I liked the movie, but I wish it had just been a news crew following the monster around. The characters are awful, and Hud cracking jokes every ten seconds became really annoying. They have a damn good monster in the film, and you don't complement it by having some hipster moron make "funnies" ad nauseum.
That sounds a bit dissapointing. I was hoping the movie focused on the monster, but from most of the impressions I've read, it kinda sounds like the monster takes a back seat to the characters (fucking humans ruining every movie!:lol ). It almost sounds more like a natural disater movie. I don't know, maybe I'll just have to see it myself, but I thought Abrams wanted to create an American monster on par with Godzilla. I think that can't do that without putting the monster center-stage.
Well, the one on the right is a sperm whale, only its spermaceti organ appears to have been chomped out. The one of the left is a.... well, I can't even identify that one. The one in the bottom left corner is either a porpoise, dolphin, or "beaked" (long snouted) whale.
The only thing that's been spoiled is the Monster's appetite. He doesn't have room for the main course!
Devoid of personality pretty much sums it up. Insert any random JJ Abrams male lead: Michael Vaughn, Jackass Shephard, Ben Covington and there you have whatshisname... Rob. He was just a nothing character and so was that other girl... whatever her name was.
Marlena was the best character the movie had going for it.
I agree with your points Chiggs. It is the superb execution of the monster, action and camera work that made this film great. The characters not so much.
It almost sounds more like a natural disater movie. I don't know, maybe I'll just have to see it myself, but I thought Abrams wanted to create an American monster on par with Godzilla. I think that can't do that without putting the monster center-stage.
It's definitely a natural disaster movie that just so happens to feature a monster, rather than the onset of a new ice age, or something. There's already murmured talk about a sequel, and my guess is they'd take the attack from another perspective that would tell the tale of the monster in a much more traditional setting, rather than handy cam. I hope so, anyway.
I was really worried that I'd get motion sick, but was able to make it through the entire movie without really feeling terribly bad. I did feel pretty woozy when it was over, though. Do you think you'll be able to watch it on a TV set?
Yeah, as are most of the characters. Especially Beth. Why am I supposed to care about her again? Actually, why am I supposed to care about any of them? I couldn't figure it out when I was walking out of the theater. I'd wager that anyone who finds themselves drawn to the human characters in this story are a little more sappy than they'd like to admit.
This is why a random news crew would have been better. They could have been covering a story, and then suddenly all this crazy stuff starts happening. Giving us less background for the human characters would be preferable to the 15 minutes of fluff that the audience has to deal with in the beginning.
I was really worried that I'd get motion sick, but was able to make it through the entire movie without really feeling terribly bad. I did feel pretty woozy when it was over, though. Do you think you'll be able to watch it on a TV set?
I think so. I'm guessing the key is to be able to keep the entire image in your field of vision, along with it's surroundings. Had I moved to the very rear of the theater I probably would have fared better, but the joint was crowded and I didn't want to abandon my girlfriend. I was surprised at how much it affected me, considering that I'd seen similar shakey-cam fests before without major difficulty.
I think so. I'm guessing the key is to be able to keep the entire image in your field of vision, along with it's surroundings. Had I moved to the very rear of the theater I probably would have fared better, but the joint was crowded and I didn't want to abandon my girlfriend. I was surprised at how much it affected me, considering that I'd seen similar shakey-cam fests before without major difficulty.
In a way I think that this movie is better suited to home video -- no suggestion that it shouldn't be seen in theaters -- just saying that the movie's experiment of shooting to look like commercial handheld, will probably feel more genuine in a living room on the same TV where we watch the news/reality shows.
I think so. I'm guessing the key is to be able to keep the entire image in your field of vision, along with it's surroundings. Had I moved to the very rear of the theater I probably would have fared better, but the joint was crowded and I didn't want to abandon my girlfriend. I was surprised at how much it affected me, considering that I'd seen similar shakey-cam fests before without major difficulty.
