Starman (1984)

[Annette]

My husband absolutely adores the film Starman. Don't ask me why but he does. Perhaps its because hes a sentimental old fool. Me, can't stand Jeff Bridges. If he wasn't in it, it wouldn't be so bad. He just grates on my nerves. In American terms he's so lame. The storylines good but its just him.

Annette.

 

[Dave]

Starman (1984) 115 minutes.

Well I'm not sentimental, and I thought it was sentimentalist drivel. But I've just realised that it was directed by John Carpenter, must have had an off-day.

http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0088172

An alien who has crash-landed in the United States takes on the the appearance of a woman's dead husband and enlists her help to escape from pursuing authorities and rendezvous with a spacecraft on the other side of the country. As he learns how to be more human the alien begins to take on more and more qualities of the woman's husband, drawing the woman closer.

I did like the bit where he learns to drive, he says that he copied her green means GO, amber means GO VERY FAST.

 

[Annette]

That is the only good bit in the film, the incident with the traffic lights.

Annette.

 

[Mellian]

I didn't really care for the film. It just didn't work the way it was done.

However I did like the TV show that was done later where he comes back and finds his son and they go looking for the boy's mother.

 

[Tabitha]

erm I really enjoyed this movie...

I haven't seen it for many years. I am a big Jeff Bridges fan, and while this movie may have been overly sentimental, that aspect didn't really bother me much. And the bit with the traffic lights is great!

 

[unclejack]

Starman

Hello peoples, I wanna throw somethin out there for ya and see what you think. I've actually been thinkin about this for the past couple of years, I think ever since I've taken such an interest in SciFi....In regards to the classic movie Starman starring Karen Allen and Jeff Bridges..how many of you would be looking forward to seeing a sequel come out sometime soon? I know I would. I think it's long overdue, I mean it's been over twenty years since the original Starman come out and it was and is a great movie. Plus, they really lay the foundation for a sequel at the end of the first one when the Starman leaves her with the silver orbs and tells her to give them to her son and assures her that he will know what to do with them when the time is right. I really think John Carpenter should follow through with the rest of the story with another Starman move. I think I would be opposed to anyone else doing it. I mean, I know whatever sequel that comes out won't compare to the drama of the first one but I think if Carpenter is at the wheel it will at least be a satisfying conclusion to the Starman story. (Oh geeze, please don't tell me someone already made a crap sequel that I don't know about and it really sucked. Regardless, I would still like to see another one)

 

[tangaloomababe]

Re: Starman

Not sure Jack, I loved this movie, it was really good. I think there was a short lived tv series but I mgiht have just imagined that. Yes it did leave it open for a sequel but how good a sequel remains to be seen. You are right it would have to be Carpenter still leading the way, has he retired what has he done recently?

 

[unclejack]

Re: Starman

He's not retired, he has a couple of things in production right now but his last big movie was Ghosts of Mars with Ice Cube. I saw it and it was ok, nothin special. He hasn't done any truly stellar in a very long time, but his movies haven't been bad either.

 

[Foxbat]

Re: Starman

I don't agree that Carpenter should follow through the Starman story (or anybody else for that matter). I don't believe there is any artistic need for a sequel here.

It was a fine film for its time and should be left as is. Sometimes, it's better to let the audience's own imagination to do some work and this is one of those times.


I do agree, however, that Ghosts Of Mars was just ok. I think his last good film was probably Vampires.

 

[roddglenn]

Re: Starman

Yes I agree - there's no need to mess with the Starman story any further.

I'm a big Carpenter fan, but yes Ghosts of Mars wasn't up to his usual par. I enjoyed it, but certainly wasn't anywhere near as good as the likes of The Thing, The Fog, Assault on Precinct 13 or Halloween. Vampires was certainly much better.

 

[unclejack]

Re: Starman

Hmmm, well I happen to dissgree. I admit that a sequel is always a challenge because there's always the chance that Hollywood can end up crappin all over the first one, which is what usually happens. That's why I say it should be Carpenter and no one else. And with Hollywood's track record right now especially when it comes to remakes and sequels, well I don't see much quality moviemaking being done. So, maybe you're right, maybe a sequel is too dangerous and the opportunity for it to stay true to the original is a very narrow one, but I don't think it's impossible. I mean, no matter what it won't be as good as the first one but it could always manage to at least be satisfying to true Starman fans. The only reason I ask is because like I said, they did leave room for a sequel at the end of the first one...ie another Starman would be born in nine months.