Here is what really gets me... I said I liked the movie. I said I get it. I said I did the research. I cared about the monster. I want to know about the monster. However, I didn't see as much of the monster as I wanted. What I did see a lot of was characters I couldn't give a shit about. Hud was funny twice by my count. The reason they were keeping the camera annoyed me as was watching all the assholes picturephoning the Statue of Liberty's head when they should be fleeing for their lives... It just seemed like the reverse of the survival instinct.

I just don't think it was worth evening ticket price. It was a good matinee. It wasn't any more special than that. Also, it has ran off hype like a bad car eats through gas.

So yea, I got the movie, I even liked it enough to not regret paying 4.50 to watch it. I just don't think it is the new porn to mentally fap over.

I hope I don't have to repeat myself, Again.

Perhaps what I said wasn't specific enough. I didnt mean that oppsoed to everyone who liked the movie, just those whom when faced with someone who didn't, prominently stated, "That's because you just didn't get it. Philistine."

TheNecroswanson:
Perhaps what I said wasn't specific enough. I didnt mean that oppsoed to everyone who liked the movie, just those whom when faced with someone who didn't, prominently stated, "That's because you just didn't get it. Philistine."

Mmm, I always loved that word, Philistine. Reminds me of Calvin and Hobbes.

DeathWrymNexus. You asked to be countered and I did that. That is all. I avoided you saying you liked it because I agree and felt that it would be counter-productive to argue that.

"Bullet Time" is becoming a joke though. That's why I brought it up.

You brought up art and said that you didn't need to do research to enjoy it. And that is exactly what I said about Cloverfield. That and the peices of art work that you stated (not looking at other movies or video games) are famous why? Was it because you were told it was famous? Or have you actually seen the painting and agree that it is done quite well? It seems you missed my point entirely.

Hmmm... Learning to care about a character. That is tough to do in a handheld monster movie. They tried their best with what was given to them while staying true to a realistic sense. I find it really odd that so many books can succeed in writing first person but you can never do it on the big screen. It's puzzling to me.

The cliche thing was just saying "This is a monster movie. Ofcourse it's going to be cliche." At this point in time there is pretty nothing out there that can not be considered cliche unless it is really out there. You missed my point a second time.

And then for the reverse survival instinct. I addressed that. People are becoming dumber and dumber.

I do not mean to continue an arguement. I only wanted to actually finish his arguement in a more logical and rational way.

I asked to be countered by the tool I was annoyed at... Nobody Ever yanked your chain.

The pieces of art I mentioned are famous because they are GREAT. I have actually gone to art school, thus was exposed to various pieces. You aren't getting the point. I don't need to research anything to know that the Mona Lisa is good. I can just see the painting. I don't have to know what paint he used. I don't have to know the conspiracy about who it Actually is. I can simply enjoy a great painting with what is presented to me. You keep talking about a point I missed and yet you missed mine.

I don't have to research a deeper meaning to appreciate those works. I can simply see a picture of the Sistine Chapel or travel to it and see it myself. I don't have to research Michaelangelo's relationship with the clergy or who his apprentices were. I can just... See the painting. Why are you missing that again?

As for learning to care about a character... If you can't make the characters worth it, then perhaps the camera gimmick is just that. A gimmick, like pulling a rabbit out a hand. With this movie, there are three choices to care about: The characters, the monsters, or the disaster. A movie that is only as strong as the disaster might as well be a documentary. It certainly requires enough research to get the full picture.

Bullet Time is "Becoming" a Joke. The Handheld camera view was a joke right after the Blair Witch.

