Quote Originally Posted by liquid
The website says nothing about Cloverfield. That was part of the marketing plan- to leak info about the movie without leaking info about the movie. It's risky, of course. The company that guy was going to Japan to work for is the same company that produces slusho.

We'll have to agree to disagree. My only complaint about the movie was the intense camera shaking. I wasn't going into this thinking I was getting a Shakespearean performance nor was I looking for a complex story. It's a rollercoaster ride- do you really need to think to sit back and enjoy it? I give it a 4 out of 5 and I'll definitely be watching it again.
fair enough.. i guess if you go into the movie expecting to see a bad movie, and you see a bad movie, than it's not so bad? that's how i interpret what you're saying.. I wasn't looking for Shakespeare elements, or a complex story either, and i still thought it was garbage.. I can enjoy action/suspense movies without needed an in depth story but this was just boring.. it was like the Scream movies where you have 5-7 friends and the story and suspense revolves around who's going to be the next one to die.. give me a break..

at times i seriously felt that i was watching a "behind the scenes -- special effects" special feature on a DVD.. it's like okay, the camera is pointing to a window, whats going to explode next??.. boring.. From what you're saying about that other website, it seemed like there NEEDED to be some sort of risky/mysterious marketing to make this film decent. Pretty sure it did well at the box office, but i've never seen so much hate on a film from reading articles in a while..

for the record, i watched the HD DVD of 300 last week.. and just going back to what you said about not having to think, and not having a complex story but still enjoying it.. well i thought of 300..

for 300 to be a DECENT movie, keeping the storyline in mind, it would have to have a number of GREAT elements..

and it did.. the visuals were FANTASTIC i thought.. and i'm referring to the costumes and colors and such, not the scenery.. even though it looked like it was filmed on a very small set (no idea if it was) it still looked great.. There was decent acting even though it wasn't great at times, but still a lot better than some mainstream flicks that come across.. and there was a ton of just straight up fighting and action.

So even though i didn't think 300 was a GREAT movie.. it was still entertaining and had a vague historic background.. a fantastic movie to see in theaters and a good movie when there's a bunch of people over you can just throw it on for some sort of background ambiance if you will.. So i'd say that even though it wasn't a good 'film' it was an entertaining movie, which gets points in my book..

Cloverfield lacked background ( i understand the mystery of the 'monster' ) and just seemed to come out of nowhere.. I also think that a sci-fi/action/suspense movie like this isn't really meant for a mainstream audience.. Not everyone liked King Kong, Godzilla, Independence Day etc.. which is why, from what i've read, the majority of the audience was disapointed..