Scots Taffer on 17/1/2008 at 04:41
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Slow down, Harold. It doesn't open for a couple more days.
Huh, for some reason it opened here before the U.S. It's out tonight.
Gingerbread Man on 17/1/2008 at 04:53
I guess they want to push the weekend opening here.
jtr7 on 17/1/2008 at 05:14
Yeah, the local theater is having a 12:01 AM showing, which means, for this theater, that they anticipate making money when most of the city has shut down for the night. The only other time they'll have just-after-midnight showings is when the studios encourage it, or advertise it, otherwise this theater won't bother.
Fafhrd on 17/1/2008 at 05:25
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Anyone seen this yet?
There are the usual hyperbole-filled reviews on AICN that I can't be arsed deciphering amidst the verbal wankery and name-dropping.
Word on the significantly less hyperbole filled CHUD.com is that it's actually quite good.
Hier on 17/1/2008 at 13:33
It's at 68% on (
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfield/) Rotten Tomatoes right now. Most agree that it's pretty intense, but short (only 80 mins), has LOTS of shaky-cam, and the characters are unlikeable. Which probably isn't too bad since it's a monster movie and the characters are only there for food.
SubJeff on 18/1/2008 at 18:27
I don't do shaky cam anymore. The Bourne films handled it well and people complained. But that Jamie Fox CIA in Saudi one was far worse. I walked out of it at the Scrabble on the plane bit. If shaky is deemed bad in Bourne when they are having lunch then how dumb is shaky with the most sedate game in the world? And Blair Witch made me feel ill too. I'll skip this until it hits video I think. Shame, the premise is exciting but battling nausea to watch a film isn't going to happen.
Gingerbread Man on 19/1/2008 at 01:10
Nobody really cares about this movie. As soon as someone posts a decent pic of this monster on the internet, that's it for the box office. Seriously, it's all been about the exquisitely well-managed hype. Both for the movie as well as the inexplicably-revered J J Abrams. Alias and Lost. And then?
lol star traks ahahahaha that's what killed him officer
okay ps plus he apparently wrote the stunningly cliché armageddons ahahaha that nearly killed bruce willis officer
thefonz on 19/1/2008 at 15:44
Oh come on, its JJ Abrams!
The man who brought us Alias and Lost!
You know you would, don't deny it.
The_Raven on 19/1/2008 at 16:34
Alias was a crap show. University student by day, special CIA double agent by night?! long lost sister?! everyone and their dog is a double agent?! ancient secret weapon that has to be constructed by enigmatic clues?! the list goes on. All the plot twists from the show were pulled from the big book of clichés.
As for Lost, Abrams really hasn't been involved in the show after setting it up. I'm also completely apathetic towards the show after the disaster of that was season 3. Almost all the characters grate on my nerves now, and the ones that are actually watchable have been reduced in their roles. Chances are that I'll probably not even watch the remaining seasons, it pissed me off that much.
While some of the material from the new Star Trek movie sounds promising, I have a feeling that Abrams will kill what's left of the franchise. Recasting classic trek parts, I believe, is a mistake and a half. No matter who you get, they'll never compare to the original actors. With all the untapped areas of the Star Trek timeline - i.e The Human-Romulan war, etc...- I have a hard time believing that best they could do was young Kirk and Spock. Actually, with some rewrites, I think the released info on the (
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Beginning) original Star Trek XI would have actually had a chance of being a decent movie. In its abandoned form, however, it did have some problems.
Thirith on 19/1/2008 at 19:01
Quote Posted by The_Raven
While some of the material from the new Star Trek movie sounds promising, I have a feeling that Abrams will kill what's left of the franchise. Recasting classic trek parts, I believe, is a mistake and a half. No matter who you get, they'll never compare to the original actors. With all the untapped areas of the Star Trek timeline - i.e The Human-Romulan war, etc...- I have a hard time believing that best they could do was young Kirk and Spock. Actually, with some rewrites, I think the released info on the (
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Beginning) original Star Trek XI would have actually had a chance of being a decent movie. In its abandoned form, however, it did have some problems.
pretty dead, creatively speaking - at least canon Trek. At worst J.J. Abrahams is beating a dead horse to no one's detriment, at best he can bring an interesting new take to it.
