CLOVERFIELD (OMG! IT'S HERE! SPOILERS! AAAAH!!1!)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

4 Leaf Clover or Fetid Field?

Slusho!
18
21%
9
14
16%
8
16
19%
7
10
12%
6
11
13%
5
2
2%
4
3
4%
3
1
1%
2
5
6%
it drank my milkshake/it really was a lion
5
6%
 
Total votes : 85

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:12 pm

Ribbons wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:I enjoyed watching Cloverfield.

It was exciting and maintained my interest.

I liked the atmosphere of the film.

It had some things I disliked about it.

It could have been a much better movie.

I'd recommend it to friends as 'an enjoyable night-out flick'.

I wouldn't buy it on DVD.


Consider that my review....


Short and sweet, I like your style WPAO (or as I am now calling you, Wa-POW!)


And I didn't even see it in a cinema!! I watched it online hehehe

But when I get paid (Feb 1st) I'll go to the cinema to see it, as it's not out in the UK until Feb 1st :-P

But that's still my review. It's not the kind of film I could find myself writing at great lengths about. It was just a cool film to watch and I will watch it again (in the cinema) but that will be it.

Whereas The Dark Knight will have a huge, long review from me :wink:
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Postby Spifftacular SquirrelGirl on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:14 pm

Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:I enjoyed watching Cloverfield.

It was exciting and maintained my interest.

I liked the atmosphere of the film.

It had some things I disliked about it.

It could have been a much better movie.

I'd recommend it to friends as 'an enjoyable night-out flick'.

I wouldn't buy it on DVD.


Consider that my review....


Short and sweet, I like your style WPAO (or as I am now calling you, Wa-POW!)


And I didn't even see it in a cinema!! I watched it online hehehe

But when I get paid (Feb 1st) I'll go to the cinema to see it, as it's not out in the UK until Feb 1st :-P


This is one of those movies that'll play better in a movie theater compared to a computer screen or television. This would have been really trippy on IMAX if it wasn't for the occasional shakey cam (although I think there was only one really short period in the movie where I even really noticed it..)
User avatar
Spifftacular SquirrelGirl
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:58 am
Location: Random tree

Postby junesquad on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:19 pm

Spifftacular SquirrelGirl wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:I enjoyed watching Cloverfield.

It was exciting and maintained my interest.

I liked the atmosphere of the film.

It had some things I disliked about it.

It could have been a much better movie.

I'd recommend it to friends as 'an enjoyable night-out flick'.

I wouldn't buy it on DVD.


Consider that my review....


Short and sweet, I like your style WPAO (or as I am now calling you, Wa-POW!)


And I didn't even see it in a cinema!! I watched it online hehehe

But when I get paid (Feb 1st) I'll go to the cinema to see it, as it's not out in the UK until Feb 1st :-P


This is one of those movies that'll play better in a movie theater compared to a computer screen or television. This would have been really trippy on IMAX if it wasn't for the occasional shakey cam (although I think there was only one really short period in the movie where I even really noticed it..)


I can't convince myself to go see this movie. I may be able to when it is at the $2.50 theater.
Junesquad
junesquad
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:01 pm

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:19 pm

Spifftacular SquirrelGirl wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:I enjoyed watching Cloverfield.

It was exciting and maintained my interest.

I liked the atmosphere of the film.

It had some things I disliked about it.

It could have been a much better movie.

I'd recommend it to friends as 'an enjoyable night-out flick'.

I wouldn't buy it on DVD.


Consider that my review....


Short and sweet, I like your style WPAO (or as I am now calling you, Wa-POW!)


And I didn't even see it in a cinema!! I watched it online hehehe

But when I get paid (Feb 1st) I'll go to the cinema to see it, as it's not out in the UK until Feb 1st :-P


This is one of those movies that'll play better in a movie theater compared to a computer screen or television. This would have been really trippy on IMAX if it wasn't for the occasional shakey cam (although I think there was only one really short period in the movie where I even really noticed it..)


Oh, certainly it will be a whole other experience on the big screen! But that being said, I find there are films I can happily watch online and DVD (when they're released) and never care about seeing at the flicks. Or watch online and THEN at the flicks.

Then there's Indy IV and The Dark Knight - which I will HAVE to see on the big screen FIRST.
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:24 pm

Spifftacular SquirrelGirl wrote:Also, I wish I could find the link to the interview with the director but I thought he mentioned something that really sounds freaky. Basically that the monster was seperated from it's mother and was just having a freakout... comparing it to an elephant going beserk at a circus or zoo.

So does this mean there is another one out there even bigger and probably angrier? o.O;


Yeah, I read that interview too. If they do a sequel that's one way they could go with it.

I liked reading about that, because it shows how a lot of thought went into the design of the creature, where it came from, etc., that was specifically not shown. They could have really gone all-out and explained everything during the movie if they wanted to, but besides for the little sploosh in the water at the end almost everything about the monster and its origins is a mystery, which is the way I think it should be, at least for this movie.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13995
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Ribbons wrote:
Spifftacular SquirrelGirl wrote:Also, I wish I could find the link to the interview with the director but I thought he mentioned something that really sounds freaky. Basically that the monster was seperated from it's mother and was just having a freakout... comparing it to an elephant going beserk at a circus or zoo.

So does this mean there is another one out there even bigger and probably angrier? o.O;


Yeah, I read that interview too. If they do a sequel that's one way they could go with it.

I liked reading about that, because it shows how a lot of thought went into the design of the creature, where it came from, etc., that was specifically not shown. They could have really gone all-out and explained everything during the movie if they wanted to, but besides for the little sploosh in the water at the end almost everything about the monster and its origins is a mystery, which is the way I think it should be, at least for this movie.


I think any potential sequel would have to feature a monster so huge that just it's foot could wipe out 1/4 of New York City. Something so big it's upper body isn't even visible. Now THAT would be worth a sequel 8-)
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:31 pm

Ribbons wrote:
Spifftacular SquirrelGirl wrote:Also, I wish I could find the link to the interview with the director but I thought he mentioned something that really sounds freaky. Basically that the monster was seperated from it's mother and was just having a freakout... comparing it to an elephant going beserk at a circus or zoo.

So does this mean there is another one out there even bigger and probably angrier? o.O;


Yeah, I read that interview too. If they do a sequel that's one way they could go with it.


Meh... the Dino, he liked a this idea the first a time I saw it, eh? Back inna the 1961 a when it was a called a the "Gorgo".
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby Chairman Kaga on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:32 pm

Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
Spifftacular SquirrelGirl wrote:Also, I wish I could find the link to the interview with the director but I thought he mentioned something that really sounds freaky. Basically that the monster was seperated from it's mother and was just having a freakout... comparing it to an elephant going beserk at a circus or zoo.

So does this mean there is another one out there even bigger and probably angrier? o.O;


Yeah, I read that interview too. If they do a sequel that's one way they could go with it.

I liked reading about that, because it shows how a lot of thought went into the design of the creature, where it came from, etc., that was specifically not shown. They could have really gone all-out and explained everything during the movie if they wanted to, but besides for the little sploosh in the water at the end almost everything about the monster and its origins is a mystery, which is the way I think it should be, at least for this movie.


I think any potential sequel would have to feature a monster so huge that just it's foot could wipe out 1/4 of New York City. Something so big it's upper body isn't even visible. Now THAT would be worth a sequel 8-)


Considering the "youngster separated from it's mother" bit mentioned above I'm surprised there wasn't a Gorgo poster in there somewhere as well. I think a sequel could only work through the perspectives of multiple military personnel/cameras, either of the same time frame as this film or over lapping and continuing from the end of this one.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:34 pm

DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:Meh... the Dino, he liked a this idea the first a time I saw it, eh? Back inna the 1961 a when it was a called a the "Gorgo".


Hey, you of all people should know that the true angry parent monster movie is ORCA!
Last edited by Ribbons on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13995
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Leckomaniac on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:34 pm

You guys talking about this interview?

Leckomaniac wrote:Wow. I just read an interview with Matt Reeves over at comingsoon.net and I read this and my jaw dropped:

When we were mixing the teaser trailer we wanted to indicate that it was a creature. We put in animal sounds and decided it still wasn't enough. So at the end of the mix, the last 10-minutes, I jumped up in front of the mic and yelled "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge!" I came home one day and there was this whole thing with audio spectral analysis, playing back my voice and everybody was convinced that I said "It's a lion!" instead of "It's alive!". I thought, "How can anyone think it's a lion?" That kind of stuff was going on every day, and it was exhilarating and terrifying, 'cause we hadn't even finished making the movie yet, and we were excited about the movie, but we didn't know if our movie could compete with all these crazy movies that people were coming up with that were so fun!


