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

[Doomsday]

Stag said:
^I wonder how much of the $41 million is from people who would not have gone to see the movie if their was no TREK teaser?

I saw it, I liked it, I would have seen it without the teaser...but I know there were some of my friends who just went because the teaser lured them in.

The frustrating thing for me is that the Trek trailer was NOT shown in my theater!

Granted, I would have gone to see Cloverfield anyway, but I was PARTICULARLY looking forward to the Trek trailer. Instead I had to sit through a bunch of trailers for stupid movies I'd never see, and kept holding my breath waiting for the Trek trailer.

When I saw the Paramount logo, then the Bad Robot logo, I said "Okay, this is it", then all the sudden the movie started.

No Trek Trailer.

I have seen it online now, but I really wanted to see it on the big screen.

This is not the first time my local theater has failed to show a trailer that was supposed to be with a certain movie.

Does anyone know who controls these things? Is it the local theater itself? Their coporate office? I guess I thought the studios controled that since they make such a big deal out of certain trailers being shown with certain films.

Frustrating!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No Freudian complexity or political critique? Well screw it, I won't be seeing this junk. How can I keep up my pretentious BS pose without Freudian complexity or political critique?

I love the NY Times.

 

[Basil]

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.

But he frequently misquotes or misrepresents the movies he reviews. For instance, he mangled the Kirk/Spock “dining on ashes” exchange in “Star Trek VI,” and he maligns Audrey Hepburn’s character for not locking her door in “Wait Until Dark” when she not only does but later tries and is prevented from doing so by the thieves. I can’t tell if he’s just not paying attention or is purposefully twisting things to fit his opinion.

On the other hand, I found the NYT review’s sentiments pretty much on target. Cloverfield is a vapid concept starring the sort of generic soap opera types that have been de riguer of the past 20 years. That doesn’t make it a bad movie, but it might be as dumb as she suggests.