|
I just watched it tonight and I'd recommend barf bags for everybody.
I think its a pretty clever way of doing the monster/disaster movie where everybody dies. The 're-recorded' tape was good plot device to build the back story, although I don't know any solid state media camera that would behave that way. That's the movies for ya. I'm sure everyone wants HD, long recording, long lasting battery, can survive a crash and an explosion camera used in the movie. heheh. I think the buzz generated was incredible and this is reflected in the opening weekend. I'd expect it to die down after this. Only people used to first person shooter video games will be able to watch it through. Haha. Sony has confirmed that the F23 was used to shoot exteriors http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_ro...ase/32931.html |
The Digital Imaging Supervisor told me they used the HVX200, F23 and Viper, plus a consumer camera for a shot on the subway platform.
heath |
Quote:
|
Suspension of disbelief only goes so far, especially with a film that is supposed to portray a realistic event with average people caught in the middle.
Story? I didn't see a story: I saw random scenes and events strung together with the weakest glue. Bad acting is bad acting, and is seen more clearly when you realize this film is most definitely not character driven...its almost all plot, and a weak and full of holes plot. This smacks of poor direction and thrown together writing...which I am sure those who fulfilled those roles may not have seen or will ever acknowledge because they brought in some bank. A Monster appears out of thin air and proceeds to go on a mindless rampage, destroying lives in the process. This film lacked substance...but, I agree, anyone who likes 1st person shooters may like this...no need to think...the barest storyline...no need to focus on anything for longer than 5 minutes, and the realization after you get to the end, that the only question you face is "was this worth it?" Halo, Half-Life, Far Cry...all had better storys, characters, and forward momentum than this film. As for entertainment versus story...all films tell a story and a well told story is entertaining. Just my 2c. K. |
Quote:
Wait, don't hold back... Tell us how you really feel! Work this into your film discussion class: "There are many ways of determining whether a film is "good". Some may consider making money to be good. Some may consider some sort of combination of acting, story and cinematography to be good. I decide a movie is good or not based upon the extent that it draws me into its reality and makes me forget my own. Cloverfield drew me into the position of being a survivor of a chaotic and horrible event, and kept me there for 90 minutes. Regardless of the content, being able to draw me into a different world for 90 minutes and keep me there, makes it good in my eyes. This isn't to say that I liked it (I recognize that there are many "good" films that I don't like, and many "bad" films that I love), just to say that in my definition of what a film should do, it was good." |
Hi Dylan.
Ok, I hear you. But, just to clarify, Cloverfield was 84 minutes including opening and closing credits, (see nytimes or roger ebert on suntimes) so they really got your attention for a lot less time than the casual oh it was 90 minutes long. Of course, my feeling is that, were there more of a story there would have been a need for more time, or the time would have been better used. Or conversely, it needed to be really short or people would cop to the lack of substance in it. I understand your view that there are "many" ways to qualify a movie as "good" but there are some basic parameters, or dimensions, or elements, that are found in all good movies. Most would say that a paramount element would be the presence of a compelling story. What qualifies as a compelling story then would be the main theme you are suggesting to explore? Cloverfield drew you in because there was a compelling story being played out on screen that caught your attention and held it. If I have that right, correct me if I'm wrong, what "story" elements worked for you? And, if you can, tell me what didn't work for you, if at anytime you came out of the experience. Although, you didn't disagree with anything specific I'd said. Perhaps Cloverfield will become a cult classic, I'm not sure, but as with all movies, even the ones "I" think sucked, there's always something to be learned. K. |
Quote:
You don't have a girlfriend, do you? |
But that's ok, neither does Dylan!
;-) |
I though it had some really nice sound design. but my eyes were closed most of the time because i was getting motion sick.
|
The top listed video here is the prequel to Cloverfield.
|
Lol, actually yes I do :-)
But, I am a film major, and a filmmaker, so I pay close attention to what I screen... |
Quote:
|
lol...
I'm going to raise what you said in class and see what happens... |
Quote:
|
Using artistic liscense as an excuse, sorry "reason", only goes so far when one examines the entire film, even casually.
To suggest that it can explain away everything flawed about the movie is not a view I share. It cannot explain bad acting, poor development, unbelieavable actions/reactions by the characters, lack of dramamtic conflict, and the super stretched credibility of an uber consumer camera that captured everything, etc. as I mentioned before. In its attempt to portray a realistic situation, it falls far short and insteads becomes a parody of what it supposedly intends. Movies are about extreme situations sure, but there is always a logic to how people, normal, sane, or otherwise, behave in those extreme situations. I didn't have any expectations other than to be entertained; I wasn't. I wasn't looking for anything like a nice little fairy tale, just a good movie; it wasn't that for me. |
Quote:
The Great Train Robbery was so popular in the 1900's because of its novelty. People had never seen film like that. Sure, cops n' robbers had been done many times before on the stage. But the medium was new. Thus is the popularity of Cloverfield. People wanted an apocalyptic thriller, and Abrams gave it to them with an inventive method and impressive creativity. I don't go to the movies with a checklist. I walk in, I walk out, and if I had a good time, it goes on my recommendations. If you want to feel something after watching a movie, well...that's what netflix is for. Don't be so stingy. I too, by the way, am a student and filmmaker. |
Godzilla sucked because it was a badly made movie, not because the traditional giant monster movie had become obsolete. In fact advances in fx technology dictate that they could do a killer giant monster spectacle with CG realism but it would mean good storytelling and studio support.
Biggest mistake with Godzilla was not having another monster show up for him to fight in the last act. Instead we see him running away from helicopters like a wimp. Its a no brainer. Hollywood is becoming worse and worse at making fun movies with a knack for showmanship like you had with a Harryhausen movie. They overthink the concept and hand wring about marketing and gimmicks. |
Hi Ben.
I've mentioned the similarity to Godzilla previously...and it did suck. I also said I didn't have any expectations about this movie, other than to be entertained. I never said I had a checklist, but I do expect my money's worth. I don't agree that Cloverfield is greatly popular; either you like it or you don't. But, it's a gimmicky one trick pony and it just doesn't appeal to me. As for your last statement, it seems antagonistic. I gave my opinion, and it's just that: mine. Anyone can agree or disagree with it and that's ok. I gave it freely, because sharing opinions is what we do to learn others views on topics that interest us, especially when it comes to something as subjective as movies. I'm not saying my views are the only ones or that I'm "correct". My 2c. K. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 PM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network