Son of a bitch.
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 pm

Ribbons wrote:Hey, you of all people should know that the true angry parent monster movie is ORCA!


Yes... which I too, lifted from a the Gorgo, eh?

It was a sort of a like a the Moby Gorgo thing, no?
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:53 pm

Fawst wrote:Ok, I'm going to stop everyone for a moment. I can't continue reading the rants about the fucking battery life anymore. I just can't do it.
.
.
.
I'm not saying you guys are wrong for commenting on this stuff, but I think that if you can walk out of that movie and take only those things with you, and product placement woes... if all you came out of that movie with was complaints like that, then you just didn't like the movie, because the whole of it was far better than that.


But Fawst, I can turn that right back around dude. The movie was loaded with problems, and as an audience member, I expect better than that in this day and age. I loved the concept, but as far as the execution goes, but it wasn't the TOTAL EXPERIENCE you are making it out to be. It was a standard studio-made film that tried to be all "indy" POV, but it just came across as a prefabricated effort carefully market researched up the wazoo to get butts in seats and to showcase various 3rd-party products that also have a hand in the making of the film.

If we just brush it all off and say "yeah, but it's just a giant monster movie" then we'll get more giant monster movies that are just as shitty. It's like all you guys saying "TRANSFORMERS RAWKED!! GIANT FARKING ROBOTS MAN!!!!!" and looking past what an utter piece of shit that movie was.

It's that kind of attitude that has given us two REALLY crappy Fantastic Four movies.

It's one thing to watch an old Flash Gordon or a Godzilla and forgive the bad FX work and hackneyed plots. Haven't we become more sophisticated as an audience to say "ok, show me something I haven't seen before... and do it well, 'cos I've seen a lot by now, ya bastards." In this case, we got "Godzilla 98 meets the Blair Witch Project" and while it was probably better than Godzilla 98, Blair Witch had a better viral marketing campaign (they may have even invented it) and their use of the POV was much more credible and well-thought out. You talk about how a modern-day camera can last a long time on a single battery, but surely even you admit that's a stretch when the guy is (arguably) using the viewfinder, fast-forward, rewind, camera light, and night-vision. The camera light alone would drain that thing like whole in the bottom of a water barrel. Whereas in Blair Witch we at least see them stock up on a shitload of batteries.

So for you, maybe (barely) seeing a giant monster attack NYC is enough to keep you stuck to your seat in geek-spewn "GIANT FARKING ROBOTS!!" bliss, but for some of us, all of the little things that add up to the big picture took us right out of the film and forced us to start paying attention to the problems instead
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby Leckomaniac on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:56 pm

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:
Fawst wrote:Ok, I'm going to stop everyone for a moment. I can't continue reading the rants about the fucking battery life anymore. I just can't do it.
.
.
.
I'm not saying you guys are wrong for commenting on this stuff, but I think that if you can walk out of that movie and take only those things with you, and product placement woes... if all you came out of that movie with was complaints like that, then you just didn't like the movie, because the whole of it was far better than that.


But Fawst, I can turn that right back around dude. The movie was loaded with problems, and as an audience member, I expect better than that in this day and age. I loved the concept, but as far as the execution goes, but it wasn't the TOTAL EXPERIENCE you are making it out to be. It was a standard studio-made film that tried to be all "indy" POV, but it just came across as a prefabricated effort carefully market researched up the wazoo to get butts in seats and to showcase various 3rd-party products that also have a hand in the making of the film.

If we just brush it all off and say "yeah, but it's just a giant monster movie" then we'll get more giant monster movies that are just as shitty. It's like all you guys saying "TRANSFORMERS RAWKED!! GIANT FARKING ROBOTS MAN!!!!!" and looking past what an utter piece of shit that movie was.

It's that kind of attitude that has given us two REALLY crappy Fantastic Four movies.

