- Thread starter
- #2,801
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh I see the problem... I'm talking about X-Men: FC and you're talking about Super 8. I was wondering how there could be such a discrepancy. :ha:
Brick.
Kinda strange but good. Almost like a high school drug war parody or something. I'm a big Levitt fan. Kid's got some skills.
How is saying the Super 8 monster is nothing like the Coverfield thing a spoiler. Did I let everyone know what the creature isn't?
Hey guys it is not a 25ft tall land dolphin either. Sorry spoiler alert!
Seriously don't understand how you dislike the marketing. Would you rather see everything in the trailer? Should Taco Bell have come out with the Super 8 taco combo box with a special unnamed alien edition Mountain Dew flavor?
I can understand your dislike of certain parts and I also clearly stated the movie is far from perfect. Could it have been more complex? Yea. Could we have gotten a little more back story? Yea. There wasn't any suspense and it wasn't particularly scary. None of these things ruined the movie. In my opinion it is almost a kids movie. I just enjoyed it and understand what Abrams was trying to do. Super 8 had it's faults but it came together well.
It is just a summer movie. I won't be talking about it come Oscar time and it will not be on any top 10 list. It is an entertaining popcorn eating movie.
Lol my bad. Yea actually X-men had some questionable special effects.
I actually saw the movie again the other day. Slightly more retarded the second time. I did notice some problems with the CG and the red guy did look a little silly. Beast looked silly. Still a fun summer movie and better than the others but that ain't saying a lot.
I haven't seen it yet so I really can't comment on the CGI (but I can agree Beast looked pretty ridiculous in the trailers). But the budget was $160 million so they had plenty of money.
I wrote Super 8 off as soon as I heard J.J. Abram's name was attached. I LOATHE Lost and Cloverfield.
Star Trek was cool, though. I wasn't expecting much but he did a good job with it.
Uhh, seeing how I'm right, you kinda did... again... and while doing so, you managed to also spoil the monster in the Cloverfield for those who haven't seen it. Good job, bro!
I see Abrams' genius work is having an influence on the fanboys. :brow:
Where did I describe the creature in either film? Spoilers avoided. You can get pics of both online now and see them side by side. They do not look the same.
As for Abrams fanboys I don't know anything about that.
Cloverfield was average.
Star Trek was okay.
Super 8 was good.
Lost sucks.
Not a fan but he has potential.
You can get pics of both online now and see them side by side.
Find me a good screenshot of the monster in Super 8 then, and if people agree with you that they aren't remarkably similar, then I'll let it go.
Turned out to be difficult on a cell phone... hope nobody saw that lol.
It was up for a sec.
Speaking of "hope nobody saw that" I definitely failed for a sec and accidentally posted the links as images on here before quickly deleting my post. And this is after calling you out for posting spoilers, what an a** I would have looked like...
Super 8 - At its core, the film is a throw-back to Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment films of the early/mid 80s. Much like the Grindhouse homage trend of recent years, Abrams seems intent on creating a story that wants to capture the Amblin atmosphere, while still trying to capture the scares of early Spielberg forays of horror, namely Jaws and Poltergeist. It's an interesting avenue, and could have been an ambitious and worth-while ride. But in this viewer's eyes, Abrams falls well short.
First, I want to say what goes well. The performances are good, perhaps very good at certain times. Seeing kids act in films like this as an adult can often tarnish the experience, simply because most of the allure and connection is lost on older audiences. But all the kids, particularly Elle Fanning, give believable and likeable performances. Kyle Chandler also gives a nuanced effort as a struggling father trying to reconnect with a wounded son, but is criminally underused in the final act.
Sadly, the performances are the only strength I can honestly highlight. I am known as a feverish critic of too-much CGI in modern genre-films. I thought CGI was utilized in a way to appease the masses, and I thought this was a poor decision in a film that wants to pay homage to a generation that minimized computer effects. A word to Mr. Abrams - less is more. I also didn't enjoy the monster design, and thought it was a throw-away effort in what turned out to be somewhat important character role (unlike, say, Cloverfield, where the monster was just there to create havoc).
But the biggest problem I had was the lack of voice in a film that is desperately screaming for one at every turn. This is one of the finest examples of a '00 film's tendency to try too hard to write a love letter to directors and movies that modern directors grew up on. Abrams sticks religiously to a script that has already been done vastly better by artists that are brave enough to take risks. I can think of a great deal of directors in the same era of Spielberg that tried exactly that (see Joe Dante's Gremlins or even Jackson's early Bad Taste. Instead of creating his own atmosphere and adventure that draws what works from his influences, he has made a film that seems like a bland crash-course in how to create a coming-of-age science fiction children-friendly movie. Anyone who has seen The Goonies or ET could tell you what would happen, from beginning, middle to end. Abrams doesn't know if he wants to make this humorous, terrifying, prolific, or thrilling, and in the end, it rarely dabbles in any of these categories.
In closing, I think this is a film that will do well with people who are not well-versed in Spielberg classics, as many of the borrowed and obvious influences will seem fresh and interesting. Likewise, I could see a lot of people aged 7-14 really liking the premise and execution. But for someone who grew up on many an Amblin production, I simply found myself watching a movie I've seen countless times before, and quite frankly, executed a lot better.
3/5
Thank you! lol
You can read my full review if you want a few pages back, you pretty much said what I said with better terminology. I'm glad to see at least another person wanted a little originality from this. You can pay homage to someone all you want and still bring something fresh.
You might not go this far, but to me, Super 8 was the same damn movie as Cloverfield but with some heart and soul added. Honestly, if Cloverfield was never made, I would actually give Super 8 a pretty high rating, probably a 8/10.
I'll say this though, Abrams did much better with when to reveal the monster in this one, so I'll give him some credit for not dragging it out to the point where you don't care anymore like he did in Cloverfield.
If you ever seen Friday Night Lights, you'll know Kyle Chandler is a great actor. And I completely agree that he was horribly underused in the final act. The few scenes with him and his kid were one of the few things I thoroughly enjoyed about the movie.