Cloverfield - J.J. Abrams Project [Archive] - Page 3

Dukefrukem

01-22-2008, 07:08 PM

Are you getting tired yet? Cause you've been digging yourself deeper for a long time now. :)

I dont think what Im saying is that far off base. The journey in Blair Witch is much more creative than the events that take place during Cloverfield. If you're gonna argue getting lost in the woods as not creative, i think the film succeeds with the loosely based scripts. I believe on the DVD, the actors were given words written down on a piece of paper which described how they were supposed to feel and made up most of the script themselves. Most of the dialog in Cloverfield was crap, and like I said before, "Oh my god" loses its meaning after the 10th time you hear it.

Buffaluffasaurus

01-22-2008, 11:05 PM

I liked it.

I don't see what the whole ruckus over the suspension of disbelief with the characters is. I understand that yes, the film is working on a conceit that it's asking the whole audience to buy (ie. that a guy would film the entire events instead of running for his life), but really, who's going into the film not knowing that's the premise? I wouldn't go as far as saying buying a ticket to the movie entails buying into the premise, but it wouldn't be far off. I think the way they handled it was fine - they explained it enough without laboring the point. And I hardly think Hud's camerawork was "professional" in any way. In fact, I think they did a great job recreating how ordinary people film shit with handycams.

Not to mention the fact they DO actually make Hud pay for his insistence on filming everything - he dies because he goes back for the camera.

As much as I liked the idea of the POV handycam style, I do think it actually limited the film more than it helped it. It does give an immediacy, but it also detracts from the drama of the premise I think. The film has many similarities in concept, execution and tone to Spielberg's War of the Worlds, but there is not a single scene in Cloverfield as scary as the first tripod attack, as thrilling as the highway escape scene, or as harrowing as the mobbed car scene. And it's because the very concept behind Cloverfield limits dramatic possibilities of all times by substituting classical dramatic devices with less effective "reality" tactics.

Still, the set pieces work well, and the film should be applauded for at least having an integrity that most high-concept pieces do these days: it's mercifully short and the ending is pitch-perfect, with no signs of compromising for the audience. I also thought the device of having the broken timecode insert "flashbacks" was ingenious, although perhaps not used to its full potential. There is however a rather surprising dearth of slapping the audience with exposition - the very fact we never find out anything about the monster, nor about the full extent of the lead couple's history is pleasing. Like the appearances of the monster, the film often suggests stuff rather than plays it out in full view.

It's a highly forgettable film and it annoys me that the idea of "giant monster from human POV" has now been taken when I think it has so much more potential, but I think it does what it intends with a minimum of fuss and superfluous embellishment. Just because it's rare these days doesn't mean it's automatically laudable, but I thought this was as satisfying an old-school B-movie as I've seen in years.

7.5/10

origami_mustache

01-22-2008, 11:31 PM

I don't recall The Blair Witch Project being enormously successful and well recieved. The gimmick becomes a bit more tedious in my opinion, perhaps because the characters are much more aware of the camera, while in Cloverfield they are more preoccupied with survival. Blair Witch just strikes me as an amateur film, that struck it rich and comparing the two films is like apples and oranges. I guess I'm just more impressed with Cloverfield's visuals as it's not something me and a group of friends could accomplish in one night of filming.

Russ

01-22-2008, 11:51 PM

I don't recall The Blair Witch Project being enormously successful

Blair Witch Project budget: $60,000
Est. Worldwide gross: $248,639,099

Where were you?

D_Davis

01-22-2008, 11:53 PM

Blair Witch Project budget: $60,000
Est. Worldwide gross: $248,639,099

Where were you?

Yeah - BWP made uber-bank.

origami_mustache

01-23-2008, 12:00 AM

Blair Witch Project budget: $60,000
Est. Worldwide gross: $248,639,099

Where were you?

I know it did great financially obviously, hence "amateur film, that struck it rich"...I just meant from a critical standpoint.

Boner M

01-23-2008, 12:51 AM

I know it did great financially obviously, hence "amateur film, that struck it rich"...I just meant from a critical standpoint.
It has 81 on metacritic and 84 on RT.

Rowland

01-23-2008, 12:52 AM

Hell, I bet the movie was more warmly received by the critical community than it was by the public. I knew loooots of people who were disappointed by it.

KK2.0

01-23-2008, 01:25 AM

Do you attribute the disappointment to the film's incompetence, or to the faux-amateur format it was done? perhaps general audiences aren't used to this, most my friends who only watch blockbusters don't want to pay for a movie that looks like it was downloaded from youtube.

Besides Romero's Diary of The Dead, there1s another new flick done this way, the Spanish horror "[REC]" that opened last year and it's already receiving a hollywood remake. It's a new trend? All these reality shows and internet have shaped this format?

origami_mustache

01-23-2008, 02:06 AM

It has 81 on metacritic and 84 on RT.

Now that, I was unaware of. Needless to say I'm not a big fan, but it probably deserves a second viewing.

Dead & Messed Up

01-23-2008, 02:43 AM

Now that, I was unaware of. Needless to say I'm not a big fan, but it probably deserves a second viewing.

Repeat viewings do help the better elements to come through, especially the efforts at keeping things subtle, but it still strikes me as a difficult-to-like enterprise, since I find the characters to be stupid nearly beyond saving, and many of their decisions kill the potential for empathy.

Mysterious Dude

01-23-2008, 02:55 AM

I liked this movie. Beyond the camcorder gimmick, it's pretty much just a regular old monster movie. I'm glad it was never too graphic or unpleasant, the way I thought War of the Worlds was.

origami_mustache

01-23-2008, 03:07 AM

Repeat viewings do help the better elements to come through, especially the efforts at keeping things subtle, but it still strikes me as a difficult-to-like enterprise, since I find the characters to be stupid nearly beyond saving, and many of their decisions kill the potential for empathy.

Yeah, the characters were very obnoxious, and the scene where they get in a big argument about losing the map is just so laughable to me.

Eleven

01-23-2008, 04:13 AM

it annoys me that the idea of "giant monster from human POV" has now been taken when I think it has so much more potential

After realizing how disappointed the audience was with the nature of the ending (which is one of the things I think the movie got right), this was one of my first thoughts. Although one of the sequel thoughts is just a different set of characters filming the attack from another vantage point.

Buffaluffasaurus

01-23-2008, 04:42 AM

After realizing how disappointed the audience was with the nature of the ending (which is one of the things I think the movie got right), this was one of my first thoughts. Although one of the sequel thoughts is just a different set of characters filming the attack from another vantage point.
This was the first thing I thought of when I walked out of this. There are potentially limitless stories you could tell about this same event... from a military point of view, from a news crew point of view, from other average joes point of view, and from Woody Allen's point of view as he tries to film his latest movie.

origami_mustache

01-23-2008, 04:46 AM

This was the first thing I thought of when I walked out of this. There are potentially limitless stories you could tell about this same event... from a military point of view, from a news crew point of view, from other average joes point of view, and from Woody Allen's point of view as he tries to film his latest movie.

I was actually hoping for a collection of footage from different people and perhaps even in different locations around the world.

number8

01-23-2008, 08:26 AM

Yeah, the characters were very obnoxious, and the scene where they get in a big argument about losing the map is just so laughable to me.

I liked BWP, but that was seriously one of the dumbest scenes ever filmed. I don't think even the actors were buying it.

number8

01-23-2008, 08:29 AM

I understand that yes, the film is working on a conceit that it's asking the whole audience to buy (ie. that a guy would film the entire events instead of running for his life), but really, who's going into the film not knowing that's the premise?

This guy sitting two rows behind me. When the color bars came on, he cried out to the projectionist in protest. Then the tape started playing with the date at the bottom, and he yelled "What the fuuuuck?" The movie continued, and two minutes later, he asked out loud to people, "Is the WHOLE movie going to be like this?!"

In his defense, most of the TV spots I've seen playing here tried to hide the whole POV thing. They selected shots that are "normal" and stable.

origami_mustache

01-23-2008, 08:36 AM

In his defense, most of the TV spots I've seen playing here tried to hide the whole POV thing. They selected shots that are "normal" and stable.

Yeah, I've noticed that on the newer commercials as well. They even include the cheesy voice over guy.

Dukefrukem

01-23-2008, 12:22 PM

i thought you guys would like this

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/index.html

Wryan

01-23-2008, 06:13 PM

i thought you guys would like this

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/index.html

That freaked my nuts off. Few years ago I'd think it was merely cool. After Cloverfield, that freaked my nuts off. Seriously we know SO little about the depths and secrets of the deepest parts of our oceans.

Dukefrukem

01-23-2008, 06:50 PM

I love stuff like that. I hope it comes out of the water some day and kills us all!!!!!! -i mean... i hope we find out what it is.

KK2.0

01-23-2008, 09:12 PM

"It is too big for a whale and one theory is that it is a deep sea monster, possibly a many-tentacled giant squid."

Cthulhu RISING

megladon8

01-23-2008, 09:15 PM

I still say we should finish exploring our own world before we go messing around on others.

The Mariana Trench still hasn't been explored to the bottom - it is the deepest place on Earth.

It's no surprise that the idea of things coming out of the ocean is something they can still make horror movies about - since all fear can be tied back to "fear of the unknown", and we know so very little about what does on down there.

Kurosawa Fan

01-23-2008, 09:17 PM

The wife and I are seeing this tonight. We're both pretty excited. Here's hoping it washes away the bad taste that The Savages left.

megladon8

01-23-2008, 09:18 PM

The wife and I are seeing this tonight. We're both pretty excited. Here's hoping it washes away the bad taste that The Savages left.

:)

Awesome, man! I really hope you two have a good time!

I trust you will report back? :P

Kurosawa Fan

01-23-2008, 09:18 PM

Certainly will. I still haven't seen a shot of the monster, nor have I read any reviews or reactions, so I'm going in fresh.

megladon8

01-23-2008, 09:26 PM

In case anyone wants the first (relatively) clear shot of the monster...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/cloverfield.gif

Bosco B Thug

01-23-2008, 09:36 PM

i thought you guys would like this

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/index.html Cool. The ocean terrifies me. It's fun to stare out into it and freak myself out, like reading Lovecraft while beachgoing.

EDIT: About the monster... I think part of my disappointment with it is

throughout the movie, I didn't really know what I was seeing. It wasn't a mutated anything. I kinda wanted to see a mutated, enormous version of something. Don't know why. It was too "new" to fully soak in the spectacle of it. Which isn't a fault, necessarily...

