The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Somewhat-[Super 8]
Atomika
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Saw it this afternoon. The quick and dirty version, avec espoiliers.
The Good:
- Abrahams goes hard for the late-seventies/early-eighties Spielberg feel in the tone and photography. While it's been no secret that that period was a big influence on the movie, it comes through in spades. Really one of the best examples of period reconstruction in recent memory, and far better in that respect than X-Men: First Class' pastiche of, "Oh, it's the sixties, can't you tell by my Justin Beiber haircut?" If the camera work had been just a little more staid and the pacing had been just a little more lax, this movie would have been extremely difficult to distinguish from a Spielberg effort from that era.
- The kids in this film are perfectly in the E.T. mold, and I love it. Wide-eyed, earnest, and warm, but intensely real in their characterizations and interactions. Elle Fanning steals every scene she's in, she's amazing and one to watch for in the future.
- The score, from wunderkind Michael Giacchino (who I have no idea when he sleeps, seriously, check out his IMDB page), evokes a wholly appropriate feel for the film, recalling period-appropriate John Williams without being obvious or plagiaristic or inappropriately bombastic. It's solid work and a film score in a true classical sense, which is something we really don't hear enough of in these days of OTT Alan Silvestri/Hans Zimmer overload.
The Meh:
- The lead character of Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is a bit of a cipher. Everything we know about him tends to come from dialogue spoken from others about him, not from actions or dialogue of his own. For example, in E.T. it's understood from early on that Elliot is having a hard time adjusting to life in a single-parent home by the way he interacts with his siblings and the way people react to how he acts and speaks toward his struggling mother. In Super 8, on the other hand, there are a lot of scenes of people muttering quietly about how tragic the loss of Joe's mother is for him, and it really gets hammered on throughout the film, but there's little done on the actor's part that sells that tragedy. It's a prime example of the old movie adage, "show, don't tell." On paper we can understand his motivations, but by the end of the movie it doesn't seem like he's earned the emotional beats the film aspires to.
- Likewise, Joe's dad, the de-facto sheriff of the small town where increasingly weird things begin to happen, doesn't really connect in the way that the film seems to want him to. He's definitely supposed to be the ying to son Joe's yang in terms of the film's emotional arc, but the character is so side-tracked by his own subplot the emotional connection doesn't meet fruition. When the arc is "completed" at the end, it seems utterly perfunctory.
The Bad:
- The biggest failing I feel is the treatment of the sci-fi aspects of the film. The film plays out like two separate films that just happen to contain some shared characters and have a finale that shoehorns everything into the same space to force a conclusion. There's no emotional connection to the "lost alien" subplot that takes up much of the film's running time; the alien spends most of the time in the second act acting like Jaws, lurking in shadows and showing up only long enough to tear shit up and scoop up a batch of unsuspecting human snacks. The alien isn't a he or a she or even an it. It's just a thing that no one even knows about other than it being violent, and even when that's changed it's a revelation that doesn't come until almost at the film's end. It's basically a violent and inscrutable enigma until a early-third act expositional filmstrip dictates the terms exactly to the audience.
- To this end, the movie about a bunch of friends making a home video feels utterly separate and unconnected to the movie where a sheriff's deputy gets caught in a government cover-up about an escaped alien. It actually feels a lot like an old X-Files monster-of-the-week episode; we would collectively forgive the rushed development and plot contrivances and thin motivations because all we really cared about was the interaction between Mulder and Scully and how it continued to build. Unfortunately for films, you can't come back next Sunday night at 8/7central to keep the dynamic moving. Super 8 doesn't even leave the audience with a much-needed denouement; the finale hits, all the loose ends are hammered into submission, and fade to credits. Any lingering questions regarding the future of Joe and his father, Alice and her father, or how the two fathers will rebuild their interconnected lives, not to mention how several thousand townsfolk will recover from a 3-story alien blowing their entire town to shit, are all left to audiences' imaginations and apologetics.
To sum up, a bitter disappointment overall because J. J. Abrahams gets so much about the tone and feel right, which was what he really was aiming for. In that regard it's hard to imagine a more perfect execution. Unfortunately, it's tied to a paper-thin subplot that goes nowhere and provides no emotional release upon its culmination. When consciously choosing to ape a master like Spielberg, while proving you can recreate that same wonderful feeling and energy as he did in that period is no meager feat, the more important thing to hold to aspiration is how Spielberg engaged audiences and got them to connect with those moments. Close Encounters isn't about aliens, it's about Roy Neary. E.T. isn't about aliens, it's about a boy who needs someone to care about him. Super 8 needed to be less about a mysterious alien, and more about how that alien affects Joe Lamb.
The Good:
- Abrahams goes hard for the late-seventies/early-eighties Spielberg feel in the tone and photography. While it's been no secret that that period was a big influence on the movie, it comes through in spades. Really one of the best examples of period reconstruction in recent memory, and far better in that respect than X-Men: First Class' pastiche of, "Oh, it's the sixties, can't you tell by my Justin Beiber haircut?" If the camera work had been just a little more staid and the pacing had been just a little more lax, this movie would have been extremely difficult to distinguish from a Spielberg effort from that era.
- The kids in this film are perfectly in the E.T. mold, and I love it. Wide-eyed, earnest, and warm, but intensely real in their characterizations and interactions. Elle Fanning steals every scene she's in, she's amazing and one to watch for in the future.
- The score, from wunderkind Michael Giacchino (who I have no idea when he sleeps, seriously, check out his IMDB page), evokes a wholly appropriate feel for the film, recalling period-appropriate John Williams without being obvious or plagiaristic or inappropriately bombastic. It's solid work and a film score in a true classical sense, which is something we really don't hear enough of in these days of OTT Alan Silvestri/Hans Zimmer overload.
The Meh:
- The lead character of Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is a bit of a cipher. Everything we know about him tends to come from dialogue spoken from others about him, not from actions or dialogue of his own. For example, in E.T. it's understood from early on that Elliot is having a hard time adjusting to life in a single-parent home by the way he interacts with his siblings and the way people react to how he acts and speaks toward his struggling mother. In Super 8, on the other hand, there are a lot of scenes of people muttering quietly about how tragic the loss of Joe's mother is for him, and it really gets hammered on throughout the film, but there's little done on the actor's part that sells that tragedy. It's a prime example of the old movie adage, "show, don't tell." On paper we can understand his motivations, but by the end of the movie it doesn't seem like he's earned the emotional beats the film aspires to.
- Likewise, Joe's dad, the de-facto sheriff of the small town where increasingly weird things begin to happen, doesn't really connect in the way that the film seems to want him to. He's definitely supposed to be the ying to son Joe's yang in terms of the film's emotional arc, but the character is so side-tracked by his own subplot the emotional connection doesn't meet fruition. When the arc is "completed" at the end, it seems utterly perfunctory.
The Bad:
- The biggest failing I feel is the treatment of the sci-fi aspects of the film. The film plays out like two separate films that just happen to contain some shared characters and have a finale that shoehorns everything into the same space to force a conclusion. There's no emotional connection to the "lost alien" subplot that takes up much of the film's running time; the alien spends most of the time in the second act acting like Jaws, lurking in shadows and showing up only long enough to tear shit up and scoop up a batch of unsuspecting human snacks. The alien isn't a he or a she or even an it. It's just a thing that no one even knows about other than it being violent, and even when that's changed it's a revelation that doesn't come until almost at the film's end. It's basically a violent and inscrutable enigma until a early-third act expositional filmstrip dictates the terms exactly to the audience.
- To this end, the movie about a bunch of friends making a home video feels utterly separate and unconnected to the movie where a sheriff's deputy gets caught in a government cover-up about an escaped alien. It actually feels a lot like an old X-Files monster-of-the-week episode; we would collectively forgive the rushed development and plot contrivances and thin motivations because all we really cared about was the interaction between Mulder and Scully and how it continued to build. Unfortunately for films, you can't come back next Sunday night at 8/7central to keep the dynamic moving. Super 8 doesn't even leave the audience with a much-needed denouement; the finale hits, all the loose ends are hammered into submission, and fade to credits. Any lingering questions regarding the future of Joe and his father, Alice and her father, or how the two fathers will rebuild their interconnected lives, not to mention how several thousand townsfolk will recover from a 3-story alien blowing their entire town to shit, are all left to audiences' imaginations and apologetics.
To sum up, a bitter disappointment overall because J. J. Abrahams gets so much about the tone and feel right, which was what he really was aiming for. In that regard it's hard to imagine a more perfect execution. Unfortunately, it's tied to a paper-thin subplot that goes nowhere and provides no emotional release upon its culmination. When consciously choosing to ape a master like Spielberg, while proving you can recreate that same wonderful feeling and energy as he did in that period is no meager feat, the more important thing to hold to aspiration is how Spielberg engaged audiences and got them to connect with those moments. Close Encounters isn't about aliens, it's about Roy Neary. E.T. isn't about aliens, it's about a boy who needs someone to care about him. Super 8 needed to be less about a mysterious alien, and more about how that alien affects Joe Lamb.
Atomika on
0
Posts
I was wrapped up in every second of it. I'm fairly certain it'll be in my top 10 of all time, I felt it was that good. The characters all had heart, the antagonists were fearsome and mysterious, I had a hell of a time trying to figure out what the cube was, etc. It was excellently put together. My only complaint is a bit of overuse of lensflare and magical blue lines, especially at the train station.
And Spielberg produced it, so I dunno about "choosing to ape a master like Spielberg."
Overall though, A+.
there were some great aspects of this movie, and in a way they may have been the most important aspects (the kids, the capturing of an era and really a very specific type of film, a magical quality) but I definitely felt that we were watching two separate movies that happened to come together.
cloverfield and super 8 spoilers
one thing I didn't quite get
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I mean, I think we live in such a critical age that everything has to be OSCAR WINNER or its a fucking drag. This was an incredibly enjoyable summer movie. It was smart, heartfelt and knew exactly what it was doing.
Abrams can direct the shit out of a movie and with Spielberg talking in his ear he created an experience I haven't had in a theater, maybe ever.
I'm not saying it was a perfect movie but I have not felt this good about paying $10+ for a movie in a long time.
I stood up and was like "there is no way there will be anything during the credits".
Looking forward to the sequel in a couple years.
And the video was pretty awesome.
Spoiler for what the credits video is: (Not actually spoilery for the movie)
I agree with Armond White.
I have so many bones to pick with that review that I don't even know where to begin.
I honestly don't have the time to discuss it intelligently, but I just picture White walking into Super 8 arms folded with all hate-guns drawn.
Spielberg earned it.
^
However, I agree that the kids' movie feels a bit too disconnected from the rest of the plot.
Yeah that's not what that scene was about. At all. That reviewer missed the point.
Also, "kids in suburbia" is NOT a Spielberg trope. Since when does Spielberg get monopolies on that? Because Stephen King certainly has some claim there. I was reminded of IT a lot during the film, just based on a bunch of kids dealing with something extraordinary.
I swear, this was an incredibly charming movie. I can see how people would think it was just OK, but it isn't a bad film by any means. Definitely some "arms folded with all hate-guns drawn" going on.
