of special effects, I'd think it's a rough draft.
shareSorry you missed out on the era of great film making where emphasis was put on the characters, rather than cause and effect. Seems you grew up in the era where action was king and effects made the movie great.
It's sad really. Movies are made today to where I just don;t care what happens to the characters anymore. Let the slasher kill them. Let the hero die. Let the family dissolve into isolation. I just don't care what happens to them anymore. They are simply cardboard cut-outs that move around the screen doing cool things, saying cool stuff or setting up the next witty retort.
I didn't like it either. for me it is highly overrated.
Have seen a lot of movies. i appreciate all good movies of any genre.
If we talk about Sci-fi movies and that to of the time this movie came, i would say Alien was great. Star wars was great.A Clockwork Orange was great. and this was just a crap
Character development, for sure, was out the window most of the time in this. Not much backstory behind the French guy and Bob Balaban's character as to why we should care about them so much other than they're behind the government's project on ET life. Very cardboard cut out people (performances are another thing though in which those two were fine, just severely underdeveloped). And Dreyfuss at times seemed a little hammy or forced in delivery, but I guess, development about, him playing with mashies is enough then. I think the title of this movie is probably what will mainly carry it on through the years, other wise in today's stage of film it's average Sci Fi from a stellar filmmaker. Now E.T. is a movie that had actual development, a real sense of magical realism that wasn't heavy handed (unlike Close Encounters) along with an iconic title character, and a slow burn to it, ten times more emotionally resonant too.
shareAre you kidding me?? This movie is a masterpiece. Its effects look good and the acting was decent. HELLO, Melinda Dillon was nominated for the Oscar so who are you to judge the acting?
At least you love some awesome sci-fi films like Alien, 2001, Minority Report, Signs, Mission to Mars
Love when wannabe film experts are incable of judging a film based on the context of when it was made. It won an Oscar for special effects because it was incredibly groundbreaking and the techniques using miniatures and stop motion are still used today and still look better than 3/4 of the CGI in today's films. Not to mention the techniques require incredibly precise artistry and patience unlike the laziness of modern CGI which can be produced quite easily.
shareI dunno. Saw this in the theatres when it first came out, and while the special effects were cool, also found it drawn out and frankly boring in parts.
shareNot enough Transformers for your liking?
shareNot at all. Actually think Transformer films are insipid and idiotic. Just thought this was drawn out and boring. Called an opinion. Grow up.
shareLOL..I can give you my opinion without telling YOU to "grow up".
So here goes...grow up. If you don't wish for an opinion on your opinion...then don't give your opinion.
The film is a very RARE film that should be enjoyed because it approaches the subject matter a bit differently than the usual fare. No "shooting green sht"...no hideous aliens tearing up or eating human flesh. No depositing of eggs nor impregnation of alien eggs into human places.
It may not be to your supremely high standard of alien films... it's careful, guarded..and above all patient and realistic as far as human emotions psychology. We aren't perfect, we make mistakes, there's no Han Solo.
This film reminds me a lot of 2001 and Silent Running in that they don't try to bedazzle or enthrall you- they are telling a story...a HUMAN story that takes some patience and awareness of telling this kind of story without action just for the sake of action- action just to serve and placate the impatient ADD afflicted viewer.
You should actually give thanks to this movie in that they didn't try to "draw out" the story to three movies. Haha?
What Sci-Fi movies in this time period (or really any I guess) do you find so excellent?
I liked both 2001 and Silent Running a lot. And Star Wars. And Alien. Close Encounters was, for me, too drawn out and boring in places. And to simply assume that because someone feels that way they must like Transformer films is childish. It' not giving an opinion; it's being judgemental. So once again, grow up.
shareYou handled that very well man... anybody who says differently are just idiots. I personally love Close Encounters but I respect others opinions even if they don't like it because when it comes down to something like favorite movies, music, art.. its all about preference.
shareNot to mention the techniques require incredibly precise artistry and patience unlike the laziness of modern CGI which can be produced quite easily.
That's total BS!! Try learning to use Maya or 3DS Max, you'll see then it ain't easy. The rest of your statement is bang-on!
Maya and 3DS Max are INCREDIBLY easy (and cheap) compared to the intricate model making and manual film editing (etc.) of the past.
That is WHY Hollywood goes that way now. Because it's so easy and cheap. But the tradeoff is - it looks like crap. There seems to be this misconception (albeit by clearly not-so-discriminating people), that computers are used because they yield better results. NO. They are used because the process is relatively QUICK and CHEAP. Inexpensive, and cheap looking.
But who cares if it looks like a video game, all cookie-cutter and crappy but makes billions of dollars? The people who are buying are the same people who hail the likes of kanye west and beyonce as talented luminaries.
Yet another comment from someone who doesn't know any better.
Effects houses like WETA and ILM, have programmers who will custom build software for them, from scratch. This costs a fortune, not to mention the cost of the R&D that they have to constantly carry out, whether they a doing a show or not. They don't just spend a few grand on Maya like a University would. If you think that the "Pro" versions of 3D software are cheap do some research. I can tell you that you're in for a shock, because usually they are 3 times or more than the cost price, because of the extra technical support that they are offered by the publishers.
