43 replies to this topic

[Alias]

BEHOLD

[Hobbesy]

Let me guess, Sci-Fi Channel?

[NergiZed]

That has to be the most hilarious movie trailer I've seen this year.

[Ion Cannon!]

Thats a joke right?

[NergiZed]

It's now officially the best movie ever.

A shark attacked a 747

[AZZKIKR]

wow, my prediction came through. i actually thought, they have a alien vs predator movie, monsters vs aliens, why can't they make an octopus vs shark? i r psychic

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

[quote name='NergiZed' post='648316' date='18 May 2009, 23:33']

It's now officially the best movie ever.

A shark attacked a 747[/quote]
So that's how they ended up on the island in lost... it all makes sense now...

[RaiDK]

I might actually be looking forward to this if it wasn't by The Asylum, makers of horrible rip-off/cash-in movies..

Edited by RaiDK, 19 May 2009 - 00:36.

[Razven]

What's wrong with Cloverfield? I loved the movie.

[RaiDK]

Razven, on 19 May 2009, 10:46, said:

What's wrong with Cloverfield? I loved the movie.

This.

[WNxMastrefubu]

cloverfield's still worse.

[Ghostrider]

Octopus facepalmed a jet out of the sky...

Awesome.

[Shirou]

RaiDK, on 19 May 2009, 2:50, said:

Razven, on 19 May 2009, 10:46, said:

What's wrong with Cloverfield? I loved the movie.

This.

That stupid nerd should shut his face imo.

[BeefJeRKy]

Yeah I heard Cloverfield was anti-climactic. This movie is pure LULz though.

[RaiDK]

Shock, on 19 May 2009, 16:09, said:

RaiDK, on 19 May 2009, 2:50, said:

Razven, on 19 May 2009, 10:46, said:

What's wrong with Cloverfield? I loved the movie.

This.

That stupid nerd should shut his face imo.

Someone apparently can't take a joke. That guy is pretty well the equivilent of the AVGN for movies.

My personal reasons why Cloverfield wasn't great:
- Unbelievable/Irritating characters
- The monster itself. No explanation, just 'HERE IS A MONSTER, NOW THINGS WILL EXPLODE'. Not to mention the monster itself is pretty 'meh' in terms of movie monsters.
- Generally unbelievable plot. I mean, they're able to get up a building LEANING ON ANOTHER BUILDING, rescue the girl, who apart from being pinned to the ground is FINE OTHERWISE, kill one of those evil smaller monsters and get out of the building COMPLETELY UNHARMED.

The movie to me felt like either one of those interactive amusement park rides or an overblown video game cinematic. One or the other.

Also, Awesomefield

Edited by RaiDK, 19 May 2009 - 06:45.

[General]

This movie is a joke, Cloverfield was cool imo, don't care what other thinks about it. Atleast creature was hell more realistic than most of these giant creature films.

[RaiDK]

It what way? Because it didn't shoot atomic beams? Because it couldn't fly? Because it had no identifiable powers and was generally very bland?

As soon as you say "Giant Monster" you can generally throw reality out the window.

Edited by RaiDK, 19 May 2009 - 06:55.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

RaiDK, on 19 May 2009, 7:41, said:

Shock, on 19 May 2009, 16:09, said:

RaiDK, on 19 May 2009, 2:50, said:

Razven, on 19 May 2009, 10:46, said:

What's wrong with Cloverfield? I loved the movie.

This.

That stupid nerd should shut his face imo.

Someone apparently can't take a joke. That guy is pretty well the equivilent of the AVGN for movies.

My personal reasons why Cloverfield wasn't great:
- Unbelievable/Irritating characters
- The monster itself. No explanation, just 'HERE IS A MONSTER, NOW THINGS WILL EXPLODE'. Not to mention the monster itself is pretty 'meh' in terms of movie monsters.
- Generally unbelievable plot. I mean, they're able to get up a building LEANING ON ANOTHER BUILDING, rescue the girl, who apart from being pinned to the ground is FINE OTHERWISE, kill one of those evil smaller monsters and get out of the building COMPLETELY UNHARMED.

The movie to me felt like either one of those interactive amusement park rides or an overblown video game cinematic. One or the other.

Also, Awesomefield

"Generally unbelievable plot."

Yeah, because monster movies, in face movies in general, always make so much sense and are extremely realistic

I liked Cloverfield, why? Probably because unlike a lot of people I don't bother listening to hype or bad reviews about movies. From what I can remember there was quite a bit of hype, and because it was "just a monster movie" and didn't live up to the hype... it must be shite then, there is clearly no in-between.

As for "No explanation", you obviously didn't get the point of the film. It's shot from the perspective of some random people that get caught up in everything. They don't know anything, so you don't know anything.

[General]

RaiDK, on 19 May 2009, 8:55, said:

It what way? Because it didn't shoot atomic beams? Because it couldn't fly? Because it had no identifiable powers and was generally very bland?

As soon as you say "Giant Monster" you can generally throw reality out the window.

I mean by reality : creature fits the scene and colours perfectly, you know it is 3D but you can't seperate it from the real object's texture quality because its pretty well done, like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park well done, not like this shark vs octopus thing, game companies does better graphics than this on their CG movies.

Also Giant monster isn't something impossible if you mean it scientifical ways

Edited by General, 19 May 2009 - 16:25.

[Chyros]

Though that reviewer's re-enactment of Cloverfield made me lol, I still disagree with him - most monster movies aren't filmed nearly as interesting as Cloverfield IMO and make a number of critical faults such as revealing plot details that should remain a mystery. The fact you're never leaving the perspective of the filmer in Cloverfield, nor obtain more knowledge than he does, is critical for the movie's level of interesting-ness.

[Pandut]

Just the name 'Giant shark vs Giant octopus' makes the movie bad enough already. No need to watch the movie, the title explains the whole story. It's a giant shark versus a giant octopus.

EDIT: Oh, my bad, its MEGA Shark vs giant octopus...

Edited by Sobek, 19 May 2009 - 16:56.

[Destiny]

Megalodon vs Enteroctopus?

[WNxMastrefubu]

Sobek, on 19 May 2009, 12:56, said:

Just the name 'Giant shark vs Giant octopus' makes the movie bad enough already. No need to watch the movie, the title explains the whole story. It's a giant shark versus a giant octopus.

doesnt tell u who wins . i hav my money on the octopus, any other guesses?

[Alias]

The problem with Cloverfield was it was so pretentiously done.

"We don't need a backstory OR character development because we have an ORIGINAL camera idea!"
The problem is, that 'camera idea' makes the movie entirely unwatchable. It may be original, but it was executed very badly.

[DerKrieger]

Man, I haven't seen CG like that since...1998.

That might even make this look good: Pulgasari, a North Korean (srsly) Godzilla-style movie



Apparently Kim Jong Il kidnapped some South Korean director and his family and forced him to make this movie! The full movie is here.