Super 8
The Spielberg effect
Rather more interesting than Super 8, the new J.J. Abrams movie, is the picture's backstory. As a kid in the mid-'70s, Abrams began shooting little films with a Super 8 camera, that highly portable, relatively inexpensive boon to aspiring young filmmakers. Later, in his mid-teens, Abrams and his friend Matt Reeves—a fellow budding director—entered some of their shorts in a Los Angeles Super 8 film festival. The L.A. Times did a story on them. Then—could they even have dreamed of this?—they got a call from Steven Spielberg's office, asking if they wanted to work on preserving some little films that Spielberg himself had shot as a kid, in the old Standard-8 format. Did they ever.
Thus we have Super 8, a fond remembrance of Spielberg classics like E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind—of the director's sympathetic concern with the loneliness of childhood and his understanding way with misunderstood extraterrestrials. Surely it helped to have Spielberg himself onboard as a producer, contributing script assessment and sitting in on the edits. But Abrams, unfortunately, is not Spielberg. (Why should he be? Who else among mere mortals is?) And so his attempt to replicate the older director's magic inevitably falls short.
The movie's most engaging element is the group of adolescent cinephiles at the center of it—six kids dreaming big in small-town Ohio in 1979. Their leader, Charles (Riley Griffiths), has written a script for a Super 8 zombie movie and recruited his friends to help make it. Among his crew are teen angel Alice (Elle Fanning), cast as the film's love interest, and the introverted Joe (a striking performance by first-time actor Joel Courtney), who's been put in charge of makeup, sound, and effects. (This is a really low-budget production.) The kids are nicely individualized. Charles is a born director, obsessed with getting just the right shot and demanding real tears from his actors. Alice appreciates his project as an escape from her unhappy life with her single dad (Ron Eldard), the town drunk. And Joe remains committed to the film even though his world is in upheaval—he has just lost his mother in an accident, and is now making an uneasy adjustment to living with his distracted father (Kyle Chandler), the town's deputy sheriff.
It seems clear that Abrams drew on his own movie-making youth for this picture. One scene in particular—in which the kids are on location at a railroad station and a long train barrels by, wrecking the sound levels (Charles just orders the actors to talk louder)—has the vivid particularity of lived experience. And the scene in which Joe is applying makeup to Alice's face, and we see him falling helplessly in love with her, has a true Spielbergian glow.
It's too bad, then, that Super 8 is also a monster movie, with an angry outer-space behemoth—very slowly revealed—whose romper-stomper m.o. strongly recalls the towering beastie in Matt Reeves' Cloverfield. Here Abrams checks off a number of other Spielbergisms—model-making, electrical outages (complete with endangered lineman), obtuse grownups, and sinister military interlopers. There's also a fiery train wreck (overextended) and a school teacher (Glynn Turman) who knows what the rampant alien is up to. ("If we don't begin helping him," he tells the kids, "we will all pay the price.")
The film's disparate narrative elements never really mesh. The kids and their movie are more interesting than the monster, whose depredations are repetitive and whose familiarity short-circuits any intended horror. The picture could be a difficult sell after its opening weekend. The youthful sci-fi audience is unlikely to be all that scared, and older viewers—drawn by an attempt to reproduce the vintage Spielberg effect they remember from their own youth—may leave theaters with an enlarged appreciation of the man's induplicable wonders.
Kurt Loder is a writer living in New York. His third book, a collection of film reviews called The Good, the Bad and the Godawful, will be published in November by St. Martin's Press.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It seemed like an interesting premise, but this confirms what I thought upon seeing the trailer.
It's Abrams. Every once in a while he makes something enjoyable, but the safe bet is that he makes something not terrible, but too mediocre to be really enjoyable.
+1
Competent but meh
Just imagine the horror if Bay did this instead....
You know, there's one good thing about Bay. If he directs something, I know not to watch it. He's an excellent brand identifier.
ah come on, you know you want to see Bayformers 3
Even the onion knows what the world feels for Mr. Bay
http://www.theonion.com/articl.....cats,2702/
Bay displeases everyone but his fans. What a loser.
It's Abrams.
You're being generous. He may be a halfway decent producer, but as a director, he should be dragged through broken glass for his work.
This sounds like a perfect movie for my girlfriend to take her 11 year old son to see while I stay home and play Xbox.
Jeez, a Spielberg-involved movie about an alien which I assume will have an uplifting ending. Color me shocked. That guy jumped the shark in the 80s (I wish it was with Jaws because that would make for an awesome meta-pun).
Incorrect, Jim. He did amazing work all the way up until Hook; some of it great, some of it just good. Do you forget Empire of the Sun? The Color Purple?
Even after Hook he did good work, and didn't really start to decline until A.I.. And even then his work is still better than many directors.
I don't think you realize how good of a director he was when he started out. Jaws and Raiders are masterpieces.
Empire of the Sun was an abomination - if you'd read the book prior to seeing it.
Wasn't Batman in that?
No, it was The Dark Knight. Jeez, ProL, why would you think Adam West was in that? Are you drunk?
What was that movie with the gun martial arts?
Equilibrium, that's it.
love that movie!
Speaking of the Dark Knight, Nolan might be the best director at present, at least in terms of major theatrical releases.
He does good work.
Nolan is quite good. So is Guillermo del Toro, and I really hope he does At the Mountains of Madness. Peter Jackson was great until King Kong.
Speaking of Jackson and del Toro, weren't there rumors that del Toro was going to steal The Hobbit?
He passed on The Hobbit after initially accepting it. Hopefully to do Mountains. He wasn't stealing it; Jackson just wanted to produce it and not direct it.
I liked AI up until the 2nd ending.
I agree with you about Jaws and Raiders, which is why I suppose I hold him to a higher standard than I do others. And I said, "In the 80s", so Empire is still covered.
It started getting too formulaic for me. I just don't think it was noticed en masse until the disaster of A.I.. The dude is obsessed with 1) aliens, and 2) retardedly happy endings. I can only take so much of that.
A.I. was godawful. Wonder what Kubrick would've done with it?
instead of gratious benefactors, the robots at the end would have been sex-crazed mechanical STEVE SMITHs.
A.I. directed by Kubrick will stand as one of the great cinematic 'what ifs'.
No goofy Robin Williams cartoon projection and no second, "happier" ending. It's pretty damn obvious throughout A.I. which parts are Kubrick and which parts are Spielberg.
FWIW, it appears the main plot was what Kubrick had mapped out. Here are a few interesting articles published prior to Spielberg making the film:
http://bit.ly/luq0Pk
http://bit.ly/jYIOoS
I think most of you may know this. But, Kubrick apparently asked Spielberg to direct A.I.
This is a quote from the second link:
Harlan maintains that Kubrick would certainly have returned to AI after Eyes Wide Shut. "He had no intention of dying, I assure you. But at one point, Stanley actually said to Spielberg: 'You would be the best guy to direct this film, I'll be the producer.' I can't tell you whether he would have directed it himself or given it to Spielberg. That was still very much a possibility."
When he lost his ability/desire to scare kids and instead wanted to coddle them (i.e. digitally remove shotguns from FBI agents' hands in the E.T. re-release) is when he started to suck.
"We're gonna need a bigger boat."
"We're gonna need a bigger boat."
I make my wife say that.
Trivia: the roar you hear when he's sinking at the end after having been blown up, is taken from Spielberg's first movie, Duel. It's the same sound used when the evil semi goes over a cliff.
I saw that. Dennis Weaver and a semi, right?
Duel is an underrated classic. I want Steven King to voluntarily pay more taxes everytime I see it. I also refuse to drive th 395 when heading to from L.A. to Tahoe, although that is also partly because I usually stop in Sac to carpool with some old college buddies.
I had that car, Plymouth Valiant with a 318.
Munich was not a retardedly happy ending. Although the orgasm-meets-murder montage was in some ways equally retardedly happy...
The dude is obsessed with 1) aliens, and 2) retardedly happy endings.
Not to mention his "absentee father" fetish.
