Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

post #1 of 237
1/14/08 at 9:01pm
Thread Starter 
Want to see the monster? These are renderings of the monster by people who have seen the film, they vary a bit but you get the idea. The first image is said to be the closest. They're good works by the way, not doodles or anything.

It looks pretty bad ass too.

Cloverfield Update: Fans Draw the Cloverfield Monster! | FilmSchoolRejects.com - Giving Hollywood The Business - Movie News, Reviews and Opinions
Reply
post #2 of 237
1/14/08 at 9:25pm

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Thanks Zack.

If those are pretty close then I have to say that it looks great. Definitely a very different take then other monster films like Knowles states.

Did you happen to read the comments on that page? One person said it is the "stupidest looking monster ever" because it doesn't look like something that could really exist. He then states "when is someone going to make a monster movie with a monster that looks like it could exist." Crazy people I tell yea, it's a fictional movie with a fictional monster... what more do you want?

Can't wait to see this but, I'm not sure if I'm more excited to see the movie or the Star Trek trailer that will be attached to it.
Reply
post #3 of 237
1/15/08 at 11:13am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Defintely there this weekend, three day weekend for me and wanting to see this one since the first trailer. Zack, great site if the monster looks like the first picture, then I must say some great imagination was put in place here. Not your typical prehistoric dinosaur, or a take off of any the old time giant monster film, just simply new and original. Can't wait.
Reply
post #4 of 237
1/15/08 at 11:36am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

I actually had a nightmare the other night inspired by the trailer for this movie, it's nothing I can really describe just a series of random images and visuals but there was a monster in it that started out small and friendly and then grew to gargantuan proportions and became mean.
Reply
post #5 of 237
1/15/08 at 11:43am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

As much as I want to see this, I'm not over the fact that they kept that damn title. As a fake codename, it was great because it made no sense and kept people guessing. As a real title, it's terrible because it makes no sense and is just plain stupid.

But if the movie's great it doesn't matter what it's called.
Reply
post #6 of 237
1/17/08 at 10:44am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Thanks for the shakycam update. I guess I might be able to stand it if I saw it from the back row, but I don't think I'll take the chance...
Reply
post #7 of 237
1/17/08 at 10:50am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Seems like a very short film, too. My theater is wedging in 6 shows a day on one screen, when they usually only have 4-5. They list the running time at 84 mins.
Reply
post #8 of 237
1/17/08 at 10:50am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Malcolm beat me to it. The film is only 85mins long, 73mins sans end credits. Perhaps it's merciful I don't think I could have sat thru 2 hours of shakycam.

Variety has a review up -

Cloverfield Review - Film Reviews-New U.S. Release, Entertainment - Variety
Reply
post #9 of 237
1/17/08 at 10:57am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

sounds like a solid rental from NetFlix to me. I can almost live with the shaky camera on my 50 inch screen, anything bigger id need some Dramamine.
Reply
post #10 of 237
1/17/08 at 11:43am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

From the Variety article
Quote:
If "Cloverfield" proves massively successful, there's nothing preventing this beast from invading as many other cities as the public wants to see destroyed.
What about N.J. , sounds like an opportunity for a sequel depending on the success.
Reply
post #11 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:35am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

I went to last night midnight opening. Saw about half of the movie and left feeling I was going to barf. Thing upset my stomach for a few hours. The only other movie that has made me this sick because of the "shaky-cam" was Bourme Supremacy (I had no problem with Bourne Ultimatum, which is why I thought I'd be OK with this one. But no.). So I'll second the alert for those susceptible to motion sickness.
Reply
post #12 of 237
1/18/08 at 9:48am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

I saw it last night, row 7 at the Cinerama in Seattle. Not even 5 minutes in I started feeling nauseous. About an hour in, I was in the bathroom puking up my granola bar from earlier. After that, I watched the rest and did ok.

But the movie? Enjoyed it a bunch. Bring earplugs!
Reply
post #13 of 237
1/18/08 at 11:04am

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
As much as I want to see this, I'm not over the fact that they kept that damn title. As a fake codename, it was great because it made no sense and kept people guessing. As a real title, it's terrible because it makes no sense and is just plain stupid.

