Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Entertainment and Media  ›  Movies (Theatrical)  ›  *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

#121
Rating: 0
1/23/08 at 1:16pm
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Post Count: 1,485

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.
Export to Wiki
#122
Rating: 0
1/23/08 at 2:09pm
  • Joined: November 2003
  • Post Count: 5,464

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.
Export to Wiki
#123
Rating: 0
1/23/08 at 2:38pm
  • Joined: March 1999
  • Location: On duty and takin' out the fullscreen trash.
  • Post Count: 10,270

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.
"You have no idea how far i'm willing to go to acquire your cooperation." - Jack Bauer
Export to Wiki
#124
Rating: 0
1/23/08 at 3:02pm
  • Joined: November 2004
  • Location: The basement of the FBI building
  • Post Count: 12,736

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
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.
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.
Export to Wiki
#125
Rating: 0
1/23/08 at 4:13pm
  • Joined: April 1999
  • Post Count: 3,046

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
for a time I had almost forgotten that this was indeed a monster movie and got totally wrapped up in Rob's life
That's one explanation why the monster seemed to be following them: to kill off those annoying twenty-somethings Or you can say that this was like Titanic: a love story set among a tragic disaster. And for that story, you did get some kind of closure.

Quote:
they often didn't live up to the expectations that the advertising created
What was advertised? Shaky-cam; check. No-name actors; check. Destruction and mayhem; check. I can see that some people assumed there would be some "payoff", but now we're back to talking about idiots. Should the producers advertise, "By the way, we're not going to give you a really clear look at the monster, or explain where it came from, so if that bothers you, we don't want your money?" Maybe they should have

Quote:
This has been the main narrative mode of Hollywood filmmaking for a hundred years. So are people wrong to react this way when someone breaks with tradition and throws something unexpected at them?
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?
Export to Wiki
#126
Rating: 0
1/23/08 at 4:25pm
  • Joined: March 1999
  • Location: On duty and takin' out the fullscreen trash.
  • Post Count: 10,270

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.
"You have no idea how far i'm willing to go to acquire your cooperation." - Jack Bauer
Export to Wiki
#127
Rating: 0
1/23/08 at 7:54pm
  • Joined: October 2003
  • Post Count: 582

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

"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.
Export to Wiki
#128
Rating: 0
1/24/08 at 4:40pm
  • Joined: January 2003
  • Location: Orlando, FL
  • Post Count: 560

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.
Export to Wiki
#129
Rating: 0
1/24/08 at 5:04pm
  • Joined: March 1999
  • Location: On duty and takin' out the fullscreen trash.
  • Post Count: 10,270

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

^^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.
"You have no idea how far i'm willing to go to acquire your cooperation." - Jack Bauer
Export to Wiki
#130
Rating: 0
1/24/08 at 5:10pm
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Post Count: 1,485

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.
Export to Wiki
#131
Rating: 0
1/24/08 at 5:11pm
  • Joined: April 1999
  • Post Count: 3,046

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Can't you see
I even used the phrase "I can see" in my previous reply, in the sentence where I called them idiots

Quote:
Imagine Rocky ending before he finishes the fight
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.
Export to Wiki
#132
Rating: 0
1/24/08 at 5:15pm
  • Joined: March 1999
  • Location: On duty and takin' out the fullscreen trash.
  • Post Count: 10,270

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
the only flaw in Psycho was the unnecessary explanation at the end.

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.
"You have no idea how far i'm willing to go to acquire your cooperation." - Jack Bauer
Export to Wiki
#133
Rating: 0
1/24/08 at 5:20pm
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Post Count: 1,485

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Chan
I even used the phrase "I can see" in my previous reply, in the sentence where I called them idiots

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.

Ken,

Not your best example. Rocky *did* lose.
Export to Wiki
#134
Rating: 0
1/24/08 at 6:11pm
  • Joined: July 2004
  • Post Count: 23

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
Ken,

Not your best example. Rocky *did* lose.

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.
Export to Wiki
#135
Rating: 0
1/24/08 at 7:59pm
  • Joined: October 2003
  • Post Count: 582

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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).
Export to Wiki
#136
Rating: 0
1/25/08 at 11:54am
  • Joined: December 1998
  • Location: Little Rock, AR
  • Post Count: 2,069

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?

Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
Another cat? Perhaps. For love there is also a season; its seeds must be resown. But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that...

