rate the last movie you saw

[Eric Paddon]

Have you been smoking plant vapour again? LOL

I was talking about its absence in 1979. And I do think if a Fox lawyer and a Universal lawyer had seen it during the time of that lawsuit it wouldn't have helped Fox's case. If they never saw it, fine, but the scene is strangely near identical to the one in the Galactica pilot in terms of basic concept.

[Eric Paddon]

Moved on to another sci-fi release of 1979, "The Black Hole" (1979). I give it a 6.5 to 7 of 10. It's remarkably entertaining and a commendable attempt by Disney to try and come up with something in the SW era using many of the FX artists who'd been legends in the Disney Studio. The film gets off to a rough start because the intro of robot Vincent and the over-exposition from the characters in the opening minutes makes the film seem overly juvenile but it gets better from that point on.

Yes, the science is absurd, especially given how in a climactic moment the decompression to space doesn't just suck them out and kill them all in an instant and it has more the effect of an airplane decompression. But for the most part, I was able to enjoy the ride to the end (even if the end does have its problems).

[AndyDursin]

Moved on to another sci-fi release of 1979, "The Black Hole" (1979). I give it a 6.5 to 7 of 10.

You rate it higher than CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and ALIEN??? Eric what's in the air down there???! Do you need help???

[Eric Paddon]

Actually I gave it a tiny tick above "Alien" only. Alien was a 6.5 and Black Hole was perhaps a 6.6 to 6.7.

Close Encounters--sorry but that epitomizes a film that is zero plot whatsoever IMO.

[AndyDursin]

Actually I gave it a tiny tick above "Alien" only. Alien was a 6.5 and Black Hole was perhaps a 6.6 to 6.7.

Close Encounters--sorry but that epitomizes a film that is zero plot whatsoever IMO.

IMO it's one of the greatest movies of all-time. So we agree to disagree there totally

I'm not a big fan of THE BLACK HOLE. lol. I hated it when I was a kid, I didn't care for it when I watched it a few years ago either. Some of the production design is interesting and the ending is just bizarre, but for the most part it's a total misfire on every score. Lame script, indifferent performances, a redundant John Barry score (has that one nice section when they go through the hole at the end, but I find the main theme grating)...blah! As far as terrible live-action Disney '70s/early '80s movies go, I liked CONDORMAN better, and that one was bad too! (MIDNIGHT MADNESS is my favorite from that time period)

[AndyDursin]

Here's my BLACK HOLE review (of the first Anchor Bay DVD; the Disney one is at least 16:9). I liked it less when I saw it again a few years later, but I do agree in widescreen the film is somewhat compelling visually.

----------------------

Back in the late '70s everyone, it seemed, wanted to cash in on the success of STAR WARS--from James Bond to Paramount's big-budget STAR TREK movie, George Lucas's first foray into the galaxy far, far away established an entire sub-genre of outer space adventures that lingered well into the '80s.

Disney's answer to Lucas was their elaborate and expensive 1979 effort THE BLACK HOLE (**1/2 movie, ***1/2 presentation; Anchor Bay DVD, $24.98), which, after years of being available only in cropped and ugly looking pan-and-scan transfers, has finally arrived on DVD in a spellbinding new letterboxed edition, complete with a remastered Dolby Digital soundtrack augmenting a thunderous (and sometimes ponderous) John Barry score. The movie may not be any better than you remember it being, but at least it now looks and sounds like the "event picture" it was originally intended to be back in Christmas of '79.

I was five when THE BLACK HOLE was released, and my main recollection of seeing the film a few years later on video was, "when is this movie going to end??" Granted, Disney incorporated all the standbys of STAR WARS--cute robots, big special effects, futuristic weapons, and a few cool gadgets--but did so in such an artificial, cloying manner that even kids were turned off by THE BLACK HOLE, despite its impressively mounted production. I still have 3D Viewmasters of this movie sitting somewhere in my closet, which I remember being far more exciting to look at than actually seeing them in motion in the movie.

The plot--like an intergalactic 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA--finds madman Maximilian Schell hinged in the far reaches of space in a vessel that disappeared many years before. After being discovered by an Earth Discovery probe headed by Robert Forster, physic Yvette Mimieux, dashing young Joseph Bottoms, crusty old salt Ernest Borgnine and the quirky Anthony Perkins, Schell--who has by now turned his entire crew into a group of zombified automatons--thinks it's time to head on through the Hole and start ruling the galaxy (or what's left of it on the other side). Oh, and I did I mention the robots voiced by Roddy McDowall and Slim Pickens?

As you might have guessed, story, screenplay, direction, and acting aren't major assets in THE BLACK HOLE. The script's dialogue is as mechanical as the wooden performances (though Perkins's death sequence manages to generate an unintentional giggle), and director Gary Nelson's pacing is languid at best.

Fortunately, Disney spent so much on the effects and production design that THE BLACK HOLE does manage to hold one's interest, provided you don't have a short attention span and meet the film halfway. Shot in Technovision by Frank Phillips, THE BLACK HOLE's look is arresting and the film's effects still hold up today as some of the finest of their time. John Barry's score is based on an electronic 3/4 ostinato that is reprised at an almost obnoxious rate throughout the film, but there's still something distinctive and effective about Barry's music--it was also the first soundtrack that was digitally recorded--that makes you overlook how grating his main theme can be at times.

Without its widescreen dimensions and often lacking a stereo soundtrack, THE BLACK HOLE became even more of a misfire on TV and video than it was in theaters, where it was a critical disaster and only a modest success at the box-office. Thanks to Anchor Bay's new DVD--their first release from the Disney vaults--at least viewers who didn't see the film in theaters can now see the expense that the studio didn't spare for this production.

AB's transfer is stunning and remarkably crisp, exhibiting only some minor print wear and a few source speckles. The original Technovision frame is preserved in a clean 2.35:1 transfer, while those who crave a pan-and-scan copy will be satisfied with a new, remastered full-frame transfer that looks far superior to the prints that have been screened on Cinemax and HBO over the last few years.

The Dolby Stereo soundtrack, which seems to have been remixed from its earlier incarnations, is potent and does full justice to both the picture's sound effects editing and Barry's music; in fact, there's even an "Overture" of Barry's "Heroic March" music preceding the film in the letterboxed version. Someone on the net reported last week that there's a flaw in the Dolby Digital soundtrack, where one of the discreet audio channels is allegedly not working during the film. While apparently this glitch is not all that noticeable (several reputable online sites reviewed the disc and didn't even mention it before word got out), Anchor Bay is correcting the problem, which was the result of defective source materials provided by Disney, and will have a repressed version in stores by April 19th.

A theatrical trailer is included along with a "slide show" presentation of about 30 still-frames, including a shot of the LP jacket. Anchor Bay has also released a more expensive VHS "Collector's Edition," which has some behind-the-scenes info detailing a planned alternate ending reshoot (the jumbled, filmed finale is something like the end of 2001 crossed with FANTASIA) among other extras. While this has lead a few folks to carp about the lack of supplements on the DVD, I say this package more than delivers the goods given the list price ($24.98, less from many online venues).

[mkaroly]

GOODBYE MR. CHIPS (1969): 4/10. The music score, songs, and John Williams orchestrations and handling of Bricusse's material gets a 10. I've been listening to the FSM release of the complete score and it is gorgeous. I especially love what Willaims did with the Overture....bring back the Overture in films!! Lol...the film, however, is pretty weak in its story and delivery. They never stay on a plot point very long, and when it gets to a dramatic moment (Katherine's realization that she could possibly compromise Chips' position at the school, or Chips' confrontation of Lord Sutterwick (I think), etc.), it seemed forced...the story didn't flow very well because they just wanted to get to the next song. I liked O'Toole's and Clark's performances (she has a great voice), but they couldn't save the story. Music is the strong point, acting is decent (especially O'Toole), everything else is weak.

[Paul MacLean]

Actually I gave it a tiny tick above "Alien" only. Alien was a 6.5 and Black Hole was perhaps a 6.6 to 6.7.

While Alien could be dismissed as "The Thing in Outer Space" from my perspective it still has more going for it that "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea in Space". The Black Hole has some nice effects, and an excellent (if somewhat formulaic) John Barry score. The Black Hole also has laugh-out-loud absurdities throughout (the "roller-coaster" the characters use to travel throughout the ship, some bad acting and of course the "bowling ball" meteor). I think its fair to say that there's never a moment of unintentional humor in Alien.

Close Encounters--sorry but that epitomizes a film that is zero plot whatsoever IMO.

Close Encounters is a film I admire, and one of the most beautiful-looking (an scored) pictures of its era, but I admit there are some things about it that bother me. The abduction of Barry is terrifying sequence, painting the aliens as malevolent invaders who steal children from their mothers. Yet at the climax we see they are benign, kindly "Pilsbury Doughboys" (to use Harlan Ellison's description). I think that Spielberg's desire to depict friendly aliens was sabotaged by his desire to direct a cool scary sequence, resulting in a dramatic contradiction. I also though the "conversation" scene was kind of silly. I guess I'm too much of a scientific stickler to accept that an alien race would have developed the same types of scales and concepts of harmony and rhythm as Earthlings!

But I still rate it much higher than The Black Hole.

[AndyDursin]

Close Encounters is a film I admire, and one of the most beautiful-looking (an scored) pictures of its era, but I admit there are some things about it that bother me. The abduction of Barry is terrifying sequence, painting the aliens as malevolent invaders who steal children from their mothers. Yet at the climax we see they are benign, kindly "Pilsbury Doughboys" (to use Harlan Ellison's description). I think that Spielberg's desire to depict friendly aliens was sabotaged by his desire to direct a cool scary sequence, resulting in a dramatic contradiction.

This is an interesting discussion as I definitely hold the film in much higher regard than you guys.

I've been thinking about that particular point for a while now Paul, and I guess I have to part company with you in this respect: when the film was first released, and viewers weren't aware of the story, I think a part of the film's suspense was due to Spielberg not completely playing his hand as to whether the film was a "friendly alien movie" or an "evil alien movie." I think, coming off JAWS, his point in handling the film was that he wasn't going to tip his hand completely one way or the other until the climax. Hence Barry's abduction scene is harrowing, and the motives of the aliens aren't spelled out entirely at that point -- only at the end do we know they are seemingly benign and indeed friendly, and it's an emotional catharsis because the viewer isn't entirely clear, one way or the other, how the film is going to play out until the finale.

In hindsight it's easy to say, having seen the film repeatedly, that it's a contradiction, and I understand totally what you are saying about that scene, and that Spielberg wasn't "playing fair" with the audience -- but how dramatic would the film have been if Spielberg started out the movie by declaring "oh, this a film about friendly aliens." The dramatic tension which steadily builds throughout the picture would not have been there at all. As far as the "stealing children from their mothers" goes, I get what you're saying there as well, but would the aliens who abducted Barry had been better off if they had just rang the bell and asked politely?

For me the film works completely as one of Spielberg's best, and best realized, films about a character who goes through an internal and almost spiritual journey, set against the greatest and most evocative cinematic depiction of "aliens" and extraterrestrials. It's incredible, no matter how many times I see it, how the picture manages to work so completely on both of those levels. Trumbull's effects are still simply unbelievable to watch, Dreyfuss' performance is one of his best. It's one of those rare films that manages to be emotional one moment and just funny the next -- a balancing act Spielberg did in JAWS, and something that I feel he lost as he's gone through his career. The human dimension is as paramount to the technical aspect of the movie, and I just totally disagree with Eric P. that the movie has no plot. I find the story completely profound, as moving as any sci-fi film I've ever seen, but again, to each his own. I will respectfully agree to disagree there.

More over, it feels like JAWS -- the sense of location, time and place, the naturalistic cinematography, how "real" the characters are...one of the great movies of all-time for me and just more evidence of how on-point Spielberg was back in the '70s. Even SUGARLAND EXPRESS has that kind of "you are there" feel his later, studio-bound pictures completely lack.

[Eric Paddon]

I'm not a big fan of THE BLACK HOLE. lol. I hated it when I was a kid, I didn't care for it when I watched it a few years ago either. Some of the production design is interesting and the ending is just bizarre

That can be argued, but then again, it was ultimately an easier ending for me to grasp than say, "2001".

I think this film also has to be judged more on a level of how *Disney* was trying to do something new and different during a time when so many of their projects theatrically were misfiring because of creative problems in the studio stemming from the wake of Walt Disney's death. For the first time, Disney was willing to inject some things into a live action movie that they had never dared do before, and at least go for something on more than a seven or eight year old level, which was what so many of their live action films had been doing (this is certainly way ahead of what they came up with in "Island At The Top Of The World" a few years earlier) and to try and summon more the spirit of "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea". By contrast, "Close Encounters" with its Pinocchio obsession and its overly weak ending seemed to suffer MORE from a case of "Disney cuteitis" that at least "The Black Hole", the movie made by Disney, tried to break away from (this kind of notes the contrasts for me; "Close Encounters" starts out with pretensions of something great and epic in telling and then ends with an overly sickening case of the cutes, whereas "Black Hole" goes in the opposite direction saving its most juvenile moments for the opening fifteen minutes)

[Eric Paddon]

I think its fair to say that there's never a moment of unintentional humor in Alien.

Ash spurting all that light colored fluid before he gets smashed to pieces had me delivering in MST3K style, "I guess milk doesn't do a body good!"

Back to Close Encounters. There are technical issues I have complaints with that go beyond my dislike of the plot (let's face it, Roy is a deadbeat husband and father, and the Disney movie he really should be obsessed with isn't Pinocchio, but Peter Pan!), such as the fact that (1) I don't understand at all why we have to have the audience inconvenienced by having Francois Truffaut in this film so we thus have to have his dialogue repeated and translated and (2) on that point, Spielberg didn't seem to realize that Bob Balaban with his heavy beard and glasses looks EXACTLY like Dreyfuss did in "Jaws" as Hooper, so much so that the first time I saw this film, I thought for well over 20 minutes to a half hour that Balaban WAS Dreyfuss, and I have found in talking to others that I was not the only person who made that mistake which IMO was something Spielberg should have realized right from the get-go when he made his casting choices.

And related to that, I have mentioned before that the Special Edition re-edit makes it look like Roy has been transformed into an alien and that the alien who walks out at the end is Roy transformed! If that's not the intent, then again, that's bad directing/editing.

"Close Encounters" can be interesting to watch from a visual standpoint just like "2001" but in the end I see a film that presumes to be better than it actually is at its core.

[AndyDursin]

This is a great discussion but I forewarn you when someone starts trashing a film that I consider to be one of the all-time greats, I can get a bit animated, lol. So this isn't personal.

And related to that, I have mentioned before that the Special Edition re-edit makes it look like Roy has been transformed into an alien and that the alien who walks out at the end is Roy transformed! If that's not the intent, then again, that's bad directing/editing.

I never once got that impression, but it's a moot point to continue making when a) it wasn't part of the original movie, and b) it's never part of any showing you see of the film now. It's not part of Spielberg's "final" '90s edit, and it's basically been relegated to "supplemental" status since Criterion's LD came out almost, what, 20 years ago? Spielberg himself didn't like the ending, he had to add it to justify the re-release to Columbia.

I've never felt it was necessary either, but I still can't understand why people think it makes Dreyfuss an alien. For one thing, the cut is so jarring it's ridiculous to imply that happened when the Trauffaut "communication scene" is already on-going...there's no transition, none, implying he had become an alien. If the alien walked out of the ship, I could see the confusion, but he's already outside it -- while it was a bad edit because it diminished the impact to the scene with Trauffaut and the alien, I never once felt it was supposed to imply he was that alien.

Either way, it wasn't part of the film proper, and it's not part of what Spielberg and most viewers consider the "final" version, so it's not really a valid criticism to keep harping on when nobody who watches the movie now, or has for years, has seen it -- unless they actively seek it out.

I don't understand at all why we have to have the audience inconvenienced by having Francois Truffaut in this film so we thus have to have his dialogue repeated and translated

"Inconvenienced"? Eric, did you have somewhere you needed to be when you saw the movie for the first time? lol.

Spielberg didn't seem to realize that Bob Balaban with his heavy beard and glasses looks EXACTLY like Dreyfuss did in "Jaws" as Hooper, so much so that the first time I saw this film, I thought for well over 20 minutes to a half hour that Balaban WAS Dreyfuss, and I have found in talking to others that I was not the only person who made that mistake which IMO was something Spielberg should have realized right from the get-go when he made his casting choices.

I was probably 5 when I first saw CE3K and never confused them, lol. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone confusing Dreyfuss with Balaban!

Cosmetically I do think the beard "look" was "in" back in the '70s. But more over, personality and otherwise the two characters couldn't possibly be more different. That's established as soon as you hear Balaban talking.

By contrast, "Close Encounters" with its Pinocchio obsession and its overly weak ending

And for many it's one of the most memorable endings of any sci-fi fantasy film ever made. For me, I can't think of a genre film with a more effective or certainly emotional climax than CE3K between Williams' scoring, Trumbull's effects and the cinematography.

Interesting how people can see a film so differently, but that's what makes the world go 'round!

[Paul MacLean]

I get what you're saying there as well, but would the aliens who abducted Barry had been better off if they had just rang the bell and asked politely?

Touché. I guess much it stems from a frustration that the motive for their abduction of Barry (and the others) is never fully explained. The humans returned un-aged, but what was the aliens' purpose in abducting them -- again, besides taking them away from their world (and families, who in the case of the pilots, likely never saw them again)?

But don't get me wrong -- by no means to I dislike this movie. It has remarkable, inspiring moments, and is a glory to behold. What happened to the days when Spielberg was collaborating with the likes of Vilmos Zsigmond?

More over, it feels like JAWS -- the sense of location, time and place, the naturalistic cinematography, how "real" the characters are...one of the great movies of all-time for me and just more evidence of how on-point Spielberg was back in the '70s.

I do agree with that. Again it brings me to Vilmos Zsigmond, and how his style of photography was at once naturalistic (as you say) but was also beautiful to behold. Compare that to Kaminski's, ugly, grainy work in War of the Worlds.

Ash spurting all that light colored fluid before he gets smashed to pieces had me delivering in MST3K style, "I guess milk doesn't do a body good!"

In my case, when I first saw this film, my reaction to this scene was "Geez, what's happening?" I thought maybe he had an alien inside him. Ash's identity as a robot came as a complete shock to me, so that was one of the more effective scenes actually.

I don't understand at all why we have to have the audience inconvenienced by having Francois Truffaut in this film so we thus have to have his dialogue repeated and translated and...

To me it added another level to the characterization for him to be French.

(2) on that point, Spielberg didn't seem to realize that Bob Balaban with his heavy beard and glasses looks EXACTLY like Dreyfuss did in "Jaws" as Hooper, so much so that the first time I saw this film, I thought for well over 20 minutes to a half hour that Balaban WAS Dreyfuss, and I have found in talking to others that I was not the only person who made that mistake which IMO was something Spielberg should have realized right from the get-go when he made his casting choices.

I don't see that this is a problem. It was typical for young intellectuals in the 70s to have beards and glasses (and wear jackets with elbow patches!). Spielberg was just going for the look that was accurate at the time.

I understand that how it might have seemed that it was the same actor -- for a time I assumed Kurtwood Smith in RoboCop and Michael Ironside in Total Recall were the same actor -- because the characters were extremely similar, with almost the same look (middle-aged, balding henchmen in leather jackets). But this never took anything away from Ironside's performance in TR, at least for me.

And related to that, I have mentioned before that the Special Edition re-edit makes it look like Roy has been transformed into an alien and that the alien who walks out at the end is Roy transformed! If that's not the intent, then again, that's bad directing/editing.

Others had that reaction. My sister was likewise under the impression that the "visitor" who emerged from the ship to say goodbye to Lacombe was Roy Neary. But that was never the impression I got from that scene.

[AndyDursin]

The humans returned un-aged, but what was the aliens' purpose in abducting them -- again, besides taking them away from their world (and families, who in the case of the pilots, likely never saw them again)?

That's a good point, though I think on balance, that's not something that needs to be explained...some things can remain a mystery and as a viewer I didn't feel he needed to spell it all out.

[Eric Paddon]

This is a great discussion but I forewarn you when someone starts trashing a film that I consider to be one of the all-time greats, I can get a bit animated, lol. So this isn't personal.

"Nothing personal, just business." (And now here comes the machine-gun barrage!)

I never once got that impression, but it's a moot point to continue making when a) it wasn't part of the original movie

Yeah, but it *is* how I first experienced the movie on TV circa 1981 or therabouts since I never saw it theatrically. First impressions as you say, do tend to leave a lot on the viewer.

[startquote]I've never felt it was necessary either, but I still can't understand why people think it makes Dreyfuss an alien. For one thing, the cut is so jarring it's ridiculous to imply that happened when the Trauffaut "communication scene" is already on-going [/endquote]

The way it was edited, the alien comes out *after* the whole shower of sparks over Roy.

"Inconvenienced"? Eric, did you have somewhere you needed to be when you saw the movie for the first time? lol.

I just didn't get the gimmick of having Truffaut (I obviously didn't know who he was when I first saw it; but once I learned he wasn't even an actor but a director, the "gimmick" nature of his casting became all the more evident to me).

I was probably 5 when I first saw CE3K and never confused them, lol. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone confusing Dreyfuss with Balaban!

But I do recall once hearing either on an old supplement or in some other venue that even Balaban found himself being mistaken by others for Dreyfuss during the production because the average person I think it is safe to say, would have their greatest visual recollection of Dreyfuss being in "Jaws" and the two of them in that context are practical dead-ringers (and even when Balaban first talks I don't hear too much of a vocal difference to drive home, "oh, that's not him")

And for many it's one of the most memorable endings of any sci-fi fantasy film ever made. For me, I can't think of a genre film with a more effective or certainly emotional climax than CE3K between Williams' scoring, Trumbull's effects and the cinematography.

Which can be dazzling show, but not much in the way of good tell. And yes, we're still left with the point Paul made about why the aliens abducted all the famous "Bermuda Triangle" victims (Flight #19 and the Cotpoaxi) and causing even greater pain in the lives of the family members there. That is something that from my standpoint *does* need to be explained, especially when the film gives us the sudden dramatic reappearance of the planes as its initial "hook".