« Ed Burns: My Films Don’t Suck, Despite the Opinion of the Rest of Humanity | Home | “Sweeney Todd”: Fun for the Whole Family! »
Review: “Cloverfield”
By kyle | January 17, 2008
Kyle Smith review of “Cloverfield”
84 minutes/PG-13
“Cloverfield” combines unpleasantness and stupidity to a degree that would be difficult to match unless you were stuck in bed with a case of the shingles while being forced to watch “The Ghost Whisperer.”
As “The Blair Witch Project” meets “Godzilla” meets the Banana Republic catalog, I’m not sure who suffered more: the characters or me.
They: are being terrorized by a giant monster roaring through Manhattan, destroying buildings, knocking down bridges and playing shotput with the Statue of Liberty’s head.
I: was forced to write down page after page of dialogue like this: “What the hell was that?” “Oh, God, this is nasty!” “This is like a nightmare, you know?” After a monster tries to drag one of the screamers away, we get, “What’s up with that?” Someone who is bleeding from the eyeballs is asked, “Are you okay?” and one who has nearly been ripped apart alive in the last 30 seconds quips, “You’re saying this isn’t attractive looking?” Tell me, if everyone you knew were getting pulverized, would you pause to make a sarcastic crack about Garfield?
The movie starts intriguingly, with video that carries sinister-looking date and time stamps and warnings that it was captured by the government in connection with a mysterious case called “Cloverfield.” The video was shot by a young guy clowning around, taping random moments from a party in Manhattan. For ten minutes, a Blair Witchy uneasiness builds. Something is about to happen.
Instead, we get ten more minutes of filler as various partygoers wander in front of the camera to say nothing much. Apparently a couple of them had sex, but in the context of what’s coming, this information matters about as much as whether people like your new haircut on Judgment Day.
There’s a sound like an earthquake, someone flips on the TV and it turns out a tanker has capsized in New York Harbor. So everyone runs into the street and–zammo!–the Statue of Liberty’s head lands at their feet.
That image alone is all you need to have a hit movie, and there’s lots more horrifying stuff to come, fires and tumbling buildings and yellowy plumes of dust, all of it bathed in an eerie, sickening mood. The entire movie consists of the found tape shot by people fleeing in terror, and the you-are-there-ness of the images is convincing.
Which is a deeply unpleasant feeling. We’ve seen a chunk of this city destroyed, see it again frequently in our imaginations. It isn’t fun. The more a movie about the subject looks like documentary footage and the less it looks like a fantasy, the less amusing it is.
“Cloverfield” doesn’t understand the first rule of disaster adventures–call it Will Smith’s Law. Human suffering isn’t supposed to be the point but the dark backdrop to problem-solving and fighting back, in “Independence Day” and “I Am Legend.” Even the visuals, impressive as they are–an image of a bomber going to work is particularly searing–mostly just slap a new coat of paint on ideas borrowed from “Starship Troopers” or “The Hot Zone.” (I won’t describe the monster, since seeing what it is and what it does is the only point to the movie.)
Writing does matter, even in an effects extravaganza, because scenes that rattle the visual part of your brain are being ridiculed by the reasoning part. Why does everyone say things like, “Let’s get the hell out of Manhattan” if the very first thing they have learned about the beast from the harbor is that it’s amphibious? If there were a creature as big as the Chrysler Building and as bad-tempered as Rosie O’Donnell rumbling through the streets, would you make a dash to the Brooklyn Bridge or become acquainted with the nearest basement? Why does everyone risk their lives going to a friend’s place to rescue her when they have no reason to believe she’s still there? The black hole of the ending, moreover, ensures that you leave the theater feeling crabby instead of exhilarated.
“Cloverfield,” which runs barely 70 minutes before the credits, is a ten minute trailer mummified by an hour of padding. The story is nonexistent (”People run from monster” is a log line, not a plot) and the characters are so flat and interchangeable that they might as well be called Catalog Models One Through Six. Disaster movies typically avoid the phoniness of an all-pretty people-world by casting a cross-section–this is where Ernest Borgnine and Jeff Goldblum’s phones start ringing. If we were told that the characters were a gang of actors or models, fine, but the movie doesn’t dare. Because then we’d be cheering for the monster.
Topics: Movies, New York City |
January 16th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Sounds like the movie is the same as the trailer. So, really, I’ve already seen it…
January 16th, 2008 at 4:56 am
This is the first and last review Ill read by this guy. After seeing this movie myself, Kyle the kind of fool who could screw up a review on chicken broth.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Um, where could you go if a monster is so powerful it rips the head off the Statue of Liberty and destroys buildings?
I know that since we’ve all survived numerous giant mosnter attacks, we’d know EXACTLY what to do in such a situation, provided that the shock of actually witnessing a mythical creature tearing up New York wouldn’t freak us the hell out.
I’ll be seeing this on the weekend. Your review doesn’t work for me.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Wow. Did you even watch this film? Pay attention to it at all? For once its a film that doesnt spoon-feed reasons”why”, and there IS a story there, friends caught in a terrifying situation. Maybe you should see it again? Seriously, your review is way off on this film.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Don’t beat up Kyle for his review… This movie is like a love/hate thing… Some people won’t like it… Many of his other reviews are spot on in my opinion..
January 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
[...] - A combination of unpleasantness and stupidity that would be difficult to match, unless you were stuck in bed with the flu while being forced to watch Lou Dobbs. — Kyle Smith [...]
January 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
JP
This is the first and last comment Ill read by you. After reading your comment myself, JP is the Kind of fool who could screw up a review on water.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
OK guys, which one will last longer:
Cloverfield in theaters
OR
Castro on earth?
Place yer bets.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I had the pleasure of a sneak peek at this flick, and can tell you that your review is really rather pathetic. I get the distinct feeling you just mailed this in and didn’t see the movie at all. It was very exciting and left me wanting more.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Ok guys, which one will last longer:
Cloverfield in theaters
Or
Kylesmithonline.com
Place your bets.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
What’s wrong with Lou Dobbs?
January 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Dennis,
Just because he didn’t find it exciting as you did doesn’t mean he mailed his review in. Face it, a lot of people won’t like this movie and I can see why. It’s not that good.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Ok guys, which one will last longer:
Cloverfield in theaters
Or
Kylesmithonline.com
Place your bets.”
That one’s easy: Kylesmithonline.com. Even if *Cloverfield* is a record-breaking hit, it’ll be on general release in theaters for what, 3-4 months, tops?
January 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
adam
thanks for speaking for “most people”…..
January 16th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I’ve seen it too, and while I didn’t hate it like Kyle, I agree that it disappoints mightily. After your friend gets eaten by a giant monster, the first thing you’re going to do is not bend down to retrieve the video camera. Without all the hype, this one could have been a decent monster movie. But because of its expectations, it fails.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Everybody has an opinion. Kyle’s is more wrong than Homer in a speedo. While the movie doesn’t live up to all the viral hype, it is amazing. GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
While I haven’t yet seen the film, one thing in this review moved me to comment…
“This is the kind of movie that leaves you so frustrated that once you’ve seen it, you know you will have no desire to see again…”
Why? Because it doesn’t explain everything?
What ever happened to imagination and using your own brain to answer questions you see on the screen? I think one of the greatest things about The Blair Witch Project (which ppl seem to compare this to all the time) was the fact that they never showed the monster. Our imagination is FAR more capable of creating scary monsters than Hollywood is able to.
I think we are, as a populace, not smart enough anymore to enjoy a movie that leaves things up to the imagination anymore. It seems that we need every single thing explained to us, but in fine detail.
But again, I haven’t seen the movie yet (but plan to ASAP!)…
Otherwise, your reviews are ok. I tend to like reviewers that are hard on movies, as I am myself.
ONE
January 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I have to defend the reviewer!!! Saw the movie in preview last night. What was SOOO bad was having the WHOLE MOVIE done as if a half wit had videotaped it!!! It was like watching bad home movies and gave several of us headaches. I kept thinking get this idiot a tripod! The movie could have been good. The monsters were good and the action not bad but it was ruined by the cheap trick of bad video
January 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Blaqlion -
I don’t understand what you comment meant. I didn’t say most people won’t like it. I said a lot of people. There is a difference there. At the end of the film at the screening I went to people booed and one person yelled out, “Worst Movie EVER.”
I didn’t hate the movie, but there are obviously going to be people who do.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Hmmmm…
Sounds like this is gonna be another Blair Witch Project–like movie, in the sense that you either are going to absolutely love it or absolutely hate it w/little to no in between sentiment.
I’m going to watch it 1st thing Friday (as I can only afford matinee showings!!! LOL), and will return w/more comments.
Thanks, Kyle, for giving me a relatively spoiler-free review that has me even more intrigued as to what all the fuss it about! LOL
January 16th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Looking forward to seeing it.
But what’s with the guy who says “it doesn’t live up to the viral marketing, but it is AMAZING!”
How can that be?
Is it possible for the movie to be better than amazing? I kind of don’t think so.
Smells like a plant to me.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
poor kyle is getting attacked by the fanboys
ugh
it’s like this every time a film comes out & a critic dares to cross its rabid followers
i love this guy’s reviews
chill out fanboys
January 16th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I’m certainly not a fanboy (was a big Abrams doubter before this), but the reviewer is totally missing the point in relation to this film. I had to see the film last night for review and thought it was terrific; providing a significantly different take on the archetypal monster film that traditionalists are never going to accept.
As soon as I read something being overly critical about this with largely flimsy reasoning, then trying to suggest that human suffering is supposed to be depicted with all the cringe-inducting US macho, guns-blazing Will Smith style tosh, I can’t help but crack up in hysterics.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Don’t review a movie if you’re going to be completely biased. Try putting some effort into your reviews and maybe pay attention to what’s happening in the movie so you can give people some real insight instead of this crap.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Leaving the theatre this afternoon, i don’t think i’ve ever seen so many people verbally expressing their disappointment (or disgust in a few cases) with a film.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Interesting… when people disagree with the review they get REALLY defensive, reminds me of the reaction to people who dared to naysay ‘Titanic’.
Haha people WANT to believe ‘Cloverfield’ will be good SO BADLY…
I’ve just seen it, Blair Witch crossed with Godzilla is right. Not too bad, but bring the earplugs and Dramamine. Brilliant marketing campaign, though.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Reading these types of reviews is always irritating. The reviewer uses language that basically puts people who like the movie, or even people who like the idea of the movie, on the defensive. By using words like “stupidity”, the reviewer instantly infuriates people because it is basically telling them they are stupid for liking this film. For many it will come down to this. If you want everything about what is happening explained 100%, or you get motion sick easily, this is not the movie for you. If you would like a new take (documentary style) on the giant monster movie genre and enjoy using your imagination rather than seeing too much CGI monstrosity, this one’s for you. Side note: If you want to see another fun monster movie, see “The Host”. It is a Korean(?) movie that also turns the genre on it’s head a bit (the characters are quite an offbeat bunch).
