10 Cloverfield Lane by AURaptor

CINEMA

10 Cloverfield Lane

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Sunday, April 10, 2016 15:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4820
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, March 19, 2016 7:55 PM

America loves a winner!

John Goodman rocked. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a doll. The movie ? Suspenseful, to be sure. I won't even comment on the title , but the movie does leave ya guessing , through out.

Kinda reminded me of MOON, for those who saw that flick. It was and wasn't what I expected, which doesn't explain much.

I liked it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2016 11:41 AM

WISHIMAY

I'd like to know the end of the story, but I won't see it in theater. Hubbs can't calm down from those kinds of movies, and it makes the whole weekend tense...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2016 3:43 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
John Goodman rocked. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a doll. The movie ? Suspenseful, to be sure. I won't even comment on the title , but the movie does leave ya guessing , through out.

Kinda reminded me of MOON, for those who saw that flick. It was and wasn't what I expected, which doesn't explain much.

I liked it.

I normally enjoy and seek out Mary Elizabeth Winstead flicks, at least since Quinten and DH4, but from what trailers I've seen, her role appears like window dressing.
But I should check it out after your post.
Should I see the first film beforehand?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2016 4:50 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Guys, go see this movie. It is all kinds of AWESOME!!!

No, it's not better than Deadpool, but don't let that stop you. If you are into good movie making, straight out suspense and fun, got see 10CL. It starts out slow, but then picks up speed until you realize you're into it. Goodman is gold, and the supporting cast is solid as well.

You know what it's about from the trailer, but if you haven't seen it, a young woman has a car accident and a good Samaritan helps her to recover. I will not go beyond that because it would involve spoilers. Suffice it to say it gets interesting from there. Here's a hint, pay attention to details.

I have to say that the script, written by Josh Campbell and Matt Stuecken, was brilliantly developed and laid out, almost as if they were building a movie made with simple Lego bricks. Piece by piece they present the character-driven story, and, trust me, this is not a low rent version of Cloverfield, although, at first glance, it appears to be. Remember, like I said, it's all in the details. I could easily imagine that the writers are Joss Whedon fans, the way this turned out.

Anyway, I could see this easily being a sleeper hit. But, I'm curious as to why they would release it now (a week before the whole Batman v. Superman flick). Do they know something we don't, or did they run out of opening weekends to present their story. This film was good enough to present during the summer season, and, IMHO, it could have done extremely well.

Two thumbs, way up! (with apologies to Siskel & Ebert).

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2016 5:08 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Mary Elizabeth Winstead, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

First saw her in Scott Pilgrim v. The World and I was hooked. Then in Live Free or Die Hard, furthered my undying love for her. She is awesome!

And no, she is not window dressing..........she is just fine. I won't say more than that, NO Spoilers.

Yes, like Rappy says, it keeps you guessing. I loved it! It would take you down a path and then the floor would drop out, then twist you about, and never ever predictable. That's rare to do these days of derivative movie making. Like I said, it's Movie Making 101, leaving you little bread crumbs along the way and then "which way is up" good suspenseful movie making, done right. I will keep an eye out for Josh Campbell and Matthew Stuecken (the writers), they will go far.

Also special mention should go to director Dan Trachtenberg, in his first feature length movie.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
John Goodman rocked. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a doll. The movie ? Suspenseful, to be sure. I won't even comment on the title , but the movie does leave ya guessing , through out.

Kinda reminded me of MOON, for those who saw that flick. It was and wasn't what I expected, which doesn't explain much.

I liked it.

I normally enjoy and seek out Mary Elizabeth Winstead flicks, at least since Quinten and DH4, but from what trailers I've seen, her role appears like window dressing.
But I should check it out after your post.
Should I see the first film beforehand?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2016 5:16 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

By the way, although it has the name Cloverfield in it, it's nothing like the first film and I believe it's a stand-alone film.

It was paced and edited well, and keeps you interested. Everything in this movie counts as clues, like I said - unpredictable. Potential Sleeper hit.

Go and have fun!

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2016 7:23 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
I'd like to know the end of the story, but I won't see it in theater.

The review at http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/10-cloverfield-lane-2016.htm says, in part:
A point of comparison might by Xavier Gens’s The Divide (2011), a brutally harrowing story that had a group of people imprisoned in a cellar after the advent of a nuclear war. That was a film that pushed as far as it could go and scoured the depths of the human condition. By contrast, 10 Cloverfield Lane seems far tamer. Dan Trachtenberg generates a reasonable level of tension but Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s feeling of imprisonment, of just how much we feel we should not trust John Goodman never seems to hang on a knife-edge (although there is at least one good shock three-quarters of the way through the film).

And then there is the ending. Many audiences called it a WTF ending but I have seen too many similar things done in recent years. {PLOT SPOILERS}.

