RiffTrax Forum

RiffTrax Discussion => Individual RiffTrax Discussion => Cloverfield => Topic started by: GLaDOS on April 16, 2008, 09:29:16 PM

Title: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 16, 2008, 09:29:16 PM
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 16, 2008, 09:31:44 PM
My main worry is that the gimmick inherent with the entire identity of the movie might make it hard to riff.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 16, 2008, 09:37:42 PM
Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Well I was reading the 20 questions thread and I know one gentleman that isn't going to purchase it. He's a good sport, it's not that he thinks that the riff shouldn't be made, but he's not interested. I was compelled by the premise, but I have yet to see the film. I guess I will at it's DVD release.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 16, 2008, 09:38:01 PM
My main worry is that the gimmick inherent with the entire identity of the movie might make it hard to riff.
In Mike, Bill and Kevin I trust.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 16, 2008, 09:53:02 PM
My main worry is that the gimmick inherent with the entire identity of the movie might make it hard to riff.
In Mike, Bill and Kevin I trust.

Well what do you know? You keep flooding the center with a deadly neurotoxin. Just stop it OK?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 16, 2008, 09:58:23 PM
Well what do you know? You keep flooding the center with a deadly neurotoxin. Just stop it OK?
Despite your best efforts, the only thing you've managed to break so far is my heart.  :'(
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 16, 2008, 10:00:54 PM
Well what do you know? You keep flooding the center with a deadly neurotoxin. Just stop it OK?
Despite your best efforts, the only thing you've managed to break so far is my heart.  :'(

And I suppose that as of now, there will be a lot less converation...
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 16, 2008, 10:02:56 PM
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
 
We'd be so happy together.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 16, 2008, 10:03:57 PM
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
 
We'd be so happy together.

So it was pretty good then?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 16, 2008, 10:11:03 PM
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
We'd be so happy together.
Always the young generation buying into the hype. I don't blame you. It's only natural that you would want to marry a movie and swap genitalia. Such love for a movie, any movie is completely natural.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Gaseous Snake on April 16, 2008, 10:40:59 PM
I was one of those wusses who couldn't stomach the movie because of its jerking around and blurring. Though I hear that its stomach turning properties aren't as bad on the small screen.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 16, 2008, 10:43:49 PM
I was one of those wusses who couldn't stomach the movie. Though I hear that its stomach turning properties aren't as bad on the small screen.
I understand how someone could get motion sickness from watching the movie. I just think that it really says something about a movie when it induces nausea in the masses.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 16, 2008, 10:48:44 PM
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
We'd be so happy together.
Always the young generation buying into the hype. I don't blame you. It's only natural that you would want to marry a movie and swap genitalia. Such love for a movie, any movie is completely natural.

Wrong, sir. Wrong. The only exposure I had to the film pre-seeing the thing was the trailer before Transformers. I don't bother with the bullshit games movies play these days to keep people interested. I've seen the movie 5 times in the theater- twice on opening day- so I could see it on the big screen as many times as possible since the chance to see a Japanese style dai kaiju film on the big screen has only happened to me once (Godzilla 2000- not a good movie, but marginally more magnificent on the big screen).

I'm a kaiju fan. Hard core. I love the movie because it was exactly what the giant monster genre needed. It was exactly what GINO (Godzilla 1998), Godzilla 2000, and Godzilla: Final Wars failed to accomplish, which is pulling out of the same-old-same-old stories while remaining faithful to the genre and it's roots. Spiritually, it's more an American Godzilla movie than what Emmrich and Devlin came up with (to wit: Making a 50s American style monster movie and slapping the name "Godzilla" on it). I respect the hell out of it for the simple fact that they didn't kill the monster- which is one of the major things that separates American style monster movies from Japanese ("America's awesome military or super science TRIUMPHS," versus merely surviving or hopefully having monsters destroy eachother).

Gojira was born from the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not in the literal sense of atomic bombings awakening a monster, but in the sense that the destruction caused left a mark on the Japanese, which worked it's way into their pop art. Just as in that case, 9/11 was used as the "BIG HORRIFYING EVENT" this drew from. The parasites that dropped off of the monster in Cloverfield seem to me an homage to Gojira Returns/Return of Godzilla/Godzilla 1985.

The smartest thing this film did was strip everything down to it's essentials. Explaining the monster is a big expository pain, and it serves to only lessen the suspension of disbelief- leaving it a mystery, and the first person perspective kept the movie feeling like a nightmare. It avoided the trap that keeps most monster flicks relegated to the hard core audience who either likes GIANT MONSTERS enough not to care about the rest of the movie, or find the attempts at sciencey-sounding words kitschy and fun on an ironic level.

I'm the first person to hate the hell out of SHAKEY CAM- as far as I'm concerned 9 times out of 10 it's a dodge for being unable to properly choreograph a fight scene. Cloverfield is the 10th time, the instance where it was utilized correctly. The shakeyness was disorienting, but to compensate they used excellent composition to keep the scenes interesting, and dare I say beautiful at times. The 4th time I saw it in theaters, I focused mostly on that aspect, and was amazed at the effective imagery.

I'm tired and ranting right now. I'll probably rant more about my sloppy love of this movie tomorrow, but I'll leave it at this: If I were some simpleton sucked into a hype machine, I'd own the Pirates of the Carribean series (crappy pander-fests), have a Barack Obama sticker on a hybrid (refuse to own either), and be sitting here, typing this message while listening to... I dunno. What do kids listen to these days? Rap music?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 16, 2008, 11:15:54 PM
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
We'd be so happy together.
Always the young generation buying into the hype. I don't blame you. It's only natural that you would want to marry a movie and swap genitalia. Such love for a movie, any movie is completely natural.

Wrong, sir. Wrong. The only exposure I had to the film pre-seeing the thing was the trailer before Transformers. I don't bother with the bullshit games movies play these days to keep people interested. I've seen the movie 5 times in the theater- twice on opening day- so I could see it on the big screen as many times as possible since the chance to see a Japanese style dai kaiju film on the big screen has only happened to me once (Godzilla 2000- not a good movie, but marginally more magnificent on the big screen).

I'm a kaiju fan. Hard core. I love the movie because it was exactly what the giant monster genre needed. It was exactly what GINO (Godzilla 1998), Godzilla 2000, and Godzilla: Final Wars failed to accomplish, which is pulling out of the same-old-same-old stories while remaining faithful to the genre and it's roots. Spiritually, it's more an American Godzilla movie than what Emmrich and Devlin came up with (to wit: Making a 50s American style monster movie and slapping the name "Godzilla" on it). I respect the hell out of it for the simple fact that they didn't kill the monster- which is one of the major things that separates American style monster movies from Japanese ("America's awesome military or super science TRIUMPHS," versus merely surviving or hopefully having monsters destroy eachother).
Gojira was born from the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not in the literal sense of atomic bombings awakening a monster, but in the sense that the destruction caused left a mark on the Japanese, which worked it's way into their pop art. Just as in that case, 9/11 was used as the "BIG HORRIFYING EVENT" this drew from. The parasites that dropped off of the monster in Cloverfield seem to me an homage to Gojira Returns/Return of Godzilla/Godzilla 1985.
The smartest thing this film did was strip everything down to it's essentials. Explaining the monster is a big expository pain, and it serves to only lessen the suspension of disbelief- leaving it a mystery, and the first person perspective kept the movie feeling like a nightmare. It avoided the trap that keeps most monster flicks relegated to the hard core audience who either likes GIANT MONSTERS enough not to care about the rest of the movie, or find the attempts at sciencey-sounding words kitschy and fun on an ironic level.
I'm the first person to hate the hell out of SHAKEY CAM- as far as I'm concerned 9 times out of 10 it's a dodge for being unable to properly choreograph a fight scene. Cloverfield is the 10th time, the instance where it was utilized correctly. The shakeyness was disorienting, but to compensate they used excellent composition to keep the scenes interesting, and dare I say beautiful at times. The 4th time I saw it in theaters, I focused mostly on that aspect, and was amazed at the effective imagery.
I'm tired and ranting right now. I'll probably rant more about my sloppy love of this movie tomorrow, but I'll leave it at this: If I were some simpleton sucked into a hype machine, I'd own the Pirates of the Carribean series (crappy pander-fests), have a Barack Obama sticker on a hybrid (refuse to own either), and be sitting here, typing this message while listening to... I dunno. What do kids listen to these days? Rap music?
With all due respect, I think you're over-complicating it. It's really nothing more than just another monster movie. It only happens to be set apart because the POV is different, but that's all there is to it.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Gaseous Snake on April 16, 2008, 11:39:07 PM
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
We'd be so happy together.
Always the young generation buying into the hype. I don't blame you. It's only natural that you would want to marry a movie and swap genitalia. Such love for a movie, any movie is completely natural.

Wrong, sir. Wrong. The only exposure I had to the film pre-seeing the thing was the trailer before Transformers. I don't bother with the bullshit games movies play these days to keep people interested. I've seen the movie 5 times in the theater- twice on opening day- so I could see it on the big screen as many times as possible since the chance to see a Japanese style dai kaiju film on the big screen has only happened to me once (Godzilla 2000- not a good movie, but marginally more magnificent on the big screen).

I'm a kaiju fan. Hard core. I love the movie because it was exactly what the giant monster genre needed. It was exactly what GINO (Godzilla 1998), Godzilla 2000, and Godzilla: Final Wars failed to accomplish, which is pulling out of the same-old-same-old stories while remaining faithful to the genre and it's roots. Spiritually, it's more an American Godzilla movie than what Emmrich and Devlin came up with (to wit: Making a 50s American style monster movie and slapping the name "Godzilla" on it). I respect the hell out of it for the simple fact that they didn't kill the monster- which is one of the major things that separates American style monster movies from Japanese ("America's awesome military or super science TRIUMPHS," versus merely surviving or hopefully having monsters destroy eachother).

Gojira was born from the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not in the literal sense of atomic bombings awakening a monster, but in the sense that the destruction caused left a mark on the Japanese, which worked it's way into their pop art. Just as in that case, 9/11 was used as the "BIG HORRIFYING EVENT" this drew from. The parasites that dropped off of the monster in Cloverfield seem to me an homage to Gojira Returns/Return of Godzilla/Godzilla 1985.

The smartest thing this film did was strip everything down to it's essentials. Explaining the monster is a big expository pain, and it serves to only lessen the suspension of disbelief- leaving it a mystery, and the first person perspective kept the movie feeling like a nightmare. It avoided the trap that keeps most monster flicks relegated to the hard core audience who either likes GIANT MONSTERS enough not to care about the rest of the movie, or find the attempts at sciencey-sounding words kitschy and fun on an ironic level.

I'm the first person to hate the hell out of SHAKEY CAM- as far as I'm concerned 9 times out of 10 it's a dodge for being unable to properly choreograph a fight scene. Cloverfield is the 10th time, the instance where it was utilized correctly. The shakeyness was disorienting, but to compensate they used excellent composition to keep the scenes interesting, and dare I say beautiful at times. The 4th time I saw it in theaters, I focused mostly on that aspect, and was amazed at the effective imagery.

I'm tired and ranting right now. I'll probably rant more about my sloppy love of this movie tomorrow, but I'll leave it at this: If I were some simpleton sucked into a hype machine, I'd own the Pirates of the Carribean series (crappy pander-fests), have a Barack Obama sticker on a hybrid (refuse to own either), and be sitting here, typing this message while listening to... I dunno. What do kids listen to these days? Rap music?

That's a whole lotta words that I'm not going to read.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Insert Coin(s) to Continue on April 16, 2008, 11:39:21 PM
I agree with Galva completely. I am also a huge Kaiju fan and I really enjoyed seeing the story I've grown up on told from a new perspective. I thought the movie was planned out very well (what to show, what not to show). And the action was entertaining all the way through. It felt authentic and original.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 16, 2008, 11:41:16 PM

With all due respect, I think you're over-complicating it. It's really nothing more than just another monster movie. It only happens to be set apart because the POV is different, but that's all there is to it.

Do you give a damn about monster movies? Personally, I like them a lot. A good quarter of my DVD collection at the very least is dedicated to monster movies. I read up on them. I buy comics and toys for the monsters. I know what I'm talking about.

Hitting so many of the right notes (film wise) isn't an accident on the part of the film makers. The POV is what set it apart from the specific monster genre it was set in, yeah. I'm saying, however, that it correctly worked within the dai kaiju genre, which is damn rare for an American film. Japanese dai kaiju films have been stale as hell for years, and Cloverfield freshened things up by bringing the genre back to it's roots.

It's like what The Ramones did for straightforward rock music- stripping away the overcomplication, electronic noises, and gaudy new-wave artyness to return back to the three chords, three minutes, strong hook style that created rock music in the first place. What was new was speeding the music up, making it less refined, and of course, the uniqueness of Joey Ramone's wobbly vocals and sarcastic lyrics.

This is a topic about the film- so I'm discussing it. What I've said about it is not inaccurate- considering how well the creative team nailed the Japanese monster film (specifically the first Gojira) style down to the last detail, it's obvious they've done their homework. The only thing I'm not sure on is the Godzilla 1985 parasite thing. It seems to me an obvious parallel, but it could easily be a fluke. I'm looking forward to the DVD commentary to see if 1985 is mentioned.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 16, 2008, 11:43:14 PM
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
We'd be so happy together.
Always the young generation buying into the hype. I don't blame you. It's only natural that you would want to marry a movie and swap genitalia. Such love for a movie, any movie is completely natural.

Wrong, sir. Wrong. The only exposure I had to the film pre-seeing the thing was the trailer before Transformers. I don't bother with the bullshit games movies play these days to keep people interested. I've seen the movie 5 times in the theater- twice on opening day- so I could see it on the big screen as many times as possible since the chance to see a Japanese style dai kaiju film on the big screen has only happened to me once (Godzilla 2000- not a good movie, but marginally more magnificent on the big screen).

I'm a kaiju fan. Hard core. I love the movie because it was exactly what the giant monster genre needed. It was exactly what GINO (Godzilla 1998), Godzilla 2000, and Godzilla: Final Wars failed to accomplish, which is pulling out of the same-old-same-old stories while remaining faithful to the genre and it's roots. Spiritually, it's more an American Godzilla movie than what Emmrich and Devlin came up with (to wit: Making a 50s American style monster movie and slapping the name "Godzilla" on it). I respect the hell out of it for the simple fact that they didn't kill the monster- which is one of the major things that separates American style monster movies from Japanese ("America's awesome military or super science TRIUMPHS," versus merely surviving or hopefully having monsters destroy eachother).

Gojira was born from the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not in the literal sense of atomic bombings awakening a monster, but in the sense that the destruction caused left a mark on the Japanese, which worked it's way into their pop art. Just as in that case, 9/11 was used as the "BIG HORRIFYING EVENT" this drew from. The parasites that dropped off of the monster in Cloverfield seem to me an homage to Gojira Returns/Return of Godzilla/Godzilla 1985.

The smartest thing this film did was strip everything down to it's essentials. Explaining the monster is a big expository pain, and it serves to only lessen the suspension of disbelief- leaving it a mystery, and the first person perspective kept the movie feeling like a nightmare. It avoided the trap that keeps most monster flicks relegated to the hard core audience who either likes GIANT MONSTERS enough not to care about the rest of the movie, or find the attempts at sciencey-sounding words kitschy and fun on an ironic level.

I'm the first person to hate the hell out of SHAKEY CAM- as far as I'm concerned 9 times out of 10 it's a dodge for being unable to properly choreograph a fight scene. Cloverfield is the 10th time, the instance where it was utilized correctly. The shakeyness was disorienting, but to compensate they used excellent composition to keep the scenes interesting, and dare I say beautiful at times. The 4th time I saw it in theaters, I focused mostly on that aspect, and was amazed at the effective imagery.

I'm tired and ranting right now. I'll probably rant more about my sloppy love of this movie tomorrow, but I'll leave it at this: If I were some simpleton sucked into a hype machine, I'd own the Pirates of the Carribean series (crappy pander-fests), have a Barack Obama sticker on a hybrid (refuse to own either), and be sitting here, typing this message while listening to... I dunno. What do kids listen to these days? Rap music?

That's a whole lotta words that I'm not going to read.

Condensed version: It is the best Japanese monster movie made in years and years, and I love it enough that I'm saving a hundred bucks to buy that bigass, overpriced toy of the monster.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Gaseous Snake on April 16, 2008, 11:44:17 PM
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
We'd be so happy together.
Always the young generation buying into the hype. I don't blame you. It's only natural that you would want to marry a movie and swap genitalia. Such love for a movie, any movie is completely natural.

Wrong, sir. Wrong. The only exposure I had to the film pre-seeing the thing was the trailer before Transformers. I don't bother with the bullshit games movies play these days to keep people interested. I've seen the movie 5 times in the theater- twice on opening day- so I could see it on the big screen as many times as possible since the chance to see a Japanese style dai kaiju film on the big screen has only happened to me once (Godzilla 2000- not a good movie, but marginally more magnificent on the big screen).

I'm a kaiju fan. Hard core. I love the movie because it was exactly what the giant monster genre needed. It was exactly what GINO (Godzilla 1998), Godzilla 2000, and Godzilla: Final Wars failed to accomplish, which is pulling out of the same-old-same-old stories while remaining faithful to the genre and it's roots. Spiritually, it's more an American Godzilla movie than what Emmrich and Devlin came up with (to wit: Making a 50s American style monster movie and slapping the name "Godzilla" on it). I respect the hell out of it for the simple fact that they didn't kill the monster- which is one of the major things that separates American style monster movies from Japanese ("America's awesome military or super science TRIUMPHS," versus merely surviving or hopefully having monsters destroy eachother).

Gojira was born from the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not in the literal sense of atomic bombings awakening a monster, but in the sense that the destruction caused left a mark on the Japanese, which worked it's way into their pop art. Just as in that case, 9/11 was used as the "BIG HORRIFYING EVENT" this drew from. The parasites that dropped off of the monster in Cloverfield seem to me an homage to Gojira Returns/Return of Godzilla/Godzilla 1985.

The smartest thing this film did was strip everything down to it's essentials. Explaining the monster is a big expository pain, and it serves to only lessen the suspension of disbelief- leaving it a mystery, and the first person perspective kept the movie feeling like a nightmare. It avoided the trap that keeps most monster flicks relegated to the hard core audience who either likes GIANT MONSTERS enough not to care about the rest of the movie, or find the attempts at sciencey-sounding words kitschy and fun on an ironic level.

I'm the first person to hate the hell out of SHAKEY CAM- as far as I'm concerned 9 times out of 10 it's a dodge for being unable to properly choreograph a fight scene. Cloverfield is the 10th time, the instance where it was utilized correctly. The shakeyness was disorienting, but to compensate they used excellent composition to keep the scenes interesting, and dare I say beautiful at times. The 4th time I saw it in theaters, I focused mostly on that aspect, and was amazed at the effective imagery.

I'm tired and ranting right now. I'll probably rant more about my sloppy love of this movie tomorrow, but I'll leave it at this: If I were some simpleton sucked into a hype machine, I'd own the Pirates of the Carribean series (crappy pander-fests), have a Barack Obama sticker on a hybrid (refuse to own either), and be sitting here, typing this message while listening to... I dunno. What do kids listen to these days? Rap music?

That's a whole lotta words that I'm not going to read.

Condensed version: It is the best Japanese monster movie made in years and years, and I love it enough that I'm saving a hundred bucks to buy that bigass, overpriced toy of the monster.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 17, 2008, 12:13:13 AM
Condensed version: It is the best Japanese monster movie made in years and years, and I love it enough that I'm saving a hundred bucks to buy that bigass, overpriced toy of the monster.
I am in great pain right now.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 17, 2008, 12:16:52 AM
Condensed version: It is the best Japanese monster movie made in years and years, and I love it enough that I'm saving a hundred bucks to buy that bigass, overpriced toy of the monster.
I am in great pain right now.

Do you give a rat's ass about monster movies? Do you like sports instead, or something?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: RobtheBarbarian on April 17, 2008, 12:49:54 AM
I've never actually seen it, but cynicism springs eternal.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: FordPrefect on April 17, 2008, 02:55:25 AM
I have to agree with Galva. I'm not normally a fan of giant monster movies, nor do I have a great love of shaky cam (HATED Blair Witch), but watching this movie in the theater really made me feel like this was the best film of it's type that I'd seen. I think it taps into the fun memories I had of going to Universal Studios and  Disney/MGM Studios. The first person perspective really made it feel like a ride sometimes. It's one thing to have lots of "God's eye view" shots of the monster stomping on ant sized people, it's more interesting when you see this stuff coming at you in a few scenes.

The trailer was great because it showed you enough to get your attention, and then it didn't tell you hardly anything else about the movie. I hate a lot of movie trailers these days because they give you way too much information. Some of them tell you almost everything that happens in the movie except for the ending, and you can pretty much figure that part out based on the tone of the trailer and everything else you were presented with. 

I also like that we didn't always see the monster because the film was really more about the crisis it creates for the characters rather than what it looks like, it's origin story, or it's motivation. That's why I'm a little confused when people say they were "disappointed" by the look of the monster. Sometimes it feels like a McGuffin, so would it really be more effective if it were designed differently? I actually thought it looked pretty original. When some people asked me what it looked like I said,  "Well, I don't really know what to compare it to, but it looks pretty messed up."

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Incidentally, I didn't get the seasick feeling some people got from the shaky cam. As long as they don't start physically moving the seats during these scenes, I'm good to go. Normally I'd say the movie is best viewed on the biggest screen you have access to, but if it's really a problem for you, just watch it on a normal TV screen / computer monitor and you should be fine.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 17, 2008, 05:16:13 AM
I never got the sick feeling a lot of people did, except...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

My friend on the other hand had to keep looking down at the floor intermittently. I joked that they oughta be selling Dramamine at the door... they'd clean up.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 17, 2008, 05:59:56 AM
6 people, 6 people said the movie sucked, that means 6 people have no idea what makes a movie awesome
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 17, 2008, 07:46:01 AM
I know what makes a good monster movie.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Nick on April 17, 2008, 08:35:33 AM
What an under-appreciated classic Monster-a-Go-Go was. :D
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 17, 2008, 09:40:33 AM
6 people, 6 people said the movie sucked, that means 6 people have no idea what makes a movie awesome
I can tell you one thing: The suffering and slaughter of people I do not find entertaining, fun or "awesome".
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 17, 2008, 10:09:35 AM
What an under-appreciated classic Monster-a-Go-Go was. :D

As the kids say...True that.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 17, 2008, 10:12:04 AM
6 people, 6 people said the movie sucked, that means 6 people have no idea what makes a movie awesome
I can tell you one thing: The suffering and slaughter of people I do not find entertaining, fun or "awesome".