January 17th, 2008 at 10:44 am
This reminds me of the time I did that trick with the wine. Most people loved it. A few nuns were unaffected.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I think what puts some people off by his review is the high level of arrogance and pomposity in how it is written. A look at past reviews he has written read as a laundry list of bad similes, metaphors and condescension. Unless, of course, the film being reviewed has a right-wing lean to it.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Matt W is right to spot “The Host.” Oh yes, it’s Korean by the way. I believe that is the revival of monster movies in this day and age. I am seeing Cloverfield tomorrow so I won’t say anything. I only have one criticism of your criticism, try not to be so blatantly negative. Matt said it right; the people that get defensive are the ones that can’t restrict your opinion as that, your opinion. You’re pretty much insulting them behind your comfy keyboard, people who might of, at one point read your reviews in confidence. Build constructive criticism not criticism to give your untarnished anger form. I enjoyed the review till you started bad mouthing the fact that the characters don’t think absolutely clear about what to do when shit is being destroyed sporadically. I don’t know if you have been in a disaster of any sort, but the first thing people think is getting out of the immediate area. Im sure there is a PSA about how to evac people from a monster attack. Of course a lot of things you state are standard Hollywood fair/ weak reasons to build connections between characters. But if the characters are so bland and rejected of all emotion than who cares? An action/ suspense movie with multi tiered and complex characters…stop me if you think this type of genre is known for that. And look at what the movies demographic. All in all its good to get a negative review of an insanely well marketed movie, it lets people know that you won’t be absolutely blown away. You made really good points and wasn’t as “stupid†as some of the other critics that bashed this movie. I enjoyed your review.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yeah, I know if I were being attacked by a huge amphibious monster I’d need some of those public service announcements to tell me to get DOWN IN THE F**KING SUBWAY TUNNEL!
And you guys pounding our host for his opinionated review: Do you guys know what a review is? What reviewers get paid for? Christ, you act like the difference of opinion means the host is a miserable bastard and you are the open-minded arbiters of all that is redeemable in this pig of a movie.
You are not required to agree with the reviewer. It’s almost a part of the social contract, it’s understood by most people. Do you guys argue with street preachers?
Jeebus.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“What ever happened to imagination and using your own brain to answer questions you see on the screen? I think one of the greatest things about The Blair Witch Project (which ppl seem to compare this to all the time) was the fact that they never showed the monster. Our imagination is FAR more capable of creating scary monsters than Hollywood is able to.”
How is our imagination FAR more capable than, say, film students who spent years practicing their craft of writing and developing chacaters? Are most people visually creative? Surely you must agree that a certain segment of the population has more talent in creating with visual arts. Otherwise we’d all be making good films.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
This comment cracked me up:
“I think what puts some people off by his review is the high level of arrogance and pomposity in how it is written. A look at past reviews he has written read as a laundry list of bad similes, metaphors and condescension. Unless, of course, the film being reviewed has a right-wing lean to it.”
-bad similies, “like a laundry list”? LOL, that was intentional I hope?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“Unless, of course, the film being reviewed has a right-wing lean to it.”
I think he likes more than the two or three movies a year that would imply. Hell, he loved *Redacted*! Even most lefties couldn’t stand that one.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
That’ right, he did like Redacted, didn’t he? I remember reading that review in the Post and thinking, “WTF is the matter with this guy?” Then I called him a liberal and punched the little picture of him over the review. Hard, too.
True story.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
@Spongeworthy
“Redacted” definitely inspired more people to talk about it than to actually watch it.
My picture says ow.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:51 am
I’m with Kyle. This sucked really bad and the problem is fanboys will defend it which means we can look forward to more tripe like this. I said to my friend after the movie that our other friends who like movies that are rip offs would love Cloverfield. We were right
January 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Let that be a lesson to your picture!
January 18th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
The movie made me queasy. hted the people loved the monster and the sound he/she made. The litte monsters looked like giant alaskan king crabs. The camcorder guy should have been violted repeatedly by e monster, so that we could see a real movie. Sequel? Yes, but do it in the traditional movie way. No camcorders please!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Sorry all — this review is KIND. It is just AWFUL — and I worked on it! The setup with the idiotic characters is unbearable (minus the dark haired / goth-ish girl who’s actually a bit interesting) — but this film is without a doubt a piece of crap that you’re being FORCED to believe is decent through an inescapable ad campaign. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen all you need to see. This movie irritates me to no end = and why is nobody mentioning how unbelievable the entire premise is??? Yeah — a person would hold a video camera for several hours under these conditions and yeah, the battery would last. Grow up. This movie is a pitiful shame.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Allo –
In the case of “Cloverfield,” it seems that heavy Internet-based “viral” premarketing was able to deliver an audience to the theatres. The distributors also benefit from the fact that the Internet gives illiterates with low expectations (or lousy taste) a voice. (That sounds harsh, but I don’t really blame the suckers; I instead blame Hollywood, and the greedy media conglomerate Philistines.) Beyond this, marketeers have free reign to post fake, positive reviews across the Internet, as well as to insult reviewers who voice their low opinions of the film.
