|
What the gently caress is wrong with your brain man? Seriously? It's bumming me out. Why are you incapable of accepting that the entire ending is a metaphor? And not even a deep one! It's surface level! She might die a horrible death, but that's not the loving point. Not at all. Her choosing to go that way IS the point. Weather she loving lives or not. She made a choice and that choice showed change. Why don't you loving get that goddamnit!?
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
CelticPredator posted:She might die a horrible death, but that's not the loving point. Not at all. Her choosing to go that way IS the point. Weather she loving lives or not. She made a choice and that choice showed change. Yes, and that choice intersects with a terrible decision to follow the voice of an alien honeypot. It adds thematic interest to her choice that its also the it's the wrong-as-gently caress choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
It's the right choice. The bad choice would be to run away. Also, please tell me when the aliens learned how to speak english.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Super-intelligent aliens who have mastered FTL travel: "How do we draw them in and destroy them? Wait, how about we send out an emergency broadcast and tell them to go to a dangerous war zone where people are being injured and dying in heavy combat? No one could resist that!" Not only is it not a trap when she gets there she teaches them all about the secret alien weakness: Booze. With this information the war is won and humanity gains FTL technology and begins conquering the galaxy, leading directly into the events of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I know none of this is actually in the movie but come on, it's plain as day when you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
I kind of feel like I need to see this movie now so I can understand new and exciting ways that misterbib can be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Can we stop calling it a honeypot? Unless the aliens are trying to get her to have sex with them, there is no way that is a honeypot. Trap maybe, but there is absolutely no hinting or foreshadowing that broadcasting on AM radio and having the ability to speak perfect English is part of their MO. The concept of a trap would make sense in tons of other sci-fi movies (such as Independence Day), but seriously people that direct and produce movies don't play 12th dimensional chess with the audience. The only thing I do agree with is that she is definitely dead. The fact that there were multiple roaming cleanup crews out in the middle of farm land and she is at least 100 miles out of Houston means she will be coming across alien patrols with only her wits to help her. Hell, if she is on the wrong side of Houston from any sort of resistance, she is most likely hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It's the right choice. The bad choice would be to run away. It's an alien invasion that has basically taken over the world. The correct choice is run away like a little bitch of a caveman you'd be in that situation. CelticPredator posted:Also, please tell me when the aliens learned how to speak english. The movie makes it clear that they are capable of interacting with our satellites. I'm sure there's no satellite-based radio transmissions, anywhere. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:She thinks she is. She's totally not Director: "She's ready to face it." Bibs: "What the director actually means is she's not ready to face it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Oil! posted:Can we stop calling it a honeypot? Unless the aliens are trying to get her to have sex with them, there is no way that is a honeypot. Trap maybe, but there is absolutely no hinting or foreshadowing that broadcasting on AM radio and having the ability to speak perfect English is part of their MO. The concept of a trap would make sense in tons of other sci-fi movies (such as Independence Day), but seriously people that direct and produce movies don't play 12th dimensional chess with the audience. Oh god, I found the honeypot angle, it all makes sense. This movie is a prequel to Mars Needs Moms
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
I've never seen someone so delusional about a film before. Like, completely and objectively wrong and putting in their own ideas into a film that doesn't support them in any way whatsoever. It's kind of scary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It's an alien invasion that has basically taken over the world. The correct choice is run away like a little bitch of a caveman you'd be in that situation. Why does your brain work this way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
I propose that Ten Cloverfield Lane is, actually, a sequel to The Big Lebowski, showing the deepening madness and eventual breakdown of Walter Sobchak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Martman posted:So, in other words, the director's statement directly contradicts your stance. Not at all. Ready to face something doesn't mean you're going to survive it. Codependent Poster posted:I've never seen someone so delusional about a film before. Like, completely and objectively wrong and putting in their own ideas into a film that doesn't support them in any way whatsoever. It's kind of scary. You should've seen it when folks here thought the main characters of The World's End weren't the antagonists. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:
Yes, because kissing his son and telling him they have hope is the same thing as giving up, shooting your son in the head, killing your companions, and try to suicide-by-monster. Stephen King says that the endings are completely different in tone and intent. I don't think you can gainsay him, kiddo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Not at all. Ready to face something doesn't mean you're going to survive it. Like, people are saying "She's willing to face danger" and your response is "but that danger is dangerous, therefore blah blah blah..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:I've never seen someone so delusional about a film before. Like, completely and objectively wrong and putting in their own ideas into a film that doesn't support them in any way whatsoever. It's kind of scary. Bib's theory make perfect sense, if you assume that he lacks a theory of mind. He cannot imagine a method of destroying a very large blimp, therefore no-one else can ever imagine it. And anyone who claims otherwise must be a liar and/or a nonhuman videogame NPC. AAB posted:Really great how this thread focuses so much on the last 15 mins of the movie lol The film is interesting because it's effectively a version of The Terminator where the robot doesn't show up until the very end. So you have an entire film devoted to figuring out just how crazy Kyle Reese is. Obviously life inside the cellar is a nightmarish reenactment of Michelle's own childhood, but the interesting thing is that the second level of nightmare, (i.e. life outside the bunker, her battle against the aliens) illustrates her newfound sense of focus and determination. She's exorcized her father, and now has a clear picture of the enemy as the abuse itself. Of course, without all the context leading up to it, the ending is just a generic conflict of humanity against evil machines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Reading Mister Bibs's rap sheet, I want to make an elaborate shrine to him because he clearly is an Elder God of Spergdom, woken from his fitful slumber to grace our lives with mind-bendingly wrong film analyses. Don't just take my word for it: DoctorWhat posted:MisterBibs, I'll accept for the sake of argument that you, personally, possess an anomalous (and frankly disturbing) ability to ignore and/or reject any and all sociological message or thematic subtext present in the media you consume. Tracula posted:I do sort of hate to dogpile here but man. I know people always joke "Beep boop I am goon. I do not understand humans" (usually when it comes to humor) but this seems genuinely accurate in the case of MisterBibs .
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:I propose that Ten Cloverfield Lane is, actually, a sequel to The Big Lebowski, showing the deepening madness and eventual breakdown of Walter Sobchak. He's is a Vietnam vet, dont think it mentions what branch though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
TheDon01 posted:He's is a Vietnam vet, dont think it mentions what branch though. Does he not say Navy in the movie?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It's an alien invasion that has basically taken over the world. When do they ever say that the world has been taken over? They even specifically say that we are taking back the southern coast. Which indicates we are winning the fight against the invaders, at least in that specific area. You are just making up more and more nonsense to support your stupid theory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
AAB posted:Really great how this thread focuses so much on the last 15 mins of the movie lol I feel like it's easy to underplay how rough this movie is. It's one of the subtler movies I've seen about emotional abuse I've seen in a while. Not a real high bar, but the actual rough stuff got under my skin far more than I was expecting it to, and it's not really graphic or particularly harrowing. It's just wrong. I'm impressed that they showcased Goodman in that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
From the first moment Goodman is onscreen, he's just... different. And off. His being from Louisiana helped him here in a way that few other actors could have replicated, as he's got the southern accent down... but it's just not quite right, simultaneously too light, soft-spoken and detached from normality. His very first words, his robotic assumptions that what he's saying makes sense, everything comes together to bridge the gap between "harmless and awkward" and "very bad dude." Never seen a movie where normal sentences made my heart rate shoot up. Even stuff like the dinner scene, he's putting on a masterclass, even when only his hand is visible flexing and unflexing in the corner in some shots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
My favorite part of the entire movie is the part where goodman is describing how to reset the air filter and then totally silently you can see him mouthing the instructions to himself after he says them. I don't know why it struck me but it was the sort of acting which is a thing actors in movies never ever do but people in real life do all the time. It fit with the whole dichotomy of him being absolutely totally 100% certain of everything he's saying but also having absolutely no idea if he is right. Like he gives the order like a command but then has to say it again in his head because he's not even sure he actually even remembers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
There's a ton of stuff he does in this that's just off, and at no point does it seem like he's playing it for a laugh. You just don't know what you're getting with this guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Yeah, you can feel the trauma rolling off the guy. The movie is impressively willing to let his dangerousness and unpredictability come from a place of vulnerability. Mary Elizabeth Winstead was solid, but I don't recall getting that kind of nuance from her. John Gallagher Jr. I have trouble judging because he'll always be Jim Harper to me, but similarly seemed to be just hitting the right notes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Mary Elizabeth Winstead was solid, but I don't recall getting that kind of nuance from her. My favorite part of her performance was when we got long, mostly silent sequences of her letting a newly-hosed situation wash over her as she slowly but deliberately figured out a gameplan. The first dinner scene is probably a highlight, where you can slowly see the tenor of her approach to the situation shift as she puts together the pieces she'll need in order to pull off a plan
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Goons manage to have funny arguments about some utterly simple movies, huh Edit: I'm not trashing it or anything by the way, it's just that this movie's ending could hardly underline the basic theme more blatantly Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
It's just one loud guy who's confused by it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:There's a ton of stuff he does in this that's just off, and at no point does it seem like he's playing it for a laugh. You just don't know what you're getting with this guy. There's a lot of this Creep-horror going around recently, all about the probing the limits of tolerance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Goons manage to have funny arguments about some utterly simple movies, huh Never underestimate goons man I watched this over the weekend and loved it. My friend hate who came with me hated it for the first 20 or so minutes being a lot of close ups and just in general being confused by stuff (he likes when things are clearly spelled out for him, etc). The crowd at my theater were super engrossed with everything happening. poo poo even I was feeling so much tension/stress and was kinda squirming in my seat a bit during the movie. Its so intense and never lets go. I thought the ending was pretty satisfying, because usually movies just never go for something that loving crazy at the end. I'm all for leaving it up to the imagination and stuff but I'm glad they showed all that stuff in the end since it was incredibly fun stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:My favorite part of her performance was when we got long, mostly silent sequences of her letting a newly-hosed situation wash over her as she slowly but deliberately figured out a gameplan. The first dinner scene is probably a highlight, where you can slowly see the tenor of her approach to the situation shift as she puts together the pieces she'll need in order to pull off a plan She's good there, though if I'm recalling, a lot of that is communicated through the direction: the closeups on the bottle opener and such. Which isn't a negative, of course. SuperMechagodzilla posted:There's a lot of this Creep-horror going around recently, all about the probing the limits of tolerance. What are you thinking of here, out of curiosity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
I really enjoyed the movie, I just kinda wish it wasn't called Cloverfield. It was very tense and suspenseful. I couldn't read John Goodman's character for a good 3/4 of the movie and it was great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What are you thinking of here, out of curiosity? Specifically the recent movie Creep, but also The Visit. 10 Cloverfield is very much a Shyamalan film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Specifically the recent movie Creep, but also The Visit. 10 Cloverfield is very much a Shyamalan film. Of these, Creep is the one that takes that premise a level further than the others, in that the title character is intentionally pushing and pulling on the limits of the POV character's tolerance as part of a performative murder-setpiece. It's also, not coincidentally, the one of the three that left me feeling coldest. I feel like if it was going to toss that element in, it needed to take it two levels further than the others and have the POV character also be an urban legend serial killer probing tolerance as they shoot their snuff film, rather than just having 90 minutes of Mark Duplass stunting on a blank slate rando
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Consummate Professional posted:I really enjoyed the movie, I just kinda wish it wasn't called Cloverfield. It was very tense and suspenseful. I couldn't read John Goodman's character for a good 3/4 of the movie and it was great. Yeah me too, it would have led to different expectations if it had just been called "The Cellar" like it was originally planned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
It's a weird thing. I wish it weren't called Cloverfield because I wanna see dat monster, but at the same time, it's a great movie and It's good it's doing really well because of the name. Ultimately, I'd rather a good movie do well and people love it and see it Vs. no one giving a crap about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Calling it Cloverfield really was a strange choice, though, huh? I don't give a hoot about how well the two movies connect together, but for me, that title sure did make it hard to take all the "is this guy just paranoid or has the world really ended?" stuff seriously. As if a Cloverfield movie isn't gonna have some big sci-fi turn. The shot of the mailbox towards the end was silly, given the title, too. Felt like it was supposed to be a cheeky reveal, but then JJ said "oh yeah, i still need to name that movie, uhh" from across the country and spoiled it. But it probably is true that we wouldn't even be talking about the darn thing if not for the title. We are only interested in new, increasingly perverse forms of serialization
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
That was part of the reshoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:That was part of the reshoot. I'm sure my made-up scenario didn't actually happen, it's just what it felt like! But what I read did seem to indicate that the title came really late, my understanding was that it was after the reshoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:We are only interested in new, increasingly perverse forms of serialization Right, it's called 10 Cloverfield Lane because it's for the same audience. It's a distillation of the reasoning behind something like the MCU.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:24
|
|