Oh I see the problem... I'm talking about X-Men: FC and you're talking about Super 8. I was wondering how there could be such a discrepancy. :ha:
Lol my bad. Yea actually X-men had some questionable special effects.
I actually saw the movie again the other day. Slightly more retarded the second time. I did notice some problems with the CG and the red guy did look a little silly. Beast looked silly. Still a fun summer movie and better than the others but that ain't saying a lot.
I actually saw the movie again the other day. Slightly more retarded the second time. I did notice some problems with the CG and the red guy did look a little silly. Beast looked silly. Still a fun summer movie and better than the others but that ain't saying a lot.
Throw back noir film. I loved it.
Uhh, seeing how I'm right, you kinda did... again... and while doing so, you managed to also spoil the monster in the Cloverfield for those who haven't seen it. Good job, bro!
I see Abrams' genius work is having an influence on the fanboys. :brow:
Uhh, I never said I disliked the marketing. It just didn't give me a hard on.
Let's market this monster movie the same exact way as my last monster movie. Genius!
As I said, if Cloverfield was never made, then I would have liked it a lot. Because it's a summer movie or kids movie, you're excused from bringing any kind of creatively or suspense? Lol, uhh ok?
I'm not even nitpicking either, I knocked the movie for lacking any originality, is that such a crime now? Lol, is that how low the standards are now these days...
Again, I didn't even think it was a bad movie, I was just mildly entertained at most, one of my friends who went with me even fell asleep. If you loved it, then great, that's cool, but I expected a bit more after all the hype in the trailer and was let down. It was just ok to me.
Such a shame too because they did a good job on portraying the Magneto/Charles bromance and tying the Missile Crisis with X-Men.
I was able to tolerate Beast until he started speaking. If you end up watching it, you'll know exactly what I mean.
One thing he did better with Super 8 was not dragging it out when it came to revealing the monster. Cloverfield was a cool idea but like LOST, he's great at grabbing your attention and making you want more, but he drags it out to a point where by the time the big secret is revealed, you've already stopped caring a long time ago.
Where did I describe the creature in either film? Spoilers avoided. You can get pics of both online now and see them side by side. They do not look the same.
As for Abrams fanboys I don't know anything about that.
Cloverfield was average.
Star Trek was okay.
Super 8 was good.
Lost sucks.
Not a fan but he has potential.
You are holding a summertime, borderline kids, popcorn movie to too high of a standard. We are not dealing with an Oscar contender. I guess I wasn't expecting much and you were expecting more.
Because I'm right about them looking the same and you didn't post a spoiler alert when you responded to me when I said they looked the same lol. Notice how I posted a spoiler alert before I went into details comparing the movies, including discussions about the monster's identity. Wasn't being a d**k about it but you know how people can freak out about such things.
Find me a good screenshot of the monster in Super 8 then, and if people agree with you that they aren't remarkably similar, then I'll let it go.
And I'm not a Abrams hater.
Cloverfield had some fun moments on the big screen.
Star Trek was goodish.
LOST was great until the 5th season.
Super 8 would be pretty good without taking Cloverfield into account.
Comparison:
Super 8 monster
http://i.imgur.com/6H5yb.jpg
Cloverfield monster
http://www.deviantart.com/download/75275530/Cloverfield_Monster_by_Blackheart73191.jpg
Turned out to be difficult on a cell phone... hope nobody saw that lol.
It was up for a sec.
Better Cloverfield pic.
http://www.dreadcentral.com/img/news/feb08/hasbrocf3.jpg
Have the same Super 8 pic
Speaking of "hope nobody saw that" I definitely failed for a sec and accidentally posted the links as images on here before quickly deleting my post. And this is after calling you out for posting spoilers, what an a** I would have looked like...
Yea that is why I was frantically deleting the first post lol
Quit complaining about the monster, it's not like werewolve or dragon movies show any new groundbreaking designs either. There are differences, and there are similarities. I for one was hoping it was the same one at a younger age, but I don't see it crash landing on earth twice 
Super 8 - At its core, the film is a throw-back to Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment films of the early/mid 80s. Much like the Grindhouse homage trend of recent years, Abrams seems intent on creating a story that wants to capture the Amblin atmosphere, while still trying to capture the scares of early Spielberg forays of horror, namely Jaws and Poltergeist. It's an interesting avenue, and could have been an ambitious and worth-while ride. But in this viewer's eyes, Abrams falls well short.
First, I want to say what goes well. The performances are good, perhaps very good at certain times. Seeing kids act in films like this as an adult can often tarnish the experience, simply because most of the allure and connection is lost on older audiences. But all the kids, particularly Elle Fanning, give believable and likeable performances. Kyle Chandler also gives a nuanced effort as a struggling father trying to reconnect with a wounded son, but is criminally underused in the final act.
