When I walked out of Super 8—the love child of J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg—I was thinking in the three-and-a-half to maybe even marginal four-star range. The further I get away from it, the less I like it. It’s not that it’s exactly bad; it’s more that it’s so by-the-numbers, such a mish-mash of Abrams and Spielberg, and so hell-bent on overkill and nostalgia that it’s finally not much of anything. It’s mildly entertaining while it’s onscreen—and a lot funnier as you watch it if you have an infectious laugher a row behind you—but the word that finally comes to mind for me is “undistinguished.”
If you’ve been following the publicity on the film at all, you know that the story concerns a bomber-crew group of kids (how they missed including a black kid is beyond me) making a Super 8mm horror movie in the summer of 1979. Naturally enough—given that this is a movie—they run afoul of a real-life sci-fi horror story. The major focus is on Joe (newcomer Joel Courtney), Charles (newcomer Riley Griffiths) and Alice (Elle Fanning). Charles is the wanna-be filmmaker, Joe is his best friend and makeup artist, and Alice is the pretty girl—albeit from the “wrong side of the tracks”—who has agreed to be the leading lady in their zombie picture, The Case. The other kids are sort of Goonies-centric window dressing—needed because three people can’t make a movie on their own.
In theory, all this is fine, and it will resonate with anyone who ever undertook anything like this—including me, though I’d graduated to 16mm and away from horror movies by 1979. The problems start with the inevitable Spielbergization of the characters: Charles’ family is a collection of sitcom types; Joe has a recently deceased mother and subsequent trouble with his father (TV actor Kyle Chandler); Alice has a bad-hat father (TV actor Ron Eldard) who drinks and is somehow maybe-kinda-sorta involved in the Joe’s mother’s accidental death at the local factory. Amazingly, the young actors largely manage to overcome this baggage or make something out of it (the adults fare less well). They stumble through the poorly developed preteen love triangle—and the film’s inability or unwillingness to explore the complicated nature of the relationships—as Super 8 trades only in types here. Clearly, Joe must get the girl because he’s the cute, soulful one. Charles is chubby and funny, so he’s ruled out.
The greater problem is the monster plot—or, more accurately, both the monster and the plot. The idea of some alien creature escaping from a USAF train crash is fine. The crash (supposedly inspired by the hokey model train crash in DeMille’s 1952 Greatest Show on Earth) is undeniably spectacular and the impression that something pretty darn scary escaped is well conveyed—even if nothing that follows lives up to it. Partly, this stems from Abrams’ insistence of going all Cloverfield with the monster, coyly keeping it offscreen (and playing fast and loose in suggesting what it looks like), which turns out to be a big tease to a not-very-impressive monster. That the film also tries to make the damned thing sympathetic—despite the fact that the creature eats people and even hangs them upside down like sides of beef—doesn’t help, nor does the rushed, unconvincing and perfunctory ending. By the end, the things that were likable about Super 8 have become harder to find than a good look at the monster. Ultimately, Super 8 falls victim to its own nostalgic concept of trying to “make 'em like they used to” without bringing anything of value of its own.
The technical aspects of the movie are certainly credible enough, but with all the money that was put into it, that’s not exactly a startling accomplishment. How does it fare stylistically? Well, I guess that’s a matter of taste. I know that Abrams likes Spielberg’s penchant for lens flare, but he’s parlayed this into some kind of flare festish. It’s so all-pervasive here—there’s lens flare in shots where there’s no logical reason for it—that it’s distracting. You may feel otherwise. Obviously, Abrams does. Rated PG-13 for instense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, language and some drug use.
I loved Super 8 for the same reason I loved Grindhouse: It’s an attempt to revive a long-dead genre, in this case the monster movie, and I think it works quite well. You say the monster isn’t that impressive, but if you think about it, the monsters in old-school monster movies aren’t that impressive either, so he was merely staying within the boundaries of the genre he was trying to emulate. Another aspect I really enjoyed is that it’s a movie about people in love with making movies made by people in love with making movies. It reminded me quite a bit of Be Kind Rewind in that respect (which is one of my all time favorite films). Also, it was great to see the kids’ completed film during the credits. It’s neat because it’s exactly the kind of movie a 12 year old would make and it just adds another layer of charm to the proceedings. With Star Trek and now this, JJ Abrams is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. He’s got two TV series premiering this season, so I really hope that doesn’t distract him from doing more movies.
You say the monster isn’t that impressive, but if you think about it, the monsters in old-school monster movies aren’t that impressive either, so he was merely staying within the boundaries of the genre he was trying to emulate.
Well, this gets back to the old “don’t make ’em like they used to” mentality, which I have a basic problem with. Also, it’s true that a lot of the old monsters weren’t very impressive, but most of the films weren’t built around the idea of holding out on what the monster looks like as part of the ploy. This is.
Another aspect I really enjoyed is that it’s a movie about people in love with making movies made by people in love with making movies.
I am unconvinced of the last part of that sentence.
it’s exactly the kind of movie a 12 year old would make
It feels more like an adult’s idea of what a 12-year-old would make to me.
The fact that Abrams kept the alien off screen and relied on reflections and distorted shots of it for so long was actually a nice change of pace. The rumor of whats lurking in the dark is more often than not much scarier than what actually is. And lets be honest, name the last movie creature that visually lived up to what you imagined.
Considering that it’s pretty much the same schtick he worked with Cloverfield it doesn’t seem all that much of a change of pace.
I don’t really give a shit what the monster looks like. It’s on screen for about two minutes and not really a big part of the movie. It’s just an ominous threat off-screen that makes the story go.
It’s lame.
On the bright side the release of this movie could save some some poor sap from having to take his grandkids to see Judy Moody. I thinks that’s worth perhaps another 1/2 star. Not that I’m mentioning any names.
On the bright side the release of this movie could save some some poor sap from having to take his grandkids to see Judy Moody. I thinks that’s worth perhaps another 1/2 star. Not that I’m mentioning any names.
I might have been more sympathetic on that score except that having dodged the Judy Moody bullet myself, I had to pay for it by watching both Mr. Popper’s Penguins and The Beaver.
i make movies, have a few imdb credits fwiw. i was really excited to see this, being 45 i saw ET and Jaws when they were released at the theater.
1- this is not a movie about people who love movies making movies, that part is a weak plot line almost to the level of being a device.
2- the script was poor: bad guy needs to be bad. monsters need to be really scary. you need a true moment of ‘all is lost’. none of this is present.
3- this movie does not know what it wants to be, it just wants to be everything- which often results in not doing very well at anything.
look, i will not go on an on ragging this disappointment. but i assure you that not a single reviewer who really likes this has ever tried to write a serious screenplay using the guiding priciples that make a story great:
always move the plot forward, drive the story with the characters, make an emotional connection with the audience. and most of all, force the audience to truly care about your characters…like ET. yeah, like that.
oh, and in the business, making movies about making movies- usually not so good.
I’m with you all the way, Mr. Hanke. I asked my 14 -year old son, with whom I saw the movie, what he thought, and he said, “Well, I guess it was okay, but I didn’t really get what it was about.” Ditto, Son!
To behindTheLensInBend. You said:
“2- the script was poor: bad guy needs to be bad. monsters need to be really scary. you need a true moment of ‘all is lost’. none of this is present.
look, i will not go on an on ragging this disappointment. but i assure you that not a single reviewer who really likes this has ever tried to write a serious screenplay using the guiding priciples that make a story great:
always move the plot forward, drive the story with the characters, make an emotional connection with the audience. and most of all, force the audience to truly care about your characters…like ET. yeah, like that.”
You don’t NEED a moment of “all is lost”. If you’re a derivative storyteller, you’ll do something like that. You don’t ALWAYS have to move the plot forward or drive the story with character or make an emotional connection with the audience. And the audience can give two shits about your characters and still be enthralled.
THERE ARE NO RULES.
What you’re describing is chasing success. It’s cliche. It’s Brett Ratner. A real story does whatever it does. We witness it and dissect.
I’m not saying Super 8 is right. I’m just saying you shouldn’t mark a story off against a check-list. Unless you want to make a certain type of movie: a cliched one.