It's one thing to watch an old Flash Gordon or a Godzilla and forgive the bad FX work and hackneyed plots. Haven't we become more sophisticated as an audience to say "ok, show me something I haven't seen before... and do it well, 'cos I've seen a lot by now, ya bastards." In this case, we got "Godzilla 98 meets the Blair Witch Project" and while it was probably better than Godzilla 98, Blair Witch had a better viral marketing campaign (they may have even invented it) and their use of the POV was much more credible and well-thought out. You talk about how a modern-day camera can last a long time on a single battery, but surely even you admit that's a stretch when the guy is (arguably) using the viewfinder, fast-forward, rewind, camera light, and night-vision. The camera light alone would drain that thing like whole in the bottom of a water barrel. Whereas in Blair Witch we at least see them stock up on a shitload of batteries.

So for you, maybe (barely) seeing a giant monster attack NYC is enough to keep you stuck to your seat in geek-spewn "GIANT FARKING ROBOTS!!" bliss, but for some of us, all of the little things that add up to the big picture took us right out of the film and forced us to start paying attention to the problems instead


So those of us who really liked it are MORONZ!!!!! and those that didn't like it are savvy movie veterans who possess the proper knowledge so that they can correctly dislike the film?

I call bullshit on that.
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:06 pm

Leckomaniac wrote:So those of us who really liked it are MORONZ!!!!! and those that didn't like it are savvy movie veterans who possess the proper knowledge so that they can correctly dislike the film?

I call bullshit on that.


No dude, I was just turning his argument around where he was saying all of us who didn't like the film were moronz and all of you who did had the ability to look past all of it's problems and not watch it with a critical eye.
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby Leckomaniac on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:10 pm

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:
Leckomaniac wrote:So those of us who really liked it are MORONZ!!!!! and those that didn't like it are savvy movie veterans who possess the proper knowledge so that they can correctly dislike the film?

I call bullshit on that.


No dude, I was just turning his argument around where he was saying all of us who didn't like the film were moronz and all of you who did had the ability to look past all of it's problems and not watch it with a critical eye.


I am trying to think of some way you could prove it.

Can your out-of-the-box CGI software create a better camera with longer battery life?

:wink:

EDIT: I included the wink just so everyone knows that was in jest. Just some good natured ribbing.
Last edited by Leckomaniac on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Chilli on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:12 pm

Guys, chill. If you don't like it, fine. If you like it, fine. But nitpicking? We're better than that. That's what IMDB is for.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:13 pm

Leckomaniac wrote:I am going to repost what I wrote in the B.O. thread because I think it deserves being discussed here as well:

Leckomaniac wrote:Well, and here is the thing, the reaction to the film here in the Zone has been quite positive. And I think it is an excellent film. HOWEVER, I have seen it three times already and I can tell you that in all three viewings the reaction in the theatre has been VERY negative. A lot of groaning at the end and a lot of people walking out saying "It was alright" and "that ending sucked!"

I called my little brother in the suburbs and asked him how the theatre reacted and he had a very similar experience. So, I am not sure that the reaction to the film outside of the Zone is as positive as you make it out to be.

I guess we'll see how the film holds up during the week and into next week. And I think the size of its drop off from Saturday to Sunday and Sunday to Monday will be an early referendum on its appeal to the masses.


Has anyone else had similar experiences? How well do you think this film will hold up after the initial "Wow" has worn off?


Yeah, the same thing happened to me too... as Zarles pointed out, there was a smattering of chuckles when the helicopter crashed, and then at the end there was a good amount of groaning. One person even said "That's IT?"

It's weird... usually even when I disagree with a crowd's reaction to a movie I've gone to see, I can at least understand where it's coming from. In the case of the ending to Cloverfield I'm actually a little surprised. For one thing I think the ending -- from the point where Rob grabs the camera off the ground right after Hud dies to the point where Beth says "I had a good day" at Coney Island and he turns the camera off -- was one of the few things about the movie that felt perfect, to me. And also, I was surprised because I don't really know what else you could have expected; Rob and Beth were dead, and it was clearly being set up as the book-end to the film. Maybe the fact that they died in the first place was unsatisfying? I don't know.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13995
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:18 pm

Leckomaniac wrote:EDIT: I included the wink just so everyone knows that was in jest. Just some good natured ribbing.


It's cool. I only posted what I did because the entire "discussion" of this film has come down to one camp saying "it has it's problems and here they are..." and the other camp saying "never mind that! It was awesome!"