Select to view spoiler:

We get alien ships of ill-explained purpose, there is a moderately upbeat finale where Mary Elizabeth Winstead destroys one of the ships and then sets off to join the resistance. A good WTF ending either comes as a jaw-dropping surprise or throws everything that has gone before on its head but this is more one that leaves you with a dissatisfied feeling of wanting to know more about what is going on.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2016 4:53 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

I totally disagree with the review and what is said about the ending. Plus there is a way of reviewing the film without giving away spoilers, this one, I feel, was an amateurish attempt at critiquing the film and including audience reactions to justify the overall critique.

Select to view spoiler:

Yes, it leaves you wanting more, that's the whole idea of that type of ending. To be continued............

Select to view spoiler:

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
I'd like to know the end of the story, but I won't see it in theater.
The review at http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/10-cloverfield-lane-2016.htm says, in part:
A point of comparison might by Xavier Gens’s The Divide (2011), a brutally harrowing story that had a group of people imprisoned in a cellar after the advent of a nuclear war. That was a film that pushed as far as it could go and scoured the depths of the human condition. By contrast, 10 Cloverfield Lane seems far tamer. Dan Trachtenberg generates a reasonable level of tension but Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s feeling of imprisonment, of just how much we feel we should not trust John Goodman never seems to hang on a knife-edge (although there is at least one good shock three-quarters of the way through the film).

And then there is the ending. Many audiences called it a WTF ending but I have seen too many similar things done in recent years. {PLOT SPOILERS}.
Select to view spoiler:
We get alien ships of ill-explained purpose, there is a moderately upbeat finale where Mary Elizabeth Winstead destroys one of the ships and then sets off to join the resistance. A good WTF ending either comes as a jaw-dropping surprise or throws everything that has gone before on its head but this is more one that leaves you with a dissatisfied feeling of wanting to know more about what is going on.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2016 9:27 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I totally disagree with the review and what is said about the ending. Plus there is a way of reviewing the film without giving away spoilers, this one, I feel, was an amateurish attempt at critiquing the film and including audience reactions to justify the overall critique.

SGG

The http://moria.co.nz reviewer did rate the movie 3 stars, meaning “Fair But Not Great”.

I guess it is hard to keep up your enthusiasm for 10 Cloverfield Lane when it is not an outright Cloverfield sequel but rather, as Abrams has put it, a “spiritual successor,” which is pure marketing BS. It would have been the same movie if honestly called 10 Cornfield Lane.

The original Cloverfield got only 2½ stars in a much more detailed review.
http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/cloverfield-2008.htm

After reviewing one genre movie a day for 20 years, all Science Fiction or Horror or Fantasy, http://moria.co.nz has seen every cinematic and marketing trick humanity knows for those kinds of movies. Some old tricks and recycled story endings are not appreciated by a critic after the tenth time. Critic's Amnesia is the only cure for a certain kind of movie jadedness.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2016 6:05 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
John Goodman rocked. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a doll. The movie ? Suspenseful, to be sure. I won't even comment on the title , but the movie does leave ya guessing , through out.

Kinda reminded me of MOON, for those who saw that flick. It was and wasn't what I expected, which doesn't explain much.

I liked it.

I normally enjoy and seek out Mary Elizabeth Winstead flicks, at least since Quinten and DH4, but from what trailers I've seen, her role appears like window dressing.
But I should check it out after your post.
Should I see the first film beforehand?

Mary Elizabeth Winstead, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

First saw her in Scott Pilgrim v. The World and I was hooked. Then in Live Free or Die Hard, furthered my undying love for her. She is awesome!

And no, she is not window dressing..........she is just fine. I won't say more than that, NO Spoilers.

SGG

You saw her first in Pilgrim (2010) and then in DH4 (2007)?

After Ring 2 (2005), I had to seek her out in such fare as Sky High, Final Destination 3, before she got her better roles in Death Proof, DH4 (both in theaters about the same time, both with Bruce Willis), Pilgrim, and The Thing.

Welcome to the club.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:49 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

I agree with the capsule review in moria.co.nz but I have a much better review from the website Roger Ebert.com by Brian Tallerico................

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/10-cloverfield-lane-2016

Now that's how you present a review with little to no spoilers. I really thought he
hit the mark regarding the movie. He gave the same 3 stars as did moria, but I would call it Good rather than Fair, but not great. I was on the edge of my seat and felt it was entertaining enough to recommend people go and enjoy it at the theater. I totally get that critics, especially those that have been at it for a number of years, get jaded and develop a thick skin when it comes to hundreds, if not, thousands of movies.

