Posts Tagged ‘80s’

Super 8

Super 8

Sunday, August 7th, 2011

I wanna start this review with a sort of morbid thought that occurred to me while watching this movie. Much has been said of the Spielberg influence here: there are elements of films he directed and produced here, and he himself is in the producer’s chair. What this knowledge sort of spoils for me is not knowing how much additional influence Spielberg exercised onset. Super 8 is a movie that has been talked about (at least it seems so) for many years now. The morbid thought that occurred to me is, how much better if this movie – like Stanley Kubrick’s Artificial Intelligence, ultimately made by Spielberg – had languished in development hell that much longer and only been rushed into production in the event of its inspiration’s passing? (hopefully, I stress, many years from now…) There is even a strong underlying message in the movie about letting go of the departed – profoundly if heavy-handedly (but that’s how I like my emotion) illustrated in the very last scene. Anyway, as I said, just a thought that occurred to me.

I never know how vague or full I’m going to be about plot details when I start writing a review so I should warn now, there may be spoilers. I was lucky enough to avoid just about any details about this movie before seeing it and I’m glad I did, so I’d strongly advise not reading any reviews, mine included, until you’ve seen it. If you need a short review: trust me, it’s worth seeing.

At its heart, as already mentioned, this movie exists as a nostalgic trip. As such, its biggest star is arguably its production design, which to my eye seemed flawless, even dizzying in places as I grew up in the time (if not the place) the story takes place. I always used to say when it came to period movies that I preferred the older ones, in particular those of the 1970s, as they always seemed to have a hazy look to them that added to the experience; as time moved on film production techniques got too clean and slick leading to inappropriately clean and slick historical visions. We’re fortunate today to have moved past this hurdle and – as seems to have been done here – digital technology in addition to increased access to reference materials (and, in this case of course, a more recent past) can be used to give the film the appropriate look …to the degree where really only prior knowledge of the actors and the quality of the visual effects give any hint at all that the movie wasn’t made in the late 70s or early 1980s. I spent at least the first half hour just smiling at how much it truly felt like a movie from my childhood that I’d somehow missed – the kids, of whom only Elle Fanning was I sure I’d enjoy watching, are without exception wonderful.

If I recall correctly, one of the massive things related to this movie I successfully avoided prior to seeing it was the train crash scene, most of which I believe was released on the internet a while ago. This might seem like a great triumph of the will for a self-professed movie fan but consider that I still rarely listen to singles, even from my most favourite artists, preferring to wait to hear them in the context of the full album they appear on. I’m strange that way.

Anyway, the train crash is as phenomenal as I’d heard. It’s a long time since an action sequence has made me physically gasp the way this one did.

There was, I won’t deny, a short period somewhere in the middle act where the movie slightly lost my rapt attention – perhaps, now I think about it, when the modern visual effects broke the otherwise authentic feel of the movie (notwithstanding the crash, I guess) – and I feared the movie would struggle to pull me back to the transfixed state it got me in initially. Luckily, the movie has two enormous, connected emotionally punches up its sleeve – one scene featuring Elle Fanning (who, I’ll say again, continues to completely walk all over her older sister making far more interesting choices than any Dakota has made in years) and a revelation about the tension between her father and the father of the young protagonist in front of a super-8 projection of his home movies; and the climax, so beautifully resolving this tension, which is threaded throughout and reflected in the overarching universal plot (“Bad things happen: but you can still live…”), it simply knocked me down emotionally. Truly, that moment – the “letting go” is all I’ll say – is as simple and powerful as anything in Spielberg’s old classics. This movie utterly achieves what it sets out to do, and then some.

Stick around in the end credits for a wonderful treat, by the way; I hope there’s more of that when the movie hits blu-ray.



Submarine

Submarine

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

[Quick note about the massive break since I posted anything here lol – as usual, sorry… I kept meaning to catch up on my reviews, indeed, I have almost 30 sketched out in Evernote which will appear here eventually, probably when I watch the movies in question a second time. I like to keep my reviews coming concurrent with the order in which I watch them and that always results in these massive gaps when some movie comes along about which I’ve nothing immediate to say and holds up the queue lol. But, then, a month passes, the queue becomes unmanageable, and I decide – as I have today – to just start afresh from the movie/s at hand. Let’s see how long I keep up with myself this time. I will probably update my 2010 list soon with this in mind, despite most of the movies on that list not yet having been reviewed. Anyhoo… onwards…]

The moment I saw a short clip of this movie featuring the main character Oliver – a self-absorbed outsider teen (and aren’t they all) played by Craig Roberts looking uncannily like Bud Cort in Harold and Maude in a setting that looked equally similar in almost every way to that masterpiece and personal favourite – I knew I just had to see it. The first thing to say about Submarine is… it’s absolutely not *Harold and Maude*… Yet though its clear visual references are almost unfortunate because of this otherwise total unsimilarity of the two movies, they remain the aspect I’m most eager to praise.

I’d read plenty before finally dragging myself to the arthouse to see this that had worried me plenty that it might, afterall, not be my cup of tea. That there were no unlikable characters in it. That it was wannabe-(and, in some people’s minds, nottabe-) Wes Anderson (bad enough if you’re a fan of his; worse if, like me, you’ve never really been impressed with that guy). Just a general implication that if this was remotely like its clear influences, it might only be in a far too clever, possibly ironic, insular, showy – let’s just say it, hipster – way.

The accusations aren’t far off. These characters – all of them – aren’t what you’d call likeable. But I found myself mostly flitting between not quite wanting to call them “unlikeable” and, more, feeling like the movie was doing a fine job of portraying them as no more or less than simply as flawed, helpless, and ridiculous in their behaviours as any of us, particularly as teenagers. Richard Ayoade takes a leaf out of Sofia Coppola’s book in this respect – it’s not hard to argue that if the movie feels difficult to get along with at times, it’s only because it’s reflecting entirely the mores of its protagonists. I include, by the way, in those protagonists the adult characters – the teachers at school, Oliver’s parents (played heartbreakingly well by Noah Taylor – an ex-Open University presenter – and Sally Hawkins, whose billowy attire most fully betrays any sense of when the movie is set), and Paddy Considine’s psychic entertainer – all of whom are, if anything, so much “worse” than the kids that they, too, reduce any irritation the kids might cause.

The movie is well-made enough that it’s able to get away with teetering on this line between honestly presenting its undesirable world and simply becoming just as undesirable for almost its whole duration, and the feeling I left the cinema most filled with for Submarine is admiration – the same admiration I found when listening to recent interviews Ayoade has done, particularly on Mark Kermode’s radio show, where he spoke of his early rejection of extreme emotion in a way that was both comic and slightly inspiring. If there’s a problem for me it’s really an unfair thing to have a problem with, given Ayaode’s clear intention to never go there – I personally like a good rush of extreme sweeping emotion in the cinema; and in a movie such as this, so otherwise devoid of such a thing, it would – even if fleetingly – have been all the more effective. But the movie never lets itself tip over into any hint of sentimentality… if it even comes close it quickly checks itself and comments on the fact. Some people will cite this as the reason it’s so good. Like I say, I’m more inclined to simply admire its consistency. What’s clear is that Ayaode is a director whose future work we should look forward to – if he can do so much good with a story as difficult as this, I think with different material he might one day blow me away completely.