*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[rich_d]

Interesting film overall. The tactic was clear and as old as the hills. Hire some lower-pay scale actors and put the money in special effects. Nothing that hasn't happened since the beginning of monster films.

I did find that the playing of older recorded stuff (Beth) irritating. Not going back successfully to the end point of a tape happens all the time. Sure it's fine for when they replayed the shots of the monster. Sure it's fine for the end. Sure you can assume that they replayed some stuff along the way. But how many times did they show old shots of Beth? They would be scrambling along and another shot of Beth. That got both old and totally unreal.

I think they did a good job limiting the shots of the monster. Jaws worked because you see so little of the shark. Same premise.

Edit: Note. I find the quick finding of the reversed audio at the end REALLY suspicious. Seems like seed marketing to me. The film is just out and people are (first) finding the film and (second) reversing end titles on a lark? Dubious.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Easily one of the best giant monster-on-the-loose films of all time, even though it's not so much about the creature as it is the devastation and the panic for survival under such extreme emergencies. I've heard complaints of nausea and dizziness, but the camcorder craziness didn't bother me as I knew what the movie was trying to do and I just went with it. Special effects here are outstanding, and the monster was never shown all that much to ruin the illusion. I'd also call it one of the more intense, genuinely scary monster movies I've seen in a dog's age. My wife cried in the theater early on with the scenes of buildings collapsing and the chaos during the first attack; it reminded her too much of 9/11, as she was on her way to work in downtown Manhattan that fateful day in 2001 and it brought back some unpleasant visuals. You really feel like you're a part of the destruction and it seems very realistic.

"Classic" status? Not sure. I do think the tendency these days is to move on to the next film and nothing retains a hold on viewers like cinema giants used to when life was simpler and perhaps not as varied, with numerous entertainment options. But it's a great monster movie. I'd also advise fans who want to see it NOT to wait for video; this needs to be seen on the big screen with thundering sound effects for best impact.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I agree with your opinions 100%, Joe, not even Peter Jackson's King Kong elicited so much tension and excitement for me and I love that movie.

Cloverfield might be too new to be considered a classic but it's definitely on it's way.

 

[TravisR]

When I heard that 'noise' at the end, I immediately knew it was dialogue played in reverse. So I'm sure some loser who downloaded the movie could have easily had the same thought and found it.

 

[Ken Chan]

That's exactly it; we're back to the intolerance of ambiguity or when things don't fit their preselected view of the way things are supposed to be. The filmmakers are trying something new. After a hundred years, that's good. If your reaction is, "I wasn't expecting that. I didn't like it," that's one thing. But to say it was "dumb" not to do what you expected?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

To me, for all purposes, Cloverfield was the perfect movie. It's the first film in a long time where I didn't find a single flaw with it, the casting, writing, story structure and overall execution are all pitch perfect. Even the the length is perfect, it's short enough to get it's story told effectively and isn't so long to where it begins to wear out it's welcome and become meandering.

 

[Don Solosan]

"What was advertised?"

A monster movie! Where the monster turns out to be of secondary importance. Can't you see how that would flummox people?

"things don't fit their preselected view of the way things are supposed to be."

Imagine Rocky ending before he finishes the fight. Imagine Titanic ending before the ship goes down.
It's bad storytelling, and you could only pull that trick so often before your studio went out of business. You can call them idiots, but they're people who want complete stories.

 

[Chris Will]

Cloverfield is a complete story. The story is not about the monster but about the people we followed and, there story was complete by the end of the film. Not the filmmakers fault for audiences becoming increasingly dumb and wanting every single thing that appears on screen to be explained in great detail, even if it is not really what the movie is about.

It think it is quite sad that audiences refuse to except any film that makes you think or ponder things and doesn't tie everything up in a bow. I'm not saying that movies that tie everything up are bad, just that it is sad that most of the time when one doesn't, the average person will not give it a chance. This is why we get so many cookie cutter Hollywood movies, especially during the summer. People on this board complain about those "cookie cutter" movies all the time but, now we get one that is different and people still complain.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

^^Absolutely, Chris, it's actually no different than the end of, say, Halloween which is considered by many as a classic, the characters all ended up in a satisfactory place and Michael Myers was still on the loose. To me this is no different than the creature in Cloverfield continuing to live after the film was over and the characters had a satisfactory wrap-up.

 

[rich_d]

Well said Chris and I agree with you for the most part.

I don't need or want films to be wrapped up in a pretty ribbon at the end. For example, the only flaw in Psycho was the unnecessary explanation at the end.

I want films that are new and different. However, a film that teases the viewer at the end takes the risk of viewer backlash.

 

[Ken Chan]

You mean the first one, before anyone really knew what a Rocky film was supposed to be? I suppose it could have finished "early". How about this: imagine if in Rocky, he actually loses instead of winning, when of course winning is what the underdog is supposed to do in those kinds of movies.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I hear ya, i've always hated that scene, it's a violation of everything master Hitchcock had established and spoon-fed the audience everything.

 

[rich_d]

Ken,

Not your best example. Rocky *did* lose.

 

[Brian-A]

I'm pretty sure that's the point. Rocky, the movie, told a great story without worrying about convention or what people may expect. I'm sure a lot of people expected him to win, and were disappointed when he lost. But the movie transcended expectations.

That's the problem with too much expectation. Just enjoy the movie for what it is, not what you thought it should have been.

 

[Don Solosan]

The point about Rocky is that people went into it knowing it was a fight movie, and saw that story concluded. Yes, he lost, but he went the distance -- which was the important thing. Emotional closure.

Cloverfield is not being described as a personal journey story, but a monster story. So I'm not surprised that some people are coming out it with varying degrees of disappointment. And it's not just that it lives -- there are lots of monster movies where the monster survives in some form... to the point where ending with a "?" has become a cliche.

After that gangbusters first weekend, it'll be interesting to see if this thing has legs (no pun intended).

 

[Johnny Angell]

Let's see, Rob & Beth both say "I love you" to each other and then everything crashes around them. Followed by that last snippet at Coney Island where Beth says "I had a good day" and she really meant so much more. I'd call that emotional closure, it was for me.

I also disagree as to how this movie was billed. Sure it's a monster movie, but I knew, and I think most knew, it was told from the point of view of the participants, not an omniscient view point. Even if you did not know that going in, before 5 minutes are up, you should know it.

Would I like a sequel from a different viewpoint? Yes. I think it would be very easy to over do this technique. I don't feel cheated, the movie delivered the goods for me.

I saw the movie again yesterday and missed the stills from "Them", "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms", and "King Kong" again. I was also watching very carefully at the end and did not see the splash. Exactly where did it occur? Was it the wide shot showing nothing but the water and skyline?

 

[Tom BL]

Saw this movie last Sunday night, and it's still in my mind. Just reading this thread, I get flashes of intense moments from the film. I loved it, and haven't been this excited about a movie in ages.

I was worried going in, after being mostly disappointed by The Host, which was supposed to be such a great monster movie. Cloverfield is the best monster movie I've ever seen.

 

[todd s]

Like I said before. They could have a sequel where the 2 characters Beth & Rob survive the blast and show them trying to get the hell out of the city. They just don't grab the camera. And it can be filmed like a regular movie.

 

[Don Solosan]

"Let's see, Rob & Beth both say "I love you" to each other and then everything crashes around them. Followed by that last snippet at Coney Island where Beth says "I had a good day" and she really meant so much more. I'd call that emotional closure, it was for me."

That's good if you connect with the characters. Most of the people I've talked to (who didn't like it) didn't have that connection.

 

[WadeM]

Overall an enjoyable movie once things get started, and one of the better monster movies in recent memory, but as others have said, I also got a headache. Are anyone's home videos this shaky??? The camerawork was completely unreal to me. I mean, seriously, even a 5 year old could do better than that camera work. For that reason alone I won't see it again, but it was a decent one time experience.