Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with EMPIRE as per usual...

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with EMPIRE as per usual... Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with EMPIR... - 14/2/2008 8:32:02 AM   
owenyunfat

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/10/2005
As far as I'm concerned JJ Abrams is about as creative a green tomato - I didnt care that a singkle character died - in fact I was glad when they all did as they were dumb beyond belief and desrved to be eaten squiahed or explode... As for the camera - jee how f-in unique - just makes you give up watching to be honest - blair witch worked cause you never see the monster - this just didnt - how can an old man on stilts with bad face scaring who farts claw head spiders (whatever they are) be convincingly scary... to be honest when i left the cinema i heard half a doxen groans - many saying that was shite and most just went - "oh great - home i go" - so seriously stop this man from creating loast is, has and will go no where that anyone cares - MI3 was just bland as per usual and star trek - well who cares about that - all in all that bug should come and gobble up this film and NO ONE SHOULD COPY IT...
So people review a film with what you see and not what you raed in a magazine...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 421
RE: OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with E... - 14/2/2008 12:05:36 PM   
rikkie


Posts: 4655
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ego Tripping At The Gates Of Hell
 Jesus H Christ will you listen to you lot bleating on about Empire's review and suchlike?  Get some perspective people.

For what it's worth, I agreed 100% with their review and think it's a bona-fide 5-star film with no reservations whatsoever.  Does that mean I'm right?  Not necessarily.  Noes that mean you're right?  No. 

You know what?  It's an opinion - we're all entitled to them whether you agree with it or not, and frankly I think Empire were spot on with this review.  So you didn't like it.  Well done for you, but that doeasn't mean you can proclaim with any superiority that Empire "got it wrong" and that you oh-so evidently know it all.




_____________________________

Oh no, not the bees! Not the bees! Ahhhhhh! All over my eyes! Eyes! Blaaaarghhh!
Post #: 422
- 14/2/2008 12:08:52 PM   
captain jack harknes


Posts: 1259
Joined: 21/2/2007
From: South Wales
 I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that this film has re-defined the genre as has been suggested; because it doesn't. Its an enjoyable monster film but its not really anything we haven't seen before. I thought the special effects were really well done and the monster was impressive-looking. The stand out scene for me was in the tunnel when you see the smaller monsters over the giys shoulder on the ceiling - it was genuinely terrifying. I did suffer motion sickness part of the way from the film and got very queasy but it wasn't enough to detract in any way from the film.

To the people who have been saying there was no reason to go back for some random girl he'd only slept with once - this was explained that he'd been in love with her since college so made perfect sense to me. I enjoyed it for what it was and give it a solid 4/5.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 423
RE: Cloverfield - 14/2/2008 1:57:39 PM   
Belly T Jones


Posts: 218
Joined: 4/10/2005
From: Essex
 So here it is at last, the much-hyped lost episode of Friends: 'The One Where Joey Discovers Cinéma Vérite And Godzilla Lays Waste To Midtown Manhattan'.  When a giant monster attacks New York City, a select band of beautiful yuppies dare to cross the ravaged island in a desperate bid to rescue their pal from a fate worse than Ikea fatigue, all while attempting to avoid getting squished as large sections of city masonry crash down around them.   And bloody marvelous it is too.

This isn't simply a Monster Attack movie, but more a human tale of those trying to survive the initial stages of a citywide disaster, one that just so happens to have the occasional impressive beastie interlude.  Admittedly much isn't known about these main characters (or the creature itself, thankfully), but given that the opening scenes sketch-in just enough back-story for us to care what happens to them, what more do you need?  The performances are by and large convincing, especially David Stahl-Thingummy and, um, the sarcastic chick off the telly.  And for once I like that I don't know the actors' names, which soap opera they've come from, etc.  Why ruin the illusion for myself?

As for the direction, it is to Matt Reeves credit that this rarely feels as though it’s actually been directed.  Obvious inspiration has been taken from the amateur on-the-ground footage of the attacks of 9/11, the hand-held camera approach successfully drawing us into the heart of the action, making the incredible credible.  Finding the film most effective when it only briefly allows ambiguous glimpses of the surrounding horrors, I'd happily remove the majority of the more crowd-pleasing money-shots of Br'er Beastie, finding it considerably scarier a threat when it was largely unseen and therefore unknown.  After all, less is so often more...

