I watched cloverfield...
- Thread starter npsf3000
- Start date
i basically enjoyed cloverfield, but took issue with the fact that there was no explanation as to where it came from and why. that bothered me. beyond that ,i found it entertaining.
I guess that was done on purpose to keep the story as mysterious as possible (it was purely subjective anyway and the viewer never knew more than the various persons involved)... and to keep the door open for possible sequels).
I sometimes hate it when too much is explained in a movie... Candyman and its sequels are a prime example. Clive Barker's original short story explained nothing and was creepy as hell, while the movies explained everything and, well, you catch my drift (so don't bother watching it if you already haven't)...
Yeah I didn't care for Cloverfield, either... but Star Trek is Star Trek so it'd oughta be good
I more or less enjoyed Cloverfield but I don't see what valid conclusions anyone can draw from it for Star Trek.
Abrams did not direct it, Orci & Kurtzman did not write the story...
And i don't see Cloverfield and Star Trek having anything in common as far as story or directing is concerned.
Watching Mission Impossible 3 would be a better choice, to attempt to draw some kind of comparison.
Abrams did not direct it, Orci & Kurtzman did not write the story...
And i don't see Cloverfield and Star Trek having anything in common as far as story or directing is concerned.
Watching Mission Impossible 3 would be a better choice, to attempt to draw some kind of comparison.
Cloverfield was great for what it was, and that was a Kaiju movie, one that was a very different approach on the material, but one I found quite satisfying.
Same with Transformers. You can't come to any conclusions about Trek from it, other than the writers understood the material and provided a story appropriate for what it was, that is a good excuse for robots to kick the crap out of each other on the big screen. There is not much more to Transformers than that.
Same with Transformers. You can't come to any conclusions about Trek from it, other than the writers understood the material and provided a story appropriate for what it was, that is a good excuse for robots to kick the crap out of each other on the big screen. There is not much more to Transformers than that.
Another thing that doesn't make Transformers the best to draw any conclusions from is Michael Bay who as i understand had a big influence on the story besides just directing. The same goes for Transformers 2.
Which I'm also looking forward to, btw.
As you can tell from my avatar, I'm a big Cloverfield fan. I followed the viral marketing and was on a forum talking that movie to death too. I saw it 4 times in t he theater and even spent over 100 bucks to buy the cloverfield toy from Hasbro.
I think their shaky cam is less noticeable on the small screen. My only complaint is that they don't show the monster enough. other than that I think it is a pretty good monster movie.
I think their shaky cam is less noticeable on the small screen. My only complaint is that they don't show the monster enough. other than that I think it is a pretty good monster movie.
They have a great monster, and a lame cast. They actually figured out the entire back story for the thing (for example its a 6,400 ton baby that's woken up and is suffering separation anxiety).
He would have done a lot better to make it a traditional non hand cam movie.
The reason I don't like the acting is cause it feels like cinema acting (a little bit glossy, not actual reality) yet it tries to be raw, honest 'what would happen'...
So without credible acting the only thing left of interest is the creature, and it isn't covered well. (if your going to pretend its invincible your going to have to explain as to why.)
Oh, and it is terrestrial, as the falling object is a satellite.
He would have done a lot better to make it a traditional non hand cam movie.
The reason I don't like the acting is cause it feels like cinema acting (a little bit glossy, not actual reality) yet it tries to be raw, honest 'what would happen'...
So without credible acting the only thing left of interest is the creature, and it isn't covered well. (if your going to pretend its invincible your going to have to explain as to why.)
Oh, and it is terrestrial, as the falling object is a satellite.
I must be getting to old for these kinda movies...
The Shaky-Cam thing, bothered the hell outta me, it was too stinking hard to focus on what was going on.
I had to leave the theater.
(Managed to get through the whole thing when I rented the DVD though.)
If I wanna see that kinda filming, I'll just get out my own home movies and save twenty bucks.
And I agree with the post above about not seeing enough of the monster, for goodness sake, it was advertised as a MONSTER MOVIE, not a Here's-How-I-Spent-the-Last-Day-of-My-Life, one.
The Shaky-Cam thing, bothered the hell outta me, it was too stinking hard to focus on what was going on.
I had to leave the theater.
(Managed to get through the whole thing when I rented the DVD though.)
If I wanna see that kinda filming, I'll just get out my own home movies and save twenty bucks.
And I agree with the post above about not seeing enough of the monster, for goodness sake, it was advertised as a MONSTER MOVIE, not a Here's-How-I-Spent-the-Last-Day-of-My-Life, one.
Well I'll be avoding this flick!
So I take it, that's a definite SKIP IT?
GOOD enough for me!
Hey, is MI3 any good? I know that J.J.Abrams directed that one!Similar threads