Not much of a discussion going on.
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby Leckomaniac on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:39 pm

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:
Leckomaniac wrote:EDIT: I included the wink just so everyone knows that was in jest. Just some good natured ribbing.


It's cool. I only posted what I did because the entire "discussion" of this film has come down to one camp saying "it has it's problems and here they are..." and the other camp saying "never mind that! It was awesome!"

Not much of a discussion going on.


Eh, I thought the discussion Ginger Man and I had in regards to the 9/11 stuff was interesting.

And I do think that some of the issues people have pointed out were rather nitpicky while others were not. I think the battery life of the camera thing is just silly to concern yourself with. But that may be just me.

I can see how people may have problems with this film, but camera battery life just doesn't seem like one that should be a deal breaker.

In the end, I stand by what I said earlier. Sometimes issues of "realism" jump out at me and stick in my craw. And at that point I know I am not enjoying the film. Sometimes, they don't bother me and I know that I AM enjoying the film. For me, at least, there is no real consistency to it.

With Cloverfield, I enjoyed the whole thing. The whole experience. I really had no issues with it, except the damn title. And as I left the theatre I knew what some peoples issues would be. I could hear them from the other movie-goers and I could just hear them in my head, but they honestly didn't bother me. The film worked for me. It didn't work for you and for many others. I can accept that. But my problem is people trying to imply that I am stupid or somehow less film savvy because the film worked for me.

And also, I wondered about the durability of the camera too...and then I saw the actual camera they filmed with and that thing was a beast. It just might survive a helicopter crash. :lol:
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby unikrunk on Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:44 pm

DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Ribbons wrote:Hey, you of all people should know that the true angry parent monster movie is ORCA!


Yes... which I too, lifted from a the Gorgo, eh?

It was a sort of a like a the Moby Gorgo thing, no?


Top drawer!

This thread needs some fucking Rabbit with Pancake on head action:

Image


yeah.
He can't' love you back...
Image
User avatar
unikrunk
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 4845
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 am

Postby Zarles on Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:12 pm

I think all monster movies (and maybe genre movies in general) need to be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps it's the size of everyone's grain of salt that affects how much they enjoy those movies. I agree with Lecko, but you all knew that.

I do have to say that I wish the monster was a giant rabbit with a pancake on its head. Or even a normal-sized rabbit with a pancake on its head.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:18 pm

Leckomaniac wrote:Eh, I thought the discussion Ginger Man and I had in regards to the 9/11 stuff was interesting.


Agreed. It all went downhill after that though.

Leckomaniac wrote:I think the battery life of the camera thing is just silly to concern yourself with. But that may be just me.

I can see how people may have problems with this film, but camera battery life just doesn't seem like one that should be a deal breaker.


That's just it though... the existence (and plausibility) of the camera is the central point of the film. Not the monster. It's all about the "everyman-on-the-street" POV. It's THE reason the movie exists. The monster is treated as a side story. If they fuck up the very premise of the film, in other words, if one can't even believe that the camera battery would last that long, how can one ever buy into the fact that a giant monster is attacking the city? If you're going to go out on that limb, you have to make the rest of it completely plausible. Otherwise you may as well call it "camp."
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:18 pm

that rabbit makes me laugh every time I see it.

SO...to the people who didn't like it. And the people who did like it...

How do you think the massive amount of hype and viral marketing leading up to the release has related to your decision that this is or is not a good movie? Did it build it up too much and you are now disappointed? Did it amp you up so much that you fear that you may be now viewing it through geek-colored glasses (very possible for me)? Is it possible that you are "hating" on it now because you are so sick of the hype? Did it affect you at all?

I ask because it seems to me that there is a typical pattern when movies of this type are released with so much hype and mystery. An initial "OMG AWESOME" reaction followed by an inevitable backlash. Seems we are well into the backlash phase now.

Do you think your opinion of the film would have differed at all had it been a quiet little come out of nowhere release?
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby so sorry on Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:49 pm

Well, the hype and viral marketing got my ass into the theater. I see maybe one to two movies a year (in theater), so that's a big deal.
and to make it worse: I had an overwhelming desire to see it as soon as possible so that I could run into this stupid thread to talk about it!

But regardless of that crap, my expectations were low, so I fall somewhere right down the middle: I liked it, but all the complaints listed here I kinda agree with. But since I have so little interest invested in it, I don't really care.

I wish I could have convinced my wife to come with me, becuase she knew nothing about Cloverfield, so I could have given you her reaction. But I described it as "Blair Witchy and Godzilla-like", so I had no shot of getting her to go.

What was the question?
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15784
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Postby MacCready on Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:51 pm

unikrunk wrote:
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Ribbons wrote:Hey, you of all people should know that the true angry parent monster movie is ORCA!


Yes... which I too, lifted from a the Gorgo, eh?

It was a sort of a like a the Moby Gorgo thing, no?


Top drawer!

This thread needs some fucking Rabbit with Pancake on head action:

Image


yeah.


Were any rabbits harmed during that photo shoot?
User avatar
MacCready
MAN IN SUIT
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:52 am

Postby Theta on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:04 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
How do you think the massive amount of hype and viral marketing leading up to the release has related to your decision that this is or is not a good movie? Did it build it up too much and you are now disappointed?


Good question. I think in my case, no. I was actually turned off by the first trailer and early publicity, mostly because the faking of the "home movie" style was so overdone, I wasn't interested in the ARG, and the second trailer was what engaged me enough to consider seeing it.

I'll allow that Capone's review and a review by an LJer I read (theferrett, in retrospect the fact that the guy isn't a film guy should have clued me in) got me a little excited. But that quickly faded once it became clear my initial impressions were correct.

I don't HATE the movie. I don't think I got screwed out of ten bucks. I do think a lot of people are going to buy the DVD and be very disappointed with what they see, though.

Do you think your opinion of the film would have differed at all had it been a quiet little come out of nowhere release?


Absolutely NOT. There are too many technical problems with the script and direction for me to cut it any slack.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Zarles on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:05 pm

In response to Moo, I was sold from the first trailer that ran with Transformers. Bad Robot logo, big explosions, funky concept - I'm there. I'll admit it - I'm not difficult to impress when it comes to that kind of shit. I didn't really pay much attention to the viral marketing stuff, though, so I can't really say if it affected me or not. To me, what will be most interesting is how this film ages. I watch Blair Witch all the time and still enjoy it just as much as the first time I saw it, so it will be fun to see whether or not I'll be able to do the same with Cloverfield.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Dougbot on Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:23 pm

I liked the movie. I was originally hoping for a more cheesy Godzilla thing, that's what I was going for when I drew that whale guy. At any rate I was happy with what the film ended up being.

I liked the monster designed too. The face was a bit disappointing, but not horrible. I wish they hadn't given us that clear shot. Then I would have loved it. I read that the thing is supposed to be a like a baby, if that's true it'd be cool to see it grown, and given a more pronounced snout. The little critters rocked. I loved everything about them.

Nobody picked up my other monster design though, it would have been better than the whales.

All tremble before the DINGLEBERRY!
Image
Dougbot
GLIB
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:51 pm

Postby Bayouwolf on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:06 pm

I've been holding off on a review because it seemed everyone had one. And most of them all had good points.(not to mention, written better than I can). But now, I've seen it for a second time.
I liked it the first time, but I absolutely LOVED it this time. I was able to pick and choose the parts I wanted to nit-pick over. I found myself forgoing the whole "battery life" and "product placement" aspects, because I was focused on everything else (looking for numbers, the Slusho shirt, etc. etc.). It really held my attention this time.
Honestly, my only gripe is that I think we see too much of the damn creature. The "Hud-munch" is kinda hokey, but I still give this a solid 9/10.


Oh, and a thought to provoke the mind.
The little beasties are a symbiotic parasite. They bite you, you explode. Makes you easier to chew in the big bads craw. That's why Hud was "gummed" and not swallowed. That's my theory anyway.

One more thing...The creatures head looks a lot like a cross between the Bat-thing from "Graveyard Shift" and a sea turtle.
Image
User avatar
Bayouwolf
Country Bouy
 
Posts: 3247
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: In the GTA, bitches....

Postby burlivesleftnut on Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:55 am

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:
Leckomaniac wrote:Eh, I thought the discussion Ginger Man and I had in regards to the 9/11 stuff was interesting.


Agreed. It all went downhill after that though.

Leckomaniac wrote:I think the battery life of the camera thing is just silly to concern yourself with. But that may be just me.

