Super 8 (J.J. Abrams, 2011)

[domino harvey]

Joe Dante's not the only one trying to bring the '80s kids adventure movie back

[mfunk9786]

WOW, I say this with no pretentious sarcasm whatsoever: that looks great. So glad to get a break from the grim Christopher Nolan style of blockbuster. I was feeling nostalgic right from the Amblin logo.

[Jeff]

Three Spielberg-driven kids' adventure films in one year? Awesome.

Looks like Abrams is Spielberg's newest surrogate director. He used Tobe Hooper, Joe Dante, and Richard Donner in a similar capacity in the 80s (with Poltergeist, Gremlins, and The Goonies bearing just as much of the producer's stamp as the director's).

The quality of entertainment for my inner ten-year-old has been pretty abysmal the past few years. Hopefully this is the beginning of a turn-around.

[Alphonse Doinel]

Thankfully it's not set in present day, or else we'd have characters like this.

[Roger Ryan]

Yeah, the fact that it's in period gives it a nice angle...as opposed to it simply being WAR OF THE WORLDS meets CLOVERFIELD with a little CLOSE ENCOUNTERS thrown in. I also like that the period look is not absurdly stylized as it was in THE BOX.

This one also has a sentimental hold on me since I was a kid in the 70s making Super 8 movies with my friends.

[HistoryProf]

wow....first i'm hearing of this and am already excited as hell to see it. I'm usually not a summer blockbuster kind of guy, but this looks like it'll hit every possible nostalgia button in addition to being a fun flick. Will definitely be seeing this!

[manicsounds]

The 'secret' website for Super 8 seems to be hidden in the trailer....

[MoonlitKnight]

Who wants to see a movie about a motel chain? I'll be here all week, folks.

[domino harvey]

Tree of Life and Midnight in Paris opened at the local art house today, but this was definitely the film opening today that I needed to move to the front, and I regret nothing. I've locked myself out of reading anything about the film after that great trailer, so I really had no idea what I was getting myself in for other than that it was probably great manna for a 90s Kid like me. Boy is it ever. Folks, this is everything the trailer promised it would be, a genuine kids action picture made intelligently and observantly, with stellar child performances and a fun, ultimately humanistic (of course!) approach to the entire cast (if you understand how your childhood favorites operated, you'll chuckle at the misdirection with Rob Eldard's character). Abrams reminds me here not so much of Spielberg, as I gather has been bandied about, but a much higher compliment, Joe Dante. Particularly in his treatment and usage of child actors-- this is some of the best young adult work I've seen in years, and each kid has a fun and unique take on their role. I thought the two leads, Elle Fanning and Joel Courtney, were the strongest, but the audience definitely loved the pyrotechnic kid. As for the film itself, I don't want to give too much away, but the leisurely pacing is welcome, and the pic certainly has the most protracted, absurdly complicated and expensive-looking train derailment in cinema history going for it, if nothing else! It was touching to watch everyone in the theatre get up at the end of the film and then linger, congregating around the exit as they stayed to watch those mint end credits roll, too.

[Tom Hagen]

You passed up a Woody Allen film to see this first? You are playing against type, my friend!

[MyNameCriterionForum]

...so I really had no idea what I was getting myself in for other than that it was probably great manna for a 90s Kid like me.

I thought this was set in the 70s

[domino harvey]

It's set in 1979 and '90s Kids were born in the eighties and grew up in the nineties on movies made in the '80s

[mfunk9786]

Just got back from seeing this projected digitally (fuck you guys, time to move on to the 21st century) with the missus, and I loved every minute of it. J.J. Abrams' signature blue lens flares aside (there are a ton), this is a gorgeously directed picture with excellent casting and performances throughout. The children are the standouts here, as Elle Fanning might be the best child actress I've ever seen and the rest of the kids give their own uniquely adept performances. I don't want to spoil anything either, but let's just say that this movie borrows from horror classics like The Fog and kidflick classics like E.T., Gremlins, and the always-underappreciated Small Soldiers where it needs to, but it never feels like anything but its own film. The story it has to tell is thankfully a complete, rich, and unique one. Partway through I sort of had the nervous Lost "oh no, they don't know where they're going with this, do they?" feeling, but luckily any fears I had in the middle of the film were put to rest by the wonderful conclusion. The adults are cast about as well as they can be, considering - Kyle Chandler is like an acting robot sent to save us from lackluster paternal performances and doesn't disappoint. As domino mentioned, the "let's not go too far off the rails here" turn on a dime from Ron Eldard felt appropriate, all things considered. The script never veered too far off its intended track, using profanity at the right times without going too crazy with it, and it created some genuinely moving moments ("She's kind to me.") throughout that are sorely missing from most modern action films. Loved the cameo from Dan Castellanetta with a bad toupee, by the way. Mint.

[mfunk9786]

The Ebert Presents At the Movies review nails it. Even if I sometimes find Christy Lemire's contributions to the show somewhat shallow at times, this is becoming one of my favorite weekly programs. She's certainly not a bad critic, but there are too many hands-thrown-in-the-air "I just don't get it!"s for me (you're on a television show as a film critic, for goodness' sake), and Vishnevetsky tends to take control of most of the discussions too easily. He is quickly becoming one of my favorite film critics, he comes off incredibly well on this show.

[domino harvey]

I read a review that compared these kids to those in the Sandlot in positive terms and while that's some serious praise, the more I think about it, the more this film does live up to such heady remarks. These are some entertaining, well-delineated roles, with the added bonus of giving the best role in the film to a girl, a gender notably absent save as objects of lust or moms in the Sandlot. I particularly loved the diner scene with the overlapping conversations where several of the kids are talking about all the different ways to commit suicide while the plot is forcing its way back in-- it's telling that in an expensive action movie, the thing everyone is talking about and remembers are the characters and performances.

Also, in true 90s Kid style, I note people are already quoting the film in conversation!


EDIT: What a perfect poster for this movie:

[dx23]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but the recent DC comics have been including like an 8 page insert comic with a cover that is almost as good looking as the poster above. Don't know if the cover spoils anything, but it's making me more eager to see the film.

SpoilerShow

[mfunk9786]

Hm. WTF?

[Jeff]

The poster that Domino posted is actually a fan-made one designed to look like the work of Drew Struzan.

[mfunk9786]

Well, this fan had better sell 27x40 prints of that shit

[Foam]

The problem with this film is that Abrams, like Charles superficially injecting romance into his zombie movie, wants credit for Spielbergian "character development" without letting this development meaningfully inform the direction the narrative takes. Joe wants Alice, but after one measly protestation at letting him ride in her car it's quickly apparent that she has an affection for him, and so to milk this further the film devolves into the absurd distraction of Joe's father not letting him hang out with her (too bad the pyrotechnic kid and his well-deserved "What?!" wasn't in this similarly unconvincing scene). Then we have Joe's desire to be truly known by his father, but of course Abrams is incapable of showing how this sort of knowing would develop and so falsely resolves the problem by showing the father cares whether his son is dead or not, as if this were ever in question. Because Abrams refuses to exploit these desires as narrative energy he bludgeons the audience to distraction with reminders that Joe's mom is dead and parades superficially employed strategies from better films (the chaotic family scenes in Close Encounters, the sarcastic/potty-mouthed kids of Sandlot and Stand By Me). When a film pays this little attention to what is going on with its characters it's no surprise when it culminates in the spouting of a what-doesn't-even-qualify-as-platitude to a suddenly sensitive monster. I for one would like to know what the beast could possibly stand for that justifies its abstraction of the emotional energy of the film into oblivion, and in what imaginative context that life-changing line could be anything more than the most insipid thing I have heard in my life. I want another solid Dante/Spielberg/Reiner kids movie too, but this ain't it.

[Nothing]

J.J.Abrams > Terrence Malick = domino

[knives]

That doesn't make sense mathematically. Are you saying that Malick is Domino's equal and that both are worse than Abrams because that's what you wrote says.

[LQ]

Joe wants Alice, but after one measly protestation at letting him ride in her car it's quickly apparent that she has an affection for him, and so to milk this further the film devolves into the absurd distraction of Joe's father not letting him hang out with her (too bad the pyrotechnic kid and his well-deserved "What?!" wasn't in this similarly unconvincing scene).

I didn't see that as absurd, or a distraction. Its not about keeping him away from Alice alone, its about keeping him far away from her father. Its obvious Joe's father holds an irrational grudge against Alice's father, but furthermore, it is suggested that he has been troublesome, even dangerous in the past...and we certainly see the effects of his drinking in the film. It makes perfect narrative sense, and I don't see how it's "milked" either; its not like it has any effect on their developing relationship. Its more to further the idea of Joe's father's grudge. Plus, Alice's father makes it quite clear to Joe's that he doesn't want Joe hanging around (again, out of overblown animosity towards Joe's father than out of any mistrust/dislike of Joe).

Then we have Joe's desire to be truly known by his father, but of course Abrams is incapable of showing how this sort of knowing would develop and so falsely resolves the problem by showing the father cares whether his son is dead or not, as if this were ever in question.

I found the ending of the film to represent a new beginning for the father and son; faced with the fact that he might lose his son as well, the film implies that he will now make a concerted effort to develop his relationship with the boy going forward. Since they were apart for the majority of the movie, there was no way for any "knowing" to develop, anyway.

..he bludgeons the audience to distraction with reminders that Joe's mom is dead

To distraction? I suppose that's subjective, but it didn't bother me that a young boy might think about his mother often in the months following her death, especially when she "survives" on film.

When a film pays this little attention to what is going on with its characters it's no surprise when it culminates in the spouting of a what-doesn't-even-qualify-as-platitude to a suddenly sensitive monster. I for one would like to know what the beast could possibly stand for that justifies its abstraction of the emotional energy of the film into oblivion, and in what imaginative context that life-changing line could be anything more than the most insipid thing I have heard in my life.

I will agree that was a weak point of the script. I got what Abrams was going for there, but that was a pretty embarrassing line.

I can only echo mfunk and domino - I absolutely loved this. It is everything I could've wanted in a summer blockbuster.

[mfunk9786]

SpoilerShow

Remember, the line was said by a 12 year old to a monster

[Foam]

I didn't see that as absurd, or a distraction. Its not about keeping him away from Alice alone, its about keeping him far away from her father. Its obvious Joe's father holds an irrational grudge against Alice's father, but furthermore, it is suggested that he has been troublesome, even dangerous in the past...and we certainly see the effects of his drinking in the film. It makes perfect narrative sense, and I don't see how it's "milked" either; its not like it has any effect on their developing relationship. Its more to further the idea of Joe's father's grudge. Plus, Alice's father makes it quite clear to Joe's that he doesn't want Joe hanging around (again, out of overblown animosity towards Joe's father than out of any mistrust/dislike of Joe).

The fact that the threat doesn't have anything to do with the development of their relationship isn't the moment's strength though, but its weakness. It belies the fact that the whole grudge exists to create narrative energy with superficial, easily resolved obstacles to make up for Abrams' inability to imagine what engaging any of the possible complications of Joe's desires, a potentially much more interesting set of obstacles, would look like.

I found the ending of the film to represent a new beginning for the father and son; faced with the fact that he might lose his son as well, the film implies that he will now make a concerted effort to develop his relationship with the boy going forward. Since they were apart for the majority of the movie, there was no way for any "knowing" to develop, anyway.

Why would a film which wants credit for dealing with the estrangement of a father and son choose to work through this by pulling them further apart? When the father suggests early in the film that what they both need is for Joe to go off to baseball camp for six weeks, don't we think it's absurd? "No!" we say. "You need to spend more time with your son!" But according to the film, his father is right. The film imagines that actually being together is incidental to the development of a human relationship and that consciousness-altering events which take place while you are apart ("child may be dead! now care about child more! hurr durr!") are all that matter. If the film was really interested in the father getting to know the son, it would have made it so that the monster brought the father and son together, forcing them to deal with each other. As it is, the film barely shows them together at all, and never really shows what a pleasant coexistence would even begin to look like. If Abrams wasn't prepared to do that he shouldn't have made the father's inability to know his son one of the film's major problems.

To distraction? I suppose that's subjective, but it didn't bother me that a young boy might think about his mother often in the months following her death, especially when she "survives" on film.

No doubt, but what I'm interested in is Abrams' strategy for placing the reminders of her death. And I was being snarky last night, but I'm actually interested to know whether or not some sort of connection between when Abrams places the reminders and how the story of the monster develops creates a subtext which even a little bit somehow justifies the insipid line. But until I figure that out, if indeed there is anything worth figuring out, the locket just seems like a cheap device to summon up InstaEmotion to make up for the void that results from not following up on the most potentially interesting questions raised in the character development.

Of course, I get that this is a summer kids movie and everything and it may be petty to hold it to these kinds of demands, and I wouldn't want to rain on anyone's appreciation of its surface style (though I have problems with that too), but I just saw so many missed opportunities for the kind of heightened emotionalism possible in these sort of idealistic works that I couldn't help but feel disappointed. I think I may be done with Abrams until people I trust tell me otherwise.