Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Jul 19, 2025 11:55 am



Reply to topic  [ 278 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next
 Cloverfield 

What grade would you give this film?
A 61%  61%  [ 34 ]
B 21%  21%  [ 12 ]
C 11%  11%  [ 6 ]
D 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
F 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 56

 Cloverfield 
Author Message
Artie the One-Man Party

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:53 pm
Posts: 4632
Post Re: Cloverfield
Like I said in the crowd reports though, I brought 6 people with me, none who have been following the movie too closely outside of TV spots, and all LOVED it...


Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:33 am
Profile
i break the rules, so i don't care
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 20411
Post Re: Cloverfield
loyalfromlondon wrote:
bABA wrote:
why haven't you seen the movie yet?


I will eventually.


omg u haven't??? get out of this thread.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:44 am
Profile
Team Kris
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:57 pm
Posts: 1037
Post Re: Cloverfield
Simply put, amazing! Cloverfield is the best monster movie to ever hit the big screen. It has everything you want in a tentpole blockbuster, emotion, action, amazing CGI, and humor. The one thing I was cautious about going into it was the first-person camera style, but that just made the movie more intense and added to the realism that one would feel in the middle of the destruction. This is one non-stop thrill ride that left me breatheless.

A

_________________
"You're going to tell me what I want to know. The only question is how much you want it to hurt."
Jack Bauer- Season 5


Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:11 pm
Profile WWW
He didn't look busy?!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:59 pm
Posts: 4308
Post Re: Cloverfield
You know, people probably didn't notice this because we were all too focused on the story, but did anyone else notice how some scenes had some really long camerashots, like in a Children of Men sorta way? In the bridge scene, there must've been a three or four minute camera shot going when all the shit was breaking. It was so impressive from that technological standpoint, but I understand how everyone's focus is on the film and monster and such instead. But if anyone checks it out a second time, watch for that...they had to do long takes throughout the film or it would feel too jumpy and unrealistic. You know that scene where Rob's standing outside and then runs into the Electronics Store and they watch the TV and such and then leave and go down the alley? That was all one camera shot, if I'm not mistaken. Which somehow makes this movie more awesome in my book :D

_________________
Image
Retroviral Videos
A film-based project created for the purpose of helping raise awareness about HIV/AIDS, specifically in South Africa.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:31 pm
Profile WWW
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post Re: Cloverfield
Magnus wrote:
bABA wrote:
Its called plugging a variable into the equation thats out of place and seeing everything else's reactions basd upon it. an element of something that shouldn't exist still envokes realistic and believable responses from people.


But you have no idea what is realistic in this situation. Because it's never happend. Thus, the film has to make you beleive that the actions of these indivduals are realistic. And it failed to do so for me. I just didn't buy most of their actions at all.

I just did not connect to any of the charecters outside of Hud. And the film is supposed to be about the people. So failing to connect is a major downfall for it.

However, due to the fact that there was a GIANT FUCKING MONSTER and Hud's comic relief, I was very entertained. So it is an enjoyable film to watch. But it is hardly a great movie.


That honestly makes no sense.

You're telling me that every single variable in this world leads a person to be in a situation they cannot predict?

The situation is not a monster here

The situation here is
- Outright panic
- Sudden disaster
- Something unknown
- Chaos
- Adrenaline Rush
- Confusion
- Lives at stake

Things happen in life that are comparable that people go through. Hate to provide this as an example but ask those standing around New York with 9/11 happened and see hwo they reacted to the situation on TV. Notice how the same variables played an integral part in their reaction. Watch on TV when a massive bombing takes place somewhere unexpected.

The fact that its a monster (and hence something completely fictional), outside of the AWE factor doesn't change much in how people react because not knowing the origins of the monster lead to the same feelings as stated above. Speculation on what the hell it is is similar to any other speculation. Fear of the unknown are also traits that people are well aware of.

Based upon that, in the opinion of most people here (or atleast myself and frenchie man), the filmmakers did an incredible job of portraying people's reactions in the films.

There is always the argument that you personally may not have reacted that way which is a valid argument. However, i think once again, the filmmakers did their due deligence in portraying the main characters and even those that show up on screen for a couple of seconds all reacting slightly differently but when push came to shove, did what is normally expected of a crowd in sudden danger, total confusion against an unknown entity.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:31 pm
Profile WWW
The French Dutch Boy
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 10266
Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
Post Re: Cloverfield
What an exhilarating film. There is an abundance of amazing shots, sequences and scenes. I was amazed at the onslaught of unique positions the characters were put in. The head of the statue of liberty flying down the street; the devastation of the Brooklyn Bridge; a semi-ruined apartment building leaning against another apartment building; the incredible sequence of events captured from the helicopter as it leaves New York; the military street war against the creature. And who can forget the direct attack of Hud (the camera man throughout the film) by the monster - a scene so effectively shocking near the end of the film because it is really the first moment where we get such an unprecedentedly clear and unobstructed view.

What made this film work? It took a tired genre and put a whole new perspective on it. And that's not to say "shaky cam" = brilliant new perspective. It is what the film manages to accomplish by using the one-man, "we're in the trenches with them" perspective; how they actually used the camera as a an effective tool in creating scenes and atmosphere, well beyond a mere "shaky camera" gimmick. I can understand those who don't like it, but it is the reason this film works in many ways.

The most prime example is also one of the best scenes I have ever seen in a monster film. Let's see if I can describe it with justice. The four protagonists are walking down a now deserted subway tunnel, a safer way to get across the city than in the streets above. Rats start pouring themselves down the tunnel and one of the gals mention how gross it is. They realize that the rats are all running away in the same direction, and so they start to freak out. Hud turns the camera light off they've been using to see, and we are in the dark unable to see anything along with them. Hud has an idea and asks Rob how to turn on the night vision light, and he switches it on. Suddenly we see the ghostly outlines of the creatures crawling almost above them on the tunnel ceiling, and ONLY Hud can see them (through the camera's night vision). He yells at everyone to "RUUUN" and everyone is "What? WHAT?" and freak out and start to run. They are effectively attacked until they find an emergency exit.

The director/writer couldn't have done this scene any better. It wasn't just the one-man camera perspective, but the brilliance in using the camera light so the audience could see only when the characters could see, and the night vision lighting to create such an effective reveal of the little creatures. The fact that the creatures were right there before them, and only Hud could see them through the camera lens, made it feel even more harrowing to me. The effectiveness is taken even further when the creatures start directly attacking the camera.

One last thing that I need to comment on is the inter-splicing of the footage currently being shot on the camera (i.e. the real time destruction of New York by a monster) and what we know are scenes from the video that were originally on the tape being used in the camera (Rob's tape of Beth and himself in various romantic situations). While character development is not exactly a staple of this film (and why should it be? I want a monster thrill ride), this video footage does provide reason and support for Rob's character wanting to stay in the city to rescue Beth. This relationship they had, combined with the fact that Rob had just moments earlier lost his brother to death, gave me enough as an audience member to believe the storyline and want to stick with the characters until the end. I bought into the idea that Rob couldn't bare to lose both his brother and Beth - considering just how mopey he was at the party.

The bad: The characters are clearly the weakest aspect of the film - the love relationship is not strong in any sense whatsoever, but there's at least something there to support Rob (the main protagonist's) motivations at a very basic level. Sometimes the Hud character annoyed me to no end (Rob! Rob! Rob! Dude, Rob, listen up!). I also found it particularly unrealistic with how kindly/nicely the military treated them, but maybe with so many films displaying military corruption, I'm just jaded.

While Cloverfield isn't perfect, I'm thrilled with how effectively the director and writer used one camera from one man's perspective to create a unique monster film. The camera - instead of merely being an invisible entity, a magical view into a story which we see on film - becomes a real tool in how the film plays out and how we, as the audience, see things on screen. It goes far beyond the mere notion of "shaky cam" and thus, I don't think anyone can properly attack the film on those grounds. Visuals/effects are surprisingly terrific for such a low budget, too.

