I hate to sound mixed about a film I did enjoy, but I do feel there are two stories, meant to be separated, going on here

Rating: 7/10 (2 March 2012)

I must confess that despite my affection for some of J.J. Abrams' other films, I was not all that eager and looking forward to "Super 8." Chiefly, because I had intensely disliked his last monster-on-the-loose picture, "Cloverfield." My hopes were heightened when I learned of Steven Spielberg's involvement in this new picture, and when I learned of the premise, and most of all, when I learned that it was going to be filmed in traditional movie-making format, not the "found footage" mockumentary techniques in which Mr. Abrams' first monster movie was made. But uneven as it is, and although it contains an action scene more idiotic than almost anything in Michael Bay's "Transformers" movies, "Super 8" is a perfectly enjoyable movie, although I do feel that the credit for that goes more to its producer than its director.
Like 1982's "Poltergeist," another Spielberg film directed by somebody else, "Super 8" has the fingerprints of its producer stamped all over it. Clearly, it has J.J. Abrams' directing style, but the soul and spirit of this movie is that of vintage Steven Spielberg movies such as "E.T." and, more particularly, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." It's almost surprising that Mr. Spielberg didn't make this movie in the 1970s, since it really is a tribute to two things that he embellished in as a kid: science-fiction spectacles and making movies on Super 8 film.
For those who do no remember, Super 8 film was the precursor to the home-video camera. Footage was shot on actual film, which had to be taken to a developer and processed, and then run through a projector in order to be seen. Here's the premise. It is the 1970s and some junior high kids are putting together a home-made movie for a film contest. In it we've got the ambitious young director who wants to be the next George A. Romero, the do-goodie best friend, the pyromaniac (who provides their special effects), and the pretty upperclasswoman whom two of the boys are vying over. Following a train wreck - which I will discuss in great detail later - a series of mysterious killings are taking place around their home town as they make their movie. The government steps in, family drama escalates into mayhem, and to add on top of that, there is a giant animal running loose in the countryside.
In "Jaws," we didn't see even so much as the shark's dorsal fin until the first hour was up; I didn't clock it, but it seemed that three-quarters of "Super 8" was gone by before we catch a glimpse of this new critter, whose identity I will keep secret. The technique, though a little overdone with a few too many attack sequences that essentially just replay one another, is efficiently-done and builds up the suspense quite nicely. But I have to be honest, the creature subplot is the least-interesting element of the movie.
What really commanded my attention was the drama, particularly because of these fleshed-out characters. The children are amazingly well-played by fresh young talents such as Elle Fanning, Joel Courtney, and Riley Griffith. The movie captures the spirit of youth, particularly the preteen first-feelings of affection that all of us can too plainly remember, even if we don't want to admit to them. Subplots dealing with the parents, and their back stories, are also well-handled. So as I was watching "Super 8," I kept wondering to myself 'Why couldn't the story be more about these people than that thing smashing in the hoods of cars?' They are so interesting, recalling the warm feelings of Mr. Spielberg's "E.T." The creature is an interesting creation in and of itself, but I do wish that it could have been saved for another movie. As someone who delved into making movies as a child (I would always throw fits whenever my VHS camcorder ran out of tape), the scenes with the kids making their movie were extremely captivating. It's something any aspiring or accomplished filmmaker can relate to.
The film, uneven as it is, is worth seeing. The only really dreadful thing in it is the train wreck that I mentioned above. It is early on, and had me fretting that I was in for a Michael Bay movie. A train is driving along, when a pickup truck crosses the tracks. The two collide and the train, which must have been made of nitro-glycerin, goes up in flames. Entire cars start raining from the sky without end, so much that the entire set must have contained at least fifty cars and the explosion got to each and every one of them. On and on it goes, with cars pummeling into the ground without end, and yet the children, who are standing right next to the tracks at the moment of impact, are not harmed, and the driver of the pickup is only a little worse off.
Enough on that, though. "Super 8" is a most charming movie that uses nostalgia to its hilt. But again, comparing and contrasting my interest in the characters versus my interest in the creature running amok between scenes, I kept on wondering what sort of film this really wanted to be. Was Mr. Abrams more interested in making a monster movie? Or was Mr. Spielberg more interested in making another inner-child film? Or was it vice versa? Who wanted to do what? I hate to sound mixed about a film that I did enjoy, but I do feel there are two separate stories going on here. And one is more interesting than the other.