Re: CLOVERFIELD (spoilers)

"trotsky" <gmsingh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:h8Mnj.7225$yE1.4092@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> nick wrote:
>
>> I'm not interested at all in people attaching a backstory to
>> Cloverfield.  It's almost as dull as interpreting David Lynch movies.
>> I'll be more than happy to wait for the sequel (if there is one),
>> especially since nothing approaching a backstory is hinted at in
>> Cloverfield (aside from that little splash at the end, which might
>> still only be anecdotal) as far as a backstory goes, other than it
>> might be hinting at something that the military was so quick to
>> mobilize.
>
> The military was quick to mobilize because it gave them something to 
> depict in the movie.  I thought there was some some audio component at
the 
> beginning of the movie that mentioned "Cloverfield", but I don't really 
> remember what that was about.  The quirky thing about the movie is that 
> there might have been enough in the movie to think there was a back
story, 
> but then again it might just have been an excuse to produce a cinematic 
> rollercoaster ride.  I personally would like to have my cake and eat it 
> too, but if they can do one or the other well that's about as much as
you 
> can hope for.

I don't see why wanting to have your cake and eating it too  is asking too

much. The B movies from the 50's and 60's had back stories and endings
like 
Them and the Beast from 20,000 fathoms and hold up much better.