# Movie Discuss



## NerdyMunk (Apr 13, 2008)

Last year (2007) I went to see so many good movies. But now this year, the ones i've seen in order
Cloverfield- ****
Meet the Spartans-
Jumper-
10,000 B.C.-

*Legend: In 1 to 5 stars*
_No stars- It made my eyes bleed out of my sockets
*-not worth the seven bucks
**-not worth the seven bucks and popcorn
***- average
****-take your friend to see it
*****- masterpiece_

I just don't see many good movies out this year which for me makes 2008 the dullest year of all time. Indiana Jones, maybe Wanted, and the new Harry Potter on the only flics on my to-watch list this year. I had a-plently on my to-watch list last year, but 08's crap


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Apr 13, 2008)

I haven't seen any movies in theatres yet this year (after seeing 4 or 5 last year)


----------



## NerdyMunk (Apr 13, 2008)

TyVulpine said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any movies in theatres yet this year (after seeing 4 or 5 last year)



I've seen enough to actually judge a movie trailer as bad or good and whether to see it. Seen enough to know what is good and bad


----------



## Fou-lu (Apr 13, 2008)

I've only seen 2 movies in 08 so far. 
Sweeney Todd, definately *****
Kapitein Rob, **** (a Dutch movie, aimed at kids, but it was awesome. If I had to describe it in one sentence I'd call it a Dutch low-budget James Bond movie.)

I plan on watching at least 2 movies this year: 'Indiana Jones' and 'The Dark Knight'.


----------



## Hybrid Project Alpha (Apr 13, 2008)

Cloverfield was very good, but a lot of friends of mine couldn't enjoy it due to motion sickness :x


----------



## Dyluck (Apr 13, 2008)

I've seen so many movies this year I don't think that I could list them all.


----------



## CombatRaccoon (Apr 14, 2008)

dude, cloverfeild? ugh! I'm sorry but 
1) it wasn't scary
2) it made extremely poor use of the first person perspective
3) the plot was shit
4) i don't care about some person's party enough to watch twenty minutes of it
5) The monster was just a shitty silent hill ripoff 

five reasons why this movie doesn't deserve five stars. Or any stars. 
Personally if you want to see a monster movie, watch godzilla, or mothra, or godzilla vs mothra. 
If you want to see a good horror movie watch any Evil Dead. 
If you're looking for a movie that makes use of the first person perspective camera idea then watch the goddamn blair witch project. (yes... that was that bad of a movie that I will reccomend THAT movie)

However, if you want to watch a movie with AVERAGE characters at an AVERAGE party, filmed by an AVERAGE camera, who all get attacked by an AVERAGE monster in an AVERAGE (and overused) city, and who reaact as AVERAGE people would to the AVERAGE monster's AVERAGE attacks on AVERAGE people, then this is your movie.

no stars. 
It was too AVERAGE to make my eyes bleed, though.


----------



## Dyluck (Apr 14, 2008)

The point of the movie was that they were just average people reacting like any normal person would.


----------



## CombatRaccoon (Apr 14, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:
			
		

> The point of the movie was that they were just average people reacting like any normal person would.



yea, and thats exactly why it sucked. 

I don't give two hot shits about normal people. 
If I cared for normalcy I wouldn't be a furry, would I?


----------



## Shadow Wolf (Apr 15, 2008)

I've only seen 2 movies in 2008, I'm really looking forward to Harold and Kumar: Escape From Guantanamo Bay, Iron Man and Wolverine: Origins...definitely seeing those. My 08 reviews:

I Am Legend*****
National Treasure 2****

EDIT: I guess those are 07 movies since they were released in 2007. But still, I saw them in 2008.


----------



## ShaneO))) (Apr 15, 2008)

CombatRaccoon said:
			
		

> dude, cloverfeild? ugh! I'm sorry but
> 1) it wasn't scary
> 2) it made extremely poor use of the first person perspective
> 3) the plot was shit
> ...



To Quote a great man

"thats like.....just your opinion man."

I liked it. I guess i'm a retard with no taste in movies 

Oh and BTW. The monster(s) were creative and not a silent hill rip off AT ALL! What creature are you even thinking of anyway?


----------



## NerdyMunk (Apr 15, 2008)

No Country for Old Men was definitely a ***** masterpiece, but that's a 2007 movie i saw in March 08.
Cloverfield was good because it was. _No one_ has ever achieved special effects like that in a handheld camera. A clever way of hiding the script might have ticked people off saying it had "no plot" or "just plain stupid". The fact that is was handheld interested me. If it was filmed with steadycams and frequent cuts and angles, I would probably steer away from it, thinking it would be another failed monster movie. But making it handheld makes it unique w/some characters you can relate and a story you cannot really relate to because some just don't see it there


----------



## Rhainor (Apr 15, 2008)

CombatRaccoon said:
			
		

> ...if you want to see a monster movie, watch godzilla, or mothra, or godzilla vs mothra.


I don't like the Godzilla movies because of their (seemingly) crappy production values.  What I want in a monster movie is not a guy in a rubber suit stomping around a cardboard miniature city.  Some people get a kick out of that.  Not me.



			
				CombatRaccoon said:
			
		

> However, if you want to watch a movie with AVERAGE characters at an AVERAGE party, filmed by an AVERAGE camera, who all get attacked by an AVERAGE monster in an AVERAGE (and overused) city, and who reaact as AVERAGE people would to the AVERAGE monster's AVERAGE attacks on AVERAGE people...


A movie is more than the sum of its parts.


----------



## Oni (Apr 15, 2008)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> CombatRaccoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Could you please elaborate about "A movie is more than the sum of its parts" ?


----------



## Rhainor (Apr 15, 2008)

Oni said:
			
		

> Could you please elaborate about "A movie is more than the sum of its parts" ?



You say all the things in Cloverfield are "average", which if the movie were merely those things taken together, would make it an average movie.  But when you put those things together; when you combine them in just the right way, mix it all together, and "cook" it up properly, you get a very much above-average movie.

I'm sorry you didn't like it.  I thought it was great.


----------



## Oni (Apr 15, 2008)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> Oni said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have succeeded in confusing me.


----------



## Rhainor (Apr 15, 2008)

Oni said:
			
		

> You have succeeded in confusing me.



Sorry, I don't know how to explain it that would be any clearer.


----------



## Oni (Apr 15, 2008)

Bah!

Requests a re-wording of your statement!



			
				Rhainor said:
			
		

> _"You say all the things in Cloverfield are "average", which if the movie were merely those things taken together, would make it an average movie. But when you put those things together; when you combine them in just the right way, mix it all together, and "cook" it up properly, you get a very much above-average movie."_



This is what I comprehend:

You and CombatRaccoon have a opinions about Cloverfield which differ.

_According to Rhainor,_
Cloverfield is "Average" when a person states that most of the elements or parts of Cloverfield are average.

_According to Rhainor,_
When elements or parts of a movie are arranged in a certain way, that makes an above average movie.

(Is the above related to the phrase "a movie is more than the sum of its parts"?)


----------



## Xipoid (Apr 15, 2008)

He means that even though the parts alone are average, they can be assembled in such a way as to make them, as a whole, above average.

For example:
Take this short movie. The effects are terrible, the acting is bad, the costume design is sub-par, and the camera usage is far from amazing. However, in the manner it is assembled and presented it is better as a whole than any part alone.


----------



## Oni (Apr 15, 2008)

Xipoid said:
			
		

> He means that even though the parts alone are average, they can be assembled in such a way as to make them, as a whole, above average.


Ha, that does clarify things Xipoid. ^.^ Thank You.



			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> For example:
> Take this short movie. The effects are terrible, the acting is bad, the costume design is sub-par, and the camera usage is far from amazing. However, in the manner it is assembled and presented it is better as a whole than any part alone.


My original inquiry made regard to the phrase "a movie is more than the sum of it's parts". I find that to be false, and I was searching for a counter reasoning.


----------



## CombatRaccoon (Apr 15, 2008)

No, but thats the thing. 

everything in cloverfield was average. 

Average+average= Double Average. 

which means supremely, insanely, extremely average. 


and of course that's my opinion. To yours, your own as well.
I would just like to reiterate the dullness that is cloverfield. 

And don't get on godzilla. That movie was a pioneer in special effects when it came out. On the flip-side, cloverfield did NOTHING that other movies have not done. 
Look at it that way.

When comparing cloverfield to other 2008 releases, it clearly just blurs away with the giant cloud of mediocricy that was 2008 as far as movies go. 
Except for No Country For Old Men. 

Now that movie did many things that other movies did not do. The portrayal of Anton... the very epitamy of evil itself. The character without emotion. That was beautiful. 
Not to mention the excellent direction in the film... and the amazing scenery. 

comparing the two:
No country for old men:
beautiful setting
interesting characters
myterious and enwrapping plotline
excellent direction
wonderful script with many great monologues

cloverfield:
overused setting, also potrayed in a rather average fashion
Average, uninteresting characters (if I wanted to watch average people I would watch a sitcom, not a monster movie)
Overused plotline (monster attacks. things blow up. been there, done that.)
really, really, godforsakenly AWFUL use of the first-person cam. (ok... so for some reason it blurs out ONLY when the monster comes into the shot? bullcrappery!)
A script that consists of "hey baby you like the party?" and "AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"



well I think I made my point. 
average + average = average.


----------



## ShaneO))) (Apr 15, 2008)

CombatRaccoon said:
			
		

> No, but thats the thing.
> 
> everything in cloverfield was average.
> 
> ...



Well duh. Any moron knows no country was FARRRR superior to cloverfield. I just like cloverfield because i have a soft spot for creature features. Hell i LOVED the mist and im sure most people here thought it sucked. Oh well Fuck em, i thought it was a good movie. A little akward at times but good.


----------



## CombatRaccoon (Apr 16, 2008)

i love creatures features too, ya know.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Apr 17, 2008)

Cloverfield is an interesting movie in the fact that you must no expect what you normaly expect from "normal" movie to enjoy it. And teenagers (other than the few that can analyz it) hate it because "the camera was shaky, you didn't get to see the monster enough, or we didn't get to know enough". This is a movie about the people, how _they_ react to the situation, the monster is just a catalyst to the situation. The shaky camera is, in my opinion, exelently executed. Compare the camera work in Cloverfield with, oh, The Blair Witch Project. It's like comparing a rusty dodge pickup with a Lincoln (ok mabey thats a bit exagerated, but you get the general picture). Cloverfield is a definite ****, minus for it's length. It could have been just a bit longer. But it requires you to really analyze it.


----------