You have probably seen many "invisible" effects in films, without even realising it; Weather effects, etc. CGI is not only about creating aliens, and spaceships and super heroes.
To quote Ridley Scott: "CG ain't cheap." He should know.
You're right - I stand corrected.
shareSame here - just watched it. This movie is terrible. It's purposeless, has no point at all. Absolutely one of the Spielberg's worst.
--------------------------------------------
I own you.
Same here - just watched it. This movie is terrible. It's purposeless, has no point at all. Absolutely one of the Spielberg's worst.
Actually, no opinion has any point, if you think about it....And agree with WOOW...it was a piece of garbage.
shareFor me, it's in the top 5. I am a huge fan of Richard Dreyfuss and love his performance here - this is a top 3 RD performance with Jaws and Goodbye Girl. Teri Garr is fantastic, as usual. Melinda Dillon is wonderful. This is a top 3 soundtrack for John Williams, and THAT is saying a lot for cinema's greatest composer. I saw the film 4 times in the theater when it came out and can't imagine for its time how good the sound and the music were for this film - it was mind blowing.
The abduction scene is incredible - iconic Spielberg, utilizing a basic assortment of visual tricks and ordinary household objects to build suspense to a frenzy.
Don't you enjoy the naturalistic home scenes with Roy and family - the fighting, the kids, etc - the way it was filmed, it feels so organic and unscripted - I love those scenes. That's the way things tended in the 70s Golden era.
I saw both the original release and the special edition release in theaters, and I prefer the original - I don't think the additional scenes at the end inside the ship add anything to my enjoyment. I like the tighter finish. I do like the added meeting scene inserted in the middle.
If I could stick 10 of his films in a box for my desert island, it would be these in order:
Raiders
Jaws
Schindler's
Saving Private R
Close Encounters
E.T.
Sugarland
Minority R
Jurassic
Lincoln
I'd bet pretty much nobody will like this movie seeing it today for the first time. And truly good films are good forever.
-------------------------------------
I own you.https://goo.gl/0avZjB
I watched it again recently, and was thinking the same. Seeing it in the late '70s context was much different from coming to it now for the first time. I think people would lack the patience and are used to spectacular effects, and couldn't appreciate what Close Encounters represented at the time.
shareI'd also include "Munich" and "Duel" in my box for that desert island.
shareHere's the thing..people are attacking those of us who find no there there in this movie for being too immature in our film tastes, wanting action over character development. They are wrong, of course. And you show why they are wrong.
We get character development on the 3 principle characters but no one else. We never even know who they are or why they do what they do. They come and terrorize a mom and her child and we never learn why, it is promptly forgotten, and the main character jumps aboard the ship to fly away with them without ever learning who they were or caring why they took that child out of its home! They could be cloning it for child porn and no one would ask, just sit there with a dumb grin.
A special effects scene as cheesy as that one, that GAS oven coming out from the wall and then no one worrying about the gas, and flashing and crashing that would have ignited the darn thing unless someone turned off the gas quickly, and stealing the child without offering the mother an apology or explanation? The story line doing an about face as soon as the lead characters make that arduous journey all the way to Wyoming, all the dead animals sacrificed, WHY? Just to scare people from seeing aliens? Because a French guy wants to keep the contact a secret? Huh? This is a lack of a story line and lack of character development. People change who they are, motives change 180 degrees. Enemies become friends---going from risking your life, scaring you to death, kidnapping a child, to dressing you up in a matching jumpsuit for your road trip with the guys responsible for it.
When an unexplained special effect is used to terrorize a main character and the audience and then without explanation, those causing the fear are your buddies that you cannot wait to visit, that's not a great story. Sure the actress did a great job, and her peer group must have done worse, but it ain't Casablanca! It's a cartoon. I want to know who they are, why they did it, and I want someone to grow from it.
This coming from a person who bashes Vertigo and says Hitchcock's endings look like some POS amateur director. Hmmm, OK. (tuned out)
shareSuper troll. Purposeless? lol. What did you want it to do, your taxes?
shareI agree. This movie isn't nearly as great as you'd hope for, considering the rating.
shareI agree. But I have to admit it's not a movie (in fact, neither is any movie) to be watched first 40 years after it was made. So I better not say anything. Who knows if I liked Star Wars today if I have not seen it 6549 times already.
shareI think it's one of Spielberg's best. It's not as aliens per such but more about how people can get obsessed by a single detail.
Very fascinating to watch.
If you didn't like the film you didn't like it. You're part of a very exclusive, very unique minority (exelsior!). Unfortunately this hardly makes it a bad film, and, given its iconic status, it isn't likely the director is taking it off his resume any time soon. At least he steered clear of 'Howard The Duck'.
shareBravo, idiot. compairing a 1977 movie to today's standards of visual effects and fast pace.
Only one small different, if you may - this movie actually has a soul. which is more than you can say about 99% of anything Hollywood produces today.
Please give it another chance. I didn't think highly of it when I first saw it. Then it got better for me with repeated viewings.
share