Jolt Country

I would say that it did, and more - the thing could have been one of the best movies ever made if there were a single person anywhere near the camera that you could truly say you "felt" for.

PLUS! Plus, they tried to give you all sorts of backstory at the beginning. So I mean, there was an attempt and it still didn't work.

I think the last movie I watched that had interesting characters was Highlander.

That movie has such a short run that I felt no actual desire to see it. It's a sort of personal indicator, the theater run. I did Google it to see what the monster looked like. I figured it was a Godzilla ripoff or something. What could have been done to make it better? Less camera shaking? I understand the camera operator was afflicted with Parkinson's.


THE
CHOCOLATE MILKSHAKE
AARDVARK

It's worth a Netflix slot, I guess. I won't spoil it for you. It's also really short, like 80 minutes, which I wish more movies would be cut to, seeing how virtually zero of them attempt any characterization these days anyway. The extra time is just fluff.

Movies! The thumb points down!

I guess I'm in the minority. I really enjoyed it. Were there faults? Absolutely! There is no such thing as a perfect movie. With that being said, I do not expect to be anything but entertained when I go to a film. I went into the theatre expecting nothing and came out thinking, wow that actually was not as bad as I thought it would be. But, I am a self professed sci-fi/horror geek, so I will like pretty much like anything with a minute sense of possibility. Was there a lack of characterization? Yes! The only one that you kind of "knew" was the cameraman. I don't think that was the goal of the film. The goal of the film was to make it look like there was a video found that had footage of the monster that ruined New York. Yes, there were normal people filming it. Normal boring people. It was pretty real. If it happened to me, I can't say that I wouldn't come across as boring and screaming in fright, just as they did. Except I would charge it and get killed instantly trying to protect my loved ones as they escaped.

savvyraven wrote:I guess I'm in the minority. I really enjoyed it. Were there faults? Absolutely! There is no such thing as a perfect movie

LISTEN and ACCEPT!!! The opinion of the girl who contends that 60i is an acceptable framerate for film, and has scribed at least one script for an Anita Blake television show.

Not sure who would be more qualified to talk about a monster movie.

Draal Ranger wrote:LISTEN and ACCEPT!!! The opinion of the girl who contends that 60i is an acceptable framerate for film, and has scribed at least one script for an Anita Blake television show.

Not sure who would be more qualified to talk about a monster movie.

More condescending than a basement staircase at Leavenworth - that's our Draal! Maybe she should come out on the side of Babylon Fucking Five.

Let's see how your post stacks up:

Written to drive off new blood around here that the site desperately needs?: CHECK

No actual content or opinions included in doing so?: CHECK

Completely against the spirit of aspiring for greatness?: CHECK

Here's a handy list of sites you can go to where crapping all over people you hardly know. In fact, here is another where it's more or less expected. If you want to whack on some newbs to make yourself feel superior, go to either of those places and knock yourself out. I'm not trying to run Edgy Internet Forum 4000 here.

It absolutely kills me that, a few hours after quoting me in the Jack Straw Hissy Fit Thread, you come up with this. You really are crazy.

savvyraven wrote:Except I would charge it and get killed instantly trying to protect my loved ones as they escaped.

Much obliged!

BTW, Draal, I am going to fucking kill you.

BTW, Draal, I am going to fucking kill you.

Look, goddammit, a new person posted. Blood in the fucking water. Are you kidding me? The only reason I haven't closed new registration is because I can't. There's nothing I want more in life to be trapped in an all-gray web forum talking sophomore philsophy from Wall of Text Guy who thinks he's the edgiest motherfucker on the planet. I'm quivering with rage over here that somebody new posted. What is this shit? What is this garbage? New ideas? New people? I don't know how to make it any more clear:

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. This BBS is a goddamn petri dish where only the strong survive!

So yeah, laugh it up, you got a reaction. You want people judging the relative merits of posts around here, well, it's on.

Err.. Sorry. I actually meant that as a positive (the 60i and Anita Blake thing) because usually movie reviewers have some sort of axe to grind upon the great wet stone of popular entertainment, as opposed to just being fans who are out for a movie, some popcorn, and just kinda don't care what happens.

Okay... Back to mean grinding; Shouldn't you guys be over at Cal Trops bitching about some random person pissing in your pool of forum friendship?

What's 60i, anyway?

Also, I can't fucking stand it when someone is a prick on the Internet and then misunderstood stuff, so: sorry, Draal! This one's on me.

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.

I'm still going to fucking kill him.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:What's 60i, anyway?

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

pinback wrote:I'm still going to fucking kill him.

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

Did Pinback ruin the "Cloverfield" thread?!

Draal Ranger wrote: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.

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 slick (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.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:What's 60i, anyway?

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

60 frames per second for a movie? That would look terrible. 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

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*

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.