Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerDreaming
That is why I preferred Cloverfield. It had a touch of more realism to it.
The key complaints on Cloverfield are as follows..
EDIT: OMGOMGOMG PARTIAL SPOILERS, DAMMIT!
A) There's no storyline!
Answer to A) It is supposed to be a REALISTIC movie. It's being recorded by people that do NOT know what is going on, it's filmed-on-location footage. They're not going to know any more than we are as it's happening, how can there be storyline when THEY are as oblivious as we are?
Answer to B) Same as above. This movie was MADE to put you in the room/hallway/street/dark areas WITH the actual cast and experience what they experience as it's happening. The creature's not going to stop and put his hands on his hips, look down to the people, then explain why he's wtfpwning their faces. He's too worried about wtfpwning their faces.
This movie was made to be mysterious based on the lack of generic movie antics. Innovation can never be perfect. Just because it's not the same as every other movie ever released it's being bashed. Just because it's pressuring people to actually USE their imagination.
|
the handheld camera look is NOT innovative; it's been done an a bunch of movies. most famously the blair witch project which came out way before. even though they used that technique it wasn't even completely realistic. i mean, no matter how fast Hud is running or what's happening he happens to have the camera glued to his face so you can get a perfect angle on everything?
even though it sounds like i'm bashing it, i thought the movie was entertaining. you're just trying to make it into WAYYYYYYY more than it really is. it's just an enjoyable popcorn flick. nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russia
Night at the Roxbury is probably of my all time favorites... I haven't seen Meet the Parents though, maybe I'll check it out.
|
haven't seen meet the parents? you gotta. it's awesome.