But if the movie's great it doesn't matter what it's called.
I agree. I just read the article that describes how the codename came from a street near the studio, but the street was Cloverdale. But it's just laziness on their part to not rename it.
Sure, the name Cloverfield had plenty of internet buzz, but it makes no sense as the name of this movie. It's like they didn't have the balls to rename it for fear of losing the internet buzz. Remember when there was the rumor it would be "Monstrous". That would have been fine. I bet "Monstrous" was the plan until they realized that the name Cloverfield just had too much buzz to risk it.
Another thought... Since there is some brief talk of a sequel (in an interview by bloody-disgusting), JJ Abrams could just as easily work the word "Cloverfield" into the sequel. As if Cloverfield is relevant to the attack, but just not relevant to our protagonist's point of view therefore it doesn't get into the movie.
Or don't be surprised if the word "Cloverfield" comes to have some strange vague mention in this coming season of Lost. Boy, would that make the fanboys go crazy!
Reply
post #14 of 237
1/18/08 at 4:16pm

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

It's funny that a theater patron came in just before the movie started saying it could be nauseating for some and they had barf bags ready in the hallway if we needed them. LOL.

Anyway, I didn't have any problems with the shakycam because I guess I was prepared for it. Unlike in regular movies where it seems distracting, for Cloverfield it just felt natural.

As for the movie itself, I really liked it. It was edge of your seat excitement as soon as the monster attacked NY.

Also, it may be just me, but every time the best friend who was holding the camera had a one liner, I just pictured Seth Rogan in my mind whenever he said them. Of course it was a different actor but it just seemed like Seth Rogan could have delivered them just the same.
Reply
post #15 of 237
1/18/08 at 4:58pm

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

yeah, it's my first 2008 release I've seen this year (still catching up on some 2007 releases) and so far it's my favorite.

I hope the Internet crowd (kids mostly) who were so excited to see this but will most likely just "download" it will actually get off the Internet and watch this movie where it was meant to be seen: on the big screen!!!!!!
Reply
post #16 of 237
1/18/08 at 5:31pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

What's amazing is that, like Patrick said, the entire film is seen from only one point of view yet it manages to be 100 times more involving and thrilling than, say, Godzilla '98, which isn't hard let's face it but still, it shows just how truely pathetic that film was.

I also loved the little touches of "recorded over" footage that occasionally pops up, it contrasted perfectly what was happening in their lives then as opposed to what was happening now, peace mixed with chaos.
Reply
post #17 of 237
1/18/08 at 5:31pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!
Such a shame you feel that way, you'll be missing one of the biggest and baddest monster flicks in years.
Seriously. Unless you've got a really, really kickass setup at home, don't miss this in theaters.

Quote:
That was one heeelllluuvvaaa movie!!
I will certainly back that up.

That shit was fucking unreal...it felt a little too real to me. After the movie ended, I had to convince myself that I didn't just watch a real event. The acting was top-notch, and all of the visual aspects were incredibly realistic. It's probably unlikely, but if the main cast got a "best ensemble acting" award, they really earned it.

The only thing that took me out of the movie sometimes was the sound design. C'mon, you can't get that kinda quality from a camcorder! There is no way a standard camcorder mic can capture LFE and whatnot.

Quote:
From the moment the monster shows up it's nothing but a tear-your-nuts off assault on just about every nerve in your body, your heart, your mind, your eyes and ears are consumed with imagry and sound.
Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Quote:
I want to see this film again like NOW!
I never want to see this film again. I mean it in a good way. I make it a point to not watch most horror/monster movies, because I get freaked out very easily. I don't want to get nightmares from a movie; I want to be entertained by a movie. Cloverfield was full of entertainment, but like Robert Hawkins said, "They're terrible things," or something to that effect.

Quote:
It also contains much that one wouldn't expect from such a film...character development and one's we actually care about because they're established very well in the short few minutes that there's peace in the film before all hell breaks loose.
Yep.

Quote:
5 's out of 5 's for Cloverfield.
I don't know how to rate this. But I'll say this. Whatever Matt Reeves and J.J. Abrams sought to achieve with Cloverfield, they fucking nailed it and then some.
Reply
post #18 of 237
1/18/08 at 5:47pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Does anyone know what camera was used for Cloverfield? Image quality was too good to be a regular but expensive standard def camcorder. It did have night vision and a pretty powerful lamp. Definetely 24p.
Reply
post #19 of 237
1/18/08 at 5:49pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Martinez
Does anyone know what camera was used for Cloverfield? Image quality was too good to be a regular but expensive standard def camcorder. It did have night vision and a pretty powerful lamp. Definetely 24p.

LOL, I did wonder that, too, but the movie was so good that I just chocked it up to one of those things your not supposed to think about.
Reply
post #20 of 237
1/18/08 at 5:51pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm R
Seems like a very short film, too.
It definitely doesn't feel short. By the time the movie ended, I was pretty much exhausted.
Reply
post #21 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:09pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Martinez
Does anyone know what camera was used for Cloverfield? Image quality was too good to be a regular but expensive standard def camcorder. It did have night vision and a pretty powerful lamp. Definetely 24p.

Panavision genesis HD camera on 35mm negative.
Reply
post #22 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:15pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
Panavision genesis HD camera on 35mm negative.

Ah okay, it looks amazing, too. Saw the film in a top notch DLP theater.
Reply
post #23 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:19pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

I liked it, however.....

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
JJ Abrahams has to realize this is NOT Lost and an on-going series. He failed to give any sort of backstory or meaning to why and where this stuff came from
Reply
post #24 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:24pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
Panavision genesis HD camera on 35mm negative.



Yeah, just found out that's the camera they actually used. Not too many regular people have that as their camcorder though. Maybe he had a porn business on the side. Or maybe he was hired by a Japanese adult film company.
Reply
post #25 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:25pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
I liked it, however.....

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
JJ Abrahams has to realize this is NOT Lost and an on-going series. He failed to give any sort of backstory or meaning to why and where this stuff came from

^ That's part of the point. We see this from the viewpoint of people who are stuck in the middle of this nightmare. Where exactly are we going to get all this info from? Not to mention, I like it better that way. As was the case with Blair Witch, the unknown is scarier and far more fascinating to think about and interpret.

By the way, did anyone notice Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the splash at the end during the ferris wheel scene?
Reply
post #26 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:26pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
Originally Posted by todd stone
I liked it, however.....

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
JJ Abrahams has to realize this is NOT Lost and an on-going series. He failed to give any sort of backstory or meaning to why and where this stuff came from


This is a POV movie. Everything the characters were seeing is what we were supposed to see. Everything they know is what we're supposed to know.
Reply
post #27 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:39pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

^^Yep, it treated the material as a real event, as if WE were at Rob's party for real when it happened.
Reply
post #28 of 237
1/18/08 at 6:41pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

this is a movie, I want to know......
Reply
post #29 of 237
1/18/08 at 7:02pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

I enjoyed it. I would have liked a little more info at the end. Thus not ruining the whole setup. My little nitpicks....
-Was it me or did the creature seem to be following the group?
-When the 3 of them get picked up in the helicopter. Why did the helicopter seem to follow the creature as its getting bombed? Wouldn't it have been safer to go the complete opposite of where the creature was?

Regarding Mal...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Did she explode?
Reply
post #30 of 237
1/18/08 at 7:38pm

Re: JJ Abrams-produced Monster movie (Codename: Cloverfield)

Quote:
Originally Posted by todd s
I enjoyed it. I would have liked a little more info at the end. Thus not ruining the whole setup. My little nitpicks....
-Was it me or did the creature seem to be following the group?
-When the 3 of them get picked up in the helicopter. Why did the helicopter seem to follow the creature as its getting bombed? Wouldn't it have been safer to go the complete opposite of where the creature was?

Regarding Mal...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Did she explode?

Regarding your spoiler, yes. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Apparently the little creatures (which gave me the heebie jeebies btw), that fell off of the large creatures back bites people which causes them to begin to hemorage and eventually burst...yuck.


It did seem to follow them but I don't think so, it was a large creature and it's body mass covered many blocks of city, and I think that the helicopter was just gaining altitude and the creature was moving beneath them, it didn't seem to me that they were purposfully following it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread