As soon as he entered the venue, a staff member stood at the door holding a vomit bag of kraft paper, ready to hand it to the audience, but no audience reached out to pick it up. I wonder how many felt dizzy after watching the movie? Admit it, I'm kind of. Therefore, if you suffer from seasickness or seasickness, you must think twice before entering the arena. It is best to sit back a bit, and you should not be so dizzy.
The story is simple. The opening is the daily life of men and women in New York and the farewell party. The various relationships between men and women are entangled, and they are slowly explained in the length of nearly half an hour. The audience who want to watch the disaster film are probably already impatient. Shooting in the form of Home Video has already made people impatient. There has been no disaster scene yet, so it should be played.
But I personally think that this section is still well shot. At least, it is enough for everyday feeling, and if the film is real enough, then how can there be no feeling of daily life? So you have to admire that the film is indeed imitating home dv to the end, and even for you to see, most of it is in "unprofessional" scenes, such as many "important" scenes, which are actually not shot. It's just that people are running around, people are rushing, and people are running away, but the bridge is not broken, and the top half is not the bottom half.
It is said that this is to enhance the audience's sense of generation. So some people substituted, shouting "good wild," some people couldn't substitute, so they scolded the movie as having no head and no tail, said it was unfinished, said it was ugly, and said that it made the head dizzy.
In the column of Ming Pao, Shu Qi commented on the film as "bad plus bad = bad", and pointed out that "just as all home videos are not movies, "the last" movies are not worthy of being called movies." She also used a "Period" In order to show that there is nothing to say, I haven't read a movie, and it's not a film that a researcher has watched. It's quite superficial, so naturally there is nothing to say. Interestingly, when the producer JJ Abrams said that it is very enjoyable for people to experience the fear of giant monsters attacking the metropolis in an extremely safe and enjoyable situation. So is the movie art or entertainment? The audience is not entertained, so what about the movie?
The theater posted a notice before entering the theater, stating that the film was shot with innovative methods, which may cause discomfort to the audience. In my personal understanding, this is of course the dizziness caused by the shaking lens to make a complaint, and the arrangement of a "pre-announcement" also packs it more like a publicity slogan and cannot cause it. The audience takes it seriously.
Since the film began distributing promotional clips on the Internet half a year ago, there is only the head of a statue of liberty flying over the sky, and a group of panicked people. No one knows what the monster is, or even if it is a monster. The answer was not revealed until the film was released. Hand-held shooting is not an innovative technique. It is not a big deal to remain mysterious until the last moment. It can only be said that the film company's publicity policy is very clear, and they are well versed in the marketing of movies. But how many viewers enter the arena with the mentality of watching a typical disaster film, and it turns out to be counterproductive?
Is the film outstanding? not necessarily. Is the technique very innovative? Not necessarily, is the viewing experience very fresh? not necessarily. Even formally enters the drama, the male protagonist wants to save his favorite girl, friends volunteered to help, etc., in fact, to put it bluntly, aren't they all typical plots? The film cost 30 million U.S. dollars, and the discussion it has caused is no less than the big production. In this regard, it is absolutely beyond the standard. It is a bit like an ideological criticism of whether home video is a movie or not. There is a class struggle.
The audience's favorable comments, or extreme disapproval, may already be calculated. The best part is that the film can definitely become a teaching material. "This is not a movie." So what? Period.
View more about Cloverfield reviews