I may seek out those movies mentioned in the review, for entertainment and out of curiosity. But I'm not a fan of including spoilers in a review, and feel that there are creative ways to get the point across. Anyway, it is a good solid film that kept my interest and had me wondering what would come next. You will note in Tallerico's review he points out a couple of minor flaws, but he still maintains the integrity of the review - it is my contention that the film earned every syllable.

By the way, I liked the fact that it was NOT a strict sequel and that the deliberate pace enhanced the creep factor. My son, who took me to see this film, said it was better the second time around. I could see that, because it's all in the details. Abrams picked good writers, and the cast was so good in creating a world out of thin air. "Spiritual successor" I can see where one would think it's
a bunch of marketing bullschoy; I would lean toward that secret ingredient that makes the Colonel's fried chicken so finger-licking good.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I totally disagree with the review and what is said about the ending. Plus there is a way of reviewing the film without giving away spoilers, this one, I feel, was an amateurish attempt at critiquing the film and including audience reactions to justify the overall critique.

SGG
The http://moria.co.nz reviewer did rate the movie 3 stars, meaning “Fair But Not Great”.

I guess it is hard to keep up your enthusiasm for 10 Cloverfield Lane when it is not an outright Cloverfield sequel but rather, as Abrams has put it, a “spiritual successor,” which is pure marketing BS. It would have been the same movie if honestly called 10 Cornfield Lane.

The original Cloverfield got only 2½ stars in a much more detailed review.
http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/cloverfield-2008.htm

After reviewing one genre movie a day for 20 years, all Science Fiction or Horror or Fantasy, http://moria.co.nz has seen every cinematic and marketing trick humanity knows for those kinds of movies. Some old tricks and recycled story endings are not appreciated by a critic after the tenth time. Critic's Amnesia is the only cure for a certain kind of movie jadedness.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:55 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

You saw her first in Pilgrim (2010) and then in DH4 (2007)?

Reverse that...............DH4, then Pilgrim. I don't remember her in Death Proof, I must go back and watch it again. I know that she was in Final Destination 3, but it's not my cup of tea. I think she would make an awesome action hero, perhaps one of those YA novels turned blockbuster franchise.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:17 AM

MOOSE

She was the one in the cheerleader outfit in Death Proof.

I had to be dragged to see Cloverfield Lane as the trailers really didn't do much for me. But ultimately, I enjoyed it. Not great enough to buy for my home library, but I'll rent it to see what I missed the first time around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2016 9:23 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Now I understand why you dislike the Moria website. It is for people making movies, not people casually watching movies.

Take for example the review of The Little Prince (2015), a movie that Moria covered the day after 10 Cloverfield Lane.
http://moria.co.nz/fantasy/little-prince-2015.htm

Notice that the very first thing in the review is a list of the people who made the movie: Director, Writer, Producer. Then Actors. Then a one paragraph summary of the plot. That plot summary ought to make you think of SPOILERS!

That is nothing like how thousands of reviewers or www.rogerebert.com are organized, where rogerebert actually wrote about 10 Cloverfield Lane: "I will tread very lightly in the review to follow, but I won’t be hurt if you want to click away right about now. Come back after you've seen it."

If www.rogerebert.com is analogous to eating KFC fried chicken out of the bucket, moria is watching the chicken being slaughtered and fried and then tasting it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I agree with the capsule review in moria.co.nz but I have a much better review from the website Roger Ebert.com by Brian Tallerico................

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/10-cloverfield-lane-2016

Now that's how you present a review with little to no spoilers. I really thought he hit the mark regarding the movie. . . . I would lean toward that secret ingredient that makes the Colonel's fried chicken so finger-licking good.

SGG

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2016 8:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I normally enjoy and seek out Mary Elizabeth Winstead flicks, at least since Quinten and DH4, but from what trailers I've seen, her role appears like window dressing.
But I should check it out after your post.

Should I see the first film beforehand?

The two movies share something in common, in their title, but to be honest, I can't tell you one is related to the other.

Nor can I say they aren't.

So... I'd see one before the other, as long as you see both. Dunno if it matters.

Mary Elizabeth ? I'm embarrassed to say she first caught my eye in Sky High ( 2005 ) which also featured Danielle Panabaker , now appearing in The Flash.

( - Another side bar , Danielle was born a few days after Elizabeth Henstridge, aka Jemma Simmons from Shield. Both Danielle and Elizabeth are adorable , and play the part of sexy sciency nerd girl just fine :)

That is all. )

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:57 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Thanks for the heads up on Death Proof.

I'm glad you were able to enjoy 10CL for what it's worth, a good solid film, and not a bad one for a first time director. Unfortunately the trailers were not much for getting folks excited to go see it in theaters. I was just excited about John Goodman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, I knew nothing about the movie itself, other than the Cloverfield name.