Having only seen Cloverfield once, although I enjoyed it I’m not convinced it would stand up well beyond a second viewing, the real thrill surely coming from the initial element of surprise and unpredictable outcome throughout.  Yet despite this it's well worth seeing, if only once, for cinemagoing is rarely as engaging and visceral an experience as this.  It gets 4 out of 5 from me.

All that said, I don't know how well the film will go down the average cinemagoer.  Take the audience I saw this with last night for example:
- Numerous groups dotted around the cinema apparently read the title of the film as 'Cloverfield: The Movie It's Okay To Talk All The Way Through!'   Clearly it couldn’t hold their attention for the excessive entirety of its lengthy and indulgent running time.
- There was a collective groan when the credits started to roll, the majority apparently disappointed and bemused by an ending far too sudden for their liking, even if it was exactly the right point to stop.
- As people left, I heard several smart-arse complaints that, y’know, it was all so very stupid coz if anything like that really happened no one would be dumb enough to stand around taping it.  True, if this were a realistic film, there wouldn’t be a film at all.  Well spotted you.  So why did you choose to watch such blatantly ludicrous twaddle in the first place?
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I saw this on the big screen as it really did enhance the experience, yet at the same time the audience reminded me why I've mostly avoided going to the cinema for the last 6 months.  And one final point: I wouldn’t bother sticking around for the much-talked-about post-credits snippet of dialogue.  It really wasn’t worth sitting there on my lonesome for the whole duration of the credits, getting scowled at by staff desperate to clear the screen and go home, only to then not quite catch the hushed, unintelligible crackle in question.

_____________________________

Don't worry. Be monkey.

(in reply to Lightfoot)
Post #: 424
Soooo goood - 14/2/2008 4:59:52 PM   
DJ Funktris

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 28/4/2007
This film is so good, i want to buy a copy and sleep with it under my pillow, ready to be watched at any time

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 425
Wow - 15/2/2008 4:05:18 PM   
walker_wookie

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/6/2007
I went to see this film with high hopes from the EMPIRE review. IT DOES NOT DISAPOINT! for the first hour of the film i was convinced this was real, i had to keep telling myself that it wasnt, it is visualy amazing and all actors give strong performences, early in the year, but i think this is a cotender for movie of the year 2008!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 426
Wow - 15/2/2008 4:05:43 PM   
walker_wookie

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/6/2007
I went to see this film with high hopes from the EMPIRE review. IT DOES NOT DISAPOINT! for the first hour of the film i was convinced this was real, i had to keep telling myself that it wasnt, it is visualy amazing and all actors give strong performences, early in the year, but i think this is a cotender for movie of the year 2008!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 427
Wow - 15/2/2008 4:06:12 PM   
walker_wookie

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/6/2007
I went to see this film with high hopes from the EMPIRE review. IT DOES NOT DISAPOINT! for the first hour of the film i was convinced this was real, i had to keep telling myself that it wasnt, it is visualy amazing and all actors give strong performences, early in the year, but i think this is a cotender for movie of the year 2008!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 428
Wow - 15/2/2008 4:06:46 PM   
walker_wookie

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/6/2007
I went to see this film with high hopes from the EMPIRE review. IT DOES NOT DISAPOINT! for the first hour of the film i was convinced this was real, i had to keep telling myself that it wasnt, it is visualy amazing and all actors give strong performences, early in the year, but i think this is a cotender for movie of the year 2008!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 429
Wow - 15/2/2008 4:07:23 PM   
walker_wookie

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/6/2007
I went to see this film with high hopes from the EMPIRE review. IT DOES NOT DISAPOINT! for the first hour of the film i was convinced this was real, i had to keep telling myself that it wasnt, it is visualy amazing and all actors give strong performences, early in the year, but i think this is a cotender for movie of the year 2008!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 430
Wow - 15/2/2008 4:07:50 PM   
walker_wookie

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/6/2007
I went to see this film with high hopes from the EMPIRE review. IT DOES NOT DISAPOINT! for the first hour of the film i was convinced this was real, i had to keep telling myself that it wasnt, it is visualy amazing and all actors give strong performences, early in the year, but i think this is a cotender for movie of the year 2008!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 431
Wow - 15/2/2008 4:08:21 PM   
walker_wookie

