And I disagree. I listed several reasons why Cloverfield is simply an inferior product. It tried to capture what Godzilla has done many times decades before it. Most people weren't receptive to it, and it just doesn't hold up to other films in the genre.
What reasons? Just saying the characters, writing and cinematography is bad amounts to nothing. There is no analysis there, that's about as deep as just saying the movie sucked. Why was the writing, cinematography and characters better in godzilla? If you don't expand on that then i don't see how what you said is anymore in depth than what i did.
So who was in that film, again? I'm sure without google, you couldn't tell me off top. That casting was the last thing on the list, I'm sure. They aren't even B tier actors.
Rob, Hud, Beth and Marlena. Can't remember any other names but that's more than i can for godzilla. Considering i haven't watched cloverfield in a year and saw godzilla a couple of days ago that's not too bad. Wait you mean the names of the actors? Who in the fuck cares? What kind of argument is that? So is the quality of the stars what determines how good a movie is? Fact is the actors didn't put on a good performance in godzilla so i don't care who they were.
To me good casting is when you get people who perform well in the required role. Just hiring a bunch of big names means jack shit. Like in this movie where you get Watanabe putting in one of the most embarrassing acting performances i've seen, even for a hollywood movie.
Edit: Having unknown actors was a positive for cloverfield not a negative.
I don't recall much of any emotion in that film. We had young people running and screaming, and frustrated at their situation (as best as they could). However the connection between the giant monster and the victims is indirect. You can easily replace the monster with a natural disaster, and the film would barely change.
This is what i mean. You say you remember no emotion whereas i do remember seeing more emotion in that film. We disagree there and you have done nothing to elaborate how my opinion is wrong for feeling otherwise. Even in your own post you show that there was emotion. A group of young people fighting desperately for survival and to save the ones they love (whilst also building a connection with each other). It's not exactly classic cinema but it's much better than what we got in godzilla.
I'm not sure the last part is true either. The cloverfield monster filled it's roll perfectly. You could probably do something similar with a natural disaster but it wouldn't be quite the same or as intimidating as that monster was. The monster also had a lot of unknowns about it which is what gives a different sort of tension to a normal natural disaster.
Well you have to understand, that when you make statements like that without actually stating why, people like myself are going to question you. If you aren't able or willing to share more than just the blank statement then why say anything at all?
Because i want to share my opinion? So i literally can't post anything unless i can articulate why like i'm a film critic? This discussion is laughably shallow and is basically us just saying that we like one movie over the other. I stand by what i said, you can share an opinion without being able to perfectly articulate why you hold it. I'm a huge fan of movie soundtracks but for the most part i find it hard to say why i prefer each one. It's simply because they bring out a certain emotion in me.
And there are measurements we use to determine whether something (like films, and the elements they consist of) are "good" or "bad". Cloverfield falls short of many of those margins. While Godzilla exceeds. And it shows by the glowing reviews it's getting.
Jesus you're acting like your Roger Ebert with this analysis. What are the things that cloverfield failed so miserably at? Break it down for me if you want to go on acting like your opinion is the only right one. It's not like cloverfield was seen as a shit movie either, it didn't get glowing reviews but it did ok. I'm not sure it's even that far behind godzilla in terms of reception. Since when do things like that determine what movie is better or worse anyway? You ask most people what they think about 2001, they'll tell you it's boring shit. That doesn't mean it is.
You're throwing this incredibly superficial analysis of the film at me (mines no better nor would i claim it to be) and then acting like you've been able to define what makes a good or a bad movie. It's an incredibly complicated and often personal thing. Not everyone agrees and it takes a lot more analysis to be able to provide an objective answer (if that's possible) than what you have done.
No one is excluding them. Of course there will be opposite views. That's the whole point of this discussion.
So which source are you using to say it is getting glowing reviews?
