quote:

crazed
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 25 April 2008 06:21 PM Hide Post
Great flick! Hope the sequel is just as good.

I don't expect a sequel, but if so, it had best be a lot, lot, lot better.

CLOVERFIELD is pure cinematic genius compared to the all-time stinker we just returned: HANNAH TAKES THE STAIRS. HANNAH is also hand-held, but has nowhere near the post production values of CLOVERFIELD, and is plotless, banal and self-indulgent - that is, this is a film that is purposely designed to waste its audience's time. On a one-to-ten scale, HANNAH clearly gets a zero.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
I don't expect a sequel, but if so, it had best be a lot, lot, lot better.

I think I heard somewhere that there is going to be a sequel.

There is a scene in the film where you see another guy with a video camera who is also filming the event. I reckon it would be kind of cool if the sequel was actually the same event shown from the perspective of this other person who was filming.

I thought Cloverfield was a decent movie really. I base this conclusion on the simple fact that I managed to watch the whole thing. This, actually, is a fairly difficult thing for me to achieve.

quote:

goathouse Guru
Posted 01 May 2008 10:29 AM

I thought Cloverfield was a decent movie really. I base this conclusion on the simple fact that I managed to watch the whole thing. This, actually, is a fairly difficult thing for me to achieve.

On the other hand, I almost walked out of this movie, I wanted to. This, actually, is a fairly difficult thing for me to achieve.

I still don't see how you can reasonably call it the worst movie of the year so far. That's patently redonkulous. It wasn't a masterpiece by any means, but the special effects were quite riveting and it had a few redeeming qualities.

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
I still don't see how you can reasonably call it the worst movie of the year so far. That's patently redonkulous. It wasn't a masterpiece by any means, but the special effects were quite riveting and it had a few redeeming qualities.

Again, I think it would be a crime to call Cloverfield the worst film of the year next to Jumper.

Much like the Blair Witch, I watched this movie in the eye of its viral marketing campaign which I followed closely in both cases and walked away satisfied. When the BWP came out i was still in junior high, I think, and when my friends and I saw it it seemed real... the viral marketing said so... Had we not been under this self hypnosis of thinking that we were seeing a revelation of something arcane that was going to complete this mystery, we'd have probably thought it was garbage. But we didn't. The same goes for Cloverfield. While I was in Iraq this last year I found myself delving through the dozens of viral sites online, trying to get a hint at what was to come. Many say the movie was too "small" or left you wondering "what the heck was this all about anyway?" To me it was just a small, but missing piece of the story that was already being told to me for months before it even released. So, all in all Cloverfield didn't entertain me for 82 mins of runtime, but rather for the several weeks it took for me to investigate it. If you think of it as a BWP or Godzilla wannabe, then unfortunately I'm afraid you just didn't get it. Saddly the time is past to participate in the "hype"... wish you'd have been there.

I saw Cloverfield it won't make it in my top 10 (unless 2008 is incredibly bad for movies), but I can't say I'll throw any worst movie of 2008 titles on it. They definitely lost points by killing the witty hipster girl 30 minutes before the end, depriving me of my comic relief. Overall I was entertained throughout it, which is about what I expected from it. I must say though I wasn't really scared, more I just find it amusing when they hear something and decide to stop...

quote:

goathouse Guru Posted 02 May 2008 12:25 PM

I still don't see how you can reasonably call it the worst movie of the year so far. That's patently redonkulous. It wasn't a masterpiece by any means, but the special effects were quite riveting and it had a few redeeming qualities.

Personally, this movie even if it had had great special effects, the movie would have bombed for me because I couldn't believe it for a moment, even right from the start with the unfortunate and unnecessary use of the military file photo technique at the beginning which completely eliminated the possibility that the entire world died or at last the United States. How much more suspenseful would this movie have been if the survival of the planet had been unknown? How much more believable would this movie had been if the video shot techniques hadn't been so directed like a movie and just shot from the vantage point of an amateur? If one wants special effects I suggest going back 15 years to 1985 and Brainstorm which used the very opposite technique - called virtual reality realism - nothing can prepare you for the "real" experience, particularly good since it wasn't done in 3-D but in 2-D.

quote:

Jamshed Apprentice Guru
Posted 02 May 2008 11:32 PM

quote:
Originally posted by goathouse:
I still don't see how you can reasonably call it the worst movie of the year so far. That's patently redonkulous. It wasn't a masterpiece by any means, but the special effects were quite riveting and it had a few redeeming qualities.


Again, I think it would be a crime to call Cloverfield the worst film of the year next to Jumper.

I deliberately avoiding seeing Jumper, so you could be right.

I just saw it and I didn't think it was that bad, but it wasn't all that great either.

quote:

Originally posted by Tabuno:
What you experience as "beauty," I suppose in what I preceive the apparently and obviously "artificially" created chaotic and dizzlingly, shaking and almost incomprehensible confusion of the vidcam...

This did get on my nerves! There were a few moments when I had to actually twist my head all cock-eyed in orer to see the picture correctly and when they ran with the camera, I did start to experience a little motion sickness!

quote:

I experienced only a script that attempts to pretend to be something its not.

I don't think it had a sript. It seemed to be something like 'Reno: 911', where the characters are told what they should be talking about and they let the actors take it from there. The CONSTANT repetitiveness of Hud's lines was extremely annoying ("Dude, we gotta get outta here." "C'mon! We gotta get outta here!" "Oh, man! We gotta get outta here!" I was like, "Just run away, ya wimpy bastard!" )

quote:

Unlike The Blair Witch Project which depends more on realism and simple straight-forward storytelling, Cloverfield depends more on special effects and overly trite camera angles that are passed off to be real and authentic to make the viewer believe the scene is real

I couldn't STAND "The Blair Witch Project"! If there's ONE thing these two have in common, it's the dialogue! I'd like to think that my vocabulary would be just as big as it is now if I were in trouble or lost later on down the road. I don't think it's fair to diss the flick for using effects. It was about a giant monster (that I never really got a good enough look at)! I'd like to know how YOU could make a "Godzilla"-type movie without special effects. If we woulda went THE WHOLE MOVIE without seeing the attacking creature, I'da been pissed!

quote:

Originally posted by Primordial Jamshed:
I will agree there are some things that were annoying, particularly the fact that the monster attacked the helicopter in mid air (the monster was frickin far away, and it had just been bombed, I mean come on!) let alone the fact that they survived the crash, and then the monster specifically focuses on the guy with the camera in Central Park, GEEZ! It’s like the damn monster had a personal grudge against the main characters.

Yeah, I thought that the helicopter attack was a tad forced. Weren't they supposed to be flying AWAY to SAFETY? Why were they circling the monster? As for the attack on the camera man... AWESOME! I don't think it was a "grudge", it did knock them outta the sky and that one girl said that she saw it eating folks, so it was probably going to check out what it had to eat. (Although, I think it's too big to leave "leftovers".)

I will say that the ending was completely predictible for me. Not that it was bad ending, it's just when I saw how the "tape" was set-up (with snippets of Beth & Rob's last "great day" together inbetween the "monster footage"), I told the wife EXACTLY how it would end... AND I WAS RIGHT! (I've apparently seen waaaaay too many movies. ) I didn't see 9/11 references, though. I mean, what? Is every movie that has collapsing buildings in New York now supposed to be "ripping off" 9/11? I remember watching 9/11 footage and thinking that it looked like a movie, not the other way around!

I won't be buyin' it, but it was worth the rental, I suppose. I definetly enjoyed it more than "The Golden Compass" & "Night at the Museum" (my other 2 rentals). I can't watch it again because of the dialogue (and that shaky-cam actually made me sick). Waaaaaaay too repetitive! This movie definetly doesn't belong in "The Worst of '08", though. There are much worse movies out there. I enjoyed it once the monster hit the city. This one failed BECAUSE they tried to go for reality. Thus, no witty banter, no original quotes. Just a buncha repetitive lines to convey the charcters' emotions.

I enjoyed this movie a fair amount, the best part of the movie to me would be the girl Marlena, who I found to be quite entertaining. Unfortunately they killed her off 2/4 or 3/4's of the way through ...

quote:

Monkey_Boy Jedi
Posted 04 June 2008 05:57 AM

I just saw it and I didn't think it was that bad, but it wasn't all that great either.

quote:
TabUno
Unlike The Blair Witch Project which depends more on realism and simple straight-forward storytelling, Cloverfield depends more on special effects and overly trite camera angles that are passed off to be real and authentic to make the viewer believe the scene is real.
-unquote

I couldn't STAND "The Blair Witch Project"! If there's ONE thing these two have in common, it's the dialogue! I'd like to think that my vocabulary would be just as big as it is now if I were in trouble or lost later on down the road. I don't think it's fair to diss the flick for using effects. It was about a giant monster (that I never really got a good enough look at)! I'd like to know how YOU could make a "Godzilla"-type movie without special effects. If we woulda went THE WHOLE MOVIE without seeing the attacking creature, I'da been pissed!

You are one of the few people who seem to always have something good to say even if you don't agree. I just don't think the particular alien used in this movie even with the special effects was effective. I am interested in seeing The Happening and from the trailers, the absence of a monster so far seems much more eerie and spooky than what happened in Cloverfield. There was also back in the 60s, another movie that used slime as a horror vehicle.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
I just don't think the particular alien used in this movie even with the special effects was effective.

My main problem with the monster was that we never really got a good shot of it since every camera angle had to be from the POV of Hud... and it was too frickin' dark! I was especially confused when I saw what looked like a tentacle knock out the bridge and then later saw that the creature didn't have any tentacles. After watching the docs on the DVD (for some reason they didn't come out with the Blu version until a few days ago ), I got a real good look at it, and it was an interesting design. (Turns out that it was his tail.) I really wish this had been a "traditional" film, I woulda appreciated the monster a whole lot more.

quote:

I am interested in seeing The Happening and from the trailers, the absence of a monster so far seems much more eerie and spooky than what happened in Cloverfield.

The point of this movie was that it was supposed to be an "American Godzilla" and I think it succeeded in that respect. I agree that the unexplained is alot more eerie and scary than a physical monster. A great example of this (at least for me) is "Phantoms". I was actually enjoying it until the "monster" was revealed. However, for "Cloverfield" the monster was the MAIN ATTRACTION and it wasn't showcased near enough for what I was expecting. (Oh yeah, I wanna see "The Happening" too. )

The more I let the movie sink in, the more I like it. Still, I didn't like most of the dialogue and the running scenes made me sick (I can't believe I actually got motion sickness watching a movie. That's NEVER happened to me before!), but I'll more-than-likely see the sequel. I just hope it isn't shot in the same way. I loved the CONCEPT, I just had problems with the EXECUTION.

An interesting sidenote:
The docs explained that "Clover" wasn't actually attacking the city, but was an infant that stumbled across a scary environment. After that, I had to go back and watch the scenes involving the creature and you really CAN see it that way! You can also see when he first "lands" in the end of the movie during the Coney Island scene. Watch the left right side of the screen when the camera is facing out over the ocean and you'll see a large object slam into the ocean off in the distance.

EDIT: It just hit me that I told you guys the WRONG side of the screen to look for Clover! I can't believe I typed "left"!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Monkey_Boy,

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
I agree that the unexplained is alot more eerie and scary than a physical monster.

But that’s just it; part of the mystery of this movie was the Clover monster itself. As you pointed out, MB you never really get to see a good wide shot of it. Of course, this kind of effect can only be limited to the first few viewings.

Cloverfield was filmed with the intent to make you feel like you were actually experiencing a real event, to the point where it felt surreal, and there were moment where I felt that.

Filming everything from the first person perspective of one person’s video camera, in virtual, real time, was a brilliant way to do it, because you as the viewer could share the chaotic experience of the protagonist in the most realistic fashion of what it would be like for a real person, if a monster really emerged, and started wrecking up the place.

You get to share the mystery of the event with the protagonist, along with all the questions one would have, because very little is explained. The fact that you never really find out (except for a clue nicely hidden within the context of the footage) during the viewing, added to the realism for me.

Sure, the camera work is shaky, and the dialogue is repetitive, but for me this also added to the realism; I mean, come on, real life isn’t perfectly scripted, and I don’t know about you, but if I saw some shit like that going down, I can almost guarantee I’d be repeating the phrase “Oh my god” over and over again, I think that’s what the film makers were going for, they wanted it to be as raw as posible.

I’ve been popping in and out of this thread, and feel compelled to defend this movie. Granted, it’s not the best film released this year, but I think that for the most part, the concept succeeded, and even though there’s a few things that annoyed me, props for bringing a different perspective to the genre.

I have to admit though , I wish they’d just post some offical art work of the monster up on the website already, it’s been released on DVD, and they still haven't put anything up!So far, this is the only trust worthy image of the monster that I’ve been able to find. It’s the limited edition toy model of the Clover monster, linked from Hasbro’s website:

Clover Monster

quote:

Primordial Jamshed Apprentice Guru
Posted 06 June 2008 01:08 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
I agree that the unexplained is alot more eerie and scary than a physical monster.

But that’s just it; part of the mystery of this movie was the Clover monster itself. As you pointed out, MB you never really get to see a good wide shot of it. Of course, this kind of effect can only be limited to the first few viewings.

Cloverfield was filmed with the intent to make you feel like you were actually experiencing a real event, to the point where it felt surreal, and there were moment where I felt that.

Filming everything from the first person perspective of one person’s video camera, in virtual, real time, was a brilliant way to do it, because you as the viewer could share the chaotic experience of the protagonist in the most realistic fashion of what it would be like for a real person, if a monster really emerged, and started wrecking up the place.

You get to share the mystery of the event with the protagonist, along with all the questions one would have, because very little is explained. The fact that you never really find out (except for a clue nicely hidden within the context of the footage) during the viewing, added to the realism for me.

Sure, the camera work is shaky, and the dialogue is repetitive, but for me this also added to the realism; I mean, come on, real life isn’t perfectly scripted, and I don’t know about you, but if I saw some shit like that going down, I can almost guarantee I’d be repeating the phrase “Oh my god” over and over again, I think that’s what the film makers were going for, they wanted it to be as raw as posible.

I’ve been popping in and out of this thread, and feel compelled to defend this movie. Granted, it’s not the best film released this year, but I think that for the most part, the concept succeeded, and even though there’s a few things that annoyed me, props for bringing a different perspective to the genre.

Your basic premise of why this movie should work is very sound. Shaky camera work, impromptu dialogue. However, for me, the realism didn't work for me because what I experienced was deliberate shaky camera work that was planned to look real and the dialogue and action was forced to incorporate elements so that they would appear real. For me I experienced the director behind the scenes instead of the movie as it was occurring on the screen. I never could experience what you, fortunately, were able to during the movie.

cloverfield in my personnal opinion, was a terrible movie! I will give it credit for the only impressive thing, in that it brought in the usual monster special effects and explosions in an average film experience. The fact that the storyline (if there even was one) was terrible and confusing. The last thing that totally killed the movie was that, the girl beth who they found in the toppled building was freakin IMPALED on a dull pole and then ten minutes later she's bookin it down the street.

quote:

Originally posted by </ 4 |V| $ H 3 I>:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
I agree that the unexplained is alot more eerie and scary than a physical monster.

[QUOTE]Sure, the camera work is shaky, and the dialogue is repetitive, but for me this also added to the realism; I mean, come on, real life isn’t perfectly scripted, and I don’t know about you, but if I saw some shit like that going down, I can almost guarantee I’d be repeating the phrase “Oh my god” over and over again, I think that’s what the film makers were going for, they wanted it to be as raw as posible.[QUOTE]

life isnt perfectly scripted, and im sure anyone would repeat themselves if they were in that experience, but films are supposed to tickle the imagination and make you think and be surprised by the dialouge. People in films, are always the special individuals. Even in cloverfield the main characters are running into the chaos instead of the average crowd being evacuated.

If that wasnt the case, you'd be watching a film about people feeling an explosion and vacating the city in an orderly line.

The dialouge makes the movie interesting. Films are a way to escape everyday life and experience something new. I dont want realism or something you hear everyday. You want clever comments and conversations.