'Cloverfield' movie thread

[socalMAN123]

My brother has already ruined the movie for me. Epically lame, now when I go see it, I'm already gonna know what happens. *sigh*

---Brent

[SonOfBeastSucks]

SPOILER...sorta/kinda...not really, but:

 

Does anybody else (who has seen it) think that the ending made it seem like there will be sequels? There could be Cloverfield II, III, IV, V...oh, boy!

[twg519]

^Especially if you heard the audio played backwards after the credits.

[SonOfBeastSucks]

^ I left during the credits. What did it say?

[lil jimmy norton]

SPOILER...sorta/kinda...not really, but:

 

Does anybody else (who has seen it) think that the ending made it seem like there will be sequels? There could be Cloverfield II, III, IV, V...oh, boy!

Yeah, there will almost definitly be a sequel. And the audio at the end, played backwards says, " Its not dead yet".

[alpengeist04]

A sequel is a definite possibility and was talked about during the shooting of Cloverfield. That was mentioned by Matt Reeves himself in a interview. He mentioned another group of people shooting the whole thing in another part of the city as a possible way of doing it.

[Voyage_luvr]

Wow, just saw it. It is amazingly intense! I got goosebumps because it felt so real. I think out of all the monster movies this is as real as it gets.

 

10/10 Just simply amazing!

[ZipityDoDog]

I think it was all about the way the movie was shot. I think it was the only way to get the 1st person perspective which made the movie more intense and believable.

[alpengeist04]

Cloverfield will be #1 at the box office this week. ...What a shock.

 

A stealth marketing campaign and surprisingly positive reviews propelled Paramount Pictures' monster movie "Cloverfield" to box-office records with a holiday-weekend opening headed for nearly $50 million over four days.

 

"Cloverfield" -- whose title and plot were kept under wraps until recently as the studio fueled a viral online promotion -- beat predictions by bringing in more older viewers than expected given the genre and cast of young unknowns.

 

The audience was 60% male and 45% older than 25, Paramount said Sunday, and the website Rotten Tomatoes said the PG-13 offering got the thumbs-up from 76% of critics.

 

Quoted from the LA Times.

[griffon]

the website Rotten Tomatoes said the PG-13 offering got the thumbs-up from 76% of critics.

 

That's interesting news. When I saw it on Friday, the overwhelming reaction in the theater from people leaving was negative. Some were actually booing when it ended.

 

Personally, I thought the movie was very well made; the special effects and acting were great. However, the story was pretty lame. I still can't figure out how the main character risked his life so many times trying to save the same person he was in the process of leaving when it all started. I guess if he had followed the evacuation orders like everyone else then it wouldn't have been much of a story. But still, he was in the process of leaving her to go to Japan.. then all the sudden he needs to go back and save her? I just didn't buy it.

[buttonman700]

We saw it last night, and well, we loved it. It's a very complex film and if you're not paying attention you're going to miss so much.

 

Yes the camera work is all handheld and jumpy. Didn't bother us, FAR BETTER THAN BLAIR WITCH, as a matter of fact this I am sorry I even mentioned Blair Witch in comparison to Cloverfield, there is none. Cloverfield is a technical masterpiece. The special effects blend wonderfully.

 

The way you get to know the main characters, is clever. The film doesn't waste time on creature back story, it's not just about the monster. The creature, like in Jaws, on any other great horror film, in more in your mind than on screen. The real terror is how people deal with the situation.

 

The ending is what I had hoped for, I hope Matt Reeves and JJ, get together and make a number two.

 

We too heard people shuffling out bitching about the film... People don't understand a a move if it's not a 'Hollywood" style film.

 

My hats off to the film makers for making a new stylish horror film, were the people are in real danger.

[Adrenaline_Rush]

I think that a sequel is almost definite. I cant wait....

[kraken613]

I really liked it! My Sister didnt but I did! It wasnt about telling you how the monster came about or why or what happens in the end! I think Cloverfeild 2 is a definate. I think it will be the same event but a different perspective maybe? I really enjoyed it!

 

9/10

[RAWKIN_coaster38]

I only saw posters for it and a few ads but now I'm convinced I want to see it. If it came out on the 18th of January maybe I'll only have wait until... March before it comes to our one-movie-a-week small town theater.

[Carnage]

I guess if he had followed the evacuation orders like everyone else then it wouldn't have been much of a story.

 

Exactly. Sure would be a boring movie if they just left right away, only to watch CNN for another hour.

 

If movies were just like real life they'd be boring. It's more exciting when the victim runs up the stairs instead of out the front door.

 

I thought the movie was great. Mostly because it was just so different then your typical Hollywood action flick.

 

The only real parts where the camera bothered me was some of the "busier" scenes. Like when the camera man turns to run as lots of stuff is going on around him. Gets kind of dizzy at those points.

 

Funny that this move was SO much better then Godzilla, at a fraction of the cost. At least in this one the monster wasn't dodging missiles Matrix style, and the military wasn't doing more damage then the monster did.

[haiderodes]

I just got home from seeing it...I enjoyed it immensely! I think it all has to do with how it was shot. Yes it was shaky and some people had to leave the theatre because of it, but it was great. If you havent seen it, just sit further back and you should be fine.

 

They did a great job and building up to seeing the monster. I thought it was cool you never saw it for too long which was one of the fatal flaws of "Signs."...hat movie was great until you saw the damn thing in such a long scene. Ruins the intensity.

 

Cloverfield was intense. People were NOT talking in this movie...everyone was engrossed. Cant wait to see the sequel/prequel/whatever they come up with. I like that they didn't tell us too much about the monster...we just know its there and it doesn't like humans very much.

 

Whenever I see a movie, I try to ignore what others say and just ask myself "Was I entertained?" If the answer is yes, then it was worth my time and money.

