web
counter
 

Super 8 Is Not a Very Good Film, But Don't Worry: You Probably Won't Notice

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (81)



8_primary.jpg

Super 8 is not a very good movie, but most people won’t care. Most people won’t even notice. They’ll be so drunk on nostalgia, on Spielberg’s name, on the Amblin logo flashing across the screen, on the fat kid that looks like he’s straight out of Goonies that they’ll hardly even notice that Super 8 is kind of a shitty movie. It’s like getting drunk and going to a Scores strip club in Branson, Missouri: Sure, one lady is missing a leg, another a few teeth, and there’s some rust on the pole, but hey! It says Scores on the marquee, I must be having a great time. Oh, and look: There’s a tattoo of E.T. on that woman’s inner thigh, right below her tampon string. How Spielbergian!

One of the most frustrating peeves I have with the “turn off your brain” crowd is that it’s exactly what the studios and filmmakers want. They may as well mark the admission tickets with reminders. “Don’t forget to sit back, relax, and turn off your brain!” But if you do, you’re giving in. If you turn off your brain, they don’t have to work. They don’t have to make a coherent story or believable characters; they can tell you what to expect and how to feel with the marketing, and you can just slide into their pre-manufactured expectations for you. You’ll walk out of J.J. Abrams Super 8 saying, “I’m full of childlike wonder. That movie was mint,” because that’s exactly what they want you to say. They planted that in your brain before you turned it off, and now all you’re left with is residual memories of ad taglines.

J.J. Abrams even managed to snooker the majority of critics (the movie currently boasts a whopping 82 percent on the Tomatometer), most of whom grew up on Spielberg and Amblin movies (me too! me too!). Gremlins and E.T. and *batteries not included, it’s all critic Kryptonite. Even the most discriminating viewers get so lost in their rightful nostalgic affection for old films, in the hold that Spielberg’s trance has over them, that they spend the film reliving their own youth instead of paying attention to what’s happening on screen. What’s happening up there is kind of a mess.

In Super 8, J.J. Abrams essentially takes E.T. The Extra Terrestrial , Goonies, a little bit of Iron Giant and a lot of Cloverfield and sticks it in a blender and pours some 90-proof nostalgia juice in it. Set in 1979, Super 8 takes the main cast of Goonies, adds a 15-year-old version of Drew Barrymore’s character in E.T. (Elle Fanning) and, just to pound that movie-maker note, assembles them to make a kid film. The fat kid from Goonies (here played by Riley Griffiths) is the bossy teenage director of their little home movie; a slightly older version of the kid from Iron Giant / younger version of Dawson Leary (here played by Joel Courtney) handles the make-up effects. He’s also the lead, and as a nod to Spielberg, his Mom has recently died, leaving him with an emotional detached single father (Kyle Chandler), who is also the small town’s deputy.

While the kids are out filming at a train station one night, a pick-up truck driven by the high school science teacher from Gremlins (Glynn Turman, essentially reprising that role) purposefully crashes into the train, which provides the film’s only real action sequence until the final minutes. The kids from Goonies skeedaddle, but not before their rolling camera catches a glimpse of the creature in the train.

After that, the military guys from E.T. roll into town and block off the crash site. Suddenly, people and dogs in town begin disappearing, and Deputy Lamb is put in charge of figuring out what’s going on. The answer is basically small-town Cloverfield, only the alien in Super 8 is even more mysterious in nature (mysterious here being a narrative shortcut for: We couldn’t think of a cool story to explain the creature’s origins or motivations, so we’re just not going to bother). Then, it all dovetails into a climatic finale that’s almost as loud as it is moronic. But you probably won’t notice because you’ll be too busy admiring how similar some of Abrams’ shots are to Spielberg’s.

I’ll give Super 8 this much, though. It worked a number on me for about an hour before I was able to pull out of the trance. Elle Fanning, as the troubled daughter of the town fuckup (Ron Eldard) is goddamn magical, and Joel Courtney does a serviceable job of playing the dewy-eyed Eliot from E.T. I’m emotionally incapable of either thinking or writing anything negative about Kyle Chandler, but he’s fine, if underused. Unfortunately, those performances are beside the point. By the end, Abrams pulls away from the smaller, intimate story and hijacks it with a larger military and alien presence that doesn’t jibe with the rest of the movie. Nor does it make much sense. But again, you’ll probably never notice; you’ll be too busy trying to fit the finale into Spielberg’s universe.

Look: All the credit in the world to Spielberg the brand of family-film magic he weaved in the 80s. That shit was like crack for your imagination, for your sense of wonder, for your fucking soul. But you can’t replicate that. I appreciate that J.J. Abrams attempted here to make a movie that was neither a sequel nor an official remake. But what Abams tries to do with Super 8 is even more difficult than bringing a new spin to an old story; he tries to give an old spin to a new story populated with remade Spielberg characters. It may as well have been a remake. The effect is remarkably similar. And as an unofficial remake of an Amblin film, Abrams hits a lot of the right notes, but he misses all the beats. The result is a finished film that’s not very good, but don’t worry. If you did what they want you to do, your brain was likely flipped to the off switch. You won’t even notice.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Borrower Review: Wait, They Don't Love You Like I Love You | Coffee Causes Hallucinations? You'll Have to Rip It from My Cold, Dead Hands









Comments

There are strip clubs in Branson? I always thought Branson was Vegas for evangelicals.

