Cloverfield (USA/2008)

Mark CLOVERFIELD

6/6
1
11%
5/6
5
56%
4/6
2
22%
3/6
1
11%
2/6
0
No votes
1/6
0
No votes
0/6
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 9
User avatar
Rawhide
prince
prince
Posts: 8749
Joined: Mon 11 Nov, 2002 19:17
Xbox Live ID: OLAWRawhide
Location: Maple Valley, WA, USA
Contact:

Postby Rawhide » Mon 28 Jan, 2008 20:37

Chevalier Bayard wrote:I think one person you don't know has hidden herself among the 5 people you knew ;) (1 who liked + 1 who disliked + 4 who found it too short = 6)


Yes, I should have said 3 said it was good but too short.

Chevalier Bayard wrote:Regarding the duration, well, it used to be the norm years ago. I prefer that the movie stands 85 "full minutes" than it stands 2 hours or more with me looking at my watch from time to time, boring as obviously some scenes have been added to reach the 2 hours movie or more...


Indeed I have seen several movies this length (85 - 90 minutes) in the theater. Sometimes I have come out asking if that was all there was to the movieand other times I didn't realize how short the movie was. I think content is definitely more important than length, but if the viewer comes out thinking about the length of the movie, whether it be too short or too long, I think that it is an indicator that the movie was lacking something. The viewer wasn't engaged enough to not notice the time.


Edit: I do plan to see this movie, just not yet.
Last edited by Rawhide on Tue 29 Jan, 2008 19:14, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Rawhide a.k.a. RAWofDOG

User avatar
Nau of Sands
marquess
marquess
Posts: 2993
Joined: Tue 19 Aug, 2003 20:26
Location: Locked inside a suitcase
Contact:

Postby Nau of Sands » Tue 29 Jan, 2008 15:41

It was a nice Monster movie, shot in a very original way and the director  had the capacities to hold the public focus for the whole duration. I had a good time watching it, but I don t think I would go for it a second time;

I d say 3 is a good mark.

User avatar
Shadow Goughy
baron
baron
Posts: 1748
Joined: Thu 22 May, 2003 22:26
Location: wigan, uk
Contact:

Postby Shadow Goughy » Sat 08 Mar, 2008 11:42

Watched this a couple of weeks back, we got in the cinema quite late so was very near the front by the end it had turned my stomach.  Thankfully that did not negatively effect my opinion of the film.

On terms of length think they got it spot on really,  we've all seen monster films where they try and drag it out with encounter after encounter with the army, it just draws on.  I felt once it got start it had a nice pace right to the end.  By shooting with a handycam and taking emphasis off showing the monster made this really stand out and worked really well in my opinion.

Overall worthy of 5/6.

User avatar
A.I
legend
legend
Posts: 3623
Joined: Mon 26 May, 2003 22:35
Steam ID: Mongoose182
Xbox Live ID: Jimmy FTW
Location: Wigan, England
Contact:

Postby A.I » Sat 08 Mar, 2008 14:46

Yeah being close to the front plus eating Minstrels not all that good for you :D.

Was a good film wasnt too short, had some laughs in it, or at least me and Renz who was sat next to me did comparing Hud to an RL mate :D.

I agree with the general mark here on 5/6.
Image


Return to “North America”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests