Starman

Columbia Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 1984

8.1	USER SCORE Universal acclaim based on 53 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

goggomobileJul 14, 2019

I watched this movie when it first came out on video in the eighties, I rented it expecting a more scifi type movie at the time but still thoroughly enjoyed it for the drama and emotional content.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

lasttimeisawFeb 14, 2015

John Carpenter’s STARMAN is a sympathetic star-crossed romance between an alien aka. Starman (Bridges) and an earth woman Jenny (Allen), a rare item in his otherwise horror and action packed works, it is my second film from him, after theJohn Carpenter’s STARMAN is a sympathetic star-crossed romance between an alien aka. Starman (Bridges) and an earth woman Jenny (Allen), a rare item in his otherwise horror and action packed works, it is my second film from him, after the disappointingly topsy-turvy BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA (1986, 5/10).

First of all, it is a cruel joke on our earthlings, we set off a welcome message into the outer space, and some unspecified highly-intellegent species responses by sending an explorer to our planet, however, the first thing humans do is shooting the vehicles down, then hunting down the e.t. in order to put him on the operation table for dissection. But don’t worry, as annoying as the authoritarian NSA chief and the military ostentation and extravagance, things will not descend to that ground. Jenny is recently widowed and still overindulges in the then-sweet-but-now-tormenting memories of his dead husband Scott, so the intrusion of Starman who regenerates himself into a human form of Scott through his hair kept in Jenny’s photo album actually gives an impossible chance for Jenny to fall in love with Scott again, thus despite the initial terror to witness the metamorphosis of an unearthly creature turning into Scott, Jenny accepts him almost instantly as subconsciously she knows that her dream comes true in a supernatural version. The pair drives across the country to reach the picking-up location in Arizona, where a mothership will take Starman back as it has planned.

keep reading my review on my blog, google: cinema omnivore, thanks… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

NShep53Apr 12, 2015

As a big fan of early John Carpenter (The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China) I found that Starman was very disappointing. Jeff Bridges does well here as the unknowing alien, but the special effects are awful. I'm not comparing them to theAs a big fan of early John Carpenter (The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China) I found that Starman was very disappointing. Jeff Bridges does well here as the unknowing alien, but the special effects are awful. I'm not comparing them to the modern movies of today, I'm comparing them to movies of that era. And the story goes into odd and creepy territory.

Overall, this a pedestrian turn by John Carpenter.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

SpangleMar 5, 2017

Many consider the 2016 film Midnight Special to be a rehash of Starman. While the comparison is fair, it definitely feels like a different film in terms of tone. That film is far more serious than director John Carpenter's Starman, whichMany consider the 2016 film Midnight Special to be a rehash of Starman. While the comparison is fair, it definitely feels like a different film in terms of tone. That film is far more serious than director John Carpenter's Starman, which almost feels oddly tongue-in-cheek. It also feels oddly like an adult-version of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial throughout as it is a film about an alien that does not speak English who learns about the power of love from a human as he evades the government and tries to get back to his people in time, only to then board the ship at the end following a sentimental goodbye with the one he loves. Now, as I recently expressed, I am not a huge fan of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Seeing it rehashed with some truly odd moments tossed in is hardly my idea of a good time, but Carpenter does always make things feel oddly comical and thus, Starman winds up being enjoyable even if it not my kind of film.

That said, this review will undoubtedly largely focus on the negatives. One such negative is the sentimentality. An opportunity to explore grief through the eyes of Jenny Hayden (Karen Allen), a woman who just lost her husband and is now thrust into being the guardian of an alien who has taken the form of her late husband Scott (Jeff Bridges), the film instead goes for sentimentality via cliche. The alien retains Scott's looks and feelings, even if it lacks the vocabulary of Scott. Trying to be romantic, the film often defies logic with Jenny just staring at his demonic hellspawn as it turns into her husband and then quickly accepting that it is an alien. Though initially trying to escape, she soon grows love this fish-out-of-water and seeks to protect him from those who cause him harm, while also having sex with him and becoming pregnant with his baby. Oddly, that weird sequence is predictable, as are moments of them escaping, resurrecting, and more that are foreshadowed throughout and contribute to a largely tight, if incredibly trite film. This is a film built upon cliches that tries to distract via its sentimentality and heartbreaking portrayal of a woman given a second chance with her husband. But, Starman simply lacks the nuance and ability to make that romance really click. It always just feels oddly creepy like Jenny just succumbed to her Stockholm syndrome and gave into the alien because it looked like Scott.

The sentimentality in Starman largely comes from the dialogue. Waxing nostalgic about how great humanity is, the film may call us savages from time-to-time and a primitive species to boot, but the alien in Scott Hayden's body quickly learns what is so great about Earth: love and beauty. Together both make this a life worth living and one that is easy to feel nostalgic about, even if you just arrived here and did not bother to learn English before embarking on a groundbreaking trek to Earth. If they are truly an advanced species, one would have to assume they would know how to get a hold of ways to learn the language needed to have discourse wit humans. That aside though, the film's cloying sentimentality begs the audience to be swept up in the simple beauties of life, but is simply too on-the-nose and forced to actually come off. Instead of telling the audience about it all, show it to us.

The film's cliches also rear its ugly head towards the end. Having to get to Arizona in three days or else his species will leave him behind, he is constantly stopped by the government. Weirdly hostile despite inviting the aliens to Earth, the military literally opens fire on the alien and Jenny, trying to kill both. Theoretically, it is to study the alien's body, but still, lighting him up with bullets will hardly make than an easy proposition. The comically over-the-top military action is both a commentary on how we would likely reject an alien arriving (no matter how much we want them) and a tired cliche. Having the military and government invite and then reject the alien had been done to death by 1984 (forget it by 2017) and it is just grating to watch the film go through the motions. A largely inventive premise just devolves into a hail of bullets from military guns like any number of films before it, which is a shame.

That said, Jeff Bridges is terrific. He is funny, energetic, and does a great job as the alien. He is unassuming and a true everyman in this film, turning in a truly magnetic performance. Alongside him, Karen Allen is a good as ever, though not hard to do considering her limited leading lady filmography. That said, she is good here. As with every Carpenter film, Starman has a lot of fun with these that is incredibly infectious, even if entirely odd, which certainly helps make the film an entertaining experience. Technically, the film is also quite strong with a terrific score from Jack Nitzsche, though films scored by Carpenter himself always seem to turn out better in my eyes.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Kai82Sep 17, 2022

A hidden science fiction gem and nearly forgotten John Carpenter movie. The unique ideas and story won me over. The story starts with the Voyager 2 probe being discovered by an alien civilization. They were able to understand the message fromA hidden science fiction gem and nearly forgotten John Carpenter movie. The unique ideas and story won me over. The story starts with the Voyager 2 probe being discovered by an alien civilization. They were able to understand the message from the gold disk and send a vessel to establish (first) contact with humanity. Instead of a warm welcome like promised on the gold disk the vessel is shot down and crashes in a rural area in Wisconsin. The sole survivor alien which has the form of a small ball of energy reaches the home of the widow Jenny Hayden who lost her husband a short time before. To better survive he scans the surroundings and uses a hair lock of her husband to create a body for himself. Here I stop to avoid spoilers. The ideas are unique and I like the adventure or better said odyssey of the characters. The story together with the characters / actors create an experience that impressed me and that I deeply enjoyed. I was always invested and cared for the characters which is the hallmark of a good movie and writing. To be fair I can see that this movie is not for everyone which is not the equivalent of garbage this statement has become in modern days. Some people want more science fiction than character driven stories. The cast fully delivers and I praise Jeff Bridges as Starman and Karen Allen as Jenny Hayden. Both have a great chemistry and improve the movie. The side characters are well chosen too. Richard Jaeckel is great as George Fox, Charles Smith won me over as Mark Shermin and I see no misstep in the other roles. I have to praise also the team behind the screen with director John Carpenter and all the others. The special effects were also top notch for the time period and I did not know until recently that ILM was responsible (Should be a no brainer with good effects in movies back then ;-). Sadly it was a failure at the box office making barely more than the production cost and is almost forgotten. It spawned however a TV series that I watched. Overall this is a hidden gem and recommendation if you want to see something unique in science fiction.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

eva3si0nDec 26, 2022

Starman is a typical fantasy film of the 80s. Surprisingly, Starman doesn't feel Carpenter's style. The film was one of the first to raise the topic of human contact with an alien life form. And the writers of course went the easiest way - toStarman is a typical fantasy film of the 80s. Surprisingly, Starman doesn't feel Carpenter's style. The film was one of the first to raise the topic of human contact with an alien life form. And the writers of course went the easiest way - to instill an alien in the human body. The plot itself is typical of films of this genre, the plot develops extremely slowly. And not every viewer will withstand such a pace. The ending of the film is read by the viewer before the middle of the film. Starman can only be advised to John Carpenter fans. There is no fiction in the film that is not the director's signature style.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

JLuis_001Sep 26, 2018

Jeff Bridges did his work although Carpenter not quite. I've seen worse things from him but I feel that by the time it was released, he was doing better things in the horror genre.
Ironically Carpenter agreed to do it because of the bad boxJeff Bridges did his work although Carpenter not quite. I've seen worse things from him but I feel that by the time it was released, he was doing better things in the horror genre.
Ironically Carpenter agreed to do it because of the bad box office of The Thing, his now legendary classic.

I feel Starman it's a film that was halfway to achieve something better and therefore is a medium film. It doesn't affect his filmography but it doesn't add anything to it either.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

DawdlingPoetNov 25, 2021

This is quite a quirky film - its very much a 1980s sci-fi film (it appears visually quite dated of course and the musical score also makes it quite dated but that didn't entirely put me off) and it has some nice gentle comedy/humour in it. IThis is quite a quirky film - its very much a 1980s sci-fi film (it appears visually quite dated of course and the musical score also makes it quite dated but that didn't entirely put me off) and it has some nice gentle comedy/humour in it. I found the alien character (only known as Starman), quite endearing and thinking about it, aspects of the plot reminded me a little of one of my favourite films, City of Angels, as its the human who is trying to familiarise the other worldly being (aka non-human) with basic human concepts, emotions and things. I suppose its like a combination of ET and City of Angels - what a thought(!).

I any case, I enjoyed this film as the plot intrigued me and as I say there were some amusing moments, when 'Starman' didn't fully understand what he was being told and so on. I liked the naivety of the main character. so overall yes, I would recommend this film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews