Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[Strangler Lewis]

"Water for Elephants" was surprisingly good. Witherspoon was a bit dishwatery and ill-defined early on, but Pattinson did his sick to the depths of his soul thing well, and the supporting players were all great. Good meaningful violence and a decent wallow in circus grotesquerie. A great looking film, too, plus an elephant. What more do you want for your dime on a Saturday afternoon?

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

Going to see Captain Blood tonight, as part of Last Remaining Seats. Yay!

Jealous!!!!

Try to go to some of the Raoul Walsh films at the Egyptian if you can. White Heat! Among many others. The Strawberry Blonde is another gem that I've long wanted to see on the big screen.

[Betty]

Just watched "That's What I Am" on Netflix streaming. I'd not heard of this movie before - it came up on some search they thought I'd like and it had a bunch of stars so I gave it a shot.

Great movie with a theme on tolerance. Will have to put it on the kids viewing list.

[flippyshark]

During my middle and high school years, I spent quite a bit of time making dumb Super8 mm films with my friends, so I was eager to see JJ Abrams new release, Super 8. A few comments, guaranteed spoiler free:

- It will remind you of a lot of other movies, but it does find its own genial vibe. And it gets the whole Super 8 Filmmaker thing just right. (Ah, Super 8 Filmmaker magazine. I used to have a subscription.)

- Though I enjoyed it, I don't get why Abrams insists on that silly lens flare that creates a horizontal line across the screen. It seems to be a trademark, but it's kinda annoying. He should ditch it.

- Apart from that, Super 8 gets most things right. It's a summer movie that places its focus on an engaging bunch of young characters, and the genre element is a distant second place. (So much so that when it eventually comes to the fore, it's a little underwhelming.) The slow build-up to the weird events was nicely played, even if the destination wasn't anything terribly new.

- It has the best end credits bonus I've seen in quite a while.

I will add one quibble that probably isn't even quite a spoiler, but I'll treat it as such anyway.

Spoiler:

If your movie has a missing dog element, you must actually show the dog (or dogs) returning. It isn't enough to just have some dialogue where someone says "We found your dog." Honestly!

[Alex]

Super 8 is entertaining enough (though it isn't going to stick with me very long).

But I'm going to have to kick Abrams in the balls if he doesn't get over his lens flare fetish right quick.

And I wouldn't have minded at least one line of dialog to explain

Spoiler:

why, after 25 years they were moving an alien and its magic spaceship cross country and together

Also, the Rubik's Cube didn't appear in the US until February 1980 (the movie takes place in June '79) so that reference was a bit out of place and such an obvious thing that I wonder if it was an intentional anachronism.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm with you on the stupid lens flare. Bothered me during Star Trek very much. Likely to bother me in Super 8.

[innerSpaceman]

I've heard a bit about the Rubik's Cube mistake, but where in the film does it say the action takes place in 1979? Not there. Sorry, but if it's in the production materials, but not in the movie - then the time period is not nailed down at all.

The movie takes place in a general time period of late '70's, early '80's - and Abrams nailed the cinematographic look and the pacing of the Speilberg films this movie so plainly salutes. It's been noted, quite correctly, to be a mashup of elements from Close Encounters, Jaws, E.T. and The Goonies.


Um, The Goonies?? Yeah, it's got a lot in common with that movie - which, um folks, is not a Spielberg film any more than Super 8 is (he was executive producer on Goonies, and had a story credit; he's a producer on Super 8).

Super 8 is about a thousand times better than The Goonies, imo, but doesn't nearly reach the glory of any of those Steven Spielberg movies named. No matter ... it's a charming and entertaining film. Well-paced, well-acted (the two lead kids are great), mushy in all the right places, thrilling in many others.

I've heard complaints the ending is a bit of a let-down, but I thought the whole thing was by-the-book from start to finish. The sci-fi plot is the barest of McGuffins and so what? I was not disappointed with the obvious finale in such an obvious homage to films of 30 years ago.

I'm with Alex in that Super 8 likely won't be staying with me in anything remotely the way the early Spielberg films did. But I thoroughly enjoyed it ... and the train wreck was ultra rad.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I've heard a bit about the Rubik's Cube mistake, but where in the film does it say the action takes place in 1979? Not there. Sorry, but if it's in the production materials, but not in the movie - then the time period is not nailed down at all.

It's there in the movie. On the head stone mom's date of death is given as February 1979 and the events of the movie take place (per the title after the funeral scene) four months later. Also, during another scene Walter Cronkite is on the TV reporting on Three Mile Island (which was April 1979 though this is less conclusive since you could always say he was doing some type of follow up).

The movie definitely sets itself in June 1979. Further support (though again not at all conclusive on its own), "My Sharona" was released in June 1979.


Not that the Rubik's Cube thing is that big of a deal. It was just something that caught my attention because I thought by then the movie, though still date uncertain at that point was definitely more '70s feeling and I was wondering if I was wrong about when Rubik's Cubes first hit.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

- It has the best end credits bonus I've seen in quite a while.

So I should hang out after the credits on this one as well? I hate when they do that, but I hate it more when I leave and find out I missed something...

And I think 95% of the audiance wouldn't know when Rubik's Cube came out, so I don't think it's going to be a huge deal for most. Not that that is an excuse for doing a poor job on the research. Makes me wonder, though. The person who's job it is to make sure things are in the proper time period (what's that job's name again?) if they told someone about it and someone okay'd it, or if it was an oversight or misinformation? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by RStar

So I should hang out after the credits on this one as well? I hate when they do that, but I hate it more when I leave and find out I missed something...

Well, so long as you don't sprint for the door as soon as the screen goes black on the last scene it would be hard to miss. It isn't something that plays after the credits but during them.

And I think 95% of the audiance wouldn't know when Rubik's Cube

I don't know. This isn't a kids movie for kids, it is a kids movie for adults to reminisce about when they were kids. So I'm guessing that somewhat more than 5% would confidently say that Rubik's Cubes were an '80s fad.

But you're right that it isn't a big deal, just something so not obscure that I wonder if it was intentional (there are some other meta-nods to its genre nature, such as:

Spoiler:

There's a train wreck that is just completely over the top impossible for how it was caused and actual physics. One of the kids says "there's no way a car on the tracks caused this" and other replies "well obviously it did." Abrams way of saying "shut up and go with it."

)