Cloverfield

[borntohula]

People don't just stand there when they see rats running away from something behind them in the dark. People (I don't care how much they love someone) are not going to run past a monster and then jump from crumbling building to crumbling building in order to retrieve someone. The person they "save," after being POLED in the chest and having it ripped out of them, is not going to be able to escape the downward sloping crumbling building, run, etc. Also, even the fact that the dumb shit was carrying the camera isn't plausible. If you're running for your life from a monster, are you going to bother with recording shit?

art does not imitate life. if you want realism, you shouldn't be watching monster movies.

[Sparq]

Indeed. Also - put a length of rebar through my shoulder above the lung and I guarante I will survive for hours. and be mad as hell.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Sparq

[little miss sunshine]

And it was SO lucky that it was above the lung, wasn't it?

[decomposinglight]

And it was SO lucky that it was above the lung, wasn't it?

That's what I'm talking about!!

 

art does not imitate life. if you want realism, you shouldn't be watching monster movies.

 

Trust me, I did not want to go.

 

I just think it tried to make itself too serious, you know? Like Godzilla movies are OBVIOUS camp, and that's why they're fun to watch. This tried to be realistic and failed.

[Sparq]

I don't think Cloverfield tried to be any more realistic than most movies. It just presented the standard Giant Monster formula from a different perspective, and in a more visceral manner.

 

Yeah, the bar missed the lung. Is that unrealistic? In the real world, are all unfortunate accidents instantly lethal? I don't think there's any calculable rate of lethal vs non-lethal injuries when the building you live in tips sideways and hits another building.

 

Many of the complaints against Cloverfield are essentially complaints against the whole genre. Since when is artistic licence a bad thing? And if it is, where does that end? So say the bar hits the lung and she's dead. Fine, there's your 'realism'. But then...maybe they shouldn't have made it up the building. Or through the subway. Or across the bridge. Or out of their apartment. And there goes your movie. You can apply that to almost any movie. Oh, how convenient he only got shot in the leg. Oh, what a lucky that he fell through an awning before he hit the ground.

 

As much as I might enjoy a movie rife with death and despair wherein all of the main characters are killed and their antagonist continues on its merry way, leaving only blood, flame and ash in it's wake...most people would be pissed. They want the story points. they want the happy ending, which in my opinion does detract from many otherwise great movies. I'd say it succeeded in it's purpose. It was entertaining. Not perfect, but nothing ever is.

 

As long as we're nitpicking, the Paladin mobile artillery was a surprisingly good choice for a situation like that....usually they'd just show an Abrams tank because that's what everyone expects to see. That said, the Huey pilot is a tard, and it's unlikely that they would employ a Spirit stealth bomber for a low-level carpet bombing. That's more the domain of a Lancer or a wing of Thunderbolt IIs. But again, the circumstances are not fully revealed.

[decomposinglight]

I don't think Cloverfield tried to be any more realistic than most movies. It just presented the standard Giant Monster formula from a different perspective, and in a more visceral manner.

 

Yeah, the bar missed the lung. Is that unrealistic? In the real world, are all unfortunate accidents instantly lethal? I don't think there's any calculable rate of lethal vs non-lethal injuries when the building you live in tips sideways and hits another building.

 

Many of the complaints against Cloverfield are essentially complaints against the whole genre. Since when is artistic licence a bad thing? And if it is, where does that end? So say the bar hits the lung and she's dead. Fine, there's your 'realism'. But then...maybe they shouldn't have made it up the building. Or through the subway. Or across the bridge. Or out of their apartment. And there goes your movie. You can apply that to almost any movie. Oh, how convenient he only got shot in the leg. Oh, what a lucky that he fell through an awning before he hit the ground.

I'd have to say that yes, the fact that the bar missed the lung is somewhat unrealistic, because your lungs take up a pretty honking part of that area (along with other organs!); it's simple math.

 

But honestly, I said I didn't like it, I gave some reasons why I didn't like it (and why I do like other giant monster movies), so I don't think you have a right to attack my view (or to suggest that I dislike the genre). I'm not going out of my way to argue with anyone else's interpretations of the movie; I'm just presenting and defending my own. I know a lot of people like it, it has gotten some rave reviews from critics large to small, but I just don't think it was the bees knees. I mean, sure, the movie was graphically pretty. It was exciting. But I would only give it a 3 out of 5. It just doesn't have enough content for ME.

 

Maybe part of the reason I don't like it is also the fact that while the characters succeeded in getting her out of the building (the driving force for going out by the monster in the first place instead of doing what normal people would do), one thing lead to another and it didn't even matter by the end of it because they kicked the bucket. I'm not saying that I'd rather them have lived in the end (OHHH NO), but I would rather have had her be dead and then something else interesting happen. Something to further the plot along other than just disaster after disaster. I don't think that as a plot technique it's credible as something "artistic." Anybody could think that up.

 

Anyway, I thought that we were supposed to talk about what we thought about the movie, not get all up in arms about what other people might think...

Edited February 15, 2008 by decomposinglight

[little miss sunshine]

Ummm...how is it that they heard or saw no one else needing help in the buildings while trying to find that chick?

[Ravenous megin-sane]

'cause no one else had the bad luck to get a pipe go through their chests.

 

duuuuuh

[MissEmily]

I wouldn't mind seeing this movie. I'm not picky when it comes to thrillers/action movies, (however I cannot stand horror movies) so I'd just be going into it without bias. However, I don't know anyone who wants to see it with me, so chances are I will have to wait until it comes out on DVD, and watch it properly on my computer.