# Cloverfield



## Krug (Jan 17, 2008)

Well don't believe the hype. I found it disappointing, with characters thinner than cardboard. The attraction of the film seems to be finding out what the monster actually is, so it all became a matter of waiting for the money shot. It's all framed within a highly unpersuasive love story, and it reminds one of what a masterpiece the Korean monster flick *The Host* is.


----------



## Blackrat (Jan 17, 2008)

But do they actually show the monster? I don't want any spoilers as to what it is, but I want to know if they really show it.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 17, 2008)

From want a reviewer told me the monster is fully seen and its not like you have to wait to the very end to fully see it.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 17, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> Well don't believe the hype.



Thankfully, I haven't. It looks perfectly awful.

So, is the whole thing really in shaky-cam?


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 17, 2008)

I'll be seeing it tonight.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 17, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> So, is the whole thing really in shaky-cam?



Since the whole premise is that it was shot on someone's handheld, I would be suprised if it was not.


----------



## Blackrat (Jan 17, 2008)

Crothian said:
			
		

> From want a reviewer told me the monster is fully seen and its not like you have to wait to the very end to fully see it.



Well in that case I'll actually consider seeing it. I really don't have high hopes but that was something I was waiting to hear before deciding.


----------



## Krug (Jan 17, 2008)

Crothian said:
			
		

> From want a reviewer told me the monster is fully seen and its not like you have to wait to the very end to fully see it.




Yeah they do. But they could have shown a bunch of cardboard boxes pinned together with scotchtape and it would have made as much sense.


----------



## Krug (Jan 17, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Thankfully, I haven't. It looks perfectly awful.
> 
> So, is the whole thing really in shaky-cam?




Mostly. I had to look away from the screen for a bit because it was too much. The setup for the whole romance angle I found quite intolerable, before things got moving.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 17, 2008)

You really thought _The Host_ was a masterpiece? I went to see it because of the amazing reviews it was getting everywhere, and I thought it was really bad - not just a lot worse than I expected given the critical reaction, but simply wretched.

It wasn't scary at all, it was almost never funny, the pacing and timing were way off (the attempts at humor repeatedly made what little tension there was fizzle out - even if they had been funny, they'd still have been completely out of place) and the (God help us) satire was actually offensive - not because of its target (though admittedly, I don't find mindless anti-Americanism particularly entertaining) but because it was about as subtle and intelligent as a two-by-four with a nail in it, and I felt the movie was insulting my intelligence.

And yes, I _did_ see the subtitled version, not the dubbed one.

Anyway, I guess I'll wait for some more reviews of _Cloverfield_, since our tastes in movies clearly couldn't be less of a match.


----------



## Krug (Jan 17, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> You really thought _The Host_ was a masterpiece? I went to see it because of the amazing reviews it was getting everywhere, and I thought it was really bad - not just a lot worse than I expected given the critical reaction, but simply wretched.
> 
> It wasn't scary at all, it was almost never funny, the pacing and timing were way off (the attempts at humor repeatedly made what little tension there was fizzle out - even if they had been funny, they'd still have been completely out of place) and the (God help us) satire was actually offensive - not because of its target (though admittedly, I don't find mindless anti-Americanism particularly entertaining) but because it was about as subtle and intelligent as a two-by-four with a nail in it, and I felt the movie was insulting my intelligence.
> 
> ...




Yeap I still think *The Host* is great. Admittedly it was *Jaws* with a familial twist, but it didn't make a gimmick of 'hide the monster until the end' like so many movies now like to do. I didn't think the Anti-Americanism was that big a deal, and it didn't exactly exonerate the Koreans of all blame. 

I guess I had higher hopes for *Cloverfield*, though they weren't really that high to begin with. But it wasn't scary by any means, relying on tropes and ideas we've seen from so many other monster/disaster flicks (



Spoiler



crawling spider-like aliens? check. bridges destroyed to trap escapess? check. helicopter destroyed in mid-flight? check.


) It was just a cross of *Blair Witch Project* crossed with *King Kong* and *Aliens*, with an utterly unconvincing romance thrown in.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 17, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> It was just a cross of *Blair Witch Project* crossed with *King Kong* and *Aliens*, with an utterly convincing romance thrown in.



I assume you meant *un*convincing. Other than that... sounds good. Exactly something I would like to see.


----------



## JorrJorr (Jan 17, 2008)

There was a preview here in the Twin Cities on Monday night that I attended. I will not spoil anything, but I will say I had mixed feelings about the movie when it was over. First, yes it's all POV from the user's handheld camera. Once the action gets going, there are moments that are very _bad_. Worse at points than Blair Witch Project. In fact, at one person at our showing didn't make it to the bathroom before hurling in the hallway.

The good about the movie:
Definately had creepy/scary moments, especially with the decent sound system we had. You could feel the theater vibrate as the monster moved about. It was kind of a neat sensation and really got you in the mood 

The weak about the movie:
Strictly shown as a video journal of someone in Manhatten as the attack occurs. This will cause mixed feelings with a lot of people, including me. I was hoping for something more to frame the context of the handheld footage, rather than show the video with no context. 

Characters started out intelligent, but towards the end a number of things occurred that I found really hard to swallow if this type of event was really happening. It felt more like someone's home movie of a really bad Hollywood Blockbuster (with bad dialog and such) with the types of character actions that were occurring.

Fairly predictable when something _big_ was going to happen. The foreshadowing of _big_ events were very telegraphed. This may have been on purpose to highten the horror, but some events worked and others didn't.

Summary:
Basically the movie is meant to be a sensory experience much like BWP. You're meant to empathize with the characters as they go their trials on screen and the camera POV enhances it. But ultimately it's just like a rollercoaster ride once the thrill of the unknown wears off, you can only watch it so many times before you ask yourself "Ok, now what?"

So the movie is fun early Summer fair _if_ you can handle the the shakiness. If you had problems with BWP, then you might want to sit this one out. I found sitting towards the back of the theater helps me for these types of movies. It's definately worth experiencing if you like that sort of thing. I'd recommend a matinee showing though at a theater with good sound.

I liked it, but it's flawed I feel. So, marginal thumbs up.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 17, 2008)

JorrJorr said:
			
		

> First, yes it's all POV from the user's handheld camera. Once the action gets going, there are moments that are very _bad_. Worse at points than Blair Witch Project.



Ohhh... FAIL.

Thanks for the info!


----------



## Dragonbait (Jan 17, 2008)

I have not seen it, but I obsessed over what the monster looks like. This site claims to have drawings made by people who saw the movie: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/cloverfield-update-fans-draw-the-cloverfield-monster.php

It's all spoilers, folks.

For those that saw the movie: Can you verify any of thse images?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 17, 2008)

JorrJorr said:
			
		

> Once the action gets going, there are moments that are very _bad_. Worse at points than Blair Witch Project.




Huh.

Now I'm not sure what to think.

Not because I have a big problem with it...but because I've seen other people saying the exact opposite, that's the camera work is BETTER than Blair Witch, and not nearly as bad.


----------



## Krug (Jan 17, 2008)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> I have not seen it, but I obsessed over what the monster looks like. This site claims to have drawings made by people who saw the movie: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/cloverfield-update-fans-draw-the-cloverfield-monster.php
> 
> It's all spoilers, folks.
> 
> For those that saw the movie: Can you verify any of thse images?