The more you know.......

Posted by: PaddyDog at June 10, 2011 12:13 PM

right below her tampon string

HORF. Thanks for that, Rowles.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at June 10, 2011 12:15 PM

So far, Abrams' cinematic ouevre consists of M:I-3 (a remake of various spy movies), Star Trek (a remake of Star Wars) and now Super 8 (a remake of every early/mid-80s Spielberg flick).

So we can conclude that Abrams is good at copying others and adding lens flares.

To me, the bigger question lies with Executive Producer Steven Spielberg. Between this and Transformers, the once-magical director seems to be enjoying screwing family and kids audiences over.

Posted by: Fredo at June 10, 2011 12:25 PM

you're not the first critic to write it!
Kris Tapley has been insulted on Twitter to write the same stuff (Spielberg porn lookalike)

Posted by: caro at June 10, 2011 12:26 PM

"Oh, and look: There’s a tattoo of E.T. on that woman’s inner thigh, right below her tampon string. How Spielbergian! "


Stretching much for similes? Why not just put a promo shot of Human Centipede 2 in there for good measure.



Posted by: Greedy at June 10, 2011 12:27 PM

That's a damn shame. I was really looking forward to this one.

Posted by: Lucas at June 10, 2011 12:31 PM

I’m emotionally incapable of either thinking or writing anything negative about Kyle Chandler

Let me help you with that -

Kyle Chandler has repeatedly failed to acknowledge that he is my secret husband.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 10, 2011 12:34 PM

Farts. At least I scored a sweet iPod app outta this movie. Not that I'm shilling for it or a SpamBot. Cause I'm not. Seriously.

Tampon string, hee hee!

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits at June 10, 2011 12:48 PM

PLEASE tell me that his name is actually "Deputy Lamb".

Posted by: kdm at June 10, 2011 12:51 PM

Dustin, my FNL withdrawal (yeah, I watched the final season before it aired), love for Kyle Chandler AND my being an '80s kid who vividly remembers watching E.T. with that wide-eyed wonderment of which you spoke makes it nearly, nay, extremely impossible that I will walk away from this feeling like my money was not well-spent.

It has what I want and crave...i.e. ain't nobody getting between me and my crack!

Posted by: smijca at June 10, 2011 12:55 PM

I'm trying really hard to derive what your problem is with this movie, but instead of critiquing the elements of the film so I can understand why I should or should not see it, you spend the entire time making "bold" statements about how it's a Spielberg nostalgia knock-off, which would be a fine criticism, if only you told me why you feel that way or why it's a bad thing. Frankly, if someone can re-capture the magic of young Spielberg, that's fantastic, because that's a magic that has been missing for too long.

Posted by: ChristianH at June 10, 2011 1:01 PM

Star Trek (a remake of Star Wars)

Wouldn't Star Trek be a remake of Star Trek?

:P

Posted by: Anna von Beav at June 10, 2011 1:14 PM

By the end, Abrams pulls away from the smaller, intimate story and hijacks it with a larger military and alien presence that doesn’t jibe with the rest of the movie.

Honestly, though, the same could be said for the last act of Close Encounters before the aliens arrive and start jamming with Richard Dreyfus. Or of E.T. when E.T. is taken by the government. It's part and parcel of being an Amblin Remake. And, I'm fairly certain that is exactly what Abrams was going for, so, I'm glad you stopped just short of calling the movie a failure. Granted, I'll have to wait and see for myself if the plot does/doesn't hold up, but an "80s Spielbergian" movie is exactly what I want right now. So... yeah. Just sayin'.

Posted by: RobP at June 10, 2011 1:21 PM

Not stoked about mass-appeal media bringing back old slang that I use regularly, e.g. "mint." NO GOD PLEASE NO, don't remind people about "dope", "fresh", & "word."

Posted by: the new transported man at June 10, 2011 1:25 PM

Gee, all the critics and all the people like it. Except Dustin. Ergo, Dustin must be right.

Posted by: Max at June 10, 2011 1:28 PM

@ Anna von Beav,

No. If it would have been a remake of Star Trek, it would have sucked.

Posted by: EJ at June 10, 2011 1:32 PM

Actually Max, Dustin's review is consistent with several others I have read.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 10, 2011 1:33 PM

Good or not it's Kyle Chandler. Gotta see it

Posted by: Minto at June 10, 2011 1:49 PM

@EJ and @Anna Von Beav,

Actually, if it was a remake of Star Wars it would have sucked too.

Posted by: ChristianH at June 10, 2011 1:54 PM

Abrams made no secret of his desire to make a Spielbergesque film, so I suppose it succeeds on that level. Considering the younger generation may not have seen those classics, it may be something they enjoy a lot, which is sort of the point. It's just their parents who will be tharned and wondering what just happened.

Posted by: RebaSays at June 10, 2011 1:54 PM

Eh, I'll go see it at the dollar movies.

Posted by: Slash at June 10, 2011 2:00 PM

That 'approval via nostalgia' is what I've been ranting about. It's the same shit that makes people think Transformers was ever a good cartoon, much less a movie. Or The Goonies. Or The Smurfs. Or G.I. Joe. That inability to switch off the pre-adolescent equivalent to the reptilian brain and realize that what you cherished as a 9 year old was actually a shitty extended commercial for crappy toys. Even I strive to remember that Sigmund and the Sea Monsters or Land of the Lost was pure hackery at best, where the storylines played like ad-libbed third grader homemade stop motion movies like the end credits to Moral Orel. There's a quick Robot Chicken sketch that fits - a parody of some kid's claymation version of the Corpse Bride.

From the first preview, you could tell that this was a deliberate attempt to feed on that nostalgia. The "E.T." and "Close Encounters" feel of the entire thing is so forced, right down to placing the film in the late 70's early 80's. My hope was that since it seemed more of a horror film than a kiddy feel-good movie, that this would somehow redeem it. Too bad it didn't.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 10, 2011 2:01 PM

You know what? I don't even care. I've been jazzed about this for ages, and sometimes I NEED to turn off my brain and wallow in '80's Spielbergian wonder. It's the same impulse that makes my 40-something self watch the Charlie Brown Christmas special, and The Grinch, and Rudolph every gorram year. Because I NEED to feed my soul some soul junk food sometimes.

So, I'm gonna hit the off-switch and stop thinking about what I didn't get done at work, and how gorram much it costs me to drive every day, and how the hell are we gonna cover the house payment/car payment/college tuition, and why I can't seem to lose any weight, and try to reach waaaaaay back to when I didn't give a shit about any of these things, and I went to movies to ENJOY THEM.

/end rant

Posted by: dammitjanet at June 10, 2011 2:09 PM

I'll still see it. It just looks good summer fun.

Posted by: Julie at June 10, 2011 2:11 PM

Oh, Dustin. You had to throw in the tampon string.

Ick.

Posted by: MM at June 10, 2011 2:14 PM

I don't care what you say Protoguy. That Transformers cartoon movie was gold! GOLD I SAY!

YOU GOT THE TOUCH!!!!!

Posted by: Alex00 at June 10, 2011 2:19 PM

why so harsh. Copious amounts of reviews on this site that have said that is a great movie to turn your brain off. not every movie has to be citizen kane. Why now do you hate so much. What is wrong with nostalgic? Look at Spielberg’s resume you say that nothing happens until the end… JAWS, close encounters are some that just pop into my mind but I still love every moment of it. Mind you I have not seen super 8 yet so you could be completely right. I am just asking for some consistency.

Posted by: supergwarr at June 10, 2011 2:19 PM

I will probably see this. It looks like a lot of fun, and I have an unreasonable soft spot for Ron Eldard.

And if me "turning off my brain" sometimes is just doing what the studios want...well, I guess I'm glad we're in agreement. At least this is a marginally original movie, instead being a sequel or prequel or reboot of something else, like every other movie this summer.

Posted by: Siege at June 10, 2011 2:25 PM

Dustin-spot on. Just got back from it and was verrrry happy I only spent four bucks. If you do decide to go, then at least stay thru the credits for an extra treat. It still won't make it worthwhile, but you may as well not miss it. It's just lame...no plot or heart. Speilburg-lite is giving it too much credit. JJ just missed the boat. Do yourself a favor and catch it on cable.

Posted by: Frumple at June 10, 2011 2:32 PM

I saw this last night and loved every second of it. Was it basically an homage to classic Spielberg? Absolutely. Was it cliche and pretty damn corny at times? Damn straight. But the thing is, classic Spielberg is exactly what I needed and it was two hours of pure fun. I need good mindless fun with a bit of heart sometimes and I honestly don't see what's wrong with that.

Posted by: beckster at June 10, 2011 2:39 PM

Anna von Beav, it was Star Trek but followed every aspect of the Star Wars mythos -- young farm boy with daddy issues and a call to greatness from a great warrior uses his innate skills to bring together a cast of different peoples to fight a great evil and blow up a planet-killing weapon.

OK, so Eric Bana is no Darth Vader. But it's close enough.

Posted by: Fredo at June 10, 2011 2:59 PM

I loved it, though I think he should have designed the creature in a more Spielbergian way instead of the Cloverfield/human hybrid. I agree with others here that have mentioned that all of Spielberg's movies have a third act that stops being the small, intimate family story of the first 2 acts -- Jaws, Close Encounters, E.T., Goonies, etc. The only one that stays the same is one that has no sci-fi element, Stand by Me. But that was not a direct Spielberg movie. I think JJ succeeded at making a Spielberg movie. Perhaps it isn't our nostalgia that's blinding us, but your nostalgia that thinks older Amblin movies were better.

Posted by: puppetDoug at June 10, 2011 3:00 PM

Sometimes, re-creating that lost magic is a good enough reason to just shit off the brain for a bit and just let yourself have fun.

Hot Hub Time Machine only works if you take it for what it is; if you think too hard about any of it, it falls apart - but the same could probably be said for the old Hughes films it so lovingly pokes fun at.

The trailers always gave me the impression that this was going to be ET for a generation that watched ET when they were younger. If it manages to recreate that feel, it'll probably do well with adults and their kids alike - you can't fault them for making something that will likely appeal to all age groups.

Posted by: Markus at June 10, 2011 3:10 PM

I kind of hate Abrams so I'll pass. Man couldn't direct or write his way into a paper bag. That's right, into.

Posted by: googergieger at June 10, 2011 4:09 PM

Even the positive reviews are saying it's derivative of Spielberg's films in the 80s. That's a pretty common criticism in most of the reviews I've gone through. Dustin thought it detracted from a far more intimate story that had potential. Doesn't make him a bad person or a bad film critic. Doesn't mean he's right, either.

