You missed a few things, apparently:

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on January 27, 2008 at 12:03:04

In Reply to: A few other problems: Yes, a hero or group of them posted by tinear on January 27, 2008 at 06:13:28:

>>> "After being attacked in the tunnel, the guy in the lead marches around with no weapon. Guess he read ahead and knew he wouldn't be attacked for several more scenes?" <<<

It's called shock.

>>> "Super chicks: in police films, we're used to cops taking massive hits and keepin' on tickin' but this isn't that genre. A girl has a long piece of REBAR penetrate from her back through her shoulder and then has it pulled out... and she puts a jacket on and carries on, even running? How about the one that gets gnawed on like a taco and also just keeps right on goin?'"

Again, shock. She wasn't a "super chick" by any means, but folks in real life who have been impaled have somehow survived to walk or run around for a time pumped up on adrenaline. While it does look implausible, it only stretches credulity in the truth is stranger than fiction category.

>>> "And... what's with the exploding bit? Did it slip an IED into her?" <<<

Her blood was infected with a some kind of unfamiliar fast acting parasite or disease that acted similar to a hyped up version of ebola; did you not notice the medical team suited up in enviro-hazard gear?

>>> "Films are good because they create a believable film world unto themselves: this one didn't." <<<

While I agree with the first part of that statement, I just happen to adamantly disagree with your conclusions in regard to this film.

>>> "The big creature seemed to be reptilian or amphibian whereas the small ones obviously were arachnid." <<<

Not at all that obvious (maybe you should go back and catch the film again or wait for the DVD). These creatures were all reptilian, or rather amphibian, but not familiar; these were very alien looking creatures. While the mass shedding of small offspring seems to lend itself toward arachnid behavior this has it's roots in natural science; various species, including some fish hold their offspring close and release them when they mature or as advantageous to their survival.

>>> "Lastly, all the girls and boys pretty much visually were interchangeable, except for length of hair." <<<

They were people, as opposed to stereotypes; maybe you prefer more overt designations, but it was interesting to observe how each of these folks reacted in the heat of a crisis.

>>> "As I said, the FX were good..." <<<

I agree, but if that's all you got out of this film, then that's faint praise.

Respectfully (a differing viewpoint),
AuPh

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - "Cloverdale?" Really poor film but surprisingly good Fx. - tinear 15:05:12 01/26/08 (25)

Not much I can add. I thought it was thoroughly entertaining - Road Warrior 13:28:20 01/27/08 (0)

You apparently fell asleep and watched the wrong movie; you didn't even get the title right. - Audiophilander 23:15:27 01/26/08 (18)

To the adolescent mind "Cloverdale" was really neato-keen. Got monsters and kids.... - mr grits 09:29:56 01/27/08 (2)

What's the matter Zeke, did Ned grease up and slip away from you again? (nt) - Audiophilander 11:21:37 01/27/08 (1)

Ned's twice the hunk you'll ever be. * - mr grits 18:56:38 01/27/08 (0)

A few other problems: Yes, a hero or group of them - tinear 06:13:28 01/27/08 (14)

You missed a few things, apparently: - Audiophilander 12:03:04 01/27/08 (1)

On shockâ€”personal minor impalement anecdote - David Aiken 12:42:47 02/13/08 (0)

More spoilage..... - mr grits 11:06:16 01/27/08 (1)

RE: More spoilage..... - TomD 20:22:51 01/28/08 (0)

I'm not surprised you didn't like Cloverfield but am surprised that you - sjb 10:17:45 01/27/08 (9)

Blair Witch was truly scary. It spread word-of-mouth which was - tinear 11:46:19 01/27/08 (8)

Well, we part company here....BWP was the biggest entertainment fraud EVER perpetrated against the public. * - mr grits 19:01:51 01/27/08 (1)

Kind of Harsh... - jamesgarvin 15:37:47 01/28/08 (0)

No, what is truly scary is that you THOUGHT it was truly scary! - Audiophilander 12:11:07 01/27/08 (4)

You'd be fascinated by a film of a nun taking a dump if it - tinear 12:58:34 01/27/08 (3)

If I'm not mistaken there's a name for that kind of kink, ... - Audiophilander 00:12:49 01/28/08 (2)

I appear emotional? Nah. It's just a film, and in - tinear 07:51:10 01/28/08 (1)

"...this case, a stinking, putrid example of one only appreciated by brain-dead, alien creatures!" - Really? - Audiophilander 09:46:08 01/28/08 (0)

"it wasn't a planned marketing approach but rather generated by genuine enthusiasm." You've been had. - sjb 12:07:18 01/27/08 (0)

But certainly nowhere near as bad as 'Brazil'. Right? - powermatic 22:19:13 01/26/08 (1)

"Brazil" completely was non-watch-able. Ugly and silly. nt - tinear 06:42:52 01/27/08 (0)

I, too, was horrifically disappointed. I was so mad at the kid's stupidity I couldn't see straight. * - mr grits 16:39:41 01/26/08 (2)

Curious how it compared to 'Atonement'. The 'worst movie/film you ever watched'. - powermatic 22:16:42 01/26/08 (1)

They are close but disimilar. * - mr grits 09:27:55 01/27/08 (0)

Follow Ups

You missed a few things, apparently: - Audiophilander 12:03:04 01/27/08 (1)

On shockâ€”personal minor impalement anecdote - David Aiken 12:42:47 02/13/08 (0)

You missed a few things, apparently:

Post a Message!