|
Post by Trumpy's Magic Snout on Apr 21, 2008 14:46:57 GMT -5
Don't know if it'll work on a normal telly Gammer. It works in the cinema like Blair Witch, but that movie really didn't any time I've watched it since. As I said I grew to really dislike Cloverfield as I thought about it after the fact, but in the cinema it was easy to get into.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Apr 22, 2008 2:13:37 GMT -5
I think it would have been easy for me to get into if the main plot wasn't WB teen soap opera crap and the monster design wasn't totally pathetic.
But that's just me. I'll be buying it for the RiffTrax and the fact that I'm a monster movie buff/completist. It wasn't totally wretched, but for that hype machine that was attatched to it, I demanded a product more worthy of my attention.
|
|
|
Post by fanliorel on Apr 22, 2008 10:16:05 GMT -5
I liked Cloverfield well enough in the theater. It was kind of refreshing having a movie where you don't really know what's happening. So many movies waste so much time hashing out some ultra-convoluted plot with "unexpected twists" (man I'm sick of that phrase, I simply won't see a movie that uses that phrase in the trailer) that it detracts from the movie as a whole. I wouldn't want many movies like Blair Witch/Cloverfield, where you don't really know the story, but every decade or so is plenty fine Still, I'm looking forward to the trax...should be enjoyable. And I agree, my first thought about that poster was that it was the perfect shot of Mike with the camcorder, lol.
|
|
|
Post by gammer on Apr 23, 2008 9:04:09 GMT -5
I just watch this un-riffed.
It wasn't too bad... I thought it was better then Blair Witch, but it certainly wasn't anything I'd pay money to see at a theater.
I'll watched the riff version tonight.
|
|
|
Post by doctorz on Apr 23, 2008 17:58:00 GMT -5
OK I riffed up Cloverfield and began to watch it and...quit 17 minutes in. Just as the monster hits Manhattan as a matter of fact. I don't really know why. The guys were funny. I just didn't want to watch it.
I saw Cloverfield for the first time unriffed last week and I guess I just didn't want to go through it again so soon. I think I'm going to sit on this one a while before I watch it Riffed. I guess the lesson I've learned from this is to wait for the Riff before watching the movie a week beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by Zombiejesus on Apr 24, 2008 1:15:35 GMT -5
The guys did well in attacking the few glaring logical inconsistencies in CF and for the most part these observations were funny as well. There was a brilliant MST reference in the early stages of the monster attack which alone makes this RT worthwhile viewing. 8/10
|
|
|
Post by krokodyle on Apr 25, 2008 10:35:33 GMT -5
My wife and I watched it last night, and hadn't seen CF before then...and I'm glad I watched it via Rifftrax. The original movie was a neat idea, but essentially failed at what it was trying to do, especially when reusing clichéd horror-movie behaviors ("let's escape in the army helicopter, that will then fly DIRECTLY OVER the creature while the Army drops bombs on it! Brilliant!") ...and what was with the goofy noises the bugs made?? I almost died laughing! On the plus side, their friend exploding was a fleeting bit of enjoyment. I actually caught at least two MST3K references, although one was not a direct one. I concur, 8/10!
|
|
|
Post by gammer on Apr 25, 2008 12:24:02 GMT -5
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Apr 25, 2008 13:09:22 GMT -5
Just watched the RiffTrax.
I still can't get over how lame this movie is. How it became popular based upon gimmick with lack of ideas I'll never understand.
But if there was one movie out there that was perfect for RiffTrax, it was this one. I laughed until I cried. The shortness of the movie, the stupid looking monster, the "do it yourself kit" characters...everything about this movie reminded me of the movies they used to do on MST. And the riffing was beautiful.
They need to do more giant monster flicks. The guys need to do some Godzilla, be it Japanese or Emmerich. It'll be a hoot.
|
|
|
Post by mst3krom on Apr 25, 2008 14:44:21 GMT -5
Well, Torgo, it's like George Carlin always says: "Some people are really f*****g dumb." Anyway, I just saw both previews, gammer's and the official and I'm very impressed. I am definitely going to buy this, as soon as possible. Even if it turns out to be only an average rifftrax, still I am going to laugh 'till I cry. As for movie ... I don't even care anymore. Of course, I never cared since viewing no.1, but personally, I'm more than tired with all the "true fans" praising this ... disaster everwhere they can. Now one of the more die-hard fans saw the preview too, and said it was as funny as "Meet the Spartans" because they both use pop-cultural references and that the Rifftrax crew aren't funny anymore because they decided to riff on their "precious" movie. This alone shows me how narrow-minded they are. But, like I said: I don't give a damn anymore about the movie and its over-the-top praising. To me, it exists solely as a Rifftrax experiment from now. "Gamera is approaching the city and Kenny's with him..." - Mike
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Apr 25, 2008 16:19:51 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't go as far as to call them dumb. I've met some articulate people who even hold the Friday the 13th series to high esteem. I, myself, have a certian fondness for Chucky the killer doll. But I think a 7.7 on IMDB is really pushing it.
