Films/DVD Asylum

You apparently fell asleep and watched the wrong movie; you didn't even get the title right.

66.137.224.92

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: "Cloverdale?" Really poor film but surprisingly good Fx. posted by tinear on January 26, 2008 at 15:05:12

Were you looking for Chip & Dale, or a documentary of David Coverdale? ;0)

>>> "This movie has zero suspense." <<<

No offense, but I have to disagree strongly with your impressions. Maybe you didn't like the characters and therefor didn't care what happened to them, but to suggest that there was no suspense is just wrong; I can't be more emphatic about it.

>>> "Things shake, people die. Always." <<<

Are you upset because folks apparently die in a film about a gargantuan beast destroying a city?

>>> "Yes, the camera shakes but it's the shaky story and direction that sink it." <<<

Sorry tin, but the story is a refreshing re-envisioning of the monster genre and no amount of bellyaching is going to alter that; besides, the public seems to differ with you as well. Also, the story isn't at all shaky when one considers the rationale for making the film; IMHO, the Director captured everything he should've caught during the panicked evacuation. BTW, the film didn't tank, it reached 1st place ($40 mil. plus for the first weekend) at the Box Office, so I'm not sure what you watched sink, but it wasn't Cloverfield!

>>> "Absolutely no reason to see this film." <<<

From your subjective perspective perhaps, but once again, I strongly disagree. The only caveat I would place on this movie is that those who are overly sensitive to motion sickness might want to sit further back because the constant hand held camera movement can be disorienting.

The bottom line: Cloverfield was a brilliant film for it's genre and broke new ground even though it does owe BWP for some influence.

AuPh

Follow Ups: