Your wish is my command, Jonsey

http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.htm?BR=863&ID=21030

I am also hoping for a line of plush stuffed animals, featuring the Cloverfield babies.

Yeah, I liked the monster, and I loved the baby monsters.

I am hoping for a sequel featuring the babies.

Good point. For instance, there was no attempt at characterization in The Thing, a movie that will be remembered more fondly than Cloverfield. The only bit I can think of is MacReady throwing his drink into the chess machine. ("What an asshole," we are supposed to think.)

But I guess there is something to be said for using real actors. Wilford Brimley, the old lawyer from L.A. Law, Frank and Beans from There's Something About Mary and Kurt &^%$ing Russell just all have charisma.

I thought the bits in Cloverfield where you saw the original tape were good (and I only caught the splash at the end thanks to the Internet) but yeah, the attempt was worse than no attempt at all.

And I did like the monster.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]I think the last movie I watched that had interesting characters was Highlander.[/quote]

I just watched Cloverfield last night, and so am now prepared to comment on this.

I felt the weak spot of the movie was not the [i]lack[/i] of characterization, but the [i]attempt[/i] at characterization. Much better, I think, to have focused on people trying to deal with and survive the insane events portrayed, rather than trying to overlay a very strained romantic situation over the whole thing.

Surely there would be just as much tension in seeing people trying to save themselves, than trying to save The Girl.

That being said, it's the best monster (big monster smashing things, I mean) movie I've ever seen -- not having any nostalgic fondness for Godzilla or any of that.



MINOR SPOILER
-------------------

















...and I will say, the last five seconds are extremely clever, and I'm glad I had a rewind button on my DVD. I was like "hey wait, did..." "AHahha, woohoo!"

Very clever.

THREE POINT TWO FIVE (3.25) STARS (***1/4)

Edgy cunt-puncher? What's that?

Anyway, I've never seen Cloverfield or Starship troopers 2 or any of the SAW movies.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]I. ICE CREAM JONSEY. WISH TO LIVE IN A BARELY-TOLERABLE PURGATORY FILLED WITH NOTHING BUT FAUX-INTELLECTUALISTIC SHIT WHISTLERS LOOKING DOWN THEIR NOSES AT PEOPLE.[/quote]

Thank God.

My life has finally been validated.

Bruce

[quote="savvyraven"]So to get your feet wet, Hollywood expects you to make really bad films.[/quote]

What I've never understood, as I've said already, is why even pander to that if your given money, and a general frame of reference to work from?

Instead of trying to pander to what you think everyone else wants (as in, a horror movie) why not just say "Screw it!" and work out something that actually reflects the strengths of what you can do? Filming a crappy movie may be the procedure for getting into hollywood, but who caresabout working through a mold that is known to screw itself over at every oppertunity (even if it originated the idea), but rewards that which does succeed even if it was completely off base?

I never understood why people limit themselves to some vague idea that basically no one actually has any idea about but are sure they want, when you are given resources and can just put everything you have into it? Much less to fulfill the dreams and expectations of a few groups of people who just try to constantly invent the same thing over and over in the belief that they will get the same result?

Indie films do this to a certain extent, because since they are indie films, they have to use bad actors and basically cam corders to shoot the movie. How hard is it to tap into the many decent actors who basically do shakespeare, or small plays, write out an idea that works without looking as if it would have with a bigger budget but since you don't, it doesn't, and just rent a 16mm camera for a few weeks?

I never understood why anyone would start cutting themselves to pieces to fulfill the expectation of an idea, when the idea is purposefully unknown, and constantly redefined. Why destroy your own ability for a vague assumption?

[quote="Casual Observer"]the ending of saw was horrible. I don't understand how people gave the other ones a chance.[/quote]

There is some genre of murder mystery story that has a rule that goes along the lines of, "the killer is one of the people you met in the story before he did any killing."

Shows like Law & Order and CSI don't follow it, but they are on TV and have an hour, and so on and so forth. But I love books that do this. It becomes an interactive mystery.