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/6/2007
I went to see this film with high hopes from the EMPIRE review. IT DOES NOT DISAPOINT! for the first hour of the film i was convinced this was real, i had to keep telling myself that it wasnt, it is visualy amazing and all actors give strong performences, still early in the year, but i think this is a cotender for movie of the year 2008!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 432
Wow - 15/2/2008 4:08:55 PM   
walker_wookie

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/6/2007
I went to see this film with high hopes from the EMPIRE review. IT DOES NOT DISAPOINT! for the first hour of the film i was convinced this was real, i had to keep telling myself that it wasnt, it is visualy amazing and all actors give strong performences, still early in the year, but i think this is a cotender for movie of the year 2008!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 433
A revolution? - 15/2/2008 5:15:00 PM   
Mr. Lowry

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 28/8/2007
Right. A new landmark in approaching the making of a film. One camera, one small story. Does this make it a classic? In short no. Sadly. Hugely entertaining, but essentially the characters are poor and despite some remarkable acting here and there, fail to affect as deeply as they could. Too much time is spent on cliché and not enough on actually building an original set of character relationships. They are just boring characters. Inhuman at times. Alright I’m going to nit-pick a lot of bits here, but I’ll get to major flaws. Why wont people die when they have unblocked holes in them? Why not take the weapons with you that you’ve just found? Why not get some better clothes from one of the stores? And not high-heels! And why bring a camera along? Its stupidity. Then again that could be because the man behind the camera is a slightly challenged man, seemingly incapable of any genuine emotion (although one classic line about tramps). If I’m going to see an entire film literally through the eyes of a character, I don’t want to hate him. Before you say it, I was looking forward to this film and I did enjoy it. It’s just I’ve seen half of it before.
I thought that the first 30 minutes were brilliant. An interesting, and well executed opening section, to lull you into a false sense of security, before a brilliant first attack. Not showing the full monster was brilliant and the fear of it’s presence not the sight of it was good to have, but that eventually succumbed to a big, awful reveal, in the almost irrelevant last 20 minutes.
What it tried to do new was fantastic, but it forgot to do the basic elements that couldn’t be new (having people in a film…) were just pre-packed fodder. Sure it’s a new kind of monster/disaster movie, done in a very interesting style, but at the end of the day, take that away and it’s the same as any other monster/disaster. One heroic, in love guy goes to save h

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 434
Great - 16/2/2008 12:16:37 PM   
Roderich

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 19/12/2005
A good idea (a normal, old fashioned monster movie filmed as real looking as possible) with part time really great special effects) its was big fat fun. And of course there could be a part two. I suggest, as this would just suit fine, do imbed the monster into the cthulhu-mythos, because that's where it belongs anyway, having no "natural" reason to attack this big city but to terrorize humankind. It's a Great Old One, who woke up and did his morning exercises. It's as simple as that

Which leads me to the announcement, that 2 stars should have been taken away because there WILL be a sequel. What happened to that?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 435
3 Times and counting! - 17/2/2008 10:15:45 AM   
Tombo1983

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 20/8/2007
Like the title says i have sen this 3 times and i'm going to go at least once more while its still showing. Thats how good this movie is. Pure popcorn entertainment and it does it soo well.

The fact that it doesn't explain everything is one of its strongest points because it shouldn't have to. Its the story of these few people and thats all it tries to be.

I am amazed thats its only feb and i already have a contender for my movie of the year.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 436
- 17/2/2008 4:25:58 PM   
ilovekaren

 

Posts: 158
Joined: 27/3/2006
cloverfield is just an ok film firstly the good points when you what this movie you feel like you a part of the story which is great if a not times frustrating. i felt a bit cheated by this movie i felt it was to far feched . my reason for this was i went into the cinema expecting a realisting monster movie. but instead i got a love story with a monster thrown in for good measure. dont get me wrong at times this movie is great but it feels rehearsed and practiced. and as hard as you try you crnt get past the blair witch comparisons. blair was a truly amazing film at the time and will in years to come go down as a classic but that film was shit scaryit felt voiristic and that you were actually watching this hidden footage. well clover field seems to try to hard to do this and in the action secuences does it and does it well but the film is to talky lots of talking and this is where it is crap in action scenes it gets 4 stars the talky talky american shite gets two stars so ive met it in the middle and gave it 3