This comment on that review is incredibly astute about the kind of philosophy that went behind making this movie:
"Tanks don't just have a magazine to fire shells one after another. It's an involved process where several men have to empt a cartridge, load in another shell, seal the breach and then fire. Why did they keep reloading? Also the belt fed machine guns that continued to fire for no reason in no direction in particular. Why? Those are the easiest guns in the world to disarm. Open the breach, pull out the belt and you're done. Why keep them loaded? Your sam rockets are firing off their trucks? Ok why do you have SAM rockets for a creature you know digs under ground? I was completely taken out by this scene that felt messy and pointless."
[edit] Crap, meant to edit all of this into my above post, apologies.
I wish it was an adaption of a stephen king novel, those kids should have died so many times in that movie it wasn't even funny. I find the surival of the goonies more believable than those damn kids.
Only Woodard knew about the subterranian bit, no one else would listen to him. The other things are errors, yes, but that scene was what, 2 minutes long? It was visual candy and exciting, it really didn't concern me that the tanks kept firing. If you couldn't enjoy the movie because of that, then how do you enjoy any movies ever? And how exactly is that comment reflective of the philosophy of the film? "Ignore realism for things that are awesome?"
My feelings on the matter are that all enjoyment to be derived from this film (and there is enjoyment to be derived indeed) stems from the hard, concerted attempt at nostalgia porn.
Nothing about this film's setting or characters or timeframe demands or justifies the period setting and Spielbergian influence; it's just that way because it wants to be. Now, it's very good at doing that, very, very good, but it's unearned. And in a way, very cynical. The whole movie is about unearned emotion, and that's why it's ultimately a failure.
It's less a movie than it is an ode to early-eighties Spielberg lighting techniques.
o_O
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
This might be the greatest summary to the BSG thread that I have ever seen.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Sci-Fi has never, ever been about the unrealistic. The raison d'etre for sci-fi has been to take the marvelous and impossible and put it into a realistic context, and then watch how humanity reacts to a new paradigm.
"Shit randomly happening just because" is the wheelhouse of fantasy, not sci-fi. And it's not even the wheelhouse of good fantasy.
I'm pretty excited.
Anywho. I enjoyed the heck out of this movie. I had more fun watching it than I have watching anything else in a long time. Since I was a kid really. Funny, that.
Well, not so much wrong as misspelled.
It's Abrams, not Abrahams. But it's not like I wrote "Wim Wenders."
Ross, if I may ask, you don't really believe in soft sci-fi as compared to hard sci-fi, do you? By which I mean, would you just consider soft sci-fi to be fantasy, or at best badly done hard sci-fi?
I guess I need to ask what you mean by "soft" sci-fi.
E.T. is what I would consider "soft" sci-fi. As would I Close Encounters, or Alien. I think all of those movies are fantastic. I don't really get hung up on the labeling of a movie, but I didn't like the way ProjectMayhem was arguing that being "sci-fi" absolved a movie of striving for a sense of realism or legitimacy or playing by a reasonable set of rules.
My biggest gripes with Super 8 are not it's sci-fi/fantasy elements, it's that it's narrative is incomplete and broken. It's not a competently written or structured film, and it's a damn shame because it's a very, very pretty film to look at with some very good performances. But other than an ungodly amount of lens flares, that's really J. J. Abrams' calling card, isn't it? Great looking movies with great casts and great tone with scripts that don't even remotely work.
Thinking more on it today, I think that Super 8 is Abrams' Sucker Punch. It's a wholly unadulterated vision of a very stylistic director whose desire to evoke a certain aesthetic and iconography is so emphasized, it forgets to be a fundamentally competent movie first and foremost.
and also I'd argue that the tone it captures is more worthwhile than you seem to think, or more of a challenge
I guess I need to reiterate that I don't hate this movie, and I really honestly think there is a lot of positive things about it.
But I strongly feel that a movie's first and foremost objective has to be competency in the fundamental aspects, and this movie just doesn't have it in regards to the script and editing. It's like going to a fine restaurant and being served a burnt steak on a golden plate; all the trappings of quality are there, and it's a fine experience, but it doesn't come through where it absolutely has to.