Spielberg 2.0

Rating: 7/10 (30 August 2011)

The more I think about "Super 8," the more disappointed with the movie I get. By no means was it a terrible film but it did try to pass itself off as a homage to Spielberg classics we all grew up with and still enjoy. When you're setting the bar that high you better know you're going to reach it. Sadly, while the film may have been directed by J.J. Abrams, an obvious and laudable choice for the undertaking, Super 8 is a good film, not the experience I was hoping for.
The film follows the grief stricken Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), his Deputy Sheriff father (Kyle Chandler) and his small group of young troublemaking friends who are trying to make a cheap zombie flick with a super 8 camera. Joe and his hardworking father have become overwhelmed by the death of the family matriarch only a few short months ago and both are introduced as distant. Meanwhile Joe's best friend Charles (Riley Griffith) has become convinced that his film would have more resonance if a love interest was added (oh how cleverly they break the fourth wall). He then recruits Sally (Elle Fanning), the young and very cute daughter of the town drunk who also has friction with Deputy Lamb. They sneak off to the train station to shoot a pivotal scene and witness a terrific train derailment. Out of the wreckage a mysterious creature escapes into the nearby woods and shortly afterward, strange things start to happen around town. Metallic parts and then people start to disappear as the army descends on Anytown U.S.A.. The kids however are on the case.
Everything in this film is filled to the brim with top of the line special effects and old fashioned storytelling. But while the story is told coherently it does seem to run on a mechanical heart. Take for example the opening sequence. Most of the characters gather at Mrs. Lamb's wake where an altercation occurs between Joe and Sally's fathers. What is wrong with this scene? Nothing really, but the fact that you know and I know this scene was meant to coax us to emotionally invest in the main character just feels unnatural and heartless. Its almost like padding until we get to the good stuff. The same is true with most scenes meant to evoke anything other than suspense. In another pivotal scene Joe tells his father he hates him. We've seen it before, we know we've seen it before yet its there because it has to be. The filmmakers seem to be asking "why bother making it interesting?" I blame this partially on the writing which bares its mechanics like so much exposed wiring. The stereotypical patterns of exposition, set up, foreshadowing etc. all appear with the same obviousness and lack of enchantment. I just couldn't help but thinking, "I should be scared here, I should be sad here, I should be laughing here" instead of "I am, sad, happy or on the edge of my seat." The only time I genuinely lost myself was during the train crash which managed to send tingles down my spine despite having seen it on the trailer countless times.
Maybe one of the reasons, I couldn't get into it was the cinematography that J.J. Abrams constantly employs. While the light flairs and tracking shots worked to give "Star Trek" a glossy veneer, it was too distracting in "Super 8". Or maybe it was the fact that a lot of characters acted as plot devices rather than real people with motivations. Or maybe it was the unsubtle military bashing.
Either way, I still enjoyed myself. The characters are fun, the story is told well and it did capture the moment, if only for a few minutes. Comparing "Super 8" to, say "Close Encounters" is like comparing The Beatles to U2; both may be good and some may even enjoy the new over the old, but its just not the same. You lose some of the flair and raw originality with every new generation and when you get down to it, its more imitation than re-imagination.
http://theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com/