'Super 8' review:

Directed by 'Lost' creator and 'Cloverfield' producer JJ Abrams, 'Super 8' is an affectionate homage to the films of Steven Spielberg. Though in this case "homage" seems like too generous a description of a film which is closer in spirit to a greatest hits mixtape and, with Spielberg acting as a producer to oversee his own canonisation, it must surely rank as one of the cinema's greatest acts of narcissism. Not only is every shot, every sound effect and every character archetype stolen wholesale from the Spielberg oeuvre, but Abrams also borrows all his themes and even major plot details - the result being a film that feels wholly derivative and more than a little redundant.

In stitching together 'Super 8', Abrams combines the town meeting scene from 'Jaws', the nocturnal tree-rustling eeriness of 'Jurassic Park' and the absent father business from 'Hook' and 'The Lost World', alongside huge chunks of 'E.T.' and 'Close Encounters'. Whilst the young cast seem modelled, almost like-for-like, on the kids from Richard Donner's Spielberg-produced 'The Goonies'. Aside from his overuse of distracting lens flares, the director's own dubious stamp is only really felt in the familiar brand of mystery, as he withholds information and establishes lots of (eventually meaningless) threads, with the requisite unsatisfying pay-off. In fact, without spoiling the film, all I can say is that the climax of Abrams' story is not only underwhelming, but also wholly baffling as we are asked not to care about all the death and destruction that has come before during a cloying, metaphor-heavy finale that tries desperately to be heart warming and truly fails.



Set in the 1980s for some reason (allowing for tired references to the Cold War and walkmans), the story itself revolves around the meek and kindly Joe (Joel Courtney), a young boy who spends his summer holidays making super 8mm films with his friends: the fat one, the explosives expert one, the nervous one etc. Joe's mother has recently died and his well-meaning, hard-working father (Kyle Chandler), the town's Deputy Sheriff, spends little time with him. This leads him to strike up a forbidden friendship with Alice (Elle Fanning), a rebellious, young teen who agrees to star in the boys' movie. However, things take a turn for the strange when the gang's filmmaking places them at the scene of a spectacular train crash - with the film's big action set-piece out of the way after the first half hour.

Soon the army are on the scene to wage stock military conspiracy against the town and the boys are warned by a kindly old teacher not to tell anyone about what they have seen for their own safety. However, unexplained things start happening in town and, after the Sheriff goes missing, Joe's dad mounts his own investigation into the oddness (which proves ultimately irrelevant). Like the Amblin Entertainment produced family movies of the 1980s, such as 'Gremlins' and the aforementioned 'The Goonies', 'Super 8' pushes hard at the boundaries of its age-rating, with some bloody kills and a bit of swearing as Abrams refuses to patronise the potential young audience members who've been upgraded from 'Mr. Popper's Penguins'.



Yet whist the film definitely counts as something of an upgrade for the oft-abused family crowd, the film's only other audience is the nascent 1980s nostalgia demographic who are being played as cynically as they are ever likely to be. The "spot the Spielberg" nature of the movie will be a lot of fun for this portion of the crowd, but you have to wonder if it wouldn't be a better use of time to re-watch the superior Spielberg originals themselves and give this hollow imitation a miss. Compelling performances from the young cast aside (Fanning and Courtney are brilliant), 'Super 8' is a strange contradiction: seen by some as a beacon of hope amidst the comic book adaptations, sequels and remakes, the summer's only original property lacks a single original idea.

'Super 8' is out now in the UK and is rated '12A' the the BBFC.

'Tintin' gets an improved trailer...

Is it just me, or does anyone else automatically get the theme to the 90s French-Canadian animated 'The Adventures of Tintin' in their head when they think of the Belgian sleuth? Anyway, here is the second trailer for Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson's upcoming animated adaptation of Herge's The Secret of the Unicorn.



Though many will still feel it's a little too close to the uncanny valley for comfort, my only criticism is that the voices don't look like they're coming from the characters. However, the lighting (particularly the mirrors and glass at the start) and animation in general look fantastic. I love the 50s Noire look a lot of it seems to have. It's also refreshing to see an investigative journalist with some integrity (to insert an already tired topical reference)!

Also, Jamie Bell's voice is a perfect fit for the central character, as he sounds youthful and optimistic without seeming twee - though I'm unsure about Andy Serkis as Haddock on this evidence.

'War Horse' and next year's awards season

The first trailer for Steven Spielberg's adaptation of Michael Morpurgo's award winning novel 'War Horse' (also a hit West End play) made its debut last week. I obviously haven't seen it yet and, to be honest, it looks like sentimental mush (co-written by Richard Curtis), but I fancy it's the year's first serious Oscar contender. Consider the facts: it marks the return of a prestigious (perhaps the most renowned living) director; it looks glossy and replete with period detail; and it's a war film - and don't forget that both of Spielberg's Best Director wins have been for war films ('Schindler's List' and 'Saving Private Ryan').

This logic is certainly reductive and open to criticism. After all, 'Empire of the Sun' didn't even garner the director a nomination. Yet I'm confident, however it turns out, 'War Horse' will at least be nominated for the major prizes next February. Part of the reason is that there is almost nothing else.

Seeing as it's still the summer of 2011 it may seem a little premature to start going on about the Oscars of 2012. Yet it struck me the other day that we've had something of a lightweight year so far in terms of potential Academy Award winners. There have been plenty of good films, but then again something like Golden Bear winning Iranian drama 'A Separation' (released in the UK today) is not likely to contend for Best Picture, being foreign language and having limited commercial appeal.



You know an Oscar film when you see one and we've arguably not had many of them yet in 2011. This might not be a surprise, after all many of the big hitters won't be released until the winter. For instance, this time last year 'The King's Speech' had not yet even played Toronto and 'The Social Network' was still just that "film about Facebook" everyone dismissed out of hand.

Yet this time last year, of the ten Best Picture nominees, 'Winter's Bone' and 'Toy Story 3' had already been released, whilst 'Inception' and 'The Kid's Are All Right' would be out within weeks.

I talked this over with some journalists last week and a few people mentioned 'Source Code' as this year's smart blockbuster breakthrough in the mould of 'District 9' or 'Inception'. But whilst that film was well received and did decent business, it grossed half as much as the former and around an eighth of the latter. Oscar movies have to do outstanding business. In this respect the awards are as much about industry as they are art. What exactly is this summer's huge critically acclaimed blockbuster? There isn't one.

As for the animated vote, Pixar's 'Cars 2' is currently generating middling scores from critics and I can't see the likes of 'Rio', 'Rango' or 'Kung Fu Panda 2' making an impact with voters. Especially as a modified nomination process means that next year's field may be back down to five films, with any other films (up to ten) having to receive 5% of the total votes to be nominated.



So, aside from 'War Horse', what else could be generating awards buzz this winter? Well, Lynn Ramsey's 'We Need to Talk about Kevin' (above) was certainly the talk of Cannes Film Festival. It depends how widely it is distributed, but if the Academy gets wind of it that could garner a nomination at least. Woody Allen is no stranger to Oscar nominations and 'Midnight is Paris' is pretty good and has been one of his best received films of the last decade in the usually indifferent US. Meanwhile, Terrence Malick's Palm d'Or winning 'Tree of Life' is presumably a certainty for a few nominations if not a contender for the top prize. I'd bet against Lars Von Trier and 'Melancholia' being invited at this point.

Right now though, I'd hesitate to bet against Spielberg and his 'War Horse'.

On the "Big Screen": 3 films I want re-released...

'Breathless' and 'Rashomon' on limited re-releases recently (and 'The Godfather' and 'The Red Shoes' last year) it occurs to me that there are a great many old classics well worth a new theatrical run. The added power afforded a film on the big screen makes watching it a whole new experience. I have to admit that I never found 'The Godfather' affected me in any way until I saw it projected onto a large screen in a large dark room in front of an audience. As I wrote in my review of Godard's 'Breathless', the rules which apply to the cinema as a social space (no talking, no phones etc) make it ideal place to see a film properly.

As the way we consume film changes, perhaps theatrical re-releases of older films could become more commonplace. Think about it: if, in the future, the cinema is not the first place you can see a new film then it has to become something else. And that something else is a place where film enthusiasts go out of their way to have an experience, specifically wanting to see a film in that way and under those conditions. If future people can (legally) download new films to their phones, or iPads or directly to their frontal lobes or whatever, then what difference does it make if a cinema shows 'Spiderman 10' or 'The Seventh Seal'? In fact the latter may prove more popular as the 'Spiderman 10' crowd may care less where and how (and at what visual quality) they see the film.

Of course this could signal an end for multiplexes. This elite crowd who want to pay to see Bergman projected in a theatre will not settle for crummy customer service or a poorly projected image. Instead it will be prestigious and historic venues (like Brighton's Duke of York's, Brixton's Ritzy or Edinburgh's Cameo) that may flourish, becoming an equivalent of going to the opera or to see a play. For many patrons their local cinemas already provide that sort of experience and (hopefully) will continue to do so for many more years.

Anyway, I really started this post to suggest some old films I'd quite like to see given a theatrical re-release at some point soon. Here are three, though I could pick many more:

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Before home video, Disney used to constantly re-release their "animated classics" in cinemas. Every few years each film would do the rounds again, allowing a new generation of kids to see 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves' and 'Pinocchio' who would never have had a chance to see them before. Disney still operate this policy on DVD today, with films deleted and then later re-released in an ever repeating cycle, however the chance of seeing many of the older films in a theatre is now much more slender.

'Sleeping Beauty' is my favourite (for reasons that will come apparent during the week, when I'll post a retrospective look at the film) and so I would love to catch it at the cinema. Especially in its original "Super Technirama 70" format (now available on an amazing Blu-ray). Admittedly Disney gave the film its last brief theatrical run as recently as 2008... but I think that must have been in the US, because I never heard about it!

Annie Hall (1977)

Apparently re-released in the UK in 2001, 'Annie Hall' is quite simply a masterwork. Personally I'd love to see Woody Allen's opening monologue on the big screen. The film so inventive and so influential that is as deserving as any other film as far as re-releasing is concerned. It is certainly more deserving of distribution than 'Whatever Works'. In 2012 it will be 35 years old, which seems like me to as good an excuse as any to put the comedy (which defeated 'Star Wars' to win the Best Picture Oscar in 1977) back in the cinema.

Jurassic Park (1993)

My Splendor Cinema podcast co-presenter Jon insists I am alone in this, but I have a lot of friends who, like me, were at a certain age when 'Jurassic Park' came out and know it line-for-line with a childish enthusiasm that refuses to die. I would pay to go and see my favourite Spielberg movie at the pictures again. I was eight years old last time I saw it on a cinema screen and I'd love to see it again. Furthermore (and unlike the others on this list), it has never had a cinematic re-release. Nostalgia aside, I truly believe 'Jurassic Park' is a landmark film (certainly technically) and at some point in the future it will be re-evaluated as such. And 'Hook' too... to a lesser extent...

10 directors who excite me now...

Don’t know why I fancied writing about this today, but here are my top 10 active filmmakers. I don’t mean the “top 10 greatest living directors”, but rather, this is a list of directors whose work I am still excited by and always eagerly anticipate. Of course, the best living directors could include people whose powers have long since diminished: Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg and Jean-Luc Goddard could all be considered “great” directors, but when was their last “great” film? Yes, these guys can still make good films: Woody Allen releases one good film a year, generally. But however good ‘You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger’ is, chances are it won’t hold a candle to ‘Manhattan’ or ‘Annie Hall’, in the same way that ‘The Terminal’ and ‘Munich’ aren’t destined to be remembered as being up there with ‘Jaws’ and ‘ET’.

Of course, this doesn’t mean to say that the next Spielberg film won’t be a classic, but it’s all about expectations, isn’t it? And as far as Spielberg is concerned: unless it’s a fourth Jurassic Park movie, I’m not interested.

I also haven’t included Armando Iannucci (‘In the Loop’), Chris Morris (‘Four Lions’) or Martin McDonagh (‘In Bruges’), because although their films are probably some of the most exciting I have seen in the last few years (and I eagerly await their next efforts) I want to focus on directors whose films have consistently dazzled me. Anyway, with that proviso, on with the list (in no particular order)…

Wes Anderson
My favourite film: 'Bottle Rocket' (1996)

Wes Anderson is possibly my favourite current director. I have never been left disappointed by one of his films (though I know many didn't like 'Life Aquatic' or 'Darjeeling Limited' overly). I love how good-natured his movies are and how the portagonists are vulnerable and childish people, fond of being in teams and of being liked. Anderson's films aren't cynical and they exist as a celebration of life and of colour. I feel moved and uplifted by scenes in all his films to date and whatever his next project after the splendid stop-frame animation 'The Fantastic Mr. Fox', I am very excited.

The Coen Brothers
My favourite film: 'The Big Lebowski' (1998)

A slightly more complicated relationship exists between me and the Coen's, but only slightly. This is only reasonable though: they have made many more films than Wes Anderson after all. Basically, they had a bad patch with 'Intolerable Cruelty' (2003) and 'The Ladykillers' (2004), the latter being a god-awful remake of a genuine classic Ealing comedy, and wisely took a few years off to return in a blaze of glory with the Oscar-winning 'No Country for Old Men' in 2007. Now they are following up my favourite movie of last year ('A Serious Man') with another remake (although they insist it's more of an adaptation of the book than a remake) as they prepare to release 'True Grit' this December. Jeff Bridges (the Dude himself) is taking on John Wayne's own Oscar-winning role as Rooster Cogburn and I am pretty excited. After all, 'No Country' was, for all intents and purposes, a modern Western and it was incredible. I have faith.

Anything written by Charlie Kaufman
My favourite film: 'Adaptation' (2002)

The only writer on this list (although he did direct 'Synechdoche, New York' himself), Kaufman, in his work with Spike Jonze ('Being John Malkovich' and 'Adaptation') and Michel Gondry ('Human Nature' and 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind') has proven himself a genius time and time again. All his films have endless replay value for me, and each time I learn a little more about them. They are probably the most endlessly rewarding films ever made.

Christopher Nolan
My favourite film: 'The Dark Knight' (2008)

Here's a man who has never steered me wrong (so far)! It is a close three-way tie for his best film ('Memento' and 'The Prestige' are just as good as 'The Dark Knight') but his second Batman film excited me the most of all of them. My favourite superhero movie and the first/last time I really got excited at stunts and set-pieces in the last ten years of cinema. I love it! 'Inception' (due out very soon) looks... interesting (the trailer gives almost nothing away), but I have no reason to doubt that Nolan will deliver again.

Hayao Miyazaki
My favourite film: 'My Neighbour Totoro' (1988)

The best living animator. That's all I have to say. 'Ponyo' was great and whatever he makes next will be great. Sorry if that doesn't sound objective, but his films move me and excite me. Like Wes Anderson, there is an innocence and naivety about his work which is charming but never twee. Just too good. Soon he will retire, but I hope we get a few more classics yet.

Werner Herzog
My favourite film: 'My Best Fiend' (1999)

What can I say about the insane genius that is Herzog? Whilst I did enjoy the likes of 'Rescue Dawn' and 'Bad Lieutenant', I proberly prefer his documentaries these days. I suppose that's mainly because he narrates them and because he never tackles any subject matter in a traditional way. When he films penguins it is to find their inherent madness and obsurdity. One of my favourites is a short from 1977 called 'La Soufrière', in which he travels to a volcano that is about to errupt and films it up close, with no regard for his own safety. I am looking forward to whatever he does next, as well as a UK release of 'My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?'.

Paul Thomas Anderson
My favourite film: 'Punch-Drunk Love' (2002)

This guy is just amazing. 'Punch-Drunk Love' is possibly my favourite film of all time and 'There Will Be Blood' (2007) is right up there too. Then we have 'Magnolia' (1999), 'Boogie Nights' (1997) and 'Hard Eight' (1996). Basically he is like no one else, visually and in terms of the way he tells a story. 'Punch-Drunk Love' and 'There Will Be Blood' unite the music and the image like nothing else I've seen. His next film is getting me very excited indeed, especially as 'The Master' stars Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Takeshi Kitano
My favourite film: 'Hana-bi' (1997)