I agree with you about adding this to my personal collection, but it may become part of a trilogy (as the ending suggested) and so, I reserve the right to change my mind. This may take a while. But I think you're right in wanting to view it a second time, you may catch things that you missed or overlooked the first time around (as my son did).

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by Moose:
She was the one in the cheerleader outfit in Death Proof.

I had to be dragged to see Cloverfield Lane as the trailers really didn't do much for me. But ultimately, I enjoyed it. Not great enough to buy for my home library, but I'll rent it to see what I missed the first time around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 26, 2016 2:54 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Yes, very true, and until you pointed it out, I was not aware of the type of website it was. It is more about the blueprint of movie making, the basic ingredients with a dash of history behind the movie (at least I got that from the Little Prince review). It is more for industry consumption than for mass appeal.

I didn't even know that it was about an animated feature until I scrolled down to the bottom for the trailer. I went back to read some of the review (it's very bare-bones) to see if I missed something. The part about this film being animated wasn't mentioned until the 4th paragraph, which is a no-no in journalistic terms. Now, don't get me wrong, at times a reviewer may go into the film's background or compare it to a similar production, but always with the end product in mind. For instance, someone might mention Mary Elizabeth's other movies, but may not do so for Jennifer Lawrence, a more well-known actor.

Still though, there is some purpose to the site as a tool for those who are looking to hire quality people in the industry, and, at the very least, provide a list of professionals with a particular experience in the field. I would not seek this site out for your average everyday consumer review. Exactly, it's like getting a guided tour of the Colonel's slaughter house and kitchen before sitting down for the meal.

When I sit down for a meal, I don't want to know how it got there, I just want to know what's in it and does it taste good.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Now I understand why you dislike the Moria website. It is for people making movies, not people casually watching movies.

Take for example the review of The Little Prince (2015), a movie that Moria covered the day after 10 Cloverfield Lane.
http://moria.co.nz/fantasy/little-prince-2015.htm

Notice that the very first thing in the review is a list of the people who made the movie: Director, Writer, Producer. Then Actors. Then a one paragraph summary of the plot. That plot summary ought to make you think of SPOILERS!

That is nothing like how thousands of reviewers or www.rogerebert.com are organized, where rogerebert actually wrote about 10 Cloverfield Lane: "I will tread very lightly in the review to follow, but I won’t be hurt if you want to click away right about now. Come back after you've seen it."

If www.rogerebert.com is analogous to eating KFC fried chicken out of the bucket, moria is watching the chicken being slaughtered and fried and then tasting it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I agree with the capsule review in moria.co.nz but I have a much better review from the website Roger Ebert.com by Brian Tallerico................

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/10-cloverfield-lane-2016

Now that's how you present a review with little to no spoilers. I really thought he hit the mark regarding the movie. . . . I would lean toward that secret ingredient that makes the Colonel's fried chicken so finger-licking good.

SGG

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 26, 2016 4:26 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You saw her first in Pilgrim (2010) and then in DH4 (2007)?

Reverse that...............DH4, then Pilgrim. I don't remember her in Death Proof, I must go back and watch it again. I know that she was in Final Destination 3, but it's not my cup of tea. I think she would make an awesome action hero, perhaps one of those YA novels turned blockbuster franchise.

SGG

She was adorable in Death Proof, and Action Hero in Sky High. She was not in top credits for Death Proof, so that was a pleasant surprise to see her again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 26, 2016 4:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Now I understand why you dislike the Moria website. It is for people making movies, not people casually watching movies.

Take for example the review of The Little Prince (2015), a movie that Moria covered the day after 10 Cloverfield Lane.
http://moria.co.nz/fantasy/little-prince-2015.htm

Notice that the very first thing in the review is a list of the people who made the movie: Director, Writer, Producer. Then Actors. Then a one paragraph summary of the plot. That plot summary ought to make you think of SPOILERS!

That is nothing like how thousands of reviewers or www.rogerebert.com are organized, where rogerebert actually wrote about 10 Cloverfield Lane: "I will tread very lightly in the review to follow, but I won’t be hurt if you want to click away right about now. Come back after you've seen it."

If www.rogerebert.com is analogous to eating KFC fried chicken out of the bucket, moria is watching the chicken being slaughtered and fried and then tasting it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I agree with the capsule review in moria.co.nz but I have a much better review from the website Roger Ebert.com by Brian Tallerico................

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/10-cloverfield-lane-2016

Now that's how you present a review with little to no spoilers. I really thought he hit the mark regarding the movie. . . . I would lean toward that secret ingredient that makes the Colonel's fried chicken so finger-licking good.

SGG

Does rogerebert discuss the endings of every film, or are there some films that are not SPOILERed?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 26, 2016 4:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
For instance, someone might mention Mary Elizabeth's other movies, but may not do so for Jennifer Lawrence, a more well-known actor.

SGG

This strikes me as a narrow point of view.
All of the Mary Elizabeth films I mentioned above are 2011 or prior, and few would argue that Jennifer Lawrence was as well known prior to 2012 with the release of Hunger Games.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 27, 2016 2:58 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

No, he would not normally discuss the film's ending unless it was crucial to his critique. But generally, he would not include spoilers in his reviews. His name is currently carried on by his widow, and his site receives contributing critique's from various writers.

I'm not sure how that works, but I do know that he gets submissions by different writers. I would imagine that they must have certain characteristics that he possessed in order to submit reviews. One that comes to mind is not revealing spoilers (he was careful not to).

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Now I understand why you dislike the Moria website. It is for people making movies, not people casually watching movies.

Take for example the review of The Little Prince (2015), a movie that Moria covered the day after 10 Cloverfield Lane.
http://moria.co.nz/fantasy/little-prince-2015.htm

Notice that the very first thing in the review is a list of the people who made the movie: Director, Writer, Producer. Then Actors. Then a one paragraph summary of the plot. That plot summary ought to make you think of SPOILERS!

That is nothing like how thousands of reviewers or www.rogerebert.com are organized, where rogerebert actually wrote about 10 Cloverfield Lane: "I will tread very lightly in the review to follow, but I won’t be hurt if you want to click away right about now. Come back after you've seen it."

If www.rogerebert.com is analogous to eating KFC fried chicken out of the bucket, moria is watching the chicken being slaughtered and fried and then tasting it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I agree with the capsule review in moria.co.nz but I have a much better review from the website Roger Ebert.com by Brian Tallerico................

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/10-cloverfield-lane-2016

Now that's how you present a review with little to no spoilers. I really thought he hit the mark regarding the movie. . . . I would lean toward that secret ingredient that makes the Colonel's fried chicken so finger-licking good.

SGG

Does rogerebert discuss the endings of every film, or are there some films that are not SPOILERed?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 27, 2016 3:32 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

You are probably right. It is a rather narrow POV, but a good reporter/reviewer would be thorough and mention a few of her more recent movies, depending, of course, upon the context of the article or review. But I said, "may not do so."

For example:

Jennifer Lawerence stars in 'Joy' — Courtesy Twentieth Century Fox

Jennifer Lawrence (finally freed of having to play a perpetual teenager in the Hunger Games series) stars as Joy, a fiercely imaginative divorced mother who can't help but envision new household inventions. She dreams of becoming rich from them — despite repeated votes of no-confidence from her loving but decidedly non-visionary father (Robert De Niro), who is in the sheet metal industry.

The women in Joy's life are no founts of encouragement, either. Her cranky sister (Elisabeth Rohm) has big-business ambition but no vision. Her mother (Virginia Madsen) stays in bed all day glued to soap operas, imagining herself as part of the bodice-ripping action.

Happily, Joy does have her adoring grandmother, played with soft voice and glistening eyes by Diane Ladd. As we see in the film's prologue, it's her grandmother — seemingly all too aware of the family's dead-end tendencies — who first plants the seeds of ambition in young Joy's mind. The relationship between the two, warm as a hearth, delicate as a snowflake, is the single most engaging element of Joy.

http://www.aarp.org/entertainment/movies-for-grownups/info-2015/joy-mo
vie-review.html

(Part of a review by Bill Newcott)

There are two character actresses that are mentioned in the review, Virginia Madsen and Diane Ladd, but generally you get a link that takes you to their websites. Most avid film-goers generally know them and their work, but in this age of the internet, it is easily accessible to gather their film history. Again, it is a matter of choice by the writer, to include a film or two within the review itself for the reader's recall purposes.

In the above review, the writer mentions the Hunger Games, but the context is providing a juxtaposition to the film being reviewed. The Hunger Games is YA movie and Joy is more of an adult movie who's character, may or may not, provide a more sophisticated POV. A more complex portrayal.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
For instance, someone might mention Mary Elizabeth's other movies, but may not do so for Jennifer Lawrence, a more well-known actor.

SGG

This strikes me as a narrow point of view.
All of the Mary Elizabeth films I mentioned above are 2011 or prior, and few would argue that Jennifer Lawrence was as well known prior to 2012 with the release of Hunger Games.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 28, 2016 6:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Now I understand why you dislike the Moria website. It is for people making movies, not people casually watching movies.

Take for example the review of The Little Prince (2015), a movie that Moria covered the day after 10 Cloverfield Lane.
http://moria.co.nz/fantasy/little-prince-2015.htm

Notice that the very first thing in the review is a list of the people who made the movie: Director, Writer, Producer. Then Actors. Then a one paragraph summary of the plot. That plot summary ought to make you think of SPOILERS!

That is nothing like how thousands of reviewers or www.rogerebert.com are organized, where rogerebert actually wrote about 10 Cloverfield Lane: "I will tread very lightly in the review to follow, but I won’t be hurt if you want to click away right about now. Come back after you've seen it."

If www.rogerebert.com is analogous to eating KFC fried chicken out of the bucket, moria is watching the chicken being slaughtered and fried and then tasting it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I agree with the capsule review in moria.co.nz but I have a much better review from the website Roger Ebert.com by Brian Tallerico................

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/10-cloverfield-lane-2016

Now that's how you present a review with little to no spoilers. I really thought he hit the mark regarding the movie. . . . I would lean toward that secret ingredient that makes the Colonel's fried chicken so finger-licking good.
SGG

Does rogerebert discuss the endings of every film, or are there some films that are not SPOILERed?

One that comes to mind is not revealing spoilers (he was careful not to).

SGG

Gotta throw the Challenge Flag on that one.
You are totally full of poo.
He prominently SPOILERED Kick-Ass and proudly proclaimed that he did so intentionally. The only way to avoid having the movie ruined for viewers was to avoid rogerebert and any and all discussion with or about him - which I have faithfully done ever since. And have been the better off for it.
He was a disgraceful sack of poo and you should feel the same for promoting him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 28, 2016 7:06 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
For instance, someone might mention Mary Elizabeth's other movies, but may not do so for Jennifer Lawrence, a more well-known actor.

SGG

This strikes me as a narrow point of view.
All of the Mary Elizabeth films I mentioned above are 2011 or prior, and few would argue that Jennifer Lawrence was as well known prior to 2012 with the release of Hunger Games.

Jennifer Lawrence (finally freed of having to play a perpetual teenager in the Hunger Games series) stars as Joy,

In the above review, the writer mentions the Hunger Games, but the context is providing a juxtaposition to the film being reviewed. The Hunger Games is YA movie and Joy is more of an adult movie who's character, may or may not, provide a more sophisticated POV. A more complex portrayal.

SGG

I guess the "reviewer" may have not noticed such portrayals in films like American Hustle or Silver Linings Playbook, not like she won any MAJOR AWARDS for her work in those.

For providing examples of your counterpoint, you are kinda dragging, dude. It seems JLaw is not a well-known actor to this reviewer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 5:42 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

You know, I have to quote from ROTJ, the Emperor to Luke just before his battle with Darth Vader aboard the Battle Cruiser:

"I can feel hate swelling in you. Go ahead and strike me down with all your hate and take your place by my side. Yada, Yada Dark Side, yada, yada."

Roger Ebert is just a man. Yes, I, for the most part, admired his reviews and would, at times, disagree. But he would challenge me to think and grow regarding the art of film. Having said that, yes he intentionally spoiled Kick Ass (which, to this day, I have not read). There is such a thing as making up your own mind.

My current philosophy is to avoid all critiques at all costs, including marketing campaigns promoting a movie I'm interested in, merely because I want to enjoy the movie without being influenced in any way. Roger Ebert, by his own admission, was an arrogant prick, he would try to impose his will upon the viewing public and Hollywood with his critiques. That, in and of itself, makes him an arrogant prick; but a genius arrogant prick is still a genius..........although sometimes wrong.

If it seems to you that I promote him, well that's your issue - not mine. I learned by watching his show - At The Movies - and by reading his reviews. There were times I would agree and times I did not. I guess that makes me an arrogant prick or, as you have suggested, "a disgraceful sack of poo" but one thing is certain; there is no ignoring the man. You either hate him or admire him; no in between. So, I see that you are in the Hate group. Fine by me. Might I suggest that, like in the Constitution - that great piece of paper, there are no absolutes. There is the ever-changing and ever-transforming universe. Ebert got it wrong many times - Kick Ass and Ace Ventura among that group - but I, for one, appreciate his effort.

Now, this sack of poo is off to go see Midnight Special.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Now I understand why you dislike the Moria website. It is for people making movies, not people casually watching movies.

Take for example the review of The Little Prince (2015), a movie that Moria covered the day after 10 Cloverfield Lane.
http://moria.co.nz/fantasy/little-prince-2015.htm

Notice that the very first thing in the review is a list of the people who made the movie: Director, Writer, Producer. Then Actors. Then a one paragraph summary of the plot. That plot summary ought to make you think of SPOILERS!

That is nothing like how thousands of reviewers or www.rogerebert.com are organized, where rogerebert actually wrote about 10 Cloverfield Lane: "I will tread very lightly in the review to follow, but I won’t be hurt if you want to click away right about now. Come back after you've seen it."

If www.rogerebert.com is analogous to eating KFC fried chicken out of the bucket, moria is watching the chicken being slaughtered and fried and then tasting it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I agree with the capsule review in moria.co.nz but I have a much better review from the website Roger Ebert.com by Brian Tallerico................

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/10-cloverfield-lane-2016

Now that's how you present a review with little to no spoilers. I really thought he hit the mark regarding the movie. . . . I would lean toward that secret ingredient that makes the Colonel's fried chicken so finger-licking good.
SGG

Does rogerebert discuss the endings of every film, or are there some films that are not SPOILERed?

One that comes to mind is not revealing spoilers (he was careful not to).

SGG

Gotta throw the Challenge Flag on that one.
You are totally full of poo.
He prominently SPOILERED Kick-Ass and proudly proclaimed that he did so intentionally. The only way to avoid having the movie ruined for viewers was to avoid rogerebert and any and all discussion with or about him - which I have faithfully done ever since. And have been the better off for it.
He was a disgraceful sack of poo and you should feel the same for promoting him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 5:48 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Did you actually read the review? His context? His POV? It is exactly the example I referred to.

Joy, American Hustle were rather weak entries. She was good, but the films themselves were weak. Not so with Silver Linings Playbook. True, no awards, but solid acting (although I was not impressed with the diner scene so much).

The reviewer wrote his piece in a certain way. Try to keep up.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
For instance, someone might mention Mary Elizabeth's other movies, but may not do so for Jennifer Lawrence, a more well-known actor.

SGG

This strikes me as a narrow point of view.
All of the Mary Elizabeth films I mentioned above are 2011 or prior, and few would argue that Jennifer Lawrence was as well known prior to 2012 with the release of Hunger Games.

Jennifer Lawrence (finally freed of having to play a perpetual teenager in the Hunger Games series) stars as Joy,

In the above review, the writer mentions the Hunger Games, but the context is providing a juxtaposition to the film being reviewed. The Hunger Games is YA movie and Joy is more of an adult movie who's character, may or may not, provide a more sophisticated POV. A more complex portrayal.

SGG

I guess the "reviewer" may have not noticed such portrayals in films like American Hustle or Silver Linings Playbook, not like she won any MAJOR AWARDS for her work in those.

For providing examples of your counterpoint, you are kinda dragging, dude. It seems JLaw is not a well-known actor to this reviewer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 7:01 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

I was mistaken earlier - I had thought Cloverfield was a different film, but the actual film with Odette Yustman I did see. The biggest advantage the viewer will have by having seen this first installation is an idea of the direction of the next one, the common theme.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
I'd like to know the end of the story, but I won't see it in theater.
The review at http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/10-cloverfield-lane-2016.htm says, in part:
A point of comparison might by Xavier Gens’s The Divide (2011), a brutally harrowing story that had a group of people imprisoned in a cellar after the advent of a nuclear war. That was a film that pushed as far as it could go and scoured the depths of the human condition. By contrast, 10 Cloverfield Lane seems far tamer. Dan Trachtenberg generates a reasonable level of tension but Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s feeling of imprisonment, of just how much we feel we should not trust John Goodman never seems to hang on a knife-edge (although there is at least one good shock three-quarters of the way through the film).

And then there is the ending. Many audiences called it a WTF ending but I have seen too many similar things done in recent years. {PLOT SPOILERS}.
Select to view spoiler:
We get alien ships of ill-explained purpose, there is a moderately upbeat finale where Mary Elizabeth Winstead destroys one of the ships and then sets off to join the resistance. A good WTF ending either comes as a jaw-dropping surprise or throws everything that has gone before on its head but this is more one that leaves you with a dissatisfied feeling of wanting to know more about what is going on.

Select to view spoiler:

I don't have an answer for this. He says that he saw the attack flash, and was driving recklessly. If this is true, it argues he is telling the truth about the reason they are in the bunker. But if true, why did she not see the flash as well, prior to the accident? If his account is not true, the flash did not occur prior to the abduction, so how to explain the ending? Mere coincidence? The mother of all coincidence? The other coincidence is the possibility that the bunker was completed enough just in time for such a major event.

I did not consider the ending to be Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, but the paradox I just mentioned has me puzzled for the moment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 7:06 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
For instance, someone might mention Mary Elizabeth's other movies, but may not do so for Jennifer Lawrence, a more well-known actor.

SGG

This strikes me as a narrow point of view.
All of the Mary Elizabeth films I mentioned above are 2011 or prior, and few would argue that Jennifer Lawrence was as well known prior to 2012 with the release of Hunger Games.

Jennifer Lawrence (finally freed of having to play a perpetual teenager in the Hunger Games series) stars as Joy,

In the above review, the writer mentions the Hunger Games, but the context is providing a juxtaposition to the film being reviewed. The Hunger Games is YA movie and Joy is more of an adult movie who's character, may or may not, provide a more sophisticated POV. A more complex portrayal.

