|
Post by MalkavianMarine on Jan 30, 2008 15:30:27 GMT -5
Well, when you throw the entire might of the United States Army and it shrugs of sidewinder missiles as if they were chihuhua bites. . . I beleive a little collateral damage is necessary . . . Besides it already knocked over buildings and punted the Statue of Liberty's head across the city
|
|
|
Post by Masoob on Jan 30, 2008 20:15:19 GMT -5
'damn i'd like to hit that thing with a bomb, but i can't risk the statue of liberty!' 'sir, the monster has already destroyed that' 'ICBMs! Now!' 'uh... how many?' 'ALL of them!'
I don't know if I want to see the movie now. The one in my head is probably funnier. sorry. just ignore me.
|
|
|
Post by Lore on Jan 31, 2008 1:39:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Whitehawke on May 20, 2008 15:03:43 GMT -5
Personally, I found this movie intensely disappointing. It was like someone dropped the scripts for Aliens, Godzilla, and Blair Witch Project in a blender and then filmed whatever came out the other side. There were FAR too many problems with science and common sense for me to be able to suspend disbelief--here's a few simple examples:
- basic square-cube law...ok, I'll give you that one, it's a monster movie. - an officer of the US Armed Forces lets a a bunch of twenty-something civilians in party clothes run back into a war zone - when they find the girl, they LIFT HER OFF OF A PIECE OF REBAR THAT'S STICKING THROUGH HER CHEST. Not only does she not bleed out, she then proceeds to walk, climb, and eventually RUN down a 30-something story building.
All of that I could have put up with. But there were two unforgiveable sins, to my mind: after all the friggin' teasing, I **wanted a really good, up-close as well as wide-angle look at the monster for a substantial period of time while it kicked ass and took names.** Nope. All brief shots, around buildings, through explosions, whatever. Even at the end, in the park, it was still a short flash. The other sin was that they never explained how the tape was recovered. I just couldn't get past that one. It annoyed the crap out of me.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Mr. K on May 20, 2008 22:14:37 GMT -5
I hate to sound pretentious, but the movie wasn't really about the monster, it was all about what people do when a giant monster attacks.
|
|
|
Post by MalkavianMarine on May 21, 2008 6:07:32 GMT -5
Ya know, I never thought about it that way . . . but it makes sense.
Get the hell out of dodge, or stay and expect doom
|
|
|
Post by Erika on May 21, 2008 11:26:24 GMT -5
Sure, it wasn't about the monster, but when you look at it, monster movies are NEVER about the monster. They're about how the protagonist develops through the situation of the monster. And the monster can be almost anything, from a real monster, to a situational monster, to a personal monster. But when the monster is an ACTUAL monster...well, people don't go see monster movies to analyze personal growth. We wanna see the gall durn monster.
I enjoyed cloverfield, but my opinions about its shortcomings were much the same as Whitehawke's. I wanted to know more about what the thing is and what happened to it. Not to mention what it looked like.
also, the park scene? Where it eats the dude and the Indestructible Camera falls to the ground? From the angle they shot it at, it looked positively tiny. Ten feet tall at most. Not a skyscraper crushing goliath.
|
|