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 437
Overhyped & Overratted - 17/2/2008 7:00:50 PM   
jonathanegan1

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 22/10/2006
This started off great, real life situation feel to it & captured the panic of the crowd very well but didn't we just see a film like this called War Of The Worlds? I'm giving it 3 parts cause there was good points to it but it lacked intensity.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 438
Overhyped & Overratted - 17/2/2008 7:01:12 PM   
jonathanegan1

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 22/10/2006
This started off great, real life situation feel to it & captured the panic of the crowd very well but didn't we just see a film like this called War Of The Worlds? I'm giving it 3 parts cause there was good points to it but it lacked intensity.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 439
RE: A revolution? - 18/2/2008 8:56:16 AM   
elab49


Posts: 52031
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: magicmilner

don't know if anyone has seen this but hasbro are making a collectors figure of the cloverfield monster

linkys http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.htm?BR=863&ST=SO&ID=21030&PG=1

It looks ok but no where near worth $100


SO - anyone who saw last week's Primeval - doesn't that look just a little bit familiar? (Recalling the same creature was in last season). Is there a timeline?



_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.
Post #: 440
RE: Cloverfield - 18/2/2008 1:29:18 PM   
jamie_speak

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 22/11/2005
i would have given this one 5 stars but as i had to clean up a pile of sick from last nights screening so it loses one (btw i work at an odeon i don't just clean up sick randomly)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 441
Eye Popping - 19/2/2008 4:12:35 PM   
SorryIndy

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 23/11/2006
Cloverfield

Review

A film that has been kept top secret in possibly the most ingenious manner possible; Let everyone know about it by teasing them with snippets scattered on the internet with unofficial websites. Cloverfield comes out of the dark like the invisible man wearing day glow paint. But it is to the film’s advantage that it has managed to stir such frenzy before it has hit the multiplexes. The reality is that to explain too much about the plot would be to ruin it for those still in the dark. Suffice to say that we follow a group of friends throwing a going away party as the events unfold around them as something large and unknown attacks New York.
Shot by a terrifyingly relevant hand held camera Cloverfield feels like a disaster movie that you are well and truly stuck in the middle of. Some may hear hand held and think of the vomit inducing Blair Witch, but Cloverfield takes this concept and makes it its own. In an time when we are all too used to seeing terrifying events unfurl on ever handy phones and cameras Cloverfield hits an incredibly relevant, and honest point. Does it make anything less real to see it through a viewfinder? The answer to Hud, our protagonist behind the camera, is a resounding yes. There will of course be references to 9/11, and perhaps these are intentional, but if anything they make the events all that more heart stopping to watch. A moment when a dust cloud envelops the street where we are watching has that all too familiar look about it.
Credit to Matt Reeves in his direction, in that he never allows you to feel like there is directing to be done. Rather that Hud simply points the camera, either where he is going, or where there is something to tease us as to the chaos unfolding. The genius of Cloverfield lie in its ability too never quite let you see all that you want. Like classic B-Movies of the past Alien and Jaws, it is what is in the audience’s head that is all that more terrifying than anything on s

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 442
RE: OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with E... - 19/2/2008 7:16:14 PM   
Davechoc

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 18/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: rikkie

Jesus H Christ will you listen to you lot bleating on about Empire's review and suchlike?  Get some perspective people.

For what it's worth, I agreed 100% with their review and think it's a bona-fide 5-star film with no reservations whatsoever.  Does that mean I'm right?  Not necessarily.  Noes that mean you're right?  No. 

You know what?  It's an opinion - we're all entitled to them whether you agree with it or not, and frankly I think Empire were spot on with this review.  So you didn't like it.  Well done for you, but that doeasn't mean you can proclaim with any superiority that Empire "got it wrong" and that you oh-so evidently know it all.





Of course opinion is just opinion, but not all opinions are equally sensible and it's possible to allow someone the right to their opinion but still think it's terribly argued.

Empire said of the second Matrix film words to the effect that it was 'a five-star experience, perhaps, but not quite a five-star movie', a sentiment which I'm surprised they didn't apply here; Cloverfield has its thrilling moments - the monster itself and the city's devastation are very well done and unnerving - but I don't think it's fair to ignore the numerous problems of the film simply because of its immediate impact. Individually one could perhaps gloss over the irritations, but not collectively: the unlikeablility and blandness of the characters (is caring about the danger the main characters find themselves in not one of the basic principles of almost any film?); the implausibility of the whole thing being filmed (I know, as has been pointed out, that people do keep filming in the most extreme situations, but this went too far - filming while inside a leaning skyscraper, while getting into a rescue helicopter...); the slight distastefulness of playing on so much September the 11th imagery, especially the dust clouds, for fairly cheap thrill effects; and, perhaps most unforgiveably, the plodding dullness of the quieter moments. Accepting a big screen thrillfest as what it is and nothing more is one thing, but I couldn't help feeling the film wanted to be taken much more seriously, and that various fanboys around the world would be doing so for months to come.

Some films (recently The Assassination of Jesse James, Inland Empire and Brokeback Mountain) I've found seeping into my consciousness long after the film ended. Cloverfield does the reverse; any initial visceral thrill on coming out of the screening soon dissipates into emptiness, like the way fast food won't sate your hunger and often leaves you feeling slightly more hollow than before.

(in reply to rikkie)
Post #: 443
RE: OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with E... - 19/2/2008 9:18:28 PM   
rikkie


Posts: 4655
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ego Tripping At The Gates Of Hell
 In your opinion. 

_____________________________

Oh no, not the bees! Not the bees! Ahhhhhh! All over my eyes! Eyes! Blaaaarghhh!

(in reply to Davechoc)
Post #: 444
RE: OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with E... - 20/2/2008 11:23:23 AM   
DanCurley


Posts: 1371
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: London
quote:

ORIGINAL: rikkie

In your opinion. 


Fuck opinion. To quote Shaun Ryder "I should do what you do, and you should do what I do but you should do, yooooouuuuuu...." Everyone's wrong, I'm right, so just agree with me and bob's your uncle, everyone happy.

_____________________________

I'd give you my signature, but what would happen if you stole my cheque book? It would be a disaster.

(in reply to rikkie)
Post #: 445
RE: OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with E... - 20/2/2008 1:30:58 PM   
Sumintelligentguy


Posts: 3627
Joined: 31/8/2006
If you just strolled into the screen at the beginning not knowing you were watching Cloverfield, you would think that you were watching a porn film. What you're actually getting is an unadulterated monster movie – we've seen the conventions before, most notably in Godzilla, same setting, same villain, and same reaction. However, what you get with Cloverfield is a refreshing take on the genre.

We follow Rob Hawkins(Mike Vogel) with his secret love Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) through the lens of a camcorder.  It then gets passed to Hudson (T.J Miller) during Rob's leaving party where we meet brother Jason (Michael Stahl-David), Lily (Jessica Lucas) and Beth (Odette Yustman), who we follow for the rest of the film. We only get an idea of each character's personality, neatly avoiding stereotype, they are everyday people. During the party a huge explosion happens and Rob et al get sent to and fro in a chaotic fight for survival. It turns into a typical I-need-to-save-the-one-I-love movie, but its delivery makes sure it doesn't turn into cliché.  

Using a handheld camcorder (perhaps the most durable one is cinema history) as the only way of capturing events works wonderfully – we've never seen an action orientated film that uses this technique – which makes Cloverfield so original in its execution. We're teased, seeing only what Hudson wants us to see, catching glimpses of the monster. We hear first, see second. The tunnel scene especially, uses mostly sound to create tension. It's a terrific use of director Matt Reeves' ingenious, so when we finally get to see the monster in its full glory – it's that much scarier.

Obvious parallels to 9/11 are apparent throughout –a scene near enough a shot for shot remake of a 9/11 survivor's footage – making Cloverfield a true reflection of society today. The first reaction to the Statue of Liberty's head landing in the street is the flash of people's cameras. The city is in danger, but people start looting straight away. The military's immediate reaction to the monster is to shoot it dead – and even though they know it's not working – they merely decide to incorporate bigger guns.  

J.J Abrams, who produces, has learnt from Lost. Where Lost is drawn out, Cloverfield's short running time succeeds in delivering a fluent plot without answering all the crucial questions. Did we find out all we know now about Al-Qaeda within 85 minutes of 9/11? No.    

Cloverfield is an experience that doesn't happen often – sure, many will feel nauseated because of the frenetic editing, but isn't that the point of a film that uses primal fear to encapsulate such true and apparent danger.

< Message edited by Sumintelligentguy -- 20/2/2008 1:37:10 PM >

_____________________________

"Snake? Snaaaake? SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatFan

You're just a cunt. If i'm gonna get a ban then fine. Ever since I joined this forum I thought you were a massive cunt. Feels good to say it.


R.I.P. Punchy

(in reply to DanCurley)
Post #: 446
RE: OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with E... - 20/2/2008 5:21:51 PM   
Achtung Englander


Posts: 895
Joined: 6/12/2005
[SPOILERS]

Just got back from Cineworld Slough which is a dump of a cinema - anyway I degress - I found the movie to be a cross between Blair Witch meets September 11th meets War of the Worlds meets the game Half Life 2. So nothing truely original but exteremly entertaining.

The first 10 mins for me were pretty dire - some character development and pre-amble before it kicks off and kick off it does very well. Overall the film is engrossing and downright scary as the handheld camera adds to the claustaphobic atmosphere - a film very much geared for the YouTube generation. The ending with the nuclear explosion (what no flash) is down right frightening. The best scene had to be the street view of the gun battle and tank. That was utterly absorbing and played like a video game without looking like one

I found fault two main criticisms. The acting was pretty bad as most people would have been a lot more hysterical (imo) and less brave (but then you wouldn't have much of a film) and the final close up revelation of the monster was not necessary and only served to show the CGI aspect of it all

Still one to buy on DVD for me

< Message edited by Achtung Englander -- 20/2/2008 6:23:46 PM >

(in reply to Sumintelligentguy)
Post #: 447
Yeah right! - 21/2/2008 8:49:46 PM   
phil878

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 30/9/2005
Being a "gargantuan" monster movie fan I was expecting a lot from this film. The title, the trailer and the hype had me by the balls right up to actually having to sit through this over-ated, self important piece of Sasqutch shit! Po-faced nonsense. From the reaction of the movie goers at my local I was not the only one thinking similar thoughts. A classic? My arse!

Gorgo Lives!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 448
RE: Cloverfield - 22/2/2008 3:33:41 AM   
haylzbella

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 29/10/2007
From: Newcastle Upon Tyne
 i saw this the other day. well. i didnt like it much. It was a good idea and everything. The story annoyed me. at that party everyone was like oh my god those 2 slept together like it was this huge thing then the monster hits.......i dunno whether that was just a cheap lazy storyline to kick start the film off or whether it was a message saying like, look at all this tragic stuff that does happen in the world and at what pathetic issues people make big deals out of instead. i dunno it was weird maybe im just seeing ghosts but thats the only worthwhile explanation for other wise a rubbish story

_____________________________

This is my labour.....i wait

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 449
RE: Cloverfield - 22/2/2008 3:06:38 PM   
Breakneck

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 21/2/2008
SPOILERS        SPOILERS         SPOILERS

Hi to all members, I am new, I am pissed off, I am sick of dreadful films getting fantastic reviews ( i am also being moved from the larger movie musings forum to this tiny strand when i wanted to open up a larger debate. However ) Come join me. 
 
To me, Cloverfield suffers all the flaws of a major monster movie, as well as all the pretensions of an art piece ( see how - just like Cloverfield's terrific writing team - i cleverly referenced Jurassic Park there ? )
 
Right from the off - why do we need thirty minutes of lame character introduction, other than to take into account budgetary restrictions and the limit of it's so-called plot ? And since we got thirty minutes, where was the actual character development ? Why was the party unlike any party I've ever been to ? Ie full of drunk, ugly people. What age group were they supposed to be ? They all looked pretty well off for college students. How did the creature knock the head of the statue of liberty off without doing any other damage to it, considering its ability to knock skyscrapers on their side ? How did the head manage to miss EVERYONE in the street, and kill no one ? Why was the CG that bad ? And why is people taking pictures of it an indictment of modern attitudes ? Surely some of the most potent and harrowing images of history are, like, pictures what people took.
 
Is anyone else fed up of 911 being used as short-hand for terror ? Why has every film in the last seven years utilised images or made reference to it ? Yes, we get it, it was horrible, it changed everything blah blah blah. The 911 references were unforgivable given the context of the film, but interestingly - given that the film was one long camcorder compilation of other people's movies - it appears that 911 has become just another movie to be referenced as a short hand way of creating emotion and instant familiarty.
 
Fed up with camcorder movies. Want to see well shot, well acted, well written films. Don't want to see camcorder Godzilla thanks.

The camera seems powered by a nuclear reactor, it has a 700Gb SD-card, more functions than a Tri-corder from Star Trek, but they couldn't have given it an autofocus and steady cam feature?? 
 
If you want to make it about a cameraman why not a journalist and a camera man ? Wouldn't that get over the whole "why doesn't he ever put the camera down ?" questions ? Coz it's his job, like ? Ah yes - because it's people just like us. Except, I didn't recgonise any of the carboard cutout "characters" as people. They had no recognisably human facets - they were characters written by people who love Kevin Williamson.  

The worst line of the film: "hey man, hey - I'm sorry your brother's dead." Because I hadn't got that, that it was his brother, from the last thirty minutes and the fact that every time anybody talked about them, they referred to them as his brother. Plus the fact that every time they talked to each other, they referred to each other as brothers - "I'm your brother man and even i think you're a dick" etc.

More importantly, re footage - what did they actually shoot that was important ? Since they spent the entire movie shooting away from anything of import, and spent the majority of the time cracking glib jibes about other films, why the need for secrecy ?
 
Nobody went hysterical when they saw the 700 foot monster for the first time. Maybe it's just me but I'd have expected some if not most people seeing something so mind blowing for the first time to start screaming like their mind had just snapped. Why was there never one use of the word "fuck" ? Have to tell you, that would be the only thing to escape my mouth if i saw the above. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. The reason ? To secure a fifteen rating, and therefore more money. So we can utilise 911 to create an atmosphere, but no one can swear ?
 
Since when do choppers - MILITARY choppers - fly so slowly that a big, ogre-tromp creature can outrun it ? And the referencing of "United 93" in the crash ? Get your god-damn genres sorted out !!! Are we a horror, a creature flick, a fucking terrorist treatise ?


And while I'm thinking about it - why the hell should we be interested in these wankers trying to find the woman what one of them loves and shit ? WHO GIVES A SHIT ? There's a 700 ft monster runinng amok !!!! What, we're suppose to give a bollocks for the last ten minutes that the love-birds are back together ?
 
The film is not better for a simplistic plot. The film insults your intelligence by daring to have this lame-ass excuse for a plot. It is lame. Why couldn't they be just trying to escape ? Why the need to make excuses ?


Where was the tension ? The fear ? Just because you throw in an exact replica of something that happened in 911, doesn't mean I'm going to cream my pants at a quick glimpse of a CGI fish with legs. Why did the bugs only make noises when lights were shone on them ? Why did they change shape depending on where they were ? Why did the filmmakers choose to explode the most interesing character halfway through ? Don't you think you would have mentioned to the military people, who might just have some medical supplies and stuff, that one of them had been bit - or at least injured. Why did she explode ? Was there something inside her ? Did the film-makers just assume that because we'd seen aliens we would make the connection ? And what purpose did it serve, since it neither deterred the monkey-spawns nor ever came into it again ?
 
And the less said about climbing up and over a tipped to one side building, then down into it, finding the girlfriend still alive, managing to pull her off a huge big metal rod without her bleeding to death, and then still managing to get back just in time to be the last passengers on the last helichopter out of dodge, the better.
 
Why didn't they ever meet other people ? How did they manage to be in the same place as the creature no matter where they went ?  Wasn't it lucky the last two helicopters just happened to have enough seats for the four survivors ? Did no one else hate the glib camera man ? Why did no one talk like real people ? Why did no think to get Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant to pen the dialogue ?  

"Alien" "Aliens" "Starhsip Troopers" "Planet of the Apes" "Escape from New York" "United 93" "Black Hawk Down" "Blair Witch" "Star Wars" "Godzilla" and more. Why not just watch those instead ?
 
Lastly - why is everyone creaming themselves over this blatant, insulting, imitation film ?
 
Please. Someone answer.
 

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> OK so has anyone seen this movie or agreeing with EMPIRE as per usual... Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094