Film is a subjective medium. He thought it was a bad film and explained himself with humor. If you can't read through the sarcasm to understand the base points of his analysis, that's your own problem.

Posted by: Robert at June 10, 2011 4:39 PM

Film is a subjective medium. He thought it was a bad film and explained himself with humor. If you can't read through the sarcasm to understand the base points of his analysis, that's your own problem.

Thanks for delivering the site's mission statment, Robert!

Posted by: RobP at June 10, 2011 4:51 PM

Honestly, nothing about the marketing or lead up to this movie has made me remotely interested. Granted some of my opinions of Speilberg are colored by my film student friend who absolutely HATES Speilberg.

I'm happy to see a skeptical review posted up here. Maybe I'll check it out on Netflix someday, just to see what all the fuss is about.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at June 10, 2011 5:54 PM

I liked it precisely for the reasons you didn't.

But at least we can agree that Elle Fanning was great. Seriously, I'd like a bottle of whatever Mr and Mrs Fanning feed their daughters.

Posted by: Shane at June 10, 2011 7:05 PM

Fine points, all. I stand ....enlightened.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at June 10, 2011 7:07 PM

I just saw it, and it is kind of nostalgic and a decent film... right until the last 10 minutes, ironically, not unlike A.I.

Spoiler:

The alien getting in his space ship and leaving, with NO help from the kids, just some kind of psychic pep talk ("You can live!"), um, wah?

What is it with Spielberg (even as a producer) and aliens. Is there some contractual obligation to put ET into everything now? Meh.

Posted by: Justin Schwartz at June 10, 2011 7:11 PM

Hmph. Saw it a few hours ago and I liked it fine.

As far as the "We couldn’t think of a cool story to explain the creature’s origins or motivations, so we’re just not going to bother" stuff, I managed to get the gist of the creature's story just fine. And considering the story wasn't really about the creature in the first place, I don't see any need for it to be more detailed.

And considering the pants-creaming that happened here during John Hughes' passing (no disrespect, but the man's movies were a bit ridiculous to me, and I chalked up all the love to people having a youth experience I didn't), I would have thought a Spielberg throwback movie would have been right up your alley. Guess I assumed wrong.

Eh, what can you say? Today's clever old school look is tomorrow's lame retro ripoff, I suppose.

As for the rest of you, see it, don't see it. I don't flippin' care.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 10, 2011 7:18 PM

But at least we can agree that Elle Fanning was great. Seriously, I'd like a bottle of whatever Mr and Mrs Fanning feed their daughters.

The Fannings must be mutants, because it is ridiculous how good she was, especially in the scene where she first acts in the kids' movie. I had the same look on my face they did. Crap on a stick, that was freaky.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 10, 2011 7:24 PM

Just saw it, and now not only do I not understand why you didn't like the movie (because I think you fail to make logical and direct criticisms and instead seem to be circling around them as if they should be self-evident, which they aren't to anyone who hasn't seen the film), but I outright disagree that this is not a good film.

I would argue that it goes beyond simple nostalgia. The kids have a very real relationship; the writing does a surprisingly great job of capturing the emotions and personalities of small-town middle school kids in pretty much any era. The actors do a terrific job of staying level in an otherwise potentially ridiculous situation. And you're right that Elle Fanning is perfect for her role, but the boys are equally strong and their friendship is one of the film's best elements.

I disagree strongly that the alien portion detracts from the smaller, more personal story. Rather it displaces it, clearly personifying the internal struggles present in the boy from the loss of his mother and the oppressive distance he feels from his father (as is obvious from his speech at the end). It's nearly impossible for a story involving monsters or aliens to not come across as a bit jarring when juxtaposed with the human aspects of the story. But I felt Abrams handled it not necessarily with grace but at least with perspective as these characters are not made to be marginal to the incredible presence of this creature but rather the other way around.

The only elements that I think were handled poorly were the lens flares (seriously, so many of those seemed to come from nowhere) and the score, which was definitely a bit ham-fisted at times and may have contributed to a feeling that the rest of the film was similarly bungled, though I would argue that it wasn't.

Ultimately, I think Abrams' throwbacks to Spielberg are at once heartfelt (he seems to really care about this story and its characters as though he grew up with them, which makes me think he feels the same way about Spielberg's classics) and stylistically warming. I never found the derivative nature of the filming to be distracting or negative, and frankly I think watching Abrams give credit to one of his heroes is kind of sweet to watch.

I don't think it's mindless or small. I'm still not sure why you do.

Posted by: ChristianH at June 10, 2011 8:16 PM

Nostalgia my balls, and this movie sucked said balls.

Posted by: junierizzle at June 10, 2011 8:44 PM

It's almost as though different people like different things.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 10, 2011 9:08 PM

This is should have been the Star Trek: Abomination
review.
OOPS!

Or isn't that how EVERY. SINGLE. Jar Jar film rolls?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 10, 2011 10:04 PM

Dustin, lighten up. Your criticisms are practically moot. I wanted this movie to be SO much more, but what I watched was pretty goddamn dazzling. And trust me, it was not a nostalgia wave that crashed over me an drove me to say that. This is a perfectly acceptable stand alone film, regardless of it being an homage to Spielberg.

Posted by: Illuminatus at June 10, 2011 10:09 PM

Spielberg is a fucking HACK! He totally fucked up Jaws, hell, even "Duel" blew chunks! And let's not start on the ways the dicked over Jurrasic Park!

I just fail to see the allur of this null.

He's a fucking scam!

Posted by: Uncle JR at June 10, 2011 10:47 PM

This is should have been the Star Trek: Abomination
review.

Ah, like the sunrise, it is so dependable. Stupid, yet dependable.

And does anyone else pick up this hint of irony, that nostalgia for these previous shows/films are what leads to complaints like this, and yet, tapping into nostalgia is apparently this film's greatest offense?

Now that I reread it, it almost sounds like you are upset with the film because you began to buy into it. You do try to put yourself on an objective point and all, and you don't like the fact that such a movie managed to hit those spots without earning it, I suppose.

I don't know, it seems weird that your complaints seem like threadbare nitpicking, and you don't seem to like the idea that other folks might feel entertained by such a film.

Whatever. Like any of this really matters. People will see it, people won't see it. It's all kind of...inconsequential, really.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 10, 2011 11:14 PM

Weirton, REPRESENT!

... Nah, I got nothin' else.

Posted by: , at June 11, 2011 12:04 AM

"I NEED to turn off my brain and wallow in '80's Spielbergian wonder."

I think you just made the point that best sums up what is wrong with Dustin's review.

TUrning of the brain means a lot of things. But I would say primarily it means that you should enter the theater as a patron and not a critic. But that isn't an easy thing to do.

Everyone and anyone who has taken a film class, or an art class, suddenly has this new world opened up to them, but it primarily revolves around the critique, where you look at how all the small pieces fit together to form something larger, as opposed to just seeing it for what it is in its most basic of form.

The form of the uninformed, uncritical mind.

Let's be honest. Classic Spielberg is not the best director ever. While his films do capture the imagination, ultimately he reuses the same themes and motifs. Is E.T. really that great of a film? Nope, but it still feels good to watch. It feels real. But it's still flawed.

Turn off your mind.


I'm addicted to the concept of nostalgia. Especially 80's. The feeling of recapturing the past is popular with many. If it can evoke those feelings as well as Spielberg than the director did his job.

Posted by: Some Guy at June 11, 2011 12:18 AM

Ok, I just got back from watching this flick and I have to say, to all of you effete, uppity, naysayers who think Dustin's contrarian-ness inherently means he's an asswipe--you're all asswipes. He's not trying to wax poetic, he's waving off massive wastes of your income.

This movie was a flaming pile of screaming monkey shit. No, actually that's inaccurate. To watch a screaming monkey light his own defecation (or any other action described by the words "monkey," "flaming," "screaming" and "shit") would have far surpassed the experience of watching this appallingly bad film.

As Dustin correctly points out, this was not homage, it was outright plagiarism ... of Goonies, E.T. and, yeah, Cloverfield or maybe War of the Worlds. And watching this movie you feel nothing so much as being there in the room as these two overly-moneyed, underly-coherent fellas (Abrams and Spielberg) enjoy a shared giggle over which scenes to pilfer.

This movie was loud, obnoxious and idiotic. So save your money and apologize to Dustin, or keep your pride and come away $10 poorer and far, far dumber.

Posted by: Johnnyboy at June 11, 2011 1:26 AM

I'm not very interested in seeing the movie, but one thing I can agree with Dustin about is the abhorrent trend of handwaving away shitty movies with "why'd you expect citizen kane?" type excuses. That's so fucking lazy. Just like making shitty movies.

Posted by: danielrandkai at June 11, 2011 2:28 AM

I won't notice because I'll be too busy daydreaming about my life married to Kyle Chandler? Yeah, you're probably right about that, aside from the part where I pay money to see this movie.

Posted by: SaBrina at June 11, 2011 2:40 AM

Keeping it real JohnnyBoy.

I was so disappointed in this movie. Everyone that likes it says the same thing. "It reminded me of The Goonies and ET." Or, "It reminded me of a simpler time." Dustin is right. If you wipe all of that away the movie is pretty fucking lame.

TAKERS reminded me of a lot of heist films but I didn't like it because of that. I didn't like it period but you get me point.

I admit I was digging it up until the train wreck. But after that it was just so silly and trying so hard to become an instant classic. I get what they were trying to do. The film's subsequent scenes just fell flat one after another. You can't try and make something memorable. It either becomes memorable or it doesn't. Not to mention all the stuff that didn't even make sense.

Posted by: junierizzle at June 11, 2011 3:10 AM

Jesus, this review is filled with venom and reeks of a very unhappy person.

I saw it today and loved every second of it.

I hope my response to this sets you over the edge into complete hipster-dom.

Posted by: Clark at June 11, 2011 3:30 AM

I was disappointed by the movie, but I still enjoyed it. I think the nostalgia will either make or break the movie for most audiences; personally, I dug the Spielberg throwbacks, but - and I'm guessing you felt the same, Dustin - I wanted something *new*, and that's where the movie fails.
Still, I think it's a lot of fun if you're in the mood for a nostalgia trip, or just something entertaining to watch.

Posted by: kiz at June 11, 2011 4:44 AM

Ah, like the sunrise, it is so dependable. Stupid, yet dependable.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 10, 2011 11:14 PM

*clap* *clap*

Express an honest opinion, get verbally assaulted by the forum thought policeperson. Very, very progressive, and all, over a J.J. Abrams product. Why don't you marry him? You know, since you love riding his pole so much.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 11, 2011 7:16 AM

Express an honest opinion, get verbally assaulted by the forum thought policeperson. Very, very progressive, and all, over a J.J. Abrams product. Why don't you marry him? You know, since you love riding his pole so much.

Express an honest opinion about another person's honest opinion, and get accused of Orwellian tactics on a website that I have no control over.

Like I said, I don't care if you like it or hate it. I really, truly don't. My opinion doesn't matter one goddamn lick. JJ Abrams will make his money whether I like his output or not. Nothing I say or do, nothing you say or do will change that. All this is pointless and inane, to tell the truth.

True, I took the time out to call your little outburst stupid, but that is because I like calling your outbursts stupid. Because they are. And it is entertaining to me to point such a thing out. Just like calling Abrams "Jar Jar" and righteous indignation over any little thing like you are some warped George Washington crossing the cinematic Delaware is entertaining to you. It must be, because I see no other reason to do it.

Really, if not for that little bit of selfishness on my part, I would be sorta Zen right now. Just floating in a state of caring and not caring...

Why are we talking about this? How about double rainbows? Those things are awesoooooome.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 11, 2011 8:47 AM

Now that I think about it, I think I see why I enjoyed this movie so much.

It isn't because of nostalgia, just the opposite. I have no nostalgia to play upon.

There are no precious childhood memories to destroy. I mean, I've seen Goonies and ET and all, but I never connected with them like so many apparently did. I was born in 1982, meaning I was quite young and my mom didn't take me to theaters much. So most of my viewing was secondhand. Plus, I'm not a middle-class suburban white kid. So, yeah. Nothing to hit me there. I was going it with relatively fresh eyes, and I guess that made it easier for me to look past these flaws you rail on about, which seem to be the same flaws in those films you castigate Abrams from copying from. So I kinda see where you are coming from, and yet I never quite will.

I suppose this is similar to a Flash Gordon fan seeing Star Wars: wondering what the fuck this douchebag Lucas is doing, ripping off a far better story for his claptrap. Am I saying Super 8 is destined to be a classic like Star Wars? No, and you are stupid for jumping to that conclusion. I am simply comparing the two films based on the criticisms Dustin presented. And Star Wars could just as easily fit that mold as this does.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 11, 2011 9:01 AM

I was SOO excited to see this film! The teaser with the train wreck and a monster trying to bust his way out?? I was mislead. A dude drives his old pickup truck into a MAMMOTH TRAIN that is traveling at least 90 mph, the train derails and just explodes all over the place with shards of flying metal and tanker explosions...and the pickup is not mangled AND the old black man survives?? How are we supposed to suspend that much disbelief? Well, because you're just SUPPOSED to, I guess.

The kids' acting was amazing, but there were too many stupid "nostalgia" moments. "Hey look, honey! A hippie stoner! WOW, remember that from the good old days? Ooooo, LOOK! A Walkman! WOW! Just like the 70s!" Too stupid for me to enjoy. It will be enjoyed by CHILDREN...of all ages.

Posted by: Scott at June 11, 2011 12:03 PM

My stomach hurt after seeing Super 8.
It was just dumb. So dumb. Which hurts a lot considering i've had a love affair with everything J.J. Abrams pretends to be involved in. (can he seriously be that busy?)

Spoilers:
Kyle Chandler was absolutely wasted. There was zero point in his character being in the film at all. He spends 4/5ths of the film futilely trying to figure out what's going on, getting arrested by the Air Force, then escaping the Air Force (for no reason). Only in the last 10 minutes does he bother looking for his son. - So what's the point of their relationship being strained?
The kid "rescues" himself and the girl just fine on his own, Kyle Chandler just shows up for the slow walk toward the camera "Yay, my son is ALIVE" moment. *Which i might add, this moment is further ruined because it's doubled (onscreen!) as Elle Fanning's father is slow walking toward the camera with the same expression AT THE SAME TIME. Ridiculous! (If you heard someone in your theatre guffaw at this point, it was me)

More spoilers:
Also, there's a scene you might have seen in the trailers with military vehicles firing - tracers, explosions, fire, all in a suburban neighborhood. KABLOOEY!
Awesome, right? What horrible battle could have befallen such a residential area?
Answer: None.
For 2 minutes of screen time, the military's weapons are going off uncontrollably. Then they stop the scene changes. That's it. Stuff blows up, they hide in a house, make a fat joke, then run away. No battle, no relevance to the story, just 2 minutes of footage that they could stick into a trailer to give you the wrong impression.

i feel like J.J. done cheated on me.

Posted by: Scott at June 11, 2011 12:22 PM

I read movie reviews to determine the likelihood that I will enjoy a particular film. Being familiar with Pajiba and its comments/commentators, I can apply a filter to this review and come to the conclusion that I will like this movie. But it's sort of a double edged sword coming here. I get my answer (yay), but I also get to feel like a tard (boo). It's a dubious twofer. Thanks for the opinions y'all - it was very helpful! Sorry my $10 and ignorance of good film-making is ruining Hollywood!

Posted by: malechai at June 11, 2011 12:24 PM

This movie was pure joy. It's the best movie I've seen this year and will be hard to beat as the top movie of 2011. It's fascinating to me how people will say "this movie resembles 2 or 3 movies made 30 years ago? No way, same old shit!", then get down on their knees to suck off the thirtieth derivative superhero movie in the last decade.

Posted by: Hector at June 11, 2011 1:07 PM

Hector, your post cracked my sh&t up. Thanks.

Posted by: smijca at June 11, 2011 1:54 PM

Hector, there are differences between a "derivative superhero movie" like say the latest X-men (which I saw today and thoroughly enjoyed) and Super 8, and I'll point some out:

better story
better acting
better music

But if you think that's getting down and sucking something off, well then, my boy, you just ain't gettin it.

'Sokay, though, spend your money where you want. I'm just sayin is all.

Posted by: Johnnyboy at June 11, 2011 5:29 PM

So you are all saying go see the movie right? Ok, heading to the movies now for some fun!

Posted by: TrickyHD at June 11, 2011 9:21 PM

@vermillion

You are very articulate, blah blah blah, I'm not gonna do this dance with you again, my opinion remains the same.

Deal with it.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 11, 2011 9:57 PM

As much as I saw why it was derivative and too easy I still enjoyed the film. The acting was there. Story was there. It mostly made sense. Its no way on the level of X-Men or Inception but it was good. There were so many questions unanswered tho.

Posted by: yocean at June 12, 2011 6:00 AM

I'm not gonna do this dance with you again, my opinion remains the same.

Deal with it.


Dude, haven't you figured it out yet? I don't care about you opinion, changed or not. All that leads to is headache. You can hate all you want. Have a ball. A little ball full of rage. I am having much more fun mulling over why I liked Super 8. I like this kind of introspection.

A dude drives his old pickup truck into a MAMMOTH TRAIN that is traveling at least 90 mph, the train derails and just explodes all over the place with shards of flying metal and tanker explosions...and the pickup is not mangled AND the old black man survives??

Um, the truck was CUT IN HALF LENGTHWISE. That is kinda the opposite of "not mangled". And trains are quite sensitive to disruptions on the track. Depending on if the train has a shaped "cowcatcher" front end, stuff can either move or get caught under the train and knock the wheels offtrack. Especially if the train was going that fast, which added the propulsion of the other cars off the track. As far as the black guy surviving, it wasn't like he walked away from it unscathed. And seeing as how every black man with a speaking role does end up dead (yeah, I noticed, but after a while you just throw your hands up in the air), it is kind of a moot point.

By the way, it may have just been me, but when the black soldier took the kid's pendant, I totally said aloud "Soooo, you're gonna die".

Story was there. It mostly made sense. Its no way on the level of X-Men or Inception but it was good. There were so many questions unanswered tho.

You raise an interesting point. The movie was pretty straightforward and didn't have any unnecessary twists. Could that be another dividing point? People in the audience expecting some audacious sci-fi film, and getting this? AS I said, I went in totally blind. I forgot this movie even existed until I heard a commercial on the radio, and went on a whim. No expectations, and got no disappointments. Sure there are points of improvement, but I can't say there were honestly BAD moments. And really, the story was the weakest part (not terrible, not complicated, just simple). The acting was top-notch, and the atmosphere was a lot more evocative of the time period than X-Men was of the '60s.

Hmm, I don't know what to say.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 12, 2011 7:45 AM

Plenty of movies are derivative, at this point with >100 years of cinema, it's almost unavoidable. As always, there will be things that are just not realistic, besides the truck:train collision, and, hello, aliens!

Neither of these two elements is problematic if the film is constructed well with cause and effect (even within the context of fictionalized reality vs. actual reality).

Ergo, my peeve/s, spoiler:

The alien's motivation/struggle vs. resolution. Does the psychic pep talk turn on the magnetic mcguffin that ultimately draws the special space ship cubes in, or does the alien need to be at peace with itself in order to leave and is that related to the function of the space ship?

This concept is the only feasible possibility, but this is was never delineated by the flash-back exposition related by the injured scientist. If this is the case, why would would all the work by said scientist and his relationship with the alien be so truncated, as these are the driving elements here.

If you, as a writer/editor, want the kids to be crucial to the plot, make them responsible for freeing the alien or at least collecting the cubes, or something dangnabbit! The kids' whole involvement is almost a side plot that only becomes apparent at the end.

Posted by: JS at June 12, 2011 6:18 PM

Saw it, loved it, and I am by no means a Spielberg fanboy. Like some other people have said, I didn't really even have the nostalgia thing ans still thought it was beautifully shot, had a great setting and characters. Creature was a bit lame. The writing was great.

Posted by: Moviefraud at June 12, 2011 11:23 PM

Saw it last night after I bailed on the circus (yep, there was a movie theater in the parking lot).

I'm a sucker for Kyle Chandler and his amazing face so this movie probably had me at hello. But honestly, whatever else was cheesy or derivative, if you weren't just blown away by Elle Fanning and the lead kid who I am too lazy to look up on IMDB right now, you have a cold, dark heart. They were sweet and they were genuine and i felt a real innocence in them that made me want to go home and dust off my old bike and cruise the neighborhood with my friends. Really good performances are more than can be said for a lot of the drivel that comes out of Hollywood eh?