It's just that whenever this movie is brought into conversation...I feel like Randal from Clerks II ripping on the Lord of the Rings movies, and movies like the original King Kong ond Gojira being my original Star Wars trilogy that I stand so defiantly next to. Then along comes Kaiju for Dummies and it's instantly praised as the best monster movie ever...sigh. Makes me sad. Don't know why, just ARGH! Damn you JJ Abrams! You better not f' up the next Star Trek movie, then I'll really be pissed!
Still, I enjoyed that Ifukube-esque track entitled ROAR! that was playing during the end credits. That was pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by trekker4747 on Apr 25, 2008 22:03:48 GMT -5
Everyone leave the Bronx!
|
|
|
Post by biflight on Apr 28, 2008 8:01:13 GMT -5
It's just that whenever this movie is brought into conversation...I feel like Randal from Clerks II ripping on the Lord of the Rings movies, and movies like the original King Kong ond Gojira being my original Star Wars trilogy that I stand so defiantly next to. Eh, don't feel to bad about it. I'm a fan of everything Kaiju, particularly Gojira, from waaaay back. I also loved the hell out of Cloverfield. I don't see why anyone would see one side as being superior to the other. Both have their own merits and charm. Personally, I loved the hell out of Cloverfield. I went into it worried that the viral campaign had set my hopes to high. Instead I was very pleasantly surprised. Really, I have trouble seeing why so many people hated this film so much.
|
|
|
Post by mst3krom on Apr 28, 2008 9:04:23 GMT -5
It's just that whenever this movie is brought into conversation...I feel like Randal from Clerks II ripping on the Lord of the Rings movies, and movies like the original King Kong ond Gojira being my original Star Wars trilogy that I stand so defiantly next to. Eh, don't feel to bad about it. I'm a fan of everything Kaiju, particularly Gojira, from waaaay back. I also loved the hell out of Cloverfield. I don't see why anyone would see one side as being superior to the other. Both have their own merits and charm. Personally, I loved the hell out of Cloverfield. I went into it worried that the viral campaign had set my hopes to high. Instead I was very pleasantly surprised. Really, I have trouble seeing why so many people hated this film so much. I hated this film because every reason why this film is supposed to be so good, turned to be disappointing, in my opinion. Mainly there are 3 reasons: 1. The first perspective point of view I admit, observing a giant monster attack through a video camera is an interesting idea, but building an entire film around it ... definitely not a good idea. It's not that I got sick or anything, but it got boring and frustrating way too fast. I kept hoping the first perspective would end at some point and a real camera would take over. In a theater it may look good, but other than that, it just seems pointless. (not even going to argue why they even bothered to keep the video camera rolling, what, didn't the army have their own cameras to document the attack?) 2. The characters It's been said that the characters were "realistic" and "likable" and therefore you could root for them to survive. WRONG! I couldn't tell what was so special about any of these losers, and, personally, I couldn't tell them apart from other slasher stereotypes, from recent movies like Wrong Turn, Venom, House of Wax etc. It's bad enough for the movie to start with 20 minutes of nothing but these punks, but then we're forced to follow them around! Also the story centers around the leading guy going out to rescue his girlfriend. Oh, boo-hoo! And what exactly is the reason I should care about this? Lame, forced, melodramatic crap like this doesn't interest me in the least. Especially when it takes up a lot of screen time during a monster movie! 3. The monster Original? Yes. But then, being original doesn't automatically mean you're good. And I have, to fully seeing the monster (some of the earlier shots don't show much, by the end you get to see the whole thing) I don't understand what's with all the praise, 'cause the design is just awful. Most of the time I trying to figure out what the hell it was supposed to be. It looks like a really awkward combination between a bat and a lizard with gills on the side of the head, but, then again, only the filmmakers know what they wanted to suggest with it. And, on other hand, it's got a bad case of fleas. Or, whatever those little bugs are. In my opinion, a little idea the filmmakers came up with, when they realized a bunch of people running from a big monster for an hour would get boring (or they could have swiped that idea from The Return of Godzilla). But, in all in all, the monster sucks and, if they decide to do another sequel (God forbid), they're gonna have to radically change the design, because, in the open, it more funny than scary. But, you're probably asking yourselves, why am I dissecting a monster movie? Monster movies aren't all supposed to be masterpieces, they're supposed to be entertaining. And that's exactly the word: entertaining! And, sadly, this movie didn't deliver that. That's why I hate it and that's why I resent it every time some calls it superior to monster flicks like Godzilla and King Kong. Well, that's my opinion, anyway. What do you think, sirs?
|
|
|
Post by biflight on Apr 29, 2008 8:36:17 GMT -5
Hey, King Dinosaur! I totally see where you’re coming from. As with so many things, it’s largely a matter of taste. After all, “monster movies” and especially “kaiju” are an established taste to begin with, so there’s a lot that can go wrong in trying to appeal to a mixed group. If I were going to offer my own input on your thoughts, I think it would look something like this: I. The perspective was one part gimmick and one part brilliant technique, in my opinion. Sure, you either love it or hate it, but it let us see things from the characters’ point of view without the tag-along style that movies of this sort tend to have. Plus, it actually gives us a plausible reason for not seeing the monster all at once! As both a fan of horror/monster schemas and a writer of them, I can’t begin to say how tired I am of the contrived ways story tellers try to justify giving us a little view of the monster at a time. In this case, the same thing happened, but at least there was a reason we didn’t see the monster well: the characters were too busy running away from it and trying to understand the situation to take vanity stills of the creature. I know you said you wouldn’t argue about it, but there’s a reason Hud kept filming. It’s established early on that he feels the need to “document” the party, which is reiterated on the bridge: “People are going to want to know…how it all went down.” As for the military, of course they had cameras. We’re not watching their footage, we’re watching the footage on that camera. It’s presented with the label at the very beginning that identifies it as evidence. We, the audience, are in the position as scientists, military analysts, even survivors in a distant future, looking at this record that tells us what happened when the creature first appeared. There would be no reason for Hud to “not keep the camera” rolling: even if he weren’t single-mindedly “documenting,” why would he stop just because someone else may be doing the same thing? II. This is entirely a matter of taste. Personally, I liked the every-person approach. If ordinary folks don’t interest you in this situation, what would you prefer? Two-dimensional action hero badasses? Star Trek-esque types spouting technobabble solutions? As for Rob going after Beth…well, it’s still taste. I’ve heard a fair number of complaints about this, but I thought it fit. People say, “That’s stupid, why the hell would he go into the dangerous city after her?” You say, “Why should I care?” To both remarks I reply, “Because he cared about her.” Rob knew that something was wrong and couldn’t bring himself to abandon someone that he couldn’t even quite bring himself to admit his own feelings for, if that made any sense. Again, taste, but if you don’t want a romantic/human interest angle, what would work in its place and still be (at least generally) interesting? III. I’ve…got to disagree with you on this one, actually. The creature isn’t supposed to really resemble anything, that’s part of the point. Just for the record, it’s not opinion, it’s a known fact about the parasites. The filmmakers have outright stated that the little monsters were concocted for that simple fact you suggest, that there’s only so much interaction a kaiju can have with human characters. Now something I’ll have to ask you to forgive me for, my response to your remark about “in the open it’s more funny than scary.” My response: Godzilla. I am dead serious here, and no, I’m am NOT trying to start a fight or anything. I LOVE Godzilla, I have for many years. As I said, I like kaiju in general. But honestly, I’m thinking Clovie and Godzilla have the same issues, Godzilla just gets away with it because he’s “classic.” Think about it. What does Godzilla look like? He’s a *fat* Tyrannosaurus Rex with Stegosaurus plates on his back. That glow when he breathes radioactive fire. Step away from loving the character for a moment and think about that. If you had never seen Godzilla before, and that were presented to you in a contemporary film, would you feel appreciation for the design? Or would you look at it and say “That needs to be redesigned, because in the open it’s more funny than scary?” You may disagree, but I’m really thinking that the Cloverfield creature’s only failing here is in not having the equity that existing creatures do. *Both* designs are ridiculous, just one has had time to come to be beloved (and thereby, “forgiven”) its flaws by the populace. Oh, one last thought: to kind of combine aspects of points I and III above, consider this: if this movie were done the same way, but it were Godzilla, would you still dislike the camera technique? Would you still be bored with the love story angle? Hell, the original Godzilla was built around a love story! I don’t have any problem at all with you dissecting a monster movie, because I’m doing the same thing. Like I said, in the end it all comes down to taste. If you didn’t find the movie entertaining, that’s fine, because that’s a part of who you are. I think hating it is a bit strong, though, and if you don’t like it being compared to some of your own favorites, perhaps you can use that as an opportunity to indoctrinate people? Anyway, I hope I haven’t offended you here: I’ve got a bad habit of getting overly passionate with my own opinions and didn’t intend to step on your toes if I did so.
|
|