Page 3 of 3

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:52 pm
by dik pose
jcaffoe wrote:
dik pose wrote:Since you think my comment of thin/nonexistant plot is garbage, is it fair to say that I think you saying the characters were perfectly fleshed out, and the acting was great is garbage? YEE HAW! (I did like the Rob actor, he did a good job for the most part)
hahaha, yes that is absolutely fair. Agree to disagree.

and honestly I think you have a fair criticism to begin with. Some people are going to hate the plot. What irritates me is that there are a lot of people on the net who wanted explanations for the monster or a sequel shot in a more conventional style, which I think is ridiculous.
Right on man, right on!

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:21 am
by Harry Myland (IV)
jcaffoe wrote:As far as saying there isn't a plot, that's just garbage. If you were hoping for some asinine explanation as to why a monster suddenly crawled out of the ocean and was attacking New York, or maybe a Michael Bay-esque military solution to the problem, you're entirely missing the point of the film. It was a simple plot in a complex situation, and I think that came across perfectly.
(SOME SPOILERS!)

Completely agree with that assessment. I love how Abrams tosses in a new dressing to an age-old salad and people complain that it's not traditional enough. This was a movie about survival, not war. We didn't need to know who the enemy was or where they came from; we just needed to know that the monster would kill you before you could pet it.

I'm not saying it didn't have issues. Everything after the helicopter scene was hokey, and I think it could have easily ended when they crashed. It sorta went from, "CLOVERFIELD: TOP SECRET FOOTAGE" to "CLOVERFIELD: THE AMUSEMENT RIDE". Some of the CGI could have used a little more time in the oven, much of the acting was mediocre, but overall, it did what it set out to do - and to me, it achieved that goal.

As for a sequel? 'Eh, I think this is all you need. Besides, we've already seen too much of the monster for any real shock-value.

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:23 am
by Josh-Ulrich
I thought the movie was great. It was more of an experience then a story for me. I didn't really expect a traditional format and I think it would have hurt the film.

What I really liked about this film over other monster flicks is that there is nobody apologizing for the monster. Its not a lost innocent beast that's just defending itself, its a horrible killing machine on a rampage of death.

Personally I've never gotten so invested in a movie like this, I've been thinking about it for the last two days, and it still creeps me out haha.

I did think the responce time of the military was a little rediculouse, but I can look past all that

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:14 pm
by mr cow
i had a really fun time. it's kinda the cinematic equivalent of being at a universal ride and if the seats moved i guess it kind of would be.

the camera work didn't bother me, though i was prepared for it and sat a little further back than usual. i actually thought it was really well done how they hit you with all the appropriate shots without feeling like a professional was doing this. i read somewhere that the director would just toss the camera to the actors for certain scenes- many of which had never held one in their life. i think that's the right idea.

the opening sequence at the birthday party was a good way to establish all the characters fairly quickly as well. but all in all- it's really just a big monster flick. and that's what's cool about it. maybe for a sequel have another giant monster come out of nowhere and attack this one? that would be fun.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:34 pm
by Harry Myland (IV)
mr cow wrote:...maybe for a sequel have another giant monster come out of nowhere and attack this one? that would be fun.
Aw man, that'd be insane and awesome!! I totally take back what I said before about a sequel being pointless.

It would be really hard to do, but boy, I would so pay to see that.