Review: Super 8 (spoilers noted)
There is something disheartening about not liking something that is trying so very hard to get you to like it. And Super 8 jumps up on your lap and purrs and licks your face. It does everything it can to get you to feel like you were touching a member of the opposite sex for the first time and not being able to catch your breath. But it stops short of any real intimacy, a series of rose-colored moments that never get the viewer dirty, in the best or the worst sense of that word.
Basically, Super 8 is a live-action episode of Robot Chicken, as delivered by a Steven Spielberg tribute band.
If you want to be reminded just how mighty Mr. Spielberg is as an audience-thrilling, heart-pounding, emotion-yanking director, you should see Super 8… because it is practically a textbook on how to make a 70s/80s Spielberg movie… with all the dryness of a textbook and none of the magic of a movie master.
To offer more information than you need to know, I went back to the film a second time, truly confounded by how my feelings about the film ranged from ambiguous to mildly aggravated. It’s so beautifully shot. It’s so well production designed. Mike Giacchino did such a great John Williams impression. But it’s a f-ing mess of a movie if you think about it for a second… which is, perhaps, why there isn’t a second of thought allowed as the experience zooms by.
The second time around, things started settling into clearer focus… like how many times the film does something (example: kids taken away from town) just to go back on itself and reverse the dramatic event that just occurred (example: kids find a way to go right back into town). Even worse, there are major elements that play as though they are important… but turn out to be irrelevant to the progress of the story. And these are not MacGuffins. They are, most often, familiar reference points to many movies we have all see, scratching our nostalgic itch, and then disappearing into the giant puddle of discarded, rotting movies-of-our-youths flesh.
The most offensive thing in the film, for me, is not all that offensive, because the film is so emotionally disconnected, even as it tries oh so hard to rip the tears from our eyes, that real offense is too strong an emotion to attach.
SPOILER WARNING
x
x
The movie opens with a dead mother. There are references to this throughout the film, the most bizarre one at the end. But it is not really driving the movie in any way. They cut to “Four Months Later” from the opening sequence… and the kid seems to be unchanged. The movie is really about him coming of age and falling in love for the first time… and the dead mother adds nothing. Except…
At the end of the film, as the 6-legged-freak is pulling every piece of metal to one spot for no apparent reason – since the only metal it needs is very specific and all the other metal would probably keep it from escaping – the kid’s metal necklace with a picture of him and his mother in it is being pulled from his hand.
Now, if the film had shown him having a really broken life because of the loss of his mother and he had to let go of her to save himself and/or his father… okay. But it doesn’t. So the result is that the movie is, in cinematic terms, saying that a young teen should let go of his 4 months dead mother… that this is growth.
Well, fuck that. (The film, btw, is obnoxiously filled with “shits” and the now requisite single “fuck” that is allowed in a PG-13.) “Four months with a dead mom, now get over it!” Bad.
Worse, the boy’s first love is also without her mother. But it’s barely eluded to, even as she falls in with a boy with a recently dead mother. It’s as though they were trying to avoid anything that might distract the audience from the nostalgic fun. This is powerful stuff for kids growing up… missing parents… and they use it here like it’s… well… a gag in the midst of an action movie… as emotionally weighty as Cindy Crawford and whatever Baldwin that was deciding to get naked in a train while being tracked by heavily armed mercenaries.
Yet… I am not really ANGRY about it because the film never bothers to connect with this emotionally to such a degree that the betrayal of that emotion is truly offensive. (see: Anthony “I’m 6 feet tall on the inside” Weiner and the non-sex sex scandal)
But that’s the big limitation on the film… why it isn’t within a country mile of the weakest of Spielberg’s efforts. I may have felt like the mother/child/robot relationship in AI was manipulative or severe or even unreal… but I FELT it. Some people saw the sex in Munich as too intense, too needy… but you FELT it, even if you didn’t think it was the right choice. (I beg to differ.) Here, they pelt you with every trick in the Tear Jerker’s Handbook and somehow, there is nothing to feel but nostalgia for disco and flare jeans and tube tops (aside from Ms. Fanning, who feels like the human in the wax museum).
And don’t even get me started on the movie having two black characters with speaking roles, one who kills the other. And my biggest laugh… after the bad black man is eaten (or whatever that is) by the six-legged freak, the kids not only return to the scene of the near-death events for no apparent reason, but the lead kid goes and retrieves his necklace out of the dead guy’s pocket without any oddness to searching a dead man’s pocket or any trace of this guy having been in the monster’s gullet. Oy!
Of course, perhaps the worst offense is that the Super 8 footage means NOTHING in the plot. Not a thing. I decided that the creature was “Super 8,” but I am pretty sure it was just 6 limbs. Sigh.
x
x
END OF SPOILERS
The movie wants to be “Goonies Go Cloverfield” on some level, but another problem is that aside from Elle Fanning, none of these kids, who do a nice job, are terribly memorable. I felt pain for the kid playing Tanner (with firecrackers) from the Bad News Bears. He just didn’t have that same kind of charisma. Riley Griffiths, who plays The Filmmmaker here, is probably the most interesting of the boys, but is stuck – like so much of the film – between playing a fascinatingly prepossessed young man who is very serious about his filmmaking and Chunk from The Goonies.
Upon seeing Glynn Turman, I thought we might see a parade of former 70s stars, all 30+ years older now, turning up. Nope. Mostly we get Ron Eldard in a bad hairstyle, doing a stereotypical angry drunk guy who leaves garbage on his lawn. We get Noah Emmerich as buttoned up as possible. We get throwaway cameos from Dan Castellaneta and Michael Hitchcock.
The entire movie is about milking the nostalgia for a simpler time and yet, when it comes to a train wreck, it is the CG car wreck extravaganza that might have been lifted whole from a Transformers film (where it would make sense, tonally). It’s even referred to in dialogue in a way that suggests that the filmmakers knew how unreal it was.
