Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Review

Harry thinks SUPER 8 is pretty damn super!

 

There seems to be a cry for me to review SUPER 8 through sheer critical analysis.  To discuss the many elements separately and with a  cold logical mind skewering what ever morsels there are to skew.  

 

That is so not what this movie is for me.   To look at this film without nostalgia is to entirely miss the point.   As a child of the 70s, as a child of Spielberg, Cronenberg, Carpenter, Dante, Landis, Scott…  there was something impossibly cool about the era we grew up in.  

 

Beyond all the geek cool that this film has going for it, the number one thing that speaks to me are the kids here.   I just remember how awesome it was as a kid to leave the house on your own at night to hook up with friends and do whatever.  I never got caught.  Ever.   I never had permission – and the adventures I had with my best friend Rylan Bosher are the sorts of things that when we see each other, as we too rarely do, we see ourselves as kids the second we hook up.  Floods of stories. 

 

The Pyromaniac kid, Cary (played by Ryan Lee) looks a bit like Rylan did back then, but he acts like my other childhood friend Roland, who runs the business behind AICN.   Now – throughout my awesome childhood I never wound up having an adventure like the kids in this film.   There was never a Government or Alien threat that I had to personally deal with, but goddammit – I kind of wished there was..  every day of my childhood.   I was ready.   The government was obviously corrupt – and I absolutely knew there were Aliens.   (I didn’t have proof, but when you’re a kid – you don’t need proof to believe in Santa Claus, Han Solo, zombies, Easter Bunny, Aliens and Jesus.   You accept this as just fact.   I mean, we discussed these things seriously, but how would we handle this if the shit went down?   We discussed it.

 

That’s the marvelous thing about being a kid.   You believe in this stuff.   I have no problem being a kid, to see the wonder in the world around me, I hold on to it, even as I deal with the harsh realities of the world.   My mom dying, paralysis, my father’s stroke, tight financial times…  but rather than focus on that kind of thing, instead, I choose to look on the bright side of life, thanks to Monty Python.  

 

In SUPER 8…  we meet a young boy on the day he lost his mother to an industrial accident.   His father, Kyle Chandler, is the Senior Deputy for the Sheriff’s department in a small 14,000 population town.   His dad is a hard worker.  Never really there in the home.  Joe Lamb, played to perfection by Joel Courtney, is a great kid, but he was raised by his mother, who allowed him to be the geek that he is.   He paints Aurora Models, reads Famous Monsters, Starlog and has posters all over his room.   Including Robert Crumb’s KEEP ON TRUCKIN’, which kind of informs me about his mother, I would have liked to have met her, she seemed cool as hell, at least to little Joe.  

 

Joe Lamb is the make-up and assistant to his best friend, Charles, played by Riley Griffiths.   Riley is a kid on the pudgy side…  But instead of being played for comic relief like every other fat kid in the 70’s or 80’s.   He’s the DIRECTOR of this group of friends.   He’s trying to shoot a SUPER 8 zombie film, to enter into an Amateur Film Contest, and he’s having to compete against teenagers, so he’s really busting everyone’s balls to do their best. 

 

The third member of this team of friends is the aforementioned Pyro, Cary.   In many ways, he’s my favorite kid.   If you watch him, he’s always completely distracted in his own world.   He loves fire.   Loves firecrackers.   Loves blowing stuff up with custom make M80s.   But he’s quieter than MOUTH.    On multiple viewings, I think Ryan’s Cary is going to be amazing to watch…   actually – I’d say that about every performance here.   There’s a lot going on, the kids trample all over what each other is saying, and for those not used to hearing kids – well, let’s just say there’s a treasure of fun to be had when these kids get together and I can’t wait to hear it all – and I absolutely will be seeing this movie 4-5 times this summer.

 

Now – before I go much further – and delve into some of the things you might not want to know going into SUPER 8, let me just say flat out.   I love SUPER 8.   Love it.   Love it.   The film feels like the experience I wished I’d had as a kid.   I loved Spielberg, but I was also seeing the R-rated films of the era – and while I loved GOONIES and I really like  MONSTER SQUAD, those films were goofier than anything that related to me personally.   This feels like a great big scary kids adventure that I have always been waiting on.   

 

JJ’s film isn’t a Spielberg clone, it is its own thing.   The disparate influential elements that he’s combined should make instant sense to any kid of my era.  Basically imagine if E.T. wasn’t so goddamned cute.   What if it wasn’t all John Carpenter take over the world either.   What if it was in that middle ground?  What if scary shit was going down and as a kid, you had information that you felt you needed to act upon, and you and your friends went out – JAWS style to fucking get the shit that needed to get done, done?   That’s SUPER 8.  

 

But the single best thing about the movie, to me? 

 

Elle Fanning’s Alice Dainard.   She’s the love interest for two of the boys above.  She is awesome.  She’s the kind of little girl, that when you’re a young boy…  you crush on.   In fact, she’s one of them heartbreakers.   Now, I didn’t much care for her in Sofia’s SOMEWHERE…  nor did I care for her in THE  NUTCRACKER in 3D (although for both those films, I didn’t care for much of anything), but in SUPER 8 – if you don’t care for her…  she’s Fay Wray.   And when the film does a bit of the 1933 KING KONG thing…  my god I fell in love.   But I was already head over heels for this film before you ever see the creature.  

 

Watching Alice and Joe in his bedroom together.   Nothing out of line, just the intimacy of both doing what their parents told them not to…  and for all of that to simply be friends.   That’s all they are.   They’re friends trying to understand why their fathers hate one another – and if the story doesn’t hit you…  well, I don’t know what to say.   Suffice to say, the two fathers have a lot to deal with.   Luckily their kids are doing most of the healing themselves.  

 

Now, the pressing question.   The Alien.   How is it?  It is a J.J. Abrams alien.   Multi-limbed, very ferocious and scary as all hell.   This creature looks like something the military would abuse.    It doesn’t, buy human experience, seem like it would be intelligent and that’s the source of it’s angst.   I love the creature’s back-story.   That this was an intelligent, sentient beast that the military abused, tormented and experimented upon – and it wants two things.   I get the feeling that it wants revenge & that it wants to get the fuck off this shithole planet that has treated it like a character from MIDNIGHT EXPRESS. 

 

I’m very curious to rewatch the film next week and see if I pick up on the creature’s performance.   As it is – man, I really want to see its lair again, there’s some dark shit going on in that place, not up front and obvious – but well…  I won’t spoil it.

 

This all said, this isn’t a film about the creature.   This isn’t E.T.   This is a film about a Father that doesn’t respect his son, his son’s friends and what his son wants…  and this is the story of how that boy changed his father’s mind.   The moment when he gets that respect, I love. 

 

All of this said, this is very much a film made with today’s technology and quite a bit of JJ’s personal visual aesthetic.   SUPER 8 is evocative of the 70’s film, without being any one of them.   What I love about the film is it has the same kind of believable reality that the films that JJ named as his inspirations.    I can believe that somewhere Richard Dreyfus is somewhere beyond our experience, in this universe’s far future Ripley is having a hell of a time,  in just a few years Eliot will have a very different alien experience, but I’ve often felt that all my favorite films of the 70’s & 80’s existed in a genre universe where they could all exist together, separated by geographic location & time – but they felt like they exist in my universe.

 

SUPER 8 could have happened in my childhood.  I think that’s what JJ was going for – and that’s what he did.  He made a film that is about the kids that grew up as the generation that was taught to dream by a select group of filmmakers that we saw together.   He made a kids film that attempts to stylistically exist in that universe as ultimately a rather small sweet story about growing up when the Alien got loose in your town and the military does what the military did in those movies.   Over react grotesquely.  

 

I may very well write again about this film after multiple viewings.   Once I have more fully digested it.   Nordling is probably going to lose his mind over this.   I’m dying to really get in to discussing this film with my friends.  Which ones will swoon, which ones will bitch and moan.   That’s the fun of film going, the conversations.   With this – I haven’t had that opportunity yet, but I guarantee you – I will have many geeky dreamy conversations and for that, I have SUPER 8 to thank.  The kids are truly super! 

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 31, 2011, 11:07 p.m. CST

    i think you're super, Harry

    by seabiscuits

  • May 31, 2011, 11:07 p.m. CST

    Post 8

    by HEADGEEK

    Harry thinks SUPER 8 is pretty super!

  • May 31, 2011, 11:12 p.m. CST

    Sounds underwhelming.

    by cinemixtape.com

    The human drama in a movie like this can't be the hook. It has to accent the monster stuff, and you seem to gloss over that part as being pretty standard or even routine.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:13 p.m. CST

    So Harry?

    by MrMajestic

  • May 31, 2011, 11:14 p.m. CST

    so Harry? redux

    by MrMajestic

    So Super 8 vs. Attack the Block? Both sound similar but which is better?

  • May 31, 2011, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Multi-limbed aliens?

    by iceman199

    Humans are multi-limbed.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Devin Faraci said it was a piece of shit

    by Nabster

    I love Far Harry, but he has no credibility when it comes to such matters. Obviously, he was going to love this, no matter what he was going to love this. From everything I've heard it sounds like it's Cloverfield for kids. It sounds retarded.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:16 p.m. CST

    Why no Dark City blu-ray review?

    by Sherlock Holmes II

    Just somethin' I've wanted to ask for a while now. Is it part of your ploy to try to establish in peoples minds that there are no music video/film directors before Americans started doing it, in that rather thuggishly mundane fashion?

  • May 31, 2011, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Super 8 = Attack the Bloq

    by DarthBlart

  • May 31, 2011, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Super 8 is a homo version of Attack the Block??

    by Nabster

    Because that's what it sounds like.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:23 p.m. CST

    SUPER 8 MONSTER REVEALED!

    by darth_hideous

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/192906_f520.jpg Looks like the Cloverfield monster to me...

  • I find myself more curious about the music than the film. This is his chance to make something memorable and amazing. His only scores that have impressed me is his Pixar work, I thought the Star Trek score was pretty generic considering the composer. His best Live Action score didn't even have music in it til the End Credits with Cloverfields "Roar"'track

  • May 31, 2011, 11:32 p.m. CST

    sounds like my kinda time.

    by mr. smith

    thanx Harry, I'm sold.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:40 p.m. CST

    "Paul 2: Lens-Flare Bugaloo"

    by logosicon

    That being said...me thinks it might be more enjoyable than "Attack The Block".

  • May 31, 2011, 11:45 p.m. CST

    I've been seeing good buzz from other sites...

    by conspiracy

    Basically they are saying what Harry did...if you you read between the lines and removed all the stream of thought fluff. What I've seen them say thus far is that this is basically what Spielberg would have made circa 70's-80's...if he had made a SLIGHLTY harder edged, more horror-ish film. I'm on board...I'll watch it...and not for any weepy, "oooh how I miss the innocence of youth and I refuse to grow up" bullshit either. Rather I'm on board because I want to see an entertaining story that doesn't pander to the past or demand I be a moron to enjoy it...and that is what I'm seeing others say this is...good old fashioned entertainment that stands on it's own. I hope they are right.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:45 p.m. CST

    In all honesty I have nothing against Harry at all...

    by Sardonic

    But I really can't trust his reviews. It just seems like every single one is either that he really, really likes it a bunch, or that he really likes it, but there's maybe one thing he didn't like so much. The only movie I can remember him straight up not liking is Inception, and even then it was iffy.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Couldn't you do a spoiler free review?

    by Nerd Rage

    Why would you want to ruin the suprise for anyone else?

  • May 31, 2011, 11:48 p.m. CST

    Not reading this for spoilers' sake.

    by Yelsaeb

    But I am very much so looking forward to the movie. I know absolutely nothing about the movie besides that there are aliens and its very Speilbergian, so here's hoping its as good as it looks.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:48 p.m. CST

    Typical Harry review

    by Fridge

    Gotta skip the first four paragraphs so I can actually get to a review.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST

    remember, Harry loved GI JOE.

    by evilnik

  • June 1, 2011, midnight CST

    fatso Harry has liked ALOT of truly terrible films

    by Nabster

    Daredevil, Godzilla, every single Pirates film. The fatso has no taste. Just like he loves to eat junk, he loves seeing it just as much. Yet it's a little abnormal how discriminately horrible his taste is. It's like he has the mind of a five year old, who enjoys any ole piece of shit. And I guess it's not normal either for someone to eat a whole fried chicken for breakfast every day.

  • This movie reminds me of the scene in Transformers where they're showing the Transformers crash landing into Earth at night, and there's that sweaty fat jelly kid running/jiggling his way through the streets with fire raging on behind him and he's screaming coke-fueled Bay hilarious one-liners like "This is way better than Armageddon" and "Oh dude I hope this guy has asteroid insurance cause he is SO boned!" whilst holding his cellphone up to get it all on camera and then the little girl by the pool asking the giant robot "are you the tooth fairy?" in a sickening sweet adorable little voice.. uh yes honey that 2 and a half story tall "robot" that looks like liquid metal vomit congealed and pulled up to hang like a horribly bad ugly CGI puppet is the tooth fairy, that's great thanks Mike! Eh, just an impression, I guess.. but good to see you back up and around big guy, I know rotund could-be-a-large-beardscarf-CGI-creation-in-a-Star-Wars-movie headgeeks are nocturnal, but 3 o'clock is pushing it, even for thousandaire site administrators. We all just hope you're well, and look forward to seeing you around. Sincerely, AICN Talkbacks ps. we do not forgive u "'I will split up my father's empire'.. now this is obviously an idea that Robert himself would choose to reject.. which is why we need to plant it deep in his subconcious. The subconcious is motivated by emotion, right? Not reason. We need to find a way to translate this into an emotional concept." *big boy voice* "How do you translate a business strategy into an emotion?" "Well that's what we're here to figure out, right? Now Robert's relationship with his father is stressed to say the least." "Well can we run with that? We could suggest to him breaking up his father's company is a 'screw you' to the old man." "No, cause I think positive emotion trumps negative emotion everytime. We all yearn for reconciliation, for catharsis. We need Robert Fischer to have a positive emotional reaction to all this."

  • June 1, 2011, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Where did Faraci say Super 8 is a piece of shit?

    by Grasscutter

    Link it or it didn't happen.

  • Whoah, dude, metaphysics. I'm sure that Dreyfus would agree. So is CLOSING BRACKETS somwhere beyond your experience?

  • June 1, 2011, 12:15 a.m. CST

    It's got a monster Alien in it. Good enough.

    by OnO

    I sat through two hours of Dakota Fanning annoying the crap out of me for the giant Tripods. I had to put up with Ferris Bueller and his completely unlikable love interest for a wuss Godzilla. Horrible rave music for Scorpion in Mortal Combat. Endured Vin Deasel's Space Clint Eastwood impersonation for the hammer head flying cannibal bats in Pitch Black. Lastly I nearly puked for measly ten minutes of actual screen time of a monster barely seen thanks to the worst camera man ever in Cloverfield. You got what you deserved Hud for standing there like a dumbass. So yeah, I'll see this one. Because I love monster movies, bad, good, or great. So bring on your worst annoying kid and bumpkin acting because I'm always ready for some Godzilla vs Gigan action bitches.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Harry breaks Paramount's embargo

    by DanielPlainviewOnVacationInBoston

    like the fat asshole that he is. Way to go, headgeek.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:33 a.m. CST

    Goddamn, I hate you fuckers.

    by stillwater79

    Why do you jaded little shits have to take the joy out of everything? Go watch TRANSFORMERS and leave Harry the fuck alone.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:33 a.m. CST

    )

    by kermit_the_fraud

    That's the symbol you were looking for. Right? At this point, I honestly believe most of these errors are included as a sort of perverse psychological experiment.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:35 a.m. CST

    Got My Tickets!

    by LastPairOfSocks

    June 9th. Midnight. Lincoln Square AMC IMAX. I think that seeing this type of movie with a opening night crowd is just way I need to make the experience truly awesome. Can't wait for someone to start talking during the Bad Robot title card and get railed upon. Hope to see ya there!!!

  • June 1, 2011, 12:35 a.m. CST

    By the way

    by kermit_the_fraud

    I am really looking forward to this film. I think this summer might actually be more 'good' than 'utterly disappointing'. Of course, I tend to enjoy 'geeky' films as well as 'subtitles_off-approved' films.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:55 a.m. CST

    "But he’s quieter than MOUTH."

    by tlyel37

    One - that's not a sentence. Two - that's an awful analogy. Everyone's quieter than Mouth - that's why they called him mouth...

  • June 1, 2011, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Devin Faraci has no credibility either

    by D.Vader

    Talk about being completely under the influence of your own bias and hatred for others.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:02 a.m. CST

    seeing a screening tonight!!!

    by mojination

    CAN'T FUCKIN WAAAAIT.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:05 a.m. CST

    honestly, is it so hard for AICN to proofread?

    by tlyel37

    It's like it goes against some moral code they hold or something.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    "the number one thing that speaks to me are the kids here."

    by ShavedLeatherPig

    Let's not forget HARRY's review of Where The Wild Things Are: "it could very well be the best film ever created about what it is like to be a 9 year old" "The opening scene… is the single most FURIOUS and VIOLENT thing I’ve ever seen captured on film." "Because you absolutely will not believe how amazing it is – to track a 9 year old in full blown wild Indian mode. It is amazing. " http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42679

  • Really? Elle Fanning is Fay Wray?

  • June 1, 2011, 1:17 a.m. CST

    Nabster

    by Robert79797979

    You are the most pathetic piece of childish shit I have ever seen on this site. If you hate Harry so much, and never agree with him, why do you open his reviews? Go somewhere else.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:42 a.m. CST

    My point isn't that Faraci has credibility...

    by Grasscutter

    it's just that it appears the comment that he "said Super 8 is a piece of shit" is so far untrue. Faraci has yet to post anything via his website with its awful, troglodyte moniker, nor via Twitter

  • June 1, 2011, 1:47 a.m. CST

    Super 8 Inches

    by D o o d

    coming soon to a porn cinema near you!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:47 a.m. CST

    J.J.'s youngblood rejuvinating The Berg! Keep the transfusion going!

    by Onin Solstice

    J.J.'s is the generation that was inspired by Spileberg and Lucas. And now that he's deep in the biz he's reminding those old farts what got them there in the first place! Go JJ!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:53 a.m. CST

    So this film is a dark version of...

    by Brigon

    ..Explorers crossed with ET crossed with Goonies. Sounds great, and I can't wait to see it.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:59 a.m. CST

    by Jim

    Raise your hand if you're old enough to remember "hooking up" in the sense that Harry uses it in his 3rd paragraph.

  • Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

  • June 1, 2011, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Jesus Christ

    by DrunkyMcLush

    We don't need 4 paragraphs of unrelated history, Harry. Just give us the review, not your biography.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:34 a.m. CST

    The main difference between J.J. and Spielberg --

    by MooseMalloy

    -- is that J.J.'s father was already in the business. That and the ability to make a quality movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:36 a.m. CST

    okay, that's fine, but he didn't say "piece of shit..."

    by Grasscutter

    so, there you go.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:45 a.m. CST

    Glad you liked it, but ...

    by Valaquen

    "It doesn’t, buy human experience, seem like it would be intelligent and that’s the source of it’s angst." What? :S

  • It's been two years since Star Trek 90210 came out and we probably wont be seeing another one until 2013 or late 2012. But this fucking jerkoff is determined to christen himself as the next Spielberg. Keep dreaming cocknose. Despite the fucking awful script by those two cock-throating-cum-chugging-thundercunts, Orci and Kurtzman, I think Abrams Direction was solid (lens flair notwithstanding) and I loved the cast. If he had some fucking brains, Jar Jar would have fast tracked a Trek sequel for this summer or, better yet, get it out for the end of this year as Summer 2011 is already crowded. A November release would have left them wide open to destroy the box office as there's fuck all being released at that time. November would have also given them two and a half years to get the movie made and there's NO fucking reason they couldn't have done it when you consider that Matthew Vaughn got his X-Men flick done in about ten months from the moment he was hired to its release date. Now that the initial "alternate reality" bullshit has been settled and the characters are where they need to be, Abrams should have delivered a badass Sci-fi flick with the crew of the Enterprise getting into some shit. He should have hired Judith and Garfield Reeves Stevens, to work on the story, as they've written some of the best classic Trek novels out there. But no, faggotface decided that his time would be better spent, not making a sequel to the biggest hit of his worthless career, but instead rimjobbing The Berg's 1980's film legacy.

  • June 1, 2011, 3 a.m. CST

    If Spielberg himself can't recapture the glory era...

    by justmyluck

    ... how can J.J.? I guess SUPER-8 is where 'an homage' transforms into 'a facsimile', or vice versa. I used to have a Super-8 camera in my high-school years (I saved up for over a year - alas, no daddy in showbiz like J.J.). It had single-frame and intervalometer settings. It was wonderful. It was stolen in a student residence break-in during my university years. I really should Google for it and see if I can remember the model.

  • Who would ever though that? Will wonders ever cease?

  • June 1, 2011, 3:17 a.m. CST

    I know very little about Super 8

    by Righteous Brother

    beyond the trailer - so I'm going to completely avoid this review. I'll come back and read it when I've seen the film.

  • Fantastic. Harry lists all the child hood imaginary icons of the typical Texan child. And includes Jesus. Harry, as bad as things get in the talkbacks with your sites alleged liberal tendencies, do you really want to start implying that you're a godless atheist as well? The red staters will be out for blood, I tells ya! BLOOD!!!!

  • June 1, 2011, 3:27 a.m. CST

    Abrams praise

    by MorganLeafy

    I don't think I've ever seen unabashed praise for Abrams on this site. Personally, I like Lost (not the end) but he’s never hit a home-run. MI3 and ST were half great, they started very energetically but fizzed out halfway through.

  • The very plan of JJ Abrams. To skew critical though and accept without question the stuff he makes. So he can get richer from your money. Geeks, make JJ Abrams richer. That should be your motto from now on.

  • June 1, 2011, 4 a.m. CST

    'JJ’s personal visual aesthetic'

    by Fortunesfool

    What? Shake a camera about and add some lens flare so it looks like every other 'TV director who got lucky' hack movie that gets churned out these days. STOP.BUYING.THIS.GUYS.BULLSHIT.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:08 a.m. CST

    Sorry Harry but that review did not sell me

    by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz

    This movie sounds like utter shit. Total bore fest. I predict an epic fail at the box office.

  • And you know why is that, Harry? It's because back then the filmakers made efforts to make their movies look believable. They put effort to make their movies with a good sense of verissimilitude. They made efforts to have humans act like they are humans, regardless of the fantastical circunstances they were in. They made an effort to have some reality to their movies. The common universe you think existed in those movies is nothing more then a bit of reality the filmmakers allowed their movies to have, instead of the Michael Bay bullshit we got today where movies are completly divorced for reality.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:23 a.m. CST

    So basically, JJ is a nostalgia freak...

    by tailhook

    And exists to remake and retune old stuff rather than actually creating stuff of his own. M:I 3, Star Trek, and now a reworking of ET. I so detest 'artists' of the modern era. They rarely actually create anything that is their own. They just take stuff other people have made, tweak it a bit, and call it their own. Its less homage, than full on heisting.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:26 a.m. CST

    That reads like a very forced positive review ...

    by GINGE_MUPPET

    Its ok if you didn't like it Harry ...

  • June 1, 2011, 4:27 a.m. CST

    Complain Complain Complain

    by SHADOWPRIME

    If Harry is predictably positive, or optimistic, or "forgiving" or sentimental, most talkbackers here are every bit as predictable - just predictably "above it all", critical, impossible to please, eager to show off how quickly they can come up with some adolescent put down or "cool" jaded (Ha!) comment. So why do you keep visiting this site, reading his reviews, and commenting? Every "critic" has his or her own style, his or her preferences, likes and dislikes. You find one whose tastes line up with yours - or at least, you find one whose reviews give you a good idea if YOU will like the movie in question - and you have a useful resource. But if you find one whose outlook DOESN'T square with yours? Why would you KEEP coming back and whining and snarking? At the very best that is a huge waste of time. And that is at the VERY best.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:23 a.m. CST

    Harry code

    by Bass Ackwards

    Positive reviews to films that don't fully merit a positive review get tagged with the "oh but what fun conversations this film will inspire" sentiment. Just throwing it out there.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:01 a.m. CST

    How does the CGI look?

    by elsewhere

    The monster is CG, right? Pretty Super = The film is kind of lame.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:07 a.m. CST

    "Something impossibly cool about the era we grew up in"

    by dcut75

    Fuckin A, Harry

  • June 1, 2011, 6:10 a.m. CST

    There was a cry for this review?

    by moorE12

  • June 1, 2011, 6:12 a.m. CST

    Whose shoulders are we standing on?

    by Mr Gorilla

    The thing that made those 70s and 80s directors great was that although they were making mainstream films, they were clearly well-read, and had a varied, interesting watching. Spielberg didn't just watch David Lean - he was bang into Antonioni. Lucas actually read and understood Campbell - not the Cliff's Notes version. Carpenter's love of Howard Hawkes is well recorded. So, sure they were making 'popular culture', but they were standing on the shoulders of great artists and thinkers. But with JJ & co, I just don't get the sense that there is that level of thinking. He's a great craftsman, and a great entertainer, and I'm sure I will enjoy Super 8 a great deal. But I just don't think there's the purpose. Take a movie like Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Sure - a fun movie with terrific action, great laughs, wondrous special effects. But there's also a great discussion going on about fantasy and reality, Hollywood and dreams. I'm just not thinking we'll be getting that from the likes of JJ and Edgar Wright - joyous as their films are. (I'd love to be proved wrong, by the way.) It's not all bad news. I think the Potter films have has ideas. So, in fact, did Avatar (hippy dippy though it was). In the last 10 years we've had blockbusters from Ang Lee and Alfonso Cuaron. Tarantino is still straddling arthouse and grindhouse. But the directors who should know better - you know who you are - can you please read some more books?!

  • June 1, 2011, 6:50 a.m. CST

    mr gorilla is correct and wins the thread

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Spielberg, Lucas etc all had a grasp of film form and film history, something Abrams is completely lacking. Result: his films are empty, films made by fanboys, not by people with interesting lives to draw from. There's not one convincing human moment in his work. Soulless. Again, China Miéville said it best: "I disliked Star Trek intensely. I thought it was terrible. And I think part of my problem is that I feel like the relationship between JJ Abrams' projects and geek culture is one of relatively unloving repackaging - sort of cynical. I taste contempt in the air. Now I'm not a child - I know that all big scifi projects are suffused with the contempt of big money for its own target audience. But there's something about [JJ's projects] that makes me particularly uncomfortable. As compared to somebody like Joss Whedon, who - even when there are misfires - I feel likes me and loves me and is on some cultural level my brother and comrade. And I don't feel that way about JJ Abrams."

  • I think that it's hilarious that Harry still believes in all of that... except for Jesus. I guess it's not nerd-chic to believe in anything other than yourself. Also, Harry, you never got caught when you snuck out with all of your 'friends' at night? I don't know which part is more unbelievable - the part where you claim to have had friends, or the even more laughable part that your big ass didn't get caught trying to 'sneak' out. I mean, were your parents deaf?

  • June 1, 2011, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Unreadable.

    by Aaron

    This piece was terribly written. Edit your writing or have someone look over it, for science's sake. You get an F.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:05 a.m. CST

    morganleafy

    by AsimovLives

    "I don't think I've ever seen unabashed praise for Abrams on this site" Then you haven't been on this site.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Harry, Harry . . . .

    by mastermold

    "There seems to be a cry for me to review SUPER 8 through sheer critical analysis. To discuss the many elements separately and with a cold logical mind skewering what ever morsels there are to skew." When have you EVER given that kind of review, Harry?

  • June 1, 2011, 7:18 a.m. CST

    mr gorilla, damn right

    by AsimovLives

    I think the same. This boys like JJ Abrams nad Michael Bay, they are all kids who have no real life experience themselves. and then they base their movies on movies which were already based on previous work from previous filmmakers. It's not the young filmmakers of today who invented the referential hommage filmming style, it was filmmakers like De Palma, Scorsese, Spielberg, Coppola, Lucas and the likes of them. All guys who are in their 60s and 70s years of age nowdays. So, basically, Abrams is homaing movies which were already hommages themselves. And ask anybody who works with zerox machines, the photocopy of a photocopy is always of lesser quality. Some new directors can work their hommages will into their movies, like Neill Marshall, David Fincher, Duncan Jones and Christopher Nolan, but they never made the mistake that Abrams is doing: to have the hommage BE THE SOLE REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE MOVIE. Those guys yuse the hommage as a narrative tool which the movie is not that dependent. Abrams seems to haver made a movie in which hommaging is all there is to it. Devin Faraci called this Nostalgia Porn. I think he's into something.

  • "He's somebody who's interested in the politics of the world, the reality of the world. Whatever kind of movie he makes in whatever genre, it's never simply going to be a synthetic movie about the movies he liked growing up. It's always going to be about something bigger, and this movie is too." Screenwriter Simon Kinberg speaking of... Neill Blomkamp, apparently the anti-Abrams!

  • June 1, 2011, 8:06 a.m. CST

    harry misses the point about analysis

    by animas

    in that the technical aspects of film-making should always be part of a review. The difference being how much each reviewer puts weight into each category and how it affects the overall entertainment value. When I watch a movie, I am intentionally aware of the directing, writing, and acting, but they aren't always balanced in emphasis, but rather how they influence the overall experience. And it isn't necessarily based on "cold logic," but how the film-maker uses these tools to make art that has an emotional impact or any consequence at all. Either way, Harry's review does nothing to make me want to see this movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:18 a.m. CST

    I'm going to miss harry's bright eyed optimism when he's dead.

    by knowthyself

    You have to admit it's at least a nice change of pace considering the internet is 90% anger, hate, bigotry, and bitter rants on everything.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Sweet high school essay introduction...

    by Somerichs

    Given the subject matter of this movie, that was intentional, right? ;)

  • June 1, 2011, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Sadly no one trusts Fatso Harry anymore

    by Nabster

    If they ever did. This fatso that absolutely jizzes himself in delight for the biggest turds every year. Doesn't anybody think it's strange a grown man takes duffle bag full of deep fried pizzas and deep fried honey dipped chikens to the theaters? Fat Harry basically is a 6 year old child that never grew up, and this is why his tastes are one of a 6 year old. He cannot help liking any ole piece of shit. And Super 8 is just a gay version of Cloverfield. It even has the same monster as Cloverfield, Devin Faraci confirmed this.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:47 a.m. CST

    A more objective review says its not so good....

    by Bruda5000

    http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/06/01/movie-review-super-8-makes-us-nostalgic-for-spielberg-movies-because-they-work You know I love you Harry, but once again you are making this about yourself and not the movie. I completely understand how a childhood can influence how you feel about things in your adult life but I sometimes feel like you take it to the extremes. Especially lately. I think this is most likely going to be a fun movie and unfortunately nothing more than that. Spielberg needs to get off the sidelines and back into the game. The old man isnt done yet.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Forget 'sheer critical analysis', just learn English

    by Laserhead

    Please. Thanks.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    How much monster vs kids babbling?

    by Knobules

    After the trailers. They sure want you to think its all about the monster. If this is a kid yackfest Im waiting for DVD. Sorry but Im worked up for a monster flick, not dad and son bond bs.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST

    It's 70% annoying kids vs 30% alien monster

    by gumbyandpokey

    Saw a screening and this is Diary of a Wimpy Kid with a decent monster thrown in. But I do have to say that I'm not a fan of annoying kids in movies/tv shows, so I might be biased in my appraisal. But Super 8 is much more a kids drama than monster movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:11 a.m. CST

    I forgot that Harry loved the Nightmare on Elm Street remake

    by D.Vader

    Jeebus Christo what an AWFUL fucking movie that missed the point on every level (with a tiny few exceptions, Jackie Earle Hayley included, the final scare). Useless and amateur.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:15 a.m. CST

    I disagree Mr Gorilla

    by D.Vader

    I know you're a fan of the Potter film series (and you know I am not, of the Yates' films anyway). I don't feel like those movies really are about, or have, any "ideas" that aren't more than just superficial leftovers from the book's plot.

  • At least here on AICN anyway, is almost a reaction to Harry's immature and unflappable positivity- to completely shit films too (I'm looking at you ANOES remake)- without any mention (on occasion) of the craft that went into making it, no discussion on those technical achievements that make the movie a success or failure. Sometimes he goes into story. Sometimes he goes in to directing style. But most often, its all about the gut. Its annoying to watch someone, who is unarguably a champion of cinema, flounder over the years, lose credibility and respect, and its all because his writing has gotten worse. Its created a backlash among a lot of his readership, and I imagine his peers and those in the entertainment industry. So now, when he says he lurves something, and he can't back it up with examples for why the movie is good and only speaks of his personal life, it creates an expectation among those who are disillusioned with him that "well, this is probably just another shit film, like ANOES..." or any other crap movie he liked. Because why should we expect anything different? Its one thing to like a great film and then a crap film next (I do it all the time- I like the Transformers series!); its another to be able to explain why and to do it well. That's what gets your respect. If you don't do that enough, explain yourself well and your position, people start to lose faith in you. And then a backlash is created. Its the opposite of most people's general opinion of movie critics. I can't tell you how often I hear people say "Oh, well if the local movie critic hated it, I bet I'm going to like it!" For a lot of readers, its now the very opposite with Harry.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Advice for the negative Talkbackers

    by DraculaDillenger

    Necessary advice for some talkbackers here: if 70% of you are going to immediately denigrate Harry's content and writing style, you probably should reconsider how you occupy your time. Of what worth is this site to you? I don't post much, but does anyone ever point out how tiresome all the Harry-focused hate is? Move on, you creeps.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:35 a.m. CST

    That being said, I trust Harry on this one

    by D.Vader

    If he liked it, I think I'm going to like it too. Hope so anyway. This kind of movie is right up my alley.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Harry's reviews always entertaining

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    You have to pretend he is about 12, and remember he doesn't know anything about film, he knows about consumption and his taste seems incredibly random But its quite amusing and I come here for the even more amusing talkbacks, and hope to hear what the talkbackers think about the film

  • But, uh, okay!

  • June 1, 2011, 9:53 a.m. CST

    So it was indeed a gay version of Cloverfield?

    by Nabster

    Why does it have the same monster from Cloverfield? Cloverfield with kids. That's what this movie sounds like. Yawn.

  • ...Personally, I'm more interested to know how a movie will make me feel, effect me on an emotional level rather than reading how good the lighting, set design, costume (yawn) was. Besides, there are other reviewers on this site that offer different perspectives and more technical critiques, so stop complaining

  • June 1, 2011, 9:59 a.m. CST

    So freebeer, all you care about is story then?

    by D.Vader

    And how the story makes you feel? Because like someone else said above, I like to hear about how good the cinematography is- how its tied to the story- because often hearing about how well crafted a movie is WILL affect me on an emotional level. That's why its good to hear about how good or bad the technical craft is too. It affects my appreciation for the movie. It isn't all just about story. And even a good story can be ruined by bad direction, bad acting, bad dialogue, etc etc. I guess some people are fine with "It was great! Made me feel good!" Not suggesting you are, but I like to read more than that from time to time.

  • June 1, 2011, 10 a.m. CST

    Nostalgia

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    JJ v Tarantino, am a huge fan of Tarantino and I like JJ's work for the most part What I wonder is that is JJ putting this movie together for similar reasons as Tarantino, i.e. influenced and in a way a homage to Spielberg and the like or is a cash grab to tap into nostalgia to get the viewers. In the case of Tarantino, obviously no matter how he looks at a movie, the guys funding it are thinking about the nostalgia hook So maybe its a bit of both

  • June 1, 2011, 10 a.m. CST

    Ok

    by HughHoyland

    Im sold. I will be checking this out for sure. I like every movie project Abrams has been involved with so far including Star Trek.

  • Man, your so damn negative, ALL THE DAMN TIME! Does it make you feel big and important coming here trying to take the joy out of movie fandom? Man, what pathetic losers, you must be very, very sad people in real life, and I feel sorry for you

  • I'm very critical of short films if the story isn't creative or interesting. I prefer a creative, original story to a character study. That's my preference anyway.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:04 a.m. CST

    What's the medical term? Anhedonic? Go get some help, seriously

    by FreeBeer

  • June 1, 2011, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Freebeer

    by D.Vader

    I think it was Genderblender in the other Super8back, and we all know what looney ideas that person had (Lucas and Spielberg films are ruining cinema, anyone?). But did she really ask for a review without any emotion? Or did she just ask for some technical/craft reviews to add to why the movie was good? And I think you do have to be a film fan to recognize good craft and be able to explain why that helps elicit the intended emotional response. For instance, I'd have loved it if Harry commented that the cinematography was reminiscent of 70's films, or that the neighborhood looked like the one from ET (comment on set design), or that many of the shots took place during the magic hour, giving the daylight portions of the film a warm, magical glow. If the camera work was similar to Spielberg's with lots of push-ins on the main characters. Did Giacchino's music sound like a lost John Williams soundtrack? That's the kind of thing that will get me more excited, and I'd have loved if it Harry included that in his review rather than "This kid reminded me of a friend I had, this action was something I did as a kid all the time." I don't know if that's what GenderBlender was looking for (I think she was just railing against Harry reviews in general), but I know I'd like more thought put into them along those lines.

  • ...Lighting....Sound....Cinematography. Of course I care about that, but I also like to read how the movie effected Harry, what kind of emotional experience I can expect to have watching the film. How the movie was seen through the eyes of a geek.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Do any of the kids die? If not then Abrams has no balls

    by Andy Pandy

    Stephen King's IT should be the standard for telling a genuinely scary movie with kids in it

  • June 1, 2011, 10:25 a.m. CST

    Thanks freebeer

    by D.Vader

    I didn't think that was directed at me, but thanks for clarifying =).

  • June 1, 2011, 10:33 a.m. CST

    "I'm going to miss harry's bright eyed optimism when he's dead."

    by AssyMuffJizz

    It's an act. It's his schtick. Sure, he geeks out hard sometimes, but Harry is an opportunistic businessman, happy to tow the party line and step on someone to get power, money and attention. It's both repellant and admirable. Believe you me -- the aw-shucks, bright eyed, idealistic kid persona is just an act. The real Harry is all about statistics and money. He's anything but naive.

  • Santa or Han for me

  • Some of have suggested Harry is some cold calculating manipulative genius, who acts like a 6 year old child on purpose. But I believe it has more to do with his legendary duffle bags that he brings into the movie theaters. It's well known Harry likes to bring a few deep fried pizzas, a couple of deep fried honey dipped chickens and a treasure trove of candy bars. He proceeds to make sandwiches out of this disgusting mish mash of junk. And this is the real reason Harry thinks he loves these films, because he is actually just loving the food. He only thinks he is enjoying the films, because in reality he would enjoy anything while he shoveling deepfried pizza sandwiches into his mouth.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Genderbender=Devin Faraci

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    plain and simple.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:51 a.m. CST

    So if you hated Goonies and Explorers. Should I bother?

    by Knobules

    Explorers started great then turned into some noisey cartoony BS in space. Goonies was kids screaming. The end.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Devin Faraci said all tbers on AICN are assholes and losers

    by Nabster

    But he did admit he goes here under a guise, after some one asked him how would he know.

  • http://www.parentfail.com/kids-dirty-dancing/

  • June 1, 2011, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Devin Faraci

    by crazyhorse2099

    ...is a complete and utter asshole. In every sense of the word. An egotistical and pompous blowhard who attacks anyone who doesn't agree with his often idiotic opinions. The fact that Tim League associates with that puerile fucktard surprises me. Alamo is an expertly run business/franchise marred only by Faraci's association via Badass Digest.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:23 a.m. CST

    who the fuck cares what someone else thinks of a movie? it is just an opinion

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    god you sheep piss me off. see the damn thing yourself and make up your own damn mind. who cares what ebert or harry or devin thinks as long as YOU liked it that is the ONLY thing that matters. the geek need for validation from others is such a debilitating weakness i am surprised that most of you can even walk outside for fear of even thinking you are being ridiculed because you chose to wear your green lantern ring and long live Bombadillo shirt on same day.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:37 a.m. CST

    'see the damn thing yourself and make up your own damn mind'

    by Mr Gorilla

    That's a pretty rich comment on a site that reviews films and discusses future films. Also, to the guy who says this is a geek movie site - not to me it isn't. it's about cool movies - most interestingly ones that I may not have heard about if I didn't come to this site. And Harry's very good DVD column has introduced me to many great films over the past few years. Back to the topic - Asimov and Kwis have articulated my thoughts much better than I could: the lines about loving the audience (which Joss Whedon does) and the fear that the likes of JJ Abrams are doing 'photocopy of a photocopy' movie-making. I'm sure, by the way, that I will see and enjoy Super 8. I think he did very clever work on Star Trek and MI3. He's a great entertainer. But the best thing he could do right now is find a writer of SUBSTANCE who can give his films that extra layer. Apart from everything else, I swear it will make him more money in the long run.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Barely read this review as Harry is morally bankrupt as far as reviews go

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter

    Plus his purile stream of thought was barely tollerable ten years ago. Now...... On the plus side, I will see this anyways, so alls good for JJ

  • June 1, 2011, 11:41 a.m. CST

    yeah gorilla, make up your own damn mind

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    how difficult is that? i mean really, how difficult is that? last question: if you want to see a movie but a reviewer on here says it is shit, do you then not go and see it? i will make it easy on you - did you see a serbian movie? cause most of the reviewers on here loved it.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:56 a.m. CST

    I think I read ten words in this review.

    by blackwood

    Most of them positive, one of them 'alien'. I have left the room when the trailer plays on TV. I actively avoid most talkbacks and news stories on the film. I am trying to quell my own intrigue by convincing myself that seeing it with as little preconceptions as possible is the best way. BUT GODDAMN, I am so sorely tempted.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Kobe

    by Mr Gorilla

    Sorry - you are right. The part of your previous post that was truly idiotic was the phrase 'who the fuck cares what someone else thinks of a movie?'. Idiotic because this website is largely made up of other people writing what they think of movies. Which means that there's no point you being here. Particularly on a review page. (I am being an asshole, of course. Apologies.) And I guess the point of reading other people's reviews is to help decide whether to actually see the movie. So maybe I don't always want to see something and make my own mind up - there are a lot of good movies to see and too little time. I do actually take people's opinions here seriously - mostly the positive opinions. But in the case of A SERBIAN FILM, I could tell that I just wouldn't have the stomach for it. But I've taken a lot of Harry's recommendations of classic movies - and enjoyed them.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:03 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    Except with Abrams Trek, where everybody in here gave the same review. Don't trust my word, check it out.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    About the Nightmare On Elm Street remake, after i watched that movie, my first coment was "what's the point?" Really, what was the point of that remake? I tell you, if the remake had been the very first movie of the whole Freddy Franchise, there wouldn't had been any franchise to talk about. The original caught the imagination. The remake only caught some buck from the less aware audiences.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Over 3 years ago Asi my friend, move on.

    by FreeBeer

  • June 1, 2011, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Dunno mattman, some dickhead I presume

    by FreeBeer

  • June 1, 2011, 12:19 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    Fir of all, there's a flip side to your cynical pessimistic coment. In that the other side, exemplified here by you, look like a bunch of unquestionable dogmatic naive who beleived the stuff said by the the most charming of snake-oil salesman you find. That's the flip side, and it's not pretty. At least the cynical pessimistics show a capacity for skepticism, which implies a measure of thoughfulness. In your case, you are already setting yourself to like the movie. you blame others fro already hating he movie sight unseen. You are doing the exact opposite, loving it sight unseen. How's that better? And don't presume to know what i think or how i like CLOSE ENCOJNTERS OF THE 3RD KIND. I love that movie. But i don't mistake it for some deep movie which deals with a deep theme in a complex and adult way. The themes in CEOT3K is about big things, but it's not terribly deep. The charm of the movie is that it's so direct and it so cuts to the chase without side events. In that it works beautifully. and it can cause in an audience a great sense of awe which very few filmmakers are able to as well as Spiblerg. I love the movie. But it is fluff. Of the best kind. But it's no big thesis of the place of the human kind in the universe or anything like that. Don't mistake your love for the movie to see in it to be something deeper then it is. CEOT3K is spectacle at it's best, and in this days and age in this era of incompetent hacks like Abrams and Bay who mistake lots of shit blowing up with spectacle, movies like CEOT3K are rare jewels. Next time you make a coment about what i think you better first ask me what i think, instead of implying falsehoods. OK, pal?

  • June 1, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Nostalgia Porn: The Movie. directed by jj abrams.

    by AsimovLives

  • your very, very wrong there Asi, very wrong indeed.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:23 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    A character study can also be a fascinating movie, man. Sicne when a movie is better or worst because of the focus of it's story? I really think that Robert McKee really fucked up a whole generation of movie geeks (and filmmakers) with his fucking book.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    "Who is Devin Faraci?"

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Who is Devin Faraci? He's supposed to be a geek. Some say his father was a dweeb. Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Nordling tell it, anybody could have worked for Faraci. You never knew. That was his power. The greatest trick the troll ever pulled was convincing the talkbacks he didn't live in his mommy's basement.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    theendispie

    by AsimovLives

    I saw IT aeons ago, but if i recall it corectly, the kids who died was only when they were in their adulthood, right? And who though that the clown was far more scary then in his final shape as a giant spider?

  • June 1, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Great review, Harry!

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Like the others, I am wondering about the score for the film. Thanks!

  • June 1, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    nabster

    by AsimovLives

    In my country there's a saying that all troubles look brighter with a chicken leg. Meaning, whatever troubles your brow, if you ate a chicken leg thing swill always look brighter and sunnier. Maybe it's as you said, Harry loves a lot of movies because he has lots of happy meals while watching it. Funny enough, whatever i eeat, regardless of how tasty or sweet, never affected by enjoyment of a movie. The opposite has happened, a crap movie can ruined my appetite.

  • ...I explained how Close Encounters is one of the most intellegent and grown up science fiction film of all time in the previous Super 8 talk back, and partially in this one, so I won't repeat myself. I'm not reading anything into the movie that isn't there Asimov, just because you didn't see it...

  • June 1, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    asimovlives I hate so much about the things you choose to be.

    by NathanGrey

    Give it a rest. Didn't your therapist tell you to take it down a notch?

  • June 1, 2011, 12:33 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by crazyhorse2099

    It took you longer to post your question here than it would have taken you to simply type "Devin Faraci" into google and have the answer.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    go-rilla

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    you said "this website is largely made up of other people writing what they think of movies. Which means that there's no point you being here. Particularly on a review page. " the part about the website is a somewhat true statement. does not take into account the true nature of the talkbacks, but if you had to generalize, then ok. so, why does that preclude me from being here when i talk about movies i like and simply urge others to make up their own minds? it does not. talking about a movie whether you liked it or not is what the forums are about. a review is simply someones opinion that can be used as a jumping off point. if you decide to give more weight to that opinion than you give to your own, that is your sheep ass fault. but then you compound the sheepishness by saying "I do actually take people's opinions here seriously - mostly the positive opinions." so any positive opinion automatically leaps to the top of the heap regardless the movie - like a serbian movie, but then you said "But in the case of A SERBIAN FILM, I could tell that I just wouldn't have the stomach for it." so, given that most of the professional reviewers on this site gave a hearty 'thumbs up - the ass' to a serbian movie that means according to your own words and subsequent posts to me on this subject, that you would tend to agree that it is a good movie - sight unseen by yourself. now, most of the unprofessional reviewers on this site who did see the movie, hated it. found it offensive in the extreme. hmm, those are negative reviews. what is a poor go-rilla to do given that he likes to cede his movie decisions to reviewers who write positive reviews, but then the majority of nonprofessionals on this site he loves to use as a barometer of what he should do, write negative ones? what to do what to do? oh yeah, just split the diff. ' it probably is a good movie -cause harry said so, but it is not for me - cause others have said so' You also said "So maybe I don't always want to see something and make my own mind up - there are a lot of good movies to see and too little time." Yes, there are. But how many good movies (or movies you had interest in seeing)have you opted not to see based upon reviews on this site that said the movie was bad, and how many bad movies have you seen based upon reviews on this site because someone said it was good? My guess is quite a few both ways. harry is notorious for liking just about everything. ill bet you saw scott pilgrim too. that is no slam on harry, he cant help himself, that is how he is wired. but the sheep that mindlessly follow his every pronouncement, well they get what they deserve. use reviews as a jumping off point, not a decision point. if you want to see something then go and see it because you want to not because of someones elses opinion

  • June 1, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Asi did you even read my post?

    by D.Vader

    I used the word "prefer". I never said anything bad about character studies. Ive seen good ones. I've seen bad ones. But I *prefer* interesting stories, just like I usually prefer genre films over rom-coms. Robert McKee and his book has absolutely nothing to do with it.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:46 p.m. CST

    I liked Pirates 4 too

    by D.Vader

    Does that make me not cool like Mattman? I also pee my pants, and that's the coolest.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:46 p.m. CST

    Now I'm interested

    by disfigurehead

    They are making a super 8 zombie movie in it? I did the same thing in that same time period. Man, I'm sold. That hits home.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:48 p.m. CST

    My take on what this movie will be like

    by AsimovLives

    Based on what has already been discloseured, what has been writen about it (both positive and negative) and from what i know of the director's previous work is this: I'm certain this movie will not be as bad as Abrams Trek, it will not be the trainwreck that movie was. Even though it does portait a trainwreck in it. (Sorry, couldn't pass the opoutunity for a pun). I feel that this movie will be like his first movie, MI3. In that it's a whole mvoie in which th final reaction to it all was just a "meh". "Meh" is just the perfect way to describe my feelings about MI3. Afer all the fury and the chase and the run and all that shemigans, and in the end it was jsut a movie that was sitting there. It was so uninvolving that i was rooting for the villain to win. At least that could had brough me some feeling of participation to it, instead of the uninspired cliched boring non-event that it was. Bascially, i'm saying that SUPER 8 will be another MI3 from Abrams. for some this will be good news. For me it's just "why did they even bother?" thing. A whole pile of forgetful pile of milquetoast. MI3 was a movie that had some interesting notiosn which were mishandled and misused for no good effect whatsopever, to the point one even asks why they even bothered to bring them tothe movie if there were not doing anything with it. I fear the same thing will happen with SUPER 8. There will be soem ideas to the mvoie which will be barely explored to any satisfaction, and most of the screen time will be filled with pandering based on other, better movies, and whenever ther will be a need for soemthing to happen during the middle of a story beat, some shit will blow up, or soem kid will be in some fake peril that is just there to pick up the pace but has nothing or little to do with the advancement of the story. Editing will be too fast paced for the story it tells, while at the same time mannaging to make the movie feel dull and boring. I call that the school of michael Bay editing, of whihc Abrams is an avid student. The cinematography will look good for anybody who is too easily impressed with perfume commercial phtography. As for the lens flares, Abrams can go shove them. It was cute the first 5 minutes of Abrams Trek, after that it became anoying and stupid. Yeah, the movie will have a good cast. I think that will happen as well. Godo for Abrams. Thing is, even the bad blockbusters made today have good castings this days. Casting has improved imenselly this later years. Name any blockbuster, and there will always be lots of good casting in those movies, no matter how terrible they might be. So, in that regard, Abrams is not doing anythign exceptional that anybody else is not already doing well, even the hacks. CGI.... frankly, if it's an Holywood movie and the budget is a confortable good one, of course the CGI will be good. D'uhhh!! The only thing is, is the CGI distracting or actually used well? My opinion: 50/50, if i have to go by Abrams' two previous movies. So, all this to say: i think Super 8 will be an equal to MI3 (which i don't think much of it) and better then Abrasm Trek. But then again, that's like abackhand compliment, it's damning with faint praise. If the mvoie turns out alright and better then my antecipations, then good for Abrams. Job job, Abrams boy! But Abrams Trek still suck ass!

  • June 1, 2011, 12:51 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    There's nothing in CEOT3K that's too suvtle for me, man. I got all what's the movie is about, and i got it fine and crystal clear. And no, the movie is not a deep piece of work. Fascinating and enthralling, yes, but deep and complex it isn't. You need to watch some really complex movies to get an idea how they look like, friend. That's the idea you transmit with your coments, anyway. The only way CEOT3K can be seen as a very complex and very deep movie is if you compare the the stuff made by Michael Bay or JJ Abrams or nay of the usual typical Holywood blockbuster trash.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Jesus

    by Continentalop

    Reading this review and the comments reminds me why I don't visit here anymore.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    And whoever reads your posts it's clear you are promoting this movie, under the guise of "wait and see it". I have sen it done before. It all looks so nice and evenhanded. But in the end you have not evenmade one coment where you have been critical of any aspects of this movie to be based on the trailers. Which already is enough to make one see some troubling things about the movie to be. You have been supporting with the appearence of non-comitment. Which you aren't. You are comited to this as much as the neysayers are skeptical. As the skeptical are skeptic, you are optimistic and hopeful and so sold to it all. You have made it perfectly clear yourself. You dare deny that?

  • ...I watch plenty you condescending douche. And yeah, Close Encounters, you didn't get it, sorry, you just didn't.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST

    asimovlives, maybe you are right

    by Nabster

    But, what you may have failed to realise is, Harry LOVES food more than any person alive. The only other theory I've heard is that Harry has created carefully tailored construct to perpetuate enthusiasm, which in turn leads to more traffic.

  • ...Eh, no, not once did i say "Go and see it" or even that I want to see it, just pointed out how much of a dumb ass the likes of you who give Harry a hard time for liking it without having seen it yourselves are. Grow up Asi, really

  • June 1, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    THe majority of the people here don't hate Abrams. The majority of the people in here are groupies. Or people who, despiste even aknowledging some problems in his movies, they still rush to see anythign made by him, and dismiss all the problems his mvoies have and handwave it pretenting they don't exist. The vast majority of people in here are pratically begging to belong to the cool club of those who are the Abrams Adoring Fans. The haters, as youc all them, they just are a bit more vociferous now, as the Abrams fanboys once where when Abrams Trek was released. Qui Pro Quo, motherfuckers. What comes around comes around.

  • June 1, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    amen, conti

    by YackBacker

    There's a lack of professionalism going on here. It is good to see some old names milling about, but this "Fuck you, your opinion is worthless!" shit is a broken record. Guys, the talkbacks used to be entertaining. People actually had something to say. We've been reduced to arguing over some inconsequential J.J. Abrams movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    Devin Faraci is finally out of his coma.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    He has since reconciled with Beaks and Nordling, and now they are a united and dangerous force seeking to usurp Harry's greasy grip on power here. Say what you will about Harry -- immature, greedy, needy, illiterate, solipsistic, unethical, illogical, naive, zaftig -- the big guy runs a pretty loose ship here. The talkbacks are the draw. If Faraci, Nordling and Beaks seize control, no one is safe. No one.

  • June 1, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    nathangrey, don't be daft

    by AsimovLives

  • June 1, 2011, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Are we really going to have to scroll past an asimovlives thesis

    by NathanGrey

    in every one of these Super 8 talkbacks?

  • Is genuinely mentally retarded. He said it tends to the weak and stupid. So if you liked it...

  • June 1, 2011, 1:03 p.m. CST

    nathangrey

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    do you laugh and laugh?

  • Eh, because I didn't see anything to criticize in the trailers, no better or worse than most trailers really. and only someone like you would think not commenting on a movie either way means I'm promoting it, someone who shoots it down, and goes so far as to post a bloody REVIEW of the film before you've seen it. Asi, your a bit of a jackass, sorry, but you are. And I'm really sorry you didn't get the deeper philosophical meaning in Close Encounters, guess ut just went over your head, shame

  • June 1, 2011, 1:04 p.m. CST

    totally agree yack

    by Continentalop

    This isn't even a debate over the merits of the movie (or the merits of anyone's movies). This is all just debating what fucking tribe you are a member of. But good to see you Yack.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:05 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    I think i resented the implciation of your psott hat a character study type movie has no story. It has a story. It's called a character stydy type of story. And it's remarkably hard to do right. Why do you think that hacks like Orci and Kurtzman only make plot driven stories? Because it's easier that way. Put a bunch of stuff happening, no matter what, and voilá, instant story. I have seen character study movies like About Schmidt which do happen to have more story to it then anything Orci and Kurtzman wrote, which if you take away all the exploding shit and the cheap cliched melodrama stuff, nothing actually really happens. Those two and Abrams are the very few people working in movies this days in which they can make a movie about two exploding planets and the near extermination of a whole race and it's still about nothing. It takes a rare breed to do that.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    DEVIN FARACI HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAAAVE!!

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    DEVIN FARACI HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Asimov...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Don't you think that all of your perspective about what it "good" or "bad" in terms of science fiction is because you are using writers like Isaac Asimov, Phillip K. Dick and Arthur C. Clarke as your primers? STAR TREK is a different animal altogether. You can argue that it didn't align itself with the vision of Gene Roddenberry (although Roddenberry's widow said that it did...and was the voice of the computer in the movie). However, even Roddenberry bitched and moaned about STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. Roddenberry's vision was of space hippies -- akin to Khan's followers in the original series (SPACE SEED). I don't know why you try and compare or contrast modern, big budget science fiction blockbusters with some of those works. After all, most of those works aren't "blockbusters" either. How many people purchased a copy of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Compare that number with the amount of people who actually watched BLADE RUNNER at a theater or in their homes. A filmmaker has a difficult task. He has to stay true to the work (whenever possible) AND try and keep a film from going in the red. He is a commercial artist -- making a work of art (a movie) in order to make money. Films like SUPER 8 aren't supposed to be compared with UBIK. It is simply meant to provoke moviegoers to care about the material presented to them.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:07 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    It's not dumb at all considering the traielrs already shown. Dumb is to look at those trailers and not yet find anything to be suspicious or troubled about. How's them apples now?

  • June 1, 2011, 1:09 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    I'm sorry, but in this case you are the one who is being condescending. Your presumption that i didn't get CEOT3K would be considered an insult, if i weren't in such a good mood. And what lots of complex movies you have seen lately, my i enquire?

  • It gives Asi fresh material. Please go see SUPER 8, Asi. Your public demands it!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:10 p.m. CST

    likewise conti

    by YackBacker

    Any summer viewing recommendations? I've gone light on films and have spent a lot of time watching DOCTOR WHO episodes. As a result of watching all of this sci-fi, I'm dreaming some really fucked up shit-- last night's dream included me sculpting humans from clay and having them come to life and turn on each other violently. Yeah, no drugs other than Sudafed® were involved.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:11 p.m. CST

    yackbacker

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Sudafed, eh? Nothing wrong with a tweak now and then. Keeps ya alert.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:13 p.m. CST

    MI3 didn't had the spirit of the old Mission Impossible TV show

    by AsimovLives

    THe whole movie was just Tom Cruise's show. It was all about him, little to nothing about the team. Even worst, the romantic plot of the movie was based on Tom Cruise's own recent marriage to Kate Holmes. That was the part of the movie i compeltly detested it. In fact, it was what made me give up on Tom Cruise from then on. Since MI3 i haven't seen any Tom Cruise movie in which he was the star. I saw COLLATERAL because that movie was also Jamie Foxx's show as well as Cruise's, with Foxx being the best of the two. Yeah, Mi3 killed Crusie for me and i have no intention of returning. As for MI3 beign better then MI2, that's debatable. Both are very silly movies, but at least MI2 didn't insulted me with Tommy's ego going so far as to include his personal life in the fucking movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Hey, freebeer. Didn't you say you were in a band?

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Have any links to performances/songs?

  • June 1, 2011, 1:14 p.m. CST

    "It's not dumb considering the trailers already shown."..

    by FreeBeer

    ...Well, yeah, it is dumb, judging a film by it's two minute trailer is very, very dumb. Thinking you know more about the movie from those two minutes than Harry doe's after seeing the whole damn thing is super, super dumb. You're dumb

  • June 1, 2011, 1:14 p.m. CST

    continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    Are you going to return for the next Nolan Batman movie talkbacks, though? At least do that. You have been missed.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Ha, no choppah, we're shit

    by FreeBeer

  • June 1, 2011, 1:15 p.m. CST

    nabster

    by AsimovLives

    I think the second hypothesis is closer to the truth.

  • Specialyl when you disparage what people liek you call "the haters" (god forbid anybody has a skeptical attitude toward filmmakers who have previosly shown poor filmmaking workmanship).

  • ...Nope, was in response to you presuming I only watch dumb movies Asimov, so I think it was fair

  • June 1, 2011, 1:17 p.m. CST

    choppah

    by YackBacker

    I'm sleeping upside down on an inversion table. I'm sleeping inverted.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:19 p.m. CST

    nathangrey

    by AsimovLives

    At least i can make a thesis, which implies though, so thanks for the compliment.

  • Considering that most trailers are pretty crappy, by comparing Super 8's trailer with all others out there, you just made my point. You really not seen anything in Super 8's trailers that have made you go "humm?". You just made my point again. It's terribly suspicious, friend.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Got no recommendations

    by Continentalop

    I barely watch most new releases. I just go to revival houses and watch a bunch of old movies or foreigns films. I was always more of a Taxi Driver, Chinatown and Godfather fan than Star Wars, CEOT3K and Escape From New York, but let's be honest, most filmmakers nowadays are more children of Spielberg, Lucas and Carpenter than they are Scorsese, Towne and Coppola (nothing wrong with that, just that I prefer more "realistic" fair).

  • June 1, 2011, 1:23 p.m. CST

    DEVIN FARACI TOUCHED ME IN THE BAD PLACE

    by BSB

  • June 1, 2011, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Nerds vs Geeks

    by Iahael

    I am a Nerd. It is my N-word, earned threw years of the usual bullying abuse in our American education system. I have seen "Geek Culture" become this social touchstone, a kind of nostalgia-filled fad that drives genre releases like "Super 8" as they strive to hit this "new" demographic. At my age, I grew up with the same movies as Harry, without the added fantasy of comic book store coolness and Austin culture to raise my Nerddom to Geekiness, as it were. And I didn't care. Now, a new generation of Geeks claims things we knew sucked (I can't believe there are serious fans of the Transformers) and treat them as equivalent to the great stuff we knew was real. We knew, back then, that ROTJ was lame, that Goonies, Monster Squad, etc. etc were junk for kids, no matter how much "wide-eyed wonder" was sold in the previews. But business is business, as they say, and that really is what drives Geekdom today, $$$. Thank God for the occasional heretic (Christopher Nolan, Duncan Jones, James Cameron, some few others) that doesn't pander to fanboys. Now, I can't guarantee this, but the review seems to indicate that is what we have here, pandering, either from Mr. Knowles or the film itself. (I'll leave the film to itself, haven't seen it, you know) This review feeds the Geek illusion, as many of his do, as this site does to distraction. So, yeah, I'd like some freakin' Prometheus news (Dark Horizons keeps up with it, the little engine that could), some tighter Dark Knight Rises coverages, and I could really do without Smurfs updates, Austin provincialism, or any other details of Mr. Knowles childhood. T.'.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:24 p.m. CST

    No. Nolan's Batman is utterly dead to me

    by Continentalop

    When he picked Bane as the villain. Maybe it will work and he'll be a great choice and I'll like the movie, but I hate that fucking character so I have nothing to add to those talkbacks other than bile, so why subject people to that constantly?

  • June 1, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    HEY IT'S CONTIPOPS!

    by BSB

    *Salutes*

  • June 1, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    There wasn0t much a team in MI3 as there was in MI2. It was all still Crusie's show. The mvopie didn't allow anybody to be apt at their job without Tommy Crusie involvement. The worst case was the car chase in Shagai when there was an oportunity to show Maggie Q kicking ass with her shooting the villaisn and allow the team to escape, but no, she had to be shot and injured and Tommy Cruisie had to, AGAIN, play the big guy by shoooting the villains with useless acrobatic shooting. Fuck that shit. Really, fuck that shit! It was as insulting as the bullshit in MI2. Which, i have to add, i detested, all that super-hero crap which read as a parody of Woo's HK work. Which was already over-the-top. So, no, the team wasn't as there as much as the people hailing as the return of the team. The team wa sthere to do the light lifting, but in the end it was all just Tommy Cruise's show. I have wanted to see an Impossible Mission movie which really has a team working as a MI should. I haven't seen one of those yet.

  • Eh, no, I don't think I have. I hardly ever comment on how a movie looks from a trailer as it's pretty pointless, it's hardly a reflection of what the movie is going to be like. And it's gas that you think it would be more impartial for me to find something to criticize about it than to say nothing at all either way. I don't think you know what impartial means Asi my friend

  • June 1, 2011, 1:28 p.m. CST

    I thought the Super 8 trailer was good

    by Continentalop

    I have my suspicions that the movie will suck (not a fan of Cloverfield or JJ Abrams) but I thought the trailer accomplished what it was supposed to do: make people want to see it. And it did that without really giving anything away about the movie other than that is a sci-fi/horror movie about kids. Of course, lot of shitty movies had horrible trailers. Gone in 60 Seconds being one of them.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:28 p.m. CST

    YACKSTER

    by BSB

    So far, Fast Five and Thor are kings of summer. I saw Fast Five 3X. Masterpiece!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:28 p.m. CST

    I mean lot of shitty movies had great trailers.

    by Continentalop

    Gone in 60 Seconds was a great trailer for a god-awful movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Oh, and freebeer and Asi: Try to be nicer to each other.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    There's a legitimate debate underneath all these insults. I do declare!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:29 p.m. CST

    yackbacker!

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    my brother from another mamen!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:31 p.m. CST

    KOBE!

    by BSB

    My brother from a Yenta mother!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:32 p.m. CST

    BSB

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    What are you going to do when CAPTAIN AMERICA hits? Hand party triple feature with THOR and GREEN LANTERN?

  • June 1, 2011, 1:36 p.m. CST

    CHOPPAH

    by BSB

    I'm bringing some Latin ladyboys dressed as Nazis to Captain America. We're gonna party like it's 1939 baby.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:36 p.m. CST

    freebeer: You'll see that Asi actually means no harm.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    That's merely his nature. He throws himself into everything, with the brutality of nature guiding every keystroke. He's the Portuguese honey badger.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    BSB

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Will you name one "Poland" and the other "Czechoslovakia"?

  • June 1, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    freebeer: I don't care if you're band's shit.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    You can't be any worse than Green Day.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST

    *YOUR band* that is

    by THE_CHOPPAH

  • June 1, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Yep, I know he means no harm, as I don't harm mean either (???)

    by FreeBeer

  • June 1, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    CHOPS

    by BSB

    No, they're gonna have a picture of the Red Skull painted on their bums and I'm gonna show them America means business.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Anyone named freebeer can't mean any harm.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    I just wish you could manifest some of suds gratis.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Be sure to paint Li'l BSB like Cap.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

  • June 1, 2011, 1:43 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by AsimovLives

    "Don't you think that all of your perspective about what it "good" or "bad" in terms of science fiction is because you are using writers like Isaac Asimov, Phillip K. Dick and Arthur C. Clarke as your primers?" You bet! Set the bar high, that's how you know to seperate the good from the crap. Yes, most stuff made in SF is crap. The good stuff, however, far compensates the bad stuff. "STAR TREK is a different animal altogether" You mean Abrams Trek, right? We need to be accurate here. We can't confuse Abrams's movie with the show created by Roddenberry. "You can argue that it didn't align itself with the vision of Gene Roddenberry (although Roddenberry's widow said that it did...and was the voice of the computer in the movie)." Becasue she would say anything otherwise while the movie was being promoted, right? You know this people sign contracts, don't you? They have to play the game while it's still one, in this case, people involved with a movie HAVE to praise the mvoie and support it during it's promotional phase. It's not what they say during promotion that matters, but after they are no longer bound to it. Sadly, the old gal is already dead. "Roddenberry's vision was of space hippies" I think you kinda missed the whole point of Star Trek. The very episode in which actual hippies showed up, the show was critical of the more naive elements of the movement. Bold move for a show made at a time when it was aimed directly at that age bracket. The showed criticised the way the hippies seeked the truth, not the search itself. My suspicious, which have gorwn with time, is that the people who tuned in to Abrams TRek have made a deliberate effort (conscious or inconcious) to misrepresent in their mind what Star Trek during the Roddenberry years are really about and what was really like. So to uphold their faith on Abrams and his movie. "I don't know why you try and compare or contrast modern, big budget science fiction blockbusters with some of those works." I compare the thoughfulness, dedication and respect for the audiences, which can be compared by any movie made form any era. And in that regard, the blockbusters of today, excluding some rare examples, fair pretty weakly in that department. And that should be criticised. So very so. "After all, most of those works aren't "blockbusters" either. How many people purchased a copy of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Compare that number with the amount of people who actually watched BLADE RUNNER at a theater or in their homes." So? What's the point, anyway? That dumbness is OK? I mena, look at Blade Runner, it didn't dumbed down, did it? In fact,t eh movie has been accused of the opposite, of being "pretentious" and unacessible. All bullshit accusations, of course, but there it goes to prove the minds of some. "A filmmaker has a difficult task. He has to stay true to the work (whenever possible) AND try and keep a film from going in the red. He is a commercial artist -- making a work of art (a movie) in order to make money." Yes indeed. The good filmmakers. Like David Fincher, Ridley Scott, Duncan Jones, Neill Bloomkamp, Neill Marshall, Christopher Nolan, Paul Verhoeven and the like. Not guys like Bay or Abrams, who only see the business and their ego side and nothing else. "Films like SUPER 8 aren't supposed to be compared with UBIK." I'm not. But i don't need to. I don't even need to compare it with anything to have the suspicious feeling that it will still fair poorly. As i said, i don't think it will be the trainwreck that Abrams Trek is, even though it has a trainwreck in it (again, couldn't resist the cheap pun).

  • June 1, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    the_choppah

    by AsimovLives

    My public is frickle. I never know what to expect.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    CAPITAL IDEA, CHOPS

    by BSB

  • June 1, 2011, 1:45 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    Yes, that strange middle. Which, frankly, is kinda spooky.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:50 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    Isn0't it dumb too for be eager for a movie basedf ona trailer as well? And make a huge defens eof it also based on the notion that a trailer is all you get? do you evne know what a traielr is for? It's to give you an ida of what the movie is about. Hopefully to make you watch it, but also migth just convince you not to. Why is it that for an Abams movie a trailer loses it's very reason to exist for you and thus it jsut means that peopel ahve to watch the movie anyway to form an opinion? Why you abrams fans always make exceptions for his movies and change the game in regard to him? Did you or did you not got an idea of the mvoie was going to be good and worth watching or nor and avoid it when you saw the trailers fro INCEPTION? did you not though that this mvoie be a good movie and i need to wathc ot of that this movie sucks and i'm not wasting my time with it? That's what a trailer is for, to give an idea if you are going to like the movie or not, WITHOUT THE NEED TO WATCH IT. Or else they wouldn't exist. Why is it the game always change whenever JJ Abrams is involved? Jesus!

  • No, it was an insult. Deliberatly so. But i don't care, i'm in too good a mood to let it affect me.

  • Trailers are more indicative of what a movie could be like than a still.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:52 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    Correct me if i'm wrong, but i once heard that Faraci guy also loved TERMINATOR CONSTIPATION. Is that true? If so, his opinions are, well, as questionable as Harry's, i'm affraid.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:55 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    Well, i'm glad you had a fun ride with Abrams Trek. Me, i felt depression, desilusionment and distrust and fear for the future of the spieces. It was not a joyous experience.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST

    by continentalop "No. Nolan's Batman is utterly dead to me"

    by AsimovLives

    Well, can i have it then. You know, what people say i'm about Star Trek, you are about Batman... by powers ten.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:59 p.m. CST

    "Of course, lot of shitty movies had horrible trailers."

    by AsimovLives

    If anything, my lesson learned is that half the good trailers are for bad movies. There's bad movies which make for excelent trailer material but in the end the movies themselves are pretty weak... if not downright bad.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:01 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    Name the people who deserve my condescending fury. Point me in their direction.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:05 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    Look at the caseof Captain America, which you brough up. Inicially I was terribly skeptical about it. My posts attest to that. I kept mocking it mercilessly, calling it Captain GaymeriKKKa. When i started to see the art and the casting and then the trailers hit, and i have to say, i became a believer. And you have no idea what a nothing Captain America is to me. I don't like the character and it's implciations, but they have convinced me to watch the movie. In fact, i'm even kinda eager to. I was bough to the movie. The trailers did their job, and did it well. That's a job well done. I supect that movie will do for me what Iron Man did for that comic characte,r once which previously i couldn't give a fuck about and now i became something of a fan. That's how you do it. Super 8 has not done nothing of the sort to me. In fact, with each new trailer it only confirms my suspicion of the movie.

  • ...Blade Runner is one of my favorite films of all time. My top five science fiction movies in no particular order 1. Blade Runner 2. 2001 A Space Odyssey 3. Close Encounters Of The Third Kind 4. Alien 5. The Day The Earth Stood Still 6. A Clockwork Orange 7. Brazil 8. Metropolis 9. Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (50's and 70's version) 10. Moon Honorable mentions- Planet Of The Apes, District 9, Solaris (1972), The Thing, Robocop, Akira, Gattaca (underrated in my opinion), Children Of Men, Soylent Green, Dark City, Twelve Monkeys...

  • As I've said, time and time and time and time and time again Asimov, I'm not what you would call an Abram's fan. Hell, only movie I really enjoyed was Star Trek

  • June 1, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST

    "No, it was an insult. Deliberatly so."...

    by FreeBeer

    ...Sure it was Asimov, but you deserved it

  • June 1, 2011, 2:14 p.m. CST

    bsb

    by AsimovLives

    Like many, i suspect you don't know what Tourette is.

  • ...Didn't you just eat my head off for daring to say it was dumb to judge a movie by it's trailer? Then you went on and on about why it wasn't dumb at all and you COULD judge a movie by it's trailer. Now you say a trailer is not indicative of the quality of the film at all? Isn't that what I was saying?

  • June 1, 2011, 2:21 p.m. CST

    the_choppah

    by AsimovLives

    "Trailers are more indicative of what a movie could be like than a still." Most definatly. But that pic made me believe that Nolan is going on the right direction. Making Bane like a comic book version of BRONSON is a sweet idea indeed. Nolan is a filmmaker who i have great trust thanks of his past movies. But it also makes me skeptical of his next movies, despiste whatever good i might think of what i have seen until then. It's just too much of a good thing. I'm always expecting that with the enxt movie Nolan will fail, as he eventually will, because he's just human. But by now Nolan already earned his right to fail a few times, given how much good he has done already. I was expecting (not desiring but dreading that it would happen) that his first failure, if not artistically then at least commercially, was going to be INCEPTION. The movie proved to be optherwise, both artistically and commercially, much to my complete suprise. Will Batman 3 be it? Oh boy!