I can see how people may have problems with this film, but camera battery life just doesn't seem like one that should be a deal breaker.


That's just it though... the existence (and plausibility) of the camera is the central point of the film. Not the monster. It's all about the "everyman-on-the-street" POV. It's THE reason the movie exists. The monster is treated as a side story. If they fuck up the very premise of the film, in other words, if one can't even believe that the camera battery would last that long, how can one ever buy into the fact that a giant monster is attacking the city? If you're going to go out on that limb, you have to make the rest of it completely plausible. Otherwise you may as well call it "camp."


It's a simple thing called suspension of disbelief. You have to have it with any movie you watch. The movie obviously didn't get you to that point, and that's too bad. I didn't once think about the battery life of the camera. Not because I had rationalized it away in my brain, but because within the conceits of the movie, it just didn't matter. You mentioned Blair Witch before... well there's a movie where I had ZERO suspension of disbelief. I just kept thinking, "this whole movie was filmed on less than an acre of wooded land... probably at my cousin's ranch. I think I recognize that tree!"

So the argument isn't about whether the camp who likes the movie or the camp who doesn't are morons. The true argument is whether you suspensed your belief and the movie became a cathartic experience. If you didn't invest, that's a fine perspective, but you can't waylay those who did buy into it... and vice versa.

And the only product placement I noticed was when they rested at SEPHORA and you got a big shot of the store sign, but I just thought that was funny because frankly, if you were running around Manhattan with a video camera at any given moment, you would have moments like that. The place has become a giant mall for pete's sake. For the sake of authenticity, the movie should have had a shitload more of those moments.
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby Ribbons on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:02 am

burlivesleftnut wrote:And the only product placement I noticed was when they rested at SEPHORA and you got a big shot of the store sign, but I just thought that was funny because frankly, if you were running around Manhattan with a video camera at any given moment, you would have moments like that. The place has become a giant mall for pete's sake. For the sake of authenticity, the movie should have had a shitload more of those moments.


Yeah, when you're dealing with a bunch of rich twentysomethings running around New York City, product placement is almost an inevitability.

In some ways... although I do know it's product placement, I actually like it when a Dasani or an Aquafina bottle (for example) is displayed in shot. I find it more distracting when the labels are strategically covered up or it's some made-up brand like "Kooka-Kola." So long as it fits into the story and it's not gratuitous, I can dig it.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13995
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby instant_karma on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:08 am

The thing about the whole camera battery life thing, is that it could have been addressed in like 2 seconds of screen time. When Hud is talked into taking the camera for the evening, all they needed to do was have the guy hand him a couple of extra batteries, since he was going to be documenting the night.
User avatar
instant_karma
Comes in 4 exciting flavours
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Thereabouts

Postby tapehead on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:17 am

I thought this piece about the Cameras used to shoot Cloverfield was interesting.
Last edited by tapehead on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Chairman Kaga on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:21 am

instant_karma wrote:The thing about the whole camera battery life thing, is that it could have been addressed in like 2 seconds of screen time. When Hud is talked into taking the camera for the evening, all they needed to do was have the guy hand him a couple of extra batteries, since he was going to be documenting the night.

Why? There isn't any need to address it because no where does it state that film was edited by the military. According to IMDB it's 85 minutes which includes the portions already recorded almost a month earlier and before the party even starts. I don't know of a video camera now that can't run that long on one charge.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby instant_karma on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:28 am

Chairman Kaga wrote:
instant_karma wrote:The thing about the whole camera battery life thing, is that it could have been addressed in like 2 seconds of screen time. When Hud is talked into taking the camera for the evening, all they needed to do was have the guy hand him a couple of extra batteries, since he was going to be documenting the night.

Why? There isn't any need to address it because no where does it state that film was edited by the military. According to IMDB it's 85 minutes which includes the portions already recorded almost a month earlier and before the party even starts. I don't know of a video camera now that can't run that long on one charge.


I was mainly saying that in reference th Cha-Ka's points about the night vision and camera light being big drains on the battery power.
User avatar
instant_karma
Comes in 4 exciting flavours
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Thereabouts

Postby Chairman Kaga on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:29 am

instant_karma wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
instant_karma wrote:The thing about the whole camera battery life thing, is that it could have been addressed in like 2 seconds of screen time. When Hud is talked into taking the camera for the evening, all they needed to do was have the guy hand him a couple of extra batteries, since he was going to be documenting the night.