And someone needs to tell J.J., who they all love, that blue light flares with no source are not a directorial signature that signal him as anything other than desperate for a signature. Abrams will not be a quality film director until he frees himself of this nonsense, not only because it takes audiences out of the movie, but because it is symbolic of his mind being elsewhere, not 100% about making the movie work.
As I watched the third act, I found myself playing the, “What if this character/idea wasn’t in the film?” game. And I thought, this could have been a small, enormously fun, light, entertaining piece… if they just cut 60% of the oh-so-familiar, easy-to-love-but-utterly-irrelevant stuff out.
E.T. meets The Goonies meets Son of Rambo would have been more than enough. But instead, we also get the Cloverfield and the Close Encounters and Transformers and Boogie Nights and That 70s Show and War of the Worlds and Eight Legged Freaks and Adventureland and The Bad News Bears, etc, etc, etc, etc…
I don’t know that anyone is going to be really upset at having spent $10 to see this film. I would bet that a lot of people are going to remember moments of pleasure and laughs… and still leave the theater feeling oddly disappointed.
I was so hopeful.
JJ Abrams has had remarkable success for a guy who isn’t really a film director. He’s a great TV mind. He is, generally, great with characters. And he has the good taste to hire people who make very pretty pictures and offer great (loud) sound and music. But he just doesn’t seem to, as of this moment, have the movie mindset. The Super 8 series, with 20 hours to develop all of the relationships, the loss some characters suffer, and the Event of this film around Hour 12, would probably have been great.
But the film is beautiful sound and beautiful fury frustratingly signifying almost nothing.
This movie looks really good! I can’t wait to see it!
Good points, although SEMI-SPOILERS the Super-8 footage, when they get it back from the processor (which should be suspenseful but isn’t) does have the minor plot point of confirming what they’ve seen, doesn’t it? And, although the ridiculous flares are not sourced in the narrative, for a while I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re included as a reflexive trick, to remind us we’re watching a movie that is (sort of) about making a movie. Still, weak tea.
FANNING POWER.
There is literally NO WAY– NO WAY– this is NOT a four-star movie.
I haven’t seen it yet, but I almost don’t need to. I am giving it four stars, I know I will love it, there is NOTHING about this movie I will not like.
Except maybe that kid in the stupid fedora and detective jacket.
Agreed 100%.
Abrams ruined STAR TREK for the generation that grew up with it originally and created the most overpraised, overwatched and overblown TV series in history so it does not surprise me at all that he would make yet another monumental mess at the movies. Me, I’m waiting for CAPTAIN AMERICA!
1) Don’t come around here insulting LOST. Especially when LOST is more DAMON then JJ. Seriously.
2) Yeah I grew up with Star Trek and love his reboot but don’t let that subjective fact of your’s stop you or anything.
Need I remind… all on-topic opinions are welcome at The Hot Blog.
I have no position on Lost, as I was not a viewer. But thanks to Disney, I have the whole thing on Blu-ray… so next time I have 70 or 80 free hours…
Super 8 is thr name taken from the film for the camera that the kids used to shoot the film in the film. lol..
David, I wasn’t being as literal as you think.
(There’s some LOST Spoilers in here for the three of you that haven’t ever watched the show… and a Spoiler regaring David’s Super 8 review)
I loved the first season of Lost, and lost heart in the second season as it started to spiral nowhere. At that point i had a pretty strong suspicion these guys had no idea where it was going and all the questions would not be answered.
But the show kind of found it’s groove in seasons 3 and 4. The characters were fantastic and there was amazing ensemble work going on.
Seasons 5 and 6 were interesting but ultimately kind of a let down. It’s funny though how time has actually made me appreciate the show even more. Once you get past the sleight of hand trick of season 6 and it sets in that when every character had died, they had died… it makes going back to certain parts of the show heartbreaking. Because of the smoke and mirrors the creators were always doing, there was this belief that everything would somehow reset at the end and a status quo would be restored.
That was the best choice they made in the 2 final seasons that made little sense.
Lost is a fine example, to me, of the problems with Abrams as a Producer, Director, and a Creator. Big set up, very little pay off. Alias was the same way. All these big ideas about Rambaldi and this prophecy that are kind of just left to the side and never addressed.
Mission Impossible 3 was fine. Well executed action and thrills. But hey, what about the rabbit’s foot? The thing they were chasing after the whole time. They never explain it. Because he feels it doesn’t matter.
Cloverfield. All set up, no payoff. (I realize he didn’t direct Cloverfield)
I liked Star Trek, but there were no lofty ideas at play here. Just good, fashioned entertainment.
You can see the clues in his work. He likes to try and introduce big ideas and concepts but only as a set up for a traditional, by the numbers story. It doesn’t shock me at all that a film called Super 8 by Abrams has no real tie to the Super 8 camera footage. That’s his shtick.
More Douchebag Cinema from The Master of Douchebags… did anyone expect anything else from the man who ruined STAR TREK?
“It doesn’t shock me at all that a film called Super 8 by Abrams has no real tie to the Super 8 camera footage. That’s his shtick.”
So… I was right 2 months ago when I queried why it was called “Super 8”?
Yep, I tend to agree with Dave’s take, and I’m also a major J.J. fan.
If the “Goonies” kids had starred in “E.T.” (and E.T. had been played by the monster from “Alien”), you’d kinda/sorta have “Super 8.”
(Oh, yeah: and if the whole thing had been directed by the “Cocoon”-era Ron Howard.)
The film is so slavishly derivative of Golden Age Spielberg that it never truly finds an identity of its own. As a result, it’s a lot closer to synthetic Spielbergian knock-offs directed by Howard or Chris Columbus than it is to movies which took the Spielberg template (“Gremlins,” “Back to the Future 1”) and imbued them with their respective directors’ personalities to make something truly wonderful/magical/unique.
