Cloverfield

[Samurai8472]

just rented cloverfield. loved seeing the preview trailers at the beginning. Seeing the Star trek XI teaser on the 47 inch HD was great instead of a 19 inch monitor.

The party scene at the beginning could have cut about 5 minutes out of the 22 min beginning.

I'm sure alot of people said this when it was released but that camera was like a star in the movie. A 7 hour plus battery, with nightvision and light.

I thought the shaky camera would be distracting but it was surprisingly steady.

Great effects

Movie was just too short

Hud was fun "You uh need some help with that door?"

"WE GOT IT ,WE GOT IT!"
*cloverfield rears it head and smashes the chopper"

Rob,beth and hud should have died on that chopper. Conveiniently only the pilot dies.

If Rob and beth survived the crash, no doubt they survived the bridge collapsing at the end.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I recently saw Cloverfield for the first time as well. I had a lot of fun watching it and loved the documentary style of directing, but quite frankly I couldn't give a damn about the characters so I didn't care when they all died at the end.

 

[Rii]

I thought the bland and uninteresting characters reinforced the idea of the film as real footage recorded by random folks like you and I who no-one in their right mind would want to make a film about.

That said I could definitely have done without the first fifteen minutes.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Hmm...that's a good point. But it only works if you knock off the first 15 minutes. Just start with 30 seconds of the party (establish it's a farewell party) and go from there.

 

[TGTheodore]

It was on my Ten Worst list that year. What a steamy piece ...

--Ted

 

[Sephiroth]

check out the deleted scene of a buddy asking for yuri and trying to make sure he doesn't get him yaoi

 

[Ben Sisko3]

It was on my Ten Worst list that year. What a steamy piece ...

--Ted

You've already got a Ten Worst list for this year? Impressive.

 

[Sagart]

It was the first disappointment in a year of disappointments. Indy IV and The Dark Knight have since been added to the list.

 

[Baldus885]

I rented it last night too, and it left a bad taste in my mouth - well made, the effects were great, but I just didn't enjoy it. I'm not a fan of movies where all the leads end up dead, but I can see how that fitted the story.

I agree the party sequence was much too long - I almost turned it off, but then the first explosion happened just in time!

 

[DWF]

It's kind of funny how people want to knock off several minutes to the start of the movie then complain about how short the movie was.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

For the record, I don't care about the movie length (other than cutting out the opening fat).

 

[DWF]

For the record, I don't care about the movie length (other than cutting out the opening fat).

If they didn't establish the love affair between Rob and Beth and that Hud was filming the whole thing it doens't make much sense IMO. Try starting the movie at a later chapter if you don't like the opening.

 

[Forbin]

I recently saw Cloverfield for the first time as well. I had a lot of fun watching it and loved the documentary style of directing, but quite frankly I couldn't give a damn about the characters so I didn't care when they all died at the end.

My wife's analysis exactly.

Watch all the behind the scenes stuff, though. The actors themselves are actually fun to watch and listen to. The actors playing Hud and Marlena were having a ball filiming and are hysterical.

 

[Darth_Pinche]

I thought it was fun, simple chase movie. But I saw it in the theater and that makes all the difference. It is immersive and you feel like part of the action. On a tv screen, even at home it is impossible to get the same feeling, you will feel like you are watching some stupid home video. Somethings work on home video, but others are crafted for the group or theater experience.

 

[bullethead]

I was actually cheering for the monster to kill all the main characters, but whenever I saw the monster, I found it to be really underwhelming. They could've done a much better job on Clover; he only looks threatening in the scene where he's looking at Hud before eating the guy.

 

[Warp Coil]

I actually really enjoyed this movie. I love the hand-held camera POV, particularly the way the visual f/x were integrated so seamlessly. I like the fact that it's a monster movie, but really isn't about the monster. Unlike most films in this genre, we don't get tons of exposition or BS about what the monster is, where it came from, etc. etc. This movie is about these random people who are trying to stay alive. It really doesn't matter what the monster is, or what it wants - those issues are irrelevant. I agree tha the film takes a little while to get going, but the beginning of the film does what most movies do - it establishes the location (NYC), the characters, their relationships to one another, etc.

 

[Cali]

The monster looked... a bit weird, and seemed to keep changing size (assuming there was only one of them). Liked the bits in the subway stations/tunnels though. I was generally a bit underwhelmed by it though.

 

[TGTheodore]

It was on my Ten Worst list that year. What a steamy piece ...

--Ted

You've already got a Ten Worst list for this year? Impressive.

Yes. It's that bad. It's on the list. As for the top (or bottom) spot itself, the only thing close to dethroning it so far would be Disaster Movie.

--Ted

 

[Nedersong]

I was not impressed.

It was really slow and you could hardly see the monster.

I like seeing the monster not just bits and pieces of it.

Godzilla would kick it's arse anyhoo.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It was on my Ten Worst list that year. What a steamy piece ...

--Ted

You've already got a Ten Worst list for this year? Impressive.

Yes. It's that bad. It's on the list. As for the top (or bottom) spot itself, the only thing close to dethroning it so far would be Disaster Movie.

--Ted

Funny, I went in to the movie expecting it to be bad, and I ended up enjoying it quite a bit. Far more than the majority of stuff that's come out recently (with a few MAJOR exceptions, obviously).

When people complain about the movie, I find myself wondering "is it this style of moviemaking that you don't care for, or is it the way that this particular movie exercised that style?"

The whole thing was set up as though it was "real." The opening stuff was set up to establish the characters. And though I agree that these people aren't necessarily the sort of people I'd want to hang out with, I KNOW many people just like them.

Oh, and Clover is really a pretty slick design... the idea of him seeming to be different sizes is because you see only bits and pieces of him at any one time, and his body proportions aren't what you're expecting (ie, totally non-human) He looks a lot different, as well, depending on whether his "breathing bladders" on his head are expanded or not, and whether or not his multiple-joint-jaw is open or closed. He's got six limbs... two massive forelimbs, two rear "walking legs" and another two arms in between which don't seem to do much (but remember, this is a seabottom creature, so they may be associated with that in some fashion).

I enjoyed the film a lot, even though I agree that the characters didn't fit the bill for "heroic" characters as we've come to think of them. Which was, I think, really the POINT.

I normally don't like these "documentary" type films... but this one actually surprised me. I do hope that if they ever do another one (and the story is definitely there to do more) that they'll do it from another perspective... maybe from a military leader's perspective, show a bit from this film, then continue on to a more "classical monster movie" take on things.