Not for entertainment. Not for fun. Just for Science.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/Zaha_torte/portal.jpg)
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Nick on April 17, 2008, 11:44:07 AM
6 people, 6 people said the movie sucked, that means 6 people have no idea what makes a movie awesome
I can tell you one thing: The suffering and slaughter of people I do not find entertaining, fun or "awesome".

So your main beef is that the movie has gratuitous violence? I didn't think it did, nothing like Hostel's at least. Besides, Godzilla has destroyed Tokyo, what, 42 times now? Theres got to be a lot of pain and anguish there, not to mention from the real tradgedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 17, 2008, 12:23:59 PM
So your main beef is that the movie has gratuitous violence? I didn't think it did, nothing like Hostel's at least. Besides, Godzilla has destroyed Tokyo, what, 42 times now? Theres got to be a lot o fpain and anguish there, not to mention from the real tradgedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No, My main beef is when gratuitous violence and death is supposed to pass for the most entertaining aspect of the movie. Now if a person dies in a movie because they deserve it, that's another story.

Not for entertainment. Not for fun. Just for Science.
Cloverfield's got nothing to do with Aperture Science. Sorry.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 17, 2008, 12:32:41 PM
Not for entertainment. Not for fun. Just for Science.
Cloverfield's got nothing to do with Aperture Science. Sorry.


ah, but we don't know that for a fact
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 17, 2008, 12:34:34 PM
Cloverfield's got nothing to do with Aperture Science. Sorry.
ah, but we don't know that for a fact
Oh come on, who knows Aperture science better than yours truly?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 17, 2008, 01:53:17 PM
Cloverfield's got nothing to do with Aperture Science. Sorry.
ah, but we don't know that for a fact
Oh come on, who knows Aperture science better than yours truly?

Maybe Black Mesa? That was a joke, ha ha, fat chance.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: mrbasehart on April 17, 2008, 05:11:59 PM
So your main beef is that the movie has gratuitous violence? I didn't think it did, nothing like Hostel's at least. Besides, Godzilla has destroyed Tokyo, what, 42 times now? Theres got to be a lot o fpain and anguish there, not to mention from the real tradgedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No, My main beef is when gratuitous violence and death is supposed to pass for the most entertaining aspect of the movie. Now if a person dies in a movie because they deserve it, that's another story.

But the violence and deaths weren't gratuitous.  They're integral to the story. 
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 17, 2008, 05:16:57 PM
Quote
No, My main beef is when gratuitous violence and death is supposed to pass for the most entertaining aspect of the movie. Now if a person dies in a movie because they deserve it, that's another story.

What's funny here is that's the reason I refuse to watch movies like Saw or Hostel or Captivity or whatever torture porn is popular at the moment. I don't see how this is torturous- this is characters dealing with a situation larger than themselves, and not handling it very well. I was surprised with how much they got away with on the gore, though.

Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 17, 2008, 05:19:05 PM
I liked the first Saw, I wouldn't call it Torture porn, more like a suspense-drama-thing
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 17, 2008, 05:40:46 PM
Quote
No, My main beef is when gratuitous violence and death is supposed to pass for the most entertaining aspect of the movie. Now if a person dies in a movie because they deserve it, that's another story.
What's funny here is that's the reason I refuse to watch movies like Saw or Hostel or Captivity or whatever torture porn is popular at the moment. I don't see how this is torturous- this is characters dealing with a situation larger than themselves, and not handling it very well. I was surprised with how much they got away with on the gore, though.
I saw people who were suffering so profoundly that to me Cloverfield is no different then torture porn. I mean, the suffering is the ONLY thing we saw for the duration of the whole movie, except the opening party scene.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Invader_quirk on April 18, 2008, 09:25:49 AM
There wasn't a bunch of gratuitous violence. What made this movie great was that it didn't capitalize on anything, because it was realistic. This isn't so much a film as an experience. Who hasn't been curious about what a monster attack would really be like? Cloverfield delivers that experience without one-liners or slo-mo action scenes. It doesn't even have any music-- none of the comforts that hollywood normally provides us with. Why? Because this isn't a movie. It's a video tape from an actual monster attack. It's about as real as a monster film can get, and the ending only makes sense. If a huge monster attacks your city, you'll probably die.

If you want a hollywood monster movie, go watch the 1998 Godzzilla. If you want a new experience that you'll never be able to have otherwise, see Cloverfield.

On a side note, I think the rifftrax for Cloverfield will be a disaster. As a riffer, I'm just not seeing it working; not because I think it's perfect, but because I just don't think it's a film that lends itself to riffing. I could be wrong, but I'll be very impressed if te rifftrax is any good at all.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bettertomorrowamy on April 18, 2008, 10:49:23 AM
Wow!  I'm really gonna have to watch this one first without the Rifftrax.  I hope Netflix comes through for me and sends it fast.

The pessimism from a lot of people about the success of this Rifftrax is strange though.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: gammer on April 18, 2008, 11:04:53 AM
Thats exactly what I am going to do....watch it W/O Rifftrax first. It will make the second viewing w/Rifftrax more enjoyable.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: EVOLUTION117 on April 18, 2008, 11:30:20 AM
On a side note, I think the rifftrax for Cloverfield will be a disaster. As a riffer, I'm just not seeing it working; not because I think it's perfect, but because I just don't think it's a film that lends itself to riffing. I could be wrong, but I'll be very impressed if te rifftrax is any good at all.

The way I see it, that one scene where the group are walking down the street only for the Monster show up just in front of them and immediately have the military attack it from behind them makes a riff of this movie very much worthwhile.

Happens about 35mins into the movie with the camera guy asking if the the other guy tried dialing 911.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Invader_quirk on April 18, 2008, 11:35:57 AM
I don't know what that means....
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 18, 2008, 11:51:27 AM
If you want a hollywood monster movie, go watch the 1998 Godzzilla.

Well I'm gonna have to at the end of the month.  ;)
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Todd on April 18, 2008, 01:41:08 PM
There wasn't a bunch of gratuitous violence. What made this movie great was that it didn't capitalize on anything, because it was realistic. This isn't so much a film as an experience. Who hasn't been curious about what a monster attack would really be like?
...
On a side note, I think the rifftrax for Cloverfield will be a disaster. As a riffer, I'm just not seeing it working; not because I think it's perfect, but because I just don't think it's a film that lends itself to riffing. I could be wrong, but I'll be very impressed if te rifftrax is any good at all.

A movie that shows what would happen in a monster attack would be interesting, however, Cloverfield fails MAJORLY to do this.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This was an excellent idea for a movie that would have been terrifying if they had a decent storyline and characters. Instead you have one dimensional characters, and a dumb plot, right out of any other hollywood blockbuster. The movie got attention and buzz because it traded on 9/11 imaginery. It used the horror and tragedy of 9/11 to lift up it's ridiculous plot and piss poor storytelling.

This movie is SO appropriate for riffing.  I walked into that movie going, "this is going to be great", and halfway through it I went, "not only do I not like this movie, I HATE it". The only way I'd even consider watching this piece of banal dreck again would be with the rifftrax.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 18, 2008, 03:09:30 PM
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Y'know. There is a "Spoiler" button you can click on. It looks like the Radiation Hazard warning up there.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: BathTub on April 18, 2008, 04:01:18 PM
Yeah and quoting the spoiler doesn't exactly help any.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 18, 2008, 05:16:52 PM
There wasn't a bunch of gratuitous violence. What made this movie great was that it didn't capitalize on anything, because it was realistic.
Realistic? A great big giant monster invades New York, presumably from the ocean. The monster is half the height of the statue of liberty and yet it managed to rip its head off. One girl doesn't bleed to death even though some rebar is sticking through her chest. The guy easily killed the little critters with a fire axe, yet a bomb doesn't kill a monster, a helicoptor just HAPPENS to be within striking distance of the monster even though the so-called "competent" pilots are supposed to be flying AWAY from the danger. Yes... very realistic. I've got another word for all that but I think i've hurt enough feelings already.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Invader_quirk on April 18, 2008, 09:15:56 PM
If you want a hollywood monster movie, go watch the 1998 Godzzilla.

Well I'm gonna have to at the end of the month.  ;)

AAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW YEAH.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 19, 2008, 01:51:04 AM
I like the Monster movie in which Matthew Broderick has to train giant gorillas to fly Military jets.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bratpop on April 19, 2008, 02:25:20 AM
The monster is half the height of the statue of liberty and yet it managed to rip its head off.
Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 19, 2008, 05:45:09 AM
Yeah and quoting the spoiler doesn't exactly help any.

D'oh! He modified the post and put the paragraph in a spoiler. Trust me Bathtub, I didn't just quote the spoiler.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: BathTub on April 19, 2008, 06:12:44 AM
I modified it.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 19, 2008, 06:14:52 AM
Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Nick on April 19, 2008, 09:25:43 AM
Quote
The monster is half the height of the statue of liberty and yet it managed to rip its head off

When you see it come lumbering towards the skyscraper, it looks like it could peek in and say hello, I think the thing is well bigger than the statue of liberty, if you see it's arms, it looks like it's capable of increasing its hight by extending it's huge forearms, which would make it capable of knocking off the statues head.

Quote
The guy easily killed the little critters with a fire axe, yet a bomb doesn't kill a monster,

To be fair, those were parasites from the monsters, not babies. Even if they were, I don't know many baby creatures as tough as their adult versions. :P
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 19, 2008, 09:39:45 AM
Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Janitor on April 19, 2008, 01:23:03 PM
I modified it.

Right, well, that makes more sense then.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: FordPrefect on April 19, 2008, 03:07:49 PM
For anyone who's interested, CloverfieldClues.com has mentioned the upcoming Rifftrax on their site. Nobody seems particularly offended by the concept so far.

http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/2008/04/cloverfield-rifftrax.html

By the way, if you want to avoid spoilers about the movie, don't explore that site too much. On the other hand, if you do want to know more about it, that would be a good place to look. This would be a good place for that too:

http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23861
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bettertomorrowamy on April 19, 2008, 03:40:07 PM
Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 19, 2008, 04:42:32 PM
For anyone who's interested, CloverfieldClues.com has mentioned the upcoming Rifftrax on their site. Nobody seems particularly offended by the concept so far.

http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/2008/04/cloverfield-rifftrax.html

By the way, if you want to avoid spoilers about the movie, don't explore that site too much. On the other hand, if you do want to know more about it, that would be a good place to look. This would be a good place for that too:

http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23861

that doesn't seem very snap worthy :-\
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bettertomorrowamy on April 19, 2008, 05:39:58 PM
Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 19, 2008, 06:01:05 PM
[
I saw people who were suffering so profoundly that to me Cloverfield is no different then torture porn. I mean, the suffering is the ONLY thing we saw for the duration of the whole movie, except the opening party scene.

I suppose you just shouldn't watch movies with any conflict in them, if that's the case. I literally have no idea what the hell you're talking about as far as this movie's supposed profound suffering.

Quote
Realistic? A great big giant monster invades New York, presumably from the ocean. The monster is half the height of the statue of liberty and yet it managed to rip its head off.

The arms of the monster are about twice the length of it's body. Given it's gimpy appearance, we can assume retard strength is at play, here.

Quote
One girl doesn't bleed to death even though some rebar is sticking through her chest.

Between the chest and shoulder. The rebar would also hold the wound closed since she stayed still until several hours later. She probably clots like I do (for the record: Very well).

Quote
The guy easily killed the little critters with a fire axe, yet a bomb doesn't kill a monster,

They're parasites, not babies of the larger monster. The larger monster is modeled specifically after Japanese monsters that are unharmed by conventional weapons.

Quote
a helicoptor just HAPPENS to be within striking distance of the monster even though the so-called "competent" pilots are supposed to be flying AWAY from the danger.

They were trying to get as many refugees out as possible, and the monster's path- as the film had shown- is highly illogical and erratic (as opposed to erotic). Admittedly, this is the least realistic out of the whole list of problems you've got with the film considering how quickly the government is able to respond to disasters like Katrina (not a political statement).

Quote
Yes... very realistic.

Compared to other Japanese style monster movies. The realism doesn't come from the science of it, but from the perspective and lack of information- "Maybe it came from outer space!"

Quote
I've got another word for all that but I think i've hurt enough feelings already.

Rest assured, you would have crushed me had your words been slightly more negative. Thank you for your discretion. :)

Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bettertomorrowamy on April 19, 2008, 06:04:05 PM
[
I saw people who were suffering so profoundly that to me Cloverfield is no different then torture porn. I mean, the suffering is the ONLY thing we saw for the duration of the whole movie, except the opening party scene.

I suppose you just shouldn't watch movies with any conflict in them, if that's the case. I literally have no idea what the hell you're talking about as far as this movie's supposed profound suffering.
Oooh, snap!
Quote
Realistic? A great big giant monster invades New York, presumably from the ocean. The monster is half the height of the statue of liberty and yet it managed to rip its head off.

The arms of the monster are about twice the length of it's body. Given it's gimpy appearance, we can assume retard strength is at play, here.
Oooh, snap!
Quote
One girl doesn't bleed to death even though some rebar is sticking through her chest.

Between the chest and shoulder. The rebar would also hold the wound closed since she stayed still until several hours later. She probably clots like I do (for the record: Very well).
Oooh, snap!
Quote
The guy easily killed the little critters with a fire axe, yet a bomb doesn't kill a monster,

They're parasites, not babies of the larger monster. The larger monster is modeled specifically after Japanese monsters that are unharmed by conventional weapons.

Quote
a helicoptor just HAPPENS to be within striking distance of the monster even though the so-called "competent" pilots are supposed to be flying AWAY from the danger.

They were trying to get as many refugees out as possible, and the monster's path- as the film had shown- is highly illogical and erratic (as opposed to erotic). Admittedly, this is the least realistic out of the whole list of problems you've got with the film considering how quickly the government is able to respond to disasters like Katrina (not a political statement).
Oooh, snap!
Quote
Yes... very realistic.

Compared to other Japanese style monster movies. The realism doesn't come from the science of it, but from the perspective and lack of information- "Maybe it came from outer space!"
Oooh, snap!
Quote
I've got another word for all that but I think i've hurt enough feelings already.

Rest assured, you would have crushed me had your words been slightly more negative. Thank you for your discretion. :)

Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 19, 2008, 06:08:55 PM
It's like a damn rice crispy factory in here...
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 19, 2008, 06:39:55 PM
Quote
Realistic? A great big giant monster invades New York, presumably from the ocean. The monster is half the height of the statue of liberty and yet it managed to rip its head off.
The arms of the monster are about twice the length of it's body. Given it's gimpy appearance, we can assume retard strength is at play, here.
Quote
One girl doesn't bleed to death even though some rebar is sticking through her chest.
Between the chest and shoulder. The rebar would also hold the wound closed since she stayed still until several hours later. She probably clots like I do (for the record: Very well).
Quote
The guy easily killed the little critters with a fire axe, yet a bomb doesn't kill a monster,
They're parasites, not babies of the larger monster. The larger monster is modeled specifically after Japanese monsters that are unharmed by conventional weapons.
The arms are twice the length of its body...and at no time neither his radius nor ulna snapped. As I recall, that wound of hers looked like it went through an area of her chest which would in effect give her a pneumothorax. Clotted or not, she would be dead.   And, as far as I know all creatures can be harmed by a fire axe and even If his hide were THAT thick, Cloverfield would be completely immobile. At the very least he would have had some joint damage. I'm not giving that sucker some glucosamine though.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 19, 2008, 06:54:23 PM
Once again: He's a Japanese style monster. Impervious to conventional weaponry, weird and illogically built. Kinda wish they had the balls to do things like have lightbulbs randomly sticking out of him, hair in random places, buzzsaws...

... sorry, what was I talking about?

In any event It's not about the science- it avoided that issue entirely by keeping the audience in the dark about the creature thus making the movie into a nightmare style scenario. The girl was hit in the "hero area"- which is close to the shoulder, and movie logic for "wounded, but not fatal." Unlikely, implausible, but considering the rampaging seabeast, possible within the logic of the film.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 19, 2008, 07:31:55 PM
Once again: He's a Japanese style monster. Impervious to conventional weaponry, weird and illogically built. Kinda wish they had the balls to do things like have lightbulbs randomly sticking out of him, hair in random places, buzzsaws...
... sorry, what was I talking about?
In any event It's not about the science- it avoided that issue entirely by keeping the audience in the dark about the creature thus making the movie into a nightmare style scenario. The girl was hit in the "hero area"- which is close to the shoulder, and movie logic for "wounded, but not fatal." Unlikely, implausible, but considering the rampaging seabeast, possible within the logic of the film.
Nonetheless, it's still a massively depressing movie. I'm surprised it didn't incite mass suicide among high school students and college freshmen everywhere. Most horror movies are more uplifting. Saw IV was like freaking Spongebob squarepants in comparison. Okay, that's all I am going to say about this movie, I promise.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 19, 2008, 08:06:13 PM
Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bratpop on April 20, 2008, 04:23:38 AM
Spielberg's War of the Worlds + Blair Witch Project + "Hmm, they're remaking King Kong?" = ...can you guess?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bettertomorrowamy on April 20, 2008, 05:35:09 AM
Ummmmm....
Oooh, snap!
?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: ShadowDog on April 20, 2008, 07:18:24 AM
I haven't seen this movie, and I was looking forward to a long lifetime of this continuing to be true but unfortunately it's being riffed, but personally the more spoiled I am about the "plot" the better.  That way I can focus more on the riffs and less on trying to figure out what's going on.

Here's a question!  How the hell have they already recorded the riff for this movie when the DVD doesn't even come out until Tuesday?  Even if Mike had illegally gotten ahold of a bootleg, which would surprise and very much disappoint me because it'd be endorsing piracy, there's no guarantee the timing would be the same.  Does Mike have the kind of industry connections that allow him to get early DVDs for this purpose?  If so, when I can I come to his house and hang out in his video library?  I want an early screening of Crystal Skull! >:D
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 20, 2008, 07:27:17 AM

Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 20, 2008, 11:29:01 AM
I haven't seen this movie, and I was looking forward to a long lifetime of this continuing to be true but unfortunately it's being riffed, but personally the more spoiled I am about the "plot" the better.  That way I can focus more on the riffs and less on trying to figure out what's going on.

Here's a question!  How the hell have they already recorded the riff for this movie when the DVD doesn't even come out until Tuesday?  Even if Mike had illegally gotten ahold of a bootleg, which would surprise and very much disappoint me because it'd be endorsing piracy, there's no guarantee the timing would be the same.  Does Mike have the kind of industry connections that allow him to get early DVDs for this purpose?  If so, when I can I come to his house and hang out in his video library?  I want an early screening of Crystal Skull! >:D

Imma guess they either get ahold of early screener copies that get sent out to rental stores.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: ShadowDog on April 20, 2008, 11:44:33 AM
Yeah, hopefully that's what's going on.  The Cloverfield producers would probably consider that part of their promotion because if nothing else they've gotten one more person to watch their hideous movie than otherwise would have.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 20, 2008, 12:00:00 PM
Yeah, hopefully that's what's going on.  The Cloverfield producers would probably consider that part of their promotion because if nothing else they've gotten one more person to watch their hideously delightful movie than otherwise would have.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 20, 2008, 01:24:58 PM

Oooh, snap!

Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GLaDOS on April 20, 2008, 01:29:23 PM

Oooh, snap!
If we stack this high enough, it'll topple like Babylon.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bettertomorrowamy on April 20, 2008, 01:30:34 PM
Then those 'Gays' will have to run for their lives, huh?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 20, 2008, 01:32:55 PM

Oooh, snap!
If we stack this high enough, it'll topple like Babylon.

JENGA!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 20, 2008, 01:34:53 PM
Then those 'Gays' will have to run for their lives, huh?

Oooh, snap!

Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 20, 2008, 01:42:42 PM
Caboose. I'm going to hurt you.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: bettertomorrowamy on April 20, 2008, 01:43:42 PM
Better make this my last one then:
Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: ShadowDog on April 20, 2008, 08:53:59 PM
Yeah, hopefully that's what's going on.  The Cloverfield producers would probably consider that part of their promotion because if nothing else they've gotten one more person to watch their hideously delightful movie than otherwise would have.

Fixed.

Why I outta ... <shakes fist>

But instead I'll give you the ultimate ammo to cast aside all of my movie opinions: I'm one of only three people on this planet who really really liked "Last Action Hero."
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: ScottotD on April 20, 2008, 09:01:53 PM
I really liked this, it's certainly not perfect or to everyone's taste (everyone I know who saw it in the cinema had one person in their session who stood up and said "that was shit" at the end) but I thought it was a great re-invention of the monster genre PLUS I loved the fact I often caught myself craning my neck to look around people onscreen or outside the frame.

Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 20, 2008, 09:13:46 PM
Yeah, hopefully that's what's going on.  The Cloverfield producers would probably consider that part of their promotion because if nothing else they've gotten one more person to watch their hideously delightful movie than otherwise would have.

Fixed.

Why I outta ... <shakes fist>

What can I say, I gotta be me. (*gets naked, pops in a copy of Silence of the Lambs*)

Quote
But instead I'll give you the ultimate ammo to cast aside all of my movie opinions: I'm one of only three people on this planet who really really liked "Last Action Hero."

The thing that kills me about LAH is the missed opportunities. The bad guy has a ticket that he can use to pull bad guys from any movie- he threatens King Kong and Freddy Kruger- yet he does nothing with that power. There was a great groundwork, a great universe to play with, but a lot of missed opportunity. I'd have been happy if he pulled parodies of famous monsters out, or something. Thad' ha been cool.

Quote
I really liked this, it's certainly not perfect or to everyone's taste (everyone I know who saw it in the cinema had one person in their session who stood up and said "that was shit" at the end) but I thought it was a great re-invention of the monster genre PLUS I loved the fact I often caught myself craning my neck to look around people onscreen or outside the frame.

I'll telegraph you a high-five, sir.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: ScottotD on April 20, 2008, 09:16:07 PM
up top!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: GalvaTRION on April 20, 2008, 09:16:57 PM
Down low!