Strong B+

Peace,
Mike


Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:51 pm
Profile
Killing With Kindness
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm
Posts: 25035
Location: Anchorage,Alaska
Post Re: Cloverfield
BJs grade:

A-

This film rocked hard, Im thinking of bumping my grade up to an A.

_________________
The Force Awakens

Image


Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:01 pm
Profile WWW
The French Dutch Boy
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 10266
Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
Post Re: Cloverfield
Oh, and the comedy in this film is something that I would count as being a special attribute. Some of the comedy situations were quite funny, and I feel it added to the film's overall feel and enjoyment. And so, I give more kudos to the script.

Peace,
Mike


Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:02 pm
Profile
The French Dutch Boy
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 10266
Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
Post Re: Cloverfield
Magnus wrote:
bABA wrote:
Its called plugging a variable into the equation thats out of place and seeing everything else's reactions basd upon it. an element of something that shouldn't exist still envokes realistic and believable responses from people.


But you have no idea what is realistic in this situation. Because it's never happend. Thus, the film has to make you beleive that the actions of these indivduals are realistic. And it failed to do so for me. I just didn't buy most of their actions at all.

I just did not connect to any of the charecters outside of Hud. And the film is supposed to be about the people. So failing to connect is a major downfall for it.

However, due to the fact that there was a GIANT FUCKING MONSTER and Hud's comic relief, I was very entertained. So it is an enjoyable film to watch. But it is hardly a great movie.


I completely respect this opinion. The characters were undeniably the weakest part of the film, in terms of character development. But I felt there was enough there to create a basic motivation for the characters that can allow the audience to continue with them. It's not strong at all, and maybe the last scene where Rob and Beth profess their love for each other is pushing it, but I was still with them at least. It is in this area that I feel the splicing of past romantic scenes between the two really come in handy. I was happy that the film didn't end with them under the bridge (which was a little corny), and actually with them on a ferris wheel in the good ol' days.

I'm glad you were very entertained, but I would have to disagree that it was "hardly a great movie". I thought it was a really good movie. :)

Peace,
Mike


Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:07 pm
Profile
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post Re: Cloverfield
Magnus wrote:
bABA wrote:
That honestly makes no sense.

You're telling me that every single variable in this world leads a person to be in a situation they cannot predict?

The situation is not a monster here

The situation here is
- Outright panic
- Sudden disaster
- Something unknown
- Chaos
- Adrenaline Rush
- Confusion
- Lives at stake

Things happen in life that are comparable that people go through. Hate to provide this as an example but ask those standing around New York with 9/11 happened and see hwo they reacted to the situation on TV. Notice how the same variables played an integral part in their reaction. Watch on TV when a massive bombing takes place somewhere unexpected.

The fact that its a monster (and hence something completely fictional), outside of the AWE factor doesn't change much in how people react because not knowing the origins of the monster lead to the same feelings as stated above. Speculation on what the hell it is is similar to any other speculation. Fear of the unknown are also traits that people are well aware of.

Based upon that, in the opinion of most people here (or atleast myself and frenchie man), the filmmakers did an incredible job of portraying people's reactions in the films.

There is always the argument that you personally may not have reacted that way which is a valid argument. However, i think once again, the filmmakers did their due deligence in portraying the main characters and even those that show up on screen for a couple of seconds all reacting slightly differently but when push came to shove, did what is normally expected of a crowd in sudden danger, total confusion against an unknown entity.


And you told me that I tried way too hard to justify liking a movie? Please. Over-analysis galore. If you talk like that, any fucking movie can look amazing.


umm

a) i think someone said that about you in this thread for liking it. that wasn't me. if you're refering to the general thread i made, then yea.

and theres no overanalysis here. you're forcing me to tell you why the characterization is believable. its not like i even spent 10 seconds thinking that up. i consider the thought process to be general common sense.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:22 pm
Profile WWW
I heet the canadian!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:58 am
Posts: 5192
Location: The Great _______
Post Re: Cloverfield
Arsi, you are absolutely right about every single thing you've said in this thread. EVERYTHING Anyone who disagrees is obviously mentally stunted.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:24 pm
Profile
College Boy Z

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
Post Re: Cloverfield
Take out the monster and there's still numerous, realistic situations that could fit into Cloverfield.

It's about so much more than the "GIANT FUCKING MONSTER."


Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:25 pm
Profile
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post Re: Cloverfield
Zingaling wrote:
Take out the monster and there's still numerous, realistic situations that could fit into Cloverfield.

It's about so much more than the "GIANT FUCKING MONSTER."


No zing. its just about the monster. most people were reacting to family members getting killed suddenly, a bridge they're on collapsing, rubble flying through the air, hearing a sudden sound. But no. because a monster caused all of this, our reactions must be completely different. Science will prove in 6 years through a simulation that when a bipedal monster of unknown origin strikes, there is an 80% likelihood that most people will tear of their clothes and punch chipmunks in the face.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:27 pm
Profile WWW
College Boy Z

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
Post Re: Cloverfield
I understand, but...

You don't think it's realistic that he'd go back for the girl he loves? And I'm not asking what you'd do. You don't believe that anyone would do that? I'd be on your side if, say, one of the characters declared, "I'm going to save New York City from this evil, unknown being!" or something ridiculous like that. But the filmmakers here show you about four characters - one of which is going back for the girl he loves, and the other three, hesitant to go back, but sticking to their friend's side instead of leaving him to die.

I see nothing unbelievable about that. I think you're only thinking from your own perspective.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:13 pm
Profile
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Cloverfield
I would go back for my girlfriend, it's not even a hard question to answer.


In any case, it was a great movie, best I've seen this year (also seen Sweeny Todd and Atonement). I enjoyed it.

_________________
Image


Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:42 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Cloverfield
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Eagle wrote:
I would go back for my girlfriend, it's not even a hard question to answer.


In any case, it was a great movie, best I've seen this year (also seen Sweeny Todd and Atonement). I enjoyed it.


I too would go back for Karl's girlfriend.


Sweet, you can be the camera guy who gets eaten! :whistle:

_________________
Image


Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:48 pm
Profile WWW
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post Re: Cloverfield
Magnus wrote:
bABA wrote:
umm

a) i think someone said that about you in this thread for liking it. that wasn't me. if you're refering to the general thread i made, then yea.

and theres no overanalysis here. you're forcing me to tell you why the characterization is believable. its not like i even spent 10 seconds thinking that up. i consider the thought process to be general common sense.


*coughs*

Sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit.

(Yes. I just quoted I,Robot)


Must be hard for you to read msot of your posts then.

;)


Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:49 pm
Profile WWW
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post Re: Cloverfield
Magnus wrote:
Let me say this again:

In a film like this, you're going to have to have people do unrealistic/unthinkable actions. Yes.

But...the filmmakers have to make you believe that these actions are still justifiable in that situation. It's not like, "oh, we can make them do whatever shit they want because of the situation." No. THe film has to convince you of the charecters actions. And it didn't for me.


Now you're saying 2 different thigns. First you say that its a situation no ones been in and no one knows how one would behave and then when i tell you its irrelevant, you say its bullshit. then you want the filmmakers to convince you of something and make you believe they would act a certain way and claim that you didn't believe it.

Mighty big contradiction here.

either the situation is comparable or its not. in which case, either judge it or don't.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:52 pm
Profile WWW
Leader of the Pack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:35 am
Posts: 1526
Location: A better place
Post Re: Cloverfield
Wow... This film is way to overrated...
C-


Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:55 pm
Profile
Artie the One-Man Party

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:53 pm
Posts: 4632
Post Re: Cloverfield
Magnus, you're more or less a dumbass who says things to go against the grain when really you make no flippin' sense. A.K.A. BKB (except you take yourself seriously).


Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:55 pm
Profile
Rachel McAdams Fan

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:13 am
Posts: 14627
Location: LA / NYC
Post Re: Cloverfield
SO FUCKING GOOD. The scariest movie I've seen in years. This blows every horror movie as of late out of the water and is already an instant classic in my book.

A+


Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:02 pm
Profile YIM
Motherfuckin' sexual
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 4:38 pm
Posts: 1830
Location: Orange County, CA
Post Re: Cloverfield
Spoiler: show
I was under the impression that the thing flying into the water was a satellite that the Japanese company shot down, which in turn awoke the monster living in the sea. No way a thing of that size landed in the water without a title wave. All of Coney Island and most of Manhattan would have been under water. A smaller satellite might be more believable, but a massive wave still would have occurred.

_________________
Image Image


Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:44 pm
Profile YIM WWW
invading your spaces
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 6194
Post Re: Cloverfield
A+

Is Hud a reference to Hudson from Aliens? If so... clever.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:35 pm
Profile WWW
Baaaaa!
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 10:31 am
Posts: 1011
Location: Lookin for mah bukkit
Post Re: Cloverfield
It was a solid movie. Nothing amazing, but it was good. A lot of the cinematography was neat and the subway scene is really good. I think I would've liked it more if
Spoiler: show
Hud and Marlena had survived/at least gotten as far as Rob and Beth, with those two dying instead. I didn't feel too much for Rob or Beth, but I liked Hud and Marlena.
Also, I was admittedly a little disappointed that the actual movie seemed to toss everything established in the viral marketing out the window. It probably isn't fair to judge the movie on that, but after all of the searching for clues, I actually wanted to see Slusho and Tagruto be involved a little. To go through all of that only for the actual movie
Spoiler: show
to suggest that the monster may have come from space and have had next to nothing to do with those two companies
seemed like a waste to me.

As for the monster, it was pretty solid overall, but did anyone else think that
Spoiler: show
it looked like a giant version of the Chimera from Resistance: Fall of Man? Also, was it ever mentioned if the parasites could reproduce? It didn't look like any came out of Marlena when she exploded, which is how I figured they would've reproduced. If they can do so, a sequel about the parasites spreading through the country could be kind of cool.


Anyway, I know my thoughts are pretty cluttered and probably sound more negative than my opinion really is, but I did like it. I'd probably give it a B as of now, but a repeat viewing could either raise or lower my grade quite a bit.

Oh, and "Roar! (Cloverfield Overture)" is pretty much the greatest piece of music ever.

_________________
Image


Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:36 pm
Profile
invading your spaces
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 6194
Post Re: Cloverfield
Magnus wrote:
On paper, when you say "boy goes back to city being destroyed by monster to save the girl he loves", it sounds fine. On film though, it didn't work. Which is why I said the film COULD have been better. The idea/concepts were spot-on. The execution though wasn't.

If that's your beef than that's fine. (Just reading the thread backwards). I don't think anybody should dispute with you.

However I'd like to say that I completely, 100% disagree with you on every level when it comes to the characters. While I was watching it, I was actually floored by the idea that I cared somewhat about these people who I knew nothing about. It's in the same vein of the film I watched last night called The Naked Prey. No setup, but actions and few words become what you hang on to.

If this was a slasher movie, it would probably have some of the best and most praised performances ever. I mean, compare the performances here to every other "giant monster movie". Cloverfield (while not "revolutionary" or "trend setting") gets everything so right in my eyes.

Also, while it is true that the search for Beth is the reason why we go back and forth through the city, they DID try to escape the city and their path was blocked for about 50 minutes of the piece. When Rob is out in front of the Sephora store after the bridge incident... when he makes his decision to go after Beth, there's not much else they can do... they can't get out.

He makes that decision again with the military guy who tells him about the helicopter taking off at 6am, but there again, he has a way out... get Beth, get out. I don't know what would be considered "believable" in this situation (I mean, just the Katrina disaster and all the craziness that went on there will tell you that people are off on their own clouds) but in the space of 84 minutes, I really, really, really thought they sold it.


Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:57 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 278 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.