Cloverfield

[Todd]

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)

First, how realistic is it for them to just turn around and head back into the city to save the girl? To climb in an obviously structually destroyed building, leap building to building to find the girl. Especially after her voicemail that basically sounded like she was dead. When they find her, she has concret rebarb sticking out of her chest, but they pull her off it, WALK her out, and later on, she's running with the rest of them, instead of bleeding out, lungs fillign with blood and drowning. They are walking in a subway tunnel and Hud says, "You know what would be scarey..." Yeah, I do know, a monster attacking your city! The army in charge of evacuating the city, JUST LETS THEM GO!

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.

[Janitor]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A movie that shows what would happen in a monster attack would be interesting, however, Cloverfield fails MAJORLY to do this. First, how realistic is it for them to just turn around and head back into the city to save the girl? To climb in an obviously structually destroyed building, leap building to building to find the girl. Especially after her voicemail that basically sounded like she was dead. When they find her, she has concret rebarb sticking out of her chest, but they pull her off it, WALK her out, and later on, she's running with the rest of them, instead of bleeding out, lungs fillign with blood and drowning. They are walking in a subway tunnel and Hud says, "You know what would be scarey..." Yeah, I do know, a monster attacking your city! The army in charge of evacuating the city, JUST LETS THEM GO!

Y'know. There is a "Spoiler" button you can click on. It looks like the Radiation Hazard warning up there.

[BathTub]

Yeah and quoting the spoiler doesn't exactly help any.

[GLaDOS]

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.

[Invader_quirk]

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.

[GLaDOS]

I like the Monster movie in which Matthew Broderick has to train giant gorillas to fly Military jets.

[bratpop]

The monster is half the height of the statue of liberty and yet it managed to rip its head off.

Oooh, snap!

[Janitor]

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.

[BathTub]

I modified it.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

Oooh, snap!

[Nick]

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.

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.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

Oooh, snap!

[Janitor]

I modified it.

Right, well, that makes more sense then.

[FordPrefect]

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

[bettertomorrowamy]

Oooh, snap!