And while you claim I am missing your point, you are still missing mine. After a while, stacking cliche's up and up becomes like an endeavor into lego stacking. Yes, you made a tower, but it still falls apart too easily, as in not well supported. I am saying that the tone of the monster presence was schizophrenic. They couldn't decide if it was an attack, an outbreak, or an invasion. I am just saying, Pick One and make it awesome. They did that with the attack cliche', a great job even. The Monster was fucking sweet. The invasion and outbreak part seemed... Tacked on. Arbitrary. As in the film didn't need them. It didn't add anything to the experience. The characters are already confused and scared, adding more doesn't do anything but confuse the audience. I will admit that it was interesting to see nightvision of the little monsters. That was cool. The 'spoding woman was pushing it too far though.

That is why I am annoyed at the sheer Volume of cliche's. It didn't add anything but confusion of tone to the picture. Technically the From Space part doesn't bother me that much as attacks have to originate somewhere.

But yea, I'm done. We can take this to the pm's if we wanna continue whatever pissing contest this is becoming because I don't wanna bother with continuing a public argument.

Flying over your head again... Those questions were more retoric then anything. I mean just take a look at the first and second statements in that paragraph.

LokiSeto:
DeathWrymNexus. You brought up art and said that you didn't need to do research to enjoy it. And that is exactly what I said about Cloverfield.

I did not need to research it to enjoy it. Yet you've claimed that in Cloverfield that you have to research it to enjoy it. You've claimed that any movie which requires you to research it has failed as art.

And it is a joke. Bullet time. I mean once the first Scary Movie used it, then it became a joke.

Also I never saw it as an invasion or from space. My point of veiw was that it was just some giant sea creature and the bug like things were like sea lice. The bite and the aspolding woman are jsut things to make them more scary. I mean big whoop. They are bugs that bite. Also I didn't exactly see the bite having that affect on her, either that quickly or that possible seneario.

Also I don't get this "Outbreak" possility you're reaching at. Are you talking about them saying she had a bite and quickly quarintined her? I would have thought that they did that so people wouldn't be covered in bits and peices of exploded woman.

If you watched the movie carefully, you would know that there was a egg dropping into the sea at the end, hence the from Space part. The dropping bugs were basically an invasion, sea lice or not. I suppose you would prefer Infestation instead of Invasion. Very well, I concede that it was more of an infestation. As for the outbreak part, I don't really see a poison doing that to a person, so my first thought is poison. Biologically speaking, it is one or the other. So if it is a disease, that is a possible outbreak.

I never claimed that you had to research to enjoy. You have to research to understand half of what you are seeing. I believe I already said I enjoyed it and that was before any research. Are you even READING what I post?

You keep talking about things going over my head and I already stated that I agree with the mainstay of your points. I am starting to think you are arguing to argue. I should have guessed that sooner when you decided to argue for somebody who was banned for idiocy, whose posts I was directing at in the first place. This just really proves it as you are going in circles with yourself over things I either already agreed with or made my point on.

You enjoyed the film as is. That is lovely. I am happy that you are happy. However, I felt a lackluster experience because the only thing Worth caring about (in my opinion) was the monster and I got jack and shit worth of information about it. The camera angle didn't do it for me. Big whoop, are you able to move on yet?

Yes because I'm just talking to a disrespectful brick wall.

But, you yourself have been a disrespectful brick wall. In fact, this entire thread devolved into angry angsty people trying to outwit one another and make each other look stupid. Congratulations, you turned Colverfield, into a flame war! Omgsauce!

danimal1384:
as for the filming itself, tons of movies nowadays are filming action sequences if not most of the movie in this handheld shaky style. (28 days/weeks later, Transformers, ect) at least this movie was different and fresh.

28 weeks later was nowhere near as shaky as the camera in cloverfield. There's a reason that cloverfield had a warning in the box office that said it may cause motion sickness. The only conceivable reason for having a warning in the box office for 28 weeks later was the fact that a man flies a helicopter into a crowd of the Infected and doesn't plunge screaming to a burning demise some yards therafter. The camera work was only shaky during the chase scenes, and it wasn't shaky enough to be distracting. The violence was excellent, especially the scene where Don initially becomes infected and the quarantine scene. The point is, handheld-style movies generally aren't publicized this widely (Transformers excepted). For example, I was a huge fan of 28 days later, and I didn't hear that 28 weeks later was coming out until I saw a poster in the movie theater when I was going to go see Spider Man 3. I skipped out on Spidey and went for the zombies. In short, after many syllables of rambling, I'm saying that shaky camera work wasn't what made Cloverfield bad. It was the lack of originality, plot, and style.

