I'm not falling for this like I did with "Cloverfield" and getting all fanboy psyched for this. I'm somewhat intrigued after Abrams redeemed himself with "Star Trek" in '09 but the stink of "Cloverfield" still hasn't passed, as far as I'm concerned.

now, this thing can only be an alien or a monster...so I'm getting a little annoyed with the hype that no one knows what this is "about".

anyway...it's probably the next movie i'll go see besides trying to catch "thor" this weekend. but i may not. and i don't even want to think about "the hangover 2". talk about rehashing mediocrity.

Saw the trailer for this when I saw Thor last weekend.

It actually looks decent. Not the Cloverfield camcorder thing. A little more.

For the record, I actually enjoyed Cloverfield.

_________________

Me too.

But I also liked The Village and Signs. So take that for what it's worth.

_________________

How was Thor?

_________________

First 20 minutes were meh, the last 20 minutes kind of dragged, the hour in between was almost like watching a comedy, but a decent one.

More than anything, it feels like a film that needed to be made to give some backstory to The Avengers next summer.

As a whole, one of the weaker Marvel efforts, in fact, I enjoyed The Incredible Hulk more.

The trailer for Captain America played too. That looks bad ass.

_________________

at least those movies tried to be something. "cloverfield" was the guy fieri of monster movies.

"signs" was decent until the laughable ending. same could be said about "the village" although it was rather dull for the most part, too. both were better than "the happening" but that isn't saying much.

My simple fix for Signs:
Cut out the stupid water stuff
End the movie when they are in the cellar in the dark and the aliens are trying to break in. I'm sure the ending would piss people off, but I prefer ambiguous endings. (that's what she said).

_________________

at least cut out the ridiculous "pay off". i agree, this movie should not have let us seen what happened. in fact, the whole idea seemed to be about "what if" and not "what happened". the title's "signs" for effin' sake. it's not about answers, it's about interpretations.

I also liked "Signs" and "Village". I thought both were not only good movies but had good underlying meaning - and both were better than "The Happening" , "Unbreakable" , and "Lady in the Water"

_________________

Unbreakable would've been good if it had set something up. Instead it is an origin story with no follow up.

_________________

i agree with that but i still liked it for some reason; possibly because i didn't know what to expect and as a comic book fan, i was impressed with it. i think i own it somewhere but the last time i tried to watch it i turned it off halfway. i think it was one of those "you see it once and that's enough" movies. i'd put "unbreakable" slightly ahead of "signs" and "the village" but all three were at least interesting.

"lady in the water"...that was very telling. it was the constipation, and "the happening" was the enema. unforunately...i've heard "the last airbender" was hershey squirts.

unless shyamalan gets a screenwriter, he'll be doomed as a one-hit wonder and even that movie borrowed from others. he's george lucas without "raiders" and "american graffiti" and "thx1138". that's pretty bad.

I will not subject myself to "airbender". I can't do it.

_________________

Agreed

The trailer was bad enough

_________________

This is a good policy...I wish I'd never seen it...

i didn't bother with it nor will i. i don't know that i'll go see another shyamalan film in the theatre anymore unless it gets good marks from critics i respect.

I watched The Happening in the same vein as The Wicker Man remake. Pure rubbish that becomes comical because you know the filmmakers were trying to be serious. Though, I must say, Nic Cage's overacting was far more entertaining than Mark Wahlberg's bad acting.

_________________
Back off, Warchild. Seriously.

i agree; actually "the wicker man" is quite entertaining because it's so ridiculously bad and overdone. neil labute has fallen pretty hard from his "in the company of men" days. and the thing was, it was so horrid but so trying to be good that i don't even think it desecrates the original, which was awesome.

"the happening" wasn't entertaining in the same way. it was pretentious and overbearing, and no one seemed to be having fun with their roles.

neither one compares to the hilarity of "troll 2"; but "the wicker man" remake is at least something fun to riff on.

All this talk about shitty movies got me thinking about "The Room".

And if you're familiar with that legendarily bad movie, you should watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5FhExAa ... ture=share

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

Just got back from seeing this. Not sure how I really think of it right now. There are alot of parts that I really enjoyed: the kid actors (many acting for the first time) are outstanding. Elle Fanning is tremendous. Kyle Chandler does just fine too. The friends are hilarious (loved the kid who wanted to blow things up). It is one of the movies I can really remember recently that nails down how young kids REALLY talk to each other and goof around. That made me smile.

Abrams really shines with telling the whole "innocent youth rallying together" aspect, and it made me care about them. Now, the whole other side of the plot (what escapes and why) kind of falls flat. Those that hated Cloverfield may not like this at all. The "why" behind it all felt rushed-but because the character development was so great-I still enjoyed the last few scenes (and even teared up once).

It's obviously a love-letter to the 80s Spielberg movies, and I think that is what prevents this movie from being truly great. Abrams and Spielberg took the best aspects from ET/Stand By Me/Close Encounters/Jaws/Jurassic Park and rolled them all up into one movie. And because those movies are pretty darn good, this movie is definitely good. Don't think it will be a new classic like some hoped it to be.

Special effects are outstanding. When the action hits, it's a treat. Made me jump a few times.

Because the hype was so big, I'm sure many will say they were disappointed. I was at the horror/sci-fi aspect of it, but not overall. Well worth the money to see in the theater.

8/10 for me.

_________________
The world's gene pool could use a little more chlorine.

i've actually read good things about this but i honestly forgot it was coming out this weekend. won't be able to check it out this week but will try next week. thanks for the review, jimmy.

I have been pumped about this movie for over a year, but I must say I was disappointed. I'm sure many will enjoy it for its homage to Spielberg's earlier movies and the simplistic storyline with the kids. I was hoping for more of a sci-fi thriller, which is what I thought the previews with the train car were indicating. Without giving anything away, just know that this is not a great apocalypse/scifi/horror type movie. In fact, the sci-fi storyline is almost secondary, though the special effects are good.

If you're a big fan of Stand By Me or were a Spielberg junkie in the 80's, I'm sure you will get some joy out of this movie, but I feel a bit misled.

_________________

Saw it yesterday.
Thought it was very good - not great.

It's a "Slice of 1979 Americana" so if you hate white suburbanites I would skip it.

_________________
Kenny Williams fell for the banana in the tailpipe

Well, I saw the movie and I didn't let the hype get in the way...and wow. Anybody comparing it to "Stand By Me" or any early Spielberg films? Good Lord, what is this world coming to?

This movie couldn't be more by-the-book standard action sci-fi cliche'd...it's garbage. Straight up, straight to video if-it-didn't-have-the-names-attached-it-would-be garbage.

There is absolutely nothing in the story between the loss of the mother of the main kid that poses any relationship to anything other than a sordid, contrived "resolution" at the end. J.J. Abrams proves again he has absolutely no creativity at all or imagination. Oh sure, his office is full of toys and whatnot. OK, so what? Show something inspired. The creature in this film, which is teased at for so long, is such a cardboard cut out of every standard CGI movie monster in the last 4 years that it's an insult. And that's what this whole movie is.

What a waste of good performances by the main lead kid actors, boy and girl. They are so good, and so convincing, and this movie is nothing of the sort.

And the plot holes...tell me, how does a pickup truck driving right into a train have a surviving driver? And not only that, but this driver has a purpose that lends itself to the act three conclusion which is so absurd and ridiculous, it's laughable.

Yes, the movie has good special effects. Whoopee. So does any movie that has a budget of over $100 million. The kids in this film look like they were swiped away from "The Goonies" remake (which I hope to God never happens) but they retain none of the charisma or style that those characters had. The story is dead on arrival. It's been lifted from every science fiction film you've ever seen. And boy am I tired of seeing every alien these days look so familiar.

What a waste. It has a few promising moments in its first act--I liked the set up. But everything afterward make me remember why I hated "Cloverfield" so much and why J.J. Abrams is such an imposter. So much an ass-kissing slave to Hollywood that he represents what Hollywood offal is. He wants to be Spielberg.

But Spielberg had a brain.

out of

and for the reading impaired, like shakes, that means i don't recommend it. at all. to anyone.

Could not disagree more. While it wasn't Oscar-worthy, it was definitely an enjoyable flick that is good for all ages. Yes, there are definite plot holes, but this is a movie. And a movie with aliens at that. So you really have to understand that you are suspending disbelief in the first place. And besides, the sci-fi part is merely a backdrop to the real point of the movie which is the lead character getting over the sudden death of his mother.

right, which takes such precedence over the rest of the plot. maybe a total of 10 minutes is dedicated to the loss of his mother. he shows absolutely no emotion while he's watching the footage of his mother; the girl he likes shows more emotion over the loss than he does. not only that, her own plot of forgiving her father is so lately added that it seems tacked on.

this isn't explored in the slightest and has nothing to do with the plot of the alien, nor does it have to do with the title itself..."super 8" which doesn't have any conflict or resolution at all. it becomes a standard action sci-fi film and in the end, a simpering attempt at that, at best.

if you found any meaning in this film, you really need to see more movies. this was lackluster and completely devoid of anything meaningful at all. there was nothing about the mother/son relationship that was explored at all in this film.

It had nothing to do with the mother/son relationship. It had to do with being young and dealing with death.

no it didn't at all. and that's easily refuted by the scene between the kid and the alien. this movie was completely air headed.

tell me what scenes dealt with death and dying? what? the weak scene between the allie and him where she tells him it was her father that felt at fault? that lasted all of less than 5 minutes and never had a true resolution?

what did that have to do with the original premise of this being about kids making a zombie film? did that have any relevance? it could have. but the whole concept is dropped once it becomes a "let's rescue the lost girl" movie. the kids were just tools in an otherwise empty headed sci fi movie and that's it. "Stand By Me" had actual scenes of kids relating to each other, and the true meaning of death was handled. In this film it's just back dropped to the sci-fi plot that's so ridiculously pointless and predictable I've seen it a hundred times.

Well, I guess that's like you're opinion, man.

For anyone else, you will enjoy the flick.

it's david edelstein's opinion, too. this guy's my hero. he was also one of the few critics who dismissed the overwhelmingly overloved and overrated "inception". i liked "super 8" much less than edelstein but he at least wasn't stroking abrams ego like everyone else seems to be doing.

he said this of "super 8":

Abrams has probably been fighting not to reproduce Spielberg’s signature moves since the day he picked up a camera. Now, with the blessing of the master, he can plagiarize with alacrity.

If Abrams had given the chubby director kid (Riley Griffiths) some Spielbergian talent instead of (for easy laughs) Ed Wood–ish ineptitude, Super 8 might have added up to something more. Abrams could have shown the connection between domestic upheaval and a child’s burgeoning filmmaking talents.

Yeah, he actually liked this movie. So, it's not his opinion.

And he liked Green Lantern, too. Very heroic of him.