Escape to the Movies: Super 8

[Jabberwock xeno]

I remember seeing an interactive trailer for this is in Portal 2. I have to say, it didn't interest me too much.
*sigh* Yet another apartment space in Nostalgia City.

Wait, what in portal 2?


Anyways, i'm disappointed.

I REALLY, REALLY liked cloverfield, (American version of the original godzilla, with 9/11 instead of the atom bomb, and from a human POV? HELL YEAH!) and I recall Moviebob saying he liked it to (That'd be a good review for a slow movie week), but I guess my hope this would be the same type of thing was misplaced.

*sigh*

 

[Dana22]

First heard about this film from interactive trailer in Portal 2. I looked forward to see it from then on. And I'll still probably do.

 

[Cormitt]

Having just left the theatre.. Super 8 ... MEH!! And like Bob I'm the target audience for this. It reminded me of a mash up of a malevolent Close Encouters of the Third Kind and E.T. With all the cinematography of the Chris Columbus films.

I enjoyed it strictly because it was an homage to the movies I grew up with. Without this frame of reference. Not sure it's worth the price of a movie ticket. But that's probably just an old guy talking.

EDIT: Oh ya. Almost forgot. Bob was, if anything, understating the use of lens flares in the movie. So if you've watched the review already as I'm sure most of you have, you'll notice it even more when you sit in the theatre. I sure did.

 

[Avistew]

Am I the only person who knew the flare was part of the video? My reaction was "What the hell? I hope he removes it soon, what's he doing that for?". You certainly made your point at any rate, it was really annoying.

I wasn't too interested in the movie so I guess after the review I'm more interested (since apparently it has some very good parts), but not enough to pay 10 bucks to see it. I'll probably wait until it's on TV or at the library or something.

 

[rickthetrick]

True, JJ loves his lens flares. I once tried a drinking game where you take a shot every time a lens flare comes up in Star Trek. Needless to say, it only lasted about 2 minutes before someone realized it would straight-up kill us.

It would be impossible to fill the shots that fast.

OT: I am Disappoint.
Well I guess I can only blame myself for getting hyped to see An ET tribute.

"..and sometimes he would drive."

 

[cahtush]

it did have a good interaktive marketing thingey in Portal 2 though. It really scared me

 

[silent_noir_67]

When I saw the teaser trailer for this movie (it basically involved the train crashing, the door breaking open and the truck driving onto the tracks) it looked like an interesting movie. As soon as the trailers started to have personality disorder on what kind of film it wanted to be (nostalgia, thriller, government conspiracy), that's where my interest started to die...

I was also turned by the scene when the glass breaks in the story and the shelf stocker gets dragged out of view...recycling Cloverfield footage are we?

I enjoyed Cloverfield but I had no clue who J.J Abrams was when I saw it (never seen lost) and Super 8 just seems to draw a bit too much on the standard "don't tell the audience shit" formula.

 

[Tdc2182]

I thought something was wrong wuth my computer on the lens flare part.

 

[Deadman Walkin]

Thank you so much for the Kung Pow reference, I have ALWAYS loved that movie and it is hilarious!

 

[SaunaKalja]

Seems like quite a few people thought their monitors were dying. I sure as hell thought so.

 

[Zolem]

That was actually the first time I've heard the Kung-POW joke. I'm sure I'll see a lot more of it though.

Also, I thought something was wrong with my monitor with all that lens flare.

 

[PunkRex]

HOHOHO You older folks and your love for ET... I hated that little turd monster.

 

[TheSchaef]

Leaves me where I typically find myself with Abrams: on the fence.

Now, I'm a big Abrams guy; I was late to the party but I watched Alias in reruns and I'm trying to keep Fringe from falling off my radar when I have busy Fridays. And I know this will make me a Bob-postate, but I loved the new Trek film. Yes it was an ensemble piece and Kirk, instead of being the centerpiece, is probably the least iconic character in the main cast; I was more compelled by Pike. Yes, the science was kinda dumb: supernovas destroying planets light-years away, and weird time compression where Spock can go all the way to Vulcan, build a ship, come back but be too late, but come across Nero, but the black hole is still there and it throws him back in time and oh dear I've gone cross-eyed. But just like the way he describes this film, there are some great moments that highlight the film and a lot of the characterization is well-written and tremendously-acted.

It's like having a wife who's like a 5 or a 6; she's pretty enough and she raised a great family and you know you'll walk through fire to make her happy. But if someone points out that she has no chest, or she could use a little makeup to bring out her best features, it's not like you can honestly DISagree, but you sure as hell better not be caught agreeing, either.

That's what I have: a silver-medal marriage to J.J. Abrams movies.

So now I'm kinda torn on whether to see this or not. I probably won't be able to say that Bob is WRONG about his critiques, but chances are I'll see it anyway, and if I like it enough, forgive a lot of its flaws.

The lens flare concerns me. It may have been a mistake to tell Abrams it "worked" in the Trek movie, you know, making it all washed-out and in-the-moment looking... but he used the exact maximum amount of the technique that you can cram into the movie and not just be like, okay, enough already, knock it off. But now, having been told it works, he must have decided, the only thing that can make it better is to have even more! But I'm not sure 1979 Podunktown is the right setting for that kind of lighting as opposed to a sterile 23rd century space vessel.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

WiiU WiiU WiiU WiiU WiiU WiiU WiiU WiiU WiiU WiiU

Okay, got that out of my system.



Overall, about what I expected, if a little more polarized. I expected the "trials and tribulations of the kids" story arc to be the highlight, and the "monster/alien coverup" to be the letdown, but not as extreme as Bob paints it to be. Perhaps that just the "I have opinions for a living" side of him talking, and making the opinions a smidgen more extreme than they ought to be, but I suppose I'll have to see for my self to decide.


Also: the lens flare thing totally had me going for a few seconds. I was looking around for my gf to be pointing a flashlight at the screen, and rewound the video a bit to make sure it wasn't just me. Happy to report it didn't take TOO long for me to "see what you did there"

 

[Vandenberg1]

I was worried when I saw the first lens flare, I thought my monitor was starting to die or something. Nice visual gag, Bob. :-D

Seriously!! I thought some deuch might of put his feet on my laptop oe something lol. Welllll I WAS KINDA HOPING IT BE The Iron Giant or something but nooo... Oh well.

 

[Genixma]

In the Jungle the Mighty Jungle the Lion Sleeps tonight WiiUUUUUUUUUUU

Moving on.

All hail the mighty Suit!

Really moving on.

The trailers of this movie made me feel like it was trying to be Inception. It gave me no real interest to look into it because it just went. "Hey watch this truck run into this train and cause a random accident, see these kids these are the characters, heres some random stuff also going on. And done. Hope you come see Super 8" and I'm just sitting dumbfounded thinking "What did I watch and why did it matter?"

 

[Scrythe]

I thought he was just being cheeky with the lens flare gag, until after it was over and I witnessed a digitally imposed lens flare OFF THE LITTLE GIRL'S NOSE. That doesn't even begin to make sense! I can imagine J.J. Abrams in the editing room, pointing at various points in the movies screaming "LENS FLARE! LENS FLARE! LEEEEENS FLAAAAARE!"

J.J. Abrams is becoming to lens flares what Micheal Bay is to excessive explosions and sunset shots, or Zack Snyder to ramping, or the Cohen brothers to pretentious misanthropy and overrated films.

The worst part is that cameras nowadays have special lenses and whatnot that are specifically design to reduce lens flares. That means thousands of dollars are spent going back and digitally adding these effects, JUST BECAUSE. There's no reason for it, other than to give your audience seizures and migranes.