Export to Wiki
#137
Rating: 0
1/25/08 at 1:15pm
  • Joined: January 2006
  • Post Count: 29

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.
Export to Wiki
#138
Rating: 0
1/25/08 at 8:19pm
  • Joined: July 1999
  • Post Count: 6,450

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.

Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.

Export to Wiki
#139
Rating: 0
1/26/08 at 12:50pm
  • Joined: October 2003
  • Post Count: 582

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

"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.
Export to Wiki
#140
Rating: 0
1/26/08 at 1:46pm
  • Joined: August 2006
  • Post Count: 497

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

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.
Export to Wiki
#141
Rating: 0
1/26/08 at 1:55pm
  • Joined: March 1999
  • Location: On duty and takin' out the fullscreen trash.
  • Post Count: 10,270

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by WadeM
I mean, seriously, even a 5 year old could do better than that camera work.

Do me a favour, get out your camera, assuming you own one that is, take it outside and run down the street with it rolling, now play it back. See how shaky it is? And you weren't even running from a 200' monster lol.
"You have no idea how far i'm willing to go to acquire your cooperation." - Jack Bauer
Export to Wiki
#142
Rating: 0
1/26/08 at 2:42pm
  • Joined: November 2000
  • Post Count: 8,847

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Um gee -- that was fucking awesome. I am gonna watch it again tomorrow. Holy shit.



--
H
Export to Wiki
#143
Rating: 0
1/26/08 at 4:25pm
  • Joined: July 1997
  • Post Count: 6,788

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Do me a favour, get out your camera, assuming you own one that is, take it outside and run down the street with it rolling, now play it back. See how shaky it is?

Even at a dead run, almost no shake. How? Because even my stupid panasonic $699 camcorder has a image stabilizer that, unless I really screw with it, tends to keep shakes to a minimum. So, at a dead run, even with big swings, I don't get the up/down vibration effect that kept going on here.
My Current DVD-Profiler


"I've been Ostrafied!" - Christopher, Sopranos 5/6/07
Export to Wiki
#144
Rating: 0
1/26/08 at 4:50pm
  • Joined: December 2003
  • Location: Delta Quadrant
  • Post Count: 849

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Isn't it obvious how the monster came to this planet? Everyone knows that the Dharma Initiative was fooling around with parallel universes and somehow the monster came from one into ours. Maybe in the sequel we'll truly find out and maybe they'll also explain what really happened to Oceanic Flight 815.



dharma-field.jpg

Live Free or DIE!!!!!

Export to Wiki
#145
Rating: 0
1/26/08 at 5:00pm
  • Joined: December 2001
  • Location: Columbus, OH
  • Post Count: 6,427

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Even at a dead run, almost no shake. How? Because even my stupid panasonic $699 camcorder has a image stabilizer that, unless I really screw with it, tends to keep shakes to a minimum. So, at a dead run, even with big swings, I don't get the up/down vibration effect that kept going on here.
"A BIG MONSTER IS DESTROYING THE CITY!!! QUICK, TURN ON THE IMAGE STABILIZER!!!"



...it's a feature you have to turn on, right?


The man I loved - the man who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe some day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again.
Export to Wiki
#146
Rating: 0
1/26/08 at 5:10pm
  • Joined: November 2000
  • Post Count: 8,847

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

The kinds of camera shakes featured in this film are not the kind that an Image Stabilizer would iron out. And no IS could smooth out camera shake from running. IS deals with the kind of very fast shake that creates blur (hand shake, I am guessing a couple of dozen Hertz), and this film was not blurry at all. In other words, your wonderful camera wouldn't have produced much better results. And certainly not in such a nightmarish situation.

Another thing: I've had a camcorder for 9 years and consider myself pretty good at shooting. Two simples rules I read from the manual of my camcorder have helped me produce excellent tapes: 1- Keep zooms and pans to an absolute minimum (I almost always zoom and pan between shots) and 2- try to keep shots at 5 secs whenever possible.

I've noticed that most people to whom I have lent my camcorder tend to want to see it as an extension of their eyes -- they shoot like they see, continuously, violently pan when their attention shifts, and zoom in full blast when they want to focus on something. The result is very much like this movie. EDIT: Actually no, the result is often worse. It was established at the very beginning AND throughout the film that Hud had no experience with filming. And even if he did, see my first paragraph.

I was pleasantly surprised by the picture quality. In comparison, something like 28 Days Later looked like absolute garbage.