Yeah, as are most of the characters. Especially Beth. Why am I supposed to care about her again? Actually, why am I supposed to care about any of them? I couldn't figure it out when I was walking out of the theater. I'd wager that anyone who finds themselves drawn to the human characters in this story are a little more sappy than they'd like to admit.
This is why a random news crew would have been better. They could have been covering a story, and then suddenly all this crazy stuff starts happening. Giving us less background for the human characters would be preferable to the 15 minutes of fluff that the audience has to deal with in the beginning.
If I had to pick who I'd want to die first, between television news reporters or vapid New York hipsters, I'd still root for the TV people to die. The hipsters may be douche bags, but their ilk hasn't systematically undermined the public's ability to proper inform themselves.
On the characters. I think Marlena was crafted for those of us who didn't like the tools throwing the party. She obviously doesn't fit in with them and is looking to skip out as soon as she can. You don't sit around texting at a party unless you're looking to get the hell out. Her mini-arc is easily the coolest in the movie.
In a way I think that this movie is better suited to home video -- no suggestion that it shouldn't be seen in theaters -- just saying that the movie's experiment of shooting to look like commercial handheld, will probably feel more genuine in a living room on the same TV where we watch the news/reality shows.
I'm thinking you're right. I'm reminded of Special Bulletin, an early 80's TV movie framed as a live broadcast about a television reporter and a cameraman who are held hostage by terrorists outside of Charleston who draw attention to Charleston's nuclear stockpile by threatening everyone with a device of their own. Naturally, things don't go well. It was neat as a Cold War, Television age War of the Worlds type thing. So, yeah, I can totally see Cloverfield working very well in a "Hey, we're looking at this footage on our television that's like one of our family reunions, only not as bad" sort of way.
It's a shame VHS is dead, because I could see Cloverfield being marketed in a plain white sleeve, the center top open to show a generic white sticker on the tape with opening Department of Defense description from the beginning of the movie in plain type.
If I had to pick who I'd want to die first, between television news reporters or vapid New York hipsters, I'd still root for the TV people to die. The hipsters may be douche bags, but their ilk hasn't systematically undermined the public's ability to proper inform themselves.
Fair enough, I just don't think that's the only reason why a news crew would be the better choice. With a news crew, there isn't a believability issue. You wouldn't question why they keep filming. You wouldn't question why Hud was able to quickly pan, with precision,
onto a stealth bomber and then down to the creature as it's being struck with laser-guided bombs. And all this from a moving helicopter thousands of feet off the ground.
As it stands now, all we get are crappy, forced lines like "I'm the documenter!" and "People have to see this!" It reminded me of that awful part in The Blair Witch, where one of the guys asks the girl why she keeps filming, and she responds in a melodramatic way by saying "It's all I have!" Stomach churning.
Fair enough, I just don't think that's the only reason why a news crew would be the better choice. With a news crew, there isn't a believability issue. You wouldn't question why they keep filming. You wouldn't question why Hud was able to quickly pan, with precision,
onto a stealth bomber and then down to the creature as it's being struck with laser-guided bombs. And all this from a moving helicopter thousands of feet off the ground.
As it stands now, all we get are crappy, forced lines like "I'm the documenter!" and "People have to see this!" It reminded me of that awful part in The Blair Witch, where one of the guys asks the girl why she keeps filming, and she responds in a melodramatic way by saying "It's all I have!" Stomach churning.
Right, because the camerman in a news crew is going to be just as likely to keep filming. They could give a shit. They don't recieve any credit or the money that the journalists they film recieve. They're just doing a job to get paid, not to get the biggest scoop. They'd drop that camera with a quickness and tell Connie Chung to go fuck herself.
Saw it last night with a friend of mine, we both loved it. This film really shook me, I bought into all of it, love story and everything. It's a fucking intense experience and it succeeds amazingly well at what it was trying to do. A+
And I find it amusing that JJ is blamed for the smoke monster (which first appears in an episode he neither directed nor wrote) but then not given any sort of credit for this monster, even though he was probably more involved in the production of this than that episode of Lost. Keep up the blind hate guys, it's entertaining.
