Cloverfield: What does everyone think about it?

Postby **FKeel** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:10 am

I just bought the movie "Cloverfield" last night and watched it for the first time. It's the movie I'm sure everyone has seen the teaser trailer for that looks like some kind of monster attacking New York City. But it was filmed as if someone was caught up in this mess and was filming it with a handheld camera.

I actually enjoyed the film up until the ending. Just the whole movie reminded me of the style of filmmaking that was in "The Blair Witch Project."

If you have seen the film, what did you think about it?

Postby **Radical Dreamer** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:03 am

I actually really enjoyed it. It was a LOT of fun. XD I do think, however, that you can't get the full effect of the movie unless you see it on the big screen. It really makes you feel more like you're there. I plan on renting it soon to see if I can find the Dharma logo that's rumored to show up within the first few seconds of the film. XD

Postby **Nate** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:17 am

I think there are worse ways to spend 8.50. XD

Which is to say I enjoyed it, but it wasn't that great. I'm going to get the Rifftrax of it though. That should be epic.

Postby **Doubleshadow** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:19 pm

I wish I had seen it in the theatre. Watching it on my laptop was freaky enough. I loved the effect the first person perspective added. I agree with some critiques I read that noted horror movies were typically not as frightening as horror first person shooters because the first one causes the person to fell ike a detached observer, while the latter makes the person feel as though they are there. Cloverfield did an excellent job of doing what other movies had only tried and failed to do: use the first person perspective effectively.

Postby **LadyRushia** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:31 pm

Yeah, my friend and I just sat and stared at the screen for a few minutes after it ended. Then we looked at each other and said, "That was intense."

Awesome movie.

Postby **Warrior 4 Jesus** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:21 pm

It wasn't incredibly deep or whatever but I loved it. A great, intense, fun and at times freaky ride.

Postby **Scarecrow** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:11 pm

I liked the way it was filmed but that was about it. I mean it was decent. Think I preferred the Mist better though. My problem with this was the g uy never put down the camera even if someone was being attacked or whatever. It would have been better if it wasn't a camera but just a first person view from one of the characters who you never see their face and the movie ends when they get eaten or something

Postby **mechana2015** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:42 pm

I liked it in the way I like rollercoasters... and this one was HUUGGEE. And alive. Therefore I loved it.

Probably one of the most enjoyable theater movies I've ever seen. I implore anyone who sees this to watch it on the largest screen and most surrounding sound that you can.

Postby **Maledicte** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:29 pm

One of the most fun times I'd had at the theatre. For me, it was like those amusement park rides where you sit in front of the screen, and the seats move...only I was moving myself, and it lasted over an hour.

I love rides like that.

Postby **GrubbTheFragger** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:42 am

loved it. I bought it the day it came out. I love the way it was filmed and even the acting was great. I love how it stayed away from most hollywood cliches .

Postby **NekoChan_C** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:14 am

LadyRushia (post: 1220801) wrote:Yeah, my friend and I just sat and stared at the screen for a few minutes after it ended. Then we looked at each other and said, "That was intense."

Awesome movie.

Yeah, no doubt... My fiance and I just kind of sat there... watching the credits and listening to that killer song that was playing through them... we were stunned into silence... just, like, wow. The cinematography really added a special effect to the film, it made it much more personal to me. I felt much more invested in the characters, since it was shot with the intent of having the viewer among the characters, versus merely observing the events. They never did explain WHAT the creature was, which I actually liked. How often in life do things happen that NEVER get explained, or we are left with questions that we never get satisfactory answers for... It leaves you with the unsettling feeling that not only is this scenario possible, but it is plausible, too...

Great movie. I really loved it.

Postby **Maledicte** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:14 pm

NekoChan_C (post: 1221962) wrote:They never did explain WHAT the creature was, which I actually liked. How often in life do things happen that NEVER get explained, or we are left with questions that we never get satisfactory answers for... It leaves you with the unsettling feeling that not only is this scenario possible, but it is plausible, too...

Ironically, that's what a lot of people didn't like about the movie. Everyone was saying, "Oh wow, we're going to have a DIFFERENT kind of monster movie! Hooray!" And they did, but they didn't like it.

When I saw it, the guys in front of me seemed to be the types who were all over it, fanboy-style, judging from how they acted during the previews. But when the credits started rolling, they were like, "That was IT?!" I shouted back, "Well, how was it supposed to end?" Their reply: "I dunno, they should have [spoiler]killed the monster/explained it[/spoiler] or something!"

:stressed:

Postby **NekoChan_C** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:24 pm

SirThinks2Much (post: 1221975) wrote:Ironically, that's what a lot of people didn't like about the movie. Everyone was saying, "Oh wow, we're going to have a DIFFERENT kind of monster movie! Hooray!" And they did, but they didn't like it.

When I saw it, the guys in front of me seemed to be the types who were all over it, fanboy-style, judging from how they acted during the previews. But when the credits started rolling, they were like, "That was IT?!" I shouted back, "Well, how was it supposed to end?" Their reply: "I dunno, they should have [spoiler]killed the monster/explained it[/spoiler] or something!"

LOL... see? you can't please everyone!! But I am of the school of thought that cinema (or books, anime, tv, etc...) should be more like real life than just the "oh that was awful but thank God we fixed everything and tied up all loose ends in the end while still leaving it open for a sequel" syndrome. Life is rarely quantified so neatly. Why should our media be?

Postby **bigsleepj** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:56 pm

I enjoyed it and the friend (and his cousin) I saw it with all thought it was excellent / unique. But still I thought the first 20 minutes was kind of boring.

Postby **Tommy** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:22 pm

Great film.
It had me on the edge for most of it haha.

I don't recall the "camerman's" name, but I do remember that he was by far my favorite character.

"I heard they burn homeless people in this tunnel..."

It was exciting, but the explanation for the monster was weak. Bleh, whatever.
Can't expect too much.

Postby **Radical Dreamer** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:46 pm

TeeLay (post: 1222170) wrote:It was exciting, but the explanation for the monster was weak. Bleh, whatever.
Can't expect too much.

That's kind of the whole point of the movie. There wasn't supposed to be an explanation for the monster in the film (though JJ Abrams has said it was a monster from the sea). The film is made to make you feel like you're there. You don't have the omniscient narrator telling you what's happening, you're actually there. So unless the characters had looked into finding out details about the monster (which would have made the film less realistic by far), there would be no way to find out where it came from.

Postby **Nate** » Thu May 01, 2008 1:34 am

Radical Dreamer wrote:So unless the characters had looked into finding out details about the monster (which would have made the film less realistic by far), there would be no way to find out where it came from.

Yeah, it bugs me when movies about giant mutant monsters impervious to nuclear weapons aren't realistic.

Postby **GrubbTheFragger** » Thu May 01, 2008 9:26 am

All i know is the monster was a giant baby monster (literally) a giant lost in the city. I know that because of the special features.

Postby **NekoChan_C** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:01 am

On an interesting sidebar... I was reading Job this morning, and became fascinated with God's description of the Leviathan (Job 41)... I wonder if JJ got any inspiration for his creature from that? God spoke of it as the most fearsome of the beasts in the sea... and it even breathed fire!!! I love it... ^_^

my last fm profile! · Postby **rocklobster** » Wed May 28, 2008 8:42 am

I loved it. I saw the ending coming a mile away, but that was great. The suspense was there right up to the end. The part I liked best was that there wasn't even any "mood music". I mean, let's face it, would real life have a great score by John Williams?

Postby **termyt** » Wed May 28, 2008 8:57 am

I haven't seen the movie. It looked kind of interesting, but apparently not interesting enough to get me to watch it. Doubleshadow caught my eye though:

Doubleshadow (post: 1220752) wrote:I wish I had seen it in the theatre. Watching it on my laptop was freaky enough. I loved the effect the first person perspective added. I agree with some critiques I read that noted horror movies were typically not as frightening as horror first person shooters because the first one causes the person to fell ike a detached observer, while the latter makes the person feel as though they are there. Cloverfield did an excellent job of doing what other movies had only tried and failed to do: use the first person perspective effectively.

I see this as a problem for modern action/horror movies. The great horror movies of yore were great because they relied on building empathy with the characters instead of relying on cinematography and special effects. If you empathize with the characters, you immediately put yourself in their shoes and thus imagine yourself experiencing what is happening to them - hence horror ensues. The focus was not so much on the monster, but on the people confronting/being confronted by the monster.

Now the focus is on the monster itself and the other characters are just basically there as a foil for special effects. They aren't typically very interesting or even likable, let alone empathetic. So, in that event, 1st person cinematography works better because you are forced to see yourself there, even if the story is nowhere near good enough to draw you in on its own merits.

Postby **Maledicte** » Wed May 28, 2008 1:32 pm

I personally liked Marlena, but there's only so much you can learn about a person, let alone five, during a party and ensuing running from an unknown terror for six hours. Given the timeframe and limitations of the movie, I think it did pretty well in the characterization department.

Postby **Monkey J. Luffy** » Thu May 29, 2008 4:29 pm

"I'm just afraid this HOBO is gonna come out and he's gonna be lit on fire!"
I HEART HUB or whatever the dudes name was. This movie was freakin' awesome, I just loved it, it all worked out so perfectly!

Postby **Etoh*the*Greato** » Fri May 30, 2008 7:07 am

His name was Hud. Like Heads up display, since all we really see of him is his camerawork.

Cloverfield: What does everyone think about it?

Cloverfield: What does everyone think about it?

Who is online

Loading