criterionforum.org

The trailer for Super doesn't look particularly great. The positive buzz around the picture has me hoping that it will make a good cult/midnight movie but the trailer looks a little bland. The film had a great reception at Toronto, will be interesting to hear how well it plays at SXSW tonight.

Yeah I stopped watching that Super trailer once Juno started hipping around

I laughed. There were some good lines ("This isn't about good and evil! It's about your wife likes me more because I'm an interesting person!"). I probably won't see it, tho'.

Anyway, wasn't the subverted superhero movie already done with Kick-Ass?

It was done better(i.e. having any good qualities) in Defendor though.

Mr Sausage wrote:I laughed. There were some good lines ("This isn't about good and evil! It's about your wife likes me more because I'm an interesting person!").

Kevin should play more comic villains. My favorite was where he said he won't beat the guy up for touching the car like that.

knives wrote:It was done better(i.e. having any good qualities) in Defendor though.

I was about to ask if that was any good.

I'm gonna post my review, but why not be a friend and give the link a click for fun?

It's a very, very fine line between art house and grindhouse cinema. Right along that line (sitting next to early Tarantino, "Rolling Thunder" and Cronenberg, alone with other favorites) falls "SUPER." Director James Gunn's ("Slither") brilliant deconstruction of Hollywood's latest obsession, the superhero film, is a movie that is constantly firing on all cylinders for every second of its 96 minute runtime.

It plays every expectation you have for such a film against you, constantly making you want cathartic violence and then shocking you with just how ugly such scenes really are. Further, Gunn refuses to conform to conventions on any level. Not in terms of tone, narrative structure, character archetypes or even in employing use of good taste. It features performances of such emotional range that I'm not sure if they should be considered dramatic or comedic. More than anything, "SUPER" emerges as one of the rarest entries we get nowadays into the American cinema. It's a thinking man's genre film.

The film kicks off with a bang and never slows down. When Frank D'arbo ("The Office's" Rainn Wilson) is left by his wife, he is left depressed at best and mentally unstable at worst. After some intense religious hallucinations, he sets out to serve his mission to God through the guise of a superhero, the Crimson Bolt.

As the Bolt, D'arbo picks up a pipe wrench and a sociopathic sidekick (played with revolutionary gusto by "Juno's" Ellen Page) and sets out to crack the skulls of all criminals. This, of course, is all in preparation for his final test where he must "rescue" his estranged wife from her new lover, a mid-level heroine dealer played with manic energy by Kevin Bacon.

The setup may seem fairly general, but Gunn employs brutal and visceral scenes of violence, juxtaposed with pop-art comic book flourishes to create a film that is startlingly singular. He gets directly to the heart of just how twisted vigilante justice is as a concept, and through that he comes closer to "Taxi Driver" than he does to any other comics or parodies.

"SUPER," in fact, is nothing less than a genius work of subversive art. For every single second it plays the audience like a fiddle mixing moments of absurd comedy, unrelenting violence, and honest poignancy at will. And not in separate scenes either, that would be too easy.

Take, for example, the brilliant segment wherein Wilson, as Frank, is faced off with two line-butters outside a movie theater. In the same beat of the film, we are treated to shots of Frank hilariously changing pants cramped into his car and absolutely vicious shots of him cracking the line-butter's skull in half (literally) with a pipe wrench.

Funny, scary sad, all in a few quick moments. This is a film that is not only unafraid of transgressing genres – there isn't even any specific reaction or audience in mind for "SUPER". Whether you laugh, cheer or cringe at what's on screen is decided by your demeanor, not by the filmmakers – in other words, it leaves you room to think about what you're seeing instead of expecting you to nod your head and blindly accept whatever's on screen. James Gunn, luckily, is a director with the balls to take the ultimate risk: he doesn't tell you how to think.

And honestly, that's the genius of the film. Its so mind bogglingly provocative, yet at the same time it respects you enough as a viewer to rely on you to make your own judgment on the tonal twists and turns it takes. And with that ambiguous streak, "SUPER" comes a lot closer to other character minded violent films like "Taxi Driver" or "Unforgiven" than it does to anything else.

There are moments in the climax of this movie that, out of context, would probably be the funniest moments of the entire film. Yet Gunn is a master of genre manipulation, and every time I've watched this film (a few times, with friends at home and twice in a theatre), the crowd remains pretty much silent over those moments. That's precisely because Gunn, in what is a very rare feat for an American film, has successfully forced his audience to think about the violence on screen.

While 99% of films we see nowadays present mindless, "commercialized" (read: stylized or cleaned up) brutality and expect us to take it blindly as entertainment, "SUPER" actually uses it for a purpose, to make a point. While films like "Avatar" or "Kick-Ass" or "The Expendables" take for granted the idea that we, as an audience, want to see good guys kill bad guys, Gunn's film dares us to face violence directly. It depicts disturbing attacks (that are normal fare for hero films) like shotgun blasts and repeated stabbings in their realistically bloody glory, and then asks you, "Is this still entertaining? Is this still cathartic? Is this still funny?"

Gunn refuses to conform to the current style of choreographing operatic and unrealistic violence scenes (such as the inexplicably celebrated Hit Girl sequences in "Kick-Ass", a film that "SUPER" is constantly compared to) choosing instead to hang out on the other end of the spectrum. His violence hurts, I sat in my chair screaming and cringing. The blood effects aren't over-the-top nor are they silly. Instead, they're painful. If you think a 12-year old girl cutting off people's legs to bad music is passable entertainment, watch something else. If you want a film that treats you like an intelligent adult and expects you to think for yourself in regards to violence on screen, watch "SUPER".

James Gunn has made the best American film in a long time (I think you have to go back to 2009's trifecta of great genre films to find anything even close -- those being Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds," Jody Hill's "Observe and Report," and Herzog's "Bad Lieutenant"), and he did it by making a film that is near impervious to interpretation. In it, he confronts all America's constant obsessions – religion, violence, crime, sex, and the most recent addition, superheroes. Every viewer comes out with a different opinion of "what it's about," whether it is funny, whether the characters are good people, etc.

Best of all, Gunn did it within the confines of a meticulously structured genre film – ignore all the subtext, and it's still one of the most emotionally wrenching (no pun intended) films in years. So whether you go the cinema for great characters, strong direction, intellectual subtext, a great story or simply a good time you can trust me, "SUPER" won't disappoint you.

Good work Roger Ebert on spoiling the ending of the movie in the thumbnail to your review. It's not even like I could have avoided seeing that...

I wonder if IFC even bothered to screen this for Peter Becker. (I'm guessing not)

After Tiny Furniture nothing should be shocking.

ianungstad wrote:I wonder if IFC even bothered to screen this for Peter Becker. (I'm guessing not)

I've said it before, but Criterion would be lucky to get this movie. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if its a midnight circuit regular decades down the road.
And knives, if thats a dismissal, its quite unfair. I abide by such snide comments when it comes to art cinema (in this case "Tiny Furniture") because it goes with the territory, but Super is not a movie you can judge without seeing it. As if anyone can judge any film without seeing it! But especially not this one.

I wasn't trying to be snide. I'm very excited for this movie and love Gunn's previous efforts. The post was exclusively an insult to Tiny Furniture.

Caught "Super" at the NYC Landmark Sunshine Theater last weekend (Ellen Page was doing a Q&A on the screening right before mine). It covers similar ground (civilians becoming pretend superheroes) and resembles Matthew Vaughn's "Kick-Ass," right down to the implausibilities (absent police force, a visible license plate in Frank's Oldsmobile nobody seems to notice, etc.) and excessive over-the-top violence/sex (which is bloodier/more explicit since it's an unrated flick). But, where the last act of "Kick-Ass" blinked and went for the safe route of comfort-food SFX overkill, "Super" (shot on a much smaller budget and set in the middle of nowhere/everywhere USA) delivers action thrills while simultaneously staring into the mental and sexual mindset of characters that would become costumed vigilantes. Ellen Page is good (really!) as the obsessed sidekick to Rainn Wilson's Crimson Bolt (both are more interesting in their civilian identities because of how deep Wilson and Page commit to their characters' break from reality) but most everyone else (Kevin Bacon as the heavy, Michael Rooker, Liv Tyler as Frank's wife, etc.) is either bland, uninteresting or sleepwalking through their roles. Even Nathan Fillion dressed in yellow/green spandex as 'The Holy Avenger' seems bored for the couple of minutes he's on-screen. And while it's cute and well put together the animated opening credits spoil the movie; placing the title sequence after the movie ended would have actually been better, IMO.

It's a flawed and imperfect movie (Gunn's "Slither" did the genre-tribute-humor thing better) but the ending of "Super" achieves a degree of cathartic satisfaction few superhero movies I've seen deliver. It actually moved me to tears. MUBI/"Ebert" critic Ignatiy Vishnevetsky summarized it best (paraphrasing): "Super" is the movie adaptation of the superhero pulp novel Jim Thompson never wrote.

Super is the American film to see this year. If Memento, Taxi Driver, and Videodrome got married with Troma as the priest this would be it. This movie is everything Kick-Ass could have been. It has a near identical story (discounting characters though Kevin Bacon is playing the same role as Mark Strong) and even the sense of humour is basically identical. Super though goes much, much further. For the violence on display here alone this movie would have gotten an NC-17 had it bothered. Six people walked out over the violence (well one I think was offended by Page's profanity, 90% of her dialogue is variations on fuck) which is the most I've seen since Funny Games. There's one moment in particular that got a reaction from everyone because the film still had not gone that far yet.

I think I've explained the (hilarious) Troma part of my description so what the fuck do I mean by the other three. Well, the most interesting for me is the Memento elements (though the Videodrome elements feature hard here too). The movie deals with the lead's schizophrenia in a interesting way, but primarily with his memories. We see his marriage, but only through flashbacks. These flashbacks are severely warped though and are used more to comment on Frank's mental state than anything involving the story. These mutations of his memories spill over into the present with hallucinations including to the best of my knowledge the first ever live action tentacle rape sequence. I'll save Taxi Driver for later.

This movie also renewed my faith in a lot of actors. I can't remember the last time the Kevin Bacon was so good. He puts in a lot of fun energy into the role and only plays it just the right amount of over the top. His introduction with the eggs is perfect. The real winner here is of course Rainn Wilson who proves that he can act really well. There's no Dwight Schrute here and in fact he's physically unrecognizable. He communicates his character's sadness, insanity, and loneliness so well that it allows the comedy to go much further than had his performance been a dud. Ellen Page likewise proves once again why she's fantastic even if this is another variation of her usual character. She is easily the most disgusting and horrible person in the movie.

Spoiler

That raping of Frank was rather disturbingly for example

Wilson's insane and Bacon's pretty much without morals, but it's the glee that Page takes in this that is the most disturbing part of the film. To work back around this has a lot to do with the quality of her performance. She's essentially given nothing as I mentioned way back in the first paragraph, but she physically plays with it in such as to make you stand up. The greatness of her performances is in how thoroughly she throws herself into the role. Speaking of great actors making roles that are nothing on paper into something great Michael Rooker really deserves some applause. It's great just to see him in a movie, but the real genius of the casting is because if you have a thinner than paper heavy and you need him to have pathos (and this role needs a ton of that for the payoff) you get Rooker who does an amazing job in a role that really never will be heralded as it is overshadowed by the others through the writing.

I suppose I've delayed the Taxi Driver stuff enough, so here it goes. There's a lot of obvious stuff with that like the isolated mad man who is formed out of societies paranoia and the like, but there's how it relates to the story that is far too similar to be coincidence.

