Super 8 - Is it going to be 'Magical'?
- Thread starter tmnt
- Start date
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
They've certainly got the look and feel of it down, if the movie itself is anything like the trailers.
Although I'm a bit sad it doesn't have Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall or John Williams.
Although I'm a bit sad it doesn't have Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall or John Williams.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I'm horrible with predicting movies success from trailers....
I thought AI was going to be Spielberg's new ET from viewing the trailers - WRONG!
I thought Titanic would be a Titanic flop from viewing the trailers - WRONG!
That being said, when I saw the trailer for this last week at the theatre - I thought "WOW...I really think this could be a new Close Encounters meets ET....a smash hit!"
With my record, don't bet on it.
I thought AI was going to be Spielberg's new ET from viewing the trailers - WRONG!
I thought Titanic would be a Titanic flop from viewing the trailers - WRONG!
That being said, when I saw the trailer for this last week at the theatre - I thought "WOW...I really think this could be a new Close Encounters meets ET....a smash hit!"
With my record, don't bet on it.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
I don't care if it's successful or not, as long as it's good and as long as it isn't my film.
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
I saw the new trailer this week, and I'm actually interested in seeing it. It reminded me of E.T. and Goonies, basically 80s movies Spielberg either directed and/or produced.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
Early buzz is good: http://www.slashfilm.com/early-buzz-jj-abrams-super-8/
Loved it, they don’t make these types of movies anymore. The best thing I can say about the film is that I loved the characters/setting/tone so much that I probably would have enjoyed it just as much as a Stand By Me-like coming of age drama without the sci-fi/train crash/action. Its one of those films that feels like it was made just for me. (someone asked if its more E.T. or Cloverfield, I responded: It’s Cloverfield with the characters and setting of E.T.
Loved it, they don’t make these types of movies anymore. The best thing I can say about the film is that I loved the characters/setting/tone so much that I probably would have enjoyed it just as much as a Stand By Me-like coming of age drama without the sci-fi/train crash/action. Its one of those films that feels like it was made just for me. (someone asked if its more E.T. or Cloverfield, I responded: It’s Cloverfield with the characters and setting of E.T.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
Any fan of Abrams should really check out this article on him in the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/magazine/filmmaker-j-j-abrams-is-a-crowd-teaser.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/magazine/filmmaker-j-j-abrams-is-a-crowd-teaser.html
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I am not a fan of Abrams but this film looks too be amazing; can't wait too see this.
dust'n the callipygous
Well-known member
Just got back from an early screening in IMAX. It was fantastic.The action sequences were incredible, and the character development was perfect. I love the interactions between all the kids. Really felt like old Spielberg movies. Had a lot of elements of ET, Close Encounters, and definitely The Goonies (I know he didn't direct that one, but he had a big hand in it). The characters honestly didn't have much to do with the overall plot, but it was still great. Go see it. I think it's easily one of the best this year.
Last edited:
Rippie
Veteran
I'm sure I'll get blasted but I just got back from seeing it and I was less than impressed.
Technically? sure it looked great. great set design. (only thing I hated was the over used star trek lens flare crap)
Story..wow what a disappointment to me. Barely any story.
Visually - 9/10
Story - 4/10
Obviously just my opinion.
Technically? sure it looked great. great set design. (only thing I hated was the over used star trek lens flare crap)
Story..wow what a disappointment to me. Barely any story.
Visually - 9/10
Story - 4/10
Obviously just my opinion.
Batutta
Major Contributor
This movie was no Close Encounters or E.T., but then again few movies are. On its own terms I give it a B minus. What was good about it? The kids actors were all excellent, and getting good performances from kids, some of them novices, isn't easy. Whatever is in those Fanning genes needs to be studied by scientists and cloned because Ellie is just as talented as her sister. There were a few effectively staged set pieces, especially the train crash, and what's not to love seeing about kids making movies on their own with threadbare equipment. The characters were all easy to identify with on that level. My biggest criticism, and it's one many reviewers have mentioned, is that it feels like two different movies mashed together. I think that's more a failing of the writing, not the concept. The concept is good. The main mistake in the storytelling is that for too long the kids don't take any initiative to figure out the central mystery of the film.
SPOLIERS
The lead kid spends like 40 minutes of the movie in possession of this weird alien cube, but he barely takes notice of it. When he finally does, it vanishes. The kids spend most of the film being pushed around by the events and don't really take any of their own initiative until almost the third act. And then it's only because the girl gets kidnapped by the monster. They were never interested in solving the mystery out of curiosity, which is what drove a lot of Spielberg's protagonists in those 80's Amblin movies this film aspired to. If JJ hadn't made so much out of declaring his influences on this film and the level it aspired to, I wouldn't measure his film against those. But he has done so, so I think it's fair game. For a film that is supposed to be an homage to Spielberg's early works, Super 8 is surprisingly short on the feeling of wonder. To answer the thread question, no, I didn't find it very magical. That elevated feeling of open-mouthed awe one feels at the climax of Close Encounters, or those moments of child like wonder in E.T., get little play here. Partly it's the way they wrote the script, but I also think it's because JJ's temperament as a filmmaker is a bit too hyper to achieve that emotion. He doesn't have the patience to build a moment, everything is either short narrative moments or a heedless rush of action. If you've ever seen him speak, that's no surprise, as he makes Scorsese sound like Droopy dog. At most, we get JJ's patented technique where the natural sound levels are lowered, characters exchange weepy eyed looks and Michael Giacchino's uplifting strings surge on the soundtrack. I also wasn't too crazy about the cinematography. It tried but it didn't quite get the feeling of early 80's anamorphic productions, even with the lens flares. Also, some fleeting night shots looked plain crappy, like they were brightened too much in the color timing. And JJ is still using too many damn close ups. For the first 20 minutes of the film I felt like I was watching a television show. I guess this is kind of like his Star Trek. It's diverting enough while you're watching it, moves like a son of a *****, and trades on some cheap feelings of nostalgia, but the more you examine it the more it falls apart.
SPOLIERS
The lead kid spends like 40 minutes of the movie in possession of this weird alien cube, but he barely takes notice of it. When he finally does, it vanishes. The kids spend most of the film being pushed around by the events and don't really take any of their own initiative until almost the third act. And then it's only because the girl gets kidnapped by the monster. They were never interested in solving the mystery out of curiosity, which is what drove a lot of Spielberg's protagonists in those 80's Amblin movies this film aspired to. If JJ hadn't made so much out of declaring his influences on this film and the level it aspired to, I wouldn't measure his film against those. But he has done so, so I think it's fair game. For a film that is supposed to be an homage to Spielberg's early works, Super 8 is surprisingly short on the feeling of wonder. To answer the thread question, no, I didn't find it very magical. That elevated feeling of open-mouthed awe one feels at the climax of Close Encounters, or those moments of child like wonder in E.T., get little play here. Partly it's the way they wrote the script, but I also think it's because JJ's temperament as a filmmaker is a bit too hyper to achieve that emotion. He doesn't have the patience to build a moment, everything is either short narrative moments or a heedless rush of action. If you've ever seen him speak, that's no surprise, as he makes Scorsese sound like Droopy dog. At most, we get JJ's patented technique where the natural sound levels are lowered, characters exchange weepy eyed looks and Michael Giacchino's uplifting strings surge on the soundtrack. I also wasn't too crazy about the cinematography. It tried but it didn't quite get the feeling of early 80's anamorphic productions, even with the lens flares. Also, some fleeting night shots looked plain crappy, like they were brightened too much in the color timing. And JJ is still using too many damn close ups. For the first 20 minutes of the film I felt like I was watching a television show. I guess this is kind of like his Star Trek. It's diverting enough while you're watching it, moves like a son of a *****, and trades on some cheap feelings of nostalgia, but the more you examine it the more it falls apart.
Rippie
Veteran
What I don't get are the overwhelmingly positive reviews out there like it's the greatest
movie of the past decade.
Was the marketing on such a level of genius that it brainwashed most critics out there
into believing they were going to love it no matter what, for the soul reason of
"it's just like a classic Spielberg movie, it's nostalgic, it's just like a classic Spielberg movie..." ?
movie of the past decade.
Was the marketing on such a level of genius that it brainwashed most critics out there
into believing they were going to love it no matter what, for the soul reason of
"it's just like a classic Spielberg movie, it's nostalgic, it's just like a classic Spielberg movie..." ?