Sorta close, though none seem to hit it exactly and possibly because we view it from different angles. It looked like a cross between a 



Spoiler



giant spider crossed with Pumpkinhead


, just giant sized. 



> Not because I have a big problem with it...but because I've seen other people saying the exact opposite, that's the camera work is BETTER than Blair Witch, and not nearly as bad.




I thought the camerawork was way better, and the camera resolution was very good as well except for night shots. There were moments where I had to look away from the screen due to the shakiness of it all, but for the most part I found it much  better than BWP.


----------



## JorrJorr (Jan 18, 2008)

I guess I should clarify "bad". I meant bad as in there are moments where it's just a blur really and very disorenting. The movie is technically well done, including the filming. It's just that if you had problems with the style of camera work in Blair Witch, as far as motion sickness, it'll probably be worse at some points with this movie. Also there's a number of disorenting angles because of the way the shooter was holding it as he navigated the city and rubble. Obviously the angles were purposely used to make the audience feel "off" with the scene. As I mentioned, one member of our audience got sick and I don't know how it affected the rest.

As far as the pictures linked. The monster is kind of  body of the first and the head of the third. That would be what I recall of the creature.

If you can tolerate the shaky cam, it's probably worth seeing once as it is a fairly visceral experience and was fun in a roller coaster kind of way.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jan 18, 2008)

I totally loved it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 18, 2008)

Just got back from a midnight showing of it. I liked it quite a lot. There are some very nice bits of black comedy in the film, mainly from Hud's (the cameraman drafted into this, who then decides someone should document what's happening) comments.

I'll echo what the above posters say: it's very vertigo-inducing at times. It's not as bad as some things I've seen, but it's close. I'm not a big shakey-cam hater - I think it works very well for this film. 

You do see the monster; you see it several times, in fact. 

There is... something at the end of the credits, a short bit of staticy voice-over but the sound of people talking in the theater was too loud for me to make it out.



Spoiler



I looked at the ocean in this scene, wondering if there was significance to it, but missed this. I'll try to see if I pick it up when I see it again. This is from Movie Spoiler. 

_I think that it is very important to note the final few seconds of the film, particularly as the camera is fixed out to the ocean at Coney Island...If you look at the ocean, out in the distant on the right hand side, you can see “something” crash into the water at a very steep angle._


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2008)

I was really hoping that this was not going to be filmed completely in shaky cam. I love monster movies even the Godzilla movie that everyone else panned that took place in New York.  

But I can't take shaky cam it makes me sick to my stomach and gives me a raging headache.I might try and rent it when it comes out on DVD and watch it on my bedroon small screen TV. I have found that the smaller screen sometimes helps it is how I finally got through BWP. But even then I had to keep stopping and taking a break from it.


----------



## JorrJorr (Jan 18, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> There is... something at the end of the credits, a short bit of staticy voice-over but the sound of people talking in the theater was too loud for me to make it out.



Spoiler area for those that don't want to know
---------------------------


Spoiler



It's a faint cry for help.


---------------------------


----------



## Jubilee (Jan 18, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But I can't take shaky cam it makes me sick to my stomach and gives me a raging headache.I might try and rent it when it comes out on DVD and watch it on my bedroon small screen TV. I have found that the smaller screen sometimes helps it is how I finally got through BWP. But even then I had to keep stopping and taking a break from it.





Ooh, good idea.  Maybe i will see this eventually, too, then..

/ali


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 18, 2008)

Great movie.

The shaky-cam was very bad in spots. That was frustrating. But for the most part it works really well. This film manages to quickly draw you _into_ the action. Almost as if you are Hud.

Note that this is _not_ Blair Witch. It is a big budget film. BW didn't show any ghosties for dramatic and expense purposes. This film does. You see the monster several times. More as the film goes along. Including one close-up that is very impressive. I wish you saw the 'parasites' a bit more, but they are in several scenes as well. 

The acting is actually great. I mean if you think about it, they aren't supposed to feel like actors. They are just regular people who happen to have a camera. Regular people often feel awkward around cameras. Nobody does this better than Hud. You quickly 'get' that he's the socially awkward type. His interactions with Marlayna(sp?) and other people at the party show this very well. The rest of the main characters 'feel' like people I know. They aren't larger than life action heroes with snappy one-liners. They're scared and they want to get out of the city.

Again, great movie. I can't wait to own this on disc so I can pause it and get a better look at the beasties.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jan 18, 2008)

Hud's inclusion as the everyman type of character was awesome. And his funny lines broke up the tension of the film that could have made it harder to watch.

"What's that?"
"Something terrible."

and later

"And what was that?"
"Something else. Also terrible."


----------



## Grog (Jan 18, 2008)

JorrJorr said:
			
		

> So the movie is fun early Summer fair _if_ you can handle the the shakiness.



January is early summer?


----------



## JorrJorr (Jan 18, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> January is early summer?




Sure   . I meant it as that it's the type of movie I would of expected for a summer type release.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jan 18, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> January is early summer?




For sufficiently broad definitions of the word "summer"...


----------



## Grog (Jan 18, 2008)

JorrJorr said:
			
		

> Sure   . I meant it as that it's the type of movie I would of expected for a summer type release.



Ah, I see. It didn't seem that way to me, but that's a matter of opinion I guess.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 18, 2008)

JorrJorr said:
			
		

> Sure   . I meant it as that it's the type of movie I would of expected for a summer type release.



Heh, I read it that way - early "summer movie" as opposed to "early summer" movie.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 18, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> January is early summer?




If you go to the Southern Hemisphere it is.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jan 18, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> If you go to the Southern Hemisphere it is.





Touche.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 18, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But I can't take shaky cam it makes me sick to my stomach and gives me a raging headache. I might try and rent it when it comes out on DVD and watch it on my bedroom small screen TV. I have found that the smaller screen sometimes helps it is how I finally got through BWP. But even then I had to keep stopping and taking a break from it.



Hmm, I have this same problem. {Blair witch was excruciatingly painful for me at the theater, even though I actually liked the movie}.

I was thinking about eating a few aspirin and sitting far back from the movie screen, but I'm worried that still might not be enough. 

Dramamine, a motion sickness med, does not list headache as one of the symtoms it works on. :\ Anyone got first hand knowledge if it does help with _Shackycam Skullsplitters_?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 19, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hmm, I have this same problem. {Blair witch was excruciatingly painful for me at the theater, even though I actually liked the movie}.
> 
> I was thinking about eating a few aspirin and sitting far back from the movie screen, but I'm worried that still might not be enough.
> 
> Dramamine, a motion sickness med, does not list headache as one of the symtoms it works on. :\ Anyone got first hand knowledge if it does help with _Shackycam Skullsplitters_?




Yes and no. If the headache is caused by the motion sickness then yes it works if it prevents the motion sickness. 

But sometimes shaky cam films also cause a headache because of the flickering of the picture that dramamine will not help with. If you get headaches from changes in light like the sun through trees or a disco ball light then most likely the dramine won't help.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 19, 2008)

I loved it my wife liked it.

I can understand why some might not.  But I thought it was great.

Yes there is a lot of shaky cam.  I didn't mind.

[sblock]Yes the images linked are pretty close.  
It was completely open to your own back story.  No evidence of what it really is is even hinted.
But to me personally, by the end I was certain it was Shub-Niggurath[/sblock]


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 19, 2008)

Just got back from seeing it- loved it. Didn't find the shaky cam nearly as distracting as it was in Blair Witch (and, FTR, I didn't think it was as bad in BW as most).

Unlike the OP, I thought the love story came across very well, especially during the "pre" Monster sequences. All the performers really did a great job, especially the actor playing Hud (a very good performance, given how little "face time" he gets due to his role as cameraman). 

Loved the ambiguity of it all- but then, as the screen name indicates, I'm an old-school Lovecraft horror lover who finds that true horror is that which is not explainable by the rational mind.

Yes, there is quite a bit of the monster- it was sufficient to satisfy my friend, who _is_ one of those people that likes his horror explained and seen.

If you want a typical scary movie- a splatterfest, screamfest, slasher flick, or even action terror movie- then I don't think this one's for you. It's shot the way it is to give you that feeling of what it would be like to be in the moment of some kind of real horrific event, and, in my opinion, is incredibly successful in that, generating the sort of from the gut nervousness and uncertainty that comes from finding oneself in unfamiliar situations. If it were shot in the traditional third person view, it would be a completely different sort of movie.

I highly recommend it, myself.


----------



## Soel (Jan 19, 2008)

I liked it. It's a theater movie, as the sound is lound and enveloping. I did like the characters and thought they were set up nicely. I think the shaky cam is worse than Blair Witch (which I didn't find bothersome at all,) though.

There is actually a brief allusion as to the origin of the creature...SPOILERS...


[sblock]
When leaving the triage area, the cameraman Hud sees the face of ones of the soldiers, and remarks that the soldier seems to know what the thing is. Well, the first thing you see on screen is an information slate labeled Defense Dept (leads into the found footage,) and in the lower left corner is the word DARPA, which is the real-life govt. produced agency for theoretical weapons systems development. I'm guessing Cloverfield is the name of the overall project.
[/sblock]


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 19, 2008)

Spoiler






			
				Soel said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> When leaving the triage area, the cameraman Hud sees the face of ones of the soldiers, and remarks that the soldier seems to know what the thing is. Well, the first thing you see on screen is an information slate labeled Defense Dept (leads into the found footage,) and in the lower left corner is the word DARPA, which is the real-life govt. produced agency for theoretical weapons systems development. I'm guessing Cloverfield is the name of the overall project.





Interesting catch (and theory), but isn't DARPA more of a brainstorming operation? I mean, they mostly fund smaller projects which might have potential, and if they do, then get fully funded by the relevent agencies. But then again, it's Hollywood, so maybe you are right.


Personaly I'm guessing there is no explanation, or if there is, it's related to that Slusho stuff. I was looking at website for that. 

http://www.slusho.jp/

Funny. But why make a viral marketing web site based on a fictional Japanese drink made from a mysterious deep sea ingriedient, if it doesn't have anything to do with a monster (which is supposedly from deep in the sea, I believe?)


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 19, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Spoiler stuff....




My thoughts..(Spoiler) 



Spoiler



I know it's  a little distasteful to think about, but if Slush-O's special ingredient is connected to the Cloverfield monster then I think that it might be sort of like the special ingredient of Slurm, if you catch my drift..



So yeah... it gives a whole new meaning to Slusho ZOOOM!


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 19, 2008)

Looking forward to seeing this.  Fortunately I am not affected by SCS (Shaky Camera Syndrome) (or RLS for that matter )

I wanted to mention that, if they decide to do sequel, there was talk about basically showing the same event but from other people's POV.  So you'd get a different cast; Different people in NY who are going through the same event, but have their own experiences, backstory, and camera angles.  Personally, I like this idea myself, as I don't think it's ever been done before (basically the same movie but shot at different angles w/ a different perspective).

Also, they would explain more about the origin of the monster in the sequel...

Thoughts?

PS - To those who did see it:

1) Did you feel the ending of the movie was fulfiiling?
2) Was there any sort of "resolution" at the end of the movie?
3) About how far into the movie does the action start?
4) About how har into the movie until you fully see "the monster"?

THX!


----------



## Acid_crash (Jan 19, 2008)

I liked it, it was a fun movie that lived up to its promise of putting normal people into a dangerous situation and seeing what the heck happens as they deal with it.  

I think it would have been better if there was NO love story elements at all but I still liked it.  

And the monster was scary looking, and seemed kind of familiar but I am unable to figure out what that familiarity is.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 19, 2008)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> And the monster was scary looking, and seemed kind of familiar but I am unable to figure out what that familiarity is.




Was it this:


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 19, 2008)

Okay, my wild ass therory, there is a least three monsters.  You have the big bad, the parasite, ones and then the one at the end (



Spoiler



the one that got Hud


), it seemed smaller and had a "different look".

I like the movie, it drew me in but hated the Blair Witch camera.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 19, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> THX!





*1) Did you feel the ending of the movie was fulfiiling?*
It was a ending, it left me wanting more.

*2) Was there any sort of "resolution" at the end of the movie?*
From the characters point of view, it was closure but to the viewer, no.  

*3) About how far into the movie does the action start?*
15 mins I guess, mostly setting the stage for you to know the characters.

*4) About how har into the movie until you fully see "the monster"?*
A good bit, guess in detail and completely 2/3 of the way in.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 20, 2008)

Saw it tonight.  Thought it was fantastic.  While I appreciate the opinion of those who do not like it, let me just say you SHOULD believe the hype, and you will feel left out if you don't see this one.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 20, 2008)

JorrJorr said:
			
		

> Spoiler area for those that don't want to know
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...




I wonder what it is supposed to mean as 



Spoiler



all the characters and most everyone in New York is not only mearly dead but really quite sincerly dead


 or is it just meaningless.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 20, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hmm, I have this same problem. {Blair witch was excruciatingly painful for me at the theater, even though I actually liked the movie}.
> 
> I was thinking about eating a few aspirin and sitting far back from the movie screen, but I'm worried that still might not be enough.
> 
> Dramamine, a motion sickness med, does not list headache as one of the symtoms it works on. :\ Anyone got first hand knowledge if it does help with _Shackycam Skullsplitters_?




Blair Witch made me feel a bit ill, and I sat relatively close to the screen, and dead center.

Cloverfield did not make me feel the slightest bit queasy, and we sat near the back of the theater and to one side.  So, I would suggest trying that.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 20, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> There is... something at the end of the credits, a short bit of staticy voice-over but the sound of people talking in the theater was too loud for me to make it out.




Here you go.

(Note: Spoilers in the above for those that haven't seen the movie.)


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jan 20, 2008)

I just got back and I really liked it. It was really tense and I found they hit the mark with the "you are there" feel. The acting was solid IMO, and the characters seemed natural. The ending was fairly touching and appropriate.

Also,

[sblock]I think there might have been two big monsters. The first few times they showed it, it seemed more "tentacly" and the one that ate half of Hud seemed smaller and was different looking, I think.[/sblock]

For those who haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend looking at the background when the footage cuts to the "old" footage at the end. Specifically top right. My wife and I missed it, but our friend said he saw something. I hope this wasn't too much of a spoiler, but I thought I'd let people know.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jan 20, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Here you go.
> 
> (Note: Spoilers in the above for those that haven't seen the movie.)




Awesome.

Thanks!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 20, 2008)

I, too, thought it was really good. I enjoyed the performances and the character interaction, and I didn't find the shaky-cam nearly as bad as the Blaire Witch.

[sblock]However, I don't like the idea of a sequel that involves more "found footage." They've played that card. It's done. If there's a sequel, it should be a "real" movie--complete with all the answers and explanations that this one lacked. For one POV movie, I can deal with the questions and ambiguity. But now I want my answers and my origin, damn it.

And I also had a problem with a few of the scenes during the initial attack. I understand they set this thing in New York partly for emotional resonance, but some of the scenes of destruction were _too_ close to things I saw on the news six and a half years ago. I felt like was being deliberately manipulated, and it made me a little pissed at the film makers. Not enough to ruin the movie by any means, but enough to bug me.[/sblock]


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 20, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> My thoughts..(Spoiler)
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Spoiler



I actually think it's more like those popplers from Futurama. You know, those incredibly delicious shrimp like things?  And the big monster is a little upset that humans are eating its young and thus getting some payback by going to the biggest city in the world (or close to it, I guess Mexico City is bigger, but not by the ocean)


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> [sblock]However, I don't like the idea of a sequel that involves more "found footage." They've played that card. It's done. If there's a sequel, it should be a "real" movie--complete with all the answers and explanations that this one lacked. For one POV movie, I can deal with the questions and ambiguity. But now I want my answers and my origin, damn it.[/sblock]




[Sblock]For shame! I thought you were an old-school Lovecraftian/CASianan horror buff, Mouseferatu! Don't you know that the true root of horror comes in the form of fear of the unknown? It's the rational mind that cracks when it can't process what it cannot comprehend!   

In all seriousness, though- the ambiguity of the movie in regards to the creature is what I absolutely loved about Cloverfield. Heck, even in the viral marketing info that I've been looking at since yesterday, there is a lot of ambiguity, and I think it's awesome![/Sblock]


----------



## Tetsubo (Jan 20, 2008)

My wife and I saw it Saturday. We thought it was awesome.

I liked that it didn't explain things. That it just *was*. Life is like that much of the time...

And who doesn't want a friend like Hud? This was the actors first feature film... not a bad start...

Though the shaky cam thing made my wife motion sick...


----------



## Krug (Jan 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I, too, thought it was really good. I enjoyed the performances and the character interaction, and I didn't find the shaky-cam nearly as bad as the Blaire Witch.
> 
> [sblock]However, I don't like the idea of a sequel that involves more "found footage." They've played that card. It's done. If there's a sequel, it should be a "real" movie--complete with all the answers and explanations that this one lacked. For one POV movie, I can deal with the questions and ambiguity. But now I want my answers and my origin, damn it.
> 
> And I also had a problem with a few of the scenes during the initial attack. I understand they set this thing in New York partly for emotional resonance, but some of the scenes of destruction were _too_ close to things I saw on the news six and a half years ago. I felt like was being deliberately manipulated, and it made me a little pissed at the film makers. Not enough to ruin the movie by any means, but enough to bug me.[/sblock]




[sblock]I think it'd be possible to do a sequel; maybe from the viewpoint of a military character or news reporter. Hollywood has had crappier reasons for a sequel before!

Sadly New York is an easy target because the monuments are recognizable throughout the world. How much more symbolic can you get than by destroying the Statue of Liberty? [/sblock]


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 20, 2008)

SPOILERS BELOW

and I'm not gonna use spoiler tabs, etc.  Too clunky for an open discussion/criticism.
[sblock]
---
Saw it last night and found it enjoyable.  I avoided any hype about the movie beforehand - I always do avoid hype about movies I'm actually interested in as it has always lessened the experience and clouded/colored my objective judgement of them.

In short, it was Blair Witch meets Godzilla.  It had some distinct advantages over BWP.  First was that BWP was NOT a visually oriented story but mental, cerebral, general dread.  The shaky cam then left nothing for the viewer to LOOK for.  Cloverfield, however, could at least keep you looking for more/better glimpses of the monster and the destruction it caused - which monument had it damaged/destroyed.

I saw it with a friend and as we walked out one of the first things he suggested was that it could be redone from a different POV.  I thought it was a clever idea and now I suspect he was only repeating this idea that he'd heard elsewhere.  Still, I'd go see it, even if for no other reason than, as suggested, it's never been DONE before.  I think it would be an fascinating experiment.

The acting was a bit stiff in places and the love story angle just did not work.  As with so many movies there was a mistake in assuming that STATING that a relationship exists is equal to SHOWING visually that a relationship exists.  It was therefore difficult to believe the love story.  It was also difficult to identify with the characters as much as we might want to as the establishing scenes at the party wound up being quite superficial.  When the action really starts we still don't know any more about the characters.  I think it would have been better to have run it strictly as a get-out-of-Manhattan plot than a rescue-my supposed girlfriend plot, especially as there was NO real motivation demonstrated for anyone but the boyfriend to walk into that level of danger.

And as for RigaMortus questions:
*1) Did you feel the ending of the movie was fulfiiling?*
It FIT the rest of the movie, but it was understandably unfulfilling as it leaves the plot unresolved.

*2) Was there any sort of "resolution" at the end of the movie?*
Nope.  Everybody dies.  Well, not EVERYBODY - one main character was airlifted out near the end.

*3) About how far into the movie does the action start?*
I didn't check my watch, but maybe... 15 minutes?  And the action begins without any prelude/foreshadowing.

*4) About how har into the movie until you fully see "the monster"?*
The first fleeting glimpse is 5 minutes or so after the action starts.  As the movie unfolds you get more and better views of it.  I'd say the first really decent look at it isn't until well after the first half.  The two best shots of any stability and duration are at the end - one from the air and one from directly beneath.  Otherwise if you see the whole thing - you see it only very briefly, if you see it for any length of time then you don't get to see the whole thing at once.  The camera doesn't ever follow the monster - it follows the characters, or looks away as it would when held by a person FLEEING from the monster.  You get to see it - and then you RUN away or towards shelter.

It's not the greatest thing since Citizen Kane, but it is enjoyable.  Unfortunately the shaky-cam thing is a problem for a lot of people, yet it is APPROPRIATE for the live-on-the-scene POV.
[/sblock]

Since the thread isn't marked as 'SPOILERS' and most people are still using spoiler tags, please think of others and use spoiler tags yourself. the sblock is a simple little thing to us.

Thanks - Plane Sailing


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 20, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> [Sblock]For shame! I thought you were an old-school Lovecraftian/CASianan horror buff, Mouseferatu! Don't you know that the true root of horror comes in the form of fear of the unknown? It's the rational mind that cracks when it can't process what it cannot comprehend!
> 
> In all seriousness, though- the ambiguity of the movie in regards to the creature is what I absolutely loved about Cloverfield. Heck, even in the viral marketing info that I've been looking at since yesterday, there is a lot of ambiguity, and I think it's awesome![/Sblock]




That'd be fine for an actual Lovecraftian tale.  This wasn't it, though.