Probably best known here as the presenter of 'Takeshi's Castle', an odd Japanese gameshow, or as the sinister, evil bloke at the start of 'Battle Royale', but Takeshi 'Beat' Kitano is an institution in his native land. A stand-up comic, turned actor, turned award winning, internationally recognised director. He can do anything, from straight police thrillers like 'Violent Cop' and 'Sonatine', to slapstick comedy in 'Getting Any?' (maybe the maddest film ever), to the more poignant, festival friendly 'Hana-bi' (which won the Golden Lion in Venice in 2007), establishing him as the most internationally relevant Japanese filmmaker since Kurosawa. He also tackled the long-running 'Zatoichi' franchise in 2003, making a damn fine samurai film too. I am yet to see his 'Takeshis' trilogy (released 2005, 2007 and 2008 to bad reviews) which is more autobiograhical, but I am excited to see his latest film 'Outrage', which played at Cannes.

Brad Bird
My favourite film: 'The Iron Giant' (1999)

The second animator on my list (although his next film is 'Mission Impossible 4' in live-action), Brad Bird caught my attention with 'The Iron Giant', an overlooked Warner Brothers animation. That film has such loving attention to detail it is perhaps the best non-Disney, American feature animation ever. He then went on to work for the great PIXAR and made 'The Incredibles' (my second favourite superhero film) and 'Ratatouille' (which also ain't bad). I am not super enthused to see 'MI4', but I would like to see whether he takes a unique visual style into live-action, like animators Burton and Gilliam have in the past. Could be interesting.

George Lucas
My favourite film: 'Star Wars' (1977)

A real wild card pick here! Since 1971's 'THX 1138', George Lucas (a peer of Spielberg, Milius, Coppola, Scorcese and De Palma) has made just five films as a director. 'American Graffiti' (1973) is a classic that inspired many immitators (not to mention the TV show 'Happy Days') and launched the career of Ron Howard (Lucas also gave Howard his first directorial job with 'Willow'). Then he made 'Star Wars' in 1977 and everything changed, for Hollywood movies and for Lucas. He didn't direct the sequels, or his 'Indiana Jones' screenplays, only returning to the director's chair in 1999 with the first of three critically despised Star Wars prequel movies (which I enjoyed). The last of these came out in 2005. But will he ever direct again? Will he ever make a non-Star Wars related movie? You see, that's why Lucas excites me as a director. I am intigued about what he would make and how he would make it if he ever decided to stop riding the Star Wars gravy train. His first three movies were classics, what happened?

Armageddon as directors top Hollywood rich list for 2009

An interesting fact emerges from this year’s Vanity Fair “top Hollywood earners” list: the top five places go to directors. Todd Phillips comes in at five, fresh from directing ‘The Hangover’ (subject of a recent Oscar snub), a surprise hit which must have seen Phillips claiming a proportion of the box office gross to earn his reported $44 million last year. At four, Jim Cameron (subject of Oscar buzz), comes in with some of that sweet ‘Avatar’ money. ‘Avatar’ was only released in the last couple of weeks of 2009, so Cameron’s place at four on this list shows just how much money he/that film has made in such a short space of time. I’d expect Cameron to be at the top of next year’s list with the same film. Three sees Roland Emmerich taking $70 million home for directing the disaster movie ‘2012’ (never linked to Oscars). Emmerich is probably another one seeing a healthy proportion of the box office as part of his fee.

That leaves, in second and first place, respectively, father and son duo (as pictured) Spielberg and Bay. They have (depressingly) been raking it in from the recent ‘Transformers’ movies. Say what you will about ‘Avatar’, but it is a coherent film at least – and with its heart in the right place. Michael Bay reportedly made $125 million last year so it's no wonder he doesn’t care what people say about his films. The full break down of this figure is available in the original Vanity Fair article, but interesting highlights include: $75 million from directing/producing the film, $25 million from sales of the DVD (yes, if you bought it, you’re lining his pockets, happy?) and $12.5 million from toys and video games etc.

I really, really wanted to come at this list from the perspective that, regardless of who they were and what they had made, directors had claimed the top five places in this poll, where usually actors dominate (as indeed they dominate the remaining thirty-five places). The thing is that there isn’t really a single person on the list who is there because they directed a film: rather all the directors on the list are also producers. Or they made $50 million from theme parks last year (Steven Spielberg).

Anyway, check out the entire top 40, and all the details therein, here.