Cloverfield

[Mouseferatu]

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]

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!

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

[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]

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]

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.