lol oh right! I could have sworn i saw 3 of them under the bridge.. at least it makes sense now
Cloverfield
- Thread starter Col_M
- Start date
lol oh right! I could have sworn i saw 3 of them under the bridge.. at least it makes sense now
You're so defensive. Why is that?
To be honest, the obvious story wasn't good enough to warrant watching it over and looking for hidden stuff.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
true meanings?
behind a fictional film?
oh dear, i think someone spends too much time 'reading around' and not enough time 'enjoying'.
seriously - if a film doesn't instantly entertain / amuse / interest, why bother making the effort to work at liking it.
So because something is fictional it automatically has no meaning? Interesting. As for reading around... it's a natural thing to do if a film has captured your interest, whether for good or bad. It only takes 2 hours to watch it, and after that many people like to know the 2 hours wasn't wasted, and do a bit of research out of a genuine desire to learn more about what they've just seen. I personally do it with many films. Is that a hard thing to understand?
According to some, i researched the film, before, and after i watched it, and it made the film more enjoyable.
no dude, you were defensive. "Hah" is you being defensive. I gave my opinion that it was a relatively 2 dimensional plot and didn't inspire me to look further into it. I've read essay upon essay on films like Donnie Darko and Primer, but for me there was just no mysticism in Cloverfield - I didn't want to read into it because I feel that the film put forth everything I cared to know about it. Fair enough, you did, but that's no reason to get all defensive and facetious with me because I disagree. It's not like I'm trolling - I have very valid reasons!
Who are you say that i read too much around, and dont spend enough time enjoying, i dont go and watch utter ***** films, so you dont read reviews about films and plots of films, before you go picture houses?
i bet you have wasted some money.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
wow so many points to reply on!
i was questioning neoni's use of the phrase 'true meaning', it's a bit deep when you consider what he is reviewing is essentially an over-hyped monster flick.
yes, maybe he could have realised when watching the film that he needs to spend more time with his family / friends and not to leave the ones you love on bad terms, but is this what the film is about? or that a tiny subset of the plot that has been over-read in order to give it 'meaning'?
and to be honest - if i have to read into a film after i've seen it to 'know my two hours weren't wasted' - then my two hours were DEFINITELY wasted!
i would rather waste £4 on a film, than many many hours of my life trying to finding meaning in films that were written to entertain, not obfuscate!
i am not knocking you for wanting to do this - i am just saying that i (like many cinema go-ers) would rather watch and enjoy a film, or watch it and forget about it, for me there doesn't have to be anything more than 2 hours away from 'real life'
I personally don't do that as I think it detracts from the film. And yes, I've wasted some money on crappy films! No denying that
the "Hah" was because I just wasn't interested in looking for meanings and didn't see the point - nothing whatsoever against those who did!