10 Cloverfield Lane
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, April 11, 2016 01:38
VIEWED: 5953
PAGE 3 of 4
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 avoidNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:The review at http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/10-cloverfield-lane-2016.htm says, in part:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
I'd like to know the end of the story, but I won't see it in theater.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:The review at http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/10-cloverfield-lane-2016.htm says, in part:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
I'd like to know the end of the story, but I won't see it in theater.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME