"Cloverfield"

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: "Cloverfield"

    Originally posted by bobmartin66
    MAD MONEY does nothing for me. Looks like a shallow waste of time.

    Bob.
    Maybe all the public wants this weekend is a shallow waste of time... a perky heist film/wish fulfillment romp (involving money that was going to be destroyed anyway)...

    Or: a couple of old dudes facing down their mortality (or distracting themselves from it)...

    ... or a thinly-veiled post-9/11 monster movie.

    After all, the public deserves what it wants.
    "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

    My YouTube channel.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: "Cloverfield"

      Originally posted by j over View Post
      Well, for me, ultimately movies are about people a bit more than plots and if characters are not believable or well-developed that more or less will seal the deal for me. And, why wouldn't you expect a bunch of "NYC Gen-Y'ers" to be well-developed?
      What really surprised me about Cloverfield was the story. Yes, there is a story. It's one that involves people that you actually care about. In fact, the first twenty minutes of the film are spent developing the characters all so that they matter later on. Plus, it's a real story that you can connect with. This is extremely important because you actually become one of them. That's right, sitting in the audience you actually become one of the main characters.

      What I suggest more then anything is to watch Cloverfield and just enjoy it. Enjoy the unanswered questions and let your imagination fill in the blanks. Become Hud and experience a monster attack through his eyes. Let yourself get caught up in the rush instead of trying to hold it to the rules of reality. This could very well be one of the most enjoyable films of the year. I can't wait to see it a second time this weekend.

      Taken from: http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/01/...monster-movie/
      @TerranceMulloy

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: "Cloverfield"

        i think if you go in with low expectations then you may be satisfied. i'm expecting this movie to be decent, but not groundbreaking. based on that assumption i think it'll probably be entertaining for me....but i won't be rushing out to see it this weekend.
        One must be fearless and tenacious when pursuing their dreams. If you don't, regret will be your reward.

        The Fiction Story Room

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: "Cloverfield"

          I liked it okay. It wasn't amazing, but it was vicerally fun and edgy at times. Some points were cheesy, some were good.

          I went expecting "Blair Witch Project" meets "Godzilla" and that's pretty much what I got plus two really hot chicks in it.

          Go in, turn off your brain, and enjoy it for what it is.
          "Tact's just 'not saying true stuff.' " - Cordelia Chase

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: "Cloverfield"

            Originally posted by Terrance Mulloy View Post
            What really surprised me about Cloverfield was the story. Yes, there is a story. It's one that involves people that you actually care about. In fact, the first twenty minutes of the film are spent developing the characters all so that they matter later on. Plus, it's a real story that you can connect with. This is extremely important because you actually become one of them. That's right, sitting in the audience you actually become one of the main characters.

            What I suggest more then anything is to watch Cloverfield and just enjoy it. Enjoy the unanswered questions and let your imagination fill in the blanks. Become Hud and experience a monster attack through his eyes. Let yourself get caught up in the rush instead of trying to hold it to the rules of reality. This could very well be one of the most enjoyable films of the year. I can't wait to see it a second time this weekend.

            Taken from: http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/01/...monster-movie/
            I agree with that review personally.

            *maybe spoilers but not really*

            The way the movie was done, I think they did a great job developing the characters. If they went in trying to flesh them out anymore all through the eyes of that single video camera, it woulda just been too much. You were with them long enough in the beginning to get to know most of them and throughout it is nice to see it through the eyes of a main character. To be caught in the action with them. An approach that was done well with Blair Witch project and perfect for this monster movie.

            I also enjoyed the take it as is kinda thing. No explanation. You are just as clueless as the main characters. And it stays true to that until the very end.

            The one thing about characters is that, I agree, some of the characters I didn't care about.

            But the main reason for that, I think, is because throwing some of the characters into the camera might have been difficult. The way it was done, you couldn't just flash some of the characters out there... it might have been going too far and been unrealistic. The way it was filmed, it was very much the way I'd expect someone to actually go along filming this event as it happened.

            So, it worked, for me at least.

            The flaw could be some characters being underdeveloped, but that's just being nitpicky. It would be difficult to force development of some characters, just because it'd look like an obvious attempt to do so--and in this style of filming I don't think that'd work.

            Good movie.

            Go see it!

            Anyone happen to wait for credits? If so, what happens? People I was with didn't wanna wait.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: "Cloverfield"

              Originally posted by JayKid View Post
              Anyone happen to wait for credits? If so, what happens? People I was with didn't wanna wait.
              Some indistinguishable voice just when the Kodak image etc rolls in. People around us were like "what was that?". No one knew...

              Loved the movie. Great concept, great execution. A little too shaky in some parts for my stomach, and a moment that felt like a Decent rip-off, but otherwise pretty damn awesome. Great fun.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: "Cloverfield"

                Quite a scathing review from The New York Times. Also, check out a Time interview with J.J. Abrams about the movie here.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: "Cloverfield"

                  Well, it's not exactly likely that something like this is gonna get a positive review from a New York source:
                  Like “Cloverfield” itself, this new monster is nothing more than a blunt instrument designed to smash and grab without Freudian complexity or political critique, despite the tacky allusions to Sept. 11. The screams and the images of smoke billowing through the canyons of Lower Manhattan may make you think of the attack, and you may curse the filmmakers for their vulgarity, insensitivity or lack of imagination. (The director, Matt Reeves, lives in Los Angeles, as does the writer, Drew Goddard, and the movie’s star producer, J. J. Abrams.)
                  It is what it is. Deal.
                  "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

                  My YouTube channel.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: "Cloverfield"

                    Man, that reviewer guy-- what an a$$hole!

                    It's like all these high brow critics have forgotten how to enjoy themselves.
                    @TerranceMulloy

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: "Cloverfield"

                      Originally posted by Terrance Mulloy View Post
                      Man, that reviewer guy-- what an a$$hole!

                      It's like all these high brow critics have forgotten how to enjoy themselves.
                      NY Times reviews are almost always about the reviewer, not the movie.

                      I really enjoyed it and was prepared to not like it going in. Pure popcorn stuff. I was a bit annoyed that the characters seemed to be drawn okay but were relentlessly stupid. It's hard to be sympathetic toward someone that does really idiotic stuff (going on a rescue mission in heels?).

                      I wish they had made the complications occur in such a way so that the protags were victims of bad timing or something rather than bad judgement.

                      Bot
                      Since I sensed a sudden lack of appreciation for my presence, I hopped out of the Jumpy-jump, snatched my glow-stick from the fridge and galloped away on the Rent-A-Pony. - Stolen from Jcorona

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: "Cloverfield"

                        It's a great movie. A bit short of being a classic. But as far as I'm concerned, you'll never find anything that puts you in the center of a monster attack like this. You feel like you're there. The buildings crumbling, the constant screams, random fighter jets flying overhead, the monster stomping and roaring all around you...it was pretty intense.

                        Yes, the characters are a little thin. And yes the shaky camera was annoying at times. But I think they added to the realism of the situation. Given the concept of the "found video," it wouldn't have worked if they went too deep into these people. And in the end it really doesn't matter. This isn't Godzilla where Matthew Broderick is the hero trying to kill the monster. In Cloverfield, the hero just wants to survive. That's realistic. I don't need to know any more to be satisfied within this premise.

                        The crowds at the Mann Chinese were unbelievable. This thing will be a smash. It's not a perfect movie, but it's probably as good as it can get in the monster-attacking-a-city genre. It's definitely something to experience in the theater with a large crowd.

                        Ele...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: "Cloverfield"

                          ^ x2...

                          I just don't see how you can expect much more out of what it was. A found film of a few young people in NYC during the attack. You can't expect to know everything about everyone and they did the best job that was possible on that front IMO.

                          And a great job on everything else. You felt like you were right there with the characters as everything happened. You felt the fear of the situation.

                          I couldn't of asked for much more than I got from Cloverfield personally.

                          Great movie.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: "Cloverfield"

                            Originally posted by Robot17 View Post
                            I was a bit annoyed that the characters seemed to be drawn okay but were relentlessly stupid. It's hard to be sympathetic toward someone that does really idiotic stuff (going on a rescue mission in heels?).

                            I wish they had made the complications occur in such a way so that the protags were victims of bad timing or something rather than bad judgement.

                            See, many of the negative reviews have expressed that same opinion which, to me, is disappointing to hear. I mean, sure, not everyone is going to make the greatest of decisions in a major disaster or hellish situation but at the least I expect characters to be believable or not complete imbeciles some of the time.


                            Originally posted by elephant1978 View Post
                            Yes, the characters are a little thin. And yes the shaky camera was annoying at times. But I think they added to the realism of the situation. Given the concept of the "found video," it wouldn't have worked if they went too deep into these people. And in the end it really doesn't matter. This isn't Godzilla where Matthew Broderick is the hero trying to kill the monster. In Cloverfield, the hero just wants to survive. That's realistic. I don't need to know any more to be satisfied within this premise.

                            So, all you need to know about a character in this type of movie in order to be satisfied is to know that they simply want to avoid being stomped on or eaten alive? I don't buy into the concept that a high-concept genre picture like this can't have at-all-deeply-developed characters in order for it to be successful...that just doesn't make any sense to me. The less I feel or like a character whose life is hanging in the balance, the less I will feel when that said person's bulbs are shot out which in turn will make the movie not satisfying. It will be pure spectacle and nothing more. Films that have used this kind of gimmick/slant (i.e. "The Blair Witch Project, for example) have been able to in the past contain developed-enough characters where although you know next to nothing about any of their back-story or who they've been up to that point, you can get a sense of who they are and what kinds of sensibilities they inhabit.


                            I don't know what it takes for Hollywood to actually produce a thrilling-popcorn-throwing-rollercoaster for the masses that also actually has some nitty-gritty-characters to give a damn about. I guess I expect or want more from movies than the next average joe-moviegoer or something. Those who have disliked the movie have often citied "The Host" as a much better contemporary monsterfest. Has anyone here seen that and, if so, how would you compare the two?


                            Side Note: Apparently, J.J. was indeed on the set a solid portion of the time which makes sense as he wasn't quite yet leading the Starship Enterprise (more J.J. here as well).


                            Also, am I the only one who didn't know Variety did video reviews besides the regular-written-variety?
                            Last edited by j over; 01-19-2008, 07:18 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: "Cloverfield"

                              I thought CLOVERFIELD was awesome. A first-rate and genuinely SCARY monster movie. There are times when the monster appears out of nowhere, right on top of the characters. Made LOTSA people in the audience jump and yelp audibly. I wasn't bothered by the shaky cam, in fact it ALMOST felt like a first-person shooter ( video game )

                              The monster DOES look cool. Not "WHOA THAT IS BEE-ZARE!" kinda cool, but a scary cool. From a designers standpoint, it's very "predator" esque. Not as in the Shwarzenegger film, but in "nature documentary". Like, if you've ever seen a documentary about killer ants...it has THAT kind of vibe to it. Spindly, with spider-like movements. Very ooky.

                              My only complaint, the ending. No spoilers, but i felt it was a blair-witch kinda ending. I GET why they did it, but just wished there had been one final "BUMP" to wierd me out...

                              I dunno. I was entertained.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: "Cloverfield"

                                The main character the audience becomes is named HUD and most of the film is shot from a first person POV.

                                HUD = Heads Up Display

                                This is definitely a gen-Y/Z film for the Xbox 360 generation...
                                Positive outcomes. Only.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X