I guess that makes sense too.
We have a theater like that near us as well. Menu, and they deliver food to you where you are sitting. Pretty cool, and necessary if movie-going is going to survive the next 5-10 years with the advent of VR.
A beer or two with a movie is a great thing. If they make a good meal that works as well.
In my area we have “Alamo”, “Movie Tavern”, “Studio Movie Grill”, and “Star Cinema Grill” as well as “iPic”.
iPic is way too expensive, going for a very high end client, and with new release films only it does not seem worth regular attendance.
I try to go to Alamo when I can, as you can order as little or as much as you like. The food quality at the one near us has gone down in the past few years and I do think the chain is struggling a bit - at least in my area. It does not always seem as clean as it should. Alamo does offer alternative programming with old film showings and very small film promotions, and does have meet and greets with people involved with a film (actors/directors/producers) which has been fascinating. Tom Chick was horribly jealous of me because I got to have a quite lengthy talk with Ashley Bell at an Alamo once.
The Studio Movie Grill near me is meh, with premium ticket prices and smallish rooms. Food is ok. Table space is tiny and they have chairs on casters (not fixed seating) which enable people to push them down in clumps and so some people are crowded others very spacious. Only new release stuff.
My Movie Tavern experience indicated to me that food prep is a three step process - 1)make the meal, 2) drop the entire thing in a fryer, 3)give it a salt bath. sometimes they show non-new release stuff.
Star Cinema has a very long menu of stuff. Seating is basically in deuces, and they only show new release stuff as far as I know.
Now I’m jealous. A simple “Hi, nice to meet you” moment with Ashley Bell is far beyond my reach yet you got to chat with her? THAT’S a movie experience!
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit up until the end. Way too imitative of Cruise’s War of the World’s there, and I think leaving it to the viewer’s imagination would’ve worked better, at least for me. She hits the surface, takes off the mask, hears odd noises off in teh distance, gets her car started, and hears what she did about the southern coast being taken back. Would’ve still affirmed that Goodman’s character, while crazy nonetheless, was right in building that bunker. But we wouldn’t have known if it was the Russians or the Martians.
That’s an interesting idea for the ending. For me though it had already been long established that Goodman was right in building the bunker. Something was clearly going on out there. I would have felt cheated if we didn’t find out what. Also, if you leave it hanging like that, no one is going to choose ‘aliens’ over ‘another country’ being the attacker. Why would you? So it becomes a WWIII movie with that ending.
But then it wouldn’t be a distant cousin of Cloverfield. It would be a different movie altogether.
The cloverfield alien connection invokes the cloverfield universe thereby keeping it relevant and priming us for the next cloverfield movie… $
Amazingly, this is the international poster for 10 Cloverfield Lane.
DO NOT CLICK IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE YET AND DON’T WANT TO BE SPOILED
What the fuck is wrong with these marketing people?
Well that’s dumb.
That’s kind of awesome actually.
Weird, in Spain the poster was this other one which I´m assuming is the American one.
Doing a search in Spanish this seems to be the Romanian poster (at least, probably it’s like this in other countries too).
Hilarious. Imagine going to see it based on that poster!
It just goes to show they knew no one would see this if they thought it was just some people sitting around in a bunker. The American marketing is the same – ooh, it’s a mystery somehow connected to a movie about a giant monster that trashes New York, but you’ll just have to see it to find out how! – but without spoiling the ending.
-Tom
I saw this today. Excellent. Though it’s really important to go in blind.
The biggest surprise to me was the woman’s captor walks into the room, and they tease his appearance and don’t show you who it is for a few seconds by cutting around him at different angles. And then finally you get to see him. And it’s John Goodman! Holy shit. That was a brilliant reveal, because I’ve never thought of John Goodman as menacing in the slightest way, so if the door had opened, and it had just been John Goodman, I might have burst out laughing, but instead, they made it a pretty ominous reveal just the way they cut that scene and built the tension.
Btw, @Juan_Raigada, you might want to edit your post. Your quote of Telefrog’s post gets converted by Discourse and actually shows the poster in question.
Thanks, done.
Saw this yesterday with my wife. She went in blind, but some asswipe spoiled the movie for me months ago, so I knew more than I wanted to going in. She loved it. I thought it was okay.
Slight Ending Spoilers:
I was left unsatisfied by the ending. Not the twist, just the literal last 10 seconds or so. This was something both the book and movie versions of The Mist handled much better, even if for completely different reasons. I think this ended on much, too much of a high note for my tastes and completely squashed any interest and wonder I could ever have in revisiting this particular universe/storyline.
I wouldn’t mind a lot more movies in this vein with the Cloverfield moniker, even they don’t necessarily tie in to either of the first two movies. Hell, I wouldn’t mind a series playing to the theme, like Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Amazing Stories, or Alfred Hitchcock Presents.
Slight ending spoilers continued:
[spoiler]It doesn’t seem like there’s going to be a continuation of the story beyond the cloverfield moniker (there’s no hook left to this storyline other than what’s already exhausted in the movie) so it was nice that they gave her a “happy” ending, of sorts. I like my catharsis.
I’m not much of a horror fan, but I never understood why people like movies where you follow/cheer a character on for two hours, only for them to be undone at the end unceremoniously. [/spoiler]
Spoiler Reply.
I agree. I loved the ending, especially since it felt earned. She spent so long building that hazard suit and mask. And then finally gets outside, tears it, and frantically repairs it. And then we think it was unnecessary. But then because of the suit she’s able to survive the chemical attack. That was a true ‘Fuck yeah’ moment that felt brilliant. And then the Chekhov’s gun element of that wine bottle from the beginning of the movie comes back at the climactic moment too. I even loved the very end, where the choice is between if you’re a survivor or if you have medical or combat experience. Fuck yeah she’s got combat experience, you think, as she turns towards that option. I loved it.
I enjoyed the movie enough to watch it twice. The first time going in spoiler free. The second time looking for details and enjoying the acting regardless of knowing the secret.
The third in J.J. Abrams’ Cloverfield series is likely what was filmed as God Particle.
Paramount has removed “God Particle” from its release schedule and replaced it with the placeholder name “2017 Cloverfield Movie”
[quote]
Nigerian-American filmmaker Julius Onah is directing and began shooting in June. David Oyelowo, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Ziyi Zhang, Elizabeth Debicki, Daniel Brühl and Chris O’Dowd are starring.
The story, set in the near future, centers on a team of astronauts on a space station making a terrifying discovery that challenges all they know about the fabric of reality, as they desperately fight for their survival.[/quote]
I’d like these not-sequels a lot better if just once during the movie, the Cloverfield monster randomly would tromp into the scene, eat a character, and then go on his way.