Cloverfield (No Spoiler Please) @@ NOW WITH SPOILERS @@

Think about it. If you're caught in the middle of the disaster, is there a "plot" to played out? Not really. You follow your gut and run like hell. There are no perfect camera angles, you don't learn the life story of the person next to you, and I'm not sure you really care about "why" you're about to die - you just try to prevent it.

I don't think this movie was as much about telling a story as it was about trying to convey the raw emotions - the confusion of not knowing anything about whats out there, the fear of knowing you're probably going to die, the adrenaline rush when you're following basic instincts.

In that regard, I think the movie did pretty well. If you want the "plot", you're going to have to unravel all the JJ Abrams crazyness - the related manga, the websites(Slusho, Tagruato, the characters' MySpace pages, etc.), the probable sequels. Like real life, the story is a puzzle.

 

I don't think they conveyed fear of death very well. You have a Blair Witch cameraman named after the heads-up-display cracking lame jokes at every opportunity. The only time any of the emotion looked real was under the bridge at the end. I mean what could you expect from JJ when the entire idea started to roll after he saw an image of the head of the SoL on the ground? That's honestly why he wanted to make this movie. To incorporate that image.

Btw, I'm a huge Lost fan because of the little bits of info you pick up in each episode. It highly contrasts this movie since Clovefield is so simple whereas Lost has a lot of things going on with tons of background info on characters. He pretty much covered the gamut on producing shows/movies where things drag on forever (Lost) and where things can be summarized in two minutes (Cloverfield). I just can't wait for Lost to start again next week.

 

I was this close to making the trip to go and see it, now I think I will wait for Pay per View.

 

I would go if I were you...its definately not going to have the same effect on the small screen

 

I liked it . Just wish there was some background on the monster...

 

^^Knowing a RIAA lawyer is a member of this site, I wouldn't be surprised if there's one representing the MPAA. You have your full contact info for you and the company you work for. I wouldn't post that stuff I were you...not trying to be a downer or anything.

 

I did not upload the video, so legally I'm not responsible I didn't even post any direct links to the movie, just a link which has direct links.

If Rob or the moderators feel my post is inappropriate they are welcome to delete it and send me a warning and I won't do it in the future.

 

Of course it was unique. It had little monsters thrown into it.

What I really didn't like was monster's look, some of the characters, or that the monster magically could follow around ONE group of folks. The ending left a bit to be desired as well. And it may have been my theater, but when the monster was near by, it was kind of hard to make out what everyone was saying with all the destruction.

 

It wasnt that the monster was always coincidentally where the kids were...it was that the Monster stayed in one basic area and that jusrt happened to be where the kids had to go.

 

I did like the part in the tunnel with the small monster. Specifically when they switched the camera to night vision and you could see it a little.

 

In my interpretation of the movie, that's intentional. You're supposed to be uncomfortable and frustrated...

 

You assume they killed it. Knowing JJ and the way Lost is going, I wouldn't be surprised if he drags this out and tries to top the # of Bond films (#22 in production).

 

If you watch till the very end, they say "it's still alive" in reverse.

He's planning a sequel.

 

All I know is Beth is really hot:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I wasn't uncomfortable or frustrated. I was trying to figure what the hell they were trying to tell Rob in the small store when he said he was leaving. All I heard instead was "BOOM, BANG, EXPLOSION!" 2 minutes before the monster was seen again.
I just didn't care for it. I'll admit, it was a different approach, but I'd rather stick with the usual camera panned on everyone. It annoyed me to see the camera laying in 1 position on the ground, or looking at retarded things like a burning car. Besides that, how in the hell could any camera survive like the one the film is represented by? How many times did he drop the freakin' thing?

BTW, and this is a spoiler warning below!



Was Lily the only (assuming Rob & Beth died) member who actually lived?

Damn. [Insert Drool Smiley Here]!

 

Recognizable, densly populated, large vertical structures all over, and it's an island with limits the ability to leave in crisis situations.
LA would be recognizable as well but... you just take the PCH down to San Diego and all is well Not tied to the location of the event/crisis, and while there's a dense population and landmarks, there's really not THAT much a monster that size can knock over ... which is much cooler and destructive than stepping on rodeo drive.

I thought this movie was WONDERFUL. Plot? It's there. Most people are just looking for the "traditional" plots, and the kind that tell an entire story condensed into 2 hours of film, that spans 3 or 4 days of the events. This film is in near real time, which means you only get the parts that unfold to the people you're watching it from the point of view of. The monster is not the main plot, just a catalyst for everything else. Why explain where it came from or anything, if it's not the focus of the story... THAT would be stupid, and take away from the PLOT.

Character development was fine. No need to jump back 10 years in flashbacks to learn all about these people's lives and such... it's about what happens that one night and their reactions to each other and the events going on, which was pretty clear AND kept with what we DO know about their personalities and relationships with each other.

Another thing I've heard alot about is that alot of things were left unexplained or fully shown... which I thought is GREAT. I didn't need to know exactly what the bite did to her, I got enough to make me wonder about the details. I didn't need to see the outcome of the last 30 seconds because I got enough to get an idea but still not be 100% (if you watched to the end of the credits). There's alot of loose ends, not that I think they will or should follow it with any kind of a sequel... but it's nice to know they didn't go out of the way and off the story, to try and tie up something so you didn't go home wondering.

I hate it when a movie gives me all the answers. NEVER makes it into my favorites list if it does that.

Oh and Mods... perhaps you want to put the SPOILERS tag in the topic of this thread. It's pretty much spoiled indirectly by now.

 

Mods.. time to toss SPOILER into the thread topic.
And to address this specifically... are you sure she did ?

 

I apologize for the spoiler. That's why I put the warning in large letters and the actual spoiler in small.
But, after she boarded & took off, I don't recall the camera ever showing her attacked afterwards, so I can only assume.



And apparently, the director has said he might like to do a sequel that is told through another witnesses' eyes on the day. So basically, same movie, different folks.

 

I think this movie also had a TON of online/viral promotion. There was the official movie site, and at least 1 or 2 other microsites created for the movie, and all the characters had Myspace pages. It was pretty deep.

Here's just one of many blogs reporting on all the stuff surrounding the movie.
http://one-eighteen-oh-eight.blogspot.com/

 

Thank God there are some here that 'get it'

 

Ah, but the Cloverfield Manga comic follows a boy trapped on a boat and his experience with the monster. So, different movie.

The helicopter does take off, true. And was out of the view of Hud and the camera, which was trained on the monster below. But, are you really sure?
I mean you can assume, yes. But, you could also assume that copter didn't make it. It just leaves it open for whatever your personal interpretation is, which is brilliant. Thats exactly why I loved and was scared ****less by Blair Witch. Alot of folks were complaining it wasn't scary cause you never saw the monster... and in completely opposite, it scared the piss out of me because I NEVER SAW IT. My mind brought up everything that could possibly be bad in the world and put it in the place the movie left wide open... and nothing shown on film, ever, will capture what freaks ME out, as much as my own mind/fears will. Each open ended event in cloverfield (there were plenty), gives YOUR mind room to sort out what you think just happened, or what happened next when the camera was on to other topics...

And there's plenty of loop holes and easter eggs in the movie to keep going with. No sequel planned as of yet that I can find evidence of... but then again, I think the only way they'd be able to recap this is to just spring it out of the blue on us again... any lead up to it would just dilute it so much... IF they make one, I seriously hope they don't go 3rd person, and I hope they don't sell out to gloss up effects or something.

This link will lead to spoilers, and information on hidden items in the film. DO NOT CLICK if you have not seen the film yet!!!

 

I might of "got it" if I didn't get sick from all of the camera movement. It's a home video, I get that, but at least make the guy behind the camera an aspiring documentary maker or something like that so it better explains his insane need to constantly film everything and to also allow him to hold the camera a bit more steady when it's needed. But this is a minor point...

I understand what the director was going for but for me, there wasn't enough character development for me to care whether or not the people involved lived or died. I mean, this heartless girl brought another guy to his going away party. WTH?

I also found it hard to "get it" because of the constant idiotic comments by the person behind the camera. This really killed any emotional tension before it could build. I felt like the movie was just making fun of itself.

 

You know, I could almost agree with you about the camera person's joking and comments. Then I remembered to when me and my friends were utterly bored and had a video camera. We'd go around town just being idiots and taping each other being morons. Unfortunately this was far before it was "cool" to do such, and we didn't actually do anything that would knowingly cause bodily injury or severe pshycological damage, so I'm sure it's nothing worth reviewing for "entertainment" ... but I digress. My point is... I found that there's some people out there that just NEED to document things in a crisis, and a camera makes them just open up and become a non-stop flow of comments and questions and ramblings, like Hud in the film. It was his way of dealing with the situation, and thats supported by many comments made to him to just put the camera down and start walking/running, and he refuses to. He views it through the lens instinctively, but without any developed talent.

Investigative film and documentary film makers usually come out of these personalities.

Again, I'd argue, that was SPOT ON character detail. But thats just my interpretation.

 

I can see it that way and I can buy into his need to film everything. The main problem I had was his reactions to what was going on. It was hard for me to focus on the gravity of what was happening to the people in the film with his constant stream of idiotic comments. I didn't want to laugh; I wanted to feel tension and suspense. Someone's head explodes and he's still goes at it with the comments. I was actually relieved when he died but as he lay in front of the camera, I half expected his "duuude" voice to come back on and make some sort of wisecrack.