Friday, June 10, 2011

Escape to the Movies: "Super 8"


Intermission: "About Critics: Part 2"

19 comments:

openid said...

So, Super 8 is like Mass Effect 2? Amazing character development surrounded by a crappy plot?

In regards to Intermission, the problem I see with the "turn off your brain"-fans is that they hear "meaningful and original," and think, "artsy fartsy incomprehensible bullshit". A lot of people just think "original" and "fun" are mutually exclusive, which obviously isn't true — show a die-hard Michael Bay fan Run Lola Run, and once they get over the subtitle-reading, their mind will be blown — but there just aren't enough examples.

Xerxes Qados said...

That last comment was mine. I have no idea what happened, but I'm never using OpenID on Blogger again.

O.T said...

My exact sentiments when I saw the trailer regarding the nostalgia. Kids intertwined with some bigger-than-life event? I'm popping in my copy of Goonies as I type.

Then I see its good ol' J.J on the job. Which means the important mystery element is going to turn out to be some kind of pointless and/or stupid.

Its nice to hear the parts that are aimed specifically at us work, but then the rest doesn't breaks the deal for me.

Sorry Spielburg, but I'm not going to spend 15 bucks on something that is half-nostalgia trap, half-crap.

Ksen said...

If you change "IT" for "James Bond" and "kid for "Magneto" — you pretty much sum up X-Men.

Ezenwa said...

@Ksen

Do you mean, "E.T.", and not IT?

And also, are you talking about X-men as a story, or X-men: First Class?

Because if it's the latter, I'm more than inclined to agree.

I'm sure South Park does.

Aaron said...

Hey Bob, I was wondering what your (and anyone else who has seen it) opinion was on the latest episode of south park.

Minic said...

These cold openings are getting increasingly strange. At first, it seemed like a one-off thing for the movies with the most surrounding hype, e.g. TRON: LEGACY, but now you just seem to be using them however you please. I don't really have a problem with it, but... why?

a.k.a.A.M.V.P said...

Yes, Kung-Pow is f*cking hilarious. It baffles me that it's critical rating on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes is so low, or even that its audience rating isn't higher. Maybe its that visceral thing you were talking about in your Intermission.

RocMegamanX said...

@Xerxes

"the problem I see with the "turn off your brain"-fans is that they hear "meaningful and original," and think, "artsy fartsy incomprehensible bullshit"."

Can you blame them?

Most film critics only take dramatic, artistic, philosophical films seriously. If it has a hint of action or comedy in it, it might ruin any chances it may have had for Oscar nominations.

Why do you think "The Dark Knight" was shunned in the Oscars?

Chris Cesarano said...

I just came back from the theater from the film. I don't completely agree with Bob on this one, though I don't really disagree with him either.

Well, the two obvious problems: holy crap J.J. Abrams likes lens flare, and holy crap Bad Robot needs a better creature designer.

As for the film, I'm going to be honest, I enjoyed everything about it until the final act of the film. Basically, after "charming scene at the projector with heart-warming film", the whole thing just seems to...well, to lag on. It's like they suddenly realized they needed a reason for the kids to solve everything, but solving everything took away from the motive, and then...then...well stuff happened, explosions, and God it took so long to finally reach the inevitable conclusion.

But the credits made everything worth it.

I'd say the movie is worth a look, to be honest. I can't help but wonder, however, if they could have made a great movie without the whole alien subplot, or if they tried to take some other elements out of it. Hell, if you ignored the fact that this monster was killing people then you'd have a great successor to stuff like Goonies, but then again that just wouldn't be J.J.Abrams.

Dan said...

I'm just thrilled to see a movie reviewer give Kung Pow: Enter the Fist some much deserved props.

Furore said...

Dammit, Bob! You had me pausing and scrolling and hunting around and panicking that my monitor was finally about to kick the bucket!

Thanks for another cool review. Please, stay awesome - CHANNEL Awesome!
OH NOT WAIT THAT'S NOT YOU SORRY. Wishful thinking I guess.

CanOfTheRelics said...

Thanks for spoiling Cloverfield you spoiling jackass

Popcorn Dave said...

Seems like a pretty good review, but come on Bob... you have no right to act like you're above being pandered to when you gush like crazy over anything with boobs and videogame jokes in it.

Great Intermission article though. I especially agree on the "turn your brain off" thing. I never understood why people happily sit and watch complete shit just because "it's not supposed to be Oscar material". There's a world of difference between a good blockbuster like Spider-Man 2 and a bad blockbuster like Transformers 2, but people act like they're all just the same. I don't get it.

I also don't get why those sorts of people watch reviews in the first place. Why do they care if they're going to watch it anyway? It's like... they're not just easily pleased, they actually seem to object to the idea that blockbusters should ever be criticised in the first place! Looks like plain old insecurity from where I'm standing.

Ezenwa said...

@Furore

I'm sure ScrewAttack and the Escapist might have something to say about that. LOL. J/K. Speaking of CA, there is a review of it up by the Distressed Watcher, which is also on Youtube under the Amazing Atheist. Check it out. Pretty interesting

@comments about Intermission
Thanks Bob, for the explanation on why critics get a bad rap. That said, what can you say about video game critics? And what are your thoughts further on E3?

James said...

I dont know where people go to see there movies but if your paying $15 for a movie your being cheated! I live in Rhode Island and i spend $6 for a matinee and $10 AT MOST on a night time showing. So for the money i spent at a matinee, yeah this movie was worth seeing and i enjoyed the special effects and plot. But these days i dont expect a masterpiece. Anybody that expects GOD!! to be the monster is just expecting far too much. As for the screen glare... i didnt notice it except right before the train crash and i figured it was from the lights the kids were using for thier film, same during the projection scene when they get the film developed. And honestly it wasnt as bad as you portrayed here and didnt disctract me from enjoying the movie. But then i work the graveyard shift at CVS so im used to blocking out things that annoy me.

Chris Cesarano said...

The lens flare was in all kinds of unnecessary spots, one of which being when they were crawling down the hole. There was no reasonable source of light to have created that effect. I think J.J. Abrams just likes it so it makes things look more sci-fi or something.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Intermission

Ya know, once you take the "anyone who disagrees with me is either stupid or lying" stance you really cease to be someone who can open-mindedly debate with other people. Even if you're convinced that you're "right" (which, of course, everyone does).

alfred said...

I hated the actors playing the authority figures(parents, military leaders,etc) they were had no presence.
you were never scared of ron eldred-hes too much of a loveable lug to be this tormented guy-and no amount o hair or muttonchops will help.

the dude from friday night lights/early edition was awful too. i mean, he works as a coach for sure because he's a coach for a small town football team- but you never really believe he could be a underdog tormented guy..just some guy trying to be tormented..he has no real depth..just endearing and earnest..

also-hated elle fanning in this movie-she had too much depth for her role to begin with-its like asking a young michael jackson to be a a bad dancer-it just aint gonna happen. she's a real actress -when she does the whole 'is that good enough' scene-shes already this 40 year in a teenager body-too realistic/method-y to be a conventional emotionally presence circa 1984-a martha plimpton/any goonie girl underdog type to have that dichotomy or a rich emotional performance. also-she really doesn't look like a girl that would live in such a small ohio town-too other worldly and too pretty..also...she kind of reminds me of a zombie, so much so that when she did get dressed as one, it seemed oddly fitting..because she has that brando quality of being so subtle and rich and present, it went against the thematic structure of the entire work. you never saw anyone in those 80s kid classics with any real sense of a bottomless pit depth of emotional range, it was usually..'wow' by their standards and acceptable for us but still impressive. also- i agree with bob- it would cut to something totally off the vibe it was trying to build and destroy everything it had worked for in the previous scene- also
why the hell did the monster just leave after talking to the lead? and why did it leave all 'old man like' as in "humph im going home rumble rumble' it sorta worked as a closer but overall it sucked..