AI's ending is one of the most profoundly disturbing fadeouts in cinema history. Only those who take the narration (and other fairytale references in the film) at face value can interpret it as a happy ending. AI, like Lynch's Mulholland Dr., was too bold, subtle and original in its visual construction for the literal-minded,of both high and low brow.
my former acting coach/director was in jaws. she was the one whose son was eaten off the raft and she slaps the police chief. incredible performance for an unknown amateur
No shit? You met that chick? That's pretty cool.
"My boy is dead now. And you knew."
yea, she was the person who really got me into theatre. she is one of those small town people who was perfectly comfortable with being a small town artist, direction local theatre etc. but that was actually imo as talented as anybody you'd see in hollywood.
when she finished that scene, seasoned veteran actors (roy scheider) etc. were floored at how she just nailed it like a total pro
Kyle Chandler must have the most punchable face in America. Go on, do the puppy dog eyes thing you c*nt.
Ha, funny you mentioned his punchable face. I just explained this to my wife the other night when I came across him promoting the movie on one of the late night shows.
Backpfeifengesicht.
however he has emotive hair
What was the last decent movie Spielberg made? I'm thinking Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Amistad was decent (1997).
I never saw that. My Matthew McConaughey aversion has served me well. He tried to ruin Contact, which was a decent film, for the most part.
You didn't enjoy Frailty?
One cannot enjoy what one does not perceive.
Frailty is pretty good. The real question is did you enjoy Dazed and Confused?
Contact sucked. Carl Sagan books don't make good movies. Maybe they can do Dragons of Eden for ultra stupidity.
It partially sucked. But there was some good in it.
Contact mega-sucked.
As a movie, yes, but I'm pretty perverse and therefore enjoyed it as a Jodie Foster vehicle. Mainly I liked the idea and the soundtrack and pleasing visuals. It did need less Mcconaughey.
maybe they could give it the star wars episode I treatment on the net and remove jar jar... i mean mcconaughey from the edited versio
I'm going to have to take How much did Contact suck? for 1000 Alex.
Personally I think Contact could've been greatly improved by sticking to the book's version of the end of the story.
Having seen the movie first, I was surprised that Sagan, of all people, went that route.
McConaghey is good at what he does, the heavily female demo romantic comedies that involve multiple shirtless scenes. I can't hate on that. As a serious actor, he is serviceable, but its not really the genre he excels at. At least he has a the greatest line in the history of cinema from Dazed and Confused on his resume.
Would that be, "That's what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age."
I remember liking Catch Me If You Can. Is my memory terrible?
I remember that being good entertainment.
I think Catch Me If You Can and
Weird. Lost the 2nd half of my comment.
Anyway, apart from the dumb bookend device, Saving Private Ryan was pretty good, too.
Best suggested title to date for a Human Centipede sequel:
Human Centipede: The Fellowship Of The Ring
Lol. You filthy, filthy SOB!
Guilty as charged. 🙂
TCM is showing Them!. Now there's some good sci fi.
Damn, wish I was home to see it. That is a classic.
Make me a sergeant in charge of the booze! Make me a sergeant in charge of the booze!
As I Lost fan I was high on Abrams until he ruined Star Trek. I'm not sure if I can bring myself to watch this.
I'm going to assume by "ruined" you mean "made the only good version of" for your benefit.
I don't think AI was terrible it just impossibly high expectations, and that weird ending.
I'm guessing some of you have seen the Plinkett reviews of the last five Star Trek movies?
If not, check them out. They're hilarious:
http://bit.ly/fR1BA8
The Star Wars prequel & Avatar reviews are good, too.
I'm guessing some of you have seen the Plinkett reviews of the last five Star Trek movies?
If not, check them out. They're hilarious:
http://bit.ly/fR1BA8
The Star Wars prequel & Avatar reviews are good, too.
Ack! Double post. Stupid network connection. Guess I'm not drinking enough.
My humblest apologies.
That was actually very insightful.
Plinkett's reviews are often better than the movies.
Abrams turned Star Trek into a Star Wars clone, that's not in of itself bad, but it's hardly what made classic Star Trek appealing.
At least Wrath of Khan and First Contact had serious thematic depth to it and believable characters (Kirk's midlife crisis and Picard's Ahab-like quest for revenge are compelling stories for those familiar with both characters). Can you honestly say that any of the actors in the new movie look like they could be naval officers in command of a flagship?
And AI was okay, but in retrospect I would have loved to have seen Kubrick direct it.
It is NOT a Star Wars clone except in the sense that Star Trek now has real cinematography thanks to Abrams. I don't know about the characters being in command of a flagship in real life, I'm not in the Navy. But they were great onscreen and that's really all that matters.
watch out for that lens flare.
Abrams Star Trek had good casting (except for John Cho who shouldn't be "acting"), but that was about it. An incoherent story, a completely unbelievable bad guy and GAH I'M BLIND lens flare was all it had to offer.
He wanted to create a Star Trek for the vapid twenty-something set. He got that part right at least.
I don't get what's wrong with the story and I found the bad guy alright. Newsflash: "philosophical heft" of earlier Trek movies one of the reasons they sucked. Nobody wants or wanted that ham-handed bullshit getting in the way.
Yeah, God forbid the characters pause and fucking think, no, that's demanding far too much of the audience. We just need a more loud explosions and dialogue that only provides exposition rather than character development.
Seriously, I liked Star Trek better when it balanced the action with genuine character development, like Picard quoting Moby-Dick when he realizes that his obsession with destroying the Borg will ultimately destroy him. That's good theatre right there and it's sad if most moviegoers can't appreciate it.
You do realize that the same pair of talent-less schmucks that wrote the Baytastic! Transformer movies wrote the script to Star Trek, right? RIGHT?
Because that really didn't come through in ST, so it was very easy to miss. /sarc
I'll even go so far as admitting that the first 8 minutes of Star Trek were pretty damn good.
It kinda went completely to shit after that.
I don't get what's wrong with the story and I found the bad guy alright.
What's that? What's wrong with it?
well, they both had cantina scenes... w/aliens
best version was robot chicken
Is it really so much to ask that they update the special effects AND maintain some of the philosophical gravitas that made the series intellectually satisfying?
that gravitas came from the fine mind of gene roddenberry, and of course it was informed by his years of experience as an LAPD cop.
the original star trek WAS "cops in space" not to be confused with Pigs In Space of course
"Cops in Space" is a perfect summation of why I never liked Star Trek. At least something interesting happens on "Cops".
A review of the STAR TREK reboot from the team over at "Destinies: The Voice Of Science Fiction."
Dude. Plinkett. Star Trek. That is all.
Word.
Fuck Picard! That overbearing Kantian bullshit gets tiresome after about half an episode.
Sorry. This got nested strangely. It's in response to a comment way up-thread. But, still, fuck Picard!
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing. I will necessarily add it in the selected works and I will visit this site.
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing. I will necessarily add it in the selected works and I will visit this site.
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing. I will necessarily add it in the selected works and I will visit this site.
In Britain, advertising on political websites carries several penalties; $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in fines, 942,545,732,536,345,234,563,463,523,575,476 years in prison, and forcible castration.
Starting with TNG, Star Trek was the story of a Marxist shit-for-brains society performing gentle fellatio on socialistic and authoritarian ideals and sympathies in every episode.
But the only Trek that was unwatchable for me was Voyager. Enterprise was pretty mediocre, but you could watch it -- Voyager, on the other hand, was pretty terrible. Janeway was perhaps the most sanctimonious, preachy bitch in the history of protagonists.
Voyager, on the other hand, was pretty terrible. Janeway was perhaps the most sanctimonious, preachy bitch in the history of protagonists.
Well, there was one reason to watch it.
THAT'S TWO REASONS, YOU INNUMERATE FOOL!
Actually, I can think of 4 or 5.
It can be argued that Obama is president because of Jeri Ryan. She was once married to, and divorced, Jack Ryan, who ran for the senate against Obama. The polling between Ryan and Obama was about even--but then the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal Jack Ryan's divorce case. Her _allegations_ such as Jack Ryan taking her to sex clubs, were reported to the press, and that sunk his candidacy
Well when you think about it, the society depicted has solved the problem of scarcity (they have food replicators and presumably unlimited power capacity since they can do interstellar travel). Since scarcity is no longer the driving force behind the assessment of value, it logically follows that everyone can have whatever they want. It's not anti-capitlaist per se, just a vision of a post-capitalist society.
Although Roddenberry was definitely a pinko that actively opposed any attempt to depict the Federation in a darker light, which is why DS9 is my favorite series since after Roddenberry's death the writers were given more free hand to explore deeper, darker themes.
That's the thing -- instead of exploring what a post-capitalist society could possibly be, TNG sinks into quasi-communistic bullshit. It's fucking ridiculous. Voyager was like the Democratic National Convention every time dialog occurred.
Roddenberry was a hardcore social democrat (if I recall correctly, he sympathized with communists' motivations and then took it back in major interviews).
And I agree -- the great thing about Benjamin Sisko is that he didn't take any shit. He was an apolitical military man who couldn't give less a fuck about this squabble here, that squabble there, and he didn't spend every moment of dialog with other characters reciting the Communist Manifesto.
Duel & Jaws are the only good things that Spielberg turned out. He's a predictable hack, part of the wave of bad Hollywood films that we've been stuck with since the abomination of Star Wars.
Also, antimatter was necessary for power in Star Trek, so it's not unlimited.
I forgot what the fuel to produce it was called, but either way, they needed to resupply.
Dilithium crystals?
I loved the kid-drama. It reminded me of other fun movies like the Goonies and the surprisingly terrifying first half of the made for TV movie, Stephen King's IT.
I really wanted to like this film as it also had many elements from the old 50's monster movies...namely 1953's Invaders from Mars.
But alas, I didn't like this film very much.
Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
For me, there wasn't enough Sci Fi to be interesting (and what little there was seemed to be lifted straight out of Transformers)
The creature wasn't humane enough to gain my sympathy.
The creature wasn't scary enough to gain my fear.
The kids were all fun, very well cast and for the most part, very believable. But the Deus Ex Machina ending, numerous plot holes and unexciting "action" sequences left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
For the record, I know the creature is not *supposed* to be Cloverfield Monster Junior, but it did seem like it.
I loved the kid-drama. It reminded me of other fun movies like the Goonies and the surprisingly terrifying first half of the made for TV movie, Stephen King's IT.
I really wanted to like this film as it also had many elements from the old 50's monster movies...namely 1953's Invaders from Mars.
But alas, I didn't like this film very much.
Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
For me, there wasn't enough Sci Fi to be interesting (and what little there was seemed to be lifted straight out of Transformers)
The creature wasn't humane enough to gain my sympathy.
The creature wasn't scary enough to gain my fear.
The kids were all fun, very well cast and for the most part, very believable. But the Deus Ex Machina ending, numerous plot holes and unexciting "action" sequences left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
For the record, I know the creature is not *supposed* to be Cloverfield Monster Junior, but it did seem like it.
For me, there wasn't enough Sci Fi to be interesting
For me, there wasn't enough Sci Fi to be interesting
Kurt says that us older viewers "may leave theaters with an enlarged appreciation of the [Spielberg]'s induplicable wonders."
Induplicable? Did anyone else miss the fact that the end sequence of the alien taking off was E.T. almost shot for shot? "Surprisingly" peaceful alien takes off in his ship just long enough to cut to emotional close-ups of all of the characters in the town that have been affected by his presence. Please.
I saw it yesterday. I have to admit that I never expected to hear "My Sharona" or "Don't Bring Me Down" again in my life, but there they were.
Don't leave too early, while the credits are rolling; you'll miss something fun.
It was good in the first hour. It was pretty schmaltzy in the last half-hour.
Overall, I'd give it 3 stars, maybe even 3-1/2.
On second thought, no more than 3 stars.
is good
I am an aspiring architect and I am appalled