Just saw it. Pretty good up until the last 15 minutes or so, at which point it just started sucking ass.
What was so bad about the last 15 minutes of the movie?
I'm with Pres Man. The ending really falls flat. It's difficult to say why without spoilers so...
The rest of the movie was pretty great, but I walked away wishing for a more substantial ending.
It's a nice set-up for a sequel though because:
I'll try to give some thoughts about why the ending was disappointing.
Next up is how we are suppose to feel sorry for the monster. Yet the monster targets civilians to capture and eat later, including the young girl apparently. Now that might be remotely understandable if we didn't know that the creature was intelligent, there were non-intelligent animals still around (we see some as the boys drive back to town), and finally it has a telepathic link to those it touches so knows these people are not dangerous to it.
Lastly the deal with the locket. I would not have let go the locket my mother had so some freaky alien that had murdered towns folk, people I have known my entire life could go home. Now the idea I developed was that the creature needed very specific materials (this is why some cars and guns were drawn into it but not others as those others were not needed). Yet seemed pretty disrespectful of his mother to destroy the thing for a murderous creature. Attacking and killing military personal is one thing, attacking, killing, and eating some poor kid working at a convenience store is another thing entirely.
There are also the issues raised by ghettowedge above.
Put all together, I didn't leave the film feeling satisfied. If anything I felt feeling that the kids screwed up, that the creature should have been killed. At the point I left the theater I felt the movie should have ended when the house the kids were sneaking through was hit with cannon fire.
Frankly, JJ Abrams seems to have a similar problem to that of Michael Crichton, he just doesn't seem very good at ending stories.
I really liked the whole thing. The ending didn't bother me at all. I didn't take it the same way that the others who have posted here did.
The monster couldn't just leave at any time. It needed to gather the appropriate supplies to complete the ship. I suspect it was getting ready to go when the main character gets there in time to save his friend and he just reinforced the teacher's position that not all humans are bad.
As far as the locket goes: The movie is about growing up and part of that involves learning to let go of the past. The kid needed to let go of the locket to move on from his mother's death. It made perfect sense in the context of the character's development.
One of my favorite things about the movie was that the alien didn't die. If they'd killed it, that would have ruined the movie for me. Then it would have been just another alien movie where the aliens are always the bad guys and the U.S. has to kill it to survive. That's already ridiculously overdone.
I think if they wanted the
I was watching the kid rescue the girl and I turned to one of my friends and said, "what about saving all the other people?" He turned to me and replied "who gives a f&$+, he saved the hot chick." And then the other people who didn't get eaten...free themselves, or something, only to become fodder for the monster's chase scene.
OOOoooh, just thought of something, maybe the whole locket thing was a setup for a sequel. Think about it, the black guy stole the locket from him (to illustrate he's not just a black man, he's also a DICK, and you won't feel sorry for him when he bites it) and now the alien stole it from him. So the kid constructs a FTL ship, and chases after the alien, trying to get his mother's locket back in a tense sci-fi action-thriller, "Super 8 2: Give Me My F&!&ing Locket Back, You Thieving Alien B*!%+!" or S82GMMFLBYTAB, for short. It will have space train wrecks, in keeping with the spirit of the first movie.
I'm still working on the title, but it'll be really cool.
On John Stewart, JJ Abrams said the entire movie was shot, FXed, edited, and distributed in 9 mos. That might have had something to do with some of the weaker aspects of the film.
Also...
And...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just saw this. Absolutely loved it. Best movie I've seen in the last few years, highly recommended.
For those who didn't understand the movie's ending:
So when it escapes the train, it doesn't try to leave. It tries to take revenge. It could go home any time it wanted to, but it simply doesn't want to. It wants to make humanity pay for all the pain and misery it has suffered at our hands.
When Joe confronts the alien, he tells it "We're not all bad. You can just leave." What he's telling the alien is that it doesn't need to take revenge. It's free. It can just let go of its pain and anger and go home, and be done with humanity and our little crapsack world.
And the alien realizes this human kid is right. Revenge is a stupid. So it leaves.
And on the locket:
By the end of the movie, Joe doesn't need his mother's memory anymore. Now he has Alice, who sees him and understands him, and he can let go. As the alien is leaving, Joe realizes that he can let go of his pain over losing his mother. So he releases the locket, and takes Alice's hand, symbolizing that the is letting go of the past (the locket), and embracing the future (taking Alice's hand).
It is not that we don't "understand" the ending. We just think it was done poorly.
No! Wait, I have a better one. How about the alien needs the kid's mother's corpse, her tombstone, and all the old pictures and film with her in it, in order to finish its space ship. Well, let's go dig up mom and toss her body on the heap because we have to "let go".
Sorry, we all got the whole "let go" thing, it was just done in a really crappy fashion, IMO of course. I am happy that it clicked with you.
|
|
It is not that we don't "understand" the ending. We just think it was done poorly.
Locket: How about ** spoiler omitted ** Seriously, there was a lot better ways to handle this.
I don't see how your suggestions are any better, simply different. I actually think your ideas are worse.
As for the keeping the locket idea, that fails for two reasons. One, it doesn't reflect the theme of letting go (because he keeps it). Two, it requires an entirely new scene, instead of concluding the story at the conclusion. That's called economy of scene. There's no point in adding an epilogue when you can conclude the story at the conclusion of the anticlimax.
Do I even need to address your inane idea of going completely overboard on the letting go theme and taking it to the absurdly literal act of giving the alien the mother's corpse? That would be gross, bizarre and totally out of character for the rest of the story. But you're being sarcastic, of course. I have no idea why though.
In short, you think it was poorly handled, but you can't come up with anything better. Also, I don't think you did get the whole "let go" thing at all. Your earlier comment about how he shouldn't have let go of it really doesn't support your claim (since it indicates you don't know why he let go of it - your comment suggests he let go of it to help the creature, which would mean you didn't get the ending). But if you need to say you did, I can't prove you wrong.
As for the second half of your comment, honestly it's hard to take you seriously when you lather on that much sarcasm. You imply that the creature was motivated by stupidity, like it didn't know that all humans aren't evil. I think it just didn't care anymore, because it was hurt and angry, and needed someone to remind it.
I also don't think we were supposed to sympathize with the creature or the military, we were supposed to sympathize with Joe.
I believe in growth and healing, you obviously believe in amputation. I think that probably indicates the different mindsets we each have and why we are not going to see this ending eye-to-eye. That's fine, like I said most of the movie was pretty good. I think people should see it. They should just be prepared that the ending may fall flat for them like it did for me. Or maybe the ending will be great for them like it was for you.
I believe in growth and healing, you obviously believe in amputation.::eyeroll::
Yeah, dude, you "nailed" it.
When you are the only one with an opinion that differs from everyone else...maybe you're wrong?.
|
|
When you are the only one with an opinion that differs from everyone else...maybe you're wrong?.I believe in growth and healing, you obviously believe in amputation.::eyeroll::
Yeah, dude, you "nailed" it.
Is everyone of the opinion that I believe in "amputation?" Because that's what I'm responding to. Pres man's claim that I believe in "amputation," which is just a false dichotomy he's created to taint my position and make his look better.
And if it is the case that "everyone" believes that I believe in "amputation," then "everyone" is pretty ****ing stupid. I think the only person in the world qualified to state authoritatively what I believe is me, and if you care to disagree, you can go take a long walk off a short pier.
When you are the only one with an opinion that differs from everyone else...maybe you're wrong?.I believe in growth and healing, you obviously believe in amputation.::eyeroll::
Yeah, dude, you "nailed" it.
Is everyone of the opinion that I believe in "amputation?" Because that's what I'm responding to. Pres man's claim that I believe in "amputation," which is just a false dichotomy he's created to taint my position and make his look better.
And if it is the case that "everyone" believes that I believe in "amputation," then "everyone" is pretty ****ing stupid. I think the only person in the world qualified to state authoritatively what I believe is me, and if you care to disagree, you can go take a long walk off a short pier.
Hey, you're entitled to your beliefs, man. If you believe squirrels talk to you and the homeless are trying to eat you, fine. If it really bothers you that much to be wrong, and you feel like lashing out about amputation, then go right ahead.
|
|
Hey, you're entitled to your beliefs, man. If you believe squirrels talk to you and the homeless are trying to eat you, fine. If it really bothers you that much to be wrong, and you feel like lashing out about amputation, then go right ahead.
How am I wrong? Are you seriously claiming that I am wrong about what I believe? Because that would be laughable.
I mean what the deuce, man? You say I'm entitled to my beliefs, but apparently I'm not entitled to know what they are? How does that make any kind of sense to you?
.... squirrels talk to you and the homeless are trying to eat you ....
Wait, Squirrels don't talk? Sir Fluffalot lied!
And those guys at the soup kitchen are kinda hungry looking .... ack! *goes to play L4D2 to sharpen his zombie-survival skills*
Hey, you're entitled to your beliefs, man. If you believe squirrels talk to you and the homeless are trying to eat you, fine. If it really bothers you that much to be wrong, and you feel like lashing out about amputation, then go right ahead.How am I wrong? Are you seriously claiming that I am wrong about what I believe? Because that would be laughable.
I mean what the deuce, man? You say I'm entitled to my beliefs, but apparently I'm not entitled to know what they are? How does that make any kind of sense to you?
Um, you can totally be wrong about what you believe. I believe my examples above show how explicitly wrong someone's beliefs can be.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, you can totally be wrong about what you believe. I believe my examples above show how explicitly wrong someone's beliefs can be.Hey, you're entitled to your beliefs, man. If you believe squirrels talk to you and the homeless are trying to eat you, fine. If it really bothers you that much to be wrong, and you feel like lashing out about amputation, then go right ahead.How am I wrong? Are you seriously claiming that I am wrong about what I believe? Because that would be laughable.
I mean what the deuce, man? You say I'm entitled to my beliefs, but apparently I'm not entitled to know what they are? How does that make any kind of sense to you?
You can be wrong about the content of your beliefs.
You cannot be wrong about whether you believe them (though you can be in denial about unspoken beliefs).
You say he believes in amputation.
He says he does not believe in amputation.
You say he is wrong when he states he does not believe in amputation.
You are not arguing about the content of his beliefs (amputation, which is just a noun, not really a belief), which is something he could be wrong about; you are arguing WHETHER he believes them, which he could not be wrong about (apart from denial).
To use your talking squirrels and cannibal homeless examples, you could certainly argue that a person is wrong about those beliefs, in that they are untrue; however, you could not argue that is a person is wrong when they state that they HAVE those beliefs. Whether a belief is true or not is immaterial to whether a person HAS the belief.
He does not have the belief in amputation (unless you think he is lying or in denial).
You say he does.
He says, nope, I don't. The only person qualified to authoritatively state what beliefs he has is him. You can judge their wrongness if you like, but not their existence.
P.S. As far as the movie, I liked it and I thought the ending was fine as far as the locket goes. I liked the letting go metaphor and felt it was appropriate and in character (Joe's dad also was now able to see Joe and connect with him in a way that had been broken, so he didn't "need" that one memento of his dead mother in the same way he had before).
The monster does get away with murder, but Joe convinces it to leave without killing anyone else. The monster isn't the hero of the story or the object of our affection when watching it; Joe is. This isn't E.T., though it clearly homages it in many ways.
As I said, I liked most of the movie, I think most of the people agree on liking it as well.
As to the amputation comment, since I was the one that made it:
Gailbraithe responded that such suggestions where not just not better than the ending put in the movie but were worse. And yet he doesn't suggest anything better than my suggestions or the movie's. I can only assume then that he imagines that the ending in the movie was the absolute best possible ending that could be contrived. As the ending had the child destroy his mother's locket, something she obviously valued greatly, this seems as if the ending to the movie was more about emotional amputation to something that the child's mother valued and reminded the child of his mother. I guess, I would question whether the ending would have been just as significant if the child had just dropped to his knees and picked up a rock and smashed the locket. Would people say, "Wow, how touching how he let go of his mother's death."?
I guess I don't get the connection between moving on and actively destroying something that your mother valued, especially when it was not needed to.
|
|
Thanks Jason! I'm glad someone got it.
Gailbraithe responded that such suggestions where not just not better than the ending put in the movie but were worse. And yet he doesn't suggest anything better than my suggestions or the movie's.
I can't think of anything better than the ending the Abrams came up with, at least not without rewriting the movie up to that point and significantly changing the theme. I suppose they could have just left that part of that scene out entirely, and if likely wouldn't have made much difference, but I think it's pretty silly to claim it ruins the ending. And if that's your only issue with the ending, then I'd say you're being hopelessly nitpicky.
I also take issue with your phrasing.
Letting go of the locket is symbolism. It's not even complex or difficult to understand symbolism. Joe is clinging to his mother's memory in an unhealthy way. That memory is symbolized by the locket. At the end of the movie he has the locket in his hand. He let go of it.
He doesn't destroy it, he let go of it. Literally all he does is open his hand. Open hand, let go. And then he takes Alice's hand. It's simple, it's elegant, and it provides a nice coda for Joe's story, neatly tying it up at the same time the film is tying up the larger story of the alien.
How do you not get that? You say "I guess I don't get the connection between moving on and actively destroying something that your mother valued, especially when it was not needed to."
You don't get the connection between LETTING GO of a symbolic representation of a lost relationship and letting go of that relationship? You know what I don't get? How you don't get that.
I mean, seriously, this is not exactly a deeply subtle movie. If you can't make sense of symbolism as butt simple as "Letting go of locket with dead mom's picture as symbol for letting go of lost relationship," then I seriously have to wonder if you're getting much out of most of the movies you're seeing. Because most movies involve symbolism a lot deeper and less transparent than that.
Here's a link to someone else's view of the movie for those interested.
I thought of another possible ending. The fathers run up. Joe's dad stops just before hugging him, still unsure how to approach him, still being emotionally distant. Joe reaches up and hands his father the locket. The father looks at it and thinks of the mother and the son who he had filmed together so many times and he just loses it. Breaks down weeping and hugs his son tight to him. He son definitely seems to be handling the death of the mother more than the father. Something along these lines would have been more powerful than just allowing the locket to be destroyed for no apparent reason. IMO of course.
I'm not sure how saying that I liked the movie in general but this one feature just didn't click for me is being "hopelessly nitpicky". I could suggest that not considering if something is the best thing that could of been done is being "hopelessly fanboyee", but I would think that would be a silly thing to suggest.
|
|
Here's a link to someone else's view of the movie for those interested.
Now that's a much better critique than what you're offering. And I agree with a lot of what he says -- but as I said myself, "I can't think of anything better than the ending the Abrams came up with, at least not without rewriting the movie up to that point..."
I'm not sure how saying that I liked the movie in general but this one feature just didn't click for me is being "hopelessly nitpicky". I could suggest that not considering if something is the best thing that could of been done is being "hopelessly fanboyee", but I would think that would be a silly thing to suggest.
I just think its strange that you forgive the movie for everything leading up to that scene, but not that scene itself. I mean that review you linked to, that guy had issues with the entire film. Why are you so inconsistent?
I mean, the train crash scene is entirely implausible (maybe one person could have survived being caught in that mess, but everyone? Even Woodward? I'll bet the engineer on the train survived too, we just never saw him), and the movie stays on about the same level of ridiculous throughout. Like everything coming out of Hollywood these days, its far more style than substance, with a lot of special effects crowding out story development.
Still thought it was more fun than Thor or Pirates 4, the only other movies I've seen this year.
I just think its strange that you forgive the movie for everything leading up to that scene, but not that scene itself. I mean that review you linked to, that guy had issues with the entire film. Why are you so inconsistent?
I'm not sure what you mean by "inconsistent" here. I didn't say I agreed with 100% of what that reviewer said, merely was giving another view for people. What me and the reviewer agreed on was the ending didn't vibe with the rest of the film. I was fine with the rest of the film, the reviewer obviously had issues with it. Yes, there were fanciful things that happened. My problem with the ending wasn't that I thought it was fanciful, it was that I thought it was poorly done. A train crashing in a dramatic and cinematic fashion (even if unrealistic) isn't a problem for me.
As you pointed out the ending wasn't subtle. I agree, it was as subtle as being hit across the head with a 2x4. Maybe that is part of the problem with why it didn't click with me. It was so crudely done that it seemed to break me out of the suspension of belief.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Still thought it was more fun than Thor or Pirates 4, the only other movies I've seen this year.
Aw, see NOW you're being crazy. Those movies ROCKED! :)
Actually, I think X-Men: First Class might be my favorite movie of the year thus far.
Just saw Green Lantern today, and it was all right, but nothing special.
For what it's worth, I agree with Gailbraithe about the ending of Super 8 too. I thought it was perfect, and I don't think what happened at the end had any resemblance to an amputation whatsoever. That makes no sense to me at all.
I definitely thought that Super 8 was better than Pirates and Thor (though I quite liked Thor).
I just saw this. Absolutely loved it. Best movie I've seen in the last few years, highly recommended.
For those who didn't understand the movie's ending:
** spoiler omitted **And on the locket:
** spoiler omitted **
Like pres man, I understood the ending and the locket, but it felt forced.
And the locket is a really simple symbol... too simple for me. It was so simple you might as have as have had a narrator say "And the kid realized he didn't have to hang on to his mother's memory so tightly anymore." That is forced. That is jammed right down your throat. And I imagine it's that way because the movie lacks some closure after releasing a mass murdering alien. Don't worry people, the kid grew out of the ordeal.
I liked the movie, it was fun, but I wanted something more out of the ending. Just because I didn't like it doesn't mean I have to come up with something better. I'm just sharing my opinion with folks because maybe somebody on the boards wants to know what his or her fellow Paizonians thought before spending cash on a flick. There's no reason to get worked up over it.
|
|
Still thought it was more fun than Thor or Pirates 4, the only other movies I've seen this year.Aw, see NOW you're being crazy. Those movies ROCKED! :)
I thought Pirates 4 was a bunch of really awesome scenes that completely failed to congeal into a decent movie. The whole opening of the movie is a giant mess, and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth through the rest of the film. Though I did really, really love the Spanish Plot Twist at the end though. No one expects the Spanish Plot Twist!
Thor was much better than I expected it to be, but it felt...I dunno. Rushed. Underdeveloped. There was so much to be crammed in, so many characters, that it just felt like nothing got enough time to sink in. I could have used a lot more development on the love story in particular, since that seemed really forced. And more of Sir Anthony Hopkins. His scenes were the best in the movie (excluding the fight with the frost giants, which was EPIC). But mostly I think its just that Thor, the comic and the character, have never been my thing.