Spoiler

The climax is basically the same with Tyler as Foster and the rest of the pieces fitting easy from there. I think that in this overwhelming similarity it actually goes the other way. I think that at the very least the scenes after Tyler leaves are a baloney construct of Frank's sickened mind. Those drawings and the kids ect. al are just a way to make him feel better. This goes back to Videodrome a bit, but how much of the film is a fantasy. Is everything after his wife leaves a construct (except for the shots of him staring at the wall) or maybe it is all real but his mind is cleaning it up as it happens so that he looks more successful than he actually is.

Edit: Looking into what Dom was referring to up above I can only say that Ebert is a massive douche. That's one of the emotional high points of the film.

I really hope that James Gunn gives a commentary with the home release of "Super" in which he at least expands on your theory of what the end represents (or that its at least open to different interpretations). I didn't think it was like you said, but can see how it could have given similar context/styles in previous scenes. All I know is that the ending of "Super" hit me and hit me hard (though not as emotionally as the end of Naruse's "Flowing" that I just saw this week at NY's Film Forum). Whether it happened within your realm of explanation or not, it's an earned conclusion that elevates "Super" emotionally far from where "Kick-Ass" ended (SFX overkill and no emotional high).

Well I read an interview where Gunn said the movie was about Frank not becoming a stalker and perform the climax for less morally selfish reason to overly simplify things. That still leaves my interpretation open, but probably makes the emotional aspect stronger due to it being about letting go.

I got to interview Gunn for the release of the film, though I deleted anything spoiler related. But when I offered my take on the end of the film as a dream

Spoiler

citing the fade to red and the multiple gunshot wounds before the idealistic ending as "evidence"

he made it clear that it was purposefully ambiguous, with the point being emotional resolution. However he also said that any "innaccuracies" are not on purose, and he definitely thinks the end works on a literal level

Spoiler

For example, when asked what happens to Libby, he said there was at one point a shot of Frank burying her in his backyard, but it didn't fit the tone.

Does it not bother anyone that this has all the aesthetic prowess of an amateur wedding video at worst, a cheap late-night television sketch at best? At least Kick Ass looked the part.

Did I just see Nothing tell someone else they aren't being aesthetic-minded enough?

*Checks to see if pigs are flying, hell is freezing over, Coppola is releasing Napoleon on DVD*

Nothing wrote:Does it not bother anyone that this has all the aesthetic prowess of an amateur wedding video at worst, a cheap late-night television sketch at best? At least Kick Ass looked the part.

It didn't look that horrible to me, although it did seem that it leaned too heavily on handheld shots (a steadycam would have made it look more professional but maybe that wasn't Gunn's intent). I'll take an inferior-looking indie superhero flick that pushes the boundaries (of violence, sexual and psychological issues within its characters' warped view of the world and themselves) past the norm over a (still enjoyable) better-looking studio picture that only pushes the boundaries a little (basically the little girl that curses) and then blinks at the end choosing to play it safe with an all-out SFX action finale. Neither "Kick-Ass" or "Super" are perfect, both have minuses and pluses (and "Super's" minuses are mostly tied to its low-budget and, thus, inferior visual experience compared with the studio-supported "Kick-Ass") that end up making each average-to-good but not the anti-hero superhero cinematic masterpiece they aspire to be. Of the two I'd say "Super" gets the edge because the cathartic finale caps off the movie on an earned high, but "Kick-Ass" has wife-batterer Nic Cage pulling an Adam West better than the latter did at the peak of his "Batman" fame. I say... see/get both?

One less star actor would've got them a grip department and someone who knows how to light a shot, I'm sure...

It just seems that the standard for what constitutes acceptable commercial film(video)making gets lower by the day. Ten years ago, something this amateurish would've struggled to find a slot at a B-list festival, let alone a theatrical release. I am reminded of Storaro waving his hands around in the Apocalypse Now supplements: "the level of the video must come up like thees, not the cinema down like thees..."

