The Temple of Dagon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvNkGm8m ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvNkGm8mxiM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield

... Cthulhu?

1-18-08

Nope... Been debunked, man. Sorry.

Hardly, the movie is black as black can be (black meaning under wraps). If you have a link from an official source debunking it please post it.

Enkil wrote:Hardly, the movie is black as black can be (black meaning under wraps). If you have a link from an official source debunking it please post it.

I'll just wait until that 5 dollar bill ends up in my mailbox.

You do that. I'll set it aside, you best do the same.

Its made by the same guys that do lost, its either gonna be really lame and end up so you never even see the damn thing, or its gonna be a huge gay invisible smoke monster!

i can't believe i'm participating in this viral marketing campaign, but look at this foolishness

Enkil wrote: ... Cthulhu?

Nah

Saw cloverfield the other night... Pretty good stuff for the most part, having said that I wish the protagonists were at least a little bit likeable. I couldn't wait for them to all die horribly. The only tolerable one was the woman who's head exploded. The monster was awesome though... and you saw it in just the right servings I thought, it wasn't completely hidden off camera but then again wasn't pornographically dribbled over by the camera either which is, I feel the main downfall of a lot of CGI creatures, they spend so much money on them they are centre stage like a girating porno queen whoring their flashy fleshlikes for so long it gets in the way of the story....

Saw this on Wednesday, and as much as I wanted to, I couldn't not enjoy it (the whole "this is evidence of a real thing, because it's on camera, but you'd think BBC News would have picked up on a giant beastie terrorising NY" thing has been annoying me for a bit). Sure it thinks it's much more clever than it actually is (typical Abrams), but it certainly was a good piece of fun.

I take on board you're points, but with any horror film there is going to have to be some suspension of disbelief, otherwise it ends up being rather geeky sci-fi. I think that I felt comfortable giving cloverfield the benefit of the doubt in order to experience that situation in the first person for the first time in the cinema.

Saw AVP requiem last night and I was really dissapointed, since I enjoyed the first one so much. The predalien is a bit silly, especially how it regurgitates it's young down the gullet of the woman... and how quickly the babies are to hatch (it's like, what was the point of them being inside the woman in the first place)... I think what I enjoyed about the first one was all the Lovecraftian/Erich von Däniken elements, none of which were evident in the new one.

I've heard pretty bad comments about the movie, is true that the "thing" appears without any story or something? That would be SUCKS HARD.

I thought the movie was awesome to be honest. Rodr-Evil, if you watch the last scene closely (the one where the guy and the girl are at the fair ground, on the ferris wheel) the camera pans out to a wide view of the ocean. At one point, very briefly, something crashes into the sea, fuelling a rumour that a crashed satellite awakens and angers the beast.
I see a lot of people commenting on how unrealistic or impossible these movies are. Seriously, how can there be much realism in a story about a skyscraper-tall boogeyman? What happened to movies being a means of escapism? How can you enjoy a film if you're constantly watching to see if the story trips up on something that really cant happen in real life? What is so difficult about just watching a film and assuming for one moment that in the universe the film is set in, these events just might be possible?

I'm done...

Yah I liked it, the characters were fucking stupid though, I'm glad they all got theirs...Plus I skipped the first like 30 minutes of the beginning, so I got to bypass all that talking shit.

HAH! I did that!

I wish I'd seen it on the big screen though.