THE (ALMOST) UNDELETED

Is anyone else starting to feel "eh?" about this movie? I am getting sick of seeing ads for it. Here is a review from the SF Chronicle that gives it a thumbs up with notes of some disappointing elements. I think that Ill probably go see it in the theater, but wont shed a tear if I have to wait for DVD.

I'm running projectors this weekend so I will probably end up seeing most of it, definately one aimed at the frakin tweeners.

Rob

That article says its got a love story in it that is right out of Felicity.

Omphalos wrote:That article says its got a love story in it that is right out of Felicity.

Hopefully that's the chick that explodes in the ad.

Ragabash wrote:

Omphalos wrote:That article says its got a love story in it that is right out of Felicity.

Hopefully that's the chick that explodes in the ad.

It would take a lot to get me into a theater these days.

Unless the theater lets me drink beer in my underwear while scratching myself.

But it looks interesting. I'm very curious to find out more about it.

Freakzilla wrote:Unless the theater lets me drink beer in my underwear while scratching myself.

Er...thanks there, big guy, for another glimpse into your mind.

To partially quote the rest of your comment:

It looks interesting. But I'm not sure if I'm very curious to find out more....



The theater here in Iwaki SUCKS VERY LARGE HYBRID HORSE PARTS. They either never show any of the current, popular movies OR they show them in dubbed versions. Grrrrrrrr.

I guess that was a gross way of saying I'd rather watch a movie on my own home theater system in my living room.

Got that.

(It's only gross if you sniff your fingers afterwards, though, right?)

I don't really understand the allure of viral marketing. I suppose at it's most basic, it is a way to capture a few more innocent bystanders in the slimy grip of your companies wretched marketing campaign for an absolute shit product. But does it really work on any large scale? Maybe because it's low cost, the low return isn't really much of a concern.

Doesn't it always come down to the money?


(No opinion on the finger sniffing?)

SandChigger wrote:(No opinion on the finger sniffing?)

Doesn't bother me too much. You gotta have some objective way of determining if you need a shower.

Omphalos wrote:

SandChigger wrote:(No opinion on the finger sniffing?)

Doesn't bother me too much. You gotta have some objective way of determining if you need a shower.

I settle on "general principle" for that. Once a week whether I need to or not!

SandChigger wrote:Doesn't it always come down to the money

Why sir, surely you ask such a question in jest?

(No opinion on the finger sniffing?)

I was once told that everyone likes the smell of their own, but just won't admit it

I saw Cloverfield today. It was good. Not great, not bad, but good. Here are some thoughts on it without spoilers:

The story was pretty run-of-the-mill as far as monster stomping city movies go. They drew heavily from Godzilla et al for it. It was done competently, and the visuals were highly satisfying.

The main portion of their developmental energy went into the presentation of the story, and that is where the movie shines. It relies at first more on misdirection and fear of the unseen than FX. (This changes in the third act.) Being a huge fan of cinema verite, I deeply enjoyed the shaky handicam footage that comprised the entire movie. YMMV.

I can't really go into it more without spoilers, so take that for what it's worth: not much.

Finally saw this last (Sunday) night.

I quite enjoyed it.

And my appreciation of it only intensified when I watched The Mist (with its shit ending) Monday morning.

SandChigger wrote:Finally saw this last (Sunday) night.

I quite enjoyed it.

And my appreciation of it only intensified when I watched The Mist (with its shit ending) Monday morning.

Mist ends different than the book? I still want to see that one.

Oops.

DON'T READ MY POST IN THE OTHER THREAD!!!!

I liked Cloverfield too, I was left hungry for more. I hear rumors of a sequel. (someone else's video camera.)

I'd watch it.

SandChigger wrote:Oops.

DON'T READ MY POST IN THE OTHER THREAD!!!!

Heh. Too late.

I did not like this movie because of the shaky
handcam type of filming. I'm sorry but it was
REALLY REALLY REALLY annoying.
The party scene at the beginning was way too long
and really the story had no begiuning and no end.
There was only the middle and I really could not
generate any sympathy for the characters.
I give Mr Abrams kudos for
trying something different but I just didn't like it.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:I did not like this movie because of the shaky
handcam type of filming. I'm sorry but it was
REALLY REALLY REALLY annoying.

That kind of thing always drives me nuts too.

Omphalos wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:I did not like this movie because of the shaky
handcam type of filming. I'm sorry but it was
REALLY REALLY REALLY annoying.

That kind of thing always drives me nuts too.

i found it effective... had to watch it from further back from the tv tho

Baraka Bryan wrote:

Omphalos wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:I did not like this movie because of the shaky
handcam type of filming. I'm sorry but it was
REALLY REALLY REALLY annoying.

That kind of thing always drives me nuts too.

i found it effective... had to watch it from further back from the tv tho

I thought it was just the pint of whiskey I had while watching, guess not!

We had several patrons puke due to the camera work nothing on par with the Blair Witch but cleaning puke fucking sucks period.

Rob

Huh. I'm usually fairly sensitive to stuff like that, but this one didn't bother me at all.

Who knows.

Omphalos wrote:Is anyone else starting to feel "eh?" about this movie?

Felt that way when I first heard about it.

Felt that way through all the hype.

Felt that way after watching it.

Still feel that way.