To be perfectly honest, “S-8” kind of derailed for me–no pun intended–during the laughably overdone train wreck in the first twenty minutes which felt as though it belonged in a “Transformers” movie instead of “E.T. Junior.”
It’s the type of film best appreciated as the lower half of a drive-in double feature where the beer is cold and your expectations are low.
I would’ve probably loved “S-8” in 1979; and liked it with major reservations in 1985. But today it’s just kind of OK for me. No more or less a consumer product than, say, “Thor” or the latest “Pirates of the Caribbean” flick.
Huh. I guess I’ll be the minority viewpoint here — I liked it a lot. And I felt that the kid *was* shown broken, at least in terms of his home life. So while we never saw the mom as the balancing influence in the household, it was fairly obvious how important to him she was.
Personally I felt it was much better than most of the B-level “original films” that are so beloved today — better than THE GOONIES, better than GREMLINS (neither of which I’ve been as big a fan than others in my generation). Although admittedly it doesn’t reach early Spielberg levels, how many movies do? It’s (so far) one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had at a summer movie this year.
Anghus, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse are responsible for LOST and not JJ. JJ had no input on most of the show outside of the pilot.
Also, Trek has a lot of great ideas in it but again, don’t let your SUBJECTIVE FACT get in the way of REALITY. Hot Blog? More like the SUBJECTIVE FACT blog.
at some point the current era of directors needs to get out of “homage mode” and kick out some defining work.
Abrams has a Star Trek film, a Mission Impossible film, and a film that seems so thematically borrowed from Speielberg that it feels like he’s re-imagining a Director instead of a television property.
Someone out there has to be capable of making an awesome Summer blockbuster that doesn’t get it’s ideas from a comic book, video game, toy or co-opts the work so much from a particular filmmaker that the “Executive Producer” credit should be changed to “Inspired by the Works of”
A pretty crushing disappointment. I would recommend X-Men: First Class in a heartbeat over this.
Anghus, it’s called INCEPTION. Go watch it.
The cinematography is pretty astounding. That said, the story/screenplay are beyond boring…I’d bet anything the only reason Spielberg got involved was because of his sentimental fondness for his old Super 8 childhood.
And the finished Super 8 movie that plays during the credits falls so flat, it’s almost bizarre. You see funnier, more inventive stuff on YouTube any day. So strange.
I can’t wait till someone is Super 18.
ZING.
sorry io.
http://videogum.com/208132/caught-inception-ripped-off-scrooge-mcduck/remakes-and-spinoffs/
inspired by a comic book.
Yeah dinghus, I could give a crap what those people think. Again, go watch Inception or a PIXAR MOVIE. Oh I forgot, you are the guy made out of Tungsten that can’t stand PIXAR! POOR YOU!
elle fanning JUST turned 13yrs old, mr. creepy fucking creeperson. revolting
This movie is about a scientific research gone wrong. 8 college students sign up for experimental research. The research changes their DNA allowing them to accumulate powers like mind control, strength, pyrokenisis, telepathic abilities and so on. The military finds out about the experimental program and pays a large sum of money to the scientist for the rights to continue the research and weaponize them. The scientist had stopped the research because they knew what it could be used for. But money corrupted them. The only way to contain the students who’s powers were still increasing from the experiments was to cool their bodies to a point low enough to keep them alive but to stop brain function. They sent them by train because it would be a fast way of travel while insuring that they would be contained. Unfortunately something went wrong with the train and it crashed. The freezer they were in stopped functioning allowing them to escape…They hide out and attempt to learn how to control their powers. What they don’t yet know is that the military has created super soldiers from the same research they purchased. Their mission is to hunt down the college students codenamed as “Super 8″ and kill them before the experiment goes public.
Anghus, that Scrooge McDuck comic came out in 2002. Nolan started writing Inception in 2001. I suppose it’s possible that he was reading Scrooge McDuck comics on the set of Insomnia but I doubt it.
Frankly the timeframe coincidence makes me think that both Nolan and Don Rosa(the writer/artist of the comic) read the same Scientific American article or something.
johnb, if those are real spoilers, you suck.
How dare you compare SUPER 8 to “Robot Chicken”, you jackass.
LOSER, LOSER, LOSER.
ABRAMS & SPIELBERG FOREVER, MAN!!!
I didn’t mind in Mission Impossible 3 that they never explained what the item was or did…because ultimately, who cares? In the greatest spy caper ever, North by Northwest, all we know is it’s microfilm that “has lots of secrets.” Because no one cares, all that’s needed is for the thing to be important and for people to want it. That was fun, I liked that.
But Abrams is sort of a weird guy. He can’t ever end his shit. And Alias was a great show…for two seasons, then it took a fucking nosedive. In the most stupid way possible too, check me out here:
The network wanted more self-contained stories and less Rimbaldi mythology. Okay, fine. So in the end of season 2 they have Sydney wake up several years in the future, right after we see Sloan get the stuff that’s going to give him superpowers. And it’s like shit, that’s awesome. It’s several years in the future, what’s happened? And the answer is DICK. Nothing. They just basically rebooted the show, and there was zero momentum. Sloan was “reformed” and was a stupid consultant.
What would have been great is if Sydney showed up years in the future and Sloan as super powerful and owned everything. And then they could have had self-standing episodes as she undermined his operation. You even get to keep the premise, Sydney dresses up in a hot outfit and dismantles whatever the episode’s operation is. And you can build to an arc but not have to service Rambaldi.
But nope, like all Abrams stuff we got jacked off but he didn’t give us the happy ending.
And then ALias got awful and boring like all of his other shows and I eventually stopped watching.
Also, next time Lex gets pissy when people assume he’s a pervert…and I don’t think he is…but you reap what you sow, dude.
Wonder how M. Night feels about this movie…
Wait, we’re saying Inception isn’t one of the defining entertainments of the modern era because it was possibly inspired by Scrooge McDuck?
Meanwhile, we’re upholding Spielberg’s early originals?
Such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, an homage to 30s film serials?
Everybody’s inspired by somebody.
“…like how many times the film does something (example: kids taken away from town) just to go back on itself and reverse the dramatic event that just occurred (example: kids find a way to go right back into town). Even worse, there are major elements that play as though they are important… but turn out to be irrelevant to the progress of the story.”
Sad but true: Change ‘kids’ to ‘castaways’ and ‘town’ to the ‘the island’ and this could be a review of LOST.
This review does nothing to hinder my excitement. I’m not expecting perfection, and reviews like this prepare me for its potential shortcomings. But I love all of its influences and still think it will be a great summer ride. I just can’t muster the same enthusiasm for most of the other big summer movies.
Puerile dreck from JJ Abrams? That’s unpossible.
Number 1, I dont really think inception was inspired by a scrooge mcduck cartoon. That was an attempt at humor.
Number 2, I love the word “unpossible”. Ralph Wiggum for the win
I thought Inception ripped off David Loughery, Chuck Russell,and Joseph Ruben.
Anghus, it’s a totally cromulent word. It embiggens any man who uses it.
Also, DP or anyone else who might know, the studio claims Super 8 cost $50 million. What’s the real figure? They’re forecasting a $25 million opening weekend and will probably try to spin a number close to that as a win. What does it have to reach for the opening weekend to be truly successful? And will Monday morning see another trend story: After First Class and Super 8, Summer of 2011 the Year of Disappointing Opening Weekends.
I’m not expecting “S-8” to have a disappointing opening weekend, Paul.
In fact, I’ve got a hunch that it’s going to wildly outperform like “Bridesmaids,” “FF” and “H2” all did recently.
Despite my complaints about the film, I think it’s going to be one of the summer’s major b.o. success stories.
The texting, tweeting, blogging generation will think it’s a completely sui generis creation since most of them lack historical context. For them, it’ll have the same impact that “Close Encounters,” “E.T.,” “Gremlins,” et al had on old fogeys like me back in the day, lol.
Btw, B.O. Mojo is projecting a $40-million opening w-end. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s bigger.
blackcloud, you are my new favorite
So the tracking on Super 8 is wrong? And the studio is intentionally lowering expectations so they can say what a huge hit it is if it makes $40M+ this weekend?
i haven’t heard a single word on the tracking.
I thought the comparison to Robot Chicken was an insult to Robot Chicken. They at least turn out work that makes me laugh way too hard from time to time.
Also, I’m guessing johnb’s synopsis isn’t a spoiler but a description of how you can come up with the title “Super 8” and actually make it meaningful in the movie. Naming it after something barely tangential to the story is like calling Cloverfield “High 8″…which could be the title of anything captured on tape, from porn to a teddy bear picnic.
After reading an article decrying the high level of homage in music, I’m reminded of Moby’s quote that an awful lot of recent releases aren’t music but “advertising for ringtones”. Considering that most of these releases are nothing but an original 3-second hook repeated over and over until you’re ready to poke your eardrums out, I’m wondering how many movies contain more than just a few minutes of original material wedged between retreaded action and homage.
And thinking more deeply about Robot Chicken, yes, it is almost 100% homage, but they always twist the original material 180 degrees to create a new understanding. How many of the homages in movies are subverted or even tweaked? Usually they’re just cut-n-pasted in, far too intact and untouched.
Yesterday I read that the tracking is poor in terms of both overall audience awareness and desire to see it opening weekend. Tracking apparently indicates opening weekend of $25-$30 million, which is also what the studio claims it expects.
Things people got right so far this Summer….
bulldog said Pirates 4 would perform domestically like Shrek 4. That seems to have come true.
David says X-Men First Class would eat Super 8’s opening. That also seems to be coming true.
I think every Summer we should do a month by month post of our thoughts on what would happen. Post it at the beginning of the month. Then, at the end of the month have another post and see who hit the nail on the head and who threw the hammer out the window.
SUPER 8 is a great title. Period. And clearly refers to the cultural base of the period. How much of CHINATOWN is actually about Chinatown?
Robot Chicken hasn’t been funny in years. It’s one of those shows (Sunny in Philadelphia, is another) where everyone remembers and praises the glorious first couple of seasons…but tend to forget how droll they’ve been since.
I’m still seeing Super 8 this weekend. I really want to check this one out.
Look, paramount attached a teaser trailer in front of Iron Man 2 over A YEAR ago. Paramount clearly was betting on this pony and is putting in trucks load of advertising money. Anything less than $40M will be a disappointment for them.
Also–and I know this statement can get me banned from certain comic shops–I never felt any love for Goonies. Saw it once in the theater and never went back. Never bought the book, the VHS, the DVD, the toys, nothing. I thought the cast was too big, the quest too hokey, the payoff too dippy. Never bought into the “we’re all freaks” mentality, and all these years later I think Cyndi Lauper was the only good part of the movie.
Whew, I feel better now.
GOONIES sucked opening day.
I never understood a single word of that Lauper song but I still love it. And yes the movie was then and is now crap.
And to add to that Explorers wasn’t all that great either.
“E.T. meets The Goonies meets Son of Rambo would have been more than enough. But instead, we also get the Cloverfield and the Close Encounters and Transformers and Boogie Nights and That 70s Show and War of the Worlds and Eight Legged Freaks and Adventureland and The Bad News Bears, etc, etc, etc, etc…”
It worked for Avatar.
And it seems that, just like everyone else, Poland is chronically incapable of reviewing a movie without bringing uncessary baggage.
Everything is viewed through a meta-prism. And of course, Abrams is not Spielberg. And of course an imitation is not as good as an homage. But, by golly, sometime a movie is to be taken on its own terms and this one’s real good.
How can a movie be taken on its own terms if it has no terms that haven’t been borrowed from someplace else?
The trailer alone says nothing but Goonies homage + E.T. homage + Cloverfield homage + ’70s homage.
EDIT: And that movie poster on its Wiki page–OMG, I hope it’s a fake. Uncanny valley meets awful overload, and yet we still can’t tell what the hell it’s supposed to be about.
I’m glad we disagree, Maxim. Consistency can be a hobgoblin and all, but if you say “black,” it makes “red” all the better a bet for me.
Count me as another person who saw The Goonies in 1985 and doesn’t get the nostalgic glow with which it is now imbued.
Those who love Goonies tend to love it too much. Those who hate Goonies tend to hate it too much.
So Goonies is the Peeps of the movie world?
Ha ha, yeah!
The Goonies love is kind of unexplainable. I loved it at ten and fifteen, one of my cousin’s watched it recently and I was shocked how bad parts are.
It’s a kids movie. Kids like it, everyone else isn’t fooled. That’s true for MOST live-action movies we remember loving as a kid.
Not in the same genre, but the same argument. I’m really, really shocked some people think The Three Amigos is funny. Everything about that movie is lame. I hear it discussed with such reverence, I really don’t get it.
I had good taste then. GOONIES wasn’t good enuf for me.
Amigos love can be chalked up to nostalgia, though even at the time it seem a bit labored and off, but there can be an emporer’s new clothes effect with audiences. Martin had built up a lot of good will and was on a roll, how could a movie with him, Chase, and Short (who was looking like he would become a huge star) not be pure gold? I think the same thing was true with Eddie Murphy’s mid 80’s career. The first Cop is a great film, but highest grossing R movie for 15 years? No one I knew at the time admitted that Golden Child and Cop II were weak (And I worship in the House of Scott as well so I don’t want to hear any complaining, man didn’t hit his stride till Boy Scout).
Somehow Batman Forever was a great film until Batman and Robin became a whipping boy (and even that wasn’t immediatly reviled, especially compared to what Speed 2 faced that same summer), and public opinion was very slow to turn on Phantom Menace.
So besides cherishing the movies of our childhood, even when things come out we (or at least the general audience) seem to sometimes talk ourselves into liking an inferior product. Who knows by Christmas the people in your office may be talking about how much Hangover II sucked.
EL GUAPO POWER.
“It is a sweater!”
Very slow? Didn’t Pegg burn all his Star Wars stuff in Spaced, which came out that same year?
It took months for public opinion to turn on Menace. For all the shit hurled at it over the years you would think it was reviled upon release which certainly wasn’t the case. It was sort of acknowledged at the time that it was the weakest of the series. Then after a huge DVD release sort of noted that it wasn’t even a very good movie let alone a Star Wars movie, and by the time Clones came out the current hatred had formed.
Now this is just my interpretation of it, others might have had a different experience, but when it was released Menace was not seen as a travesty (as say Crystal Skull was), but as a strong film that simply fell short of its lofty predeccesors.
hcat, this is just my anecdotal experience, but i saw ‘phantom menace’ late in its run due to reasons beyond my control, and i can’t remember a single person who saw it before me (which was a LOT of people) who didn’t feel rather badly let down and think it was a bit shit
I don’t know, from what I remember BATMAN AND ROBIN was reviled pretty much immediately. In fact, I reviled it BEFORE its release, seeing a preview screening with some screenwriting group or something (they bused us over to City Walk for it). I think the writing was on the wall by then, because Akiva Goldsman mysteriously backed out of a scheduled phone Q&A at the last second. Probably the last group of people he wanted to talk to that day was a bunch of writers who had just seen the movie.
Yeah didn’t AICN report on the awfulness of Batman & Robin before it was released? I also remember it being reviled immediately.
hcat – I have the same memory as you. People liked it, but noted it had a few problems. Granted, I was a senior in high school. If I had been older (with older friends) I doubt that would have been the case. I saw Crystal Skull opening night with a huge group and we all left with hatred.
Same thing with the Matrix sequels. Reloaded people left puzzled, but everyone said it had awesome parts. After Revolutions everyone was pissed.
Each Star Wars prequel I think has one or two stellar moments. In Menace, when Qui Gonn mediates in between his fight with Darth Maul, was a brilliant touch. But each one of those have about 8 or 9 jaw-dropping awful moments to boot.
“Somehow Batman Forever was a great film until Batman and Robin became a whipping boy”
Who or which review said BATMAN FOREVER was great?
No one ever said Batman Forever was great. Maybe it got some decent reviews, but I can’t imagine the word “great” was ever used in them. Batman and Robin was immediately shit on, as it deserved to be.
Fanboys turned on Star Wars slowly…they couldn’t admit that it was pretty awful, their emotions were so wrapped up in it. In normal circles, Phantom Menace is probably liked just fine. Where Star Wars is just another cool movie, it’s not like a lifestyle.
Also, Ebert gave Goonies three stars. I saw Goonies for the first time fairly recently and I liked it well enough. It has a good pace and energy and some morbid sense of danger, it was okay.
I laughed after reading this review. You say that the movie lacks any magic, yet after my screening yesterday I was filled with the wonder and amazement that hollywood has been avoiding for years. While by no means is Super 8 a perfect film, it was the funniest, most thrilling, and most touching film to hit theaters since…well, since the golden days of Spielberg. Shame on you for turning people away from this movie; it is because of critics like yourself that sequel/remake/unoriginal drek like Transformers 2 keep being made.
Super 8 is absolutely magical. See it.
Wow… that’s a leap, Alex.
I’m glad you loved the movie, but go see Tree of Life if you want to see something with originality. If there is anything that Super 8 is not, it’s original.
And you know what, Trannies 3 may be a better movie, in my opinion, than Super 8. I don’t know if it will be. But yo know what? If it is, I will be happy to scream it from the treetops, just as I derided the first two films in the series.
Good is good. Bad is bad. And it’s all just opinions.
And meanwhile, while Pland and co are stuggling to enjoy what is a perfectly good movie, it’s sitting at 83% on Rotten Tomatoes with a certified fresh rating.
And these aren’t just online fan critics anymore either. The movie has been receieved and it’s been received perfectly well by summer standards.
Oh, better than summer standards, ProMax.
Is that how you know something is good? By it’s Rotten Tomatoes score?
I wish people would stop comparing anything JJ Abrams is associated with to The Goonies. Its just WRONG. I hate Abrams. I think he’s overrated. I’m disappointed in Spielberg.
You slamming an 83% RotTom score?
How about a 76% MetaCritic score?
How about a 85.4% at MovieReviewIntelligence?
Three-and-a-half stars from Roger Ebert?
EW’s Lisa S calling it the best summer movie of many years?
That is enough to tell me it’s probably good. Doesn’t mean great yet, but good? Safe to say. How do you know something is good?
What is good is personal for everyone, but sometimes the majority of people agree on stuff.
Like Gulliver’s Travels being terrible.
Hmm, I just rented Jack Black’s Gulliver (as it should be titled) a couple days ago for the kids, and I didn’t think it was all that bad. I liked the fact that it wasn’t set entirely on Lilliput, as so many others had before, and I liked to see the character development of the villain (Jeebus, how many times has that happened in the last few years?), who actually had good reason to hate the “hero” of the piece.
Not great, no, but not bloody horrible, either.
And with that transition in mind, I do remember that Jar-Jar was instantly hated, followed soonafter by accusations of racism hurled at Lucas.
Christian- Nowhere did I mention reviews in my post. Amigos and the Murphy movies I mentioned were all critical duds.
As for the Batman’s, I was working at a theater in college when Batman Forever came out and the audiences loved it. It was the biggest film of the summer, second for the year and had decent legs after a record opening. It rejuvinated the franchise. I am not defending its quality, I thought it was a mess and was amazed at the response but I don’t see how anyone can deny that it was a popular hit at the time.
I was still there two years later and while B&R response was weak and derisive, there was no walking out wide-eyed disbelief of the crap they just saw (You could call that the Judge Dredd effect). It was considered a miss but not the Plan 9 From Outer Space crime against humanity of its current reputation. That has grown through the years and also led people to reevaluate Forever. But at the time of their release, neither film had their current reputation.
Now I am ignorant to what was happening online at the time, I never read AICN and only found Wells and Poland in 99 after someone said I should check out Reel.com for good prices on movies. But wouldn’t you say that the those of us here do not represent the tastes of the greater public? And wouldn’t that community have been vastly more insular back in 97? So while the film might have been shredded online, in theaters it still pulled an audience and was not met as a laughing stock like say Cuthroat Island or made a national joke like Waterworld (which still did decently upon release). I don’t know if anyone has access to the archives of the trade papers from that summer, but the big story were not what happened to the Batman franchise, but how Bullock was ever going to get her career back on track (and the release date of Titanic, when where they ever going to get around to opening Titanic).
If this hadn’t been written six days ago, I’d think Tom Shone had been reading this thread:
“At times Super 8 seems less a Spielberg hommage, than the most technically accomplished Goonies movie you ever saw — a reprieve from the summer doldrums, but never quite amounting to a full transport of delight.”
Interesting, too, that the first paragraph of his review was Spielberg, Spielberg, Spielberg, and not a word about this flick.
(from http://tomshone.blogspot.com/ )
Sam – More power to you, but didn’t you want to hide your face for Amanda Peet when she has to dance with Jack Black to “War” at the end?
hcat – Here’s Variety’s Todd McCarthy’s opening paragraph to B&R – “Batman loses a bit of altitude and velocity in this fourth installment of Warner Bros.’ hugely successful series. The villains, Arnold Schwarzenegger and especially Uma Thurman in this instance, remain the highlights here, as the rest of the gargantuan production lacks the dash and excitement that would have given the franchise a boost in its eighth year. Nonetheless, all the commercial elements are in place for B.O. that will follow in the flight path of the three previous blockbusters.”
I was aware of AICN in 1997. I think that might’ve been the year I found it. I know I’d been going there a few months before I saw The Faculty. Pretty sure I found DP around that time too. Batman opened when I was 15 and I saw it three times in theaters. Batman Returns I saw two or three times in theaters. I liked Batman Forever but I remember discussing with my friends not an hour afterwards that it already didn’t mean anything to me and I had no real desire to see it a second time. Batman & Robin, I waited until DVD and it was as bad as I’d feared it would be. Pretty sure I made it #1 on my Worst Ten list that year. And part of my loathing wasn’t just how it had ruined what Tim Burton had built, but Batman: The Animated Series was far superior and it had squandered so much potential.
I went back to read some of the reviews, and they’re not that bad. McCarthy just seems mildly disappointed, and NYT’s Janet Maslin found it to be a Studio 54 party of a movie.
(Holy crap, LYT liked it?!)
krillian and hcat, i’m with you on Batman Forever.
I enjoyed it while watching it in the theater. It was fun and stupid and entertaining. In hindsight it seems rather ridiculous, but i had a fine time in the theater.
Ebert said the same thing on Siskel & Ebert & The Movies. I don’t remember the direct quote, but i remember him giving Batman Forever a thumbs up because he enjoyed while watching it, even though its a lot of eye candy.
I certainly didn’t hate Batman Forever, but it’s not a movie i find myself wanting to watch repeatedly.
I feel the same way about XMEN: First Class. I liked it while watching it but it’s pretty ridiculous in hindsight.
“War” definitely fell into the “Not great” part of that review, and yet I really liked the scream that followed “Darcy Silverman…of Manhattan?”
Maybe I’d been hanging out on AICN, too, because I remember watching B&R in the theater and trying to keep track of the comings and goings of Batgirl on the motorcycle because the continuity issues had been pointed out already.
i remember AICN taking credit for sinking Batman and Robin. As if the film being awful had nothing to do with it.
Remember when studios believed websites could open and shut down movies?
hilarious.
“I’m glad you loved the movie, but go see Tree of Life if you want to see something with originality. If there is anything that Super 8 is not, it’s original.”
Alright, you’ve caught me with my too-quick originality claim, but I have in fact already seen Tree of Life…while some of the scenes involving the family were quality filmmaking, i found the incomprehensible visual metaphors sprawling across the screen to be pretentious and, ultimately, empty. Super 8, with it’s more straightforward and compelling storytelling, ended up the more enjoyable and higher-quality film. But these films are so different in nature that comparisons like these are not really necissary.
You’re right, though, it is all about opinion. I respect your views on Super 8, even though I whole heartedly disagree.
And even though I’m shocked you enjoyed “trannies 2”, “trannies” as an abbrev. is awesome. Imma use that one.
Super 8, a higher-quality film…
Don’t think we’ll even need to wait 20 years to see which is regarded better. Six months will probably do. (And for the “critic” who thinks Super 8 might be up for Oscars, can you give me a hit of what you’re smoking?)
“GB: The movie is set in the summer of 1979, long before you were born. Did you research that era or the vintage pop-culture in any way?
EF: All of us had seen “The Goonies” and “E.T.” and all those classic movies.”
Oy.
(From http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/06/07/super-8-elle-fanning-has-the-pedal-down-on-hollywood-career/ )
Yeah, I like Batman and Robin for what it is, which is to say Schumacher trying to do the Adam West series with a stronger gay subtext. I enjoy it as camp. I never remotely expected to take it seriously, and think those who did are the most bitterly disappointed.
Loved Batman Forever at the time (except Tommy Lee Jones) because I think Val Kilmer nailed the role. Have seen some of it on TV since and been shocked at how badly dated so much of it seems (why does Carrey’s face melt at the end, only to be just fine again in the coda scene?)
BF is just all sorts of bad, altho I thought Kilmer did fine. The film was dated when it came out. All that mugging.
Haven’t watched BF since the one, but my problems at the time:
Two-Face was one-dimensional. He was a cackling maniac. Even the coin-flipping, if he didn’t like the result he just flipped again.
Jim Carrey was physically great as the Riddler but he still had that stand-up-comedian/sketch-performer rawness to him.
Why is Gotham suddenly so neon?
I guess Schumacher thought Gotham City looked a little too…linear?
DC made an attempt around ’90 to integrate Anton Furst’s designs into the comics, but it didn’t last long. When fans bitched that no two artists drew the Batcave the same way, Howard Chaykin replied that no two artists drew BRUCE WAYNE the same way.
I’ve always maintained that for as much shit as Batman and Robin gets, Batman Forever is just about as bad.
But it does have Kiss from a Rose and the only good song U2 ever did (or one of 3 good songs), so the soundtrack and overall SUMMER 1995ness (graduating college! Moving to LA! doing standup! Crimson Tide! Die Hard 3! Dangerous Minds! Coolio!) of BF has a little nostalgic quality to it.
Thank you, Dangerous Minds, for giving us Amish Paradise.
Ah yes, the summer of 1995.
Batman Forever, Congo, Waterworld, Virtuosity, Crimson Tide, Apollo 13, Braveheart, Babe, Die Hard with a Vengance, Species, Clueless, Dangerous Minds, The Net (!), Mortal Kombat, Pocohontas and Casper…and Under Siege 2.
Man, you got some legendary stuff and Legendary crap.
You forgot Judge Dredd and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie in your LEGENDARY CRAP section.
Alex B… if I suggested that I like Trannies 2, I mistyped. What I meant to be saying was that I am open to Trannies 3, even if I don’t see much in the series aside from the gimmick and Bay’s artistry.
At least that series is honest with itself about what it is.
http://edit.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/super-8-watch-full-industrial-196613
So, black guy’s the first one to die?
Uh-huh.
Most likely some SPOILERS will pop up in here, so skip ahead now to next post.
Way up top, I believe anghus describes my issue with JJ Abrams weighty set up, no payoff. When I was the Fringe pilot, I thought all that for just that. Fine if you want to take the scenic route but if want to take us over the river and through the woods, only to find out Grandma’s gone, her house is nothing but a shack with no food, a set top box w/rabbit ears, with no lake and no animals, I’m gonna wonder why did we even bother heading out there.
While some of the nostalgic points were kinda cool, some played out like obvious product placement for one of those “remember when” chain e-mails. I was surprised to see the Walkman but not one boom box. In ’79, Walkmans were still pretty fascinating to see. That’s really not a complaint of the film but just something that was hard to miss.
I’ll tell you when I stopped watching Alias, the post Super Bowl episode when they unveil the “evil twin.” I tired to watch a few times after like especially when Lena Olin came on board but I just couldn’t take it seriously enough to stay engaged.
I didn’t get the sense the sense that they were telling the kid he should move on. Not intentionally or unintentionally through the filmmaking. There’s no real reason why the Romeo/Juliette set up for the kids. Well, it’s set up and like so much of the film isn’t paid off. The group hugs and flying locket made me want to puke. In fact, that would’ve been a great moment if the kid who kept puking in the movie had done so there.
Drunk dad was a cliché. I was actually happy there wasn’t some revelation about the drunk dad and the deceased mom having an affair but drunk dad’s turn to listen to the kid could’ve been mined for better use than to just relay the info that the alien took his daughter. Which, holy crap, huge balls for going down in the pit, but thank God that the girl was not the only one alive down there. I had a bad cloverfield flashback when they said they were all going back for the girl. Except, I’d say she would be worth saving, not like those insufferable whiners from Clover.
I did actually like the line the kid gave the alien about “you can still live.” Not sure the alien need to hear it. But it did explain how the kid was able to keep going. The fact that we knew he and the alien would have some sort of connection was almost cringe worthy in anticipation. In fact the longer it took for it to happen made the encounter less believable and devoid of any true kinship.
Even though the undeveloped footage had nothing to do with the plot or at least no payoff (SHOCKER!), I thought Super 8 was & is a great title for the film. It’s all about them shooting on Super 8. While I can’t say I am surprised by the peeled onion results of the film, I am disappointed that the empty box made it to the screen. It doesn’t have to be chocolate moose or Bavarian cream but even Twinkies have whipped cream in them to make them not seem so hollow.
For those of you who still think that “Inception” is either some Scrooge McDuck ripoff or the most original thing to come from Hollywood in the past ?? years, I have one word: “DREAMSCAPE” (1984).
I’m just sayin’.
i always forget about dreamscape. i barely remember seeing it when i was a kid.
I didn’t get that “just move on, kid” from the dead mother at all, and I speak as one whose mom died in an accident when I was 11. I definitely felt it in the scene between distant dad who stays distant because he really doesn’t know how to do anything else and tearing kid who says “you don’t know anything about me.” And primarily because of how Courtney sold it. That was his crowning scene. But man, Elle Fanning blew me away.
I agree 100% with the review. Also felt aggravated. Rotten Tomatoes (and others) reflect mostly a major J.J. and Steven Spielberg (where are you “maestro”) ass kissing. Poland has balls.
“The dead mother adds nothing”?!?
No emotional connection?!?
Are you a robot?
What about the scene where they are watching Super 8 footage?
Alice is bawling, confessing how her dad missed his shift on the day Joe’s mom was killed.
Then Joe told Alice how he felt when his mom would look at him.
He felt like he existed. In the four months since, he hasn’t felt that way.
Until the alien picks him up. When the alien touches you, you feel and learn everything about the alien. And vice versa.
So, the alien looks at Joe like his mother used to.
They make a connection and it helps both of them.
But hey, I only saw it once. Open your eyes, man!
Super 8 sucked. End of story.
ALLUDED… ALLUDED… FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IT IS “ALLUDED” NOT “ELUDED” GARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHH!
I misused to be solon than laughing to comprehend this web-site.I wished to thanks on your case for this wonderful discover!! I positively having fun with every little emotional bit of it and I’ve you bookmarked to involve a visage at new force you journal post. Hysteria Resident Evil Damnation Watch Movie OR OnlineTV
Its such as you learn my mind! You seem to understand a lot approximately this, like you wrote the e-book in it or something. I believe that you simply can do with a few % to drive the message house a little bit, but instead of that, this is wonderful blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.
All the metal flew to the water tower because the monster created an electromagnet out of the tower (which is why the appliances and car motors were missing) which is why when the monster heard the engine start he let go of the kid and ran to his ship so he can go home. What I am not getting is we know the monster set up the electromagnet to get his ship back (those weird metal shape shifters) but why did only the kids one that he was holding fly through his wall and attract to the water tower? why wouldn’t all of them do that at the same time?
Super 8 is the type of camera they used. If you go to the special features and watch JJ Abrams “the dream” it explains it.
hey i was wundering what the types of cameras the kids where using the first and the second ones
It has been pretty much commented that Super 8 is a tribute to the classic films directed or produced by Steven Spielberg, in which the ordinary life in the suburbs was contrasted with an extraordinary phenomenon which had to be usually faced by the kids or teenagers, while the adults ignored the situations until it was too late. In that aspect, director and screenwriter J.J. Abrams achieved exactly what he proposed to himself, even though he had to sacrifice any trace of originality or surprise in the film. However, Super 8 kept me very entertained because of its solid direction, excellent performances and well written screenplay. In summary, this film is an exciting juvenile adventure seasoned with wide doses of “Spielbergian” nostalgia.
If we analyze Super 8 scene by scene, we can find an alarming number of parallels to films like The Goonies, Poltergeist, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Explorers, and specially, E.T. The subject from Super 8 is superficially different, but the characters, atmosphere and tone perfectly emulate the “Spielberg style” from the ’70s and the ’80s, when his films (either as a director or producer) literally changed the face of popular cinema. Even the young actors from Super 8 possess that chemistry with each other which makes us to accept their long friendship and related personalities…even though that, as in any group of friends, they occasionally have juvenile disputes with each other.
And besides of the perfect chemistry they have with each other, the young actors also make a brilliant individual work, highlighting Joel Courtney, Ryan Lee and specially Elle Fanning. After the works she brought in Somewhere and Super 8, Fanning reveals herself as a great actress who is even superior to her famous sister Dakota. The moment in which her performance in Super 8 most impressed me was during a scene of “performance into performance” which is so good that it equals the one interpreted by Naomi Watts in Mulholland Dr. (I am not exaggerating). As for the adult cast, the only one who stands out is Kyle Chandler, who makes a solid work as a simultaneously benevolent and strict father.
On the negative side, the screenplay from Super 8 falters a little bit in some important points. Abrams dominates the drama and the growing suspense very well, but he occasionally violates the internal logic from the story or forces too convenient situations. Nevertheless, Super 8 is a very good film which definitely deserves a recommendation because of the genuine talent it has in front of and behind the camera.