J.J. Abrams' Super 8 (2011)

[Dukefrukem]

It's weird, but the Spielberg film this reminded me of most was War of the Worlds. Which is not one from the Spielberg 'golden age' obviously. Maybe it was the Fanning presence.

or the obnoxious-left-field ending? Both movies have this.

[Raiders]

It's weird, but the Spielberg film this reminded me of most was War of the Worlds. Which is not one from the Spielberg 'golden age' obviously. Maybe it was the Fanning presence.

Dammit Spinal, shut up! Say no more until after I see it.

[MadMan]

Totally. :lol::P


I'm not sure there is a better example than this to demonstrate the adjective "Madmanesque"I am not an adjective! I'm am a man!


Wait, I haven't seen The Elephant Man yet, so I can't really make that joke.

[Spinal]

or the obnoxious-left-field ending? Both movies have this.

No. Neither film does.

[Spinal]

Dammit Spinal, shut up! Say no more until after I see it.

Stop reading this thread!

[Raiders]

Stop reading this thread!

:crazy:

[Dead & Messed Up]

Well, boy, I respectfully disagree.

It's really quite an extraordinary ending. I'm surprised that some of you felt let down.

(a) "He's building a model" confused me. He wasn't building a model. Unless there's some obvious subtext I'm missing here.

(b) I agree with others that the "I got you" line felt a bit much. I feel like the dad needed to make a pledge, but that came off like a declaration. Or he could've just hugged his son. That would've been enough for me. Either way, it's a nitpick.

(c) I didn't like the alien. Stupid, ugly thing. None of the whimsical design or interior logic of Spielberg (and Spielberg-derived) aliens. Its eagerness to eat and smash people, right up to the moment it made puppy-dog eyes at the hero, left me cold to the bittersweet awe assigned to it at the end.

(d) The necklace thing was cool, since the hero kid's letting go both for himself and his father.

[Spinal]

(a) "He's building a model" confused me. He wasn't building a model. Unless there's some obvious subtext I'm missing here.

(b) I agree with others that the "I got you" line felt a bit much. I feel like the dad needed to make a pledge, but that came off like a declaration. Or he could've just hugged his son. That would've been enough for me. Either way, it's a nitpick.

(c) I didn't like the alien. Stupid, ugly thing. None of the whimsical design or interior logic of Spielberg (and Spielberg-derived) aliens. Its eagerness to eat and smash people, right up to the moment it made puppy-dog eyes at the hero, left me cold to the bittersweet awe assigned to it at the end.

(d) The necklace thing was cool, since the hero kid's letting go both for himself and his father.

I thought that 'model' meant that he wasn't re-building his original spaceship. He was using different materials to construct a stand-in. You can quibble over whether that's an appropriate use of the word 'model' or not. It works fine for me.

It is established that the alien has been imprisoned and mistreated for several years. It is desperately trying to execute its plan to return home. It seems logical to me that it would react violently to any perceived threat. It is also necessary to have the alien be a dangerous threat for the moment with the young boy to work. He is allowed to demonstrate his enormous strength, compassion and courage. An outsider with abilities far beyond mankind perceives his extraordinary nature.

Sorry it didn't work for you.

[Dukefrukem]

(a) "He's building a model" confused me. He wasn't building a model. Unless there's some obvious subtext I'm missing here.

(b) I agree with others that the "I got you" line felt a bit much. I feel like the dad needed to make a pledge, but that came off like a declaration. Or he could've just hugged his son. That would've been enough for me. Either way, it's a nitpick.

(c) I didn't like the alien. Stupid, ugly thing. None of the whimsical design or interior logic of Spielberg (and Spielberg-derived) aliens. Its eagerness to eat and smash people, right up to the moment it made puppy-dog eyes at the hero, left me cold to the bittersweet awe assigned to it at the end.

(d) The necklace thing was cool, since the hero kid's letting go both for himself and his father.

Good stuff. The model reference was a poor excuse to connect dialog.

It's one thing to make it a "monster", it's another to make it an intelligent monster that can build a ship out of random metal and magic cubes.

[Fezzik]

I don't think Dakota was bad, but I agree that Elle was much better. Abrams certainly gets better performances from his kid actors than Spielberg generally did. Far less cloying.

Yeah, I agree. I think Elle Fanning was actually the best thing about Super 8, while all I can say about Dakota Fanning is that she didn't ruin War of the Worlds for me.

[Spinal]

It's one thing to make it a "monster", it's another to make it an intelligent monster that can build a ship out of random metal and magic cubes.

But again, there's no contradiction here.

The alien possesses advanced technology. It's not magic. It only seems so because it is not technology humanity understands. This is common in sci-fi stories. He is also powerful and violent. He clearly views humans as inferior and has no moral problem with killing them to survive. Countless films have humans travelling to alien planets and shooting up aliens to survive. Why should the reverse not be true? This is what sets the protagonist apart. He does not possess the lack of courage and compassion which leads to senseless violence. He is different. And the alien recognizes this.

[Rowland]

Good stuff. The model reference was a poor excuse to connect dialog. Nah. The alien being kept on our planet to be experimented upon and tortured mirrors the lead kid's father's failure to understand his son, attempting to force him into baseball camp when the kid's passion clearly lies elsewhere. Thus, when the alien escapes our planet through the use of a "model," that's an affirmation of the kid's artistic temperament which the father implicitly accepts as they finally let go of the mother's necklace, itself a symbol of the weight of her memory bearing upon them.

[Spinal]

I'm always happy to be suprised at what films I will go to battle for each year. This year, a J.J. Abrams blockbuster. Last year, a high-concept Leonardo DiCaprio film. A few years ago, a singing penguin movie.

[MadMan]

I agree that the alien didn't look the greatest, but I really don't dock a movie points for poor CGI unless it completely distracts me from the movie overall. I suppose one of the movie's mistakes was showing the alien way too much as the film began to wind down. Revealing only a little bit would have kept up the mystery a lot more.

Both Inception and Super 8 get the same rating, but I think I like Inception more. That hallway fight really was amazing.

[Spinal]

I suppose one of the movie's mistakes was showing the alien way too much as the film began to wind down. Revealing only a little bit would have kept up the mystery a lot more.


They keep up the mystery for an awfully long time.

[Ezee E]

I forgot...

How did the alien get the magnetic powers at the end? Was it because it was able to get all those microwaves?

[soitgoes...]

I'm always happy to be suprised at what films I will go to battle for each year. This year, a J.J. Abrams blockbuster. Last year, a high-concept Leonardo DiCaprio film. A few years ago, a singing penguin movie. Two out of three ain't bad. :P


They keep up the mystery for an awfully long time.
I thought that Abrams did a wonderful job presenting the alien. It was totally withheld for at least half the film, and then we're only given glimpses here and there until the end.

[Spinal]

I thought that Abrams did a wonderful job presenting the alien. It was totally withheld for at least half the film, and then we're only given glimpses here and there until the end.

As someone who avoided all discussion of the film beforehand, I wasn't even really sure what they were dealing with until midway through the film.

[soitgoes...]

As someone who avoided all discussion of the film beforehand, I wasn't even really sure what they were dealing with until midway through the film.I really didn't either. I knew it was some "supernatural" element, but beyond that I had no idea. Could have been military experiment gone awry, alien, actual zombies, whatever. I had no idea until the reveal to the kids when they're arguing over Alice's affections. I loved the way that it was blocked during the attack on the gas station.

[Pop Trash]

or the obnoxious-left-field ending? Both movies have this.

Really? I agree about WotW, but this one had a pretty organic ending.

[transmogrifier]

I'm always happy to be suprised at what films I will go to battle for each year. This year, a J.J. Abrams blockbuster. Last year, a high-concept Leonardo DiCaprio film. A few years ago, a singing penguin movie.

If they weren't so deeply average, you probably wouldn't need to go into battle for them. Zing!

[Raiders]

I sadly do have to agree that once the kids separate and two of them go spelunking, the film definitely took a downward turn for me. The final line which has been maligned is indeed a little simplistic for the way the film treats it as a salvaging grace to the father-son relationship. It makes sense in the context, but the film closes it on that note, leaving a confusing resolution and lack of any real character change to signal a positive outlook. In general the characters are pretty static except for Ron Eldard and Elle Fanning, the former of which could have used a little more exploring but the context is well done.

Still, let that not suggest this isn't a magnificently created film. Numerous sequences in the second half illustrate this as one of the finest examples of pure summer spectacle I have seen in ages (the bus sequence which was pure kinetic energy and the destruction of the community as the kids weaved their way through was wonderful geographic filmmaking). This is in conjunction with a great first half filled with great love of film and its makers and the dedication inherent to guerrilla filmmaking. Not to mention the child actors are great and Abrams fills the film with great grace notes of dialogue for the troupe. They are at once believable and knowing enough to exist only in the cinema (and in a film as in love with the quirks of cinema).

So great in fact are these characters that when the film shifts its focus to the raison d'etre for the monster's rampaging, it becomes far less interesting. It's a testament to the film's and actors' creation of the characters that the increased presence of the monster actually became a burden and distraction in what is billed as a monster film. I sat afterward, viewing the wonderful little student film, wishing perhaps the film could have found a way to tell the entire story through the viewpoint of the children trying to finish their film in the midst of the mayhem. Sadly, some adherence to genre must be paid I suppose, and Abrams plays the final section as anyone who grew up on Spielberg's late 70s/early 80s films would know.

Gloriously entertaining with still a tinge of disappointment.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Raiders, you summed up my feelings perfectly. Very nice review.

[Raiders]

I think between this film, the ice planet sequence in Star Trek and Cloverfield, Abrams has established he likes large, gnarly creatures perhaps a little too much.

[Pop Trash]

Raiders: you are the Terrence Malick of Super 8 reviewers.

[Boner M]

Agreed with Raiders although I'm a little more down on it. Also, Abrams' lens flares are fast becoming the most egregious example of 'look ma, I'm an auteur!'-syndrome in modern cinema. That scene where Fanning silences the crew with a convicing rehearsal performance would've worked if we could actually pay attention to her performance instead of the blue lines across the screen. Inept.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Agree about the lens flares. They're obnoxious.

[Raiders]

What's funny is after both of his last two films, he has admitted in interviews he went too far on occasion with the flares, but he just can't help himself. I didn't mind them too much in this film. There was actually almost a Vertigo moment for me during Fanning's monologue as the film cuts from the boy's infatuated face to hers half-cascaded in the lens flare.

[Pop Trash]

Yeah the lens flares here didn't bother me as much as Star Trek, mostly because contextually it makes more sense.

Plus, it's not like you complain about low angle shots of the sun shining through leaves and branches in Malick's films Boner.

[Boner M]

Plus, it's not like you complain about low angle shots of the sun shining through leaves and branches in Malick's films Boner.
Yeah because Super 8 and Malick films are the same thing.

[Qrazy]

I'm always happy to be suprised at what films I will go to battle for each year. This year, a J.J. Abrams blockbuster. Last year, a high-concept Leonardo DiCaprio film. A few years ago, a singing penguin movie.

Hrm I don't know if I'd refer to Inception as a high concept film.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Hrm I don't know if I'd refer to Inception as a high concept film.

"Spies involved in dream espionage race against time to infiltrate a tycoon's subconscious."

[DavidSeven]

"A heist film, where your dream is the scene of the crime."

[Qrazy]

"Spies involved in dream espionage race against time to infiltrate a tycoon's subconscious."

You could do that for every film ever made.

Paper Soldier: A Russian doctor struggles with anxieties while prepping the first astronauts ever.

The Crazy Family: A Japanese family falls prey to their own idiosyncrasies eventually leading to familial warfare.

Ugly Swans: Mutants teach human children inhuman behavior which leads to their undoing.

---

"High concept narratives are typically characterised by an over-arching "what if?" scenario that acts as a catalyst for the following events. Often, the most popular summer blockbuster movies are built on a high concept idea, such as "what if a shark attacks?" (Jaws); "what if we could clone dinosaurs?" (Jurassic Park), and so on. However, it is important to differentiate a high concept narrative from an analogous narrative. In the case of the latter, a high concept story may be employed to allow commentary on an implicit subtext. The prime example of this would be George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which asks "what if we lived in a future of totalitarian government?" while simultaneously generating social comment and satire aimed at Orwell's own (real world) contemporary society. Similarly, the Gene Roddenberry SF series Star Trek went beyond the High Concept storytelling of a futurist starship crew, by addressing 20th century social issues in an abstract and defamiliarising context."

[Winston*]

"High concept narratives are typically characterised by an over-arching "what if?" scenario that acts as a catalyst for the following events.

What if you could enter someone else's dreams to influence their thoughts?

[Spinal]

It's Semantics Saturday!

[Winston*]

It's Semantics Saturday!

It's Sunday.

[Spinal]

It's Sunday.

That's the spirit!

[Bosco B Thug]

This is really supreme entertainment. If anything, Abrams has guaranteed my butt in a seat for all his movies because he can really direct an exciting, involving movie. Plus, it flirts with richness (the article (http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2011/06/10/super-8-the-kids-who-knew-too-much) Rowland posted makes some great connections, and other great connections that are barely realized by the film), so that, even if the story kind of disintegrates in the final thirty minutes, the soaringly emotional and suddenly utmost-ridiculous finale works as an absurdly beatific encapsulation of the worth of high sentimentality in escapist cinema, combining two families' mirror reconciliations and a judgmental monster's divinely-tinged magnetic swiping of humanity's petty articles (consumer items, a memento mori, and soldiers' guns - one soldier even clinging to it so desperately he gets served with a moment of small humiliation) into a beautiful final shot.

[Rowland]

swiping of humanity's petty articles (consumer items, a memento mori, and soldiers' guns - one soldier even clinging to it so desperately he gets served with a moment of small humiliation) Hah, nice connection there.

[Bosco B Thug]

Hah, nice connection there.
Well, half-gathered only after reading that L Magazine article. (Though I have to be a jerk and make clear that I think that article is half-terrible - the conversational tone makes them sound like idiots and early attempts at suggesting political commentary in the film are too shaky for them to go on about them the way they do.) But yes, the guns going up into the air struck me almost immediately as a nice little sentiment by the film.

[SirNewt]

Classic match-cut thread. Several other people ( in this case KF and Raiders ) said what I wanted to but better. And then Spinal made me laugh.

[Llopin]

What a lazy movie. Not much accuainted with today's standards of "pop-corn" flicks, but this certainly managed to irritate me. I don't see how a series of obvious sentimental themes, completely unnecessary and ignored plot devices and elements, nonsensical character actions and motivations, badly shot, un-exciting and messy action sequences and the corniest of endings can make for "good entertainment". The film is a mediocre hodgepodge of horridly linked "standards"of fantasy cinema. The whole "little kid wins the monster's heart" bit did it.

I know the whimsical moments and clichés are mandatory, and I'm don't have any particular problem with them. In fact, done right they can make for a hell of a mindless film. It's just that everything was convoluted, forced and over the place. I don't even know what they were attempting during most the third act of the film. They lost it.

Sure the kids are cute and fun and all. It might be argued they are what saves the movie from being completely forgettable. As if the "preteen boys nerding out and living through summer somewhere in Ohio, late 70s" genre needed another vapid treatment. Gotta love the firecracker boy, who I assume is a child version of Michael Bay. "Hey mates, remember that summer the former mayor of Baltimore survived a train wreck and my father and Ron "Teddy Bear Eyes" Eldard became best buddies? My Sharona!"

[MadMan]

While its good to see a review from Llopin again, I can't say I agree with him. I'm sure some of the movie's flaws will become more obvious on a second viewing, but I can't imagine my rating or opinion changing all that much.

[Pop Trash]

I'll be "that guy" and mention Llopin had Toy Story 3 in his top five of last year.

[soitgoes...]

I'll be "that guy" and mention Llopin had Toy Story 3 in his top five of last year.Since you put that guy in quotes, I assume you realize how ridiculous it is to use his liking of another completely unrelated film as a way of criticizing his opinion of this film. It isn't as if Llopin is brand new, and little known, with the other posters here.

[Llopin]

I'll say I'm mostly surprised at the good reception this movie is getting over here. I came to see the flick be destroyed and instead found a parade of roses and muzak. As I sensually mentioned, I'm okay with slacker plots and nasty predictable clichés, but people are too forgiving towards Spielberg and this dude who emulates him finely. Toy Story 3 on the other hand made me teary eyed and got me all fuzzy inside. Besides, it had a couple vaginas. There were no vaginas in Super 8, so it sucked.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yeah, perhaps the makers should have toned down the monster aspect a little bit. Had it been in the vein of The Iron Giant where you also have a frightening, towering "villain," but one who is merely misunderstood by anyone but youthful innocence, super 8 might have been a bit more believable in that scene where the main kid confronts the beast. E.T. was essentially similar. Kids believe, adults want to capture, but ET was never a monster of course.

[MadMan]

Despite giving them both the same rating, I think E.T. is the better movie anyways.

E.T., last act aside, was relatively more "lighter" and had plenty of humorous moments. Where as Super 8 never stopped being directly serious, even if some humor was worked into the proceedings. Even the last act isn't exactly warm and fuzzy. I read that as part of Abrams approach, with a touch of the "Jaws" and "Poltergeist" Spielberg, rather than "Hook" style Spielberg. Even though I'll admit that Hook was Spielberg once again putting children in danger, something that occurs in plenty of his movies.

[Spinal]

I'll say I'm mostly surprised at the good reception this movie is getting over here. I came to see the flick be destroyed and instead found a parade of roses and muzak. As I sensually mentioned, I'm okay with slacker plots and nasty predictable clichés, but people are too forgiving towards Spielberg and this dude who emulates him finely. Toy Story 3 on the other hand made me teary eyed and got me all fuzzy inside. Besides, it had a couple vaginas. There were no vaginas in Super 8, so it sucked.

It's really quite amusing that you criticize this film for borrowed plot elements and obvious sentimentality and then go on to praise Toy Story 3 which is a soulless, manipulative, money-grubbing re-write of Brave Little Toaster.

[Watashi]

Toy Story 3 which is a soulless, manipulative, money-grubbing re-write of Brave Little Toaster.

Stop saying this. It's not true.

[Llopin]

I find joy in being amusing.

"Soulessness" isn't the problem with Super 8. The film got soul. My main beef doesn't really have to do with cheap emotional overdose, but with how badly it is structured, scripted and shot. I wouldn't try to discuss the level of soul the film has compared with others, let alone Toy Story 3. What is Toy Story 3 doing in this thread anyway? It is a nuisance, it should be kicked out. It has nothing to do with this shabby Close Encounters of the Turd Kind. If one thinks a criticism of the latter can be destroyed based on one's liking of the Pixar film, then accept my apologies.

[Spinal]

Stop saying this. It's not true.

Toy Story 3 is closer to The Brave Little Toaster than Rango is to Chinatown.

[transmogrifier]

It's really quite amusing that you criticize this film for borrowed plot elements and obvious sentimentality and then go on to praise Toy Story 3 which is a soulless, manipulative, money-grubbing re-write of Brave Little Toaster.

Toy Story 3 is so far above Super 8, it's not funny. No matter which films they ripped off.

[MadMan]

Super 8 didn't rip off Close Encounters of the Third Kind, though :|

[Llopin]

Both films have asshole fathers.

[Henry Gale]

Over time, this has become the type of movie that I love quite a bit but can entirely accept where other people have problems with it. What worked best for me was the stuff with the kids, the making of their movie, the family dynamics and the bigger emotions found in those story threads. The rest of it, the monster, the military, the action movie structure to it, but it's wallpaper and furniture. It's all very well put-together and ultimately worked for me, but it's still just the backdrop and varying atmosphere for those characters to exist at the center of.

It could have been dangerous zoo animals escaped or terrorists invaded their town and the main crux of it would have probably still worked.

[Spinal]

Both films have asshole fathers.

He's not an asshole. He's a widower who is obviously still in a lot of emotional pain.

[Winston*]

Toy Story 3 is so far above Super 8, it's not funny. No matter which films they ripped off.

Neither is all that.

[Morris Schæffer]

Toy Story 3 is so far above Super 8, it's not funny. No matter which films they ripped off.

There's definitely a gap all right. Toy Story 3 is great, better on a second viewing.

[Irish]

Maaaaan there was so much about this I really liked but then Abrams went and ruined it with shabby tv drama level writing.

Biggest complaint is the lack of focus. Abrams moves the characters in and out of the story to service the plot, which is structured like a sci fi thriller. That only really works if you've got an incredible 3rd act payoff and don't bog down the runtime with obvious, cloying sentimentality. Super 8 fails on both those counts.

The movie is also waaaaay to dark and violent to feature pre teens Scooby Dooing their way around an alien invasion. The tonal difference between the innocence of first crush and a giant, insectoid ugly ass alien squishing people into goo is just all sorts of wrong.

I'd of rather spent 120 minutes following those kids around as they made their goofy movies and argued about fireworks and girls. That would have been great movie.

[Llopin]

He's not an asshole. He's a widower who is obviously still in a lot of emotional pain.

I wasn't being serious, obviously that's not the most important aspect both fim share. Still, the girl's father is an asshole. And the kid's father, while decidedly not a BAD PERSON, is weird and aloof and spits cringe-worthy lines of dialogue.



I'd of rather spent 120 minutes following those kids around as they made their goofy movies and argued about fireworks and girls. That would have been great movie.

It's been commented on this thread previously how the whole monster apperance and sub-plot is terribly annoying, considering the swell set-up they had with the kids. I'm inclined to agree, since those were the aspects of the film where "heart" was most present. If there were no "aliens" whatsoever, the film might've live up to its title - since as it is, "Super 8" is just a geeky reference which serves no purpose to the story.

[Spinal]

Still, the girl's father is an asshole.

Maybe. But he's a well-developed supporting character. The film ultimately shows him to be a character who is also living with great emotional pain, due to deep regret.

[MadMan]

Maybe. But he's a well-developed supporting character. The film ultimately shows him to be a character who is also living with great emotional pain, due to deep regret.This.

Also Llopin, there are many movies with asshole fathers. Does that mean they rip off Close Encounters, too? Your argument just sunk faster than Conan The Barbarian's box office :P