As it stands now, all we get are crappy, forced lines like "I'm the documenter!" and "People have to see this!" It reminded me of that awful part in The Blair Witch, where one of the guys asks the girl why she keeps filming, and she responds in a melodramatic way by saying "It's all I have!" Stomach churning.
People are stupid, and prone to saying stupid things at times. If you're watching a movie about ordinary people, they're not going to speak using subtle poetry. They're gonna blurt stupid stuff out, say stuff that sounds forced because they don't know what to say but want to say something, and try to do stupid things because they suddenly decided that they should do it.
It's the same girl featured in all the viral marketing and the ARG, and it essentially makes a connection between that and the film itself......apparently =P
It's the same girl featured in all the viral marketing and the ARG, and it essentially makes a connection between that and the film itself......apparently =P
Ok, i think that is pretty darn cool, even if it is some meaningless added fluff.
Spire said:
And I find it amusing that JJ is blamed for the smoke monster (which first appears in an episode he neither directed nor wrote) but then not given any sort of credit for this monster, even though he was probably more involved in the production of this than that episode of Lost. Keep up the blind hate guys, it's entertaining.
In a way I think that this movie is better suited to home video -- no suggestion that it shouldn't be seen in theaters -- just saying that the movie's experiment of shooting to look like commercial handheld, will probably feel more genuine in a living room on the same TV where we watch the news/reality shows.
Have you ever seen Alien Abduction: Incident at Lake County? It was a TV special that was played off as real video footage from a kid whose family was abducted by aliens; pretty well done. It came on TV about a year before Blair Witch... The only major problem with the illusion is that they credit the actors playing the aliens in the ending credits, lol.
Very good film. the characters were as good as they could be, rarely contrived, and they provided possibly the best character imaginable for holding the camera (some guy who is a little dumb, foolish enough to think someone will actually need his camera to show how it all happened). There was rarely any contrived moments, short of the silly "She's still in her apartment!" crap with Beth. They left their apartment in the first couple minutes, why the hell would she be in her apartment still? Then again, she was, so fuck all . Good film. Can't wait for the sequel to up the ante. This was just the right measure of "good enough to watch" and "unexplored ideas". Perfect film to kick off a trilogy with.
What's this business with something falling into the water at the end? All I saw was the Rob/Beth explosion business. Even stayed a while, but didn't wait til the credits were over. Anybody want to describe?
Have you ever seen Alien Abduction: Incident at Lake County? It was a TV special that was played off as real video footage from a kid whose family was abducted by aliens; pretty well done. It came on TV about a year before Blair Witch... The only major problem with the illusion is that they credit the actors playing the aliens in the ending credits, lol.
That, and there were a few dead giveaways ("HELLO MY NAME IS SO-AND-SO AND THIS IS MY NEEEEEEEEEW CAMERA, AND THESE ARE ALL MY FAMILY MEMBERS, LET ME INTRODUCE THEM TO YOU, CAMERA!"), not to mention a few huge technical errors (a low battery indicator only shows up on the HUD, not on the recorded video itself).
Right, because the camerman in a news crew is going to be just as likely to keep filming. They could give a shit. They don't recieve any credit or the money that the journalists they film recieve. They're just doing a job to get paid, not to get the biggest scoop. They'd drop that camera with a quickness and tell Connie Chung to go fuck herself.
Unrelated to the Alien Abduction thing, but for some reason I couldn't let myself get the idea out of my head that they nicknamed Hudson "Hud" as a reference to a HUD.
I hope I didn't just win a captain obvious medal.
Nemesis556 said:
It's the same girl featured in all the viral marketing and the ARG, and it essentially makes a connection between that and the film itself......apparently =P
Which girl specifically? If I remember correctly, Jamie is shown doing a testimonial briefly (or it was a hot blonde that looked like her). I just read through the mega-ARG post and I couldn't find anyone who resembled drunken girl.
