Beltmann Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Here's a review that briefly argues that the lousy characterizations actually enhance the movie: Cloverfield, a surreptitiously subversive, stylistically clever little gem of an entertainment disguised, under its deadpan-neutral title, as a dumb Gen-YouTube monster movie, makes the convincingly chilling argument that the world will end Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 No Country For Old Men is a MUCH better choice. I cannot highlight this enough. kind of figured that all on my own...however, big FX flicks like the other are oft better viewed in larger scale. a movie like no country can be just as easily enjoyed on the samll screen and i've grown accustomed to waiting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 kind of figured that all on my own...however, big FX flicks like the other are oft better viewed in larger scale. a movie like no country can be just as easily enjoyed on the samll screen and i've grown accustomed to waiting.Photography in No Country is really nice. Just sayin'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I would also encourage No Country to be seen in a theatre - the photography, the composition in individual shots, etc.....amazing.....so glad I didn't see it on DVD. I wish I had seen Cloverfield on DVD - I may not have gotten so sick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 i'll probably just get a sandwich and watch big trouble in little china again, but thanks for the info. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 if you ever want some MST3K - let us know - we have amassed quite a collection. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I've heard the monster is actually Hannah Montana. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I saw it opening day and it only made my brain sick. Shaky cameras don't bother me. Pointless movies do. It was the tunnel scene where I thought the movie might start living up to its potential, but it only got worse and worse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 So ... the monster's not Cthulhu? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lynch Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 There was very little that appealed to me about this movie. The love story was RIDICULOUS. My wife and I talked about it after the movie and agreed we would both be running for our lives, regardless of how much we loved each other. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 who cares about character development? it wasn't really about character development, it was about a hypothetical monster attack on NYC and the trials of one group of people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 The movie The Host was a movie about a monster attack and the trials of a group of people. But it had some pretty decent character development. In my opinion, that's what made it a really good movie. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Here's a review that briefly argues that the lousy characterizations actually enhance the movie:E-Stop: I've seen a few posts from you now that indicate that you're reading a lot about this movie without having seen it. Just curious - is this a regular thing for you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 E-Stop: I've seen a few posts from you now that indicate that you're reading a lot about this movie without having seen it. Just curious - is this a regular thing for you?I suppose so, but not as a concerted effort. I just stumble upon things. I do subscribe to quite a few publications like Sight & Sound and Film Comment, though, which means I read a lot about movies that I both have and haven't seen. It's the best way to learn about films that might be worth my time but aren't getting any kind of mainstream press. The only reason I haven't seen Cloverfield yet is because I haven't found the time. I was hoping to see it this weekend, but I only have time for one and that one must be There Will Be Blood. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I suppose so, but not as a concerted effort. I just stumble upon things. I do subscribe to quite a few publications like Sight & Sound and Film Comment, though, which means I read a lot about movies that I both have and haven't seen. It's the best way to learn about films that might be worth my time but aren't getting any kind of mainstream press. The only reason I haven't seen Cloverfield yet is because I haven't found the time. I was hoping to see it this weekend, but I only have time for one and that one must be There Will Be Blood. I see - it was the "SPOILERS" note in your friend's email that got me wondering. Eagerly awaiting your comments on TWBB. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I see - it was the "SPOILERS" note in your friend's email that got me wondering.Yeah, I typically but not religiously avoid reading reviews until after I've seen the movie. (I like to know whether a movie is getting strong notices, because that helps me decide what to see, but I don't really want to know the specific reasons for the good reviews.) I like to experience things as fresh as possible, which is why I also studiously avoid spoilers; I enjoy being manipulated by the surprises in a movie--who doesn't? Unfortunately, for some reason I wasn't alert to the potential spoilers in my friend's email, so I stupidly walked into those. But I added the warning before posting it here! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I'm glad that I asked. Beltmann ain't down with reading no damn spoilers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moxiebean Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Saw Cloverfield this afternoon and I really really liked it - the wobbly-cam didn't bother me any & made for a claustrophobic, visceral experience. Sure, the 20-something characters are stereotypically vapid, but it's a monster movie and dammit, the monster's the star. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I don't get what is vapid about the characters...they seem like normal people. why is it that every 20 year old has to have some huge grandiose thing to say or have to have the most interesting life or something? not everyone goes around travelling the world or some crap. what's wrong with just being normal and uninteresting? I thought that was the point of the characters, too. People demonize the characters, but I can't understand it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 The characters weren't really a problem for me, though it might have been more interesting if i cared about their well being beyond what stress there is in seeing fellow humanoids in peril. i told my friend afterwards that there are a few people who i would stick with during such an attack because i value their intelligence...i would have split with these characters as soon as i saw lady liberty, friendships be damned. and if it's all about the monster, i think i would have liked the movie better if the creature was holding the digital camcorder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
trevor Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 saw this last nite. it was great. this movie was everything i wanted the matthew broderick remake of godzilla to be when i was 12. i was totally engrossed by this, and really wanna go see it again. and to be honest, as much as everyone had been talking about the handicam shooting causing motion sickness, i don't get it. i mean, sure, it's jerky, you can't tell what the hell is going on at some points, but i never once felt sick. PLUS, the part at the very end with the autofocus (anyone who's seen it knows what i'm talking about) was a stroke of genius. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 well, I guess if you don't easily get motion sickness, you wouldn't understand. I get sick riding in the back seat of a car. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 saw this last nite. it was great. this movie was everything i wanted the matthew broderick remake of godzilla to be when i was 12. i was totally engrossed by this, and really wanna go see it again. and to be honest, as much as everyone had been talking about the handicam shooting causing motion sickness, i don't get it. i mean, sure, it's jerky, you can't tell what the hell is going on at some points, but i never once felt sick. PLUS, the part at the very end with the autofocus (anyone who's seen it knows what i'm talking about) was a stroke of genius. This is a love it or hate it movie. I think it lived up to MY expectations. It doesn't spoon feed you answers to the obvious questions (and for the benefit of those who haven't seen it, I won't go it to great detail) and I definitely like being challenged a bit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.