#276
I saw it today. Can't believe how much I agree with the DVDTalk review. The party had me checking the time 4 times. Those people were just obnoxious. But where I deviate, I actually enjoyed the chaotic destruction on camcorder. Enjoyed watching that. Kept me on the edge of my seat even if the people were annoying me the whole time. I was bothered by how fast the military seemed to get into Manhattan and set up. Doesn't seem possible. Anyone else want to take that one? But who cares, just enjoy the ride.
So I guess I liked it, but didn't love it. Felt that way about all the movies I saw this weekend - Cassandra's Dream and Juno too. Loved There Will Be Blood earlier in the week though.
So I guess I liked it, but didn't love it. Felt that way about all the movies I saw this weekend - Cassandra's Dream and Juno too. Loved There Will Be Blood earlier in the week though.
#277
Found this clip, the small splash must be the one behind the boat above the "L" of the subtitles.
http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/v...ttach&id=11867
http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/v...ttach&id=11867
#278
My favorite complaints thus far are that the people are annoying (no one really goes into detail as to how) and the unlikely long battery life of the camcorder.
#279
Quote:
http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/v...ttach&id=11867
Originally Posted by H8nXTC
Found this clip, the small splash must be the one behind the boat above the "L" of the subtitles.http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/v...ttach&id=11867
I see nothing.
#280
Quote:
As if no one has ever been to a party that has people like that. Considering numerous people I know act like that, I find it pretty believable...Originally Posted by Brack
My favorite complaints thus far are that the people are annoying (no one really goes into detail as to how) and the unlikely long battery life of the camcorder.
Battery life didn't throw me off, considering the battery in my camcorder lasts over 6 hours of continuous use.
#281
Oh I find it believable, but it doesnt mean I want to be around it much less watch it!
#282
Went with group of 8, we all liked it. I particularly hate jumpy camera crap, but was able to deal with it, only feeling slightly woozy afterwards. Some lady threw up in the exit hallway from the theater, luckily they had 'saw dusted' it so we didn't step in it.....the employee said a guy had thrown up in an earlier showing that day, sure the theater employees are gonna LOVE this movie.
I was hoping they would never really show the whole monster....but of course for the general movie going public you HAVE to... would have really added to the mystery. Could have done with out the monster face close-up near the end (you know which part). And this was too sanitized for the PG-13 rating, with the destruction and the feeding that was supposedly going on, there should have been body pieces and blood everywhere !!
I was hoping they would never really show the whole monster....but of course for the general movie going public you HAVE to... would have really added to the mystery. Could have done with out the monster face close-up near the end (you know which part). And this was too sanitized for the PG-13 rating, with the destruction and the feeding that was supposedly going on, there should have been body pieces and blood everywhere !!
#283
Quote:
You have to remember that we're not seeing the entire story, just the experiences of people caught in the middle of a larger story. In some of the viral videos, foreign news footage shows a drilling rig in the Atlantic ocean is destroyed. The military/government most likely knew that "something" was up, and was quite possibly tracking the monster before it arrived in New York, or at least had the good sense to be on alert.Originally Posted by MBoyd
I was bothered by how fast the military seemed to get into Manhattan and set up. Doesn't seem possible. Anyone else want to take that one?
#284
The ultimate negative movie review from The New York Times: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/movies/18clov.html
Quote:
We’re All Gonna Die! Grab Your Video Camera! E-By MANOHLA DARGIS
Published: January 18, 2008
It was only last month that Will Smith started up boogeyman patrol in Manhattan in “I Am Legend,” and yet here we go again with the end of the world, or at least some of the city’s most exclusive ZIP codes. This time, the annihilation comes courtesy of a reptilian creature with a slithering, smashing tail, multiple grabby appendages and an apparently insatiable appetite for destruction. At one point in “Cloverfield” you get a close, very personal look at that hungry mouth, which agape recalls that of the adult monster designed by H. R. Giger for the first “Alien,” though without any of the older beastie’s freakily sexualized menace or resonance.