  • June 1, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    There's stuff i saw the the Super 8 trailer, specially the latest, which really just rub me the wrong way. Very wronly. So yeah, pardon me if i'm pretty skeptical about this movie thanks to both the trailers and the director's past record. I'm in no doubt that the Fanning girl will be bigger after this movie, though. She seems to be the constant thing in which everybody, even the critics who were less positive about the movie, agree upon as one of the best things about it. No suprise for me there. As i said about Abrams Trek, the casting of that movie is the only thing i have any positive to say, and i'll not be suprised if the same thing happens with Super 8. Holywood has become very good at casting this days.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Asi, you say you like the cast...

    by FreeBeer

    ...How would you feel about another movie that continues on in this new universe, but with a different director and writers? I think the universe itself isn't much different than the original, so there potentially could be a more cerebral and meaningful film made using this new cast

  • June 1, 2011, 2:36 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    I understand now why i tough a raw nerve with CEOT3K. You misunderstand me when i say it's an inferior movie, because it isn't. It's a great movie. I own the DVD. I saw it in the theatrers and that movie put the awe in me. Don't make the mistake to think i dislike the movie or think ill of it. That'sa fabulous list you got there, and i share all of it as well. I also do list Blade Runner and 2001 as my two fave SF movies. All the others you kisted which i also list as favorites, their order is just a matter of preference. I also have very high regard to such movies as GHOST IN THE SHELL (i call it the anime HEAT, which is the biggest praise i can give), THX 1138, ROLLERBALL (1975), GODZILLA (the fist movie), THEY LIVE, DARK STAR, and i have great foundess for such movies like CASSHERN. Speaking of the Body Snatcher movies, which you rate the ebtter, the original 50s or the 70s remake. I like the 70s remake better, but i nevr saw the 50s version without the "happy ending" so i might be biased there. But the 70s version kicked my ass. And of course, i love STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. I know it's not a popular opinion to have in here but what do i care?

  • I don't think I approach anywhere near you and Dawson's Trek, Asi. I'm just a simple man who wanted the Penguin to be the villain...

  • ...Casshern, was very interested to see it, visually it's meant to be an amazing depiction of the future, might check that out. Have been meaning to watch Ghost In The Shell for ages too

  • June 1, 2011, 2:47 p.m. CST

    BSB, kobes

    by YackBacker

    Thanks for the love! I've seen THOR and enjoyed it. FAST FIVE is in the cards, but I'm thinking home viewing for that one. But I'm glad to know where FAST FIVE made its $200 million domestic from! Way to go, BSB! Conti- Spielberg's best is JAWS in my opinion. He quickly added maudlin nonsense to his films thereafter. Still, a master of set-pieces- RAIDERS is forever brilliant. E.T. suffers over time. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is a mixed bag. EMPIRE OF THE SUN still holds up well though. Can't say the same for LAST CRUSADE.

  • Not an easy question to answer. It would take people of value and quality to make something good after the wreck that Abrams and friends did. It's not impossible, but it would take hard work. Yeah, keep the cast, by all means. But please, change the characters. Specially Kirk, Spock and Uhura, the three which suffered the most under the Abramsfication of Star Trek. Who was the bright idea that turning them into assholes was a good idea? They should go back to formula. You know what's funny? There was a potential in the middle of all the stuff in Abrams Tek for a really effective movie in which one wouldn't need to use excuses like "yeah it's dumb but fun" to enjoy it. There's seeds in Abrams Trek for an effective movie. And they fucking squandered it for the sake of pursuing the worst parts of the script. They sacrificed an oportunity for universality, which is what Star Trek is about and why it connects to the world word, by making a movie DELIBERARLY desieng to appeal solely to an american audience based on the midwest audiences, as Michael Bay does with his movies. Abrams Trek template and public target was the midwest audiences, or what Hoylwood perceive of them. Compare and contrast with INCEPTION, which is a movie with a truly univeral appeal, which was demonstrated with it's huge sucess abraod as well as domestic. That should had been how Star Trek ashould had been made. It's not how it was under Abrams tutelage. Frankly, the guy who had done the new ST movie should had been either Bryan Singer (who's an unshamed fan) or Ronald D. Moore (for obvious reasons). You know, people who actually liked it to begin with and would feel a compulstion to respect it, instead of turning it into Star Wars Mark II, if you know what i mean.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:56 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    The last trailer of X-Men First Class did hit the right buttons to me. So here's to hoping. And it's hard to give up on Mathew Vaught when he made such a brillant first movie like LAYER CAKE. Did you know he's actually british nobility? Make no mistake, i'm also an unappologetic fan of 70s and part 80s Spielberg. As it should. I'm the guy in here who goes berkerk if any fool dares insult EMPIRE F THE SUN or TEMPLE OF DOOM as a bad movies. There's no bashing of those excelent movies in my watch. But the faxct i'm also an unappologetic fan of 70s and part 80s Spielberg is part of what makes me feel so suspicous of Super 8 and JJ Abrams. It makes me feel manipulated and not in a good way, and i always resent that. I resent that terribly. Makes me want to say "go fuck yourself, dude! You are trying to pull my leg? Screw you, buddy!". In what for many of you guys what Abrams is doing hits you the right way, for me it hits the wrong way. and that's because i'm a fan of 70s and 80s Spielberg. The manipualtion, and a seemly unsavoury one at that, looks pretty insidious and obvious to me. I'm not amused. So excuse me if i'm seriously skeptical.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    "I'm just a simple man who wanted the Penguin to be the villain..."

    by AsimovLives

    False modesty will not get you off the hook, my friend.

  • ...I know what you want from a Star Trek film, you want a STAR TREK film out of a Star Trek film, i get it, and I think we could still get that. I don't think we can ever hope for another reboot or a return to the original Trek-verse, but I believe an intelligent, old school, ambitious Star Trek story can still be told in this new universe. The talent is there in front of the screen, so if we get writer's on board with an interesting, meaningful story to tell and a director who respects and admires the original source material we could have another classic Trek adventure yet.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:02 p.m. CST

    So it sucks

    by Chadley BeBay

    Thats what I am getting from this diatribe

  • June 1, 2011, 3:07 p.m. CST

    i really just dont care about this movie...

    by sunwukong86

    maybe its the kids in it, I dunno

  • June 1, 2011, 3:07 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    Casshern is not set int eh future. It's more like an alternative universe type of story. Visually, it's stagerring, if you cna handle the obvious cartoonish CGI. Which was not a problem for me. The thing i love about Casshernis that you cna tell the filmmakers did had great ambitions forthe movie. In the middle of all the anime madness, there's a profoundly humane and moving story about the follies and fraities of human beings. With giant steampunk robots and enhanced superhumans. As for GHOST IN THE SHELL, let me jsut say this: the movie KICKED MY ASS! It kicked so hard i still feel it's foot on my butt. And so happy it's so. You watch the movie and you can also tell the director is also a major Blade Runner groupie. One thign about GHOST IN THE SHELL is that it has, to me, the best shootout scene i ever seen in a movie. It's unconventional in it's presentation. As in, you see a big spider robot and a cyborg girl shooting each other in a flooded musseam, but the muic that plays with it is suprisingly aetheral and moody, in complete contrrast to the violence shown. It's bewildering. It's amazing. It's completly unexpected. You know how a movie piles and piles on you until one scene in particular seem sto be the drop that tips the glass and you have to surrender to the movie and say "this shit is brillant, it's one of the best movie i ever seen". That was to me with GHOST IN THE SHELL when i first saw it. Suffice to say, i bought the score. The opening theme of GHOST INTHE SHELL is also remarkable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0z08OpmEPc

  • June 1, 2011, 3:09 p.m. CST

    yackbacker, i disliked Last Crusader from the get go.

    by AsimovLives

    When i was watching it for the first time and noticed that i was making an effort to like it, that's when i called it quits. Nobody should make an effort to like a Indiana Jones movie, that should came naturally. The least said about CRYSTAL SKULLFUCK the better.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:12 p.m. CST

    "as I understand it, he didn't just sign the checks on this movie"

    by AsimovLives

    I'm affraid he just did that, but it is given a different image so to help promote the movie. Expect an Abrams movie, not a Spielberg movie, because you are not going to get the later, no matter what the marketing says.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Mattman

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Once they enter the temple, it is a glorious roller coaster of a film.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:20 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    As you said, if they did a complete overhaul and only retaiend the cast (and they could also get rid of the terrible designs of teh ASS Abrams prise, both exteriors and interiors), yeah, it could be salvagable. But bascially that would be a reboot. So, yeah, reboot ST, start again, use the cast, at least they could spare that trouble. If continue the Abramsverse, then do what Wrath Of Khan did to A Motion Picture, redesign and remodel the thing while still retaining some elements which don't clash too much. You know what would be fun? If the sequel acknowledge the stupidity that wasto give command of a starship to Kirk so soon and made him lose command because he failed a task due to his lack of seasoning. Adnthen make Spock the captain, and make him be a damn good one, and Kirk proving to be an exceptional Number 2. If we are going to change Star Tek and put it in an alternative univers,e then we better make it ALTERNATIVE, as in REALLY ALTERNATIVE, and not just merely a superficial carbon copy with lens flares. And Uhura could turn lesbian and make out with Nurse Chapel or Ensign Rand.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:20 p.m. CST

    AI is an excellent companion to EMPIRE OF THE SUN

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Not many can remake their own films, but Steven pulled it off nicely.

  • The underrating that has been going on about that movie can really irk me.

  • Sold. And Crystal Skull infuriated me as much as New Trek did you. God damn that movie made me physically sick.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:23 p.m. CST

    JJ is wearing thin on me but I'll give him this one last shot

    by skycrapper

    This summer is turning out some floppers man, Thor was pretty so-so, Pirates ... even Swearenger couldn't save that one. Hangover...(haven't seen it, but reviews have confirmed what I expected). I'll check this one out. But man, Abrams has failed to deliver on so many projects. Perhaps he'll surprise me but I'm going in with low expectations. I'm waiting for Cap, Harry Potter, and Cowboys and Aliens to save us from a gloomy summer.

  • I always saw Willy character in Temple Of Doom as the movie making fun of that particular type of character and to make her go through the type of shit that really merited her distress. It's the ultimate squeeling female character to end them all. And end it did. It's really the movie and it's filmmakers taking the piss. I can imagine Lucas, Spielberg and the writers (one of them a woman herself) alll having a laugh at how exagerated she should be, the ultimate pun on an old cliché. So, because of that, Willy doesn't anoy me. Or rather, i know she is supposed to be both anoying and hillarious because of that. I mean, her hysterics and anoyance is even lampshaded in the movie on several occasions. The filmmakers were very aware of that.

  • ...God what I wouldn't give to see Kubrick's undilluted version of that film, alas, wasn't to be

  • June 1, 2011, 3:29 p.m. CST

    the_choppah

    by AsimovLives

    I love the whole of TEMPLE OF DOOM, including the muscial number. Also, before the temple, there is one moment with Indy with Short Roudn which actually counts as the only moment in the Indiana Jones saga which is actually a character moment for Indy, the only moment where we truly get a glimpse into the internaltional man of mystery he is. It's the "fortune and glory" dialogue. It does more for Indy as a character then all the melodrama bullshit found in LAME CRUSADE and CRYSTAL SKULLFUCK.

  • How do i know that feeling, because i felt the same way with CRYSTAL SKULLFUCK.

  • Expectations is not the word i would use to describe my feelings toward a movie with a script writen by those two clowns.

  • The score played at the ending. Becasue the ending that we got is the ending that Kubrick wanted. contrary to poçular belief, Spielberg didn't influenced the ending. Spielberg's major contributions was the middle part, specially the flesh fair part. The ending is as Kubrick wanted. The major difference would be the music used. As it is, John Williams sugary sentimental score undermine the truly harsh and cynical ending the movie has. Kubrick would had been more obviously ironic with the use of msuic, which means, he most certainly would pop out some opiec eof classic music which today might be relatively obscure or barely used in movies and would make us never think of that piece in the same way ever again. While Spielberg sugared the bitter bill with sentimental music, Kubrick would either compliment or play darly ironic. So, the difference would be in mood, not plotting.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Isn't Ireland part of Europe too?

    by AsimovLives

    Adn what about all this FMI business, man? My country, Portugal, is also one of those which had to contract a loan. 75 thousand million euros, to be exact. This shit is surreal. You should had told me you are irish. I have a natural sympathy for the celts in the british islands.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:44 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    "One of the most disturbing bits in Gattaca is when Uma Thurman joins this queue of people looking to get a potential partners DNA analysed, mostly because it was so believable, like such a service could actually exist" Indeed. It's so believable that it would happen, if the technology existed. It makes people look like cattle. Which was the point.

  • ...Maybe Kubrick would have shot and composed the scene differently, I don't know. The whole section where the aliens scoop him up and bring his mother back to life for a day (was it a day) seemed tacked on somehow, a bit sentimental, a bit unbelievable. I didn't even look into it, just presumed Speilberg was responsable

  • I feel zero excitement about it. Quite the contrary, everything in me is screaming "fuck this shit". The way i see it, they are fucking up a potentially food western with this aliens bullshit. I mean, Daniel Craig seems to have born to be in a western. again, a bloke from the other side of the pound makes for a dope cowboy, like Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan were in SERAPHIM FALLS (a damn good western, you guys should check it out). So, we have Daniel Craig playing a cowboy (win) and with him we have Harrison Ford (another win) and Olivia Wilde as the town's sallon prostitute (major win) and Sam Rockwell (big time win), and ehy could had gone to town with a major kick ass western, APPALOOSA style. Instead, we get this alien invasion bullshit with the hero wearing the predator's bracelet? Count me out!

  • June 1, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST

    TEMPLE OF DOOM > A.I.

    by YackBacker

    But both are examples of great potential hampered by some tough-to-ignore choices by Spielbergo. I love both of them as a fan, but Kate Capshaw's mouth and every single act if stereotyping of Indian people are too much to ignore. And with A.I., the story, emotions and concept are all excellent but the ending (which I think is great as its own set piece) doesn't work with the first 75% of the film.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Well two out of those three wouldn't be bad, Asi

    by skycrapper

    but I won't hold my breath then. I still like Favreau, Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig, so I'm looking forward to it.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Yack, I agree JAWS is great

    by Continentalop

    My favorite 'Berg movie as well, followed closely behind with DUEL (only thing that hampers that one IMO is the VO and the cross-cutting to his wife on the phone).

  • June 1, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    mattman and freebeer: about AI's ending

    by AsimovLives

    It's all a matter of tone and mood, really. But the implications of the ending of AI are still ther,e evne with John Williams's best efforts to make the music sentimental and emotional. Remmeber that the future robots tell David that every people that ever lived leaves an imprint in the very fabric of the universe. But to bring on in againa nd make him live again not only means they can only life for just oen day, but they will be entirely erased as well, a de facto complete death to that peson, erased rom the universe, a total lack of existence ever again. It's a total nightmarish imagery right there. And what David does? With full knowledge, he still wants his mommy brough back,for one day, risking her complete eradication from the universe. And the future robots comply because the yneed him to fill the gaps of their knowledge of the past, of where they came form, how they started. David to them is like us encountering a living pre-historical person. Imagine the things he could tell us and fill our gaps on knowledge of a time that left no record? And then what does David do after he gets whis wish? He voluntary dies, he goes to "sleep", in effect breaking the agreement with the future robots. With all it's implications. It's a monstrous ending. It's dark and cynical as they come. There's nothing sentimental or fluffy or ligthweight or escapist or soft-paddling about it. It's a far worst ending then what many wanted, to end it when David is praying to the "blue fairy". It's far darker. And i suspect that Spielberg realised it as well. He msut have felt torn between is promise to stay true to Kubrick's ending and the trouble he must have felt in delivering that kind of ending, which goes against everything he is as a filmmaker, and probably as a person as well. And as Alexander Thr Great before him, he found a solution to that gordian knot: he took a 3rd way, and layed the ending as Kubrick wanted, but he sugared the pill with sentimental music in a bit of disguised misdirection. Those who could see past the sugary music noticed the harsh ending as Kubric intended. Others got what seemed like a Spielbergian ending, bittersweet but soft enough not to depress. Kubrick could had gone subtle and ambiguous as well, but his way would probalby be far more ironic and moody.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:09 p.m. CST

    The end of A.I.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Humanity is reduced to the program-generated Oedipal fantasy of a robot "child." Williams' "sappy" score (I call it "haunting" and "elegiac") only underscores the disturbing poignancy of the moment. It's a devastating ending, a chilling vision of a reality where love remains only a concept. Or is the movie saying that's what love has been all along -- a concept, a behavior generated by the organic wiring of our brains and thousands of years of biological development?

  • June 1, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST

    The ending of A.I

    by Continentalop

    Is what Nietzche meant when he said "Poets muddy their waters to make them look deep." It was a sci-fi Pinocchio with enough ambiguity at the end to make people see more than maybe was really there.

  • As for the biological plausablity of the Clovie monster... bullshit!! Nothing that big could ever exist walking the dryland on Earth. Even if it was alien. Gravity, atmosphere pressure differentials and hydrodynamics would put a stop to that. whenever i hear those coments that Clovie was made to be biological sound, it's all just a pile of insulting shit. Clovie is as real as Godzilla is in any of it's incarnations. At least with the original Godzilla there is a great effort to have the movie be about soemthing, and an important something subject at the time. Cloverfield is about what a great idea it is to have a big ass monster eating anoying fucking yuppies.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:17 p.m. CST

    All this talk about "A.I." makes me realize I need to watch it again.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Man, did I miss the point of the ending COMPLETELY... Most interesting.

  • So? Why would that make it any less cool or important? Love as one of the engines that possibilitated our evolution? I find that notion beautiful and awesome in it's real sense of the word.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Been skipping over any talk of "Super 8"

    by WriteForTheEdit

    including Harry's review. I'm still holding out hope that it might be okay and this whole TB appears to be full of spoilerish detail...

  • June 1, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Nietzsche

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    He was inspired to say that during one of his syphilitic pisses.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    Considering that AI was a Kubrick project, there is more to the ending then meets the eye. Kubrick didn't muddle water,s the did the exact opposite, he obfuscated them with aparent symplicity. That's why he was Kubrick.

  • And what, exactly, is wrong with that?

  • ...and I'll put A.I. down on the list.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Kubrick was for directing what Charles Bronson was for action

    by AsimovLives

    He didn't had to act badass, he WAS badass.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Asi

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    I never said it was any less cool or important. I find it moving, personally.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Choppah

    by Continentalop

    I actually think he said it after he was cockteased by Lou Andreas-Salome.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    No love for THE COLOR PURPLE?

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    not here. That film did nothing for me. I blame it on the the lack of williams score there.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:25 p.m. CST

    I'll have to take your word on that mattman

    by Continentalop

    I've only seen it once. It did nothing for me the first time, so I have never revisited it.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:26 p.m. CST

    "Everything is spelled out for you in no uncertain terms."

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Really? See, then, I must have missed something right in front of me...

  • June 1, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST

    mattman, you're right. The ending is very clear.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    David is a robot who is being treated as the last remnant of humanity. The advanced robots indulge his "fantasy," which is the result of programming. He is not "real." Love didn't make him "real." The "love" he felt was the end result of Hurt and Co.'s engineering. But then, because it feels so real, it makes you think about "real," human love, about whether it's something apart from us or merely based on in our material existence. What makes human love so "real"?

  • June 1, 2011, 4:29 p.m. CST

    mattman: If you're a Lizzy Caplan fan (and CHOPPAH certainly is),

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    check out the first season of True Blood for the Full Lizzy.

  • Not the movie itself, but one thing i saw him saying in a making-off interview. He said that his intentionwith cloverfield was to create the american monster. As Godzilla is Japan's, Clovie would be America's Monster (Trademark). He, Abrams, was to create THE american monster. Right there, this guys completly rubbed me the wrong way. I had never been too impressed with LOST or ALIAS. I found his movie MI3 to be terribly flawed and irritating, though mostly i put my blame on Cruise. but this statement form him is what started my seriously questioning of this Abrams fella. Aparently, Sir JJ Of Abramsville must had forgotten that once upon a time, two americans in 1933 did created THE AMERICAN MONSTER, in a movie that became a cultural phenomemum and which just recently had gotten a remake of it's own. This movie, and the monster, being of course, KING KONG. How in the bloody hell could Abrams claim he was creating the american monster with Cloverfield, then that had been done before more then 70 years ago? and it's not like King kong was a movie and a monster that had fallen into forgetfullness and only a hand full of dedicated horror buffs would know it once existed, right? This was when i realised what a person full of shit this Abrams fella is. All his works done afterward as just conformed that without a shadow of a doubt. Abrams is a bullshiter. And he's doing it again with his new movie, only this time he's even bolder. And he has a captive audience already.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Kubrick was a great director

    by Continentalop

    But he wasn't BADASS. Sam Fuller and Jean-Pierre Melville were BADASS. Sorry, but BADASS has a specific connotation to me. No matter how great a director is, he just can't be called BADASS unless he really did something BADASS!

  • June 1, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Yeah, as I recall, that's what I thought those creatures were: aliens.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Definitely need to rewatch... Poor Haley. That kid did not get the career little Drew got.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    "and this whole TB appears to be full of spoilerish detail..."

    by AsimovLives

    It wouldn't be a talkback otherwise. If it didn't happened, i would though the whole gang had been replaced by pods, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS type.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Godzilla >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cloverfield Monster

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Fuck you, JJ. Nice try.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    the_choppah

    by AsimovLives

    It's not that it's a bad idea, but it's hardly profound, is it? Specially compared with GODZILLA (and by that i mean the real version of the movie, the japanese version, not that american version joke with Perry Manson).

  • June 1, 2011, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Another cruel joke in A.I.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    That robots are able to find such a close link to their creators, while humans continue to struggle to find their supposed Creator. It's a godless movie, and I love it for being so.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:36 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by WriteForTheEdit

    I wish I could blame not catching those details on youth or substance abuse or whatever...

  • Nor i ever plan to for the rest of my life. And i never saw THE TERMINAL, and i intend to keep it that way.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:40 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    You said it. Lizzy Caplan's character, Marlena, was the only one in that movie that actually had a personality, and one not made of bullshit either. In fact, she's the only character i actually remember the name, which says a lot. The rest of the bunch was just a whole lot of fucking rich asshole. Go Clovie! When in a movie like this you start rooting for the monster, something has gone seriously wrong.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    I think it helps to look at CLOVERFIELD as a metaphor for 9/11.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    The monster just sorta kinda comes out of nowhere, and the movie observes it from the ground level, very much how many people in NYC did during the attacks on the WTC. Now, for the CLOVERFIELD sequel, it should turn out that the monster was the result of a biotech startup's product testing gone wrong. Their biggest client, a huge Wall St. investment bank like Goldman Sachs, could have been pumping money made from shitty mortgage default swaps and government bailout money into the project, which was intended to create smaller versions of the monsters to destabilize emerging economies into defaulting ...

  • June 1, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    RE: godless A.I.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    You all are totally making me do a 180 on this film.... Now, if you can manage that with "Temple of Doom," I'll be REALLY impressed. Gauntlet thrown. ;) And for the record, I don't hate JJ Abrams' entire output or anything; I LOVED "Lost." But don't try going toe to toe the Big G. You lose. Always.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST

    continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    Badass is not just the capacity to lift a gun and kill enemies in the battlefield. look at all the people that Kubrick worked with him, all big actors, some of them literally big fellas who used to lord aroudn the sets, directros be damned, but when they filedm with Kubrick, it was Kubrick who became the boss, the unquestionable boss. Kubrick could out-badass the badasses. Just because Kubrick never saw military action doesn't mean he wasn't tough. The dude played the meaneast game in Holywood, even when he no longer worked there. That's badass.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:47 p.m. CST

    writefortheedit

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    You're either on that ride, or you're getting funnel cake.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:48 p.m. CST

    "I think it helps to look at CLOVERFIELD as a metaphor for 9/11."

    by AsimovLives

    That«'s the imagery they had with it. but it's nt what's about. That movie is about nothing. It's a monster smashing shit up and eating anoying yuppies. The 9/11 is only there by imagery implication so to try to hit a cord with the audience,s aka, manipulation. But nothing more. The movie really is a case of what you see is what you get: a monster fucking up shit. No more no less.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    No, that isn't badass. That's called being effective...

    by Continentalop

    ...and persuasive. You can even call it leadership and ballsy. But badass? Sorry, but IMO badass involves personal risk to your life and limb. It doesn't necessarily mean killing someone, but fucking Gandhi and MLK were badass because they were willing to put themselves in harms way for no profit or reward. I love Kubrick's movies, but to put making a movie with storming the beaches of Normandy is ridiculous iMO.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Asi, you're right. I wish they had done more with it.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Still, CLOVERFIELD was a fun watch, but I didn't really feel compelled to watch it again.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST

    choppah: nice metaphor, one I can truly appreciate

    by WriteForTheEdit

    And I will admit, the ToD "ride" is a blast and a half. (Disney has yet to install a proper Indiana Jones ToD rollercoaster at any of its parks. (The jeep ride, though, at Disneyland, is a fucking wet dream of a theme park attraction)). As someone above said, the last 1/2 hour of ToD is superlative. Capshaw kills it for me.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    You know what it was? A bad call from the filmmakers. They presumed that if they kept the whole movie about the shallow pretty people and their anoying obnoxious comedy relief idiot who had the camera, the people's interst would be with them. Marlena was suppsoed to be a pseudo-sidekick, the comedy relief of the comedy relif. They severely misjusdge the impact and importance of her character. She should had been the final girl. She should had been the last to go. she was the only one wh earned the right to survive in theending, and a real emotional impact would be if she died by the ending, if hers was the last recorded message. Basically, to use a scientific term, the filmmakers fucked up. They were so obsessed in followng the book, they didn't realised the gold they had right there. Imaginje, if you wikll what if HALLOWEEN had been about the "prettier" flashier girls instead of Laurie Strode, and she had been the first girl to die because she wasn't the "prettier" one, the cool one. You know what i mean?

  • That movie put me in a funk for days.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Actually it is about 9/11

    by Continentalop

    Which is why I hated it. It is 9/11 through the eyes of self-centered yuppies who want to rewrite history. Instead of shitting their pants and worrying about themselves as they watch the events unfold, like they did on 9/11, they have recast themselves as noble heroes who are now doing something brave like trying to love a trapped love one. The heroes of Cloverfield should have been the actual heroes as 9/11, the firemen, EMTs and cops who responded to the tragedy (and yes, there was a lot of heroism from regular folks on 9/11, but I can't think of any story of someone actually storming the WTC to go up and rescue a loved one).

  • June 1, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    "like trying to RESCUE a trapped love one"

    by Continentalop

    Damn typos.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Nice way of putting it, Conti.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    The Douches Shall Inherit the Earth!

  • June 1, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST

    I'm being more venomous than normal

    by Continentalop

    So I'm taking off. Later gents. Just remember: it should have been the Penguin.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Oh, and before I forget: Asi, goddamned right about THE American Monster.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Kong. Undisputed. ("Godzilla Vs. King Kong" is a very guilty, but very enjoyable pleasure.)

  • *points at asimovlives and starts screaming horribly*

  • June 1, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Salient points are hardly venomous, Mr. Lop!

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    And, yes, it should have been the Penguin!

  • June 1, 2011, 5:16 p.m. CST

    I can't read your reviews anymore big guy

    by Jaka

    You've gone off into some weird land of hyperbolic crap that I just can't stomach. When you return to the land of real, genuine film critics... ya know, the kind who continue to take classes & read books about writing... or at least hire a good editor... I'll start reading your stuff again.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Just come back from watching X-Men....

    by samurai_montana

    FUCKING AMAZING!!!!!! It's really all just sinking in right now, I'm not sure what to say. Apart from OH MY GOD!!!!! Must-see film of the year so far, and if this doesn't turn out to be the best comic book flick this year then fuck knows what GL and Cap A have up their sleeves. 10/10

  • June 1, 2011, 5:41 p.m. CST

    continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    We are calling the me thing by diferent names. but in say, as a filmmaker, Kubrick was badass. No wimp would make the movies he did. His ass kicking was with his movies.

  • Pretty much sums up what i feel about the movie. Though i did watched the movie a second time, for the audio comentary.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST

    I can already tell this is going to be one of those films...

    by Winston Smith

    ...that people use to judge you. 'OH... you LIKED Super 8? Pfft." Still can't wait to see it, but I have a feeling a lot of people are gonna be, uh, angry. Kinda like at The Tree of Life. "DINOSAURS! WTF MATIES?!?"

  • June 1, 2011, 5:51 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by Winston Smith

    I agree completely on AI, except that I actually liked the music a lot, and thought it was just haunting. So Choppah, guess I agree with you too. I just saw AI again, and really, most of the problems I have with it have faded over time. In fact, now the only real problem I have is William Hurt being brought back in NY... where the fuck did he go for so long?? But besides that, it really is a tremendous film. Very, very bittersweet. I guess that's the best way to put it. And I'd say above all it's about the relationship between parent and child. Even at the end, the future robots have a nostalgic opinion of humans, they're very curious about understanding their original makers. Bittersweet is the way I'd describe it. It's kinda like The Tree of Life, too, in that it's about how moments matter. Nothing lasts forever, but it doesn't need to to have meaning.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:59 p.m. CST

    No way this is better than E.T.

    by Krinkle

    No chance. Not in a million years. Something directly copying something that was organic and deeply felt to begin with never works. This could never even approach ET, since it looks to be so based up on the look of that film.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:03 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    Of course hindsight is all great and makes one wiser and all that stuff. And it's harder when one is creating onthe moment. But i say the mishandleing of the Marlene character in CLOVERFIELD is symtomatic of the fact that the people who made CLOVERFIELD are a bunch of people who have mostly doen their work on TV. To wit: On a TV show, they are mostly centred on a central character who, for real or imaginary reasons, have to have that likability factor. And by that it means, most of thetime, the main characters have to fall into easy to identify types. For thesupporting characters, the creators can have more fun and create more original type of characters, even ones who are now exactly imediatly sympathtic, because they don't have the burden of carryinghe show, meaning,they don't hav to seduce the audiences. and so as it happesn so often, so many of this sideshow characters mannage to be the breakout character and they are the ones who captivate the audiences, and can even outshine the leads and steal the show. Because they are less prone to clicheland, because they are allowed to be real characters on their own right. Marlena in Cloverfield is that. She's a breakout character. But in a movie. In a TV show, the creators and writers can have enough time to adjust the characters to the interest of the pot or to audiences's reactions. In a movie, you have to have that planed right on, because there is just no way to remedy a bad use of a character after the movie is done. Compared to a TV show, a movie is one take. And this remind sme of how John Carpenter used to make his movie and the main characters he used to have inhis movies. notice how often the main character in a classic Carpenter movie is not necessarily the nicest or the immediatly prettiest one. CArpetner realised that what captivated an audience was not so much if he had the rpttiest or the nicest character as alead, but the most interesting,the one the audiences couldn't get enough of. that's why we have Laurie Strode as the elad in Halooween, the dorky girl instead of the cool partygirls. That's why we have Snake Plissken as the lead of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, notbecause he's a nice and heroic chap but because he's so interesting and unpredictable one can't help but not take our eyes from him. Even his not give a fuck attitude cames as a relief and as a "can't believe they are actually doing this" mood on an audience. Or how in THE THING, every character crosses the line into douchbagery, and they do so so interestingly. To name a few. As you said it, if the movie had bothered to focus on Marlene, how more powerful could it had been? Not only is she the better writne characters (maybe unintentionally), they also got the best actress of the bunch to play her. And instead we got stuck with this douchbag yuppy idiot, his idiotic cameraman friend, the fucking bland love interest, his equalily douchbag yuppy brother and his supremely anoying black princess girlfriend. By the way, is that the only way a female black character is to be portaited by Team Abrams? As this anoying fuck-ass egomaniac black princesses? Was Cloverfield a trial run for their portaited and presentation Uhura in Abrams Trek? Because the two are pratically interchangeble.

  • Yet claims that Super 8 equals or surpasses ET is the height of absurdity. Just because one loves a movie doesn't mean one has to be stupid and make stupid coments like that. It's shit like this that's why i have a profound dislike for geekasms.

  • And ET is friggin' Awesome!

  • June 1, 2011, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Of course asimovlives, you watched Super 8 after all

    by drompter

    You know what you talking about.

  • I give props to Harry for essentially calling out most of the talkbackers. That quote really does sum up most of those who post here or on IMDB, etc. If your purpose is to simply hate, than your opinion is pointless. And if your goal is to simply find things wrong with whatever new movie you're seeing, than you've forgotten why you started watching movies in the first place. It's ironic that some people are accusing those excited for the film of simply being blinded by nostalgia. If you're honestly making people feel bad for enjoying a movie, than you're not a movie fan. I don't give a fuck who you are. If you can't give anything a chance, than you don't deserve to watch or even pretend to care about the medium.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:05 p.m. CST

    saw it at a screening last night

    by mojination

    it's seriously fucking good, although the last 20 min felt a little rushed, and just when you get some development of the creatures character. trim some fat off the first hour and flesh out the end and it would be perfect. the kids are scary good and hopefully all have strong futures, and the look of the film is beautifully done. The trainwreck is epic and the creature is suitably badass (although the CG was kinda jarring and took you out of the classic cinema vibe a bit, needed some animatronics for the close-ups). all the jibber jabber about harking back to the glory days of 70's/80's cinema is DEAD ON. The very first film i remember seeing is ET at a drive-in, and i got the same sought of feeling in parts of this one. fucking awesome!!!

  • June 1, 2011, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Those who bash J.J. are out of their mind!!

    by PG

    I'm all about criticism over a film, whether you like it or don't like it and why that is the case. However, reading some of the posts on this site about J.J. sucking in general and being overrated blow me away. You try writing as much as he has in his lifetime, producing successful shows, and directing movies that have made a profit and then see about acting like he "sucks" at what he does. It's about as absurd as coming over to someones house who has been having major plumbing issues and offering your own ways to fix the situation...even though you may not be an OFFICIAL PLUMBER!!! It's laughable at best. I think a lot of the people (not all) who make these types of criticisms are more or less jealous they never made it to the top (and yet most never even tried) of a profession before. On a lighter note, I'll go and see Super 8. I'm not necessarily expecting much from it because I'm not as into kid-themed films anymore, but will keep an open mind nonetheless. --- lastly, even hearing about those slamming The Hangover Part 2 because they think it's too similar to the first need to go take a writing class.. It might help them realize just how insane hard it is to write about anything, particularly coming up with lines, environments, and set-ups for a group of characters. Hell, it's daunting enough to write one stinking scene in a screenplay, let alone an entire film. Again, laughable that people so easily bash writing when they may not even be a writer!!

  • June 1, 2011, 7:13 p.m. CST

    I don't get the JJ hate either

    by Winston Smith

    I mean, he's not one of the greatest filmmakers or anything, but like, he's just not that bad, and he does have his own style so he's not faceless. I think a lot of it is jealousy, since he had a very privileged and easy life compared to many. But so did David Fincher. Rich boy who grew up with connections. And unlike Fincher, I've actually heard Abrams is a really nice guy who doesn't take things for granted. But the bigger point is... one's life doesn't really affect how I react to their work. JJ's just not that bad, he really isn't. There are filmmakers that deserve that scorn. I much more understand it for someone like McG who you can tell is a pretentious dick who doesn't know what he's talking about, and even there, he's still far from bottom of the barrel.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Devin "Class Act" Faraci gave it a bad review because

    by magic_ninja

    He didn't get a set visit or an "exclusive" interview with anyone. I'm not saying the movie is or isn't good, it's just that Devin will give anything a good review if he gets his precious set visits.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:15 p.m. CST

    harry, i know way to much about your life

    by jsfithaca

    usually i like ur reviews, even when there off topic, but this took it too far. u barely mentioned the movie. however i will still see it cuz it looks awesome

  • ...And the point or meaning of the ending does not escape me at all, lest you accuse me of being obtuse, but I felt it sacrificed logic and most importantly, truth, just to make a grand statement. The praying to the blue fairy, for me, wouldn't have been as jarring or as been-beaten-over-the-head-with-a-blunt-instrument-obvious as the ending we were given. Kubrick's intended ending or not, it didn't feel natural, or true to what had come before, felt forced to me. Maybe Kubrick would have led us to this point in the film more naturally and successfully, I don't know, but as it stands, the ending is unsatisfying, and disappointing

  • June 1, 2011, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Oh and Asi, SERAPHIM FALLS my friend, that's a cracking western

    by FreeBeer

  • ..Exactly, was trying to vocalize why I wasn't satisfied with the ending, you hit the nail on the head, seemed to be a part of another film, If it was all directed and written by Kubrick then it might have worked

  • June 1, 2011, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Sounds a lot like Chicken Little

    by DocOpticus

    Mother gone Father Doesnt respect boy unpopular kids proving themselves in adverse conditions get the alien home

  • June 1, 2011, 9:07 p.m. CST

    "been-beaten-over-the-head-with-a-blunt-instrument-obvious"

    by FreeBeer

    Man, i hate it when I write something that doesn't really say what I mean, that sounds awful. What I meant was, for me, a part of what I didn't like about the ending was reintroducing the mother, literally, I found it pretty unnecessary and almost comical to be honest. As I said, I totally understand the message and meaning of the ending, I did "get it", I just thought it made more of a fantastic short film in it's own right rather than a satisfying ending to the hour and a half leading up to it

  • June 1, 2011, 9:09 p.m. CST

    So... the alien is just a Cloverfield-ish alien? *disappointed*

    by Prof. Pop-Cult

    I was predicting that it was a friendly version of a mighty-morphin creature, like The Thing, which upon breaking free learns to take on the image of animals (first, at the town's zoo), then dogs, and finally the kid's dead mother. The kid then helps it escape and return home. Simple and with the potential for emotional drama there.

  • ...Spielberg was a fool to release that anniversary special edition years ago and how it tanked is proof. In fact, I blame it tanking for Universal Studios immediately after removing the awesome ride at the California park which my oldest daughter absolutely loved!

  • Which I see *continues* to rage on! But I had a short film to make. Now too much has transpired. There's no way I'll be able to catch up. But at least I've learned Mattman and I are the coolest ones at AICN.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST

    A.I.'s ending is just fine

    by D.Vader

    And yes the ending is Kubrick's ending. The Blue Fairy ending, some say, is better, but that's just because its darker and that confuses them a bit. Truth is, the entire movie builds toward the end, the one moment when David is finally and truly unique and special, and even then its twisted into a perverse downer end.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:31 p.m. CST

    there's a business behind AICN?

    by BBSloth

  • Though the claim strains credulity, making the above statement without even having SEEN the movie is the height of absurdity.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:34 p.m. CST

    "Kubrick could out-badass the badasses. "

    by D.Vader

    Derp derp derp.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:35 p.m. CST

    CLOVERFIELD is just a monster movie

    by D.Vader

    A monster movie from the eyes and POV of the regular folk trapped in the city, as opposed to being from the POV of the President, scientists, or military commander, like every other monster movie is. That's all. It doesn't need to "be" about anything. In fact, its pretty nihilistic.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:53 p.m. CST

    People who complain about AI's ending...

    by Jay

    Usually come off sounding like idiots. Hate to throw around insults, but that tends to be the truth most of the time. The fairy ending would have been a cliche. Open endings are not smart. Leaving your characters in a complete emotional distraught just for the sake of it is not deep or groundbreaking. What purpose would the fairy ending serve? Thankfully that ending didn't happen because it would have completely removed the irony from the entire theme of the film. The meaning of being human. The film doesn't ask about the meaning of life or how we got here (Been there done that) What it asks is the meaning of emotionality and humanity. That is something rare. And when something new comes along, it tends to take a while for people to realize what they're seeing. Nothing brings me more pleasure than to see AI get more and more recognition over these last ten years. And believe me it is. It's made dozens of best of lists for the naughts, and even now, it's still being discussed by us nerds.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:55 p.m. CST

    When will they finally make a monster movie about monsters?

    by adroxx

    ...without turning the movie into a drama piece. Don't get me wrong, I liked Cloverfield and Monsters but they ain't no Godzilla! We need a balls-to-the-wall popcorn monster movie in the same style as Super 8, with the action level of ID4, and the direction of anybody but Michael Bay.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:07 p.m. CST

    Don't give two shits about seeing SUPER 8.

    by AssyMuffJizz

    I am, however, intrigued by the dichotomy between this review ("SUPER 8 is SUPER") and Harry's LOVELY BONES review ("LOVELY BONES is... well... LOVELY"). Harry is--and never has been--a pro writer. He's too sloppy and lazy as a writer to ever be more than mediocre. And that's just taking in to consideration his mechanics as a writer. The content, as well all know, if a fucking godawful wreck. THAT SAID, Harry is a damn fine, opportunistic businessman. He's spent 15 years playing an aw-shucks, friendly geek role that a niche group buys into almost completely. Not bad.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:16 p.m. CST

    I miss genderbender

    by AssyMuffJizz

    I want another dose of rape-film-critique. Hire this gal STAT, Harry!

  • June 1, 2011, 11:32 p.m. CST

    After all of these articles this past 9 days or so...

    by mattforce7

    I've only glanced over the "inspirations" and with THE THING amongst the few others, i just know i don't want to spoil any other hypothetical option; in terms of the morality behind the choices of the characters in these situations the antagonist will unleash upon them. And saying that, im thrilled to see this movie with a still peeking view of what is to come

  • June 1, 2011, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Weight LESS !! SAM BOTTA !!!!

    by sam botta

    Director Ewing Miles Brown says Sam Botta has lost 74 lbs (now 150 lbs.) for Movie Tech Studios pre-production of "Live Fearless" Sam Botta Hosts the upcoming reality TV show. :) in Pre-Production now with guests like Betty White, who says "Appreciate life while it's happening!" Also "get over it" (referring to aging) and "I'm swimming as fast as I can" in reference to her work. GO To THIS LINK  www.imdb.me/livefearless

  • June 1, 2011, 11:49 p.m. CST

    JJ, Bay and Joss

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Bay and JJ take a lot of crap on this site, Bay I think very fairly, JJ some of it fairly some of it a little over the top, but I feel that too often Joss Whedon is brought up at this amazing director, who has a passion about all his projects. Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of Buffy, Angel and Firefly and even liked Dollhouse in parts, but the guy has directed one movie, Serenity which is based on one of his tv properties, he has yet to prove himself on the big screen. I am not in the film or tv industry but I would imagine that the pressures, influences, control from producers, the studio etc would be quite different when you have a $100m+ movie budget v a TV series. Is the love for Joss Whedon (besides Herc, Herc I think wants to marry him), based purely on his tv work or is there an element of “he is one of us”?

  • June 2, 2011, 12:02 a.m. CST

    asi , you and JJ

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Asi, imagine if you will JJ creates a fantastic film(not necessarily Super 8 but something in the future), well made, passionate etc, realistically is there any chance you could actually enjoy it, I really doubt it, but would be keen to know your thoughts ? Anyone who has come to this site at any time in the last few years knows your thoughts re his Star Trek and I get it, he turned into something closer to Star Wars than the Star Trek you know and love. I for one enjoyed it I also wish there was a bit more thinking involved and hopefully the next one would deliver it. I think the biggest criticism of his and maybe its more Paramount is that there isn’t another Star Trek movie out yet. You reboot this series, that from a film perspective was pretty close to death, you really need to follow it up with another one within a relatively short period of time. I think as others have said number 2 of the reboot should have been coming out this year, November/December.

  • June 2, 2011, 1:08 a.m. CST

    Saddest part of the ending of A.I., for me,

    by tritium

    was seeing poor Teddy, sitting alert on the bed near David. What happens to Teddy?? I mean, technically, Teddy was a sentient, conscious being. Is he going to sit there, alone, for all eternity?? I always get a bit misty eyed when seeing that closing shot.

  • June 2, 2011, 2:48 a.m. CST

    The fetishized perfect children is all Spielberg,

    by Dennis_Moore

    gratuitous buttshot, Bay, lens flares and chase cam, Whedon. Exactly what of Abrams's "style" is his own?

  • It's just people asking you to do your job as a reviewer, Harry ol' pal.

  • June 2, 2011, 2:57 a.m. CST

    drompter, don't be daft

    by AsimovLives

  • June 2, 2011, 3:08 a.m. CST

    bantuwind

    by AsimovLives

    Since when "To discuss the many elements separately and with a cold logical mind" is a bad thing? Sinc ewhen that's synonimous with being a hater? What are you people like you defending here? Brainless blind acceptance without though? You just eat up any shit that's thrown your direction? That's fucked up, man!

  • June 2, 2011, 3:24 a.m. CST

    mattman, the british poster of Super 8 is really good.

    by AsimovLives

    If only the movie would be as good, it would be ace.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:20 a.m. CST

    melonman and [dioxholster]

    by kwisatzhaderach

    There are no aliens in A.I. - you completely missed the point of the whole film. Kudos.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:21 a.m. CST

    melonman

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Spot on analysis of the comparisons between Spielberg and Abrams though. Nice.

  • So, what about people who have no nostalgia for that setting and period? People born in the late 80's or 90's? I mean some of those little bastards are shaving and driving and going to the movies and everything these days! I wonder if this works as an entertainment as much as it does a love letter to the Amblin' days.

  • ..To me, it still seems like one of those alternate ending you get on dvd's, a curio, interesting, but you can see why they didn't use it in the end. But they did. It's not just the ending, but the whole film that is kind of all over the place, tonally, thematically, kind of has a multiple personality disorder, no doubt due to the fact it is one man's unfinished vision patched together and directed by another accomplished filmmaker, but with a very different eye and a very different heart. When it's great, it's absolutely brilliant, but there is plenty of average in that film too.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:36 a.m. CST

    And yeah, poor Teddy! what becomes of Teddy? I sequel I demand

    by FreeBeer

  • June 2, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST

    d.vader, don't be daft.

    by AsimovLives

    What, suddently, as if by magic, Abrams would became a filmmaker of the caliber of Spielberg? Not even you believe that would happen, and certainly not with Super 8.

  • And fucking yuppies are not regular folks.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:57 a.m. CST

    Asi, don't be a hypocritical fool

    by D.Vader

    You, who champions the scientific method and who argued it with me once, knows the intelligent person would never use an absolute when describing something he has not yet witnessed himself. As I said, yes, its extremely unlikely that Super 8 is better than ET, but perhaps that viewer truly likes it better than ET. Either way, until you see it yourself, you can't truly argue he's wrong.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:59 a.m. CST

    They weren't yuppies, Asi

    by D.Vader

    They were successful young people. At least, two of them were, anyway. Or, at least one of them was, the other had her dad's money. Either way, if you were smarter, you would have understood what I was comparing them to- scientists, presidents, military commanders. Compared to them, the Cloverfield characters ARE regular people. Perhaps I should have used the term "civilians" so you could understand.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:59 a.m. CST

    Dioxholster, I am impressed

    by D.Vader

    You gave us a real film analysis!

  • June 2, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST

    But then Diox, you surprise me

    by D.Vader

    By still believing the end had grey aliens instead of knowing they were advanced Mechas, even after numerous people here have said so.

  • June 2, 2011, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Are we not slaves to our nature?

    by D.Vader

  • June 2, 2011, 10:09 a.m. CST

    I'm suddenly no longer interested in this film

    by JPX

    Reading between the lines Harry's review suggests that it's a kid drama and nothing more.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Abrams is in His Mid-to-Late 40s, right?

    by Aquatarkusman

    Time to try something original or depart.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:50 a.m. CST

    miyamoto_musashi

    by AsimovLives

    To answer your question, the answer is yes, and it has happend in the past and i can give you a specific example. The exmaple is JACOB'S LADDER and the director in question is Adrian Lynn. You have no idea how much i despised the two previous movies he made before, FLASHDANCE and FATAL ATTRACTION. I despise those movies with total loathsome. And i rated the direcor who made them as one of those flashy but useless directors i shouldn't give a fuck about. Then he made JACOB'S LADDER, and that move kicked my ass. And that movie is as good as it is because it was directed by Lynn. No other person could had made it as good as he did. I love JACOB'S LADDER. It also gave me a new found appreeciation for Lynn, who, after that mvie, made better movies then the ones he had before. And i still detest and despise Flashdance and Fatal Attraction as much as i did back then. Do i believe that Abrams will ever make a movie as good as Jacob's Ladder? No, i don't believe he has the minerals. Lyynn's past movies gave hints that he could be a good director, which happened. Abrams gives no such hints that he can ever grow above mediocrity.

  • He didn't made any movies between Abrams TRek and Super 8 that one can have enough proof of that, do we? That's wishful thinking, friend.

  • I got that immediatly right formt he first time saw the movie, without the need for any explanations. It's so obvious those are robots of the future. Why people keep on mistaking them as aliens? Do you even watcher the bloody movie? And people say i have baggage when i watch movies! For Crom's sake!

  • June 2, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Blah blah blah

    by D.Vader

    Expert analysis, once again.

  • ...And I do see how some people would think they were aliens, the design of the advanced machines was very Spielberg extra terrestrial, a kind of unimaginative design really. And although they are machines, it is still possible that they are not terrestrial machines, but robots from another world. Not that it makes a difference really, either way, I was unhappy with it. Could have been a brilliant ending for another movie, perhaps would have fit with the A.I Kubrick would have directed. Much like Tony Scott had to change the ending to True Romance to fit the movie he made, rather than the one Tarantino would have directed.

  • ...Oh wait, before I say D9 of course

  • What they are doing parallels our own existence and the very plot of the movie itself. They are excavating their past in search of answers to their origins--their creators. The mecha boy is their missing link. What they are doing reflects our own search for our past in terms of science--archeology-- and religion to know our creators. It wraps up the entire thematic ending to the film.

  • ...As I said before, not the only scene that jars, A.I is like two completely different movies knitted together, and sometimes the flow and truth of the narrative suffers. The ending might have been perfect for Kubrick's film, but for Spielberg's Kubrick film it just doesn't work for me. If it works for you that's great, just saying for me i was left unsatisfied, it seemed like an unnecessary epilogue.

  • June 2, 2011, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Freebear: I hear you.

    by Ingeld

    It wasn't done as well as it possibly could have, but I think it was done to give the audience broader meaning to what the central story is about. It moves it from being a story about a particular robot to an allegory for our search to find our origins, specifically in light of our paternal view (think of God as parent) of our creator. That being said, I didn't like the reunion scene with his mother. I thought it was contrived to force some kind of happy ending. In some ways I thought the movie would have been more should have ended with him petitioning the blue fairy at the bottom of the sea. The ending as is satisfies me, but I recognize its awkwardness.

  • June 2, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST

    You people sound like those dumb chicks in Carrie

    by Knobules

    Throwing tampons at each other. Dam

  • June 2, 2011, 12:50 p.m. CST

    re: dioxholster

    by Ingeld

    It is a spiritual thing. We seek to be reunited with whatever we perceive to be our creator--typically depicted as a parent figure in western religion. The boy reflects this on a personal and emotional level. The alien like mechas reflect this on a larger cultural/societal level--and an intellectual level as well--in terms of simply understanding their origins.

  • June 2, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Devin Faraci said AI is for pretentious losers

    by Nabster

    He thought the ending was terrible. I will say this. If it had a less annoying child actor it might've been alright. I just don't think Spielberg can pull off such movies.

  • June 2, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Why can't Harry shut the fuck up about his childhood?

    by Jaster

    I mean seriously, this is bordering on some sort of mental condition. Every single review he's ever written mentions his childhood. Well, except for Blade II, but that was some totally different batshit insanity! I mean, that was the strangest thing I've ever read on the internet. And I'm talking about....THE INTERNET! How many film reviewers can you think of that have EVER mentioned their childhood while reviewing a film? I can't think of a single one, yet Harry just can't seem to help himself and even goes so far as to say that not doing so "misses the whole point".

  • Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! Nuke the Fridge! v

  • My god, Fatso Harry is ridiculous isn't he? What the hell is on about in that Blade II review?? And, he's obviously never went down on a female, because you don't take her clit in your mouth, only an idiot would do that. But that's besides the point. The fact he could write something so bizarre and stupid, and not be aware of it, proves how insane and dumb Fatso Harry is. His anger at Annie being recast into a black girl was pretty hilarious too. He acted like war crimes had just been committed against his kind, that's how fuming he was. It was the one of the dumbest things to see someone get so angry about. But, that Blade II review is the best. If Harry isn't going on about his fat childhood he's writing something even more asinine. Which is more ridiculous? Harrys reviews or his duffle bags full of deep fried pizzas and deep fried chickens dipped in honey that he takes to the movies?

  • June 2, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    DevinFaraciSaid.com

    by k_jim26t

  • June 2, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    DevinFaraciSaid.com

    by k_jim26t

  • June 2, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    DevinFaraciSaid.com

    by k_jim26t

  • June 2, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    DevinFaraciSaid.com

    by k_jim26t

  • June 2, 2011, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Umm...Teddy wasn't much of a conversationalist...

    by Billyeveryteen

    Staring off into space on some kid's bed was what he was built for. He died as he lived.

  • June 2, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Seen AI three times (once in theatre)

    by deelzbub

    and never once realized they were robots and not aliens at the end. Would have been satisfied if the movie had ended @ the Blue Fairy under the sea. Glad he got his wish to be a real boy with his mom. Heartbreaking, really. And just because it appears he dies, goes to sleep, whatever at the end... who is to say the mecha/aliens didnt recharge his batteries the next day and submit him to a barrage of tests? That's what I would have done. And Teddy. Teddy rules. He was still working. They could have asked him a few questions as well. Always wished they had come out with a pullstring Teddy movie tie-in toy. I would've bought one.

  • Because removing your personal feelings from the equation completely removes the entire concept of art. Hate for hates sake is not criticism. And It's even more pathetic when you haven't even seen the film.

  • June 2, 2011, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Sorry for the double post. Continued beloew...

    by Jay

  • June 2, 2011, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Not about the alien?? So was ET not about ET.

    by Cap'n Jack

    It definitely sounds like Harry is glossing over the alien stuff because it sucks, which means the movie will suck.

  • June 2, 2011, 7 p.m. CST

    Sucking JJ's balls on AICN again? Shocking. Just shocking.

    by TheApostle

    Oh, and fuck Lindelof and Cuse.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:06 p.m. CST

    I want a Teddy

    by D.Vader

  • June 2, 2011, 8:14 p.m. CST

    I like the Cloverfield monster

    by D.Vader

    If JJ likes long-limbed creatures, that's his thing.

  • ..for a change. Instead of an ego-maniacal baby

  • June 2, 2011, 10:42 p.m. CST

    AssholeSmells : a plethora of ignorant opinions

    by quantize

    see the fucking thing BEFORE you drivel on with your self indulgent hate.. that way you wont come off sounding like the completely smug cunt you usually do.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:51 p.m. CST

    So this movie is basically gay kids and a homo Cloverfield?

    by Nabster

    Why is it set in the 80s? And why are the kids acting like their in the fifties? This movie looks lame. And stop telling us about your lame childhood Fatso Harry.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:49 a.m. CST

    quantise, flatery will take you nowhere, asshole.

    by AsimovLives

  • SOURCE CODE was pretty iffy too.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:52 a.m. CST

    And there's INCEPTION too, which is SF as well

    by AsimovLives

    Not only it is a great SF movie, but it's a great movie period.

  • There is something to that statement that i agree with that. My take on why that is so is because the move has this amusingly weird nature in which you have scenes which are pure Kubrick and others which are much more Spielberg in style. How often you saw the movie and said "this looks exactly how Kubrick might had made it", while others are pure Spielberg. For example, the scene where David finds the assembly line with all the other Davids still in a construction phase is pure Kubrick. I always get goosebumbs when i watch it. It is my favorite moment in the film. It's as if Kubrick had raised form the bgrave and directed the scene himself. Other scenes also show touches of Kubrick. Many times in the movie there's moments which look more Kubrick then Spielberg. He made a good pastiche of the master. Some people find it jarring this differences. Me, they amuse me. It's one of the things that makes me enjoy A.I.

  • June 3, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    ingeld, the ending of AI is not an happy ending.

    by AsimovLives

    Look closely and you will find a very darlky ironic and cynical ending. It is a Kubrick ending of the likes of those found in such movies as CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Superficially they might look like an happy ending... until you realise the implications.

  • June 3, 2011, 3:25 a.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    Maybe by aliens i should had said extra-terrestrial then. Sure, they look alien, like any robot two thousands years in the future will surely be. What bewildered me was the assuption that people though those future robots were extra-terrestrials, and just because of their look? How about fucking context? In the context of the story, and given the stuff they say to David later, how can people mistake those future robots for extra-terrestrials? It's thing slike this that make sme wonder if people are actually doing other stuff before watching movies when they go to a theater. Is munching popcorns such a stressful exercise it takes people's concentration away from what's going on onscreen? It completly bewilders me. Small wonder Holywood believes audiences are morons and make movies accordingly, when even such a simple obvious thing as the future robots in A.I. get mistaken for somehting they so clearly aren't. How can we criticise Holywood if we give them cause to belittle us?

  • June 3, 2011, 3:31 a.m. CST

    ingeld, evne if you remove the spiritual aspect of the thing...

    by AsimovLives

    .... to search for our ancestors is a natural thing based on common curiosity and the thrist for knowledge. To know what preceded us is to know what we are and why we are as we are. As we study our pre-history ancestors and thus it shades light on why we today are as we are, so would a robot civilization would want to know how they started out and understand the creatures that were responsible for the very first of them. Scientific curiosity is also a very powerful motivator. Just ask any scientist.

  • June 3, 2011, 3:39 a.m. CST

    [dioxholster]

    by AsimovLives

    Jesus Christ, man, did you had to post that? That... that Blade 2 review!! Goddamit, what an evil piece of writing! I'm no prude, it's not the sexual imagery that offendes me, but the sheer... how shall i put it? Nonsense, perhaps? Was that review writen as a joke, as a dare? Looks like it.

  • They once offered him a young bear cub so he could hunt him, because Rosevelt was a hunting fanatic. And they tied the bear to a tree. But Rosevelt took pity of the creature and instead of killing it, he adopt it. The event caught the public imaginaiton at the time, and toys were made to commercially exploit the public's interest on that story. And they called those toys "Teddy's Bear". With time, from Teddy's Bear the expression became the more shortneted version that we foud today, Teddy Bear. So, there's a kernel of truth to that joke, friend.

  • There's more to enjoy art then just putting your emotions at hand and little else. In fact, that's the lazy way.

  • June 3, 2011, 4:03 a.m. CST

    melonman

    by AsimovLives

    Rooney Mara did a remarkable job in her short time in THE SOCIAL NETWORK. She stole the scenes she was in, and that's on a movie where Jesse Einsenberg was on full top acting mode. So don't blame Mara for her "zombie" acting, as you clal it, in the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET REMAKE, but on the incompetence of Samuel Bayer's directing.

  • Abrams had already used a Clovie Mark II on Abrams Trek. The guy seems to be obsessed with that design, as he is with the lens flares thing. Maybe he thinks it's cute to reuse Clovie in his movies. Maybe he thinks it's a sign of authership. I see it as lame ass laziness. The Abrams guy must have though "look, the aliens in Close Encounters lika look like ET, and the robots in AI kind look like the aliens in close Encounters, and if that's good enough for Spielberg it's good enough for me".

  • June 3, 2011, 4:12 a.m. CST

    d.vader, i also liked Clovie.... IN CLOVERFIELD. Where he belongs.

    by AsimovLives

  • June 3, 2011, 4:16 a.m. CST

    OK, so if Super 8 is about Clovie's earliest years...

    by AsimovLives

    ... then does that means that when he grew up he got so mad with his memories of his imprisionament that he decided to take payback on millions of innocent civilians in New York? I can take Clovie fucking up the lives of shithead yuppies, but what he did to Marlena is unexcusable. Super 8 might work hard for us to feel emphaty for Clovie for the shit that happene dot him in the 70s, but his later actions in NY in the 2000s are unexcusable.

  • June 3, 2011, 8:39 a.m. CST

    Uhhhh, Asi

    by D.Vader

    Clovie did absolutely nothing to Marlena. It was the parasites that fell off his back.

  • June 3, 2011, 9:37 a.m. CST

    Damn! Another Personal Review...

    by doom master

    Man, if you're gonna start waxing about your personal life that nobody really cares about (no offense), make it into a funny joke or something and make it SHORT. I gotta skim past half the review to get to the review, AND THATS NOT A GOOD THING DAMNIT!!! You know whut. This just gave me a revelation...I think the main reason Harry's site gets so much traffic isnt so much because it's a good site. Someone on here mentioned that he's like one of the only optimistic guys on the internet. I think the reason why lots of people come in here is to tear Harry down. Seriously. Just look at the comments... on the internet the skeptic, bitter man is king.

  • June 3, 2011, 10:09 a.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    But if Clovie didn't had showed up, his parasites wouldn't had killed her, would they? Clovie is still responsible.

  • June 3, 2011, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Clovie can't keep parasites off his back

    by D.Vader

    Cut him a break. They don't have bug spray down in the ocean.

  • June 3, 2011, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Super 8 is a wonderful film:

    by realJWade

    It's a movie about heart. And blowing shit up. Blowing lots of shit up. But it's still a movie about heart. The group of kids that make up the main cast are incredibly charismatic and tightly knit. The innocently mean way they harass each other, and the off the cuff feel of their conversations, reminded me a lot of the group dynamic of Goonies, a film that I fucking love. They kept me laughing through the whole flick, even when that laughter was uncomfortable and honed with an edge of terror.

  • June 3, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    freebeer

    by AsimovLives

    Mute, well, don't hold your breath on that. The financing for that movie has been pretty complicated, if you understand the euphemism. I'm certain we will see some other movie from Duncan Jones before Mute... of Mute will ever get made, that is.

  • June 3, 2011, 4:15 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    I know what you mean. I love movies who dare us to like them. That doesn't cut us any slack. That forces us to keep pace. That dare us to follow their lead. That doesn't kisses our asses. This is why i say i rather that a movie kicks my ass, if you know what i mean.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    asimov

    by realJWade

    Yes, on some level you're statement is accurate.

  • June 3, 2011, 8:39 p.m. CST

    I love A.I. too

    by D.Vader

    You guys should know.

  • June 4, 2011, 1:01 p.m. CST

    genderblender

    by AsimovLives

    One of the thing si find hillarious weith the movie made by Abrams, be they directed or produced by him, is that they always need outside info to give them context and consistency. Abrams needs to tell that Clovie is a baby for it's actions to make sense in Cloverfield. The movie failed to present that notion, so Abrams had to say so himself. In Abrams Trek, Nero's actions make some sense if we read the prequel comic. Becasue form the movie proper his actions make absolutly no fucking sense whatsoever. And this is why he's such a failure as a filmmaker and storyteler. He is unable to make a movie which can self-explain it's own story, it's always need outside info and word of god from the filmmakers themselves. It's pathetic.

  • June 4, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST

    freebeer, may Crom and the Gods Of Cinema listen to you.

    by AsimovLives

  • June 4, 2011, 2 p.m. CST

    JJ Should have directed Superman! Not Snyder...

    by Jack

    Seriously JJ cannot do no wrong! The guy is a brilliant film maker, and man he would make the best Superman movie ever IMO!

  • June 4, 2011, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Just saw a screening....

    by Sin86a

    It really is pretty great. Kids are fantastic and the film is surprisingly funny. Take away the lense flares and it really would fit in with other 80's films.

  • Even AICN pissed on that script.

  • June 4, 2011, 10:59 p.m. CST

    Oh snap, I found Teddy!

    by D.Vader

    And he can be mine for only $2500!

  • June 6, 2011, 11:57 p.m. CST

    nabster...dont forget

    by shawn_h

    Harry farts in plastic bags, keeps them in his closet and when stressed, sniffs the air out of those bags! =)

  • June 7, 2011, 3:33 p.m. CST

    SuperDuper 8

    by doom master

    I cant wait for this movie to come out so I can feel like it stole my money. For a summer movie, I'm not interested in the movie styles of the 80s... Theres a reason its called progression. And nobody likes regression.

  • June 7, 2011, 7:53 p.m. CST

    I liked the film but......SPOILER WARNING!!!!

    by slappy jones

    I really falls to bits during the big action stuff at the end. The cave rescue stuff is boring. The military attack on the town is boring. it is a real shame as up until that point the film is amazing. the idea of the kids using this massive event taking place around them as the backdrop to their film is such a funny idea that it is a shame they couldn't have just made a film about that. you could have had all the military stuff, the train crash, the alien all of that playing out completely in the background but the kids using it to make their film better. I was all in until it needlessly turned into a very generic action film. None of the alien scenes have any tension. Not once did I feel scared for anyone or worried about them. The first half is great. But it is every bit as much of a tribute band version of spielberg as you would have heard already. I stress again that I didn't come away not liking it. I liked it fine but it falls short of the great film that was in there someway. the best part is the closing credits. Make sure you stay for them.

  • June 8, 2011, 1:23 a.m. CST

    Motion sickness with Super 8?

    by Mad Monica

    Did they learn their lesson with Cloverfield or is Super 8 another vomit cam experience? I want to see this so bad, I hope to hell they kept the shaky cam to a minimum. Please tell me what I wanna hear?

  • June 8, 2011, 2:24 a.m. CST

    Madmadmadmonica

    by slappy jones

    No shaky cam.

  • June 9, 2011, 8:14 p.m. CST

    Cheers to that!

    by Candy

    My thoughts as well!

  • June 10, 2011, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Ellie Fanning...

    by Pitdoc

    Harry , when you see her do the acting at the train station ..Jesus! Its the movie star moment.Its when you know she's MADE it. Like Brad Pitt riding up on a horse in LEGENDS OF THE FALL.It just screams..this guy is a STAR . Whats so touching is all the male characters know it too.They ALL fall in love with her in that one moment...and THAT is the Spielburg moment in this movie.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Super 8 review

    by LAZLOW

    I was overwhelmingly disappointed in Super 8, a valiant effort that I was expecting too much of when I shouldn't have expected anything at all. The marketing department sold us on a movie that either doesn't know what it is or is trying to be too many things to too many people. We are expecting a retro Cloverfield mystery. Intriguing. I want to see this monster. Steven Spielberg produced? JJ Abrams is directing? Okay, I'm jazzed. Now I'm hearing this is Goonies meets ET meets Close Encounters meets Cloverfield. Its not just a monster movie, but one with heart, I'm lead to believe. I am pitching myself like a studio exec selling an idea for a movie, to himself. This is a bad idea. It means I'm culpable in expecting a throwback to all those touchstone films that affected me as a kid growing up in the eighties. I'm imagining the possibility of recapturing the magic and mystery of my youth created by the likes of Spielberg, Zemeckis, Donner, and Lucas. Then the movie begins. And everything just feels... off. You got these kids spitting colliding dialogue, so Everybody Can Understand, thats-how-kids- talk; that-is-how-you-know-they-are-friends. Regardless, I buy into into the plucky bunch because they breathe life into the dynamic. They are joyous at an age, in a town and a time that is conducive to pursuing a shared adventure. They follow a friends' ambition with reckless excitement because it's fun, and will shape there childhood and friendship forever. I would love to see that movie. But the funny thing is, the thing I can't get out of my head? I want to see that monster. Consuming? Conquering? Destructive? Misunderstood? I want to see that movie as well. But I am willing to wait. I am ready to accept the methodology that is the hallmark of these tales. The seductive and engaging, slow reveal. I am also ready to buy into the idea that these kids are on a collision course with this creature and apparently self revelation. These journeys seem incongruous but I am optimistic that the two movies that seem to interrupt each other as much as the kids themselves will end with a satisfying corollary. Abrams wants your heart to take this journey with these lovable kids against an alien circumstance because he feels the two need each other and the Amblin wading pool would have you believe it will be and can be done, in a very particularly constructed way. So he writes precocious adolescent characters, an ominous secretive military presence, a do-it-all deputy/coolheadedcop/hotheaded-single dad, a small overwhelmed panicking town, and a threat that requires all involved to rise to the occasion and eventually ease each others' pain and kill and/or save the creature. The father and son's grief, a remorseful adolescent ingenue, and a rampaging thing must find their way towards an apex. I believe this is possible, but it requires delicate execution. I want the best of both worlds as does Abrams but the movie unravels by its overwhelmed ambitions, inexplicable character behaviors and grown-ups' stupidity. The crisis that sets things into motion is mismanaged by a woefully inept air force. An air force seemingly acting on its own without help from other military branches. They fail to establish a perimeter, fire heavy artillery in random directions and marshall people to God knows where. The chaos that in sues would suggest a call to arms by the parents in the town to find there damn kids, instead there is a blase attitude. "Oh there you are. I am so glad you are safe, but I knew you were street smart and okay on your own. And that you would find your way. Oh your leaving again? Ok. Good Luck. Hey where's whats his name. You know, our son. Hey look at those kids filming ten feet in front of the house where we are taking secret files from." Seriously? There apathy diminishes the peril everyone should feel but somehow don't. The father's and son's objectives have little to do with each other, and even less to do with their own resolution. Jack Lamb admonishes his son, a great kid, from hanging out with other good kids while eschewing his whereabouts to untangle the military's own confused deceptions. The danger is watered down by incompetence and the father and son's resolution feels manufactured. I don't feel like rooting for this relationship anymore. I don't know if I care about their grief. And the Monster? The monster doesn't do its most important job, to bring the father and son together naturally. So scare me monster. Scare me. This misunderstood monster eats? People? It connects with some, but not the bad ones? He keeps the kids moving, but towards what or where? I don't know. I am not frightened or concerned for the kids. Running from, then rationalizing with a foe/friend is not plausible because the director says now it time to conveniently resolve everyone's issues without any significant investments along the way. The delicate execution needed to keep these separate movies on track has failed to inspire a believable climax. Now both ends are compromised. After all those misgivings I am still rooting for the kids themselves. The cast of capable starry eyed youngsters give the film some heart. Especially of note are the performances of Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning. They buoy the film with their charm and chemistry. Courtney especially embodies that "it" quality. Unfortunately, he as well as the rest of the cast are deserving of a less pandering vision. JJ Abrams valiantly overreaches into the Spielbergian milieu, but Super 8 is a paint by numbers attempt at meshing genres that were better realized by its original masters.

  • The military weren't "firing randomly in all directions" - if you see the movie again, you'll remember that one of the military guys, in a close-up, was yelling into a walkie-talkie after the sergeant asked what was going on, that they WEREN'T CONTROLLING THE WEAPONS AND TANKS - they HAD no control over them, the machines themselves were firing randomly - probably caused, as the movie suggests, by something the alien's cubes or ship building was doing. See it again, you probably missed that. Also, I basically agree with your assessment, but I think the movie is a near-masterpiece - and here's why - the MAJOR, BIG flaw in the film that could have made it a classic, is that I felt nothing for the creature at all - it was an anonymous, characterless monster that was eating people - thus, I was GLAD when it left - and one way that could have fixed that they should have a) changed the design of the creature so that it's not so horrifying and impossible to have empathy for, b) not have it actually kill people - maybe just use them somehow - because I'm obviously not going to have sympathy for something that's murdering innocent people, c) when Fanning says, "when it touched me, I knew what it had gone through", or to that effect - WHERE WAS THAT SCENE? How am I, as an audience member, supposed to feel for something if the only way I know about its terrible experience with the military was through two short, hurried lines of dialogue - once in the library and once by Fanning - if they had given me a moment between Fanning and the creature - or the boy and the creature, where I felt what it had gone through - and again, if the creature wasn't so miscalculatedly designed, it could have been shown in the eyes - I would have, by the end, felt what Abrams wanted me to feel - namely, that the suffering and loneliness and fear that the creature had felt - was similar to the suffering and loneliness and fear that the boy felt after losing his mother - but, and this is another misjudgment - the loss is never really felt by the audience when it comes to the boy and his mother dying - the kid's a bit too stoic - although, that's a very minor criticism, as it is shown - just not as expertly as I thought it could have been. Anyway, if I had felt for the creature (with a different design) - and there had been about 10 more minutes of movie before the climax, peppered in the second hour, to LINK the creature's experience with the boy - THEN that beautifully-shot climax where he lets go of the locket (letting go of his MOTHER...), and watches the alien leaving (watching his fear and suffering over his mother leave - and, again - we should have felt that he was feeling that a bit more) - would have had me in tears, and he would have done what I KNOW he was going for - so he was going for the RIGHT THING - he just didn't quite get there because of these three fundamental miscalculations. All that said - the film could work on an entirely separate level, as a fanboy making a tribute to the filmmakers he grew up with - in which case, it wouldn't necessarily be a BAD thing that you didn't feel too much at the end - HOWEVER - what truly would have made the film a masterpiece - is if he had made that tribute - but with those few changes, gave it the SAME emotional heft as the films he's emulating. I give it a 7.5 out of 10, because 75% of the film is brilliant - but that CRUCIAL 25% that's missing is in what I suggest above that should have been done - and that seems, after seeing the film, like it should have been obvious.

  • June 12, 2011, 12:04 a.m. CST

    P.S. ...Obvious to ABRAMS, I mean. That when they saw the...

    by dasheight

    ...rough cut, they should have realized, "Hey, you know what? This alien design is ALL wrong for the movie the audience invests itself emotionally in during the first hour - and if we're going to link the alien's experience with the boy's experience that the audience is invested, in, the audience, therefore, HAS to connect on some emotional level with the creature. Okay...(turns to Spielberg)...how the fuck do we do that, Steven? I know you know how." THAT'S the conversation that should have happened.

  • June 12, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST

    oversight

    by LAZLOW

    Forgive the artillery oversight, but at this point in the movie I felt myself disconnecting from the film and becoming less engaged. This may have been the reason I missed the explanation. That is my fault. However, I believe my other points are still valid. As to your assertion that the movie is a near masterpiece, any film that is missing 25% of what it takes to be a masterpiece means its far from being whole enough to forgive that gap. You make a solid enough argument for yourself of why it isn't close to being a masterpiece. At least you give a thoughtful response instead of a caustic, ignorant blurb. Thank you. That, I appreciate.

  • June 19, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    The End of A.I.

    by pr0g2west

    Perhaps the super-evolved mecca look like aliens because thats the most energy efficient way to appear. Big heads and small thin bodies...only the bare essentials, in order to spread knowledge and evolve as quickly as possible. The robots are so advanced that they acually take on the look of super advanced beings from other planets. Makes sense.

  • June 21, 2011, 7:16 a.m. CST

    The kid's mother was damn hot...

    by james_cameron_raped_my_childhood

    JJ cast everyone to look like regular people but she was f*n stunning. No way a woman like that ends up in some steel mill, or whatever that mind numbing blue-collar job was, that got her killed. I thought the monster design was the biggest letdown, especially how annoying it was the scenarios they kept coming up to hide it from you. Otherwise it was terrific movie & gave me a painful twinge of sadness for my own childhood spent sitting in my room, reading Starlog & drawing monsters. I suppose it's a secret little movie aimed directly at us geeks, with this dimension that mainstream movie goers won't ever really get.

  • June 21, 2011, 3:15 p.m. CST

    The dissappointment of the year.

    by Gozu

    It was little more than an episode of Fringe set in 1979 with a cast of wannabe "Goonies" and a shitty alien. Kyle Chandler was the only highlight. Otherwise, it's just a lot of explosions and contrived awe. I regret not reading Harry's review before I saw it. Almost everything he praises turns out to be pap.

  • June 22, 2011, 11:48 a.m. CST

    I hate you hating asswipes! Great movie!!

    by clavo

    Some of you need to get out of your stinky bedrooms, take off your superboy underoos and stop hating life just because life hates you. As a wise man once said..."have you ever kissed a girl?" This was a great movie. It did everything right, looked great, had a great cast and story. If you were not hooked in from the first scene, you don't have a soul and you can never really enjoy anything but your pasty reflection or your nasty xbox fingers.

  • July 8, 2011, 9:53 a.m. CST

    A short review

    by Tera Sanders

    More nostalgic horse crap from two of the biggest hacks in the business.