Sadly, the performances are the only strength I can honestly highlight. I am known as a feverish critic of too-much CGI in modern genre-films. I thought CGI was utilized in a way to appease the masses, and I thought this was a poor decision in a film that wants to pay homage to a generation that minimized computer effects. A word to Mr. Abrams - less is more. I also didn't enjoy the monster design, and thought it was a throw-away effort in what turned out to be somewhat important character role (unlike, say, Cloverfield, where the monster was just there to create havoc).
But the biggest problem I had was the lack of voice in a film that is desperately screaming for one at every turn. This is one of the finest examples of a '00 film's tendency to try too hard to write a love letter to directors and movies that modern directors grew up on. Abrams sticks religiously to a script that has already been done vastly better by artists that are brave enough to take risks. I can think of a great deal of directors in the same era of Spielberg that tried exactly that (see Joe Dante's Gremlins or even Jackson's early Bad Taste. Instead of creating his own atmosphere and adventure that draws what works from his influences, he has made a film that seems like a bland crash-course in how to create a coming-of-age science fiction children-friendly movie. Anyone who has seen The Goonies or ET could tell you what would happen, from beginning, middle to end. Abrams doesn't know if he wants to make this humorous, terrifying, prolific, or thrilling, and in the end, it rarely dabbles in any of these categories.
In closing, I think this is a film that will do well with people who are not well-versed in Spielberg classics, as many of the borrowed and obvious influences will seem fresh and interesting. Likewise, I could see a lot of people aged 7-14 really liking the premise and execution. But for someone who grew up on many an Amblin production, I simply found myself watching a movie I've seen countless times before, and quite frankly, executed a lot better.
3/5
First, I want to say what goes well. The performances are good, perhaps very good at certain times. Seeing kids act in films like this as an adult can often tarnish the experience, simply because most of the allure and connection is lost on older audiences. But all the kids, particularly Elle Fanning, give believable and likeable performances. Kyle Chandler also gives a nuanced effort as a struggling father trying to reconnect with a wounded son, but is criminally underused in the final act.
Sadly, the performances are the only strength I can honestly highlight. I am known as a feverish critic of too-much CGI in modern genre-films. I thought CGI was utilized in a way to appease the masses, and I thought this was a poor decision in a film that wants to pay homage to a generation that minimized computer effects. A word to Mr. Abrams - less is more. I also didn't enjoy the monster design, and thought it was a throw-away effort in what turned out to be somewhat important character role (unlike, say, Cloverfield, where the monster was just there to create havoc).
But the biggest problem I had was the lack of voice in a film that is desperately screaming for one at every turn. This is one of the finest examples of a '00 film's tendency to try too hard to write a love letter to directors and movies that modern directors grew up on. Abrams sticks religiously to a script that has already been done vastly better by artists that are brave enough to take risks. I can think of a great deal of directors in the same era of Spielberg that tried exactly that (see Joe Dante's Gremlins or even Jackson's early Bad Taste. Instead of creating his own atmosphere and adventure that draws what works from his influences, he has made a film that seems like a bland crash-course in how to create a coming-of-age science fiction children-friendly movie. Anyone who has seen The Goonies or ET could tell you what would happen, from beginning, middle to end. Abrams doesn't know if he wants to make this humorous, terrifying, prolific, or thrilling, and in the end, it rarely dabbles in any of these categories.
In closing, I think this is a film that will do well with people who are not well-versed in Spielberg classics, as many of the borrowed and obvious influences will seem fresh and interesting. Likewise, I could see a lot of people aged 7-14 really liking the premise and execution. But for someone who grew up on many an Amblin production, I simply found myself watching a movie I've seen countless times before, and quite frankly, executed a lot better.
3/5
Thank you! lol
You can read my full review if you want a few pages back, you pretty much said what I said with better terminology. I'm glad to see at least another person wanted a little originality from this. You can pay homage to someone all you want and still bring something fresh.
You might not go this far, but to me, Super 8 was the same damn movie as Cloverfield but with some heart and soul added. Honestly, if Cloverfield was never made, I would actually give Super 8 a pretty high rating, probably a 8/10.
I'll say this though, Abrams did much better with when to reveal the monster in this one, so I'll give him some credit for not dragging it out to the point where you don't care anymore like he did in Cloverfield.
If you ever seen Friday Night Lights, you'll know Kyle Chandler is a great actor. And I completely agree that he was horribly underused in the final act. The few scenes with him and his kid were one of the few things I thoroughly enjoyed about the movie.
Like I said, If I hadn't seen The Goonies and Jaws and was a 10 year old kid, I'd probably love the **** out of this movie. If that's what Abrams was going for - making a hybrid of those films for a new generation, then I guess he did his job. The rest of us are just sort of left with nothing to do but frown and say "I've seen this before".
I don't know why I had even a strong interest in this film. I gave Cloverfield a 3/5, Star Trek a 3.5/5, stopped watching Lost after Season 3. Abrams isn't a guy who has ever really impressed me with his vision.
i Finally watched THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU , pretty good movie, i like the concept even though it has tons of computer made backgrounds and CGI. Them trying to keep him from the girl was entertaining all on it's on. 7.5/10
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