Like “Cloverfield” itself, this new monster is nothing more than a blunt instrument designed to smash and grab without Freudian complexity or political critique, despite the tacky allusions to Sept. 11. The screams and the images of smoke billowing through the canyons of Lower Manhattan may make you think of the attack, and you may curse the filmmakers for their vulgarity, insensitivity or lack of imagination. (The director, Matt Reeves, lives in Los Angeles, as does the writer, Drew Goddard, and the movie’s star producer, J. J. Abrams.) But the film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence, and the monster does cut a satisfying swath through the cast, so your only complaint may be, What took it so long?
As it happens, “Cloverfield” clocks in at 84 minutes, a running time that includes the usual interminable final credits. The movie moves relatively fast, though it’s nowhere near as economical as its colossus, whose thunderous shrieks and fiery projectiles bring a downtown loft party to a merciful, abrupt end. The loft belongs to a blandly pretty young thing named Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who, on the eve of relocating to Japan for work, has been thrown a farewell party by some other blandly pretty young things. The names we’re meant to remember are those of Rob’s brother, Jason (Mike Vogel), and Jason’s insignificant other, Lily (Jessica Lucas); a bored, boring single, Marlena (Lizzy Caplan); and Rob’s nitwit buddy, Hud (T. J. Miller), who has been recruited to videotape the party.
“Cloverfield” is nominally a monster movie, but mostly it’s a feature-length gimmick. It opens with some official-looking United States government text claiming that the following images were retrieved from what was once known as Central Park. The big (or rather only) idea here is that almost everything we subsequently see is the presumably unedited video material shot by Hud, who, though initially reluctant to pick up the camera, develops a mania for documentation once the monster strikes. So consummate is his dedication to his version of cinéma vérité that he keeps the camera plugged to his eye even while he’s running through hailstorms of debris, trying to cross a fast-collapsing bridge and witnessing friends melt down, bleed out and even die.
For a brief, hopeful moment, I thought the filmmakers might be making a point about how the contemporary compulsion to record the world has dulled us to actual lived experience, including the suffering of others — you know, something about the simulacrum syndrome in the post-Godzilla age at the intersection of the camera eye with the narcissistic “I.” Certainly this straw-grasping seemed the most charitable way to explain characters whose lack of personality (“This is crazy, dude!”) is matched only by their incomprehensible stupidity. Smart as Tater Tots and just as differentiated, Rob and his ragtag crew behave like people who have never watched a monster movie or the genre-savvy “Scream” flicks or even an episode of “Lost” (Hello, Mr. Abrams!), much less experienced the real horrors of Sept. 11.
And, so, much like a character from a crummy movie, Rob hears from an estranged lover, Beth (Odette Yustman), who, after the attack, begs for help on her miraculously working cellphone. Against the odds and a crush of fleeing humanity, he tries to rescue her (unbelievably, ludicrously, the others tag along), which is meant to show what a good guy he is. But heroism without a fully realized hero proves as much a dead end as subjective camerawork that’s executed without a discernible subjectivity. Like too many big-studio productions, “Cloverfield” works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt.
Rarely have I rooted for a monster with such enthusiasm.
“Cloverfield” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Monster violence and bloody wounds.
Directed by Matt Reeves; written by Drew Goddard; director of photography, Michael Bonvillain; edited by Kevin Stitt; production designer, Martin Whist; visual effects by Double Negative and Tippett Studio; produced by J. J. Abrams and Bryan Burk; released by Paramount Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 24 minutes.
WITH: Lizzy Caplan (Marlena), Jessica Lucas (Lily), T. J. Miller (Hud), Michael Stahl-David (Rob), Mike Vogel (Jason) and Odette Yustman (Beth).
We’re All Gonna Die! Grab Your Video Camera! E-By MANOHLA DARGIS
Published: January 18, 2008
It was only last month that Will Smith started up boogeyman patrol in Manhattan in “I Am Legend,” and yet here we go again with the end of the world, or at least some of the city’s most exclusive ZIP codes. This time, the annihilation comes courtesy of a reptilian creature with a slithering, smashing tail, multiple grabby appendages and an apparently insatiable appetite for destruction. At one point in “Cloverfield” you get a close, very personal look at that hungry mouth, which agape recalls that of the adult monster designed by H. R. Giger for the first “Alien,” though without any of the older beastie’s freakily sexualized menace or resonance.
Like “Cloverfield” itself, this new monster is nothing more than a blunt instrument designed to smash and grab without Freudian complexity or political critique, despite the tacky allusions to Sept. 11. The screams and the images of smoke billowing through the canyons of Lower Manhattan may make you think of the attack, and you may curse the filmmakers for their vulgarity, insensitivity or lack of imagination. (The director, Matt Reeves, lives in Los Angeles, as does the writer, Drew Goddard, and the movie’s star producer, J. J. Abrams.) But the film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence, and the monster does cut a satisfying swath through the cast, so your only complaint may be, What took it so long?
As it happens, “Cloverfield” clocks in at 84 minutes, a running time that includes the usual interminable final credits. The movie moves relatively fast, though it’s nowhere near as economical as its colossus, whose thunderous shrieks and fiery projectiles bring a downtown loft party to a merciful, abrupt end. The loft belongs to a blandly pretty young thing named Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who, on the eve of relocating to Japan for work, has been thrown a farewell party by some other blandly pretty young things. The names we’re meant to remember are those of Rob’s brother, Jason (Mike Vogel), and Jason’s insignificant other, Lily (Jessica Lucas); a bored, boring single, Marlena (Lizzy Caplan); and Rob’s nitwit buddy, Hud (T. J. Miller), who has been recruited to videotape the party.
“Cloverfield” is nominally a monster movie, but mostly it’s a feature-length gimmick. It opens with some official-looking United States government text claiming that the following images were retrieved from what was once known as Central Park. The big (or rather only) idea here is that almost everything we subsequently see is the presumably unedited video material shot by Hud, who, though initially reluctant to pick up the camera, develops a mania for documentation once the monster strikes. So consummate is his dedication to his version of cinéma vérité that he keeps the camera plugged to his eye even while he’s running through hailstorms of debris, trying to cross a fast-collapsing bridge and witnessing friends melt down, bleed out and even die.
For a brief, hopeful moment, I thought the filmmakers might be making a point about how the contemporary compulsion to record the world has dulled us to actual lived experience, including the suffering of others — you know, something about the simulacrum syndrome in the post-Godzilla age at the intersection of the camera eye with the narcissistic “I.” Certainly this straw-grasping seemed the most charitable way to explain characters whose lack of personality (“This is crazy, dude!”) is matched only by their incomprehensible stupidity. Smart as Tater Tots and just as differentiated, Rob and his ragtag crew behave like people who have never watched a monster movie or the genre-savvy “Scream” flicks or even an episode of “Lost” (Hello, Mr. Abrams!), much less experienced the real horrors of Sept. 11.
And, so, much like a character from a crummy movie, Rob hears from an estranged lover, Beth (Odette Yustman), who, after the attack, begs for help on her miraculously working cellphone. Against the odds and a crush of fleeing humanity, he tries to rescue her (unbelievably, ludicrously, the others tag along), which is meant to show what a good guy he is. But heroism without a fully realized hero proves as much a dead end as subjective camerawork that’s executed without a discernible subjectivity. Like too many big-studio productions, “Cloverfield” works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt.
Rarely have I rooted for a monster with such enthusiasm.
“Cloverfield” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Monster violence and bloody wounds.