Unrelated to the Alien Abduction thing, but for some reason I couldn't let myself get the idea out of my head that they nicknamed Hudson "Hud" as a reference to a HUD.
I explored that a little in my blog post. One of the inherent traits of a HUD is that it doesn't obscure or get in the way of the pilot's view. Interesting.
OK, so clearly Cloverfield is managing to live up to most of the hype -- but will the mainstream bite? Based on the immediate reaction to the finale, I'm afraid word of mouth will affect second-weekend success Still, so long as it doesn't do half the projections <i>this</i> weekend, as Snakes on a Plane did, we could be in for an interesting post-Cloverfield ride.
Rambo could single handedly (and will) take down the Cloverfield monster
from being number 1 at the box office
anyways, just saw it and i loved it. as many have said, very intense during some of the scenes. i found that sometimes my muscles would be clenched when it went from a crazy scene to a calm one.
oh, and
i felt pretty bad for marlena, i really liked her, and she was cute too. her death was so sudden
I heard on the radio today that people had to leave screenings of this last night because of the shaky camera. People were getting some serious motion sickness.
I heard on the radio today that people had to leave screenings of this last night because of the shaky camera. People were getting some serious motion sickness.
I heard on the radio today that people had to leave screenings of this last night because of the shaky camera. People were getting some serious motion sickness.
"You see, the monster is tall and powerful. Like a penis. And it destroys buildings. Like a terrorist. Terrorists are godless homosexuals. Therefore, the monster represents a Gay Terrorist Penis, destroying our freedom while young Americans are killed off. The monster seems unstoppable; the movie (produced in liberal homosexual atheist terror Hollywood) seems to infer that our soldiers will lose the fight against Gay Terrorist Phalli, and that we should just run away and let them take our cities.
Most disturbingly, skyscrapers are attacked in a large city by this monster, a shocking move which stunned many observers. After all, Hollywood has been airing propaganda to the unfree world for decades, showing them monsters attacking buildings of American enterprise. These movies, such as King Kong, were enjoined by Japanese films such as Godzilla and violent Japanese video games such as 'Halo' in which the protagonist hijacks planes, kills cops, and blows up skyscrapers. Terrorists used these materials to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Most Hollywood producers responsible for the terrorists' actions immediately left the country to live in their new homelands, protected by dictators whom they married in mass homosexual weddings. Most Americans felt that it was safe from movies showing us America being attacked. That's where the audacity of 'Cloverfield' comes in: we know you trained terrotheists before, Hollywood. Why do it again?
I haven't enjoyed a movie in theaters this much for years. Sure there were some great oscar-worthy films last year, and cloverfield is certainly no oscar contender, but I'll be damned if it wasn't more fun and non-stop enjoyable from minute 1 to the end than any of those films.
Absolutely incredible rollercoster ride. Was soooo much fun Even at the start before the monster it was an amazingly fun film. The writing is very enjoyable and characters get just enough development while staying mainly realistic that you enjoy the human drama. Then the monster stuff is awesome as well and they showed the monster from enough angles and situations that I am 100% satisfied with the monster element.
I tend to be really harsh and nitpicky on films, but there's very little I was disappointed with here. Only 2 things were less than stellar:
1. A few scenes were too unbelievable and lack realism so they just seem silly. Also too much structured movie cliche for what is supposed to be 100% realistic.
2.
In the end when they showed the monster close up...I wish they had just not bothered.
The CG is solid, but just like I felt when watching The Host, anything too close to the monster loses its scare factor. Everytime I see that Jaws gif it still scares me more than anything in these CG movies because Animatronics > *. But the movie plays it smart and 99% of the shots are far enough removed that it still looks awesome and scary.
Anyhow, I'd give it a 3 1/2 out of 4. Sadly this is a movie you really can't see again because the whole point is the raw experience for the first time. I envy everyone going to see it for the first time I think it's the best disaster movie I've ever seen.
Just wondering....are there any other "shaky cam" movies that are comparable to Cloverfield? I don't ever remember getting motion sickness in a movie so I just wanna know if this is worse than any other.