I've never been physically bothered by "shaky cams", but perhaps because of all the warnings, or because I had just stuffed myself to near-explosion at an Indian food buffet, I felt a little queasy during the first 5 minutes. I got up, moved 3 rows back, and was straight for the rest of the film.

--
H
Export to Wiki
#147
Rating: 0
1/27/08 at 8:00am
  • Joined: July 1999
  • Location: Oh man, what a loser. He's working in a cheese factory in...
  • Post Count: 2,247

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Was it me or was the monsters roar really subdued compared to the trailer? In the trailer, when the monster roared, buildings would shake, lights would dim and everything seemed to come to a stand-still. It was quite intense and gave great hints at the enormity of the monster....plus, it was just a really cool roar. That was about the only disagreeable thing I found about the film.

Also, given the theory that a fallen satellite and it's recovery efforts were responsible for awakening the monster, how strangely coincidental and creepy is this and Let's hope it doesn't land near Coney Island.

Bruce


The Mads are calling
Export to Wiki
#148
Rating: 0
1/27/08 at 8:34am
  • Joined: August 2006
  • Post Count: 497

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!
Do me a favour, get out your camera, assuming you own one that is, take it outside and run down the street with it rolling, now play it back. See how shaky it is? And you weren't even running from a 200' monster lol.


If it were only while they were running I'd be a little more sympathetic, but this guy's camera work was awful before anything happened. If I were just watching the camera work at the party for the length of this movie I would have gotten a headache. I actually did think about your point before I posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holadem
I've noticed that most people to whom I have lent my camcorder tend to want to see it as an extension of their eyes -- they shoot like they see, continuously, violently pan when their attention shifts, and zoom in full blast when they want to focus on something. The result is very much like this movie. EDIT: Actually no, the result is often worse. It was established at the very beginning AND throughout the film that Hud had no experience with filming. And even if he did, see my first paragraph.

People I know did a better job when they first got their camcorder. This guy had problems even shooting what he liked to see. Regardless, a movie's camera work should not cause headaches to those watching--it needed more control, IMO. They could have made the camera man someone who catches on more quickly--it would have been better for the audience (at least my part of the audience!)

Oh well, I'm glad some people got away without a headache, or worse...
Export to Wiki
#149
Rating: 0
1/27/08 at 8:46am
  • Joined: July 1997
  • Post Count: 6,788

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
If it were only while they were running I'd be a little more sympathetic, but this guy's camera work was awful before anything happened. If I were just watching the camera work at the party for the length of this movie I would have gotten a headache. I actually did think about your point before I posted

Bingo. It wasn't so much the at a run (then it's all a blur) it's when you'd see him at a standstill dropping his CC and moving it up and around constantly and you'd get a bobble head effect. I tried to replicate this by swinging a camera back and forth between the wife and kids. Even when I swung the camera, on and filming, I didn't get the big swoopy up and down effect they get in the film.
My Current DVD-Profiler


"I've been Ostrafied!" - Christopher, Sopranos 5/6/07
Export to Wiki
#150
Rating: 0
1/27/08 at 9:11am
  • Joined: March 1999
  • Location: On duty and takin' out the fullscreen trash.
  • Post Count: 10,270

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

There is a very reasonable explanation to Hud's camerawork and it is as follows...

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he had no experience with a camcorder, he doesn't own one and suddenly he was saddled with the duty of filming the party and getting testimonials from the guests. Now, with his inexperience plus the loud and chaotic partying it's reasonable to assume that his camera work might be a little wanting.

Then the creature shows up and he takes it upon himself to film the events for posterity, he runs outside and is greeted with the head of the statue of Liberty rolling down the street. Now that would frighten me, I don't know about anyone else lol and assuming that Hud was afraid for the remainder of the evening AND he was running from the creature, the army and their rockets and guns, explosions and falling building deris and on top of all that was dealing with his own adrenalin and fear it's also reasonable to assume that he might not have improved much with his camerawork.

If the creature had not of shown up to ruin things he probably would have kept filming the party and gotten better at his shooting.

You couple that with the idea that maybe he had an older camera without IS in it and VOILA!

I'm not admitting that the camerawork was bad because I personally found nothing wrong with it i'm simply trying to come up with an explanation that will satisfy you people.
"You have no idea how far i'm willing to go to acquire your cooperation." - Jack Bauer
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread