Pssst, want to check out Starman in our new look?
See all comments
I expected a lot more out of this movie. For one thing it's John Carpenter.
He obviously didn't write the script for this film but even though it was weak and trite I still felt that he could have done something more with it.
For one thing the special effects are almost all CGI and bad CGI at that. Lovers of The Thing will be highly disappointed.
The story is a simple romantic one at it's core and while I'm not completely adverse to that I can't say that this one ever really drew me in enough to care for what happened between the characters.
The beginning especially felt really cobbled together, the story really lacks cohesiveness and it goes beyond believability. Not because it features aliens but that the things that happen don't even make sense within the sphere of plausible credibility within the story. The atmosphere is non-existent, the dialogue is weak and boring.
It has some nice cinematography, as always with Carpenter, but it's not enough to save the movie.
What if E.T. and the Thing had a baby, and horribly, that baby was Jeff Bridges? That's Starman, proof that John Carpenter is a romantic at heart. Not unusually, Bridges goes all in as a sweet alien in human form, and Karen Allen grounds the film in a certain believability as the woman whose dead husband's body he took. Whether the romance between them works is up each individual viewer, as Carpenter merely presents the facts and lets them speak for themselves. There are no long-winded scenes to expressly tell us that Jenny finds solace and ultimately closure in this man that looks like the man she still grieves for, no lip-biting self-doubt about whether she's doing the right thing giving in to these feelings. Things happen, and they are informed by past events the audience has been made aware of, draw your own conclusions. So Carpenter is a romantic here, but not sentimental. I think that's why this movie stands the test of time.
to see which of your friends have seen this movie!