I initially assumed that the first Saw didn't grab this writing style / genre / whatever, because two guys are chained up right away, and then the killings go on and on, and you start to get an idea of who is responsible later. When Tobin Bell gets up at the end you go, "Heyyyy! They did show you the killer before the crimes happened!" And if you are me you say, "... Cool."

But yeah, the other ones were pretty horrible. The second one was a script they shoehorned into the "franchise," such as it is, in order to get another movie out. Tobin Bell is awesome, but he's Steve Carlton on the 1972 Phillies.

the ending of saw was horrible. I don't understand how people gave the other ones a chance.

It was canceled. And that was kind of my point.

Based on Saw IV, I believe that Project Greenlight needs to be cancelled immediately.

(Also based on Saw III and Saw II, and the last half of Saw I.)

The Saw series blows, I guess is the point I'm trying to make here.

Wow, I really know how to inadvertently stir things up! I took no offense, Draal. I guess my leniency toward that genre is that it is really hard to get a decent looking film. So when people try and get some success, I am happy for them. Should JJ Abrams have made a better looking film? Yes. But, I understand what he was trying to do and he has the money and backing to try it. At least there are people out there trying to make something different. As for some of the direct to video stuff, often the studios will hand out swill to up and comers just to get their feet wet and see what will happen. I can only assume this is the case with some of these studio backed ventures. I have a friend who won Project Greenlight a few years back and the first few gigs he was given were writing sequels to bad horror movies. The last thing he did was Saw IV. So to get your feet wet, Hollywood expects you to make really bad films. So ends my rant (which wasn't really a rant) *Raven exits left off soap box*

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"][quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]What's 60i, anyway?[/quote]

I just assumed typing "60I" into the Internet would get me pornography, but no! It did answer the question. So that's that. (Frames!!)[/quote]

60 frames per second for a movie? That would look [i]terrible[/i]. I don't know why this is, but the higher you raise the framerate above 24, the more fake and cheesy it looks, like one of those British television shows from the 70's and 80's, except less grainy.

comma party

[quote="Draal Ranger"]Had the same feeling after seeing Starship Troopers 2; if they had just realized that what they were doing would come out like this, they could of reset the tone of the film to more properly match the ability of the director. I never understood why everyone seems to go out of their way to shove their talents into creating a specific genre of film, when they could just reset their scopes and make something that goes along with their own style.[/quote]

This is an excellent point, perhaps one of our other members who aren't a hair trigger away from cunt-punching their own monitor, like Aardvark, should chime in on this.

You make a good point - complaining about the lack of well-developed characters in Cloverfield is like doing the same with a Nightmare on Elm Street movie. Movies like Cloverfield just look so [i]slick[/i] (whereas the old slash-'em-up flicks of 20 years ago didn't) that you forget for a moment what they are going for. That is, if you are me.

Did Pinback ruin the "Cloverfield" thread?!

[quote="pinback"]I'm still going to fucking kill him.[/quote]

Maybe you shouldn't threaten to kill people who have 12 posts here. JESUS CHRIST, LET THE NEW POSTERS POST YOU GODDAMN FUCKING MISANTHROPE

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]What's 60i, anyway?[/quote]

I just assumed typing "60I" into the Internet would get me pornography, but no! It did answer the question. So that's that. (Frames!!)

I'm still going to fucking kill him.

Cloverfield is the future of the dollar disc horror movie; in maybe ten years, we'll see this on a "double feature" double sided DVD along with the remake of The Fog. The only thing that kinda kills these sort of movies, is the serious tone they usually try to set and fail at; they really arn't aware of just kinda being a two hour flair for a couple to swoon during and everyone else to drink soda pop.

Had the same feeling after seeing Starship Troopers 2; if they had just realized that what they were doing would come out like this, they could of reset the tone of the film to more properly match the ability of the director. I never understood why everyone seems to go out of their way to shove their talents into creating a specific genre of film, when they could just reset their scopes and make something that goes along with their own style.