Log inRegister
 

Super

Super

An unfunny, contrived attempt at indie realism with a deeply questionable morality lesson as its core. Warning: this film is not the knockabout Kick-Ass style comedy that the trailer markets it to be, it is in fact much, much worse.

Film Title :

Super

Starring :

Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Kevin Bacon, Liv Tyler

Directed by :

James Gunn

Certificate :

Certificate: 18

Our Rating:

When I first saw the trailer for Super I must admit that I yawned. It has been made to look like this year’s Kick-Ass, a story about a normal guy who decides to become a superhero, armed not with any super-powers but instead with a wrench, a threadbare red super-suit and ‘The Crimson Bolt’ as his moniker. It totally smacked of a studio thinking “Kick-Ass made money, so might this”. However, now that I have seen it, I can completely understand why it was marketed in such a way; if the trailer had revealed what the film’s real message was, then nobody would have gone and seen it at all.

Frank D’Arbo (Wilson) is a loser. He tells us at the beginning of the film that he has had two perfect moments in his life: marrying Sarah (Tyler), and helping a policeman to apprehend a criminal. The rest of his life has been a patchwork of bullying and social ineptitude, and when Sarah leaves him for local strip club owner and drug peddler Jacques (Bacon), he falls apart. However, Frank is inspired to stand up for himself and fight to win Sarah back upon watching a superhero Jesus on Christian TV and then later having God come to him in a dream and touch him. That’s right. Frank is literally made to do the Lord’s work. In this case, the Lord’s work is beating the shit out of drug dealers, child molesters and people who cut in line at the cinema with a wrench, all displayed in intensely graphic ways. Maybe the film’s only plus point is that Gunn eschewed CGI for much of the gore (and there is a lot of gore), instead making clever use of prosthetics, more like Evil Dead or Bad Taste. I’m scraping the barrel though, I really am.

This film commits all the cardinal sins of American indie-wood film-making. The camera work is shaky, presumably in an attempt to create some semblance of realism, though instead it just looks amateurish (and is completely antithetical to the lighting in the film, which makes everything glow with a hazy beauty). Songs are relied upon far too heavily to create emotional resonance, whether that be tension, humour or poignancy, which occasionally makes the film seem like a string of music videos stitched together. The script isn’t funny when it tries to be funny, isn’t moving when it tries to be moving and is occasionally deliberately and needlessly offensive, as when comic book nerd Libby (Page) begins to talk about how “mongoloids have weird eyes” (And before you say anything, this has nothing to do with political correctness having gone mad, it’s a cheap, nasty attempt at humour).

Similarly, the two black characters are complete stereotypes of the worst kind: Hamilton (Andre Royo), Frank’s colleague and the cheap diner where he works, is a wise-crackin’, misogynistic homophobe who says Frank should forget about Sarah because she’s “sucked more dick than his faggot brother”. Perhaps worse though is the drug baron at the end of the film who may as well have stepped straight out of Birth Of A Nation.

Some other critics have argued that this film illustrates how Christianity can delude people into committing terrible acts. However, what the film preaches is that these acts aren’t terrible, as they have a religious justification, and are essentially a means to an end (the end I obviously won’t spoil, but trust me, it is the most mawkish, cloying attempt at sentimentality I have ever seen) – it’s as if the film was made by the Phelps family. Frank is never punished for anything he does and the film completely justifies all of his actions, saying that two wrongs most definitely do make a right. A deeply questionable, even dangerous message, and one that jars with the broad, unsubtle comedy the film goes for.

By Harry Harris


Related Action Reviews

Add A Comment

*
*
*

Comments for Super

  1. Sorry – couldn’t disagree more… SUPER was an offbeat classic that dared to ‘go other films fear to tread’. A perfect companion piece to KICK ASS with Ellen Page off the scale insane like an older sexier and less competent hit girl!? Will be giving SUPER 4 stars out of 5 over at Darkmatters!

    • I can only imagine you’re writing that under duress, in which case, would you like me to call The Crimson Bolt to kill whoever’s committing such a heinous crime? Lord knows they deserve it.

  2. Come on, there’s no message in this film. It’s just a Troma take on superhero revisionism, by an ex-Troma director (there’s even a cameo of Troma’s boss Lloyd Kaufman). In other words, it’s an unapologetic exploitation film, only with big actors and budget which is just a tiny little bigger than what exploitation films usually get. So yes, it’s deliberately offensive through and through (and in that it DOES exactly what “Kick-Ass” only mildly PRETENDS to do – that is, be offensive). It’s also why the shaky camera. It’s not an attempt at looking realistic (seriously where do you see any pretensions at realism in this film?). It’s MEANT to look amateurish, just like tributes to grindhouse cinema such as “Machete” or “Planet Terror” are meant to look like cheap old films on damaged reels. Gunn tries to emulate the feel of the cheap and grotesque splatter films he used to do for Troma, despite the fact that he has a slightly bigger budget and well-known and respected actors. Which goes very well with the sheer craziness of what happens on the screen.
    So, the kind of offensiveness and exploitativeness that you object to is actually the point of the film (i.e., the point of the film is not any kind of moral lesson)

    Especially, what’s that joke about “religious justification”? Are you telling us that you’re taking seriously divine manifestations such as brain-surgeon-tentacles or the Holy Avenger? All the (particularly ludicrous) religious stuff is there to make plain that the Crimson Bolt is just a madman.
    Just the same with Libby’s rant on “mongoloids”. It’s not a “cheap, nasty attempt at humor” (though it is easy, and nasty), it’s an early clue (before she explicitly starts enthusiastically trying to kill everybody and to rape her boss) that Libby’s just as crazy as Frank.
    And that’s another thing the film is about. Unconventional characterization. Contrary to what you say, the characters are not stereotypes. On the contrary, they’re highly original (for mainstream cinema, even its indie portion) in the way they’re not meant to be likable – or more precisely, they’re meant to be likable, as misfit figures, despite clearly severe moral flaws. And everybody around them is just plain jerk or likable only in a very ambiguous way (that goes also for Andre Royo). Again, the kind of ferocious nihilistic characterization that you find in Troma horror films.

    So, it is a good, fairly enjoyable film. Only if it’s taken as it is, that is, not “Watchmen”, not “Kick-Ass”, and certainly not a morality play with good guys, bad guys, and a serious moral crisis with a satisfying resolution.

  3. Also, the voice-over narrative and the literal treatment of Frank’s hallucinations point out that everything, in the film, is seen through his demented perspective. So, saying that the film condones his actions is like saying Nabokov’s “Lolita” condones teen abuse – i.e. confusing character/narrator and author(s).