Boner M

01-23-2008, 09:48 PM

I think the monster should have had more to do with the title.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/tailgate/medium_lucky%20charms21.jpg.bm p

Only his eyes shoot lasers and he breathes fire!

Stay Puft

01-23-2008, 10:23 PM

That freaked my nuts off. Few years ago I'd think it was merely cool. After Cloverfield, that freaked my nuts off. Seriously we know SO little about the depths and secrets of the deepest parts of our oceans.

I cannot think of a time in my life when that wouldn't freak my nuts off. The ocean is the scariest place I can imagine. I remember the first time I saw footage of a frilled shark, I nearly dropped a brick. And that's just a small shark that lives in deep sea water. I can't even handle thinking about the deepest parts of the ocean.

So, yeah, that's what I found most effective about Cloverfield, imagining this thing living deep in the ocean, as Hud suggests. Freaked me out. It's a good concept to play on a fear like that, and bonus points for having giant parasites falling off of the monster's body. That was great.

Still wish it was a giant whale with giant louse, though.

[ETM]

01-23-2008, 11:16 PM

i thought you guys would like this

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/index.html

You can hear the sound on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop

It also says it was used in advertising for Cloverfield. Heh.

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 01:19 AM

Wow. Very intense. I'm actually impressed. Could've done without Hud. He was annoying from start to finish, but he wasn't too hard to tune out most of the time. Either way, I dug it. That was a fun night out at the movies.

megladon8

01-24-2008, 01:20 AM

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 01:31 AM

Awesome! :)

So...what'd you think of El Monstro??

Very cool.

I'm not sure how crazy I am with the idea that those mutant spiders were somehow detaching themselves from its body. Seems they could have just had them accompany the mutant out of the water (kind of how some sea-life live on or around larger animals), but it wasn't a big deal.

megladon8

01-24-2008, 01:37 AM

Very cool.

I'm not sure how crazy I am with the idea that those mutant spiders were somehow detaching themselves from its body. Seems they could have just had them accompany the mutant out of the water (kind of how some sea-life live on or around larger animals), but it wasn't a big deal.

Well, I thought they were supposed to be giant mutated ticks/lice - so I imagine they would be attached to it, then saw smaller, easier prey running around on the ground and jumped off it.

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 01:40 AM

Well, I thought they were supposed to be giant mutated ticks/lice - so I imagine they would be attached to it, then saw smaller, easier prey running around on the ground and jumped off it.

That's certainly a possibility. I guess it doesn't much matter, but it seemed to me that, considering they just kept dropping off even late into the film, the monster was somehow hatching them or something of the sort.

megladon8

01-24-2008, 01:41 AM

That's certainly a possibility. I guess it doesn't much matter, but it seemed to me that, considering they just kept dropping off even late into the film, the monster was somehow hatching them or something of the sort.

Really? I didn't notice them falling off it later in the film, I just remember that one scene which showed them falling off the first time.

I guess I was straining too hard trying to see the monster in full to notice :)

number8

01-24-2008, 01:47 AM

Why's everyone hatin' on Hud?

The flaming homeless guy bit cracked me up really hard.

Wryan

01-24-2008, 01:50 AM

Why's everyone hatin' on Hud?

The flaming homeless guy bit cracked me up really hard.

"...shit my pants!"

number8

01-24-2008, 01:51 AM

"...shit my pants!"

Hud on the big monster:

"What the HELL is that?"
"It's a terrible thing. Just go, go."

Hud on the small monster:

"What was THAT?"
"I dunno. Something else. Also terrible."

:lol:

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 01:53 AM

Really? I didn't notice them falling off it later in the film, I just remember that one scene which showed them falling off the first time.

I guess I was straining too hard trying to see the monster in full to notice :)

Well, they seemed to imply it. Any time they came in contact with the monster, like when it approached the building after they rescued Beth, the spiders would appear. They were always in the monster's vicinity.

Oh, and Hud sucked. I just can't fathom anyone acting that way in that situation. It's one thing to try to break the tension, but even in some of their most desperate moments he was cracking jokes the whole way. Plus the guy was an awful actor. His lines sounded really phony and forced.

eternity

01-24-2008, 02:07 AM

My final Cloverfield rating.

http://i32.tinypic.com/11hsa2o.jpg / 10

Take for what you will.

megladon8

01-24-2008, 02:08 AM

I agree, eternity.

I've found a new crush in Lizzy Caplan.

Winston*

01-24-2008, 02:09 AM

Some of us are at work, eternity.

MacGuffin

01-24-2008, 02:11 AM

Take for what you will.

Negative rep?

Buffaluffasaurus

01-24-2008, 03:13 AM

The chick who played Beth > Lizzie Caplan in a bra

megladon8

01-24-2008, 03:19 AM

The chick who played Beth > Lizzie Caplan in a bra

I find Lizzie Caplan often looks similar to Sean Young in Blade Runner. That's definitely a good thing.

Spun Lepton

01-24-2008, 03:45 AM

Oh, and Hud sucked. I just can't fathom anyone acting that way in that situation.

Really, now? I have a friend who will start laughing when he gets nervous. It's gotten him into all kinds of trouble, and he has no control over it. Somebody making nervous jokes seems like a perfectly normal reaction to constant fear and stress.

number8

01-24-2008, 03:52 AM

I've always thought that most people laugh and crack jokes when they get scared. Because that's my general experience. Maybe I'm wrong?

megladon8

01-24-2008, 04:03 AM

I crack jokes when I'm nervous, but not when I'm crap-my-pants scared.

In their situation I would just be doing anything I could to get as far away from that thing as possible.

[ETM]

01-24-2008, 04:08 AM

I've always thought that most people laugh and crack jokes when they get scared. Because that's my general experience. Maybe I'm wrong?

It's interesting, really, once you think of it - most of us have never even been close to events depicted in films like this one. Hell, there's no way of knowing what one would act like HIMSELF in a similar situation, let alone others. Just how many of our deeply rooted ideas about human behavior come from pure fiction, simply because there's no way to (in)validate them in real life?

I mean, what does one feel like when locked inside a pub surrounded with zombies, with a single Winchester rifle for defense? Or on a spaceship that's been to Hell and back?

Ezee E

01-24-2008, 04:30 AM

The chick who played Beth > Lizzie Caplan in a bra
Indeed.

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 04:55 AM

Really, now? I have a friend who will start laughing when he gets nervous. It's gotten him into all kinds of trouble, and he has no control over it. Somebody making nervous jokes seems like a perfectly normal reaction to constant fear and stress.

Nervous is one thing. Getting chased by a giant monster and mutant spiders is another. It just wasn't believable at all. The girl he likes just got attacked and mutilated by one of them and he's cracking jokes with her 5 minutes later. There were too many moments when panic should have set in, but he just kept spouting off one-liners.

Dukefrukem

01-24-2008, 12:03 PM

;28438']You can hear the sound on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop

It also says it was used in advertising for Cloverfield. Heh.

damn thats cool.

Spun Lepton

01-24-2008, 04:37 PM

Nervous is one thing. Getting chased by a giant monster and mutant spiders is another. It just wasn't believable at all.

About as believable as a giant lizard trashing New York?

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 04:41 PM

About as believable as a giant lizard trashing New York?

:|

That's your argument?

Wryan

01-24-2008, 05:07 PM

:|

That's your argument?

The argument is that there is no possible experience threshold here from which to draw definite conclusions about how anyone would react in the given situation. Obviously, that's already been mentioned and somewhat discussed. If you didn't buy their behavior, that's fine. I did. That's fine, too.

/end...pls

Dukefrukem

01-24-2008, 05:07 PM

Nervous is one thing. Getting chased by a giant monster and mutant spiders is another. It just wasn't believable at all. The girl he likes just got attacked and mutilated by one of them and he's cracking jokes with her 5 minutes later. There were too many moments when panic should have set in, but he just kept spouting off one-liners.

I felt the same way. Actually it brought me back to the scene in Jason X, when that guy got impaled on a giant 'screw'. So people are talking over the intercom asking "How's Johnny?" and is best friend replies: "He's screwed". If they were really friend, do you think he would have said that?

Spun Lepton

01-24-2008, 05:08 PM

:|

That's your argument?

No argument. That would be a waste of time. You've already made up your mind. It just seems to me you're demanding a little more emotional weight from a movie that was designed as nothing more than an afternoon escape.

Spun Lepton

01-24-2008, 05:10 PM

I felt the same way. Actually it brought me back to the scene in Jason X, when that guy got impaled on a giant 'screw'. So people are talking over the intercom asking "How's Johnny?" and is best friend replies: "He's screwed". If they were really friend, do you think he would have said that?

No, of course not. But, then again, Jason X was pretty much all-around craptastic. That complaint was just another to throw on the pile. :)

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 05:12 PM

The argument is that there is no possible experience threshold here from which to draw definite conclusions about how anyone would react in the given situation. Obviously, that's already been mentioned and somewhat discussed. If you didn't buy their behavior, that's fine. I did. That's fine, too.

/end...pls

Well, I'm not going to draw this out into a huge discussion, but I vehemently disagree with this. Sure a lizard hasn't attacked a city, but I don't think the reaction would be much different if anyone or anything was attacking the city you lived in. People have made 9/11 connections to the film, and rightly so. I don't think the people in those buildings and those on the street were cracking jokes to lighten the mood.

And I'm not looking for a lot of emotional weight, just believable reaction to the situation.

Dukefrukem

01-24-2008, 05:17 PM

No, of course not. But, then again, Jason X was pretty much all-around craptastic. That complaint was just another to throw on the pile. :)

Well my point was the humor was as unbelievable to a point where it woudl remind me of the jason x crapfest.

Dukefrukem

01-24-2008, 05:17 PM

People have made 9/11 connections to the film, and rightly so. I don't think the people in those buildings and those on the street were cracking jokes to lighten the mood.

Totally agree and bolded for emphasis.

number8

01-24-2008, 05:43 PM

megladon8

01-24-2008, 05:45 PM

I did like Hud's lines which number8 quoted - the "what's that?" "something else, also terrible".

But I also found some of his stuff quite annoying.

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 05:46 PM

But Hud doesn't crack jokes. He makes statements and reactions that are funny. He's obviously a little slow. None of what he said were jokes trying to lighten the mood. He was reacting in his own way, which are annoying to his friends but funny to us as viewers.

I think the only joke made was Malena's "Are you aware of Garfield?"

I don't buy this for a second. His comments seemed very self-aware. They didn't sound a bit like natural reactions. Perhaps that's partially on the actor, who as I said before was terrible, but then it's the directors job to communicate that this wasn't coming across. There was very little panic in any of his dialogue. It was too lighthearted to be simply reaction.

origami_mustache

01-24-2008, 05:47 PM

megladon8

01-24-2008, 05:48 PM

I agree. I personally wasn't a huge fan of Hud's remarks, but I felt they were justified in that it allows for comic relief resulting in both the audience as well as the film not taking things too seriously.

That just seems a little hypocritical on the part of the filmmakers, though.

I thought the whole point of the movie was a serious, realistic take on a fantastical situation.

To then crack jokes so that it's not taken too seriously is like the film shooting itself in the foot.

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 05:52 PM

I'll say this and then be done, because I enjoyed the film and it isn't worth discussing anymore. If the film didn't want to take itself so seriously, thus the Hud character and his tension-breaking remarks, then they should have chose a different method of filming. Everything about the film, Hud aside, was asking us to take it seriously, from the faux-documentary approach (complete with "Property of U.S. Defense" or something along those lines) to the broken relationship.

Dukefrukem

01-24-2008, 05:57 PM

origami_mustache

01-24-2008, 05:58 PM

That just seems a little hypocritical on the part of the filmmakers, though.

I thought the whole point of the movie was a serious, realistic take on a fantastical situation.

To then crack jokes so that it's not taken too seriously is like the film shooting itself in the foot.

I have mixed feelings about this. I would have loved the film to attempt to be entirely straight, which is what keeps the film from really resonating with me as great, but part of me wonders if it would have worked as well. What it all boils down to is this is a mainstream film, with mainstream sensibilities blended with the look and feel of a low budget indie film, which I can respect as an interesting hybrid. A giant monster attacking NY is a pretty absurd topic, so taking it completely serious is asking a lot, not to mention the main goal in all of this is to make money.

number8

01-24-2008, 06:07 PM

I have mixed feelings about this. I would have loved the film to attempt to be entirely straight, which is what keeps the film from really resonating with me as great, but part of me wonders if it would have worked as well. What it all boils down to is this is a mainstream film, with mainstream sensibilities blended with the look and feel of a low budget indie film, which I can respect as an interesting hybrid. A giant monster attacking NY is a pretty absurd topic, so taking it completely serious is asking a lot, not to mention the main goal in all of this is to make money.

I think the reason for comic relief is simpler than that. Because of the nature of the style, they had very little time to develop characters properly. They devoted most of it to Rob and Beth, so the quickest way for them to get the audience to relate to other characters is by making them funny, which is what the Hud/Malena dynamic is. It's why we always have goofy characters in action and horror movies. Humor is a quick and convenient relationship builder. And I think it worked. I liked Hud a lot and was disappointed when he died because he was making these funny comments. I wouldn't have given a shit if he wasn't.

Wryan

01-24-2008, 06:48 PM

Well, I'm not going to draw this out into a huge discussion, but I vehemently disagree with this. Sure a lizard hasn't attacked a city, but I don't think the reaction would be much different if anyone or anything was attacking the city you lived in. People have made 9/11 connections to the film, and rightly so. I don't think the people in those buildings and those on the street were cracking jokes to lighten the mood.

And I'm not looking for a lot of emotional weight, just believable reaction to the situation.

The key word was "definite." You don't know. I don't know. We can't know. People can react to a terrorist bombing and say, "this is unimaginable! this is coming out of nowhere! I don't understand!" and you can TRY to extrapolate from that how people would behave if a giant friggin monster started attacking a city, but in absolute truth, you can't be 100% certain. Besides, Hud is merely one possible reaction displayed amongst a host of others. Some are hysterical. Some are almost indifferent. Some are steadfast. Some are putting up facades.

"I don't think the people in those buildings and those on the street were cracking jokes to lighten the mood."

Do you really need me to go down that rhetorical road and ask the obvious questions that spring from that statement? I'm not trying to gall you, btw.

Three cheers for the human vice of desperately wanting the last word in anything! :) ;)

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 07:12 PM

Three cheers for the human vice of desperately wanting the last word in anything! :) ;)

And I'll let you have it.

It wasn't a believable reaction. :twisted:

megladon8

01-24-2008, 07:14 PM

And I'll let you have it.

It wasn't a believable reaction. :twisted:

Don't worry, KF.

If a monster ever attacks, you and I will smartly be running away while everyone else can stick around making jokes. :P

Dukefrukem

01-24-2008, 07:16 PM

Don't worry, KF.

If a monster ever attacks, you and I will smartly be running away while everyone else can stick around making jokes. :P

what about me?

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 07:17 PM

Don't worry, KF.

If a monster ever attacks, you and I will smartly be running away while everyone else can stick around making jokes. :P

Good call.

Winston*

01-24-2008, 07:22 PM

KF, you don't know what you're talking about. When I was fighting that dragon; non-stop hilarious quips, from me mostly...the dragon mostly just roared.

Ezee E

01-24-2008, 07:24 PM

what about me?
You'll be too worried about the release date of some comic book movie. So you'll be gone with me and 8, and others that like jokes.

But at least you'll have Drago.

Ezee E

01-24-2008, 07:25 PM

KF, you don't know what you're talking about. When I was fighting that dragon; non-stop hilarious quips, from me mostly...the dragon mostly just roared.
That's cause you showed confidence. The Cloverfield guys just ran and screamed.

As for myself, I didn't have a problem with the jokes because they usually were at a time that happened a good time after something big happened. A lot of time passed between the spiders and the mall I'm guessing, so it'd be fine to make a joke to simply lighten the mood. The rest was said by him in a way that wasn't making any of the others laugh, just the audience. And that works.

Kurosawa Fan

01-24-2008, 07:25 PM

KF, you don't know what you're talking about. When I was fighting that dragon; non-stop hilarious quips, from me mostly...the dragon mostly just roared.

I can't argue with that kind of experience. I stand corrected.

Dukefrukem

01-24-2008, 07:27 PM

You'll be too worried about the release date of some comic book movie. So you'll be gone with me and 8, and others that like jokes.

But at least you'll have Drago.

I always thought I'd go down waiting for the re-release of the Matrix in theaters.

[ETM]

01-24-2008, 08:16 PM

When NATO bombed us in 1999, while everyone was in bomb shelters, a friend of mine was on the roof, with a beer, watching the spectacle. I was on the balcony when they bombed the airport - there was something about feeling the shockwaves from the huge blasts against your chest... I don't know. I guess it's different for everyone.

Scar

01-24-2008, 10:06 PM

I like chasing tornadoes.

[ETM]

01-24-2008, 11:14 PM

I like chasing tornadoes.

It's the flying cows, isn't it?

Scar

01-24-2008, 11:22 PM

;28914']It's the flying cows, isn't it?

Free beef is free beef.

Wryan

01-24-2008, 11:44 PM

Free beef is free beef.

But wind-blown beef, like wind-blown hair, is downright sexy.

Scar

01-24-2008, 11:53 PM

But wind-blown beef, like wind-blown hair, is downright sexy.

And sometimes already tenderized.

megladon8

01-25-2008, 05:16 AM

Has anyone managed to find that song from the end credits yet?

I'd like to hear it again.

Scar

01-25-2008, 11:54 AM

Has anyone managed to find that song from the end credits yet?

I'd like to hear it again.

I think its going be officially posted online one of these days. Unfortunately, I don't know the timeline.

bac0n

01-25-2008, 02:41 PM

Has anyone managed to find that song from the end credits yet?

I'd like to hear it again.

I really really hope that song is available as an individual download on iTunes/Amazon/Wherever cuz there's not a chance in hell that I would fork out money for a soundtrack which would most likely contain a Bright Eyes song.

Kurosawa Fan

01-25-2008, 02:48 PM

I must have left before the song started because I didn't hear any song. It was silent in my theater when the credits started rolling, but my wife and I had to go relieve the babysitter so we didn't stick around long.

Sven

01-25-2008, 02:50 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Random%20good%20pictures/lolcloverfieldor9.jpg

D_Davis

01-25-2008, 03:36 PM

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n157/SmurfPop/caturday.png

dreamdead

01-25-2008, 03:39 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/Random%20good%20pictures/lolcloverfieldor9.jpg

My interest in seeing this movie has just skyrocketed. I would gladly give this film 8 dollars if that was the monster...

Kurosawa Fan

01-25-2008, 04:24 PM

There's a Cloverfield album on iTunes. Does it have the song at the end credit? You can buy each song individually, so no purchasing Bright Eyes.

number8

01-25-2008, 04:34 PM

There's a Cloverfield album on iTunes. Does it have the song at the end credit? You can buy each song individually, so no purchasing Bright Eyes.

It's not. The soundtrack is "Rob's party mix", which is just the songs played during Rob's party. It's kind of retarded.

Wryan

01-25-2008, 06:09 PM

There's a Cloverfield album on iTunes. Does it have the song at the end credit? You can buy each song individually, so no purchasing Bright Eyes.

Haha. Not a Bright Eyes fan I take it? Oberst annoys me sometimes, but I can't deny the love I have for "Lover I Don't Have to Love," "At the Bottom of Everything," and "Lua."

Kurosawa Fan

01-25-2008, 06:13 PM

Haha. Not a Bright Eyes fan I take it? Oberst annoys me sometimes, but I can't deny the love I have for "Lover I Don't Have to Love," "At the Bottom of Everything," and "Lua."

I actually have no idea who they are. I was responding to bacon's post.

Wryan

01-25-2008, 06:29 PM

I actually have no idea who they are. I was responding to bacon's post.

If you have time, check out the tracks I listed on YouTube (since you don't have to download them). The band is fronted by Conor Oberst who, for better or for worse, has been compared to Dylan as The Next Great Songwriter. Obviously, that comes with a lot of extremist baggage flying in all directions. He definitely writes some potent stuff, but some of their music is arrhythmical and difficult to listen to, unless you dig that kind of thing. However, other tracks, like the ones I listed, are pretty good imo.

EDIT: and bacon's a good example of the "anti" side. :D

Kurosawa Fan

01-25-2008, 06:31 PM

If you have time, check out the tracks I listed on YouTube (since you don't have to download them). The band is fronted by Conor Oberst who, for better or for worse, has been compared to Dylan as The Next Great Songwriter. Obviously, that comes with a lot of extremist baggage flying in all directions. He definitely writes some potent stuff, but some of their stuff is arrhythmical and difficult to listen to, unless you dig that kind of stuff. However, other tracks, like the ones I listed, are pretty good imo.

Please know that you have set him up for abject failure.

Wryan

01-25-2008, 06:34 PM

Please know that you have set him up for abject failure.

I don't compare. Others have. Read an article about the flurry of comparisons just the other day. Was interesting actually.

Kurosawa Fan

01-25-2008, 06:37 PM

origami_mustache

01-25-2008, 06:37 PM

I remember hearing Ratatat and Of Montreal songs, among other things at the party which I thought was cool, although dated.

bac0n

01-25-2008, 06:40 PM

Remember Grizzly Adams? Remember the donkey, Number-7? Now imagine that donkey trying to sing all emo, and you'll have Bright Eyes.

To keep this on-topic, it would be totally cool if there was a scene where Connor Oberst was observing the panicked crowds fleeing the monster, pointed, and started to sing, "and they went wi-hi-hi-hi-hi-uld!!" and at precisely that moment, the monster smooshed him.

*hides*

Raiders

01-25-2008, 06:40 PM

Is the song titled "Roar!"? There's a youtube video titled Infection that I believe is supposed to be the end credits song.

Wryan

01-25-2008, 06:42 PM

Wow. I'm sorry man, but I just listened to "Lover I Don't Have to Love" and that was just painful. I couldn't even finish it. I was waiting for him to actually start crying while singing. And those lyrics were clunky and obvious. Blech. I'll refrain from listening to any more. He's obviously not my style.

That's one that is a little unusual, sure. "Lua" is somewhat more straight forward but if you didn't like the emotion on "Lover" you'll probably see the same in "Lua." Oh well. :)

D_Davis

01-25-2008, 06:48 PM

The comparisons between Bright Eyes and Dylan are ludicrous, absolute insanity.

origami_mustache

01-25-2008, 06:54 PM

The comparisons between Bright Eyes and Dylan are ludicrous, absolute insanity.

Eh, Dylan is obviously a legend and Bright Eyes isn't even close to his level, but I at least understand where the comparisons come from.

Wryan

01-25-2008, 06:58 PM

The comparisons between Bright Eyes and Dylan are ludicrous, absolute insanity.

I agree, but it's just something easy that unimaginative writers can leap to when they need something on which to hang an argument.

I really like the song for "At the Bottom of Everything" and the video is awesome (well it has Terence Stamp, it can't help it).

Wryan

01-25-2008, 07:00 PM

Scar

01-25-2008, 07:04 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k64oSCrUJiE

Edit: There's a link to d/l a less then perfect copy of it.....

number8

01-25-2008, 07:57 PM

The comparisons between Bright Eyes and Dylan are ludicrous, absolute insanity.

Mainly because one's a genius while the other writes some of the shittiest music in the 21st century. Oberst is the bane of my ears.

D_Davis

01-25-2008, 08:06 PM

Mainly because one's a genius while the other writes some of the shittiest music in the 21st century. Oberst is the bane of my ears.

Amen brother.

Although, I do like Bright Eyes' first album, when he was recording on 4-track, and he used to rock, and was noisy, and wasn't a total douche bag, and knew when to shut up and let the music speak for itself without rambling on, and on, and on, aaand knitting, aaaand knitting, aaand knitting...

Sycophant

01-25-2008, 08:07 PM

Amen brother.

Although, I do like Bright Eyes' first album, when he was recording on 4-track, and he used to rock, and was noisy, and wasn't a total douche bag, and knew when to shut up and let the music speak for itself without rambling on, and on, and on, aaand knitting, aaaand knitting, aaand knitting...I've never really listened to Bright Eyes, but if he knits on his albums, I might have to check him out.

D_Davis

01-25-2008, 08:08 PM

I've never really listened to Bright Eyes, but if he knits on his albums, I might have to check him out.

Well, knitting is totally emo now. You should see all the hipsters knitting on the buses in Seattle. It's cute!

Sycophant

01-25-2008, 08:12 PM

Well, knitting is totally emo now. You should see all the hipsters knitting on the buses in Seattle. It's cute!*puts his Armond shades on*

Well, no, then.

EDIT: Since posting this, I feel rather unfulfilled, not owning actual Armond shades.

origami_mustache

01-25-2008, 08:14 PM

Well, knitting is totally emo now. You should see all the hipsters knitting on the buses in Seattle. It's cute!

Is emo really still around? haha I thought it had devolved so much that it had just become mainstream culture.

Wryan

01-25-2008, 09:10 PM

Mainly because one's a genius while the other writes some of the shittiest music in the 21st century. Oberst is the bane of my ears.

Exaggeration wins every argument.

In other news, come on. He may not be your preference, but there are plenty of lyrics he's written that are utterly "not shitty."

I agree with others who say he talks to much. There have been plenty of times he's grated me, like I said earlier in this thread, but I can acknowledge that he's written some very good stuff.

As for emo, the article I mentioned before argued, persuasively, that while he may be quartered for helping to start the tidal wave (in an oblique sense), the imitators haven't a fifth of the intelligence or emotion that he's capable of. Argued that he tends to stand apart from the genre he helped to create. And I'd agree. I can try to find the article if you want.

number8

01-25-2008, 09:59 PM

I'm neither arguing nor exaggerating. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that not all his songs are über shitty, but he HAS written some of the worst songs of the 21st century. Hell, "When the president talks to god" is possibly the worst song ever recorded in the history of mankind, surpassing that dog song.

Raiders

01-25-2008, 10:13 PM

Hell, "When the president talks to god" is possibly the worst song ever recorded in the history of mankind, surpassing that dog song.

Worse than "Summer Girls?"

number8

01-25-2008, 10:16 PM

Worse than "Summer Girls?"

Yes. Chinese food doesn't make me sick, so...

Wryan

01-25-2008, 11:23 PM

number8

01-25-2008, 11:25 PM

Here's the abomination: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KIIImiRDnF8

The guy sings like a mongoloid with his asshole swapped with his mouth.

Scar

01-25-2008, 11:28 PM

Here's the abomination: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KIIImiRDnF8

The guy sings like a mongoloid with his asshole swapped with his mouth.

*vommits*

D_Davis

01-25-2008, 11:34 PM

Here's the abomination: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KIIImiRDnF8

The guy sings like a mongoloid with his asshole swapped with his mouth.

That "song" is just terrible. Wretched. It's like first year college liberal rhetoric. And even beyond the "ideologies" (which sound like he lifted them from some blog) there's barely a melody on which to hang this thing.

Derek

01-25-2008, 11:49 PM

That "song" is just terrible. Wretched. It's like first year college liberal rhetoric. And even beyond the "ideologies" (which sound like he lifted them from some blog) there's barely a melody on which to hang this thing.

But it's led to deep philosophical youtube debate like:

"I really, really, REALLY, doubt God would ever speak to ANYONE. I'm Catholic, and I don't think God will ever show him/herself, or prove that he exists. Why? Well obviously, everybody would start believing in God, and although I think God would like it, it would prove the fact that people only believe in what they see."

:lol:

Yeah, that song really sucks, though on the whole, I'm mostly indifferent to Bright Eyes.

Wryan

01-25-2008, 11:50 PM

Hey now, if nummy gets to post I get to counter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qikRcAiCtKM
"At the Bottom of Everything"

Terence Stamp!

Neat video (music starts at 1:10, song starts at 1:40; only talking/intro before that). And I like the lyrics! And it has a good melody/rhythm. So neener neener.

megladon8

01-27-2008, 03:21 AM

Dead & Messed Up

01-27-2008, 05:01 AM

Is anyone else surprised that there aren't pictures of the monster EVERYWHERE already?

It seems like this would be one of those things that everyone and their grandmother would be taking pictures of or drawing or whatever to get out on the net.

Maybe everyone was as disappointed as I was by the monster. It wasn't awful design. It was just...so...blah. And over-showing it at the end didn't help matters.

Boner M

01-27-2008, 05:33 AM

It's not. The soundtrack is "Rob's party mix", which is just the songs played during Rob's party. It's kind of retarded.
Haha, that reminds me of Blair Witch's soundtrack, which was a random collection of goth hits designed as a mixtape that one of the film's characters left in their car before heading into the woods.

http://www.legendsmagazine.net/92/joshs.jpg

lolz.

i own it.

Bosco B Thug

01-27-2008, 07:28 AM

Here's the abomination: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KIIImiRDnF8 Wow, I just have to say that that song is really really awful. It doesn't seem his other music is as strangely idiotic as that song, though, from iTunes sampling...

Henry Gale

01-27-2008, 07:39 AM

Wow, I just have to say that that song is really really awful. It doesn't seem his other music is as strangely idiotic as that song, though, from iTunes sampling...

The worst part of that clip wasn't even the song for me though (which I still hated), but the audience. Ugh.

Raiders

01-28-2008, 03:43 AM

So um, yeah, pretty good. I can understand most of the complaints I have read, and can agree the characters are little more than self-absorbed 20-somethings, but the film's structure belies making them the same repetitive characters we're used to. They are hardly characters at all, but simply faces to follow through the carnage and mayhem. This helps and hurts the film, making it difficult to care much when one dies, but keeping us from ever having to worry about needless plotlines, particularly ones that would involve the dreaded "ennui."

The 9/11 comparisons are apt, whether initially intentional or not on the part of the filmmakers. The shot of a high-rise building in NYC falling and creating a storm cloud of smoke and panic is a frightful sight in today's society, and a painfully familiar one. I doubt that Abrams and company are that out of touch to not realize the real-life implications of this sequence, and by knowingly and intentionally leaving the scene in, they bring the comparisons on to their film. To its credit, it effectively conveys the sheer panic and above all confusion that follows such a massacre and that helps alleviate the somewhat exploitative taste it might otherwise leave.

The narrative brings to mind The Host, though where Bong's film was more a satire of heroics and the government's meddling, this is a film that plays itself very straight. It has little on its mind beyond what is on the screen, but that doesn't render it thoughtless. Though I initially dreaded the film's idea to integrate snippets of Rob and Beth's trip to Coney Island, ultimately I found it very effective and usefully placed within the film. It seems of little coincidence that the initial monster attack happens right after Rob's brother gives him the advice that he should prove himself worthy of Beth. Rob treats the ordeal as a right of passage, and particularly in the wake of losing a loved one, he takes the task as holding on to something dear to him. The intersplicing of past images is technically impossible on the tape transfer and instead works as a link into Rob's mind, an impetus for his actions. It gives levity to his otherwise ridiculous sacrifice as he attempts to keep a part of himself as the world around him is falling apart. The final image is pretty powerful.

As for the infamous Hud, well, he seemed fine to me. Especially in light of, a) the other characters calling him out on his bad timing of light banter and, b) his own admission that it is his way to deflect his fear (as he does on the steps of the building next to Beth's). The monster was a bit of a disappointment, a forgettable design overall. Truthfully though, the monster is more plot impetus than central character, so it didn't make too much difference. Still, in the shot near the end where Hud is looking straight up at the creature, it would have been nice to be able to find it having some more memorable traits.

Really, for what the film wanted to accomplish, it doesn't seem to me it could have done much better.

megladon8

01-28-2008, 04:40 AM

Cool, Raiders, I'm really glad you enjoyed it.

Sorry I keep asking this, but what did you think of the monster? I've just been really eager to hear peoples' opinions on the design and execution of the actual monster. I thought it was great, and I liked the way it was revealed slowly - a leg moving between two buildings, or the tail crushing the bridge - and at the end, I wasn't disappointed.

Ezee E

01-28-2008, 05:41 AM

megladon8

01-28-2008, 12:08 PM

He answers that in the last paragraph.

Ah, so he does.

I really need to stop posting past midnight on school-nights after working all day and smoking a joint.

eternity

01-30-2008, 12:04 AM

Negative rep?
Holy shit, you actually did it. :frustrated:

Scar

01-30-2008, 12:09 AM

Holy shit, you actually did it. :frustrated:

Oh yeah, he's a Keira Knightly fan. He don't like boobies.

megladon8

01-31-2008, 01:53 AM

Saw it tonight with my brother - he couldn't get his fiancée to agree to see it, so I volunteered.

I actually liked it better the second time. I was able to suspend my disbelief with the parts that bothered me the first time, and it led to me enjoying it a lot more.

And unless they had great problems with maintaining a consistent size for the creature, I have to say I may be beginning to agree with people who say there was more than one monster.

The one at the end that eats Hud is much, much smaller than the one seen tearing through city streets. Also, the one that is in the streets (the BIG one), seemed to have more of a beak-shaped mouth, whereas the one we see at the end has a round head and huge teeth.

But, anyone who's seen Deep Blue Sea knows that monsters don't need to remain the same size throughout a movie :)

Winston*

01-31-2008, 02:02 AM

I was thinking I hadn't been to the cinema so far this year until I checked my log for something else and found this film listed there.

megladon8

01-31-2008, 05:55 PM

What exactly is the story behind the satellite that falls into the ocean at the end?

Some people speculated that it was the monster falling into the ocean, but then J. J. Abrams said that, no, it was supposed to be a Japanese satellite. Apparently this was established in part of the marketing campaign for the movie.

But my question is, what's the point?

What is the significance of this satellite? Was it just a red herring - making people think there is some sort of connection, when there is none?

Or was it hinting at the idea that the satellite's descent to the bottom of the ocean is what woke up the monster?

EDIT: Oh, and for anyone interested, Matt Reeves apparently said that there is in fact only one monster (plus the human-sized spider things, of course). He said the reason for the apparent change in size was just the way it was filmed, and the effects were implemented - it's the same monster.

number8

01-31-2008, 10:44 PM

Reeves said that the monster is a newborn baby that was separated from its mother. The satellite scared it out of the ocean, and the military scared it even more. Throughout the movie, the monster's just a little kid running around scared to death.

D_Davis

01-31-2008, 11:18 PM

But, anyone who's seen Deep Blue Sea knows that monsters don't need to remain the same size throughout a movie :)

Awesome.

Scar

01-31-2008, 11:35 PM

But, anyone who's seen Deep Blue Sea knows that monsters don't need to remain the same size throughout a movie :)

Weren't there three sharks? Two little ones, and one big bad momma?

megladon8

02-01-2008, 01:14 AM

Weren't there three sharks? Two little ones, and one big bad momma?

Hmm...I haven't seen it recently, so I'm not sure.

I just remember that there were definitely times when the sharks seemed much smaller than they were outside the facility. When you see how big they are out in the open ocean, they wouldn't even fit in the hallways of the place, let alone be able to swim through them.

Scar

02-01-2008, 01:29 AM

Hmm...I haven't seen it recently, so I'm not sure.

I just remember that there were definitely times when the sharks seemed much smaller than they were outside the facility. When you see how big they are out in the open ocean, they wouldn't even fit in the hallways of the place, let alone be able to swim through them.

I saw it in theatres, it was the first DVD I owned, and I've watched it many times.

There's two Generation 1's which are the size of normal mako sharks, then there's The Big Bad Booty Daddy Generation 2.

megladon8

02-01-2008, 01:33 AM

I saw it in theatres, it was the first DVD I owned, and I've watched it many times.

I saw it in the theatre too :)

I remember it well because my uncle took me on Sunday of the weekend in came out. While on the way home, we got a call on his cell from my sister, who was up at our property in the country with my parents, and they found 4 kittens. They brought two of them home - the girl (Harley) died about 5 years later, but the boy (Spunky) is still alive and well.

There's two Generation 1's which are the size of normal mako sharks, then there's The Big Bad Booty Daddy Generation 2.

Yes but didn't the normal mako sharks have a pretty inconsistent size?

I seem to remember distinctly that they seemed enormous in some scene, and in others they weren't much larger than people.

Scar

02-01-2008, 01:39 AM

Yes but didn't the normal mako sharks have a pretty inconsistent size?

The makos seemed normal sized. When there was a huge shark (extracting the brain juice, that certain really cool death, etc), it was the Gen 2.

I seem to remember distinctly that they seemed enormous in some scene, and in others they weren't much larger than people.

Gen 2 vs the Gen 1's.

megladon8

02-01-2008, 01:40 AM

The makos seemed normal sized. When there was a huge shark (extracting the brain juice, that certain really cool death, etc), it was the Gen 2.

I need to see this again :)

Scar

02-01-2008, 01:42 AM

I need to see this again :)

My hand hesitated over it briefly yesterday.... Its gonna go for another spin soon enough!

megladon8

02-01-2008, 01:46 AM

My hand hesitated over it briefly yesterday.... Its gonna go for another spin soon enough!

There are so, so many things I could do with this...

Scar

02-01-2008, 01:50 AM

There are so, so many things I could do with this...

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordp ress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-calm-cat-crazy-toy.jpg

megladon8

02-01-2008, 02:00 AM

OoOoOoOo...

According to Variety (http://www.variety.com/VR1117979910.html), Matt Reeves is already in talks to prep a sequel to Cloverfield, and J. J. Abrams will be on board as well.

I suppose it's not much of a surprise considering its incredible box office, but I'm still excited.

I'll definitely be seeing it if it happens.

Sycophant

02-01-2008, 02:10 AM

David Bordwell has written a piece on this film (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1844), which pretty much means I have to see this film, so I can read it.

megladon8

02-01-2008, 02:24 AM

And I really hope the sequel ends up showing the mother monster.

If that was just the baby in the first one...we're screwed.

transmogrifier

02-01-2008, 11:25 AM

Not bad. Too limited by its found recording conceit, meaning that it is almost inevitable to have moments of "why hasn't he switched the camera off here?" moments (in fact, I wish the film had been more elliptical, with major "action" sequences completely missing due to the camera operator actually trying to escape death and not worrying about the camera for once). The barely caught glimpses are very effective, making the increased run-ins at the end rather cynical pandering to the "I paid for a monster movie so I wanna see the monster!" crowd. Still, entertaining enough.

bac0n

02-01-2008, 05:03 PM

And I really hope the sequel ends up showing the mother monster.

If that was just the baby in the first one...we're screwed.

I think there's still a lot they can do with the Baby Monster. Certainly enough for part Two. I hope they tell us a little more about the current monster before bringing mommy in to the picture. I would like them to wait until part three to do that.

Ezee E

02-01-2008, 05:13 PM

No. Just bring momma into the picture. Have the baby captured, and being analyzed by military cameras or something, and that's when the momma comes in, and then the Scientists run for their lives.

Simple as that.

Scar

02-01-2008, 05:14 PM

I think there's still a lot they can do with the Baby Monster. Certainly enough for part Two. I hope they tell us a little more about the current monster before bringing mommy in to the picture. I would like them to wait until part three to do that.

I think I found something that may shed some light on its parents....

http://snoot.org/i/wuss/godzilla-hump.jpg

Scar

02-01-2008, 05:14 PM

Rowland

02-01-2008, 05:21 PM

Is there anything to be said for this movie possibly being more effective as a one-off, without any sequels? You know, to keep some form of ambiguity and mystique intact?

Scar

02-01-2008, 05:23 PM

Is there anything to be said for this movie possibly being more effective as a one-off, without any sequels? You know, to keep some form of ambiguity and mystique intact?

There certainly is. It ain't gonna happen, but it would be nice to leave it where it is. It would also be nice not to have all the other promotional stuff about the monster and the movie that wasn't in the movie.

Raiders

02-01-2008, 05:57 PM

A sequel is a terrible idea.

Ezee E

02-01-2008, 06:04 PM

A sequel is a terrible idea.
I agree completely, but it's inevitable.

number8

02-01-2008, 07:05 PM

I've pretty much given up on the idea of a successful genre movie having no sequels. It's completely out of my head now. I've accepted sequels like I've accepted sunsets.

Watashi

02-01-2008, 07:13 PM

Reeves says that the sequel won't be handheld, but a different approach. That's a relief, I guess.

megladon8

02-01-2008, 10:55 PM

Is there anything to be said for this movie possibly being more effective as a one-off, without any sequels? You know, to keep some form of ambiguity and mystique intact?

Maybe the sequel will be just as ambiguous as the original.

It's unlikely, but it could happen.

Morris Schæffer

02-04-2008, 05:40 PM

I'm not the most demanding of viewers. If it's the best I'm going to get, then I'll accept just chilling out with friends, plonking my ass down in a comfy seat and enjoying the proceedings, however slight or silly they may be. Cloverfield delivered simply because of the overwhelming chaos and a nice spin on a well-worn formula. Regrettably, that's all I got. The maelstrom of shaky-cam, noise and debris was nearly persistent and certainly accomplished enough for me to not be completely bored with it all, but the faux-verite approach yielded nothing substantial to me. I found it incredibly monotonous, so hell bent are the makers to disorient and assault.

The 11/9 parellels (groan!) can be made for those who care about them in the context of this particular film, but at heart this remains about a city under attack by a giant friggin' monster. Yes, distant buildings collapse in a shower of smoke and people scream "OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!!!" at the top of their lungs, very reminiscent of those unforgettable CNN images we've all seen seven years ago. Nevertheless, despite the docu-style approach, it remains to me a movie that resides firmly in the fantastical, whether Reeves adopts a grunt's eye pov or not. I didn't care about these characters one iota. In a sense, the same argument can be made about the televised 11/9 attacks. It isn't until the tragedy becomes narrowed down, more personal that the true emotional impact is felt. "Six million" is an horrendously abstract number, but narrow it down to say, Anne Frank and the tears begin welling up without relent. What I'm trying to say is that Cloverfield's gritty in-your-face stylistics in no way made me care about these folks. I felt zero when Jason bought the proverbial farm. I feel safe in saying there's no need for a spoiler tag because Jason is essentially a nobody in the context of this over-hyped thrill ride. I think Buffalufasaurus made a good point when he said that the ground-level perspective enhances the immediacy of the action, but limits our affection that we have for these characters. He still gave it a favorable review, but for me, the vapidity of the characters and the relentless emphasis on disorientation period represented a bigger hurdle.

Would I have preferred more mayhem and destruction? Not necessarily. Although mayhem and destruction is the bread and butter of this genre and has been for ages, the idea here is sound. The rare glimpses of the monster are somewhat surprising, but never intense or scary. Is the idea of a gargantuan turtle/hamster/armadillo/walrus/seal/lion/woodpecker/dolphin/ant-eater/pidgeon even capable to generate genuine scares?

[*½]

Morris Schæffer

02-04-2008, 08:25 PM

Is there anything to be said for this movie possibly being more effective as a one-off, without any sequels? You know, to keep some form of ambiguity and mystique intact?

Despite the fact that they kept the monster's sightings limited to a fair minimum, it hasn't in the least provoked a sense of mystery and wonder in me simply because no time is afforded to this aspect at all. Cloverfield makes no attempt whatsoever to tease the viewer with speculation about the monster's possible origins. It arrives, it destroys and it ends. The movie that is. The viral campaign might have teased, but the actual movie is tease-free. At least for me.

Dead & Messed Up

02-05-2008, 04:25 AM

...

Indeed. What fascinated me was how, despite all the efforts to present mystery and occasionally relevance (whether intentional or accidental), the film felt empty. There's a glimmer of character in the main's determination to save his girlfriend, but that played less like conviction and more like delusion: "A giant monster's assaulting the city! Time to save the girl I had a crush on!"

I did feel something when

Lizzy Caplan exploded behind a screen

but otherwise? Nothing.

And the monster itself was shown too much. By the end, its shape doesn't begin to match the ingenuity of other creations like Giger's alien, or Bottin's thing, or any of the works of Harryhausen. It's a grey, ugly sluggish beast. The only time I felt awe is when I barely saw it shuffle between buildings.

megladon8

02-05-2008, 07:36 AM

Indeed. What fascinated me was how, despite all the efforts to present mystery and occasionally relevance (whether intentional or accidental), the film felt empty. There's a glimmer of character in the main's determination to save his girlfriend, but that played less like conviction and more like delusion: "A giant monster's assaulting the city! Time to save the girl I had a crush on!"

:frustrated:

But she's not his girlfriend!!

They spent a day together and then banged - which is why I found his whole quest ot rescue her so unbelievable.

Well, not the whole thing - but when they get to her apartment and see it toppeled over, that's about when he should have been saying "um, ya, fuck this."

And the monster itself was shown too much. By the end, its shape doesn't begin to match the ingenuity of other creations like Giger's alien, or Bottin's thing, or any of the works of Harryhausen. It's a grey, ugly sluggish beast. The only time I felt awe is when I barely saw it shuffle between buildings.

Eh, I disagree.

Even after the revealing final sequences where we see the monster (more or less) in full, I still found it quite frightening and out-of-the-ordinary.

Dead & Messed Up

02-05-2008, 08:06 AM

:frustrated:

But she's not his girlfriend!!

:P

It reminded me of that scene in Anchorman:

"Wow. Basically the biggest decision of my life. Stay up here for my job, or risk my life for a woman I once had familiar relations with. This is hard."

Eh, I disagree.

Even after the revealing final sequences where we see the monster (more or less) in full, I still found it quite frightening and out-of-the-ordinary.

I just think they could've hid it even longer. There's probably no way it could've completely satisfied me, but every now and then a film comes up with a completely unique type of threat that makes me go, "Okay, that's really creative." Didn't feel it here.

Serviceable, sure. But that's about it.

bac0n

02-05-2008, 02:12 PM

I think I found something that may shed some light on its parents....

http://snoot.org/i/wuss/godzilla-hump.jpg

Ah, so THAT'S why they were playing Barry White during Godzilla Raids Again...

Wryan

02-05-2008, 04:32 PM

I'm not sure you guys were listening very closely. Rob and Beth were "best friends" for a long time before hopping over the train tracks to Bedville. Hence all the incredibly awkward feelings between them and hence the OBVIOUS reason he would feel the need to rescue her. She's not just a one-night stand or a crush. She's a best friend who might have been more.

number8

02-05-2008, 05:09 PM

Not just that. Hud said that Rob's been madly in love with her since college.

Fezzik

02-07-2008, 09:36 PM

I can actually say I'm shocked at my reaction to this movie, which is to say I didn't have much reaction to it at all.

There were a couple of nicely done, intense moments, and a few endearing exchanges but overall, the film left me feeling empty...and that surprises me.

I loved the Blair Witch Project and the entire concept of that kind of POV in a monster attack film excited me to no end.

Unfortunately, for most of the film I didn't feel a palpable tension. I agree with those who think the monster was shown too much (especially near the end of the film), but the film started to unravel for me before then. Its rare that I silently wish for a movie to be over, but I found myself whispering "Just die already" near the end. For a movie that was only about 90 minutes, it felt dragged out.

I didn't really care what happened to any of the characters. That's doom for me, right there. I know its a monster movie, but damn, if I'm going to be invested, I have to care about the subjects, and I'm not talking about the monster.

The monster was weird, and definitely different, but it didn't do much for me. The little mini-monsters creeped me out a WHOLE bunch more and were way more effective, in my opinion, in helping portray a terrifying situation.

The last shot of the monster, when...

Hud looks up at it after going back for the camera

...was ridiculously out of place and totally unnecessary and, in my opinion, rendered the 'you are there' realism of the handheld technique totally null and void. It really ticked me off.

All in all, I find myself incredibly disappointed in Cloverfield as a film, an experience, and as an "experiment in film making."

bac0n

02-07-2008, 10:08 PM

*weeps*

Scar

02-08-2008, 01:37 PM

*weeps*

Its ok, its ok. We'll always have Rosedale.

We'll watch it on my TV when it comes out on DVD.

Sycophant

02-10-2008, 03:53 AM

Yeah, I liked it. I had no problem with Hud's alleged wisecracking, though that could be because you guys prepared me for much worse. In fact, the only things that Hud did that really bothered me were his occasional displays of emotional insensitivity, especially at the party. Why, exactly, did he need to tell everyone Rob and Beth had sex? If I would have changed one thing about the dynamics set up in the film, I think it would have been to establish Hud's character as much emotionally closer to either Lily or Rob, so him tagging along everywhere would be a bit easier to swallow.

The special effects were fantastic, by the way. It's not easy to integrate them so smoothly in something shot handheld. Nice work.

Raiders

02-10-2008, 03:57 AM

Yeah, I liked it. I had no problem with Hud's alleged wisecracking, though that could be because you guys prepared me for much worse. In fact, the only things that Hud did that really bothered me were his occasional displays of emotional insensitivity, especially at the party. Why, exactly, did he need to tell everyone Rob and Beth had sex? If I would have changed one thing about the dynamics set up in the film, I think it would have been to establish Hud's character as much emotionally closer to either Lily or Rob, so him tagging along everywhere would be a bit easier to swallow.

It is mentioned multiple times he is Rob's best friend.

Sycophant

02-10-2008, 04:05 AM

It is mentioned multiple times he is Rob's best friend.Oh. I kinda do remember that. I guess it was probably a failing in the acting that made that not really stick.

megladon8

02-10-2008, 04:09 AM

Raiders

02-10-2008, 04:11 AM

Have you never been around these shallow rich-kid types? That's all they do - I'm surprised it was kept a secret for as long as it was.

:|

Sycophant

02-10-2008, 04:12 AM

I actually thought Hud's cossiping about Rob and Beth was one of the more real parts of his character.

Have you never been around these shallow rich-kid types? That's all they do - I'm surprised it was kept a secret for as long as it was.I suppose I was trying to inject him with too much sympathy, then, and accept him as more than, y'know, a "type."

What's really insane then, would be that he'd leave the camera on to do that. That was a bit retarded. Also, I thought it was pretty unnecessary and really added nothing.

megladon8

02-10-2008, 04:15 AM

:|

What, are you debating my assessment of the characters as shallow rich kids?

Is there really even a debate there?

megladon8

02-10-2008, 04:17 AM

I suppose I was trying to inject him with too much sympathy, then, and accept him as more than, y'know, a "type."

What's really insane then, would be that he'd leave the camera on to do that. That was a bit retarded. Also, I thought it was pretty unnecessary and really added nothing.

That's true, but then you also have to ask why he would leave the camera on for the entire monster attack. Why would he leave the camera on while they're trying to scale that enormous building to get Beth?

Because if he had (realistically) turned it off, then there wouldn't be a movie.

It's a gimmick, and more than 2 seconds of thought tears it apart. And I know it's blasphemous to say a movie is gret "if you turn your brain off", but it's kinda true in this case.

Sycophant

02-10-2008, 04:20 AM

megladon8

02-10-2008, 04:23 AM

Because I'm not saying all that much that was nice about the film, I thought the following were particularly well done:

1. Bridge exodus
2. Rob's call from his mother
3. Tunnel scene
4. Military bustle

In case people haven't convinced you, yes, iosos, I think you'd hate this movie. See it only if you want to give Boner company.

I agree about all of those (though I suppose it's not a huge surprise since I generally really liked the movie).

I also really liked the call from Rob's mother. I've read others on here felt it was forced and phony, but I thought it really brought the material back down to earth for a minute after all the outlandish action/destruction/mayhem which had been going on.

I still think it'd be a really cool idea to have the "sequel" be the exact same attack, but from a different point of view - perhaps the military? I think there's a lot that could be done with this same location and action. Obviously there was lots we didn't see due to the limited perspective of the handicam, rather than the typicla "God's eye view" of most movies.

number8

02-10-2008, 04:23 AM

What, are you debating my assessment of the characters as shallow rich kids?

Is there really even a debate there?

OK, I'll bite.

I'll give you that Beth is obviously rich, and Rob must be earning serious wage to land a VP job. But how do we know that Hud, Malena, Rob's brother and his girlfriend are? Are we just assuming that rich people only hang out with rich people?

Also, where did shallow come in?

Raiders

02-10-2008, 04:24 AM

What, are you debating my assessment of the characters as shallow rich kids?

Is there really even a debate there?

No, just your stereotyping of rich kids, which suggests some sort of bitterness. Besides, what makes these characters so shallow? They seemed like pretty normal people to me.

Regardless, it isn't important.

In your sig, is that supposed to be "Some of Your Blood" by Sturgeon? If so, it's one of my favorite horror books.

megladon8

02-10-2008, 04:28 AM

OK, I'll bite.

I'll give you that Beth is obviously rich, and Rob must be earning serious wage to land a VP job. But how do we know that Hud, Malena, Rob's brother and his girlfriend are? Are we just assuming that rich people only hang out with rich people?

Well, from my experiences, yes - rich people hang out with rich people.

It's a horribly cliquey thing. I live in a neighbourhood filled with the children of hockey players and corporate CEOs, and I find nearly all of them to be pretty insufferable.

EDIT: Plus there's the fact that many of them reveal they live in Manahattan.

There's no fucking way you live in Manahattan without being a millionnaire. A studio apartment in Manhattan starts in the 6 figure range, and that's low-end.

Also, where did shallow come in?

I guess it was just an assumption made on my part since I don't think there was one person at that party who didn't look like they were pulled out of a magazine. Save for Hud, but he's behind the camera the whole time, and portrayed as the "dolt" of the group.

megladon8

02-10-2008, 04:31 AM

No, just your stereotyping of rich kids, which suggests some sort of bitterness. Besides, what makes these characters so shallow? They seemed like pretty normal people to me.

I do not see at all how one could see them as "normal people". If those are the types of people who know/hang around with every day, I have to wonder if you work at Vogue or something.

Regardless, it isn't important.

This is true, and I do admit that my own bitterness comes into play a little here.

In your sig, is that supposed to be "Some of Your Blood" by Sturgeon? If so, it's one of my favorite horror books.

Yes it is - sorry, I feel like an idiot for having that in my sig all this time and not noticing.

Raiders

02-10-2008, 04:33 AM

I do not see at all how one could see them as "normal people". If those are the types of people who know/hang around with every day, I have to wonder if you work at Vogue or something.

What do their looks have to do with anything? I'm talking about personalities. Sheesh. Good looking people don't have to be shallow and snobbish.

megladon8

02-10-2008, 04:39 AM

What do their looks have to do with anything? I'm talking about personalities. Sheesh. Good looking people don't have to be shallow and snobbish.

I'm dropping the argument - I just think that, since the film was going for a feeling of being able to relate to the characters (thereby making the situations more frightening), it failed on that front.

I couldn't relate to the characters because they are nothing like me or anyone I hang out with.

I still found the movie effective on other fronts, though, and overall I really enjoyed it.

Plus, not to use it as a "write off" of my thoughts and feelings, but I've already said twice that I harbor some bitterness towards these "types". I realize that's wrong and pretty hypocritical of me, and I don't want to be like that, but I really can't help it. So, I sincerely apologize if I offended you or anyone else, because I assure you that's not what I intended to do.

Rowland

02-10-2008, 05:01 AM

This is simple.

Just take the movie as satire and root for the monster.

Bosco B Thug

02-10-2008, 06:30 AM

Because I'm not saying all that much that was nice about the film, I thought the following were particularly well done:

1. Bridge exodus
2. Rob's call from his mother
3. Tunnel scene
4. Military bustle

In case people haven't convinced you, yes, iosos, I think you'd hate this movie. See it only if you want to give Boner company. The bridge scene and the following scene of trauma (and news footage) was excellent. Probably my favorite part of the film.

And the more I think of it, the more I hate the parasite creatures. They're useless in the overall functioning of the film: 9/11 approximation; the carnage of a single, incomprehendingly uneludable threat; a journey of reunion and rescue. The bugs have no function in Beth and Rob's dramatic plotline. I mean, Godzilla didn't need parasites to touch the personal sphere and that makes me realize how many paths they could have taken with this movie.

lemon

02-11-2008, 06:52 PM

megladon8

02-11-2008, 06:54 PM

I thought that Hud was portrayed as stupid to make it easier to believe that he would carry a camera through all of that ridiculous mayhem. Honestly, any person with average intelligence would have gotten rid of the camera at first sight of the monster.

Of course - but, again, this is a flaw in the overall concept.

If they wrote it logically and had him discard the camera when the head of the Statue of Liberty landed in the street, then we'd have a 20 minute movie. Or no movie at all.

Mysterious Dude

02-11-2008, 06:57 PM

Cloverfield is as ridiculous and silly as any monster movie. And that's okay.

Dukefrukem

02-11-2008, 07:53 PM

I still think it'd be a really cool idea to have the "sequel" be the exact same attack, but from a different point of view - perhaps the military? I think there's a lot that could be done with this same location and action. Obviously there was lots we didn't see due to the limited perspective of the handicam, rather than the typicla "God's eye view" of most movies.

If this does happen, my opinion would change slightly because of the planning and intertwining of possible characters.

lemon

02-12-2008, 02:56 AM

Of course - but, again, this is a flaw in the overall concept.

If they wrote it logically and had him discard the camera when the head of the Statue of Liberty landed in the street, then we'd have a 20 minute movie. Or no movie at all.

Watching I got the feeling that the movie was just one large gimmick. It would have been cool to tell the story through the perspective of a soldier wearing a helmet camera. Would have been a lot more realistic and definitely still could have had a sweet story behind it.

I don't know how much validity there is in this but I hate how modern movies always make a point in including horribly contrived shots of people using cell phone cameras. I honestly have only ever used my cell phone camera less than 5 times ever (within the 1st month of getting my phone). The last time I really remember people using them is back in high school when camera phones first hit the market.

eternity

02-12-2008, 03:01 AM

Watching I got the feeling that the movie was just one large gimmick. It would have been cool to tell the story through the perspective of a soldier wearing a helmet camera. Would have been a lot more realistic and definitely still could have had a sweet story behind it.

I don't know how much validity there is in this but I hate how modern movies always make a point in including horribly contrived shots of people using cell phone cameras. I honestly have only ever used my cell phone camera less than 5 times ever (within the 1st month of getting my phone). The last time I really remember people using them is back in high school when camera phones first hit the market.If they do a sequel, I hope that instead of just doing a retread with another person's camera, having a soldier's POV would be cool too, and worth another look in the franchise.

Megladon, bringing the camera with them is pretty well supported, at least in my opinion. Hud was given specific instructions to document the party, and already crossed the line filming Rob and Beth's argument. He continues to film when nobody knows what's going on, and once everything unfolds, they realize what they just recorded and that they really can't stop now, this is really damn important. He would have never dropped it when liberty's head crashed down.

megladon8

02-12-2008, 03:04 AM

Watching I got the feeling that the movie was just one large gimmick. It would have been cool to tell the story through the perspective of a soldier wearing a helmet camera. Would have been a lot more realistic and definitely still could have had a sweet story behind it.

But isn't that the whole point?

I can understand if you didn't like the gimmick, but saying that the fact that it's a gimmick is a detractor is kind of like saying Woody Allen's movies are bad because they're dialogue-based.

I don't know how much validity there is in this but I hate how modern movies always make a point in including horribly contrived shots of people using cell phone cameras. I honestly have only ever used my cell phone camera less than 5 times ever (within the 1st month of getting my phone). The last time I really remember people using them is back in high school when camera phones first hit the market.

I see people using camera phones all the time.

I'd probably buy a cell phone for the camera function before I'd buy it to use as a phone.

megladon8

02-12-2008, 03:07 AM

Megladon, bringing the camera with them is pretty well supported, at least in my opinion. Hud was given specific instructions to document the party, and already crossed the line filming Rob and Beth's argument. He continues to film when nobody knows what's going on, and once everything unfolds, they realize what they just recorded and that they really can't stop now, this is really damn important. He would have never dropped it when liberty's head crashed down.

Yes, my example of the Liberty head crashing down may have been a bad one.

But surely he would have dropped the camera by the time Marlena got sick at the mall converted into a military medical station.

And there's no way he'd brave the climb up-and-across the two buildings to save Beth while holding the camcorder.

Wryan

02-12-2008, 03:20 AM

I like the perspective. If it had been from the helmet-cam of a soldier, we'd all be crying Aliens ripoff.

[ETM]

02-12-2008, 10:51 AM

I see people using camera phones all the time.

I'd probably buy a cell phone for the camera function before I'd buy it to use as a phone.

This is true. And makes me terribly sad.
Why don't they just put a cell phone into a camera already and be done with it?
I'm a photographer and seeing how people are perfectly happy with cell phone photos makes me want to :frustrated:.

Scar

02-12-2008, 11:15 AM

lemon

02-12-2008, 01:43 PM

Its a giant monster movie.

That is stupid. I'm pretty sure the point of the movie was to make it as realistic as possible for the viewer.

Try harder next time when you want to discredit everything someone has written with a one liner.

Scar

02-12-2008, 01:52 PM

origami_mustache

02-12-2008, 01:53 PM

That is stupid. I'm pretty sure the point of the movie was to make it as realistic as possible for the viewer.

Try harder next time when you want to discredit everything someone has written with a one liner.

yes...as realistic as possible given the circumstances that a giant monster is attacking while still maintaining a cinematic experience, appealing to a mass audience, and securing box office success. I mean come on, there still has to be an extensive suspension of disbelief when watching this. If they wanted to make it as realistic as possible, it would probably be unwatchable.

Spun Lepton

02-12-2008, 09:43 PM

Seems like some people are missing the forest for the trees.

Cloverfield does not stand up to heavy dissection, no, of course not. It's a silly, over-the-top, bombastic flick designed solely to entertain and thrill. There's little attempt for thoughtful metaphor, and no attempt to be deep or meaningful. It's escapist. It's ALL about the "big picture," designed to be afternoon filler.

Screaming that it wasn't realistic enough is just silly. As Origami said, if they had attempted to make it realistic, the movie would've been a bore.

The reason they chose the style they did was to put the audience in the shoes of the survivors, to experience the giant monster movie from the ground, rather than the universal angle the Godzilla and Gamera films typically employ.

Dead & Messed Up

02-13-2008, 03:25 AM

It's interesting. I enjoyed watching it, but it's hard to think about it in retrospect without poking hole after hole in the film.

Of course, that's beside the point, because it's meant to be watched and enjoyed without much critical thought.

So what can you do? Say it was fun and move on, I guess.

eternity

02-14-2008, 12:06 AM

megladon8

02-14-2008, 01:04 AM

I don't see where all of this "doesn't stand up to critical dissection" talk comes from. How long and how often the camera is carried around is justified in the film, and they literally go out of their way to prove that point so this discussion wouldn't happen. Not good enough, I guess.

You mean Hud saying "this is important...people are gonna watch this"?

Well, right around the time that Marlena blows up just from getting scratched/bitten by one of the littles parasites, I doubt anyone would fault him for dropping the camera.

But, like Spun said, this is kind of redundant, becaue the movie is pure entertainment and doesn't aspire to be more. And it works.

EDIT: What I'd like to know is how the movie went from being #1 at the box office, to not even appearing in the top 10 in just a matter of days.

Henry Gale

02-14-2008, 03:21 AM

EDIT: What I'd like to know is how the movie went from being #1 at the box office, to not even appearing in the top 10 in just a matter of days.

It was always going to be frontloaded. When you have a movie that all people know for ages is the release date (and an even rougher outline of what the movie itself is), you're pretty much only going to get them then and then that's about it. Once those who really got caught up in the hype saw it the first weekend, it was basically left to do the business any other January release probably would have (seeing as its marketing for months prior was basically the thing that kept it from being that).

I love the movie, but to think that the word of mouth was going to be strong would have been very optimistic too. A bunch of people at my screening were yelling and the end how there was no way it could have ended where it did and things like that. Luckily the people I went with all really enjoyed it so I didn't have to hear that kind of thing for too much longer, but still, I knew that not everyone else was going to be as happy with it.

Ivan Drago

02-14-2008, 03:34 AM

I saw this today before I went to SIU's basketball game and all I can say is WOW, that was awesome! I did not expect the monster to be what it was, plus the moment where Hud looks right up at the monster in awe and shock, and after 6 seconds or so the monster kills him was both terrifying and awe-inspiring.

megladon8

02-15-2008, 04:23 AM

I've been drawing a lot of monsters lately. Everything from the Universal classics, to new-age giant monsters and whatnot.

As I've mentioned before, I used to be a great artist when I was a kid, and it was like, quite literally, one day I woke up and was no longer able to draw.

Through patience and practice over the last week or so, I've tried to get back into drawing by doodling these little monsters.

I've been doing one a day every day, and today I tried to draw the Cloverfield monster. I'm not entirely happy with the result - I still have issues with drawing hands and feet, and depth is something I find hard.

I definitely have my own unique style. I really like drawing "bobblehead" characters - I draw enormous heads so that I can do a bit of detail work, but I still keep them very cartoonish.

But anyways, I thought I'd share this with you guys and if there's enough interest, maybe I'd put together a little thread on OT to share my monsters as I draw them each day.

So, without further ah-doo, here's the Cloverfield monster (took me about 20 minutes, and I was drawing from memory so it's obviously not 100% accurate)...

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5515/cloverfieldtweakedhr9.th.jpg (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cloverfieldtweake dhr9.jpg)

origami_mustache

02-15-2008, 04:47 AM

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5515/cloverfieldtweakedhr9.th.jpg (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cloverfieldtweake dhr9.jpg)

haha nice...love the bobble head style.

megladon8

02-15-2008, 04:50 AM

haha nice...love the bobble head style.

Thanks! :)

I realize I'm not the best artist ever, but I had fun with it.

I hope it looks at least moderately like the monster.

eternity

02-15-2008, 09:56 PM

You mean Hud saying "this is important...people are gonna watch this"?

Well, right around the time that Marlena blows up just from getting scratched/bitten by one of the littles parasites, I doubt anyone would fault him for dropping the camera.

But, like Spun said, this is kind of redundant, becaue the movie is pure entertainment and doesn't aspire to be more. And it works.

EDIT: What I'd like to know is how the movie went from being #1 at the box office, to not even appearing in the top 10 in just a matter of days.More than that, but people kind of forget the fact that Hud puts down the camera three times to help Beth, when the Marlena incident happened, and one other time, and has it off more often than it is on.

I thought it aspired to be more, and it succeeded. The problem with most disaster/monster movies is that you get a vision of destruction, but not so much devastation. Cloverfield was a movie that shook you up, and I mean that emotionally, not the fact that people wanted to throw up during it.

Spun Lepton

02-16-2008, 05:52 PM

Cloverfield monster toy! $100!!!! That's quite spendy for a fucking TOY.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/02/15/cloverfield-monster-toy-revealed/

eternity

02-16-2008, 06:05 PM

It looks nothing like the Cloverfield monster too. Way too thin, way too white, the monster walks on its knuckles, not on its flanges, the list goes on.

Spun Lepton

02-16-2008, 06:12 PM

It looks nothing like the Cloverfield monster too. Way too thin, way too white, the monster walks on its knuckles, not on its flanges, the list goes on.

Yeah, I thought it looked too skinny, too. It might be the image's perspective that makes it look too thin, though. Down the page, there's another image that looks a little closer to the "real" deal.

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/cloverfieldtoy2.jpg

Either way, I won't be buying it. Too expensive, and I'm not a collector.

megladon8

02-16-2008, 07:05 PM

Rowland

02-16-2008, 07:06 PM

Looks like I'll be catching this on DVD. That probably better suits the high concept anyway.

number8

02-17-2008, 03:25 AM

Looks like I'll be catching this on DVD. That probably better suits the high concept anyway.

No, you should watch it on YouTube!

Wryan

02-17-2008, 03:38 AM

No, you should watch it on YouTube!

A cellphone. Duh.

eternity

02-17-2008, 04:58 AM

JRSly made the most awesome cover for the movie. There's no way Paramount can ever top this.

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2946/cloverfielddvdcovermn5.jpg

Horbgorbler

02-17-2008, 07:22 AM

I've realized that this movie is just an incredibly convoluted, post-post-modern adaptation of Donkey Kong: Rob is clearly Mario, Beth is a stand-in for the princess and the monster takes the role of the titular ape. All of the stair-climbing in the falling building bit was a dead give-away. Maybe lice = barrels, too?

eternity

02-17-2008, 03:52 PM

Raiders

02-18-2008, 01:30 AM

Why does it look like it desperately needs a few cheeseburgers?

Maybe its the new Monster Barbie figurine?

Wryan

02-18-2008, 01:35 AM

megladon8

02-18-2008, 01:45 AM

Maybe its the new Monster Barbie figurine?

:)

I can imagine the TV commercial's jingle right now...

"I'm a Cloverfield!
You can brush my hair,
Undress me anywhere!"

Bosco B Thug

02-18-2008, 06:28 AM

Wow...that makes me wonder if the designers even saw the movie.

Where are its other limbs, on its torso?

Why is it walking on its hands, rather than on the knuckles of incredibly extended fingers?

Why does it look like it desperately needs a few cheeseburgers?

SPOILERY MONSTER DESCRIPTIONS:

Hmm, seeing the monster in full light now, it hard not to be sort of disappointed with it. I mean, in the film it works fine and it's not a bad monster persay, it's just it makes me remember back when we were all still speculating about what the thing would be, I was totally expecting a "behemoth," a "colossus," a lumberer of the "Whoops, my meaty thighs totally side-swiped this building into rubble!" sort. But oh well.

I'd like to see the movie again just to compare this model of it with what we see in the

"looking down from the helicopter" bit. When you say other appendages, is it just me or did I see big, flabby tentacly appendages that whipped about when they were looking down on it in the 'copter?

megladon8

02-18-2008, 05:13 PM

SPOILERY MONSTER DESCRIPTIONS:

Hmm, seeing the monster in full light now, it hard not to be sort of disappointed with it. I mean, in the film it works fine and it's not a bad monster persay, it's just it makes me remember back when we were all still speculating about what the thing would be, I was totally expecting a "behemoth," a "colossus," a lumberer of the "Whoops, my meaty thighs totally side-swiped this building into rubble!" sort. But oh well.

I'd like to see the movie again just to compare this model of it with what we see in the

"looking down from the helicopter" bit. When you say other appendages, is it just me or did I see big, flabby tentacly appendages that whipped about when they were looking down on it in the 'copter?

I'm pretty sure that was it's tail.

But when I say "other appendages", I mean its 5th and 6th limbs coming out of the middle of its stomach. It didn't seem to really use those giant arms in front for anything except walking and occasionally swiping things out of the way - it was those other two limbs that would grab and tear at things.

And what do you mean when you say that you were expecting a "behemoth" - did you not think it was big enough? That thing was massive.

Bosco B Thug

02-18-2008, 06:45 PM

I'm pretty sure that was it's tail.

But when I say "other appendages", I mean its 5th and 6th limbs coming out of the middle of its stomach. It didn't seem to really use those giant arms in front for anything except walking and occasionally swiping things out of the way - it was those other two limbs that would grab and tear at things. Oh... That too, then, tentacles. I anticipated tentacles. Remember when people thought it would be Cthulhu at one point? :)

And what do you mean when you say that you were expecting a "behemoth" - did you not think it was big enough? That thing was massive. I mean, big and meaty and fatty. Folds of its skin just demolishing whole blocks at once as it slides through the city. Or just big and meaty in a Stay Puft Man or Godzilla way. Not spindly.

Thinking about it, the film doesn't offer that awe of the notion of the "Reckoner Come From the Sea," which in hindsight is really what I wanted during the "anticipation stages." Instead, the monster is less Godzilla or Cthulhu or Stay Puft Man and is presented more as like an angry insect that's just really really big.

But I'm not saying this is valid criticism, just musing on the thin lines that separate the affect of these different beasts, and I know that I'm straying completely away from the parameters of conceit and effect the filmmakers set for the film - which the movie achieved to an adequately "meh" degree, so really complaints about the design and presentation of the monster are unwarranted because they are so inextricably tied to the "personal video account" premise of the film, the film's medal of distinction when shots of the monster rising gloriously from the ocean are not to be had.