Sumdumgai Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 Went to the $5 matinee, specifically to see the Star Trek teaser, with Cloverfield as a hopefully good bonus. I loved it. Felt a little queasy a couple times due to the camera movement, but was overall fine. I loved the effects and the feeling of "OH S T! OH S T! OH S T! DID YOU SEE THAT?! OMG F KING RUN!!!" which is more or less what some characters say, but yeah. It was a refreshing new way of doing a giant monster movie. Being practically in the shoes of the characters when the s t hits the fan makes it much more personal and exciting. A few things annoyed me. They were stupid crazy for going after Beth. Rob I could understand. But the others, especially after whats-her-face went splodey. Also, them pausing in the subway tunnels: "Oh rats! Running away from something! Hey let's stop and listen! ". This monster could kick the crap out of an army of those loser American-Godzillas. Loved ROAR! the end theme. So appropriately titled! Quote
Ghadrack Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 Loved the movie, hated the camera work. 3 people were sickened, had to leave the film in the theatre i was in alone. I am so sick if that lame shaky cam. I pray this is the one that teaches them to stop using it, this movie would have been way, way, way better if they had used the shaky cam only in a half dozen or so specific scenes in short bursts. It would not have detracted from the idea that Hud was carrying the camera if it was steady most of teh time however, not being able to keep up with what was going on all the time, well it really pulled me out of the story. I liked it but won't watch the movie again. If they used a steady cam I would have bought the film on DVD or Blu-Ray and watched it repeatedly. Quote
eugimon Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 you couldn't have made this movie without the shaky cam. Are we really supposed to believe that some random business guy had a steady cam and rig just lying around his place and that his friends would strap it on and use that to film going away messages? The whole point of this movie was to have an eyes on the ground and to be from the perspective of the characters. Having smooth steady cam shots would have popped that conceit right away. Quote
EXO Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 In the final thoughts of last weekend’s box office report, I put up the January-opening record holder as only being 35 million, which clearly seemed ripe for the taking. Seven days later, we have a new January-record holder, a new MLK holiday record holder and a new monster franchise… After 8 months of countless television spots, teasers, interviews and viral marketing, Paramount has officially cashed in on its new monster franchise Cloverfield by taking 41.0 mil over the first 3 days of the 4-day weekend. http://www.mania.com/57201.html I like this movie a lot but why is it a franchise? I hope they dont make any more. Quote
HoveringCheesecake Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 I'm glad it did well. Hopefully Marcus Theaters will stop being pricks and actually start showing movies on time instead of waiting a month to release them. They have done nothing but lose money in this case, I think they were banking on the fact that Paramount was overestimating how well the movie was going to do. Haha. Quote
promethuem5 Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 I can't imagine how not releasing a movie on-time can ever be a sound business plan... Quote
chrono Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 I like this movie a lot but why is it a franchise? I hope they dont make any more. Of course they will! Their to stupid not too. prom5, it's the same ideas that they pull with their creative accounting. Quote
uminoken Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 I really liked the movie. The way you were just thrown in without all the exposition was a nice way to take on the monster movie genre. The movie did have a fair number of 'that would never happen/Hollywood conceits, but it was such a well done thrillride, you didn't really notice until the end. I'm not sure either if it will hold up on dvd, you need to have the entire theater speaker system booming at you to get the full impact. If anyone wants a fan-done take on the monster take a look at this pic. It's not entirely accurate, but better than most. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/ign...monsterlast.jpg As to the look of it, it seemed very bat-like in the way the limbs were bent as it walked. The only talk of a storyline for sequels is the events of the same night, but with a different perspective. Giachinno is trying to get the Roar! overture up for download, but it may be a few days. Quote
HoveringCheesecake Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 I can't imagine how not releasing a movie on-time can ever be a sound business plan... They are claiming that Paramount is charging too much for their movies, but I see it the opposite way. If every other large theater company in the US can man up and pay for the movie then Marcus is the one acting like a spoiled little child. But I don't want to drag this topic too far from Cloverfield so I'll drop the Marcus theaters BS. I'm just pissed is all. Quote
mriboy Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 you couldn't have made this movie without the shaky cam. Are we really supposed to believe that some random business guy had a steady cam and rig just lying around his place and that his friends would strap it on and use that to film going away messages? The whole point of this movie was to have an eyes on the ground and to be from the perspective of the characters. Having smooth steady cam shots would have popped that conceit right away. Yeah but when does a crappy littlehandheld battery last that long Quote
GobotFool Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Yeah but when does a crappy littlehandheld battery last that long Just because the events lasted a whole night doesn't mean it was on the whole night. He captured 1 1/2 hours of film over the course of a single night. Quote
promethuem5 Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Right... the film as presented is the real-time and complete footage on the camera. Any gaps and jumps are where Hud was dicking with the camera (hence the Coney-Island scenes as gaps between re-winding and Fast-forwarding) that account for travel time when he wasn't filming. Quote
mikeszekely Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Saw the movie today. I think were this movie really worked was that instead of focusing on the story and the hero scientist hooking up with the military to deal with the monster, the whole focus is on what it'd be like to just be an average joe when a giant monster starts stomping on your city. It's strengths are also its weaknesses, though, as the characters are poorly developed and often obnoxious, the movie is slow to get going and a little short, and when the movie ends you feel a little like you're missing part of the story.* Overall, I'd recommend it. I sort of doubt it'll hold up to repeated viewings, but for the first viewing, it's an almost unique experience. *Paramount seems to agree, and there's a rumor that a sequel's already been greenlit that will cover the events of the same night from a different POV. Quote
GobotFool Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) Saw the movie today. I think were this movie really worked was that instead of focusing on the story and the hero scientist hooking up with the military to deal with the monster, the whole focus is on what it'd be like to just be an average joe when a giant monster starts stomping on your city. It's strengths are also its weaknesses, though, as the characters are poorly developed and often obnoxious, the movie is slow to get going and a little short, and when the movie ends you feel a little like you're missing part of the story.* Overall, I'd recommend it. I sort of doubt it'll hold up to repeated viewings, but for the first viewing, it's an almost unique experience. *Paramount seems to agree, and there's a rumor that a sequel's already been greenlit that will cover the events of the same night from a different POV. Well, if a sequel gets green lit, and it does well, I just know a third one will be made because of Hollywood’s obsession with trilogies. Still done right sequels could work. My main complaint was that I got no real feel for the monster, other than it was big and scary, which was fine for a movie about the average Joe’s perspective. I like the idea of a sequel being about another group of people trying to survive the same event. In some ways I’d like to see it from a TV camera crew’s perspective. I don’t know if TV news studios actually use steadicam mounts, but I’d like to see the person filming the sequel be someone operating a camera with one. Could be a TV show studio caught in the middle of events ect. That or a more military perspective from footage from helmet mounted cameras. While the image would still be shaky it would offer the advantage of being able to show events from multiple perspectives. Just my two cents. Edited January 21, 2008 by GobotFool Quote
promethuem5 Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Clearly a second shakey-cam movie would be a stretch, but the sequel could still easily be anything besides the government-super-scientist-response perspective... news-crews are a great idea... if they do a trilogy, I still love the idea of a faux aftermath-documentary for the last film... Quote
bsu legato Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 The premise of the sequel will be that it was filmed entirely on a cell phone, and then the video file was compressed into a 300 meg, torrent-friendly file. Enjoy! Quote
mikeszekely Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Clearly a second shakey-cam movie would be a stretch, but the sequel could still easily be anything besides the government-super-scientist-response perspective... news-crews are a great idea... if they do a trilogy, I still love the idea of a faux aftermath-documentary for the last film... I'd see a faux aftermath documentary. And as cliche as the government/super-scientist angle is, I want to see it now. I mean, the movie would have totally bombed if they'd show that angle first, because it's so done-to-death. But having had average Joe's perspective, now I want to know what the government/super scientist response was. Quote
1st Border Red Devil Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) I loved it. I had to laugh my ass off when they showed the douchebags looting the electronics store for hi-def televisions and such. Morons. I LOVED ROAR, the Cloverfield Overture. Definitely great pieces. Never got queasy at all during the movie and I ate popcorn while watching. Probably gonna go see it again tonight after work. And I am definitely thumbs up for a sequel and/or faux television documentary. Perhaps we will luck out and get one on the DVD release like they did for Dawn of the Dead '04. Now all we have to do is wait for Diary of the Dead to get our next TEOTWAWKI documentary-style movie. I will say that this movie simply reinforced my belief in having a Bug Out Bag, specifically one with a couple of flashlights. And, of course, why NOT to live in a big city like Manhattan. Edited January 21, 2008 by 1st Border Red Devil Quote
JsARCLIGHT Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 I had to do a double take just now... thought I was reading ARFCOM. So... this is probably a stupid question but what does "Cloverfield" mean? Is there some connection between the title and the movie? Quote
bsu legato Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 I had to do a double take just now... thought I was reading ARFCOM. So... this is probably a stupid question but what does "Cloverfield" mean? Is there some connection between the title and the movie? Judging by the leader on the film (marked US Gov't property) it seems to just be some random code-name given to either the monster and/or the incident involving it. Quote
promethuem5 Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In the film it's the gov't codename for the monster incident... before that tho, it was simply a working throw-off title that stuck. Quote
Zor Primus Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Saw it Friday night and will agree that for a monster movie, this had all you wanted and needed...well not all could have been a tad longer. As for the end credits I stayed and heard something but couldn't make it out. A friend told me the voice said: "It's still alive." Leading to believe a sequal with another POV. My question about the end though...was it a MOAB type bomb or a nuke? Gonna look into that splash! Gotta love JJ's hidden messages right out in the open...lol although I wonder if the ST movie will have the same aura of mystery hehe... Quote
promethuem5 Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) The end was NOT a nuclear weapon, as there would be no camera footage surviving due to the EMP effect and massive devastation... Edited January 21, 2008 by promethuem5 Quote
Zor Primus Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 The end was NOT a nuclear weapon, as there would be no camera footage surviving due to the EMP effect and massive devastation... Duh...I should have thought of that. Quote
Sumdumgai Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Cloverfield is also the Santa Monica exit that Abrams takes to go to his office, or so I read somewhere. Can't remember where, so grain of salt. Yeah, I was thinking MOAB. Quote
chowyunskinny Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 LOL, the exit before Cloverfield is Bundy people would've thought it was a Married With Children Motion Picture Quote
mikeszekely Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Cloverfield was the production code name, and so many people figured it out that the name stuck. I've also heard the rumor that Abrams took the name from a street or something. I kind of like my own version, where Abrams and a friend are lying in a field of clover on a beautiful spring day, looking up at the clouds. Friend: "That cloud looks like a sailboat. What do you see?" Abrams: "Space monster. Dude, I'm totally going to make a movie about a space monster eating New York." Quote
EXO Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 LOL, the exit before Cloverfield is Bundy people would've thought it was a Married With Children Motion Picture Cloverfield was the production code name, and so many people figured it out that the name stuck. I've also heard the rumor that Abrams took the name from a street or something. I kind of like my own version, where Abrams and a friend are lying in a field of clover on a beautiful spring day, looking up at the clouds. Friend: "That cloud looks like a sailboat. What do you see?" Abrams: "Space monster. Dude, I'm totally going to make a movie about a space monster eating New York." :lol: :lol: Quote
Ratchet Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) Is it just me or did anyone else want to slap these reality tv and annoying characters. I'm sorry, but I *spit* on these people. I was actually rooting for the monster to kill these kids 5 minutes into the film. Edited January 22, 2008 by Ratchet Quote
bsu legato Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) What exactly did they do that was worthy of spit? Edit: silver spoons Ah, hatin on the rich kids. Liberals do often hate successful people (other than themselves, that is). Edited January 22, 2008 by bsu legato Quote
JsARCLIGHT Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 OK so the whole "Cloverfield" thing is not really referenced inside the movie outside of the title. I thought I missed it. Quote
Ratchet Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) What exactly did they do that was worthy of spit? Edit: Ah, hatin on the rich kids. Liberals do often hate successful people (other than themselves, that is). When I want to watch a monster movie featuring a Godzilla type monster, dispense with the reality tv drama. I voted for Bush in the last election. And yeah..I hate rich people who live off mommy and daddy's hard earned success. Oh yeah...you got chaos going on, but you got "average joe" filming everything like that camcorder was clued to his face *lol* Did he even drop that camera even once in this make believe crap? In real life, I would have slapped that fool. Edited January 22, 2008 by Ratchet Quote
Alpha OTS Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Oh yeah...you got chaos going on, but you got "average joe" filming everything like that camcorder was clued to his face *lol* Did he even drop that camera even once in this make believe crap? In real life, I would have slapped that fool. I kind of got the impression that that was how he was dealing with the catastrophic situation he found himself in. He clearly wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed either. "You know about Superman!?" Quote
KingNor Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 really, the one thing that bugged me was the "government document" stuff at the begining. It implyed that the US is essentially fine in the long run. Too bad, i mean, this monster seems to be impervious to EVERYTHING. not even a scratch from missles. Say more show up? well i guess more didn't and i guess the military eventually DID kill it since the gov was around to classify tapes afterwards. It would have been nice to be kept in total dark about the state of ANYTHING after the film ended. I like that sort of thing, gives you more to talk about rather than being force fed what happend. Really though that's just nitpicking, I can't find a whole lot in this film that I didn't like.. Perhaps a cast of more realistic looking heros would have been nice.. but what ever. The military were well portrayed i thought.. Over all i thoguht it was a great little flick. I want to get into shakey cam a bit though: I want people to consider the difference between this movie and say.. bourne ultimatum. Bourne is shot with an omnipresent type camera, you're not part of anything, you're a floating eye taking in a movie. why is it shakeing? I know a shake here or there with a hit or explosion adds to the impact, but why the whole time? Cloverfield has a perfectly legitimate reason to shake, and is infact a MAJOR part of the story. If you simply can't handle the shakeing, ok, i won't argue with you. But people complaining that the shakey cam was just irritateing or made it hard to see things are COMPLETELY missing the point. I mean completely. It's supposed to be hard to see. It adds to the mystique and realism. I understand it can make people sick, but well, lifes a bitch sometimes. Everyone knew going in that this movie was gonna be shakey, so ya gotta just deal with it. It's the new obsession with indiscriminate shakey cam in cinematic movies that bugs me. Bourne Ultimatum gave me a headache that ruined the better part of my day, Cloverfield wasn't nearly as bad IMHO, sure it shook more, but you weren't really expected to focus on anything so youc an kinda just blank at the screen and think "they're running" etc. I really don't think the shakey cam took anything away from this film. Quote
Ratchet Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) I kind of got the impression that that was how he was dealing with the catastrophic situation he found himself in. He clearly wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed either. "You know about Superman!?" Baloney!!! I'm glad I saw a bootleg copy of this than pay $10+ for this crap. Make it a Blockbuster or Hollywood video wait. It's not worth seeing in the theater. I'd rather go see American Gangster in the theater 10x over than this crap. And me being a soldier, I would have shot that fool with the camera and any screaming dumba$$ civilian who got in my way of killing that monster or its fleas. Call it: collateral damage or friendly fire. Edited January 22, 2008 by Ratchet Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.