Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:27 pm
by Sabin
'The Host' is glorious, a better family story than 'Little Miss Sunshine' and a better monster action adventure film than anything I've seen in ages.
'Cloverfield' isn't a terribly good movie but as a stunt it's very interesting and now we don't have to see a worse version of it. It eschews plausibility worse than any movie I've seen in years (no: really...that sideways fallen down building? Bullshit) but it's an interesting 9/11-themed video game. It also has more to say about 9/11 paranoia than 'United 93'.
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:39 am
by rolotomasi99
Hollywood Z wrote:For me, the movie was a fun, intense ride. It's not meant to be anything deep or profound, just a fun thrill ride. We're not watching The Diving Bell and The Butterfly here, so don't try to hold it in that same context. We're watching a giant monster destroying New York, so if anything, it should be classified with movies like The Host or King Kong.
well, if we are comparing it to THE HOST, then i think this movie pales in comparison. to me THE HOST is a humorous and touching family drama set during a monster film. much like JAWS was a story of small town sheriff dealing with family, politicians, and scared citizens, rather than just a monster movie; THE HOST was a political and personal story about the people of south korea, rather than just a mutant fish movie.
CLOVERFIELD was just a geek fest. it was not as bad as the u.s. version of GODZILLA, but not as good as the most recent KING KONG. it took a little used but far from original concept (found footage, literal first person narrative), and created some pretty good scare moments and action scenes.
from a technical standpoint, the film was amazingly executed. i am almost tempted to rent the dvd just to see the making of featurettes and get a look at how they pulled off the filming of some of the bigger action scenes.
however, from a dramatic standpoint, this film could not have been more lazy. the characters were so unbelievably boring. the best part of any type of disaster film is seeing how real people react to extraordinary situations. the acting was so bad from the pretty stars you did not care when they died.
i enjoyed the film more than i thought i would, but it still relied way too much on its gimmicky filmmaking more than telling an interesting story.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:43 pm
by jack
Zero.
Worst movie I've seen in a long time. I found it completely uninvolving, and even though it only last for about 80mins, it was still 80mins too long.
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:49 pm
by OscarGuy
vote and discuss
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:34 am
by Hollywood Z
For me, the movie was a fun, intense ride. It's not meant to be anything deep or profound, just a fun thrill ride. We're not watching The Diving Bell and The Butterfly here, so don't try to hold it in that same context. We're watching a giant monster destroying New York, so if anything, it should be classified with movies like The Host or King Kong.
The concept of the movie, all done it first person, was a very unique approach to the film, where other previous genres would have followed a high ranking military official or have given us large, showy moments of the monster where the effects team gets to show of their skills. Here, the effects are pretty much in the background, but they're done so convincingly, especially given the degree of difficulty that comes with the very shaky camera work.
Sure, the characters are a bit bland, but a lot of that is due to the documentary style as well as the limited span of time we get to spend with the characters. Besides, yet again, this isn't meant to be anything but a ride. There are some flaws with the movie if only it is looked at out of the context it's supposed to be taken with, but if you watch it for what it is, Cloverfield is a unique, exciting, intense experience with some very technically brilliant work from the sound and effect department, especially given the size of it's budget.
The thing that made me the most upset coming out of the movie, was the teenage crowd, who responded to it the same way that the group in their age range responded to The Blair Witch Project almost ten years ago. Both Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project take first person approaches to their story, but most of that crowd expects prepackaged thrills that only Michael Bay produced remakes can supply them. For those of us that were able to appreciate The Blair Witch Project for what it was, you'll admire Cloverfield's uniqueness.
A-
Edited By Hollywood Z on 1200843446
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:51 am
by Franz Ferdinand
For me the concept worked, but I could care less about the characters. Walking into the theatre with a very strong smell of air freshener made it clear: people have been vomiting here. Not a very pleasant whiff of scent to catch in a packed and hot theater, though I'm proud to report that I did not find it in the least dizzying: most often I felt like I was right in the middle of the action. For some other unfortunates in the theatre, they did lose their dinner. Honestly, can't you look away if its too disorienting?? It was a tense movie, though there were some parts that were poorly done (Hud's off-camera POV comments felt ingenuine in the heat of the moment; Beth running full-tilt a few minutes after being un-impaled - itself a medical miracle! - and the whole expository setup with random, meaningless characters introduced). Was it wrong of me to not care everytime a major character died? Aah well, I guess that's not the point. For every genuinely tense or gripping shot, two terrible pieces of dialogue and continuity errors.
C+
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:02 pm
by MovieWes
LOL!
Actually, it doesn't remind me of Hilary Swank, but it does remind me of someone else who shares the same first name as her. :p
Edited By MovieWes on 1200424052
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:56 pm
by Penelope
What did I tell you! It's Hilary Swank!
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:44 pm
by Zahveed
I don't know what the image is in the photobucket link, restricted site on work computer, but if it's the same one I had originally posted it could make for an interesting creature.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:25 pm
by Zahveed
Edit: Removed image.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:22 pm
by MovieWes
According to people who have seen the movie, this is what the monster looks like...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums....lat.jpg
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:26 am
by flipp525
Geeks.
Edited By flipp525 on 1200414452
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:04 am
by OscarGuy
Not exactly, Zahveed. As I said, it's a Cthulhoid monster, which means it supposedly resembles a good number of H.P. Lovecraft (here's your answer, Penelope) creatures. The difference, I believe is in the godly origins of Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, etc. So, I don't believe the monster's a Great Old One, but is probably similar in physical characteristics.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:22 am
by Zahveed
OscarGuy wrote:From the rumor/speculation I've heard, it's a Cthulhu-esque monster without the origin of a Cthulhoid.
So a high priest of elderly gods is rampaging the streets of NYC? My definition of a cthulhu might be incorrect, but if that's true then this film might be a little crazier than I first thought.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:18 am
by Penelope
OscarGuy wrote:From the rumor/speculation I've heard, it's a Cthulhu-esque monster without the origin of a Cthulhoid.
A what?