TheNecroswanson:
But, you yourself have been a disrespectful brick wall. In fact, this entire thread devolved into angry angsty people trying to outwit one another and make each other look stupid. Congratulations, you turned Colverfield, into a flame war! Omgsauce!

Pretty much. I am just tired of agreeing with him only to have him babble MORE.

Anyway, tis sleepy time.

I'm just gonna give my own quick review and ignore what was said on the last 3 pages of rant.

I enjoyed it because I went in expecting suspense and that's what I got. Not the best and most carefully written story and dialog.
Just good ol' suspense.
Certain parts were definitely unrealistic but whatever, it's a movie about some kind of fucked up invasion by some creature/alien/entity and they leave you wondering what exactly was attacking the city. Very entertaining to me and I don't really give 2 goddamn shits about the camera. Didn't make me sick or annoyed and I could still easily follow what was going on.

8/10

I made a large post in another thread that detailed a lot of my thoughts on the movie, so I'll keep to the title of the thread by posting a 15 second review.

The movie was good, but not great, and if I was able to give creative input to the project, there are definitely concerns I would have liked to see addressed. However, I enjoy the fact that the monster isn't truly explained, given the chosen style of the movie to take form as random footage that was found to have been taken during the ordeal. I liked not seeing too much of the monster, and although it was great to see what it actually looked like, I felt that the final shot of the monster was just a bit too much. It certainly wasn't brilliant, since the premise was done before and this didn't really bring anything new to the table, but it wasn't bad. However, if you want a better monster movie experience, track down a copy of the Korean monster movie, The Host.

end_boss:
I made a large post in another thread that detailed a lot of my thoughts on the movie, so I'll keep to the title of the thread by posting a 15 second review.

The movie was good, but not great, and if I was able to give creative input to the project, there are definitely concerns I would have liked to see addressed. However, I enjoy the fact that the monster isn't truly explained, given the chosen style of the movie to take form as random footage that was found to have been taken during the ordeal. I liked not seeing too much of the monster, and although it was great to see what it actually looked like, I felt that the final shot of the monster was just a bit too much. It certainly wasn't brilliant, since the premise was done before and this didn't really bring anything new to the table, but it wasn't bad. However, if you want a better monster movie experience, track down a copy of the Korean monster movie, The Host.

The Host was good and the twist was great.

I like films like this that only gives the audience a tiny view of what is really going on, it leaves the rest to your imagimation/speculation.

Wow, I actually read phrases saying that bullet-time and hand-held camera films are getting old.

Guys, you've gotten over-spun trying to one-up each other. You've been saying pretty stupid things. You don't argue taste. You just don't. Either you like something or not. You can try to explain or expand on your opinion, but if you don't agree, then just shake hands and go past each other. Who gives a shit?

Saying something like 'bullet-time got old' is like getting tired of a joke and then claiming that humor is tedious.

Besides, something being cliche does not necessarily mean that it is bad. It is repetitive by definition, but whether or not it is bad to participate in a fad or hop onto a bandwagon depends on your own opinion and preference. If you want to take elitism to the next level, you can label pretty much 95% of the stuff out there, not just movies, as repetitive and cliche, avoding lots of experiences that a bit of openmindedness would have allowed you to potentially enjoy. In fact, your own ideas are cliche, because chances are there are older people who shared your opinion before, many scores of others. Wow, you're not special anymore. Again, who gives a shit?

I didn't go to Cloverfield asking for a cinematic revolution. I went there asking to be entertained. Perhaps that's me, but I do not go around looking for meaning in everything because, quite frankly, if I want it to, meaning can jump at me (and trust me, you can do that too) from every pore in my life. I can go all over the place thinking of the significance of our existence and the beauty of art- sometimes, though, and I'm not ashamed to say it- I just look for cheap fun. Hah! Movies, comics, video games, and casual sex; so cliche.

If you didn't like the movie, then just say so and leave it at that. Say why, just don't attempt to change someone else's opinion, because changing subjective opinions through arguement does not imply a resolve in someone's preference, but a surrender to a social onslaught of another that is making an arguement. While aruing about taste and smell you end up saying things that make you look worse than better, and surely deliver no message overall.

I suppose people are honestly not reading the part where I said I liked the movie. It is really, really getting old...

I thought it was just another hollywood monster movie, trying an angle that only worked in 2 other movies and ultimately just created a frustrating experience.

if it wasn't for the viral marketing campaign this movie would be another monster flick on the shelf next to The Host.

squirrelman42:
Low budget splice between Blair witch and Godzilla.

Spoiler: they all die.

Unfortunatly, not quickly enough.

I know somethings wrong when I think to myself "These people aren't dying fast enough" and "The sooner they die, the sooner the movie will end". Cloverfield was one of those movies.

Jesus H. Christ, are you e-tards still in a pissing war about this movie? Look, let me settle this here and now alright?

Either you liked it.

Or you didn't.

There. Problem solved. Can we go back to talking about video games and how stupid Fox News is?

i agree with qbert4ever. this has gone on for way too long.

and to those who can't have a debate on opinion without making comments like "ur a fag" or calling some one a "tool"; way to continue to lower the bar for civilized conversation. i kept it professional and didn't make any personal attacks to who i was at odds with, just picked at their critiques. but you all decided its more fun to wank around and throw sophmoric insults instead of creatively countering what i said.

danimal1384:
i agree with qbert4ever. this has gone on for way too long.

and to those who can't have a debate on opinion without making comments like "ur a fag" or calling some one a "tool"; way to continue to lower the bar for civilized conversation. i kept it professional and didn't make any personal attacks to who i was at odds with, just picked at their critiques. but you all decided its more fun to wank around and throw sophmoric insults instead of creatively countering what i said.

Being snarky to no end is what got you banned the first time, be careful mate. But I do have to agree with you, it has gone a bit awry.

Great Flick! Hud Rules! They shouldn't have shown the monster so much, it was scarier in my imagination! Every one lives (Hud is just kind of crippled... and burnt...)!

Damnit, everyone keeps saying everyone lives and shit, can someone PLEASE point me in the direction of pirated videographical informatives? If I has to wait for DVD to come out for that I shall be a sad panda.

TheNecroswanson:
Damnit, everyone keeps saying everyone lives and shit, can someone PLEASE point me in the direction of pirated videographical informatives? If I has to wait for DVD to come out for that I shall be a sad panda.

Remember, it's hollywood. Nobody's dead 'till you see the bodies. Even then they can find a way..... look at Alien Ressurection.

Disclaimer: In no way am I comparing Cloverfield to Alien Ressurection. Cloverfield is much better.

i am not being snarky, just pointing out what i find to be hypocritical about how the forums seem to be run. popular opinion becomes law, and any in violation are punted or harshly shunned for a mere difference of opinion. now if i was hurling personal insults and profanity like an olympic discus contestant, then i could understand. but i haven't been doing that at all. so my issue is that if some one outside the general consensus defends their point of view, instead of conforming, everyone else abandons manners and calls for the outsider to be burned at the stake. seems unfair to me.

New to forums? Not these, just forums in general...

A 3 page fwar that recently [sorta] ended, isnt really something to bump

woops, I seemed to have posted this, thus reviving the flamewar
RUN TO THE HILLS

The movie was pretty rubbish, for the first half its nothing but boring banter with characters i don't care about, then the action is pretty rubbish coz its on a camera.