What can I say? Except in _very specific_ types of stories, I want my answers.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 20, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> [sblock]Sadly New York is an easy target because the monuments are recognizable throughout the world. How much more symbolic can you get than by destroying the Statue of Liberty? [/sblock]




Oh, I understand the use of New York. And their use of the monuments worked; that wasn't the part I had a problem with, precisely because it _is_ such a trope and a solid technique.

It was some of the more _innocuous_ scenes of destruction (if that's not a contradiction)--the smoke and papers billowing through the streets, streets that are recognizably NY despite the _lack_ of monuments--that I felt was a bit too close to reality for my tastes.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jan 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oh, I understand the use of New York. And their use of the monuments worked; that wasn't the part I had a problem with, precisely because it _is_ such a trope and a solid technique.
> 
> It was some of the more _innocuous_ scenes of destruction (if that's not a contradiction)--the smoke and papers billowing through the streets, streets that are recognizably NY despite the _lack_ of monuments--that I felt was a bit too close to reality for my tastes.




My wife's comment to me at this moment in the film, "They didn't need to make that up..."


----------



## dravot (Jan 21, 2008)

I liked it a lot.  After about 10 minutes, I didn't notice the shaky camera anymore.  I was ready to root for the monster to eat everyone by the end of the party though.    

The romance part may not have been on par with Romeo and Juliet, but it was good enough for what it needed to do - motivate the characters into doing an extra 15 minutes worth of storyline.

Cut it out and the movie would be long enough for an ABC After School Special, and not much more.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 21, 2008)

Yeah it certainly wasn't the best film, but I viewed it simply more as... So this is what it would be like to view a giant-monster attack from the ground-floor. That I think they did well, the characters and other humans really do feel insignificant and small compared to the monster.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 21, 2008)

If there is a sequel - and the money it has made means that is possible - I wonder where it will be set.

New York again? Chicago? L.A.?


----------



## Krug (Jan 21, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> If there is a sequel - and the money it has made means that is possible - I wonder where it will be set.
> 
> New York again? Chicago? L.A.?




Mount Rushmore. Then they can send four heads tumbling down the streets.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 21, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> Well don't believe the hype. I found it disappointing, with characters thinner than cardboard. The attraction of the film seems to be finding out what the monster actually is, so it all became a matter of waiting for the money shot. It's all framed within a highly unpersuasive love story, and it reminds one of what a masterpiece the Korean monster flick *The Host* is.



I think you missed the point of the movie: This is what it's like to be an innocent bystander in a monster movie. The attraction of the film is humanizing the rubber monster suit genre.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 21, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> it reminds one of what a masterpiece the Korean monster flick *The Host* is.




Somehow, I missed this line on my first go-round.

Masterpiece? Really?   God, I couldn't even finish watching that movie.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 21, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 1) Did you feel the ending of the movie was fulfiiling?



Yes. The story of the folks at the party is tied up very nicely.


> 2) Was there any sort of "resolution" at the end of the movie?



Yes.


> 3) About how far into the movie does the action start?



10-20 minutes.


> 4) About how har into the movie until you fully see "the monster"?



Maybe 45 minutes.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 21, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Somehow, I missed this line on my first go-round.
> 
> Masterpiece? Really?   God, I couldn't even finish watching that movie.



Much nodding.

The first 40 minutes was insanely bad on every level.  I'm unable to comment on anything beyond that.


----------



## Krug (Jan 21, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Much nodding.
> 
> The first 40 minutes was insanely bad on every level.  I'm unable to comment on anything beyond that.




I liked it and I cared for the characters, as well as its humour. The characters in *Cloverfield* I didn't much give a damn about. As others have pointed out, CF is a feature-length gimmick, and I found the first 15 minutes or so before the monster appeared excruciatingly banal.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 21, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> I liked it and I cared for the characters, as well as its humour. The characters in *Cloverfield* I didn't much give a damn about. As others have pointed out, CF is a feature-length gimmick, and I found the first 15 minutes or so before the monster appeared excruciatingly banal.



Thats fine.

I don't know that I cared greatly for the characters in Cloverfield.  I simply accepted their motivations as an understood for the movie.  I was very engaged in seeing how it all played out.  

I thought they were presented far better than the semi-one dimensional cartoon figures that over acted one note stereotypes in The Host.  There are very few movies that I decide are not worth seeing through to the end.  The Host made the choice easy.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 21, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oh, I understand the use of New York. And their use of the monuments worked; that wasn't the part I had a problem with, precisely because it _is_ such a trope and a solid technique.
> 
> It was some of the more _innocuous_ scenes of destruction (if that's not a contradiction)--the smoke and papers billowing through the streets, streets that are recognizably NY despite the _lack_ of monuments--that I felt was a bit too close to reality for my tastes.



A can see your point, but the way I see it sis: Before we had no idea what the destruction of a city would 'really' look like. So, we would settle for big explosions and car wrecks. Now, sadly, we know exactly what it really looks like. Unfortunatly, to depict in in the old 'traditional' way would seem much less believable. Anyway, the scene did not anger me, but it did bring back painful memories. I don't know that that's a bad thing.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 21, 2008)

An interesting quote from wiwkipedia about the reception of the original Godzilla in post-Hiroshima Japan.

*When first released in Japan in 1954, critics blasted the film for exploiting the horrors that the Japanese public had witnessed nine years before as well as the incident with the Lucky Dragon Number 5 that took place months before the film was made and released. However, as time went on, the film became widely respected in its home country and some in Japan believed that the film was second only to Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai as an exceptionally well made film.*

Obviously I'm not trying to say it will become known as one of the greatest American films.  But the more broad point is interesting.  Also, Godzilla was clearly a direct commentary and I don't think that was a point in Coverfield.  But the one scene was, without question, strongly influenced by 9/11.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 21, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Much nodding.
> 
> The first 40 minutes was insanely bad on every level.  I'm unable to comment on anything beyond that.




The rest of it is worse. Much, much worse. You saw the _best_ parts of the movie.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 21, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> A can see your point, but the way I see it sis: Before we had no idea what the destruction of a city would 'really' look like. So, we would settle for big explosions and car wrecks. Now, sadly, we know exactly what it really looks like. Unfortunatly, to depict in in the old 'traditional' way would seem much less believable. Anyway, the scene did not anger me, but it did bring back painful memories. I don't know that that's a bad thing.



Remember that Tokyo had the same resonance for Japanese audiences with Gojira. They watched it and saw post-bombing Hiroshima.

The entire rubber monster suit genre is supposed to give these sorts of uncomfortable twangs. I think it's just been a long time that it did this for American audiences, if it ever did.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 21, 2008)

My review in Haiku:

GAP models screaming
a few buildings knocked over
should have watched Juno​


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 21, 2008)

I can't understand why people dislike the party scene so much. This is what sets up the characterization and motivations for the rest of the film. It's a classic 'don't tell, show' sort of deal. And, it's funny. It's your climb up that first tower before the rollercoaster ride begins.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 21, 2008)

You could really tell it was getting to the audience when I went, people were mumbling, etc. One person muttered quite loudly, "where is the god damn monster, I want to see some people get eaten!"


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 21, 2008)

Movie goers seem to forget how this movie is being presented to them, they are given the video tape; Cloverfield and are reviewers of the events that happened.  This movie was about finding the video after the fact.  This presentation is important in how the movie was filmed, you were not there, you are an outsider looking in.


----------



## threshel (Jan 21, 2008)

I frickin LOVED this movie.
The point-of-view (not "realism" - it's a monster movie for pete's sake!) is great; I don't get motion sickness, although I feel for those who do...
I like stories that aren't afraid to just *be*.  We get too much of the wrapped-up-in-a-bow-and-fully-explained that it gets frustrating sometimes.  Imagine, an entire movie with nearly no exposition!  What little exposition exisited was very well handled.

Now, I know that there's tons of movies with ambiguous endings and little exposition.  But how many of them trip the geek meter like this one?  Happy synergy abounds...

My recommendation, if you're not prone to motion-sickness, is to see it immediately!

J

Edit - heck, I might go see it again just for the little things I may have missed...


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 22, 2008)

The movie kicked butt at the box office, is getting good buzz, and good reviews from some touch critics.  Looks like it won in the court of public opinion (and I think it's well deserved).


----------



## Krug (Jan 22, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I can't understand why people dislike the party scene so much. This is what sets up the characterization and motivations for the rest of the film. It's a classic 'don't tell, show' sort of deal. And, it's funny. It's your climb up that first tower before the rollercoaster ride begins.




The setup was so overrun with cliches. Oh the girlfriend and the protagonist are having problems and she's now dating some French dude. I don't think it would have made much difference if there wasn't that little complication; maybe he'd just hesitate a second less before deciding to save Beth. 

And Hud, who tells everyone a secret he's not supposed to tell, or his crush on that other girl which just leads to embarrassment. 

Yeah I know it's establishing character and all, but it was like bad juvenile soap opera. Thank the stars the monster landed and saved us from the inaneness!


----------



## Krug (Jan 22, 2008)

More Cloverfield monster attacks.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 22, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> The setup was so overrun with cliches. Oh the girlfriend and the protagonist are having problems and she's now dating some French dude.




Oh- you mean except for the part where she's _not_ his girlfriend? That they were just friends who finally gave in to their feelings and were trying to deal with what that meant in light of a) his leaving, and b) his feelings of inadequacy?

The establishment of which- and the loss of another loved one early on- were necessary to prompt his actions that led to the rest of the movie afterwards?

Yeah- I can see how all of that was pretty unnecessary.


----------



## Krug (Jan 22, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Oh- you mean except for the part where she's _not_ his girlfriend? That they were just friends who finally gave in to their feelings and were trying to deal with what that meant in light of a) his leaving, and b) his feelings of inadequacy?
> 
> The establishment of which- and the loss of another loved one early on- were necessary to prompt his actions that led to the rest of the movie afterwards?
> 
> Yeah- I can see how all of that was pretty unnecessary.




Yeah I'm glad you agree about how contrived it was. It was like a bad episode of Felicity.  

And lets not even get started on the motivation for the other characters/monster fodder...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 22, 2008)

Boxoffice take as of 01.22.2008


Domestic:  $46,037,000 (91.3%) + Foreign:  $4,388,568  (8.7%) = Worldwide:  $50,425,568   

What is REALLY important to remember is that this movie has a listed budget of 25 million!  Yep, 25 million, no names stars!


----------



## BryonD (Jan 22, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> Yeah I'm glad you agree about how contrived it was. It was like a bad episode of Felicity.
> 
> And lets not even get started on the motivation for the other characters/monster fodder...



It didn't strike me as contrived at all.  It seemed like a perfectly natural relationship.
Unless you find the kind of stupid stuff people do all the time to over complicate their lives "contrived".  I mean there are probably only a few million people right now dealing with some slight variation of the basic conflict that the main guy and his girlfriend had.  I doubt they find their lives contrived.

Now, they could have spent 45 minutes building it up in convincing detail.  Or they could just state most of it for the record and assume the audience is willing to fill in some blanks themselves in order to get on with the main story.

It was no more contrived than getting caught at a red light. And a hell of a lot less contrived than the majority of Hollywood stuff.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 22, 2008)

*Monster Island 90210*



			
				Krug said:
			
		

> Yeah I know it's establishing character and all, but it was like bad juvenile soap opera. Thank the stars the monster landed and saved us from the inaneness!



Thank the gods, I thought I was the only one.

I love thrill-ride movies as much as the next guy, but this was like trying to enjoy the Universal Studios Kong Encounter while _the OC _is being filmed in your tram.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 22, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Thank the gods, I thought I was the only one.
> 
> I love thrill-ride movies as much as the next guy, but this was like trying to enjoy the Universal Studios Kong Encounter while _the OC _is being filmed in your tram.



Can you explain how this was closer to the OC than it was to a lot of real life relationships?  

I mean seriously, its starting to sound like people on a D&D board living up to the stereotype in regard to knowing what real world relationships can be like. 

Again, if you hated the film, fine.  But saying that 15 minutes spent setting up a pretty normal relationship and expecting the audience to accept some assumptions equates to episode after episode of convoluted date swapping and truly contrived social complexities is boggling.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jan 22, 2008)

Well, I saw it last night.  Overall, I enjoyed it, but the ending left me feeling a bit unsatisfied.  It WAS more or less telegraphed what happened with the characters but I'd have liked a bit more closure.  Maybe a bit after the footage (Or even at the beginning) explaining just a bit more. 

[sblock=For Example]What happened to Marlene?  It's obvious it was tied to the parasite's bite, but what EXACTLY happened?  Aliens style gust busting?  Highly contagious disease carried by them?  The people at the station seemed highly excited over it and were rushing to get her elsewhere.

We also know the place was calm enough that they were able to retrieve the footage, but I'd have liked to have known the overall aftermath.  Heck, if they do a sequel, possibly parallel what happened with 9/11 even further, and follow the people who volunteered after the disaster and follow what happens as they document it and look for survivors.[/sblock]


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 22, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> I don't think it would have made much difference if there wasn't that little complication; maybe he'd just hesitate a second less before deciding to save Beth.



Well, except for the little issue of, 'If she _was_ his girlfriend and everything was sunshine and lollipops, she wouldn't have left the party. Therefore, no reason to turn around and go back into the city when she called. Everyone would have either 



Spoiler



died on the bridge or gotten out of the city in the first 30 minutes.


'
End movie. That would have been boring.


----------



## Krug (Jan 22, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> [sblock=For Example]What happened to Marlene?  It's obvious it was tied to the parasite's bite, but what EXACTLY happened?  Aliens style gust busting?  Highly contagious disease carried by them?  The people at the station seemed highly excited over it and were rushing to get her elsewhere.
> 
> We also know the place was calm enough that they were able to retrieve the footage, but I'd have liked to have known the overall aftermath.  Heck, if they do a sequel, possibly parallel what happened with 9/11 even further, and follow the people who volunteered after the disaster and follow what happens as they document it and look for survivors.[/sblock]




[sblock]I thought she exploded and that's it.[/sblock]


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 22, 2008)

Well, I ended up seeing it, and here are my brief thoughts...

I liked it a lot.  I wasn't into the hype of the movie, but I was interested in seeing.  Actually, when I first saw the teaser trailer during the Transformers movie, I WAS into the hype, but as time went on, the hype wore-off.  I went into the movie with low expectations because I heard mixed reviews, but deep down, I was really interested in seeing it.

So all said and done, I did enjoy it a lot.  So did my wife.  I don't think a lot of people in the theater liked it though, they seemed disappointed with the ending from their reactions.

Oh, and as for the shaky camera thing...  Its been a long time since I saw Blair Witch, but I really thought the shaky camera was WORSE than Blair Witch.  JMHO.  SCS (Shaky Camera Syndrome) doesn't affect me anyway


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 22, 2008)

BoxOfficeMojo's Reviewers Ratings
As:  304  62.6% 
Bs:  102  21.0% 
Cs:  29  6.0% 
Ds:  7  1.4% 
Fs:  44  9.1%


----------



## Shade (Jan 22, 2008)

Loved it!

And apparently, it's true.    

Bloop
Slow Down


----------



## bgardner (Jan 22, 2008)

*Cloverfield FAQ*

I did some looking around and this seems to be the most comprehensive FAQ out there about Cloverfield.  There are spoiler tags.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 22, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> And Hud, who tells everyone a secret he's not supposed to tell, or his crush on that other girl which just leads to embarrassment.



Have you never been to a party at which alcohol was served?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jan 22, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> Yeah I know it's establishing character and all, but it was like bad juvenile soap opera. Thank the stars the monster landed and saved us from the inaneness!




If there's anything I've learned about life within the past year-and-a-half, inaneness is part and parcel of having relationships, sometimes life really is a bad juvenile soap opera.


----------



## Felon (Jan 22, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> The setup was so overrun with cliches. Oh the girlfriend and the protagonist are having problems and she's now dating some French dude. I don't think it would have made much difference if there wasn't that little complication; maybe he'd just hesitate a second less before deciding to save Beth.
> 
> And Hud, who tells everyone a secret he's not supposed to tell, or his crush on that other girl which just leads to embarrassment.
> 
> Yeah I know it's establishing character and all, but it was like bad juvenile soap opera. Thank the stars the monster landed and saved us from the inaneness!






			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> Thank the gods, I thought I was the only one.
> 
> I love thrill-ride movies as much as the next guy, but this was like trying to enjoy the Universal Studios Kong Encounter while _the OC _is being filmed in your tram.



Sweet Jesus, people. The movie's got about fifteen minutes to establish some characters and their relationships so that the audience will have a sense of investment in them. How elaborate or exotic should they really be shooting for here? Or, for that matter, how minimalist?

People cheat on each other. People get infatuated with other people who don't know they exist.


----------



## atom crash (Jan 22, 2008)

I enjoyed _Cloverfield_ and am considering going to see it again. (If you knew how rarely I pay to see movies at the theater, you'd realize that this statement in itself is a high form of praise. I saw 6 films at the theater in 2007, not counting the ones I had free passes for and the ones I saw months after release at the $1 theater.) 

The content and execution were excellent, IMO, and it's brilliant in the fact that it offers a fresh new take on the monster movie genre.

I've often watched Godzilla movies and wondered to myself, "That little guy down there who is running away from Godzilla, whose buddy just got stomped on, what's his story? And that guy who is gawking while the military is trying to bring the monster down? Why doesn't he run away like any sane person should be doing?" 

That's what _Cloverfield_ gives me. I've got plenty of films to choose from about a monster destroying the city. But now I've got a film that shows me what is happening to the average people on the street -- from their perspective -- while the monster attack is going on.

I remember thinking while watching the Transformers movie that there were a whole ton of people on the street while Optimus Prime and Megatron were crashing onto cars and through office buildings. I was thinking, "What is going through that guy's mind when they crash through his board meeting? Why are all those idiots standing around on the street while these two huge robots smash up everything in sight?" 

To be fair to those idiots on the street in the movie, if I was in the same situation I'd be torn between the urge to run away and the urge to get closer to see exactly what's going on. I'd probably be rooted to the spot in fear and indecision, and my hesitation would most likely get me killed really quickly.

I found the characters in _Cloverfield_ to be very believable, given the context that they're supposed to be regular people, not adventure movie heroes. For those of you who think they acted unrealistically, I guess you have higher expectations than me for ability of the average person to think rationally and keep it together when unbelievably bad things are happening all around them. Would I be friends with these people if I met them at a party or worked in the same office? Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to tell based on such a small snippet of their lives. But by the middle of the film I certainly cared what happened to them. And I definitely didn't think they deserved some disastrous fate.

To me, the actions of the characters make perfect sense. After losing his brother, the main character is on a mission to save his would-be girlfriend -- he's had a crush on her for years, they finally hooked up a month ago, now their relationship is strained because he's leaving the country, they had a bad fight earlier at the party, the last thing he said to her was intended to hurt her feelings, and now he knows she's hurt in her apartment and needs help. OK, that's believable to me. 

Why did the others go along with him? The way I see it, they went along for a number of reasons: 1) they knew they couldn't talk Rob out of going, 2) they didn't want him going off alone, 3) they figured it was better to be with people they knew than by themselves. Facing the fear of the unknown looked better when surrounded by friends. And look what happened to them when they split up the group earlier on the bridge.

Plus, the monster didn't seem to be after *them* specifically, so it's reasonable to assume they figured if they could steer clear of it they'd be okay.

My wife couldn't get past the fact that the two women in the movie didn't take the time to get more comfortable shoes when they left the tunnels and emerged in the department store. I don't think they were thinking about things like footwear at the moment.

What was the creature? Where did it come from? Why was it attacking the city? The movie offers no explanations, but to me it's the not knowing what is going on that makes the events of the film more horrific.

I've never been so deeply affected by watching a movie. Sure, watching _Alien_ as a kid gave me nightmares, but I had vivid dreams for two nights that the events of the movie were happening to me. I guess it's partly because everything in the film is seen through the first-person perspective.

Anyway, I'd not want to see another film like this for some time, but I'm glad I saw _Cloverfield_.


----------



## Krug (Jan 22, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Sweet Jesus, people. The movie's got about fifteen minutes to establish some characters and their relationships so that the audience will have a sense of investment in them. How elaborate or exotic should they really be shooting for here? Or, for that matter, how minimalist?
> 
> People cheat on each other. People get infatuated with other people who don't know they exist.




You don't get the point. The characters were stock, and after that 15 minutes of clumsy establishment, were still stock. I didn't feel any more sense of investment in them than the character Drew Barrymore played in Scream for about ten minutes.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 22, 2008)

I couldn't have put it better myself, atom crash. What you said sums up exactly how I felt about the movie.


----------



## atom crash (Jan 22, 2008)

RigaMortus2, thanks to post #42, now I've got this crazy idea for a one-shot D&D adventure where the PCs are low-level characters trying to survive on the streets of the Free City while epic-level heroes battle the recently awakened tarrasque as it rampages through the city streets.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 22, 2008)

Krug said:
			
		

> You don't get the point. The characters were stock, and after that 15 minutes of clumsy establishment, were still stock. I didn't feel any more sense of investment in them than the character Drew Barrymore played in Scream for about ten minutes.



If that is your point, then you don't get the point.


----------



## Felon (Jan 22, 2008)

My only real disappointment is that when it really mattered--when Hud goes face-to-face with the monster--the sense of scale fails. I didn't feel like I was looking up something gargantuan enough to topple buildings.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 22, 2008)

atom crash said:
			
		

> RigaMortus2, thanks to post #42, now I've got this crazy idea for a one-shot D&D adventure where the PCs are low-level characters trying to survive on the streets of the Free City while epic-level heroes battle the recently awakened tarrasque as it rampages through the city streets.



That would be a lot of fun. Most of the movie would be applicable, I think.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 23, 2008)

I really liked the movie. I just posted on this at the WotC boards, so I won't go into too much more here...

Certainly, though, this is not a movie you should watch if you get motion sick. They even had signs at the ticket office at the theater warning people about the movie.

As for the discussion in the original post... I see how this was probably inspired by _The Host_. At the same time, I like this movie a _lot_ more than that terribly nonsensical and painfully political movie.

Cloverfield completely disregards politics or simple messages and focuses on a distilled form of human experience, which is how I think a good piece of art should be. And Cloverfield is a piece of art. If you are looking for cheap thrills and a good monster rampage which gets tied up neatly with a bow, don't bother with this movie, since it is trying to do something very different. I think it is a much needed redemption of the monster genre, since far too many movies in that genre treat human lives far too lightly.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jan 23, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> My only real disappointment is that when it really mattered--when Hud goes face-to-face with the monster--the sense of scale fails. I didn't feel like I was looking up something gargantuan enough to topple buildings.




[sblock] That's why some are thinking there were two monsters (in addition to the parasites)[/sblock]


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 23, 2008)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> [sblock] That's why some are thinking there were two monsters (in addition to the parasites)[/sblock]



[sblock]Nope, Abrams has said that there is only one monster, the scale gets borked because of the range/angle of that shot. (I'll try to find that again today)[/sblock]

Edit:
[sblock]Found it. It was actually the director who said it. It is in the FAQ linked previously.



> Note that the big monster is not the only monster in the film. There are smaller, similar-looking monsters attached to the big one. We see these small monsters attacking people throughout the movie. Theories also suggest there is more than one larger monster due to what appears to be size changes, however, the director, Matt Reeves, said that the monster only appears smaller due to how it was filmed.



[/sblock]


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> [sblock]Nope, Abrams has said that there is only one monster, the scale gets borked because of the range/angle of that shot. (I'll try to find that again today)[/sblock]
> 
> Edit:
> [sblock]Found it. It was actually the director who said it. It is in the FAQ linked previously.
> ...




Yeah, I saw that after I posted. LOL

I guess that is one of my few beefs about the movie: the monster just was a little lacking IMO.


----------



## Felon (Jan 25, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> [sblock]Nope, Abrams has said that there is only one monster, the scale gets borked because of the range/angle of that shot. (I'll try to find that again today)[/sblock]
> 
> Edit:
> [sblock]Found it. It was actually the director who said it. It is in the FAQ linked previously.
> ...



Yeah, there needed to be some other objects in the shot to maintain the sense of scale, and perhaps the focus is a little too sharp for something that's supposed to be 100 feet or so up in the air.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 26, 2008)

atom crash said:
			
		

> RigaMortus2, thanks to post #42, now I've got this crazy idea for a one-shot D&D adventure where the PCs are low-level characters trying to survive on the streets of the Free City while epic-level heroes battle the recently awakened tarrasque as it rampages through the city streets.




Sounds like a great idea.  I might do that myself.  I'll call the adventure Shamrockfield (heh).


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 6, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The movie kicked butt at the box office, is getting good buzz, and good reviews from some touch critics.  Looks like it won in the court of public opinion (and I think it's well deserved).



Guess not. What a tremendous dive!

(And I'm glad. Hopefully it'll disabuse any studio from making more movies with that shaky cam nonsense.)



> and you will feel left out if you don't see this one.



How wrong you are. (And usually the predicament one gets into when they think they know how others will feel.)


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 7, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Guess not. What a tremendous dive!
> 
> (And I'm glad. Hopefully it'll disabuse any studio from making more movies with that shaky cam nonsense.)




Doubtful, considering that it earned double it's budget in the first week alone.


----------



## Merlion (Feb 7, 2008)

I enjoyed it enormously. I dont think having "stock characters" is much of an issue...they are "stock" for a reason, plus that isnt what the movie is about.  A part of me is annoyed by not knowing more details, but I apreciate the fact that they did it. I think we will probably see more movies and other media unravelling the story as time goes on.

I had at least one dream directly resulting from this movie...of course, I have dreams about water/sea monsters on a regular basis anyway, but I could tell this one was due to seeing the movie.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 7, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Doubtful, considering that it earned double it's budget in the first week alone.



I suspect that has less to do with being "shaky cam", and more with being "cheaply made". (Though there is a little bit of correlation.)


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 7, 2008)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I had at least one dream directly resulting from this movie...of course, I have dreams about water/sea monsters on a regular basis anyway, but I could tell this one was due to seeing the movie.



 So, have you read any H. P. Lovecraft?


----------



## Merlion (Feb 7, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> So, have you read any H. P. Lovecraft?






  Ohh yes. I've had those kinds of dreams frequently all my life though, even from before I could read anything.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2008)

Saw the move back on the weekend.  

Normally, I cannot read in buses or cars without getting motion sickness, but the movie didn't bother me, thankfully.  My wife didn't fair quite as well.  Not bad enough to spoil her appreciation of the movie, but the lingering effects were unfortunate.

Anyway, I liked it, a lot.  I think the shaky-cam needs to be restricted to very specific uses - I wouldn't want to see it become a common technique.  But, on occasion, it does just the right thing for the movie.

It had monster, it had apocalypse, it had plucky characters, it had interesting point of view.  My day was complete


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 7, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I suspect that has less to do with being "shaky cam", and more with being "cheaply made". (Though there is a little bit of correlation.)




Regardless, you made the assertion that "Hopefully it'll disabuse any studio from making more movies with that shaky cam nonsense", and I pointed out that given its success, it's unlikely to dissuade anyone from making more. Hell, with returns like that, the studios will probably let the sequel be filmed on stilts if that's how Matt Reeves wants to shoot it.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Hell, with returns like that, the studios will probably let the sequel be filmed on stilts if that's how Matt Reeves wans to shoot it.




Stilts?  Hm.  Really tall stilts - he'll film the next one from a point of view on the tippy-top of the monster's head...


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 7, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Stilts?  Hm.  Really tall stilts - he'll film the next one from a point of view on the tippy-top of the monster's head...




Better yet, in its mouth. Talk about your shaky cams!


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 8, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Regardless, you made the assertion that "Hopefully it'll disabuse any studio from making more movies with that shaky cam nonsense", and I pointed out that given its success, it's unlikely to dissuade anyone from making more. Hell, with returns like that, the studios will probably let the sequel be filmed on stilts if that's how Matt Reeves wants to shoot it.



Heh.  _Now_ I'm interested. 

But there is no "regardless", since I consider your point to be incorrect. I think (hope) that the tremendous drop _will_ dissuade them from making more shaky cam stuff, and instead concentrate on the "cheaply made" part (make money back quickly, _and_ maybe prevent steep and quick box office declines).


----------