 

Can't wait to see what fun stuff is going to be on the DVD.[/img]

[SharkTums]

So after reading in depth spoilers, reviews, and all kinds of stuff for this movie I saw it today.

 

I did really like it, the shaky cam wasn't as bad as I had prepared myself for. I don't like people though, so if they do another one I hope it focuses more on where the monster came from.

[sfotkid]

I hope it focuses more on where the monster came from.

 

I think it Robb in a Godzilla suit. Any ways I doubt they would do another one. If they did It would be in a another city with another title. Cloverfield was the goverment name thing. They cant have two goverment names the same

[darklingscribe]

I enjoyed the film and thought it was a different and a good example of how to deal with with a tired genre. The way to make an effective monster movie is not to focus on the monster but to focus on the people, it seems too many films have forgotten that lately. Focusing on the characters rather than the monster is what made Jaws, Alien, and other classics of the genre so timeless.

 

The only thing that irked me about the film is that the characters constantly refer to the camera and argue about if they should be filming or not. I think it alienated a few people in the audience because of this. In films, horror films especially, you don't want to constantly remind the audience that they are watching a movie, it distances the viewers from the story. Admittedly this is kind of hard to do in a film presented in the "shot by the actors" way. From what I remember of Blair Witch, aside from the opening scenes, the characters never discussed the handling or operating of their cameras, which made the movie more effective as the tension ramped up.

 

I'll defend the Blair Witch Project as a good film to anyone. I think the main reason why a lot of people dislike the movie was because of the out of control hype it sparked. No low budget film could ever live up to such marketing. Cloverfield's opinion is also suffering from it's marketing campaign, even though, like Blair Witch, many critics who try not to follow such campaigns think it is a good movie.

[bigstevet07]

I really liked it. The way that it was filmed kept you in suspense the whole time. The camera shaking wasn't nearly as bad as peole said it was. We sat the second to last row and it was perfectly fine. I think I may have to go see it again, just to make sure i didn't miss anything.

[haiderodes]

 

The only thing that irked me about the film is that the characters constantly refer to the camera and argue about if they should be filming or not. I think it alienated a few people in the audience because of this. In films, horror films especially, you don't want to constantly remind the audience that they are watching a movie, it distances the viewers from the story. Admittedly this is kind of hard to do in a film presented in the "shot by the actors" way. From what I remember of Blair Witch, aside from the opening scenes, the characters never discussed the handling or operating of their cameras, which made the movie more effective as the tension ramped up.

 

For me I thought it was natural for them to keep asking themselves if they should be filming. Especially post 9/11 and with technology being such a driving force today, it would be natural for someone to ask "should i be filming this" or "people are gonna wanna see how it all went down". Better believe anytime anything happens today I am one of the first people to get online and see if someone put a video up. We rely more and more on amateur video vs "the media" for accounts of events.

[Carnage]

I honestly hope that they don't make a sequel. I just can't see them duplicating the feel of this movie.

 

And a typical Hollywood action flick sequel just wouldn't seem right either.

 

Kind of like 28 Days/Weeks later. Sure 28 Weeks Later had more action in it, but it was a totally different movie, and was IMHI inferior.

[coasterdude5]

I did really like it, the shaky cam wasn't as bad as I had prepared myself for.

I think it all has to do with where you sat in the theater. We sat pretty far back and I think that helps alot.

 

I thought it was a great movie. I don't really care either way if they make a sequel or not. Great if they do, it'll be alright if they don't.

[pagemaster_b]

While I enjoyed watching the movie, I thought the video camera approach should not have been the way to go. It worked in a few places (like the attack in the subway), but was a complete hinderment in others. The people did not act naturally as you would in a home video. Everything felt wooden, forced, and often self-absorbed. (That whole party scene at the beginning was tedious, boring, poorly acted, and worse, all around pointless.)

 

I did like how little of the monster you actually see. Something horror flicks are so lacking these days is the lack of imagination on the audience part. With so many questions left unanswered in the movie, we can only speculate and imagine--which will be worse than anything they could have done on the screen. (People still think twice about a flock of birds after watching "The Birds".) Only showing various different parts of the monster really gave it the feel of just how huge that beast was.

 

I also got a kick out of the DOD watermark at the beginning and end, as well as the little intro. It was a nice touch that reminded me very much of the book "Andromeda Strain".

 

There were still some other quirks that really bothered me, especially when you start thinking about it.

 

Tape length and battery life. Anybody who has video cameras know that tapes are approx 60 minutes. Just because the battery says "five hours" doesn't not mean you'll get anywhere near that. Using all the features (as they were doing), the battery should have gone out after an hour and a half of use.

 

Subject of the military and cameras. Once they walked into that makeshift operations room, the camera would immediately be confiscated. No ands, ifs, or buts. Period. End of discussion. I'm speaking on experience and knowledge. (This is one of the major points why they should not have used the handheld camera viewpoint for this movie.) They lost huge authenticity and believeability here.

 

One other plot/character point that bothered me was when they were loading onto the aircraft. The injured girl would and should have got on first available helicopter, not her friend. With the way the movie ends, it's understandable why it didn't happen that way, but still, it is not justifiable, and all around stupid, and certainly doesn't feel natural. Besides, the military personnel would be pushing the greater injured first.

 

Oh and that helicopter crash, no one would have survived.

 

 

 

 

I know, it sounds like I didn't enjoy the movie. Despite that I really don't like the whole jerky camera action that's popular right now, it was still worth the nine bucks I paid to watch it. And yes, my military experience has certainly jaded their recreations. I admit to taking some creative liberties as needed to suit a story I'm writing, but I keep it as minor as possible.

[kraken613]

^

Well the movie is only a hour and a half.