SGG

I guess the "reviewer" may have not noticed such portrayals in films like American Hustle or Silver Linings Playbook, not like she won any MAJOR AWARDS for her work in those.

For providing examples of your counterpoint, you are kinda dragging, dude. It seems JLaw is not a well-known actor to this reviewer.

Did you actually read the review? His context? His POV? It is exactly the example I referred to.

Joy, American Hustle were rather weak entries. She was good, but the films themselves were weak. Not so with Silver Linings Playbook. True, no awards, but solid acting (although I was not impressed with the diner scene so much).

SGG

I was being sarcastic. She won an Oscar and 2 Globes for those 2 roles.

Apparently beyond the notice of that reviewer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2016 6:03 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was mistaken earlier - I had thought Cloverfield was a different film, but the actual film with Odette Yustman I did see. The biggest advantage the viewer will have by having seen this first installation is an idea of the direction of the next one, the common theme.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
I'd like to know the end of the story, but I won't see it in theater.
The review at http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/10-cloverfield-lane-2016.htm says, in part:
A point of comparison might by Xavier Gens’s The Divide (2011), a brutally harrowing story that had a group of people imprisoned in a cellar after the advent of a nuclear war. That was a film that pushed as far as it could go and scoured the depths of the human condition. By contrast, 10 Cloverfield Lane seems far tamer. Dan Trachtenberg generates a reasonable level of tension but Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s feeling of imprisonment, of just how much we feel we should not trust John Goodman never seems to hang on a knife-edge (although there is at least one good shock three-quarters of the way through the film).

And then there is the ending. Many audiences called it a WTF ending but I have seen too many similar things done in recent years. {PLOT SPOILERS}.
Select to view spoiler:
We get alien ships of ill-explained purpose, there is a moderately upbeat finale where Mary Elizabeth Winstead destroys one of the ships and then sets off to join the resistance. A good WTF ending either comes as a jaw-dropping surprise or throws everything that has gone before on its head but this is more one that leaves you with a dissatisfied feeling of wanting to know more about what is going on.

Select to view spoiler:
I don't have an answer for this. He says that he saw the attack flash, and was driving recklessly. If this is true, it argues he is telling the truth about the reason they are in the bunker. But if true, why did she not see the flash as well, prior to the accident? If his account is not true, the flash did not occur prior to the abduction, so how to explain the ending? Mere coincidence? The mother of all coincidence? The other coincidence is the possibility that the bunker was completed enough just in time for such a major event.

I did not consider the ending to be Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, but the paradox I just mentioned has me puzzled for the moment.

Also, I keep finding it annoying that she (Winstead) repeatedly finds roles with the ugliest hairstyles. Death Proof was an exception, but it is annoying when the most beautiful women choose to hide behind hideous hair. JMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 1, 2016 5:24 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

SPOILER ALERT

This question was already posted above, but I don't see a response.
For anybody who has not seen the film, don't bother, the question won't even make sense.
For those who have seen the film, do you have any ideas? Did you notice it while viewing? Did it seem inconsistent?

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Select to view spoiler:
I don't have an answer for this. He says that he saw the attack flash, and was driving recklessly. If this is true, it argues he is telling the truth about the reason they are in the bunker. But if true, why did she not see the flash as well, prior to the accident? If his account is not true, the flash did not occur prior to the abduction, so how to explain the ending? Mere coincidence? The mother of all coincidence? The other coincidence is the possibility that the bunker was completed enough just in time for such a major event.

I did not consider the ending to be Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, but the paradox I just mentioned has me puzzled for the moment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Nobody?
Didn't notice it?
Didn't think it confused the foreshadowing?
Thought it was consistent or not?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2016 3:38 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

SPOILER ALERT

This question was already posted above, but I don't see a response.
For anybody who has not seen the film, don't bother, the question won't even make sense.
For those who have seen the film, do you have any ideas? Did you notice it while viewing? Did it seem inconsistent?
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Select to view spoiler:
I don't have an answer for this. He says that he saw the attack flash, and was driving recklessly. If this is true, it argues he is telling the truth about the reason they are in the bunker. But if true, why did she not see the flash as well, prior to the accident? If his account is not true, the flash did not occur prior to the abduction, so how to explain the ending? Mere coincidence? The mother of all coincidence? The other coincidence is the possibility that the bunker was completed enough just in time for such a major event.

I did not consider the ending to be Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, but the paradox I just mentioned has me puzzled for the moment.

I was able to conjure a weak answer, but I still welcome others.

Select to view spoiler:

1. The flash happened, but after the accident. 2.He reversed them in his story to her.
The weakness is that she would still know that she had not witnessed the flash, before the accident, so she would know he was lying about that part. What did he hope to gain by inventing this sequence? warp her mind, brainwash her?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE