"Cloverfield"

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #31
    Re: "Cloverfield"

    i liked it a lot but it could have been way better.

    too much humor at times.

    the statue of liberty thing was stupid.

    complete pandemonium and you don't hear the word "f*ck" once. i was constantly reminded that this was a pg-13 movie.

    the cg was poor in a few instances, especially at the big reveal towards the end.

    could have been scarier without too much effort.

    the monster itself was not very creative. [NERD REFERENCE] it's basically an ultralisk that drops a bunch of zerglings[END NERD REFERENCE] and the fact that it shrugs off all manor of bombs and bullets without so much as a scratch is. just. dumb.

    it could have been great...but it's not.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: "Cloverfield"

      It appears there is no happy medium here, really.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: "Cloverfield"

        Originally posted by bobmartin66

        My only surprise was that 27 Dresses finished ahead of The Bucket List.

        Bob
        I'm not. It's counter-programming. Rom Com (female) vs. Monster Mash (male). Plus, 27 Dresses had had a lot of promotion both on TV and on the web. Plus, it has a high visibility star like Katherine Heigl who has been on the cover of every woman's magazine in the last few weeks talking about the movie.

        Not really surprised about Mad Money. It might be a great sleeper hit, but it has had absolutely ZERO promotion whatsoever (it is a wide release, right?). This is surprising because it has a high visibility cast with Queen Latifa, Diane Keaton, Katie Holmes and Ted Danson and just screams "respectable, adult comedy for those over 25", again, counter-programming.
        Positive outcomes. Only.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: "Cloverfield"

          I won't say what it is, but did everybody notice what "happens" in that very last scene? Everybody I was with missed it. But I thought it was a nice touch.

          Ele...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: "Cloverfield"

            Originally posted by elephant1978 View Post
            I won't say what it is, but did everybody notice what "happens" in that very last scene? Everybody I was with missed it. But I thought it was a nice touch.

            Ele...
            Oceanic flight 815 can be seen falling out of the sky?

            Comment


            • #36
              "Cloverfield"

              Originally posted by elephant1978 View Post
              I won't say what it is, but did everybody notice what "happens" in that very last scene? Everybody I was with missed it.
              What?!?

              No one paid attention to that warning to stop flushing Sea-Monkeys® down the toilet?
              JEKYLL & CANADA (free .mp4 download @ Vimeo.com)

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: "Cloverfield"

                Excellent fun.

                Really enjoyed it.

                The kind of thing I wish would happen on a boring Saturday night here in NYC.

                Will be a smash hit at the box office. Probably in the 50 million range this weekend.

                My theater was packed this afternoon. My friend saw it last night. His theater was packed.

                Very enjoyable movie.

                What did I miss in the last scene?
                "Entertaining the world is a full time, up at dawn, never ending siege, the likes of which you will never fully understand."
                Billy Thrilly 2005

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: "Cloverfield"

                  I found this on wikiped regarding the last scene.

                  SPOILER I GUESS... :Shrug:



                  The final scene returns to footage from the month before, in which Rob and Beth enjoy a date at Coney Island, happy and carefree. Something falls out of the sky and splashes into the water in the distance, unnoticed.
                  I missed that. But assuming I did see it, what am I supposed to theorize about a splash in the water in the distance?
                  "Entertaining the world is a full time, up at dawn, never ending siege, the likes of which you will never fully understand."
                  Billy Thrilly 2005

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: "Cloverfield"

                    How was the CG "poor"?

                    I mean, I've trained in CG, had 14 years of Hollywood experience workin on ****..and from my eye the cg looked pretty well integrated, but what do I know :P

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: "Cloverfield"

                      I cannot complain that the TV commercial promised anything that the movie was not, because pretty much all the movie was was the 30 sec. TV commercial expanded and expanded and expanded.

                      Does that make it a "film" ??? It probably makes it "entertainment" ... I was entertained. I can entertain myself with a piece of string and a housecat. The cat gets excited and jumps on the table and smashes some crystal, and I videotape it ... was that a "movie" ?

                      It's like everyone who ever got a camcorder out of the box at a party and started waving it around. Is that a filmmaker capturing "first person reality" or just ... like everyone who ever started waving a camcorder at a party?

                      The "don't show us the shark yet, Mr. Spielberg" presentation was pretty gripping, building as it slowly reveals the grand views of the monster, I'll praise that. The little monsters dropping off the big monster was ... well ... those were some images for the monster Hall of Fame.

                      But I have to say I was disappointed for two reasons: I hoped (I assumed) the filmmakers would somehow take the "first person" POV beyond what The Blair Witch Project mapped out a decade plus ago (and which faux documentaries like The War Game did maybe thirty years ago) ... nothing revolutionary there.

                      Like someone pointed out above: It's shot like a first person shooter videogame. That. Isn't. What. I. Want. In. Movies.

                      Is that the direction we as Writers want Filmwriting to go? Do we want to go down the path to "Reality" aesthetics MOVIES like TV is becoming "reality aesthetics" TV ???

                      Because I suggest the film-going audience is just a little less susceptible to that (y'know: "dumb") than the TV audience (viddy well, the audience of 15 year olds talking back to the screen at CLOVERFIELD ... and the group riff that the kidz think is perfectly acceptable theater behaviour. And I'm not complaining about "rude teens" there ... I'm talking about "Art that expects the audience to riff back, because Art cannot pretend to hold the audience RAPT, enthralled, cannot expect to take them away in the story)

                      I wasn't offended by the 9/11 imagery ... but then some consider it taboo or bad taste to deal with Holocaust stories in certain tones, whereas I don't. I'm open to the idea of 9/11 gonzo pornos, let's say ... Deathcamp comedia ... but I can see where the entire CLOVERFIELD/9-11 imagery might strike New Yorkers as tasteless.

                      Not my call ... except the audience we saw it with WASN'T sitting stunned by the comparisons of the destruction of the city to the horrors of 9/11 ... they were enjoying the city getting blown up using 9/11 images. I find that uncomfortable. Like kids enjoying SAW movies based upon their Government's policies of torturing civilians.

                      Sometimes it's entertainment, sometimes it should be striking a deeper warning chord but isn't.

                      If you want to call CLOVERFIELD a simple thrill ride, ride and forget about it, fine. I liked the monsters well enough.

                      If you want to take it as a film that anyone should carry an idea out of the movie theater with them ... it has ideas that I either dislike or resent, about the future of Film, Writing, our government, and the Audience.

                      And that's not because it was a "thought-provoking" work of art. It's because the film causes the "thoughful" part of my mind to recoil in dislike and resentment.

                      If you think that the monster was a Djinn, and the film CLOVERFIELD is Osama bin Laden's wetdream of Allah's divine wrath against New York .... well, the kids sure had fun cheering and yelling back at the screen as Western Civilization DIED -- and DIED without understanding what hit it.

                      I would've enjoyed knowing where the monster came from, and what happens next. Like global terrorism. Understand the cause and solution, not just watch the death like gonzo porn.

                      Did they play the previews to BRING IT ON or STEP UP or whatever that dance movie was, where you were? Because as soon as all those gleaming male torsos got done street-dancing, some guy's voice says real loud: "That movie just screwed every guy in this place, because now their girlfriends are going to ask why can't they dance like that, and they'll go looking for a boyfriend that can!"

                      Now THAT was an insightful comment, and more about the end of Western civilization than the monster in the movie!
                      sigpic
                      "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
                      that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
                      -Mahatma Gandhi.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: "Cloverfield"

                        Originally posted by billythrilly7 View Post
                        I missed that. But assuming I did see it, what am I supposed to theorize about a splash in the water in the distance?
                        How 'bout the seed of the monster came from outer space? Seems pretty logical.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: "Cloverfield"

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          How 'bout the seed of the monster came from outer space? Seems pretty logical.
                          Yeah, that has to be what it is.

                          Friggin Aliens.

                          Why do they keep f'ing with us?

                          Haven't they learned that we will f them up?

                          Whatever.

                          Keep trying, humps.
                          "Entertaining the world is a full time, up at dawn, never ending siege, the likes of which you will never fully understand."
                          Billy Thrilly 2005

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: "Cloverfield"

                            the monster came from outer space
                            But is that much of a twist or an explanation? That's the most obvious and sci-fi genre overworked thing they could've done.

                            I mean, couldn't the filmmakers have found a way (see, and I agree that "found a way" would actually demand storytelling and creativity) to set aside an extra minute or two in a (?) 83 minute movie and blown our minds with an explanation? Couldn't they have worked some clues or scraps of mystery into it to "explain" the monster? Maybe even some bizarre images, just to mix things up?

                            Did you see the COKE commercial before the movie, the guy puts his coins in the Coke machine, and in some fantasy universe inside the machine the creatures make a Coke?

                            Totally meaningless CGI drivel ... and yet the coolest images.

                            What, the CLOVERFIELD guys couldn't just throw in some beautiful CGI stangeness (other than "we need some CGI monsters tearing up a city")

                            I just felt cheated. Sci Fi filmmakers and Sci Fi writers owe it to the audience to do something a little deeper than "here's a disaster, here's a guy with a video camera, see? Oh, something splashed in the background, did you see? It came from Outer Space."

                            They mostly all do come from Outer Space, Mr. JJ, movie-making bro. That's the starting point, in most Sci Fi movies. Then they tear sh*te up. Then there's more story ... usually.

                            Tell a story, don't just show events.

                            Compose a shot, a meaningful mise-en-scene, don't just point (or build the conceit of pretending to just point) a camera.

                            (though, obviously, yes, they spent millions either half-doing, or half-avoiding, both)
                            sigpic
                            "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
                            that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
                            -Mahatma Gandhi.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: "Cloverfield"

                              That would be spoon-feeding the audience. This isn't that kind of movie. It's a "let's reveal this thing a bit at a a time" movie. You have to be alert to catch a glimpse of this, or that.

                              Personally I think the movie did JUST what it set out to do. Make you wonder, and scare you at the right times

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: "Cloverfield"

                                Originally posted by tabula rasa View Post
                                I mean, couldn't the filmmakers have found a way (see, and I agree that "found a way" would actually demand storytelling and creativity) to set aside an extra minute or two in a (?) 83 minute movie and blown our minds with an explanation? Couldn't they have worked some clues or scraps of mystery into it to "explain" the monster? Maybe even some bizarre images, just to mix things up?
                                How could they blow our minds with an explanation?

                                There are only three. An Alien, a monster from the sea or some government project gone horribly wrong.

                                Choose whichever you like best. None of them are mind blowing. Heard 'em.

                                I don't feel the need to have it explained. I don't think I really want it explained. I'd rather it just be it what it be.
                                "Entertaining the world is a full time, up at dawn, never ending siege, the likes of which you will never fully understand."
                                Billy Thrilly 2005

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X