Review: Super 8
The following review will be revealing a pretty well-known (by now) plot
development in the film, so I’ll give a **** SPOILER WARNING **** from
here on out, anyone who hasn’t seen the film is best advised to read this
later.
I had been wanting to see this 2011 J.J. Abrams (“Star Trek”, TV’s
“Lost”) flick ever since I first heard about it. It looked like a really
enjoyable modern blend of Spielbergian films like “The Goonies” (which he
produced) and “E.T: The Extra Terrestrial”. It would appear that
something has gone wrong. Perhaps Abrams simply isn’t close to being on
Spielberg’s level as a filmmaker (few are), or maybe his style of filmmaking
isn’t compatible with Spielberg’s. Or perhaps Abrams is more a fan of “Close
Encounters” than he is of “E.T.”, but whatever the reason, this film
just isn’t fun (certainly not as much fun as “E.T.” or “Jaws”).
Abrams brings up familiar Spielberg trappings and characters (broken families,
etc.), but with none of the sense of awe, innocence, or adventure that marked
many of Spielberg’s best films. Fans of “Close Encounters” might enjoy
it more (I never really liked that one), but for the most part, the closest
this film gets to “E.T.” is the Amblin Entertainment logo at the
beginning of the film (Spielberg produced the film).
Aside from maybe Elle Fanning, none of the young actors has an ounce of
charisma (lead actor Joel Courtney is particularly uninteresting in his feature
debut), and Abrams’ script doesn’t bother to give any of the characters beyond
Kyle Chandler and Joel Courtney’s an ounce of depth. Compare that to the likes
of Henry Thomas and Drew Barrymore in “E.T.” or the easily
distinguishable brood in “The Goonies”, and this film just doesn’t stack
up (Fanning does, however, look more like Drew than her own sister Dakota
Fanning if you ask me and her squeal sure is familiar). You’ve got the girl,
the fat kid, the little one, the lead character, etc. They don’t go beyond that
one dimension, the way the kids in “The Goonies” eventually did (With
the advantage of a charismatic cast, admittedly). The kids in this film talk
too loudly over the top of one another if you ask me, especially early on.
They’re a little annoying and pretty uninteresting, with Ron Eldard also
miscast as the mopey town drunk, and Noah Emmerich too obviously cast.
It’s as if Abrams has grown up watching all of Spielberg’s films (whether
as director or producer) and failed to learn a damn thing from them. The
Spielberg film it most closely resembles is actually “War of the Worlds”
(co-starring Dakota Fanning), only not nearly as effective as that underrated
film was.
Contrary to popular opinion (in a review that is entirely contrary to
popular opinion, I suppose), the film actually gets better as it goes along and
the action kicks in. From that standpoint, it’s a well-directed film. The
spectacular train crash early on, however, is ridiculous, despite great sound
FX. I mean, why were the kids heading towards it? Who would do that? No one,
outside of a movie. The ending, however, is appalling (What is it with Abrams
and shit endings to supernaturally-tinged stories?). Aside from a cute
Spielbergian in-joke, it comes across as overly sappy given the destruction and
death that has preceded it. We’re meant to feel sympathy for the alien despite
it killing lots of people? Not buying it.
The film does have its moments, and I especially liked the cinematography
by Larry Fong (“Sucker Punch”) and the strong music score by Abrams
regular Michael Giacchino (“Star Trek”, “Up”). The alien looks
terrific, in my opinion. It looks unlike anything on Earth (a pet peeve of mine
with these kinds of things), until you get a close-up of its face and it’s
unmistakably familiar, but in a fun in-joke kinda way (especially when you find
out what it really wants). I applaud Abrams for learning from Spielberg in
obscuring our view of it for so long, though it takes far too long for the main
thrust of the film to kick in. By then, I was bored.
It’s a lot darker than I was expecting, but that in and of itself isn’t
necessarily a problem. It’s just that there’s very little depth to it, very
little in the way of wonderment, and certainly lacking in adventure. Maybe my
expectations are unfair, but I call it as I see it, and this film greatly
disappointed me. I don’t think I’ve been this disappointed with a movie since
(ironically enough) Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park”. Who was Abrams aiming
this film at? It certainly doesn’t seem like it would appeal to kids, and the
tone even alienated me at age 32.
I’m sorry, but the best part of this film is the faux Super-8 film the
kids make, which we see over the end credits of the film. It has the sense of
fun that this film overall sorely lacks. Nostalgia is great and all, but I’d
rather re-visit “E.T.” or “The Goonies” (or “Gremlins”, “Explorers”,
or even “War of the Worlds”) than sit through Abrams’ botch-job homage.
Rating: C+
I would give this film a C-. I agree that the ties to the old Spielberg films is obvious, but it fails to make you feel for the characters in a typical Spielberg movie. My co-worker at Dish said there might be a sequel, and I will probably check it out. I just watched this on Dish Online, and there were many scenes that I missed from the theaters, so it's nice to go back and re-watch those little moments.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the characters just didn't resonate for me at all. I certainly wouldn't rush to see a sequel.
ReplyDelete