Why? There isn't any need to address it because no where does it state that film was edited by the military. According to IMDB it's 85 minutes which includes the portions already recorded almost a month earlier and before the party even starts. I don't know of a video camera now that can't run that long on one charge.


I was mainly saying that in reference th Cha-Ka's points about the night vision and camera light being big drains on the battery power.

Ahh I missed some of that. I skimmed alot of the TL:DR
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby burlivesleftnut on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:30 am

Which were only on for about 5 minutes. Also, how awkward would it have been for Rob, frantically trying to find a battery for his cell, to think, "Fuck I better get extra batteries for Hud!" LOL.
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby Chairman Kaga on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:40 am

Not to mention that there is obvious down time over the less than 85 minutes of actual mayhem. Any one of those points Hud could have changed the battery anyway but you wouldn't be able to see it because the camera couldn't be on while doing so.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby zillabeast on Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:12 am

Hey! Score fans! Michael Giacchino's Cloverfield Overture (Roar!) is on the Youtube!!




http://youtube.com/watch?v=n0tHjxYi00c
User avatar
zillabeast
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:52 pm

Postby Bob Samonkey on Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:53 am

What can I say that you guys have not already said. I liked the movie. It was good.
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby Ribbons on Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:17 am

zillabeast wrote:Hey! Score fans! Michael Giacchino's Cloverfield Overture (Roar!) is on the Youtube!!




http://youtube.com/watch?v=n0tHjxYi00c


Thanks zillabeast :o
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13995
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Pacino86845 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:25 am

User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby Zarles on Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:39 am

Genius, Pacino. Well found. :lol:
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Spifftacular SquirrelGirl on Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:59 am

Ribbons wrote:
zillabeast wrote:Hey! Score fans! Michael Giacchino's Cloverfield Overture (Roar!) is on the Youtube!!




http://youtube.com/watch?v=n0tHjxYi00c


Thanks zillabeast :o


I loved that theme at the end for how godzilla-y it was. Nice homage. ^^
User avatar
Spifftacular SquirrelGirl
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:58 am
Location: Random tree

Postby MasterWhedon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:15 pm

So, uh, is it still a lion--err, alive? Or dead?

The second time I saw this, I heard the whisper at the very end but couldn't make out what they were saying. Turns out because it was backwards. Oh, those tricksters...

I'll be seeing this again over the weekend. I think it's a pretty great piece of entertainment that sticks to its guns and succeeds on every level it's playing on. I was genuinely moved by a handful or moments and frightened as hell at others. A very, very good time was had.

9/10
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Nordling on Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:19 pm

Wish there was a way to buy "Roar!" somewhere. I want that song.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Spifftacular SquirrelGirl on Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:20 pm

Nordling wrote:Wish there was a way to buy "Roar!" somewhere. I want that song.


I thought I heard that they were going to release an mp3 on ITunes or the such.
User avatar
Spifftacular SquirrelGirl
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:58 am
Location: Random tree

Postby Fawst on Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:49 pm

I need to see this again... but Rambo is Friday! ARGH! WHAT TO DO!?

I have to disagree about the camera being the point of the movie. The point of the movie is that characters were thrust into a larger than life situation with zero control of the outcome. The POV style of shooting was an aesthetic decision. This movie could have been made without the camera concept. The only part of the story that wouldn't have worked out the same was the end, and by the end, I mean the splashdown.

Bottom line, people don't like it, others do. I'm one that loves it. My friend Bruce could never watch this, because he's the kind of person that hates Alias for the over the top action. That's why it saddens me when people don't enjoy stuff as much as I do. To miss out on something so great because of such a tiny little thing... ah well.
Prince of the Land of Stench!
User avatar
Fawst
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: MacLaren's

Postby Zarles on Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:49 pm

Nordling wrote:Wish there was a way to buy "Roar!" somewhere. I want that song.


Last I read, Giacchino was working out a deal to get it released on iTunes. With the success of the movie, expect it soon.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Nordling on Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:52 pm

Excellent. I'll be sure to look for it.

And I'm totally seeing RAMBO this weekend. I need some throatmeat.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests