sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (05/20/84)
I had the misfortune of going to a sneak preview of this movie tonight,
and I feel a bit like a Cassandra, warning the citizens of their impending
doom, all to no avail. With a name like "Spielberg" attached to this
flick, it's guaranteed to be a success regardless of the critical opinion.
Like "Poltergeist", he didn't direct it, leaving those details for someone
else. Nevertheless, his imprimatur is firmly stamped on it: the title is
"Spielberg's Gremlins," after all. I had no prior axe to grind against this
guy--I loved "Raiders" and CEotTK, tolerated E.T., and am (still) looking
forward to the next "Raiders" movie. But this movie is such a muddled,
unpleasant, artless disaster that I wonder about what this guy is really
capable of saying anymore.
The story revolves around a tiny, disgustingly cute critter which looks a
bit like a cross between Yoda and an ewok. Somewhere in Lotusland, USA, a
foolish ineffectual sitcom father gets hold of one of these from a wise, old
Chinese man. He brings it home to his sitcom family as a Christmas
present. Naturally, there are several things which one MUST NOT do to these
creatures, and predictably, just these things happen. Let's just say they
multiply and turn into gargoyle-like Muppets who are both mischevious and
vicious, and all hell breaks loose. The valiant, sitcom son and his
sitcom girl-friend, instead of high-tailing it out of there, work to
destroy them.
This movie is another in the John Landis school of "excess is more."
You want to see Mom turn on the Cuisinart with one of these in it?
Even wonder about what happens when one of these things is trapped in
a microwave oven? And, natch, let's not forget the Blues-Brothers-style
car crashes and gas explosions. How about killing a few characters who
we've met? There's this black Biology teacher...one guess what happens
to him. The vulgar pandering and predictability of the story is endless.
Now, those of the 'net.jokes.d' set might say, "Hey, it's only a movie; a
fantasy; it's only for fun." Well, another big problem with this movie is
that it is so damned inconsistent, and it sure isn't fun. It doesn't know
whether it's an E.T.-like fantasy, a Jaws-like horror movie, or a
commentary on Western mores and Christmas celebrations, so it veers wildly
between a number of incongruous and inconsistent styles. Its attempts at
real emotion or commentary are shallow beyond description. Too, with all
the money and technical effort wasted on this flick, you'd think that they
could simulate winter scenes at Christmas time realistically. Instead,
we are greeted by phoney-looking artificial snow, and during the outdoor scenes
the bundled-up characters don't have their breath visible! The other special
effects aren't much to write home about either, save for the animation of the
gremlin dolls.
Why waste time railing against such an obviously bad movie? If this were
some obscure movie targeted for the drive-ins, it wouldn't be necessary to
say anything. But this is clearly intended as one of the big summer
box-office hits, directed by someone who has previously made excellent,
well-crafted movies. People have a lot of expectations when they see
Spielberg's name on a marquee.
I wonder just what audience this movie is aimed for--it's too violent for
children under 12, and too stupid for anyone above the age of 18. This is
probably slandering millions of 13-to-17-year-olds. I hope they prove me
wrong.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA