I see Cloverfield today. To be honest, I am quit disappointed. The main reason is that the movement of characters and the cuts of each shot are too gratuitous. It is like the characters (including the monster) act for the camera so that it can catch their every action. Not to mention about the cuts. Their timing is too perfact. For more peculiar details in Cloverfield, please see the film review in The New Yorker.
This movie brings me to a question: Why the setting of disastrous movies is always in New York City? I found the answer on my trip to Shanghai when I looked down from an airplane and saw the glamorous New York City. You only have to imagine you are a monster, and you desperately want to find some place to destroy. You wouldn't like prairies or forests, for they have nothing to crush. This place must be the representation of modern civilization with millions of toys--buildings, cars, people, etc. Then the answer of my question is clear. Only when you imagine yourself as a monster will you know why monsters all love New York City.
This movie brings me to a question: Why the setting of disastrous movies is always in New York City? I found the answer on my trip to Shanghai when I looked down from an airplane and saw the glamorous New York City. You only have to imagine you are a monster, and you desperately want to find some place to destroy. You wouldn't like prairies or forests, for they have nothing to crush. This place must be the representation of modern civilization with millions of toys--buildings, cars, people, etc. Then the answer of my question is clear. Only when you imagine yourself as a monster will you know why monsters all love New York City.
No comments:
Post a Comment