Cloverfield? Ouchhhhh.........

[K'riq Sa]

The reviews are out and here is one.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/movies/18clov.html




I guess everybody has an opinion.





basically,

K'riq Sa
Minister of the Church of Missing Digits

 

[steveman]

The balance of reviews over on Rotten Tomatoes seem quite favorable.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I read the NYT review on Friday just before I saw the movie.

I expect that the people in Ms. Dargis' social and family circle were properly impressed by the values expressed in the review. There really was no more useful point to the piece than that.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'd heard that it was like a full movie-length version of raw video footage in the style of "The Blair Witch Project". And I knew it was set in New York, and had a Godzilla-sized monster in it, and lots of young people in it.

So I was fully aware of what I was getting into. I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I'm cautious about recommending it to everyone.

 

[K'riq Sa]

How ironic..


I can't vote until I see the movie, and I can't see what others have voted until I do......






crappolly,

K'riq Sa
Minister of the Church of What Not

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

steveman said:
The balance of reviews over on Rotten Tomatoes seem quite favorable.

I love 'rottentomatoes.com', because you can read scores of different critics' takes on a movie. Plus you can quickly read WHY some critics hated a film and why some loved it, and see what a critic who shares your cinematic values thinks about a certain film.

For instance, I wanted to see National Treasure II, but rottentomatoes overall score was low. When I check the critics who disliked the film, most of them all disliked it because its story was so implausible and required too much suspension of disbelief. I didn't care about the plausibility factor (in fact I expected it to be implausible), I only wanted to see a good 'popcorn flick'. So I saw National Treasure II, and enjoyed it for what it was -- and Bruce Greenwood was very good as the President...He'll make a fine Cpt. Pike.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

$41 million and counting so far. Seems to be popular with the masses.

 

[Therin of Andor]

K´riq Sa said:
I can't vote until I see the movie, and I can't see what others have voted until I do......

I Liked it. - 13 - 81%
I Hated it. - 0 - 0%
It Was OK. - 0 - 0%
Have not or will not see it. - 3 - 19%

so far.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

What a stuck-up bitch. I only made it halfway through the review before her attitude reached critical mass and I had to bail out. Save those movie dollars for your psychotropic medication instead, baby.

 

[Lookingglassman]

Movie critics are worthless anyway. I never listen to them.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

It's interesting that somebody such as this critic who probably thinks herself to be intelligent can totally miss the point of a film.

She obviously had the "I'm going to hate this" bias before the film even started, then searched the film for evidence to support that bias.

 

[Dale]

Wife and I are going Monday... at the drive-in, no less. I have avoided reviews of the film until I've seen it. I only hope the sun has gone down enough when the Trek teaser starts! Any movie will have a hard time topping my excitement over seeing that on the big screen for the first time! I only hope my car stereo is up to how loud I'll be playing it!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There aren't many serious film critics, per se, working in the popular press.

The value of movie reviewers, OTOH, is entirely a matter of the taste, knowledge context and entertainment value of a given writer. I always enjoy reading Roger Ebert's reviews, in about the same way I liked watching Bob Hope do his stand-up for Chrysler on NBC back in the day. No pro like an old pro.

The writer of the NYT piece was too busy filtering what he/she was watching through a shield of some pretty self-conscious value judgments about Everything In General, IMAO, to have an interesting response to the movie itself.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

You are far too kind, Dennis.

Far kinder than Alain would have been.

 

[K'riq Sa]

Thanks Ian. I wanted to avoid voting "have not seen" because you only get one vote.... (might as well make it count.





you waskely Wabbits...



pronouncabilly,

K'riq Sa
Minister of the Church of the WB

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's "wascally wobots..." as in "Bad Wobot."

 

[Tamek]

Starship Polaris said:
There aren't many serious film critics, per se, working in the popular press.

The value of movie reviewers, OTOH, is entirely a matter of the taste, knowledge context and entertainment value of a given writer. I always enjoy reading Roger Ebert's reviews, in about the same way I liked watching Bob Hope do his stand-up for Chrysler on NBC back in the day. No pro like an old pro.

The writer of the NYT piece was too busy filtering what he/she was watching through a shield of some pretty self-conscious value judgments about Everything In General, IMAO, to have an interesting response to the movie itself.

More of a review of the reviewer than of the movie.

 

[Cranston]

From the NYT review:

[...] you know, something about the simulacrum syndrome in the post-Godzilla age at the intersection of the camera eye with the narcissistic “I.”

Wow -- meaningless and condescending at the same time. I suppose that might be her point (she's making a "joke"), but...

 

[Kegek]

Jackson_Roykirk said:
I love 'rottentomatoes.com', because you can read scores of different critics' takes on a movie.

As do I. I scheduled a recent bout of film going based on some of RottenTomatoes' stronger recommendations in genres and directors I liked, and I was well rewarded. I use it pretty constantly these days.

As far as Cloverfield goes, nothing I've read or seen convinces me it's a film I'd like. The tone of both positive and negative reviews have been pretty helpful in this regard - which I picked right from the tomato-meter. So I don't intend to see it, but even if I had (or change my mind) it's not out here until February.

 

[David cgc]

Cranston said:
From the NYT review:

[...] you know, something about the simulacrum syndrome in the post-Godzilla age at the intersection of the camera eye with the narcissistic “I.”

Wow -- meaningless and condescending at the same time. I suppose that might be her point (she's making a "joke"), but...

The part that leaped out to me was when she lamented the lack of "Freudian complexity." Sister, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Freud was full of shit and everyone knows it.* Go find a psychology theorist who earned his name by actually getting something right, rather than just by being first on the scene and memorably pervy.

*Ironically Freud would say that my irritation with the unthinking invocation of his name was because, as a child, I was literally full of shit. Moron.