Rating: 
Summary: Walken through the Alien Sunset
Review: Let me begin this review by stating that I am a huge fan of Christopher Walken. OK, I'm done. Do yourself a huge favor and buy the VHS version of this movie. The director's cut is so bad in places it's cathartic. At the very least, it's enough to make you want to wash your brain out with soap, and Walken's as well.I bought this because it is supposed to be one of Walken's finest works, and it truly is. He is such a sensitive, honest actor that even the most miserable script flows like water across his performances. I think he's a national treasure, and like national treasures, subject to horrific abuse. This movie unequivocally abuses Christopher Walken, and lends credence to the rumors that the actor suffered a breakdown of sorts in his 40s. Just watch the out-takes of him cavorting in the most explicitly banal ways with plastic jumpy things that vaguely resemble a very bad joke by Arthur C. Clarke. ONCE you climb back down from the walls, and IF this DVD survives a well deserved fling across the room and a naughty chuckle, you may want to watch it again. This is not a joke. You spent money on this DVD, you deserve to get something out of it. IF you discount the whole alien nonsense, and view it from the perspective of a man coming to grips with a disintegrating mind, complete with cheesy special effects (as most maudlin breakdowns entail), it really is quite good. Toss Whitley Streiber, his wife and kid, WATCH Walken as he rationalizes all this bizarre information in his intensely personal performance, which is extraordinary. Read your own meaning into it, achieve what you want, and see a truly gifted actor dance perilously close to the edge of madness.
Rating: 
Summary: walken rules
Review: offbeat, thought provoking, weird, best of all, walkens million dollar facial expressions. :)
Rating:
Summary: Extremely scary
Review: Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind is totally child's play compared to the movie adaptation of Whitley Strieber's communion, as far as scary UFO movies are concerned. Simply because Close Encounters was totally fictional, and Communion is allegedly not, based on Whitley Strieber's alien abduction right after the Christmas holiday in 1985. Apparently before the book Communion hit the market, Strieber was a struggling author (my mother, while being an avid reader, never heard of the guy until Communion). I have never been so creeped out in my life until I watched Communion. In fact I was having such a difficult time sleeping because this movie was allegedly not fiction. I was actually scared that I might get abducted myself. No horror film, no slasher flick, nothing that I have seen comes even close to being as creepy as Communion. I have not read the book, although I have heard Whitley Strieber speak of his alien encounters like on Art Bell's radio program. If you like movies based on supposed real life alien abductions like The UFO Incident (about Betty & Barney Hill's abduction) or Fire in the Sky (about Travis Walton's abduction), you're sure to like this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but somewhat weak portrayal of the bestseller.
Review: The movie was a highly anticipated portrayal of Whitley Strieber's experiences written about in his NY Times bestseller "Communion". It starts out with an excellent first half, introducing the viewer to Whitley and his family, the famous cabin, and some of Whitley's friends. Those who have read the book will be right at home here. The scenes dealing with recreating his experiences, both in real time as well as hypnotically regressed flashback, are quite compelling and will likely frighten many viewers. At the very least, they provide a solid framework for the powerful and puzzling emotions Whitley experiences as a result of the encounters. Where the book excelled and the movie fizzled is in the area of "What is this all about...?, as Whitley left a lot of room for speculation in his writing, and yet the movie provides an obscure or confusing possible look at what the "Visitors" really may be. If the viewer has read some of Whitley's other Communion related works, and especially focuses on his many statements that the enigmatic Visitors may not be at all what we think they are, much of the theatrical symbolism starts to make sense. However, for those who are wondering what this is all about, I'm afraid to say that the movie really won't satisfy.
Rating:
Summary: Walken gives a convincing performance, but who's convinced?
Review: The movie,"Communion",which is based on a contoversial New York Times bestseller by the same name, is in no respects as convincing as the novel written by author Whitley Strieber. Strieber's novel and movie both tell the "true" story of his personal encounters with apparent aliens, which Strieber has coined the term "visitors" when refering to them. The movie lacks in several departments. One, obviously, is the budget(or lack there of) which takes away from the movies ability to portray realistic aliens or visitors, or whatever they are. The aliens, which are now easily recognized by there large black eyes in modern American pop culture, look in this movie quite literally like cheap rubber balloons.(probably because that's what they are)Strieber's book however, does not have the need for cheesy props to convey his story in convincing detail; probably the reason people had an interest in his book, back in 1987. Ask anyone though,who has read his next several books on the same subject; if they are capable of thinking logically,they will most likely tell you about the steady flow of contradictions ever present in his writing.This brings us to a second flaw in the movie, which is: Strieber spins a tale to the movies viewers which is sketchy at best. On one hand, we are led to believe the visitors are aliens in big bright spaceships, who stick needles in Whitley's brain. On the flip side of the coin, the movie suggests the visitors are actually the physical manefistation of human evolution, or some weird metaphysical thing like that. So which is it? One of the few saving graces of the film however, is Christopher Walken's portrayel of a confused and frightened Whitley Strieber. Walken's performance is excellent as always, and may be the only thing keeping the movie going. I give "Communion" three stars. One for Walken's performance, the second for what I must admit to be a fairly entertaining story(especially if you are a fan of Strieber's work); and the last for a very good transition of the confusing and contradictory aspects of the book to film. Don't watch "Communion" expecting to find answers to the many questions about what Strieber is trying to say in his books, nor with with heavy scrutiny. Rather, watch it with a good sense of humor. You'll need it.
Rating:
Summary: Walken gives a convincing performance, but who's convinced?
Review: The movie,"Communion",which is based on a contoversial New York Times bestseller by the same name, is in no respects as convincing as the novel written by author Whitley Strieber. Strieber's novel and movie both tell the "true" story of his personal encounters with apparent aliens, which Strieber has coined the term "visitors" when refering to them. The movie lacks in several departments. One, obviously, is the budget(or lack there of) which takes away from the movies ability to portray realistic aliens or visitors, or whatever they are. The aliens, which are now easily recognized by there large black eyes in modern American pop culture, look in this movie quite literally like cheap rubber balloons.(probably because that's what they are)Strieber's book however, does not have the need for cheesy props to convey his story in convincing detail; probably the reason people had an interest in his book, back in 1987. Ask anyone though,who has read his next several books on the same subject; if they are capable of thinking logically,they will most likely tell you about the steady flow of contradictions ever present in his writing.This brings us to a second flaw in the movie, which is: Strieber spins a tale to the movies viewers which is sketchy at best. On one hand, we are led to believe the visitors are aliens in big bright spaceships, who stick needles in Whitley's brain. On the flip side of the coin, the movie suggests the visitors are actually the physical manefistation of human evolution, or some weird metaphysical thing like that. So which is it? One of the few saving graces of the film however, is Christopher Walken's portrayel of a confused and frightened Whitley Strieber. Walken's performance is excellent as always, and may be the only thing keeping the movie going. I give "Communion" three stars. One for Walken's performance, the second for what I must admit to be a fairly entertaining story(especially if you are a fan of Strieber's work); and the last for a very good transition of the confusing and contradictory aspects of the book to film. Don't watch "Communion" expecting to find answers to the many questions about what Strieber is trying to say in his books, nor with with heavy scrutiny. Rather, watch it with a good sense of humor. You'll need it.
Rating: 
Summary: Yuck!
Review: This was a complete waste. Walken is good, but God what a waste! I never finished Strieber's first book which had intrigued me. But in succeeding books, he does nothing to prove anything. He gives a tale of experience that borders on religion. This horrible, suspenseless, and cheap film gives nothing to redeem Strieber nor his story as an unfunny joke.
Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on it. After all I'm not a UFO reasercher or whatnot. But I'm still human. I still have opinions. And my opinion of this is, yuck!
Rating: 
Summary: Leave the lights on at bedtime after watching this.
Review: This was a great movie; and introduced the dynamic acting of Christopher Walken to me. It also scared the you-know-what out of me. I must have seen this movie a dozen times and still get scared each time. If you've ever had even a remotely similar experience as what is depicted in this movie, you'll be leaving the lights on at bedtime guaranteed.
|
