For me, one of the finest achievements of Close Encounters is the fact that it addresses the age-old question, "Are We Alone?" in more ways than one. It is not just that we are not alone in the universe. We are not alone in our sadness, we are not alone in our joy, we are not alone in our fears, and we are not alone in our passions. Solipsistic cynicism has no place in Spielberg's world view.

Richard T Jameson is right on the money. Spielberg shows that we, as the audience, are not only illuminated by the story, but also by the medium itself. Like the heroes drawn towards Devil's Tower, and the lights, we are compelled towards the film in particular, and to cinema in general. All of which lends the film’s title a meta-metaphorical meaning.

Ahh, "Close Encounters" my absolute favorite Spielberg. I can't wait to get the new DVD and watch this brilliant movie again. I don't really have much to add to the conversation except that this is Spielberg best, in my opinion. Nothing wrong with "Munich" or "Saving Private Ryan" or "E.T.", but this is Spielberg's masterpiece.

I love the film but it is the first two-thirds that really fascinate me. Once they get to Devil's Mountain the movie seems good but not great. I think Spielberg does such an extraordinary job of build up, mixing confusion with tension and suspense, that no climax could have done anything but slightly disappoint me. I should make clear that I think the conclusion is probably one of the best he could have come up with. It's not the movie, it's me. It's a personal thing. I like mysteries and solving puzzles. Then once they're solved I kind of wish they weren't. So when everything gets neatly wrapped up in the end I always think that I like it better when Ned is searching, questioning, exploring his own psyche. In fact I love that. Once he gets the answers - Not so much.

A few months ago, I mentioned how this movie did for me what Star Wars did for so many of my teen peers back in '77. I love the quote and the stuff about 1941 (which I agree with, though I didn't see that film until way later) happened to apply to Star Wars, in my opinion. I know a lot of people *now* who share my opinion about Close Encounters but back then it seems everyone I knew was obsessed with "Action" figures. There's plenty of room for both movies, of course, but back then it seemed you almost had to choose and I (I was frequently informed) chose wrong.

Dane: It may be hard for some people to believe, but in that summer/fall of '77 it was so unusual to have two huge science fiction blockbusters front-and-center in popular culture, that people did tend to identify (themselves) with one or the other. I was definitely in the "CE3K" camp: I felt excitement at "Star Wars" but absolute awe at "CE3K" (mainly because it's about communication beyond language -- I remember calling it the most expensive abstract/experimental film since "2001"). Now, if I could only find my 1982 piece about the visual/musical language of "CE3K" and "E.T.," I'd re-print it...

Although light is clearly an important motif to Spielberg ("Light is life" he once said), and while I've long thought that CE3K was Spielberg's most "light-centric" work, I've never actually thought of it as a meditation on energy as well. That makes a lot of sense and presents a new "prism" through which I shall have to evaluate this film. Thank you, Jim, for heliping to enlighten (no pun intended) others on yet another way to experience a great landmark film from a true cinematic genius.

Martin Gardner (writer for Scientific American and other publications) didn't consider himself to be a film critic, but he ventured into that field only a few times when he felt it was justified. One of those times was to write a review of CE3K (reprinted in a few anthologies of his work). He lambasted the movie mercilessly and without restraint, and most of his ridicule stemmed from decrying what he felt was a popularization of the pseudoscience of UFO research (he had few kind things to say about Dr. Hynek) and a progressive turning-away from public curiosity about real science in favor of a sort of high-tech, spiritually-substituted wish-fulfillment, with aliens standing in for angels descending from heaven.

No less an SF luminary than Harlan Ellison hated the film too: "CE3K - oh my god, the Second Coming. This giant alien chandelier comes down and these Pillsbury Doughboys come out and sing, 'We're going to save your butts!' Very, very silly stuff."

I had a hard time thinking that the movie's positive qualities were entirely crowded out of their minds by what they saw as an affront to something at least as important to them as many of the other things that other people saw embodied in the film. Art may by definition be a manipulation of the emotions, but that doesn't mean everyone appreciates having to check their principles at the door.

I think feel that CE3K is a magical but flawed movie because their isn't much plot and the films magic comes from its visual power and not really its narrative.The film is more of an experience than a story which makes it magical but sloppy.