Posted by: replikate at June 12, 2011 11:58 PM

I really enjoyed Super 8. It reminded more of Signs than any other movie. I thought the kid actors were fantastic. After this review, I was expecting to see Kyle Chandler for only a few minutes. I thought he was used quite well and effectively.
I didn't get all nostalgic over it. I just enjoyed a movie set in '79. I think there was too much going on for it to take me back. But the one kid reminded me of Sean Astin and the fat kid sometimes sounded exactly like Chunk from the Goonies. That's about it.
The heart of the story wasn't about the alien, so there was no reason to go into anymore detail on it. It was about the kid, it was about family, love, adventure, friendship, and bravery. A good kid movie to be enjoyed by kids and I guess brainless adults like me.

Posted by: Dingle Berry at June 13, 2011 9:59 AM

Nobody's reading these at this points, so I'll end with the following:

I liked the movie, but a simple recon would have made a bit more sense, and as much as I like yielding to nostalgia, I do demand some logic:

Make the alien interfacing with the mcguffin and unable to activate it due to its frustration of being abused, then after the psychic pep talk with the boy, have it go back to its mcguffin and activate the device, the resolution being: calming its psyche has allowed it to successfully master the mechanics of re-assembling the space-ship. Thus a minor manipulation of the alien-boy interaction could provide at least a more logical resolution.

Posted by: JS at June 13, 2011 4:59 PM

Despite having enjoyed the "1950s B-rated monster movie with a bigger budget" feel, the movie was pointless. Beyond the train derailment (no spoiler there), none of the events stand up to critical scrutiny. Preposterous is the nicest term. So many elements are introduced and alluded to, yet are left to die on the vine. There are glaring plot holes that defy explanation. Don't get me wrong. The acting performances and casting were acceptable. I LIKED the movie. I was less intrigued by the monster aspect and I wanted to see more of the relationships develop. It certainly entertained me. But it was no blockbuster. I doubt it will stand the test of time, let alone be remembered 5 years from now.

And oh yeah...

Its kryptonite. Not Kryptonite.

Its climactic. Not climatic.

Posted by: Skeptique at June 14, 2011 3:53 AM

omg.......i understand u dont like the movie but whats wrong with u? iz there anything okay about this movie? wait, never mind, im not gonna listen to ya anyway. hahaha! im seeing this movie whether u like it or not. im sure its not THAT bad! and by the way, thats what movies do, put u in a trance so u think its good. thats a good strategy! who cares if its good enough, if the trance iz enough to make us think its good, then what does it matter if the movie sux or not? ;-)

Posted by: M. Night Shyamalan at June 14, 2011 6:14 PM

Save $15 and wait til it comes out on Redbox for $1. Better yet, save that dollar too.
I can't believe that I just watched the same Super 8 that all the other people who wrote reviews about this movie watched. This was the worst movie that I have seen since Bobby Deerfield ! Abrams would have done better making a movie about a chain of motels.First, how the hell does the teacher survive a head on collision with a mega-ton , high speed train and come away with just some facial cuts ????? WTF. Then, can anybody explain to me why and/or how the deputy sheriffs wife died and why did the young girls Dad feel guilty about it? From here (about 7-8 minutes into the movie) , it got more absurd. The alien, referred to as HE, goes through the better part of the flick tossing cars, trucks , stoves , busses and whatever around like he's flipping pancakes, but at the used car lot, he meticulously removes all the engines from all the cars without not even putting a scratch on any of the cars. Now, throughout the movie, HE, collects some humans and stores them upside down in his batcave or whatever you want to call it, for what reason?? Never explained! I just read a review where the reviewer had commented on the " Teary-Eyed Ending".......ARE YOU F*****G SH*****G ME ??????? I felt more sympathy for Momma Alien when Sigourney dispatched her permanently. And as far as the ENDING ending......PUHLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ. HE, either magnetically or telepathically sucks up cars, trucks, rifles , stoves and the like to form what is supposed to be his escape ship. But, some of the soldiers still had their rifles and amidst this sucking up of everything metallic in sight, the deputy sheriff pulls up in a Jeep that for some strange reason must have been sprinkled with some magic military dust, because it was not affected by this magnetic sucking upness. I don't know, maybe I should have burned one before I watched this piece of utter trash. I left with the feeling that my intelligence was questioned. 100% disappointed.

Posted by: Super8Sux at June 24, 2011 10:44 PM

It's a good movie and by skipping it you are missing something special.

I was completely taken with what was happening to the kids and couldn't wait for the rest of the story to come together.

But like many movies, the tension of not seeing the creature was greater than finally seeing it.

Posted by: Larold at June 25, 2011 11:12 PM

One of the most frustrating pet peeves I have is film reviewers who need every movie to be the tree of life.

Posted by: Joe at June 27, 2011 1:09 AM

I agree with Larold. My friends, though, had the same complaints as Dustin. They got bored as soon as the train hit. Personally, I found the film to be more of an homage or nod to movies like "E.T." rather than to be a rip-off or offensively derivative. The stories are vastly different and I find Super 8 to have better performances, and more going on than "E.T." It's produced by Spielberg because he's passing this cinematic torch. It's an intimate movie about kids going through some crazy shit.

The whole scientist/creature thing was a fun sci-fi subplot right out of a B-movie. What I am trying to say, gracelessly, is that Abrams made a great, fun summer Creature Movie out of the '50s about film-making kids. To me it was compelling throughout.

The monster did suck though.

Posted by: Moviefraud at June 29, 2011 11:41 PM