Jump to content
IGNORED

Cloverfield


Goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

I saw this in the cinema and absolutely loved it. I reckon it'll be both blessed and cursed with the home viewing format. While the first person camera view is much more palatable on the small screen, the sheer gloriousnessness of the soundscape will be lost - the heavy booms, rocks and gunfire will inevitable lose some of their potent kick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to comment on this. Saw it on the last day of its showing at the local 'big cinema', was really rather surprised by just how good it was. Thought it rocketed along at a great pace, didn't do the obvious things you expected and used a bit of good old-fashioned movie trickery instead of piles of CGI. It also had sort of a... well, an atmosphere of its own. Reminiscent of Miracle Mile, in a way, which is no bad thing. Terrific soundtrack too.

Edit: that sounds positive but not positive enough. I really, really enjoyed it and I'm certainly not into 'monster' movies at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this last night and thought it was a POS.

I'd like my 700mb of monthly usage bandwidth back please.

When you have an 85min runtime....why am i subjected to 25 mins of utterly pointless characterisation?.

Followed by 45 minutes of shake 'o' vision, that will only appeal to the twenty something film student brigade.

Followed by 10 minutes of credits.

Cant believe people paid money to go to a cinema for what is basically a 45 minute, big (ish) budget episode of The Twilight Zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this last night and thought it was a POS.

I'd like my 700mb of monthly usage bandwidth back please.

When you have an 85min runtime....why am i subjected to 25 mins of utterly pointless characterisation?.

Followed by 45 minutes of shake 'o' vision, that will only appeal to the twenty something film student brigade.

Followed by 10 minutes of credits.

Cant believe people paid money to go to a cinema for what is basically a 45 minute, big (ish) budget episode of The Twilight Zone.

I'd love to know what a good film consists of in your eyes.

PS Twilight Zone is good :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Yes it does.

QUOTE (The Conjuror @ Feb 17 2008, 11:31 PM) *

So it's a devise toward realism? Judging from your submission it sounds like they've pulled it off successfully, is that the case?

WTF are you on abaart mayte?

---

Saw this last night.

Biggest load of shit and waste of time evar - horrifically filmed, far too short...and considerably shorter and less captivating than Blair Witch.

Those lot offof Lost need to get their collective finger's out and do something decent with their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed it but also found it incredibly frustrating as well. There was another movie going on at the same time and more than once I felt myself wishing I was watching that one instead. I thought the concept was great while a few times I wanted them to just hold the camera still, it generally worked more times than it didn't.

The opening was 10 minutes too long though and it was a very short film anyway. The lack of explanation was also intriguing and frustrating in equal measure. I'd have liked to have known more about the creature and where it had come from. What did those small creatures put into their bite? Did the military kill that bitten girl or did she just explode by herself?

Spoiler question -

Did Rob brother's girlfriend escape? She got on that first chopper and seemed to get away before the creature attacked.

There's a couple of alternate endings but they're really just alteration in the very final seconds of the film rather than a completely different ending.

In the one ending instead of the fairground ride we see Beth running down the station platform before their trip to the fair and the camera freezes on her turned smiling face. In the other ending there's a glimpse of someone pulling the camera from the rubble before it cuts off to the original fairground ending. Nothing much really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed this but I can't say I'd ever need to see it again. I expect I'm not alone in saying that when it comes to monster movies I'm generally more interested in seeing the monster smash up the city than watching someone spend five minutes trying to find a Nokia battery in a shop while his friend shouts at him, which is something I can get my fix of every day at The Carphone Warehouse down the road. But they did a good job of the city-smashing when it was going on, Why the Christ they went to all the effort of obscuring the monster I'll never know - I can understand the hype value in doing so in previews and trailers, but in the main feature you should be proud of your creature and have it up there on the screen being awesome as often as possible.

Also it's safe to say I did not care for the characters or their stupid problems, and during the 'of course I came back' scene I was urging the monster to pick up the entire building they were in and throw it into the sun. Certainly if I ever did watch it again I'd want to skip any scenes that weren't focused on the creature, which would lead to what, a five-minute film? If that.

Still, it was short and it had some decent parts, and it was a new way of telling the kaiju story, so I'll let it off with a caution but I don't want to see it round these parts again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed it but also found it incredibly frustrating as well. There was another movie going on at the same time and more than once I felt myself wishing I was watching that one instead. I thought the concept was great while a few times I wanted them to just hold the camera still, it generally worked more times than it didn't.

The opening was 10 minutes too long though and it was a very short film anyway. The lack of explanation was also intriguing and frustrating in equal measure. I'd have liked to have known more about the creature and where it had come from. What did those small creatures put into their bite? Did the military kill that bitten girl or did she just explode by herself?

Spoiler question -

Did Rob brother's girlfriend escape? She got on that first chopper and seemed to get away before the creature attacked.

There's a couple of alternate endings but they're really just alteration in the very final seconds of the film rather than a completely different ending.

In the one ending instead of the fairground ride we see Beth running down the station platform before their trip to the fair and the camera freezes on her turned smiling face. In the other ending there's a glimpse of someone pulling the camera from the rubble before it cuts off to the original fairground ending. Nothing much really.

Like i said lots of clues of things in the film you won't notice unless you really look for them.

The monster was awoken by the parent company that Rob is going to work for. In the original ending when the camera is focused on the sea before they move the camera you can see something hit the sea in the background. This is a satellite the parent company rob works for drops into the sea and it's called chimpan III.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that's what I don't get about the film - You shouldn't need to go around the internet to find stuff like that out. How many people would have looked further into what the creature was? It seems like a waste to have this backstory for the creature but then restrict to the internet and the people who search for it. I guess if they'd have spent five minutes in the film explaining this it would have gone against the grain of the idea of it just being about a group of people during a monster attack.

I remember JJ Abrams saying that the tiny creatures were actual parasites that lived on the creature and weren't actually small versions of it.

I'd agree with Rowan, I doubt I would ever watch it again but I am glad I have seen it. I'd say total screen time for the creature is about 1m 30s and budget must surely be the reason for not bothering to show it more - the film only cost around $25M to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have an 85min runtime....why am i subjected to 25 mins of utterly pointless characterisation?
The opening was 10 minutes too long though and it was a very short film anyway

I really disagree with that. One of the things I liked most in the cinema was that you have a very watchable first 20 odd minutes with bits of humour and the sitcomish relationship stuff then just as "when's the monster coming! When's the monster coming!" has almost been pushed into the back of your mind... KABOOM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with showing the monster in full is that it reduces its impact. You can be proud of your monster but imagination plays a much bigger part in such a film that actually seeing it in all its CGI glory. I'd love a follow up where they explore the back story a bit more and maybe kill it. A bit like starship troppers maybe where you are following a small army unit and seeing the action from their headset cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed this but I can't say I'd ever need to see it again. I expect I'm not alone in saying that when it comes to monster movies I'm generally more interested in seeing the monster smash up the city than watching someone spend five minutes trying to find a Nokia battery in a shop while his friend shouts at him, which is something I can get my fix of every day at The Carphone Warehouse down the road. But they did a good job of the city-smashing when it was going on, Why the Christ they went to all the effort of obscuring the monster I'll never know - I can understand the hype value in doing so in previews and trailers, but in the main feature you should be proud of your creature and have it up there on the screen being awesome as often as possible.

Also it's safe to say I did not care for the characters or their stupid problems, and during the 'of course I came back' scene I was urging the monster to pick up the entire building they were in and throw it into the sun. Certainly if I ever did watch it again I'd want to skip any scenes that weren't focused on the creature, which would lead to what, a five-minute film? If that.

Still, it was short and it had some decent parts, and it was a new way of telling the kaiju story, so I'll let it off with a caution but I don't want to see it round these parts again.

I really think this misses what makes it work. Can you honestly not say the opening was fun because you knew what was coming and that they were going to have to deal with it? And then showing the creature in moderation was very smart, kept it interesting all the way to the end, I wish The Descent had shown similar restraint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that's what I don't get about the film - You shouldn't need to go around the internet to find stuff like that out. How many people would have looked further into what the creature was? It seems like a waste to have this backstory for the creature but then restrict to the internet and the people who search for it. I guess if they'd have spent five minutes in the film explaining this it would have gone against the grain of the idea of it just being about a group of people during a monster attack.

I remember JJ Abrams saying that the tiny creatures were actual parasites that lived on the creature and weren't actually small versions of it.

I'd agree with Rowan, I doubt I would ever watch it again but I am glad I have seen it. I'd say total screen time for the creature is about 1m 30s and budget must surely be the reason for not bothering to show it more - the film only cost around $25M to make.

Knowing the background doesn't matter though. In fact, I prefer not to know that Rob works for the company whose satellite disturbs it, or whatever the reason is (utterly pointless connecting the main character to the monster if you ask me). It doesn't matter. It's a big fucking out of this world monster that there could be a million and one explanations for, none of which matter to the people caught up on the ground trying to survive those few terryfing hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with showing the monster in full is that it reduces its impact. You can be proud of your monster but imagination plays a much bigger part in such a film that actually seeing it in all its CGI glory.

I don't know, I don't really subscribe to this ethos. I think if you're making a monster film you should show your monster full-on in all its monstrous glory and if you're unable or unwilling to do that for some reason then you should make a different kind of film. I'm talking about giant monster films, you understand, so I wouldn't include 'Alien' in all this, for example. There's a time and a place to let the viewers' imaginations do your heavy lifting for you, but a film about a monster smashing up New York is neither.

I really think this misses what makes it work. Can you honestly not say the opening was fun because you knew what was coming and that they were going to have to deal with it? And then showing the creature in moderation was very smart, kept it interesting all the way to the end, I wish The Descent had shown similar restraint.

Yes, The Descent is another example where restrained use of the creatures might have worked better, but like Alien that's set in a claustrophobic environment that benefits from that kind of storytelling. I didn't really give a toss about the opening of Cloverfield because I had no interest at all in how these annoying dolts were going to cope with what was coming and even less in the complexities of their sleeping arrangements. They were hardly The Breakfast Club - well, the girl the cameraman fancied was a bit like Ally Sheedy, I suppose. I just wanted to see them in peril and before too long I progressed to wanting to see them all killed.

So, result!

But like I said (I think), I'm glad I watched it. It has some great scenes. Definitely not one to own for me, though. The idea of scouring it again for cryptic clues to a back story sounds about as ghastly as watching Lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, I don't really subscribe to this ethos. I think if you're making a monster film you should show your monster full-on in all its monstrous glory and if you're unable or unwilling to do that for some reason then you should make a different kind of film. I'm talking about giant monster films, you understand, so I wouldn't include 'Alien' in all this, for example. There's a time and a place to let the viewers' imaginations do your heavy lifting for you, but a film about a monster smashing up New York is neither.

Yes, The Descent is another example where restrained use of the creatures might have worked better, but like Alien that's set in a claustrophobic environment that benefits from that kind of storytelling. I didn't really give a toss about the opening of Cloverfield because I had no interest at all in how these annoying dolts were going to cope with what was coming and even less in the complexities of their sleeping arrangements. They were hardly The Breakfast Club - well, the girl the cameraman fancied was a bit like Ally Sheedy, I suppose. I just wanted to see them in peril and before too long I progressed to wanting to see them all killed.

So, result!

But like I said (I think), I'm glad I watched it. It has some great scenes. Definitely not one to own for me, though. The idea of scouring it again for cryptic clues to a back story sounds about as ghastly as watching Lost.

This pretty much sums it up for me too. I simply couldn't relate to the main characters at all, the first 20 minutes or so where they were being established turned me off them. They all seemed to be the sort of stuck-up twats who wouldnt give you the time of day in any other circumstances, so seeing them in peril and worse was sort of satisfying.

Still, it was very well designed and worth watching, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no need to relate to the characters, but it was the ultimate fantasy fulfilment for anyone who's wished a massive monster would visit Hollyoaks or Albert Square or whatever. It was 20 minutes of suspense, and I thought it worked brilliantly.

Totally agree about scouring for the backstory, couldn't give a toss or make the movie any better than it was. Gutted I missed the

splash into the sea on the videotap at the end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great film. Really enjoyed this when i watched it this afternoon.

There's been (to my knowledge) three first person based films over the last year, this, [rec] and Diary Of The Dead. Why then, when Romero has been responsible for my favorite film of the last 20 years (Day Of The Dead) does Romeros latest effort come out worst by a long shot?

I kept saying to the missus all the way through (and i'll be the first to admit it probably became quite tiresome for her) that in the main that if you swapped out a horde of zombies for the monster(s) and buildings being smashed up, that i'd have been quite happy had this been Diary Of The Dead?

Oh George! What could have been eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no need to relate to the characters, but it was the ultimate fantasy fulfilment for anyone who's wished a massive monster would visit Hollyoaks or Albert Square or whatever. It was 20 minutes of suspense, and I thought it worked brilliantly.

Relate is probably too strong a word, but you were at least supposed to care about their fate. Couldn't say I did tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relate is probably too strong a word, but you were at least supposed to care about their fate. Couldn't say I did tough.

I dunno, I don't think you were. I'm not sure the general American viewing public will derive much heartfelt sorrow towards a bunch of loaded late-20 to early-30 somethings with too much cash and not enough manners. I thought they set it up nicely just to show a really nice world being completely destroyed, with lots of apparently smart/cool people being reduced to "OH MY GOD OH MY GOD" with the walls collapsing in on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I don't think you were. I'm not sure the general American viewing public will derive much heartfelt sorrow towards a bunch of loaded late-20 to early-30 somethings with too much cash and not enough manners.

I'm not sure about that. If you look at American TV and films most of the time the people being portrayed on screen are relatively affluent 20 to 30 somethings yet you are supposed to feel sympathy towards them. Look at Friends, they lived in what would be very expensive apartments and had very little money issues yet Americans cared deeply for them.

To say that the filmmakers did not intend for the audience to feel sympathy and sorrow towards these characters is a big mistake, in my opinion. I don't think they were successful in eliciting that response but it was certainly what they were attempting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true, Joey, Rachel, Monica and Phoebe were broke for a lot of the time. The two with successful jobs, Chandler and Ross, had the piss taken out of them: Ross for being a nerd/geek and playing with dinosaurs, and Chandler because nobody knew what he actually did for a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing the background doesn't matter though. In fact, I prefer not to know that Rob works for the company whose satellite disturbs it, or whatever the reason is (utterly pointless connecting the main character to the monster if you ask me). It doesn't matter. It's a big fucking out of this world monster that there could be a million and one explanations for, none of which matter to the people caught up on the ground trying to survive those few terryfing hours.

For you maybe it doesn't matter, i love to analyze and research into things for no reason, even looking for things that aren't there sometimes. The film makers thought it was important enough to put in a backstory so i'm happy to complete the experience and find out what was going on.

Rob is going to work for Slusho company (featured in lost, Alias and Heroes as well i think, maybe New York wasn't destroyed by Sylar but a giant monster) which makes a drink with a secret ingrediant called sea nectar that the parent company called Tagruato (also in lost) mined at a deep sea rig in the atlantic ocean. The sea nectar is exremely addictive and lots of people in the party are wearing slusho t-shirts some even are totally drugged up on the drink in the background. The oil rig awoke the monster and the monster ripped it down <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTWm1nCgLc...feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTWm1nCgLc...feature=related</a>. The monster then followed the ship towards New York and took it out as reported on the news. I don't know why the satellite came down yet but i'm guessing that Tagurato were dropping it on the monster to take it out. It seems that this New York is also in the same world as JJ Abrams lost universe as the Dharma logo appears throughout the movie and also possibly shown in Heroes which i'll try and look further into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I don't think you were. I'm not sure the general American viewing public will derive much heartfelt sorrow towards a bunch of loaded late-20 to early-30 somethings with too much cash and not enough manners. I thought they set it up nicely just to show a really nice world being completely destroyed, with lots of apparently smart/cool people being reduced to "OH MY GOD OH MY GOD" with the walls collapsing in on them.

Actually now you put it like that you're right. If it's the case then it's genuis. They were so engrossed in their little world and then it all collapses, and I did get some kind of pleasure from it, that German word I couldn't even begin to spell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.