Post by yogurtfresh on Feb 1, 2008 20:09:01 GMT -5
here i go:
At first cloverfield, the movie surrounded in mystery, seemed like the most exiting movie of the decade. To me, they were not wrong. The filming style of the movie and use of amature acters blended well into a mesh of drama and a big stompy monster. many veiwers (generally those born with a giant stick up their backside) cited it for it's lack of explanation into what was going on. what i say to them is 'Were you watching the movie or staring at the ceiling'.
the movies purpose is not to spoonfeed the veiwer informationg but to install terror into them from a bystanders veiw.
Todd McCarthy of Variety called the film an "old-fashioned monster movie dressed up in trendy new threads". Obviously he has not seen said bigger picture. a quote from one 'youtube' poster said "There should have been more action with the monster, and clearer shots." Personally i would not swap the drama for shallow cgi. plus the most interaction a 500ft monster could have with 4 tiny humans is the food chain.
some have cited far more ludicrous reveiws...
mcarchy also stated it as "post-9/11 anxiety overlay"
simialarly Scott Foundas of LA Weekly was critical of the film's allusions to the September 11, 2001 attacks and called it "cheap and opportunistic".
more bluntly Manohla Dargis in the New York Times called the allusions "tacky", saying, "[The images] may make you think of the attack, and you may curse the filmmakers for their vulgarity, insensitivity or lack of imagination", but that "the film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence." She concludes that the film "works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt."
for me i think that linking a giant moster attack to a terrorist plane crash is impossible. i for one had no contempt or yawns during the movie. if someone wanted to be oppertunistic about 9/11 they should have made this film 7 years ago.
Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com calls the film "badly constructed, humorless and emotionally sadistic", and sums up by saying that the film "takes the trauma of 9/11 and turns it into just another random spectacle at which to point and shoot."
quote 'humourless.' *insert awkward pause* i'm sorry are you reveiwing the right movie? were you expecting the cloverfield monster to pull up a mike and ask about 'whats up with airline food'
i'll tell you now that the only reason this chicken crossed the road was because you werent on the other side.
this 9/11 thing must of hazed from nowere for some reason, i know t was tragic but find it offensive to back up your veiws by relating it to an utter tragedy that heppen seven years ago and call it oppertunistic! sorry if i seem insensitive but honestly you must see my point of view here.
in all, i found the movie emotianally compelling, it's experimental camera style worked just as well as fans expected and that i seem to be the only person who finds the monster is just like a giant mysterious gimmik to dres up a human psyci movie and make it al the more appealing. Kudos, Abrams! you've made a great movie thats not about 9/11 but about a huge monster that i'm sure has not been created by the al qaeda to destroy america.
At first cloverfield, the movie surrounded in mystery, seemed like the most exiting movie of the decade. To me, they were not wrong. The filming style of the movie and use of amature acters blended well into a mesh of drama and a big stompy monster. many veiwers (generally those born with a giant stick up their backside) cited it for it's lack of explanation into what was going on. what i say to them is 'Were you watching the movie or staring at the ceiling'.
the movies purpose is not to spoonfeed the veiwer informationg but to install terror into them from a bystanders veiw.
Todd McCarthy of Variety called the film an "old-fashioned monster movie dressed up in trendy new threads". Obviously he has not seen said bigger picture. a quote from one 'youtube' poster said "There should have been more action with the monster, and clearer shots." Personally i would not swap the drama for shallow cgi. plus the most interaction a 500ft monster could have with 4 tiny humans is the food chain.
some have cited far more ludicrous reveiws...
mcarchy also stated it as "post-9/11 anxiety overlay"
simialarly Scott Foundas of LA Weekly was critical of the film's allusions to the September 11, 2001 attacks and called it "cheap and opportunistic".
more bluntly Manohla Dargis in the New York Times called the allusions "tacky", saying, "[The images] may make you think of the attack, and you may curse the filmmakers for their vulgarity, insensitivity or lack of imagination", but that "the film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence." She concludes that the film "works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt."
for me i think that linking a giant moster attack to a terrorist plane crash is impossible. i for one had no contempt or yawns during the movie. if someone wanted to be oppertunistic about 9/11 they should have made this film 7 years ago.
Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com calls the film "badly constructed, humorless and emotionally sadistic", and sums up by saying that the film "takes the trauma of 9/11 and turns it into just another random spectacle at which to point and shoot."
quote 'humourless.' *insert awkward pause* i'm sorry are you reveiwing the right movie? were you expecting the cloverfield monster to pull up a mike and ask about 'whats up with airline food'
i'll tell you now that the only reason this chicken crossed the road was because you werent on the other side.
this 9/11 thing must of hazed from nowere for some reason, i know t was tragic but find it offensive to back up your veiws by relating it to an utter tragedy that heppen seven years ago and call it oppertunistic! sorry if i seem insensitive but honestly you must see my point of view here.
in all, i found the movie emotianally compelling, it's experimental camera style worked just as well as fans expected and that i seem to be the only person who finds the monster is just like a giant mysterious gimmik to dres up a human psyci movie and make it al the more appealing. Kudos, Abrams! you've made a great movie thats not about 9/11 but about a huge monster that i'm sure has not been created by the al qaeda to destroy america.
