-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/talking-points-so-what-did-you-think-of-cloverfield.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Felicity+Dawson's Creek+The Blair Witch Project+Starship Troopers alien bug+=Cloverfield.
I’m not against anyone’s opinion. People love it. People hate it.
"Disappointment"
Is the best way for me to put it in to one word.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:18 am
Just saw the movie. Brilliant! You either get it or you don’t.
If you’re prone to motion sickness, the hand-held camera work will make you queezy, but that only adds to its sense of intimate, sickening, realism.
I find it hard to believe this movie could ever have a sequel shot in 3rd-person perspective. It would somehow seem wrong… perhaps more ftg. of the creature shot from helicopters, on-sight gov’t agencies, or local news teams could find it’s way onto the viral (after-movie) marketing or onto the DVD? That would truly give the nay-sayers means for pause.
Matt Reeves/JJ Abrams use the Brooklyn Bridge to pay wonderful homage to a most famous scene from “Beast From 20,000 Fathomsâ€. And many other scenes hearkened back to the days of movies that would only partially reveal their monsters… until the time was right.
Great job… you go you Bad Robot.
Now… JJ… if you were thinking of a sequel… and you could pull off the whole “Gorgon†angle… that just might rock the planet.
PS.
Stay for the closing credits to hear “ROARâ€, the Cloverfield theme. Like the monster, it’s worth the wait… what’s that weak transmission heard at the end of it? "...It's still alive".
Second, i do like the 2 monster idea, but the fact is, after the heli crashes in the park, you can clearly hear over the radio that they say that there is only one monster and that it is still alive, you’d think if there were 2 that they would have noticed by now? this doesnt completly rule out the possibility of 2 monsters though, because i was thinking and well….it seems rather plosible that there could have been one monster in the water and one monster on land (maybe mother, daughter?) because the monster on land didnt have tenticals like the one that attacked the bridge, and when they are on the bridge, as in before the monster attacks, Hud looks out over the water at the burning city, and not only is it on fire, there is a clear path where the monster went on land, and THEN they get attacked….think about it.
Just to clear things up about the spider like things, ive been informed that they are supposed to be like the creatures that clean whales (if you know what i’m talking about) they are supposidly based off those. just give me feed back about my theorys
thanks
overall though i think it was ok
maverick scientist that nobody believes
former lovers brought together by tragedy
Last-minute plot to save the Earth
All of the cliche one liners
One reason why I enjoyed it is that I refused to buy the hype. I went in with low expectations and found something I liked. A friend of mine was so amped up about it he was talking about seeing it for 3 weeks, then saw it opening weekend and was disappointed.
I told you. Hype Sucks.
you know?
And when they find themselves in said situation, they act in very strange ways, rationalizing their choices based on impulse judgments. Some people's conscience wakes up and they have to right certain wrongs, some look out for themselves while others try to hold on to the last shard of humanity and 'sense' they can find. (Not to mention, this specific group of people must have been rather wasted from all that partying anyway - so don't hold impossible feats against them)
As far as people's gripes with film-making, film-structure, back-story or what happened to the monster blah blah blah... goes.
All I have to say is that this is a very 'Year 2008' movie. You can't look at it as a standard go to the theater and watch a movie.. movie. It's more like an eye-witness report, a complimentary video piece to a larger news story. That's whats wrong with it - it belongs on youtube and not a movie screen - people wouldn't reject it if they found this video on youtube while searching for breaking news about a major catastrophe that hit new york a couple hours ago. You see what I'm trying to say? I'm sorry I have to bring this up - but look at any major news event in recent past.. say for example the Benazir Bhutto assassination. There are bits and pieces of information all over the place - shaky camera footage, under-exposed photographs, etc. Not a single one of those can be a stand-alone tell-all - you can't pick one shaky camera video and find out why it happened, how it happened, who was responsible - it's just what recorded history looks like in the Year 2008.
Cloverfield is not a PhD thesis paper on the absolute history of that monster that struck New York that one day. It's just a lousy SD card or mini DV tape, in the hands of the Department of Defense. ..And we have no clue when or how they found it and reviewed it. 2 days from now? 2 weeks? 10 years? who knows. You're just the lucky few (or unlucky) who got to see a glimpse of what happened that day. And J J Abrams is some dude who doesn't want you to see it on your tiny notebook or PDA - so he's letting you see it on a giant movie screen. :)
Good movie, go watch it. They are going to make a sequel from the perspective of a guy they showed filming them back while on the Brooklyn Bridge...take that haters!
2. any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.
For openers, the single camera perspective gave this movie a level of realism few other films can compare to. The lack of an explaination of the monster's orgin and motives only added to the drama, and the accurate representation of real-life chaos (confusion, media generated random bits of information, all-out self-preservation) were flawless.
People behaved realistically - take the sea of camera phones flashing pictures of the decapitated Statue of Liberty, or the desire to steal a flat screen tv while the world around you crumbles. The monster itself? Hideous. My favorite scene is the depiction of the monster dropping parasites on the soilders attacking the host (as if the horror of the beast wasn't enough). An amazing movie, definitely worth 8 bucks.
WATCH THIS MOVIE!
about a the origins of the monster, so i sugest you trie to find it and read it.
quick review of the movie
awsome, loved it wanto to read the manga and see it from other points of view maybe a military point of view?
If you can wait, get it on DVD and watch it at home. The big screen does it no justice. I'd rather watch the thing on a smaller TV to mimic the experience of watching a recording.
Oh, and neither did the other 200 people in the theater, or anyone else I talked to about this movie.
If you saw the trailer, you saw the movie. Save your $10.
Anyway, it was good and the marketing was excelent.
The film is being presented to the audience from a point in time after the attack takes place, presumably as part of a research effort to realize the circumstances of the creature and it's attack on the city. The only footage shown is from the camera of one of the citizens killed in the attack. Hence, there's no back story. It would defeat the purpose of the film if they took a break from the footage to tell us that the creature was really a parasitic Zubnak from planet Marklar VI. Who cares?
If you miss the routine cinematic storytelling from the omniscient perspective and dozens of camera angles, then by all means watch something else. There are plenty to choose from. Since this film isn't being delivered from that perspective, I think they pulled it off excellently. If we saw more creative films like this and less additions to the Saw franchise, I'd probably go to the theater more often. I will agree that the love story sometimes felt like an episode of The O.C., but once the monster started ripping the soul out of NYC I honestly didn't care anymore. Will see it again.
Im still trying to wrap my head around why marlena (I think thats her name)
felt like comming with Hud, Lila and Rob to rescue Beth, even though she was freinds with Lily. Still, the horror of watching her litterally explode gave me a sense of shock and disbelief I have NEVER felt in a movie. In the end, every character's death really hit home because unlike in most movies where mourning can pass in the very next scene, their losses sink in in real time, and they got under my skin just as slowly. The nearly final scene with Beth crying made my heart bleed for these characters, knowing they would die just as they did. To be fair, the "help us" at the end credits might mean they are alive but its not a guarentee.
I have no complaints about Cloverfield. The screwy camera perspective was actually a great element to the movie you only rarley get to see that adds realism to the perspective. Your camera probably cant do nightvision, and its not made of titanium like this magical camera was (its apparantly drop-proof, bite-proof, helicopter crash-proof, A-Bomb-proof, and based on how long it filmed it seems to be running on a car battery) but it CAN lose focus fast when your distracted, and its all you think about when your there. In the end, thats all that matters.
You know you saw an astounding movie when you cant stop thinking about it after you left the theater and thats exactly what I felt. Thank you JJ Abrams, and thank God movies in camcorder views have not become mainstream: their rarity makes them only more enjoyable.
The monster initially came ashore from the Hudson River (the Statue Of Liberty is southwest of Manhattan, actually in New Jersey). The Brooklyn Bridge is over the East River. So apparently what Hud saw was the clear path where the monster had made its way to the East River before wrecking the Brooklyn Bridge and returning to land.
Also, Manhattan wasn't nuked; it was bombed conventionally. Considering the circular blast zone of a nuclear weapon, the long, narrow shape of Manhattan Island, and the close proximity of the other boroughs, the use of a nuke would've literally been overkill. You'll note that at the end, when the two characters were underneath that bridge in Central Park as the bombing started, there was no blinding flash as there would've been with a nuke. And if a nuke had been used, the camera and the videotape in it would've been melted or even vaporized.
* A sentient monster attacks without warning, what would you do?
JJ is still conditioning his audience to want more.
* No explanation of the monster.
* The audio clip at the end.
* The fact the tape was found.
To me, this screams "Sequel!"
By the way, if you don't think the monster was sentient, you don't understand the whole scene after the helicopter crash.
**DISAPPOINTED**
Happily it was not very long, and got bumped my Spartans and Grampbo.
This is what I want to really say - sequel! sequel! Story; Manhatten's big, lot's of opportunity for another camera, this time a news helicopter cam with CLEAR shots of this big sweety prancing around - and his Tokyo native family, friends, and bride-to-be as he enters New York, looking for parking at his new vice-pres job, BUSTIN' up the eastern coastline! Oh, and either another hint at what's it's origin, just to tantalize us for a THIRD flic. Funny, such an original film with so many old tricks :).
Peloquin
for the experience. This movie above all else is a cinematic experience like few others.
As for sequels, wouldn't that just mess it up, i mean for me the creature is more of a
dramatic device, a metaphor, because everything it brings and causes relates to all of our
worst fears and panics, terrorism, that intial shock of not knowing, and suddenly being
affected by something that was a million miles away?? Viruses and germwarfare, the
thing that blew up marlene, isnt that all to do with anthrax and aids and small pox, That
ultimately the military response, which is in the real world what we eventually turn to as
we rely on it as the last line, does not work, something to contemplate especially
considering situations where military might and technology have failed, Vietnam ????
Maybe the war on terror, how do you shoot an ideology. These are just some fairly basic
thoughts i had after viewing, basically what the monster represented, did anybody think
anything similar or opposite??