Directed by Matt Reeves; written by Drew Goddard; director of photography, Michael Bonvillain; edited by Kevin Stitt; production designer, Martin Whist; visual effects by Double Negative and Tippett Studio; produced by J. J. Abrams and Bryan Burk; released by Paramount Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 24 minutes.
WITH: Lizzy Caplan (Marlena), Jessica Lucas (Lily), T. J. Miller (Hud), Michael Stahl-David (Rob), Mike Vogel (Jason) and Odette Yustman (Beth).
#285
RichC2 , 01-21-08 09:35 AM
DVD Talk Hero
RichC2
DVD Talk Hero
close
- Join DateMay 2001
- Posts:46,694
Received 1,392 Likes
on
1,094 Posts
I think we're over the "official" reviews at this point 
Movie has made $41m and has a 76% rating at RottenTomatoes with 122 reviews ( 93 Fresh, 29 Rotten ). So it has it's critical acclaim and box office numbers ( $25m budget w/ no noteable actors ). You could start posting the movies.yahoo.com user reviews though, those are filled with venom - most reviews comment again and again on how big a "waist" this movie is. Didn't know movies wore pants, but sure enough, apparently they do.
Movie has made $41m and has a 76% rating at RottenTomatoes with 122 reviews ( 93 Fresh, 29 Rotten ). So it has it's critical acclaim and box office numbers ( $25m budget w/ no noteable actors ). You could start posting the movies.yahoo.com user reviews though, those are filled with venom - most reviews comment again and again on how big a "waist" this movie is. Didn't know movies wore pants, but sure enough, apparently they do.
#286
dadaluholla , 01-21-08 10:10 AM
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Quote:
You could start posting the movies.yahoo.com user reviews though, those are filled with venom - most reviews comment again and again on how big a "waist" this movie is. Didn't know movies wore pants, but sure enough, apparently they do.
I had to go look at Yahoo after you mentioned it. Here is a real gem of a line:You could start posting the movies.yahoo.com user reviews though, those are filled with venom - most reviews comment again and again on how big a "waist" this movie is. Didn't know movies wore pants, but sure enough, apparently they do.
"You might just puke on someone head inside the cinema."
#287
DeputyDave , 01-21-08 10:13 AM
DVD Talk Legend
Saw the movie yesterday with my daughter. I really liked it, an 8 out of 10. I’m happy I stayed away from the hype and the “viral campaign” because I went into it fresh and knowing nothing more than the trailer gave us.
The only real minus was the party went on too long, it should have been cut in half. Other than that I thought it was great. The biggest plus for me would have to be the sound. The theater I saw it in was shaking. The bass was so low that even though your ears couldn’t hear it the floors and chairs shook so much I thought I was on one of those interactive movie “rides” they have at Universal Studios.
As far as the story and the “why’s”, the movie didn’t need anymore information but definitely left me wanting to know more. Is there any place that has compiled all of the viral clues into one easy to read format?
The only real minus was the party went on too long, it should have been cut in half. Other than that I thought it was great. The biggest plus for me would have to be the sound. The theater I saw it in was shaking. The bass was so low that even though your ears couldn’t hear it the floors and chairs shook so much I thought I was on one of those interactive movie “rides” they have at Universal Studios.
As far as the story and the “why’s”, the movie didn’t need anymore information but definitely left me wanting to know more. Is there any place that has compiled all of the viral clues into one easy to read format?
#288
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichC2
most reviews comment again and again on how big a "waist" this movie is. Didn't know movies wore pants, but sure enough, apparently they do.
I cringe when I read those reader reviews over at yahoo. Your post had me laughing for a good bit. Good one.
#289
Draven , 01-21-08 10:33 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Draven
DVD Talk Hero
close
- Join DateFeb 2000
- LocationRosemount, MN
- Posts:47,919
Received 2,322 Likes
on
1,444 Posts
I do not understand that comments about the characters' "stupidity" in going after their friend.
If I were in a similar situation, I have no doubt I would do whatever I could to help someone I really cared about. And I'd help my friends to do the same. To their credit they did make good decisions (the subway tunnel) but they didn't know everything that was going on (the little creatures, the infection, the military's ineffectiveness and ultimate plan, etc.)
And once they got to the apartment, that looked like something I wouldn't want do do myself but hell, they had gotten that far, might as well push on.
I'm normally very sensitive to the general stupidity of characters in horror and monster movies but I never once thought they weren't doing something that real people might do. Just because a movie reviewer wouldn't have done something doesn't mean it's unrealistic.
I used to be a news videographer and I can say without a doubt that if I was in the streets in that situation with my camera, I would be doing my damnedest to capture everything that I could. In fact, I wouldn't have been so economical with the tape. So even the constant shooting didn't bother me, as I have personally put myself into mild danger to get a particular shot.
If I were in a similar situation, I have no doubt I would do whatever I could to help someone I really cared about. And I'd help my friends to do the same. To their credit they did make good decisions (the subway tunnel) but they didn't know everything that was going on (the little creatures, the infection, the military's ineffectiveness and ultimate plan, etc.)
And once they got to the apartment, that looked like something I wouldn't want do do myself but hell, they had gotten that far, might as well push on.
I'm normally very sensitive to the general stupidity of characters in horror and monster movies but I never once thought they weren't doing something that real people might do. Just because a movie reviewer wouldn't have done something doesn't mean it's unrealistic.
I used to be a news videographer and I can say without a doubt that if I was in the streets in that situation with my camera, I would be doing my damnedest to capture everything that I could. In fact, I wouldn't have been so economical with the tape. So even the constant shooting didn't bother me, as I have personally put myself into mild danger to get a particular shot.
#290
Quote:
If I were in a similar situation, I have no doubt I would do whatever I could to help someone I really cared about. And I'd help my friends to do the same. To their credit they did make good decisions (the subway tunnel) but they didn't know everything that was going on (the little creatures, the infection, the military's ineffectiveness and ultimate plan, etc.)
And once they got to the apartment, that looked like something I wouldn't want do do myself but hell, they had gotten that far, might as well push on.
I'm normally very sensitive to the general stupidity of characters in horror and monster movies but I never once thought they weren't doing something that real people might do. Just because a movie reviewer wouldn't have done something doesn't mean it's unrealistic.
I used to be a news videographer and I can say without a doubt that if I was in the streets in that situation with my camera, I would be doing my damnedest to capture everything that I could. In fact, I wouldn't have been so economical with the tape. So even the constant shooting didn't bother me, as I have personally put myself into mild danger to get a particular shot.
Personally I don't think Rob did anything wrong at all. He cared about Beth and after he got a frantic call from her he wanted to get to her and possibly save her or at the very least be there when she died. Nothing wrong with that. The other people maybe should have tried to leave though. I know Hud and Lily wanted to support their friend and obviously the other guy (forget his name) wanted to be with his brother, but Marlena didn't have much, if any connection to either Rob or Beth, apparently couldn't stand Hud and didn't seem to have much connection to Lily either. Why she pressed on I have no idea. She definitely should have gotten out of there especially after Rob repeatedly told all of them to leave and he'd just go on his own. She had a great chance to get out of dodge by following the military but instead went the other way with the rest of them.Originally Posted by Draven
I do not understand that comments about the characters' "stupidity" in going after their friend.If I were in a similar situation, I have no doubt I would do whatever I could to help someone I really cared about. And I'd help my friends to do the same. To their credit they did make good decisions (the subway tunnel) but they didn't know everything that was going on (the little creatures, the infection, the military's ineffectiveness and ultimate plan, etc.)
And once they got to the apartment, that looked like something I wouldn't want do do myself but hell, they had gotten that far, might as well push on.
I'm normally very sensitive to the general stupidity of characters in horror and monster movies but I never once thought they weren't doing something that real people might do. Just because a movie reviewer wouldn't have done something doesn't mean it's unrealistic.
I used to be a news videographer and I can say without a doubt that if I was in the streets in that situation with my camera, I would be doing my damnedest to capture everything that I could. In fact, I wouldn't have been so economical with the tape. So even the constant shooting didn't bother me, as I have personally put myself into mild danger to get a particular shot.
#291
RichC2 , 01-21-08 10:59 AM
DVD Talk Hero
RichC2
DVD Talk Hero
close
- Join DateMay 2001
- Posts:46,694
Received 1,392 Likes
on
1,094 Posts
Quote:
And was, as far as we know, Originally Posted by whoopdido
Personally I don't think Rob did anything wrong at all. He cared about Beth and after he got a frantic call from her he wanted to get to her and possibly save her or at the very least be there when she died. Nothing wrong with that. The other people maybe should have tried to leave though. I know Hud and Lily wanted to support their friend and obviously the other guy (forget his name) wanted to be with his brother, but Marlena didn't have much, if any connection to either Rob or Beth, apparently couldn't stand Hud and didn't seem to have much connection to Lily either. Why she pressed on I have no idea. She definitely should have gotten out of there especially after Rob repeatedly told all of them to leave and he'd just go on his own. She had a great chance to get out of dodge by following the military but instead went the other way with the rest of them.
Spoiler:
#294
RichC2 , 01-21-08 11:09 AM
DVD Talk Hero
RichC2
DVD Talk Hero
close
- Join DateMay 2001
- Posts:46,694
Received 1,392 Likes
on
1,094 Posts
Oh yeah, I skipped an entire sentence while reading. I think she just didn't want to be alone, plus she was Lily's friend right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brack
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
#295
Draven , 01-21-08 11:10 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Draven
DVD Talk Hero
close
- Join DateFeb 2000
- LocationRosemount, MN
- Posts:47,919
Received 2,322 Likes
on
1,444 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brack
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
#296
Quote:
Movie has made $41m and has a 76% rating at RottenTomatoes with 122 reviews ( 93 Fresh, 29 Rotten ). So it has it's critical acclaim and box office numbers ( $25m budget w/ no noteable actors ). You could start posting the movies.yahoo.com user reviews though, those are filled with venom - most reviews comment again and again on how big a "waist" this movie is. Didn't know movies wore pants, but sure enough, apparently they do.
Is that like writing the word "its" with an apostrophe?Originally Posted by RichC2
I think we're over the "official" reviews at this point Movie has made $41m and has a 76% rating at RottenTomatoes with 122 reviews ( 93 Fresh, 29 Rotten ). So it has it's critical acclaim and box office numbers ( $25m budget w/ no noteable actors ). You could start posting the movies.yahoo.com user reviews though, those are filled with venom - most reviews comment again and again on how big a "waist" this movie is. Didn't know movies wore pants, but sure enough, apparently they do.
#297
RichC2 , 01-21-08 11:32 AM
DVD Talk Hero
RichC2
DVD Talk Hero
close
- Join DateMay 2001
- Posts:46,694
Received 1,392 Likes
on
1,094 Posts
Haha yeah I guess it is... Dammit!
#298
Quote:
The only thing I can see in this image is what I've circled in red. Image is not hi-res enough to zoom in on that section.Originally Posted by whoopdido
I see nothing.
http://lanhamfamily.smugmug.com/gall...45771734-X3-LB
Sorry, I couldn't get my image to post.
#300
Quote:
http://lanhamfamily.smugmug.com/gall...45771734-X3-LB
Sorry, I couldn't get my image to post.
Well, I can least see what you circled, but there's no way I could make that out. I'd like to watch the movie again but I'm afraid I'd miss the splash again.Originally Posted by jlanham
The only thing I can see in this image is what I've circled in red. Image is not hi-res enough to zoom in on that section.http://lanhamfamily.smugmug.com/gall...45771734-X3-LB
Sorry, I couldn't get my image to post.