I have neither seen the film in the theatre, nor intend to do so–for a few reasons:
- The film’s reputed reliance on handicam(s) seems to suggest that the director believes that the overuse of a trendy gimmick can compensate for the lack of a compelling main plot line, the absence of an original/cool/vulnerable monster, the lack of sympathetic characters, and a reliance on sub-par CGI effects. Isn’t the inclusion of a giant, slavering monster gimmick enough? My guess is that a trendy director (who is undoubtedly elsewhere most capable) was tapped for a project too far afield of his specialty, and that too many of the classic elements of such films were deemed either “old-fashioned” or downright unimportant. Regrettable, that….
- I am informed that virtually nothing from the film’s premarketing “leaked” teasers (e.g., the “Slusho” advertisements, the drilling rig disaster news footage, etc.) was included in the film. How much capital was spent on this stuff? Did the production company simply post everything it had worked up–regardless of where it would eventually lay in the editing room–in its efforts to promote this film? This sounds like the worst case of bait-and-switch in recent cinematic memory. What a wretched mess.
- I’d rather not waste my time and money on a film which, by all accounts, runs well under 90 minutes. Isn’t this length rather more appropriate to Disney stuff for the kiddies? Without a doubt, the imminent “Cloverfield” Platinum Edition DVD will include a more palatable “Director’s Cut,” which will make better use of the peripheral story lines, and in so doing, will play down the handicam messes. Alternately, there will be no longer cut included, but all of the extras for which you theatre-goers are paying (but are not receiving) will be included.
Thank you–I can wait….
Regards,
WTT
January 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Kyle Smith has to have some kind reason why he didnt like it, or reviewed it so badly. Yeah, I do agree that it will be a love hate movie and thats what J.J acording to other reviews, he intends it to be. If you give a bad review on something, you have to have a reason for it. If anyone has followed this movie and looked on teh websites trying to find out whats going on, will enjoy it. CLoverfield is way more then just the film. THere are alot more to this movie then what we know. THis monster is not dead yet and knowing that makes me what to know whats going to happen next.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Honestly I Agree Movie Dissapointing It was basically the same old monster movie with dumber characters and the whole real thing made it unreal still got a headache from just watching it
January 20th, 2008 at 1:48 am
“The film’s reputed reliance on handicam(s) seems to suggest that the director believes that the overuse of a trendy gimmick can compensate for the lack of a compelling main plot line, the absence of an original/cool/vulnerable monster, the lack of sympathetic characters, and a reliance on sub-par CGI effects.”
So, you aren’t familiar with the works of J.J. Abrams?
(I know that Abrams didn’t direct, but he’s a producer and a long-time friend and collaborator of the director’s)
Kyle, is this your longest comment thread?
January 20th, 2008 at 3:35 am
The handheld POV in the film felt like a budget decision. The characters were morons. The ending was stupid. Details at 11…
The handheld thing worked fine in BWP because you could rationally believe the only way to document the happening was handheld video. Cloverfield happens in the biggest city in America, crawling with real video equipment and the only way the story gets told is on handheld? Puh-lease.
A less picky-picky criticism is the idiocy of the characters. I’m not talking about the protagonists desire to cross town to get to his true love. That made perfect sense to me. I’m talking primarily about three scenes, unfortunately back-to-back-to-back…
Scene one is where they are in the subway and they see the floor moving with rats running towards them. Any idiot, if only due to having seen that scene in other horror flicks, knows to run like hell alongside the rats. Instead, they f**k around with the camera for a while and keep walking.
Scene two is after escaping the Alien-esque bugs. The come within an inch of being killed before escaping into a break room. First, they leave the weapons they used to fend off the critters laying on the subway tunnel floor. Second, the protagonists pries open a vending machine with a crowbar — but doesn’t take the crowbar or any other weapon-ish item with him when they wander out of the room. Hell, they didn’t even have a weapon in hand when they peeked out the door the first time. I started rooting for the bugs at that point.
The third one is as they wander through the department store, just prior to running into the Army guys. NONE of them, paticularly the women, stop to grab some reasonable shoes. Morons.
Anyone seeing the movie and thinking about it for a second or two knows the planned end of the movie was the handheld focusing in and out on the dead friend. That would have been a smart ending.
The sappier, meaningless ending was dreck dreamed up by a movie studio knucklehead.
Disappointing, and WAY not worth the $10.50 I forked over to see it.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Hmm…. I’m going to guess that the majority of the people who thought “Cloverfield” was good and that it had a plot are the same ones who think “OmG lyk Saw 1-4 wuz so freakin awesum! LOLZ”. Yeah, I’m sure.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“The handheld POV in the film felt like a budget decision.”
That seems unlikely when you are talking about a movie with a budget that I’ve seen estimated anywhere between $25M and $35M (which is weird, there’s usually more consensus about this sort of thing). I would be shocked if it wasn’t purely a stylistic decision.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Well,
I just saw this movie and gotta say, I pretty much agree with the reviewer.
In a nutshell: if you saw the trailer, you saw everything already. The full movie is exactly the same, but longer. As unbelievable as it might seem, there’s nothing else to it besides some clever internet based viral marketing.
Plus, my wife literally had to leave the theater to get some fresh air because the camera work made her feel nauseous…
“Don’t sit too close to the screen” is the best advice I can give to anyone who, like me, got tricked by the marketing campaign into thinking that this would be a good movie…
January 20th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
This movie was horrible, and frankly, a waste of an hour and a half. It was disapointing, because of all of the amrkting that was going on.The movie was flat and boring, although exciting at times. The ending just added to the badness, as no well-respected writer would ever end a story line like this. Heck, I don’t even know if I can call him a writer. Wouldn’t reccoment this to even the brave at heart.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Since where are there “rules” for making certain types of movies? Don’t those “rules” just ensure that we get the same pre-packaged movie churned out month after month?
I for one applaud the movie-makers and studios who think outside the “rules” to make an original and intense film.
Methinks Kyle is just mad that he couldn’t just load his review of Godzilla up and cut-an-paste the word Cloverfield into it a few times.
And what’s with the Rosie O’Donnell quip? How does that even pertain to reviewing the movie? Of all the cliched hack jokes to write…don’t want to try too hard, Kyle? Thinking’s tough, huh? You’re smart to leave the cleverness to your betters.
January 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
[...] love to read Kyle’s movie reviews, but he is once more profoundly on crack with his negative review of Cloverfield. Yes, it’s basically just Blairzilla 911, just over an hour of shaky-cam footage of [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Don’t bash Kyle’s review. What he says makes sense.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
People who praise this movie are twits. I thought the movie was ok, but anyone who says that it was groundbreaking or amazing is a slave to bright lights and the OC generation. I’m not even going to say how the marketing was backstabbing and terrible. I’m more focused on a movie that uses pretty effects to dress up the story of a bunch of idiot yuppies which darwinism should have killed off(Maybe the monster is that darwinism?) with a camera that managed to invent a new form: “fake wobbly camera”. It doesn’t even look real like the Blair Witch, instead its full of forced shakes, yet Hud can keep a focus while in a heliocopter, etc, not to mention how strong that camera must be. This movie embiggens what jj adrams has proved to be good at: making dramatic trailers for ideas(Lost) that really don’t have any fluid, just heaps of bs. Thank you, Kyle Smith, for the first(and hopefully not the last) bad review of Cloverfield.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Is she up there?
Where?
That scraper that has fallen over and is currently leaning against another?
Dunno. Lets go up it and climb over to the one that is leaning against it.
?????????????????? Lets not. Lets leave the cinema now.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Nah, Kyle’s review is dead on. I’ve never left a theatre so angry.