Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but for those of you who said that the camera couldn't record for 7 hours, it didn't. It only recorded 1 and a half hours of footage... The duration of the film. That's completely plausible for a typical DV cam.
Also, I watched it again today and saw the object hitting the ocean at the end. Very tiny and off in the far distance. Looked like what shot out of the water in the ARG.
I'd like to see a sequel that is essentially the spirit of the book World War Z, but with the subject material being "the Cloverfield Incident" rather than the Zombie Apocalypse.
I'd just like to chime in and say that this movie was AWESOME. FANTASTIC. I cant wait to see it a second time so I can watch alot closer. I was hyped before the movie then going in/before, i heard from a bunch of people say it sucked, and it turned out to be amazing.
Im 50/50 on the whole sequel thing. Id love to see more, and know more, but sequels usually never live up to (most) expectations, and I feel it might cheapen it a bit..
Really torn on that, b/c I would definatly love to see more..
I'd just like to chime in and say that this movie was AWESOME. FANTASTIC. I cant wait to see it a second time so I can watch alot closer. I was hyped before the movie then going in/before, i heard from a bunch of people so said it sucked, and it turned out to be amazing.
Im 50/50 on the whole sequel thing. Id love to see more, and know more, but sequels usually never live up to (most) expectations, and I feel it might cheapen it a bit..
Really torn on that, b/c I would definatly love to see more..
On the other side, you have Godfather III and Back to the Future III. All that is really sure is that almost assuredly, one movie in a trilogy will be noticeably worse than the others (except the Bourne movies, all three of them rocked).
Empire Strikes Back is the only Star Wars flick of the six that I find remotely watchable--and Aliens blew Alien out of the water. It really just depends on who's at the helm and what angle they're taking.
Then again, franchises like The Matrix have proven that the entirety of a trilogy can be an idiotic move.
On the other side, you have Godfather III and Back to the Future III. All that is really sure is that almost assuredly, one movie in a trilogy will be noticeably worse than the others (except the Bourne movies, all three of them rocked).
I can't understand it either. The film was good, let it be. It seems as though we're locked in this mentality that if a film is good, it automatically has to have a follow up.
I can't understand it either. The film was good, let it be. It seems as though we're locked in this mentality that if a film is good, it automatically has to have a follow up.
Not really. Matrix didn't need a follow up (even if they were good, I'd still say that). Blues Brothers. Clerks (and I like Clerks 2). Jurassic Park. Ocean's 11. Saw. Star Wars original trilogy. I can agree that those films exhausted their potential in the first shot. I can see Cloverfield having quite a bit left in the tank.
I can't understand it either. The film was good, let it be. It seems as though we're locked in this mentality that if a film is good, it automatically has to have a follow up.
Did you guys see this quote on wikipedia from the director at the premier about the possibility of a sequel?
Matt Reeves said:
While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go. The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In todays day and age of people filming their lives on their iPhones and Handycams, uploading it to YouTube... That was kind of exciting thinking about that.
That is such flawed logic. Cloverfield wasn't about the who/what/where/when/why. It was about a freak attack and the documentation of the immedaite aftermath. Perhaps the filmmakers felt like leaving some of the film up to the audience's interpretation.
Also, this movie is really fucking short, but looked like it cost a shit TON to make. I enjoyed it, even if the other guys in the audience didn't. where the hell is my giant blue whale demon! :-(
Also, why the hell is this called Cloverfield again?
Also, this movie is really fucking short, but looked like it cost a shit TON to make. I enjoyed it, even if the other guys in the audience didn't. where the hell is my giant blue whale demon! :-(
Also, why the hell is this called Cloverfield again?
I read that its the name of the street that their offices were on during the making of the movie...but theres gotta be a REAL reason? Why would you name your movie "Cloverfield" then have the name have nothing to do with the movie?
If tihs movie were an hour longer, I'd say it cost quite a bit to make, but I can believe the sub $30 million budget with its run time and small amount of special effects.
If tihs movie were an hour longer, I'd say it cost quite a bit to make, but I can believe the sub $30 million budget with its run time and small amount of special effects.
That is such flawed logic. Cloverfield wasn't about the who/what/where/when/why. It was about a freak attack and the documentation of the immedaite aftermath. Perhaps the filmmakers felt like leaving some of the film up to the audience's interpretation.
Give me a break. You can play this "I love the movie so much that it can do no wrong" game all you want, but just because YOU accepted the movie for what you saw doesn't mean that others didn't.
Following your logic, Lost only needed one season. "Let's leave some of the [show] up to the audience's interpretation!"
I read that its the name of the street that their offices were on during the making of the movie...but theres gotta be a REAL reason? Why would you name your movie "Cloverfield" then have the name have nothing to do with the movie?
Give me a break. You can play this "I love the movie so much that it can do no wrong" game all you want, but just because YOU accepted the movie for what you saw doesn't mean that others didn't.
Following your logic, Lost only needed one season. "Let's leave some of the [show] up to the audience's interpretation!"
No movie's perfect, and Cloverfield was no exception. I'm not that fucking dense. And LOST is a different story. The writers had much of the plot and details planned out ahead of time that would stretch past the first season, and thus consecutive seasons were already in the works.
Why are you so damned adamant that every single piece of plot be explained in detail?
It's a giant monster attacking a major city. How does knowing where it came from, what it's doing, what it is, and what happened to it enhance the overall movie?
It's a giant monster attacking a major city. How does knowing where it came from, what it's doing, what it is, and what happened to it enhance the overall movie?
I think in certain situations it can greatly enhance the overall experiences. I LOVE backstories and origins. Just little tidbits that arnt important in the overall scheme, dosnt mean they arnt interesting.
I saw it this afternoon and have been trying to slog through this topic from where I left it off, damned pages and pages worth a stuff. (And I am at 100 posts per)
I didn't get sick, but the scene where they were running up to and on the bridge almost got me there. That was the worst in the entire movie.
For what it was, and what it tried to do, I think the movie was good. It lulled a bit when
the foursome found it's way into the subway, all the way to and through when the soldier got them back outside.
Really I think the review earlier in the thread summed it up, the movie worked because it put us, the viewer, into the eye of the storm. Once the characters
got into the subway system
, the monster was out of sight out of mind and I could really not care less what was happening on the surface, which was a mistake by the producers and director.
That said, a lot of the movie was somewhat spoiled by what was revealed in the commercials and trailers. The studio was so concerned with things leaking, but let other important plot elements leak that took away from the high tension moments. As an example,
you know there is a helicopter rescue that is being filmed, so Hud, Rob, and a female survive, couldn't tell which female
.
The monster itself wasn't a retread of something else, which is great. The only thing that bothered me was its sense of scale. It looked massive between the buildings when you first get a simple glimpse of the thing, then when it's on the news in the spotlight from the helicopters it looks a bit smaller, then
when they rescue Beth and are moving from one rooftop to another
it looks even smaller still. The worst was when
Hud was at it's feet.
It didn't look like it could have been taller than 20-30ft. That shot really bothered me.
I'm not so sure I want a sequel, as that was the way it should have ended, but I would like clarification, like the rest of us in here.
I think Buttonbasher was right on the money when he said to consider it a movie about an event and not about a monster.
You simply want the movie to be something it wasn't. The entire point of the movie was we saw everything from the perspective of those experiencing it. We ended up knowing nothing more than them. Some kind of 2 month later thing at the end explaining everything wouldn't have fit with the rest of the movie.
The monster itself wasn't a retread of something else, which is great. The only thing that bothered me was its sense of scale. It looked massive between the buildings when you first get a simple glimpse of the thing, then when it's on the news in the spotlight from the helicopters it looks a bit smaller, then
when they rescue Beth and are moving from one rooftop to another
it looks even smaller still. The worst was when
Hud was at it's feet.
It didn't look like it could have been taller than 20-30ft. That shot really bothered me.
That bugged me as well. I almost wonder if it changed throughout the movie.
At first, you see the back of it almost looks like a shell (Seen in the Trailer). After the military attacks we see it from above and see it's back doesn't really look like same. By the end it looks smaller.
If my theory is correct, I think it went down like this:
April: Parasite from space falls into waters of New York harbor. Latches onto multiple creatures in the water.
May: Creature emerges. Military attacks, somehow damaging the parasite. Slowly loses characteristics from other creatures. Shrinks too. By the end of the movie, its down to little characteristics, and its smaller. At sight of "Hammer Down" it gets back in the water to latch on to more. See: "It's still alive".
Saw it today and to me, it wasn't a good film or a bad film. I try to take it as it is, but that's very hard. Also I didn't really like any of the characters. Maybe Hud.
All this time I kept wondering why weren't there more of those little creatures about. Maybe those creatures take the bodies of the dead since I didn't see a lot of dead people lying about.
I just think the PG-13 rating hurts it. In such a situation I think there would be just a little bit more swearing.
That bugged me as well. I almost wonder if it changed throughout the movie.
At first, you see the back of it almost looks like a shell (Seen in the Trailer). After the military attacks we see it from above and see it's back doesn't really look like same. By the end it looks smaller.
If my theory is correct, I think it went down like this:
April: Parasite from space falls into waters of New York harbor. Latches onto multiple creatures in the water.
May: Creature emerges. Military attacks, somehow damaging the parasite. Slowly loses characteristics from other creatures. Shrinks too. By the end of the movie, its down to little characteristics, and its smaller. At sight of "Hammer Down" it gets back in the water to latch on to more. See: "It's still alive".
I loved the movie. I think my favorite thing was that the characters weren't motivated by anything other than trying to help someone out. In most monster movies you have some bullshit character that is out to stop the monster. It was refreshing to just experience a giant monster attack through the eyes of someone who wasn't out to save the world.
I wondered that but it seems kind of odd for them to have never seen the thing and then the tail to smack down like that. Unless it was walking backwards it seems kind of odd.