Oh the wonderous influence of YouTube.

](*,)

Outside of the handheld outside the bar early on I thought it looked really good for it's intent. The film is obviously tied to the Troma aesthetic and seems to be holding an intentional ugliness with it. During certain sequences like the tentacle rape most of the climax the film looks much the way you're suggesting it should. Everywhere else though that semi-home movie look really helps to create an ugliness to the story.

Having recently sat through a government information film about the thrilling subject of the 1998 Data Protection Act during an essential training day at my place of work, which was filmed in a vomit-inducing shakey cam manner (a technique that works well to convey a sense of tension and urgency in NYPD Blue but doesn't really work when applied to someone lecturing on the extremely dry and unsexy subject of the eight principles of the Act. In fact the aesthetic actively worked to distract from the intended purpose!), I can confirm that 'crappy looking' is just as much of an aesthetic choice as 'conventionally beautiful'.

I have no objection to any particular aesthetic choice however, as long as it is used well and appropriately (though appropriateness can often be in the eye of the beholder, which is why it is great to hear different viewpoints). Of course Dogme 95 became the epitome of 'aesthetised crappiness' long before YouTube or Blair Witch caused Hollywood to take notice, and if we are talking 'YouTube influenced' films, I think the only true contender so far is still Brian De Palma's Redacted (although maybe those Jackass films would also fit?)

Not a lot of expectations going into this, but had a blast with this one. Ellen Page seemed to have the time of her life and Liv Tyler even looks stunning playing a junkie.

Nothing wrote:Does it not bother anyone that this has all the aesthetic prowess of an amateur wedding video at worst, a cheap late-night television sketch at best? At least Kick Ass looked the part.

It certainly looked a little grubby, but can't say it bothered me. It was purposely shot in a certain unpolished style with a minimum of artificial lighting, make-up, indistinct anonymous locations etc., meant not to look like (the gloriously stylish) Kick-Ass. In this case, it seemed to make some of the sudden outbursts of violence much more potent. Thought it was a perfect match for the all-out non glamorous, gritty, dirty, politically incorrect, out-of-the-gutter piece of filth that it's supposed to be.

If Gunn had found a consistent tone or at least juggled the existent tones with any evidence that he knew what he was doing, then perhaps Super might have worked. As it is, we've got a couple competing ideas and approaches, only one of which is of much note. Ellen Page, as ever the best thing on screen, is at least given a character who operates under some intriguing, if half-baked, impetuses-- that a comic fan would be so blinded by an impossible reality coming true that she would blindly pursue and participate in increasingly violent acts of carnage under the "it's safe" entertainment approach that superhero films and, well, hyper-violent flicks like this operate under... that's a good idea. The aforementioned rape scene is then perhaps the only moment where the film explores a true dark tangent of her idea and not a jokey sitcom with blood in place of a laugh track. Gunn has no idea how to set it up for maximum effect or utilize Page's progression though, and so Page is left floundering, a decent idea adrift in a sea of bad ones.

And what bad ones there are here! Having Wilson's vigilante be literally insane erases all possible psychological interest: he thinks God wants him to be a vigilante. Oh. That's enough, I guess? So a crazy guy is acting crazy and then, insultingly enough, succeeds at what he's sought out to do. Great. Any auspices the film makes at being commentary on anything are erased by the Die Hard finale that is beyond arrogant in its implementation: real or not, truth or fiction, either option is a cop-out. Why would Gunn back himself into such a no-win? I suspect it's because while he's capable of coming up with a few potentially compelling ideas, he's incapable of extrapolating on them and unable to resist a Troma-level giddiness borne from phony naughtiness. A complete rewrite might have ditched the Rainn Wilson A-line completely and paired Page with a straight-laced, real superhero. Superhero groupies with damaged psychosexual desires who are exploited and exploit-- now there's the start to an interesting film. Interesting is alas also a word that doesn't come to mind for Super.