Offtopic Forum

so what movie did you settle on russia?

I dunno I figured it's kinda late now, but I got Mallrats. I'll probably watch it tomorrow. I have already seen Waiting. It was amazing.

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.

comedies?

how about meet the parents, wedding crashers, anchorman. oh yea a night at the roxbury is a classic too

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.

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.

haven't seen meet the parents? you gotta. it's awesome.

How about IronMan ? Haven't seen it yet myself bt it looks fantastic.. Robert Downey Jr.'s put in a stellar performance by the look of it. Plus you'll get the wisecrack comedy and action at once :)

No.. I just give it more than other people do.. it doesn't mean I'm over-exaggerating it..
The movie is VERY good.
Just because other people don't think it is does not mean it's a bad movie, it just means this generation is based on instant gratification, which this movie doesn't really provide. That's not a bad thing or a good thing.


Ironman had some good effects, the guy who played Ironman was amazing with his acting, but I'm not a fan of super hero movies in general so I didn't really flow with the storyline well, but the acting and effects were very very good. I'd recommend it but it was not my personal taste.

lol you keep using the term instant gratification like you heard it on tv and wanna find a way to weave it into your everyday vernacular. there isn't any more gratification seeing the movie multiple times than seeing it for the first time. monster attacks.people freak out. dude saves girlfriend. nyc gets bombed. the end.

i think u should watch thriller movie
it keeps person on the edge of seat