*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Don Solosan]

"Cloverfield is presented as "found footage" with a limited point-of-view, and a child may be more likely to accept it as reality."

When I was a little kid I saw the original Night Of The Living Dead on late night TV, and I remember the news broadcasts really freaked me out.

 

[Holadem]

Hence my qualifying the film as "too real". Unlike any of the JP (and other monster flicks), this film was intended to be experienced as first person / raw footage, and it was very effectively done. A 7 y/o will know that it's not real, but his empathy toward the characters will very much BE real, enhanced by the unusual presentation. More, there is nothing remotely cheerful about this flick. There is no feeling of awe at the sight of fantastic creatures like in JP. There is just terror. And I wouldn't even begin to know how to have them deal with that ending.

I just can't imagine a 7 y/o having *fun* with this thing. And if not there where is the value?

I am with Johnny, the comparison with any of the JP flicks is way off base.

--
H

 

[Malcolm R]

Good point.

I watched the final Coney Island scene several times and also didn't see any splash.

 

[ChristopherG]

The splash is clearly visible in one of the alternate endings - I didn't go back to the film to see if it was there. Look at the 2nd alt end and watch the ship out in the ocean to the right of the screen...the ending was predictable and boring, other than that I liked it.

 

[TonyD]

why is it ludicrous?
the movie was about people who were near the monster.

why make a movie with a monster and have it be about people who aren't anywhere near it?

 

[Darcy Hunter]

In the latest Cinefex magazine there is an section on the effects of Cloverfield. In it the VFX supervisor states that they did add the splash at the last minute as a little "easter egg" for those who are paying attention (it's in the upper right of the frame). You could also see it on one of the endings that was posted on the net a little while back.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Malcolm, the splash occurs at 1:13:15 on the DVD, it happens right on the oceans horizon line and off to the right, you'll see the tracer of something falling and then the splash.

I must have watched the DVD 3 times since getting it on Tuesday lol, the LFE actually made a picture fall off the wall lol. Still, I wish the higher frequencies were translated to DVD more faithfully, the creature screaming just doesn't have that blood curdling dynamic range in all channels like it had at the theater, i'm hoping that Blu Ray will rectify that.

 

[Johnny Angell]

It took two tries at the ending on the DVD for me to finally see the streak and splash in the ocean. I never caught it the theater, even the 2nd time when I was looking for it.

I have to disagree about the ending. I'd classify this movie as a tragedy and the ending was poignant. The final scene, with Beth saying "I had a good day" was very moving.

 

[TonyD]

i didn't think the end was predictable or boring.


how should it have ended.

anyhow, i picked up the steel case at fye.

i'm not sure they know how much to sell it for.

sticker says "our price" $27.99 sale sticker $24.99 actually selling price
27.99 - sci-fi 20% off = 22.39.
also a $5 mail in rebate.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

There's a really good article on the creature in the new issue of Fangoria magazine, apparently the creature is indeed supposed to be white despite most people thinking it's grey or light brown, indeed the new Cloverfield toy coming out correctly depicts it as white.

It made me appreciate the film even more than I already did reading how much of a labor of love it was for Phil Tippett and his team to create and execute.

 

[Johnny Angell]

In the making of doc, it is mentioned that the monster is a frightened baby. Did anybody get that feeling watching the movie? As I replay it in my head, I do see the creature appearing trapped in the maze of NY, that it's trying to find a way out. But I don't get the feeling it's a baby.

I also don't get the impression that it's meant to be on land. It appears to drag itself more than it walks. That's the only thing I see that might be interpreted as being immature, that it can't walk correctly yet.

 

[Jerome Grate]

I watched the doc, and the impression I got was that the monster was not a baby, but the baby attributes were used as oppose to some mean monster on the rampage to destroy the city just because. I appreciated that approach as in some of the attack scenes especially from the helicopters view, it showed that the the creature was definetly trying to get away from the army. I've seen this movie at least four times since I purchased it and reading the threads here has really put me in a real love for the film.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

When I first heard that the creature was a baby my immediate thought was "christ, i'd hate to see the freakin' parents!!"

I like that he's a baby, it adds a poigancy to the creature to where you almost feel sad for it.

 

[ChristopherG]

I'll retract "boring", but how could you not classify that ending as anything but predictable?

I loved the movie overall. I don't know that the creature being a pup makes a difference to me for the story - those crazy ass crab things falling off it were pretty nasty - alien fleas!

 

[TonyD]

i dont know what you mean by predictable.
did you predict that it would end with those 2 characters under a bridge while the government tried to nuke the city.

they said thats what was going to happen earlier in the movie anyway.

again i ask, what would be a more appropriate ending?

 

[ChristopherG]

There is no "appropriate" ending - it is what is and in my opinion, predictable (no closure, main characters dead, etc). This isn't a difficult concept....

 

[TonyD]

well i'm sorry if me not getting what you mean bugs you, i just don't follow your logic.

you didn't like the way it ends, so there must be some way for it to end that you would have preferred.
oh well whatever, doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

They went the ballsier route with the ending IMO, if Rob and Beth had lived it would have been accused of being "too safe" or "too Hollywood" but they both croaked which is what makes the end work so well IMO.

 

[Malcolm R]

We don't know for sure that they're dead. It can be implied, I guess, but we never saw the bodies.

The creature was cool. I'd like to see a more traditional film about the monster, which is where my interest was strongest. I had no connection to or feelings about the kids (other than hating Hud), so I didn't really care what happened to them. But there's a lot more I'd like to know about the creature.

 

[Steve Christou]

Same here, the film was a waste of an interesting movie monster.

Another thing that bothered me is that this camera guy nearly always avoids filming the monster whenever he can. I'm trying to imagine myself in that situation, sure I'd be shit scared but this is a once in a lifetime event and I have the camera in my hand would I really try to avoid filming the monster? At one point his friends are pointing frantically at the creature and he is filming them instead of turning the camera round. Just doesn't ring true to me. The only time he gets a really good shot of the creature is when it's practically on top of him. But having a monster shy cameraman saves money on the effects budget I suppose...

By contrast the camcorder guys in Romero's Diary of the Dead were making sure the zombie attacks were filmed in loving detail.