> If they choose to go with a steady cam...no matter the content of the
> film,
> wouldn't that instantly raise it above the original?
Good point. That alone would bring the movie back to me original rating of
9 Blown Goats.
Other improvements, and their cumulative effect on my overall rating:
On Feb 1, 2008 9:47 AM, Adam Churvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Only two sequels in history were ever better than their predecessors:
> Aliens
> and Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. I don't think Cloverfield will be Number
> Three.
>
If they choose to go with a steady cam...no matter the content o
> The Sequel is already in the works.
Today, at this very moment, ten little goats are being born.
Ten little goats, innocent and true, suckling the nourishing milk from their
mothers and just beginning to open their eyes.
Ten little goats who, unfortunately, will come of age just in time for
"C
You know..in a way I think it was a good idea.
And there certainly were tense moments. Just glimpsing the monster
etc. was a good trick that worked to build tension and suspense in the
movie.
The fact that you followed a small group who didn't really know what
was happening, rather than a hero scie
;t make you turn away from the screen every
now and then just so you don't vomit.
Respectfully,
Adam Phillip Churvis
President
Productivity Enhancement
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:13 AM
> To: CF-Community
&
Yeah, looked at Cloverfield.
It is...well it reminded me of the Blair Witch project, which I didn't
like that much either.
Focusing on a small group of individuals was a nice touch.
The camera style just didn't work for me. It may have been meant to be
'realistic'...
but in reality it took away f
> 8. Only because I saw the splashy and because big monsters tearing
> down
> buildings is always fun.
Eight, huh?
Well, I can see that.
But still, blowing eight goats...
Reminds me of the time I interviewed Martin Brest, writer and director of
"Gigli":
AC: Martin, you have blown many goats d
8. Only because I saw the splashy and because big monsters tearing down
buildings is always fun.
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Churvis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: Cloverfield blows goats
&g
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:23 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Cloverfield blows goats
>
> Hahaha
>
> I just got done watching this. Ugh. While the handheld camera/jerky
> action
> didn't make me feel ill, it was WAY too much. I didn't feel like
Hahaha
I just got done watching this. Ugh. While the handheld camera/jerky action
didn't make me feel ill, it was WAY too much. I didn't feel like I was 'in
the story', or whatever crap the director was going for. I felt annoyed. I
could have taken my camera out back, tied it to a string,
-Community
Subject: RE: Cloverfield blows goats
Oh yeah, one more thing...
At the very end, when the video tape goes back to the earlier segment and
you see the water in the background of the Ferris wheel, you naturally are
looking intensely for something -- ANYTHING -- that makes it relevant to the
movi
> Adam Phillip Churvis
> President
> Productivity Enhancement
>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:11 AM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: Re: Cloverfield blows goats
>>
>> di
I luv ya man. you're the best. My laptop? Not so much love for you coming
from there. Still cleaning up the tea I spit all over it...
On 1/22/08, Adam Churvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Oh, the work this guy had to go through blowing no fewer than ten goats,
> one
> right after the other, ri
gt; -Original Message-
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:11 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Cloverfield blows goats
>
> did you read ray camdens take on it?
> completely opposite of adams.
>
> http://www.coldfusionj
The shaky camera, only able to glimpse the action, nauseous feeling, etc.
were all the things that I feared the most when I started reading about the
movie.
Adam pretty much confirmed my fears :(
On Jan 22, 2008 10:11 AM, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> did you read ray camdens take on it?
> c
did you read ray camdens take on it?
completely opposite of adams.
http://www.coldfusionjedi.com/index.cfm/2008/1/20/Cloverfield-is
however, on adams goat scale, i like his
taste in movies, so i may tend to slant in
his direction, more than rays...
but either wouldnt sway me... im a dvd
watchin
You just ruined my week :(
Well, YOU didn'tAbrams did. I HATE HATE HATE first perspective movies,
with shaky cameras and all that shit. If i wanted to watch that crap, I'd
watch my own home videos.
This sucks.
On Jan 19, 2008 5:08 PM, Adam Churvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Okay. been wa
Damn I so wanted this to be good, oh well move it to the dvd list.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:08 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Cloverfield blows goats
Okay. been waiting for this one since the first trailer sighting
hmmm... is it all about perspective?
http://www.coldfusionjedi.com/index.cfm/2008/1/20/Cloverfield-is
tw
On Jan 19, 2008 8:52 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ishtar??? 10 blown goats???!!! You must not recognize the genius
> that was Ishtar :)
>
> I've been noticing more and
Ishtar??? 10 blown goats???!!! You must not recognize the genius
that was Ishtar :)
I've been noticing more and more shows doing that constantly moving
camera crap lately. The most recent thing was "Design on a Dime". I
almost got sick watching it (It was on TV at the in-laws and I was too
laz
20 matches
Mail list logo
