Just wondering if anyone here has jumped on board the "What the hell is Cloverfield" bandwagon? It appears to be a monster-disaster movie similar to Godzilla only shot like Blair Witch Project. There's a trailer which has been showing before Transformers & now there's a huge internet debate about what it's really about...
I think it's Godzilla 2 but today I learned its a totally new, unheard of monster.
What are your thoughts?
It's by JJ Abrahms & is being written by the people behind Lost or something. If you want to know more, try YouTube or Googling "Cloverfield" or "Slusho"
I just found out about it from you.
So Cloverfield is the address of the production office. They didn't release a title because the project hasn't been named yet. But also they are trying to generate hype. Its produced by the guy who did Lost so naturally the trailer was designed to make you curious.
But all you need to know is that it will be a giant monster movie from the perspective of a group of friends. Sounds cool but I'm not going to dig any deeper. There's nothing to research really.
Well, the most solid theory I heard is that it's three monsters. Because I think in the one of the biblical religions (Judaeism?) there are legends of three monsters: Leviathian (a giant sea creature), Behemoth (giant land creature) and Ziz (a giant air creature).
Check out http://www.slusho.jp If you watch the trailer, one of the characters is wearing a Slusho t-shirt. So if you go to the site, you can see these icons for links. One is a horse, one is a whale, and one is a bird. hmmm. Interesting.
BUUUUUT, the slusho site has a fixation on the number "6"
And it shows six animals on the site. And the history page tells they discovered a substance at the bottom of the ocean that "turns fish into whales."
Hummm. Giant monster movie with six different creatures? Holy shit yes.
(http://kensforce.com/04gfwscene7.jpg)
I have a sudden urge to DESTROY TOKYO. I MUST DESTROY MECHAGODZILLA AND GIGAN.
Its not Godzilla, but it may be a remake of this (http://www.sdnhm.org/media/images/rr_beastp8.jpg).
However, it is also possible that it may have connections with Lost. Anyway, its known as "The Parasite"
This reminds me, I TiVoed Godzilla vs. Space Godzilla.
The fact that the guy in the streets are shouting "Oh my god, it's alive and it's huge", makes your assumption sound likely radiwaves.
And HOLY CRAP, THAT'S AWESOME! :o :D
Quote from: radiowaves on Fri 27/07/2007 19:26:30
Its not Godzilla, but it may be a remake of this (http://www.sdnhm.org/media/images/rr_beastp8.jpg).
However, it is also possible that it may have connections with Lost. Anyway, its known as "The Parasite"
I can say the same thing about the Lost World, and King Kong. I suggest we don't associate this movie to any other movies mainly because it probably will be something totally different. Why would they describe it as the Parasite? Sounds cool. :D
I saw some stuff about this a few weeks ago ... it was called 11:18 or something back then. I can't really remember.
JJ Abrams and the whole "lost" gang are masters at publicity. I've heard they have made the commercial slots during Lost the highest prices per minute (second the super bowl) because of the "special" commercials they put in there. They know what they're doing that's for sure.
The trailer I saw then looked pretty cool ... but I'm not overly "crazed" about it. But mostly 'cause I don't have the time to devote to it.
It's be suggested that it's based on the great game Rampage :D Awesome!
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 28/07/2007 01:48:08
I saw some stuff about this a few weeks ago ... it was called 11:18 or something back then. I can't really remember.
Its called as 1-18-08, and that is the date it launches :D
Romans 1:18 apparently.
End of the world brought upon by the wrath of God? Okee doke!
Here's my thing about a JJ Abrams monster movie.....
What if they allude to the giant monster and you never even see the damned thing? Would the suspense alone drive the movie? Or would you be like.... dude wheres the monster WTF?
I really enjoyed the Beast from 20,000 fathoms. Some great lame effects in it :D
I'm not so sure I'd be that thrilled if you never saw the monster. But too much monster would destroy the experience IMO. So if they do ramp up the suspense I can only imagine that'd make it a better movie. That is afterall how Jaws worked. I get the impression these guys want their monster to be a western icon like Godzilla is to Japan, so it better be a damned good monster :p
Spielberg lucked out too. Less is more, right? Its a good thing the robotic shark malfunctioned because he planned to have shark all throughout the movie! Lucky mishap.
The same deal with Alien, editing so that you hardly see the crappy alien just the reactions from the actors (and the cat). I have full faith in JJ that he will come out with something thats brilliant. Although saying that if the whole movie is shot "Blair witch style" then im not looking forward to the motion sickness.
Well Blairwitch was truly independent. With this movie it I bet it will be "pretend handheld" where most of the shots are highly coordinated and most likely steadicam. A little shakiness, but just enough to sell that one of the actors is filming & the rest will be cinematic.
I bet the whole movie will be like that "continuous" take in Children of Men.
QuoteSpielberg lucked out too. Less is more, right? Its a good thing the robotic shark malfunctioned because he planned to have shark all throughout the movie! Lucky mishap.
True, and I think Tremors succeeded well too (the first film). They were typically following the lead from Jaws. I also like the fact in the Cloverfield/Monstrous etc trailer a guy says "It's shaking everywhere man, it's like tremors..." lol
Quotethese guys want their monster to be a western icon like Godzilla is to Japan, so it better be a damned good monster
How that's going to work without the whole "metaphor for America wiping out hundreds of thousands of our people" element of it?
I'm really getting tired of JJ Abrams. Alias was ridiculous, Lost even moreso, and yet people fawn over him. (But if what it turns out people are so terrified of is a column of black smoke that makes you see images from your past, I'm so there.)
(I'm also really tired of marketing being presented as culture/entertainment, but that's neither here nor there.)
I thougth it would be another Cthulhu movie..
Cthulhu is taking time off to write his memoirs. Not that I'd read them, because I'd probably lose sanity just for purchasing it.
Also, I quite enjoy Lost.
Quote from: Fredrik1 on Sat 28/07/2007 23:23:48
I thougth it would be another Cthulhu movie..
The last cthulhu movie sucked major balls. If you didn't know, it was called 'Cthulhu'. Not even a period film. >_<
The WHOIS address for slusho.jp is in Tokyo. Maybe I should check it out.
I wouldn't know what to say though.
Quote from: voh on Sat 28/07/2007 23:26:54
Also, I quite enjoy Lost.
Me too. Let's be friends.
I just read about this in Empire and unsurprisingly, the details are scarce.
But I think this is often where ol' JJ really shines, in giving JUST ENOUGH information and nothing more. It certainly gets people interested.
I don't know how most people feel about the new form of marketing that has formed in recent years, where instead of being given information and promotion on a plate people have to seek it out more, but personally I love it.
A good viral campaign can spark lots of interest and get people excited over...well...not a lot really. And I think that is an intelligent way to market something. It keeps people hooked as information trickles slowly in, and this keeps them interested for as long as you need them to be (if done well.)
Thoughts?
Except that it ends up like the secret message in A Christmas Story: when you get to the end, all it says is "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine!"
Viral marketing is very effective, yes. I'm personally disgusted by it, especially as it heads from "track down the clues on the internet" to "pay people to go to parties and subtly name-drop products in conversation" (which some marketing firms are already doing).
First poster: http://www.comingsoon.net/imageGallery/imageGallery.php?large_image=hr_1-18-08_1.jpg&id=21621
Is anyone here of the idea that it's going to be tied in with Lost?
I can't see it myself but it would be fun.
Perhaps the unseen monster is actually Smokey (Cerberus) who has been unleashed into the real world and wreaks it's special brand of havoc on NYC....
.... nah...
Dude, I beat you to it:
QuoteBut if what it turns out people are so terrified of is a column of black smoke that makes you see images from your past, I'm so there.
:P
Didn't they say they wanted to do a Lost movie? It would be great if they did, but I doubt this movie is the one.
There's people saying it could be a giant version of the Lost monster :p But that's too crazy for me!! Apparently the inspiration for it came when he visited Japan and was inspired by the fact Godzilla toys were everywhere. But that's from an online tabloid. And we all know not to trust those ;) Still. Looks like they want to make the monster something very unique. But most definitely plain. A giant Blue Cup.
(http://homepage.eircom.net/~limpingfish/Movie.jpg)
In the poster you see the Statue of Liberty without its head. In the trailer you see the head propelled toward the camera. One problem. The head is too small. The statue of liberty is built so you can walk around it, including its head. Thats the only problem I had with it.
Quote from: Rix on Fri 10/08/2007 01:08:28
Didn't they say they wanted to do a Lost movie? It would be great if they did, but I doubt this movie is the one.
Yeh originally they were talking about having five or six series then ending it with a movie for the finale. Well they've got their six series so if that's what they're going to do then I'm sure they've alread started planning it.
Chris Carter wanted the X-files to finish with the movie, but Fox said nonono, you have to make more seasons so the movie suffered and it ruined CCs vision of the show... Luckily ABC have given Lost an end date they can work to, so if they make a movie it will be awesome.
PS... What is Chris Carter up to these days? There was supposed to be a 2nd X-files movie. Dunno what happened to that.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/805/805046p1.html
but also
http://movies.ign.com/articles/784/784059p1.html
Woohoo.
Sounds promising.
I'm glad it's going to be a standalone story. Theres nothing really left to visit in the main mythology.
And this way, they could have a new film every 3 years or so and it will always have new story. It could be up there with James Bond.
Anyway not to go off topic... Cloverfield.
Is it this? http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/
Its called "1 18 2008", though?
After The Host (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468492/) I'm hard to impress.
I think this looks great, but I agree; what the hell is up with the tiny Statue of Liberty head? The idea (if we guess right) is great and it looks like the concept is executed well.
Maybe the small SoL head is a clue.
I mean this is JJ Abrahms we're talking about.
a) Its not like him to make such a basic mistake and
b) He loves playing with the minds of the audience.
Quote from: Evil on Sat 11/08/2007 06:45:19
I think this looks great, but I agree; what the hell is up with the tiny Statue of Liberty head? The idea (if we guess right) is great and it looks like the concept is executed well.
There is no head, maybe its all in someones mind and the monster is black smoke...
After thinking about it, I liked Stupot's idea that Abrahms is just toying with us and that it could be a spoof movie.
Then I thought, if there are monsters attacking major cities, isn't there a small Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas? Not that the city is of that magnitude like it is in the trailer, but there isn't a date associated with when this event took place. Maybe it's set in the future?
I doubt all these theories about the head. Just how much smaller than it should be is it? Is it like 90% of the original size? 85? If it's somewhere like 50%, ... I don't know. Seems like a straight out mistake that people are reading too much into.
Agreed. Abrams may bring with him a certain kind of marketing but he also brings with him a group of wanna be detectives who dissect everything in a "Why does he close his eyes on frame 154?! IT'S THE KEY TO THE WHOLE THING!" kind of way. Just wait for more announcements and see what happens!
I watched the trailer again and did a bit of research (okay, i know Wikipedia doesn't really count as research but...) and I concluded that the Statues head IS too small, but not really as small as I, and others, have made it out to be.
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f349/Captain_Stu/AGS/statuehead.jpg)
This is a very average approximation of real maths, but the fact that the head IS too small, cannot really be doubted, but I must confess, I always thought the real head would be a LOT larger.
[EDIT]
Jeez, I must be bored.
I was going to check out the Slusho.jp address which is in Marunouchi, Tokyo, but I've got a strong feeling it's a false address.
36-40-10... for a start that 36 I'm pretty sure would never go up to 36... Shinjuku only goes up to about 20. Could be wrong but it's too hot to go on wild goose chases.
I think this picture gives a better visual of how big the actual head is.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/evil1359/Face_of_Statue_of_Liberty_2.jpg)
And if that's not enough, the crown and hair makes the head HUGE.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/evil1359/bustofliberty_lg.jpg)
Sure, it's probably an accident. They've got film to edit and other effects to produce, but you'd think if it's that obvious to all of us, it'd be SUPER obvious to them.
I think we are so use to seeing this that gave us the assumption that the head was HUGE!
lol
(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2660/a00fd7f0834148688f74f28ld6.jpg)
Anyways, I guess your right, it is the correct size. Ive never been to the statue of liberty, but I always thought it was bigger. :P
I've never seen Escape from New York, but do they show the head in the movie at that scale? Because that's HUGE. Bigger mistake than Abrams. ;)
After doing a little googling there are a bunch of websites that have looked into Slusho and all this stuff, and it's very obvious that they are feeding clues to the public. If these clues will lead us there or not, I guess we'll just have to wait until it's release.
But it is fun to speculate. :)
Well the statue of liberty, from head to foot, is about 300 feet high. So with crown and such, the head has got to be at least 30 feet tall. Theoretically, the head would get stuck on the roofs of the buildings. It would be too big to bounce through the street like that and not smash everything and everyone on it's way through.
Theorertically, giant monsters would have no desire to destroy major cities and eat people.
Maybe it was happy to find someone its size but got frustrated when the stuck-up bitch wouldn't talk to it. So it smacked her head off.
Quote from: Redwall on Mon 13/08/2007 20:27:45
Maybe it was happy to find someone its size but got frustrated when the stuck-up bitch wouldn't talk to it. So it smacked her head off.
Maybe its a kind of Voodoo Monster that shrinks people's heads too :P ::)
Redwall I think we have solved the problem of what the monster is ;D
Just if anyone's interested, the new trailer is available:
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=21492
Although apparantly it's playing in front of Beowulf? So watch it there if you're gonna watch that.
I'm still very much interested in it, looks like it's going to be a different movie at any rate.
I will most definitely be seeing it when it comes out so I don't get spoiled in the slightest.
ALSO, for bonus amusement value, have a browse around various forums on the net (such as IMDB) and read all the theories about how the monster is Godzilla, or Cthulhu. or a giant lion, or whatever.
Cheers dude! Hadn't seen it in such great quality :D Still looking good! Someone is mutating in that video! And if thats a "mutation" at 1:39 then goddamn lol that's weird! But you hear strange scuttling sounds. And the giant thingymabob looks like one too. ODDNESS. Should be a cool movie, camera shake my give me a headache though, hehe.
ps Damn them, they rinsed the ambigious alive/lion line AGAIN!!!
According to Abrams, it's not based on any franchise; film or otherwise.
To tell you the truth, I'd pretty much forgotten about it.
Maybe everyone is slowly mutating, piece by piece, into a giant organic mass, ala Greg Bear's Blood Music.
Or maybe it's a killer foodstuff, ala Larry Cohen's The Stuff (the Slusho references, and such).
Who knows?
It seems to be something which the characters can see, but the camera can't. I can't think of any real life phenomenon that is visible to the human eye but invisible to cameras and I can't see how that would make an exciting movie, so I'll rule that one out.
[Edit]
I've just watched it again... we do catch a glimpse of something huge and nasty, so rule the above sentence out.
[edit 2]
Shit thats its head!!!!!!!!!!!! Its head is the size of a skyscraper!!!!... I hate internet abbreviations, but... O!!! M!!! G!!!
Are we to draw from this trailer that "Cloverfield" is indeed the official title and not just some codename as we'd previously been led to believe?
Also.. i haven't examined it properly, but it looked to me like they've made that Statue of Liberty head bigger in this trailer compared to the last one we saw... maybe J J has been reading this thread ;)
Quote from: Stupot on Tue 20/11/2007 18:12:46
Also.. i haven't examined it properly, but it looked to me like they've made that Statue of Liberty head bigger in this trailer compared to the last one we saw... maybe J J has been reading this thread ;)
I thought the same. It does look bigger.
One word: Meh.
More words: That trailer fails to induce the slightest inkling of interest in me. I might watch the movie if I was bored and didn't have to pay for it. And anything that gets this much hype is bound to disappoint.
But who knows, the movie might still turn out to be awesome. Time (and friends) will tell.
Quote from: tube on Tue 20/11/2007 19:26:21
That trailer fails to induce the slightest inkling of interest in me. I might watch the movie if I was bored and didn't have to pay for it. And anything that gets this much hype is bound to disappoint.
Just like Lost. My words exactly.
But...
It's head is the size of a skyscraper!!!!!!!!
Well I don't mind watching it before you guys and telling you whether or not to bother seeing it.
Is it really that over hyped? The last I heard about this was back when the first teaser came out months ago.
Sure, hype isn't what it used to be. It's all bacterial, sorry, viral nowadays. See, they know that an extremely subtle (obscure) teaser well before release, a slightly less subtle trailer and the name of JJ Abrams suffice to create all the hype needed. They let Lost fans, forums like this and of course articles in major internet movie portals do the rest. Just check the 2 740 000 google results for "cloverfield".
I'm sure this is considered a brilliant strategy in marketing circles. Won't affect me, as I got vaccinated against advertising when I was a baby. ;)
People always talk about advertising and market like it's an evil of the world. And in some respects it is a little scary to think we are being subtly brainwashed into buying products etc. But sometimes it's nice to take a break from being a pseudo-moralist and just enjoy the hype as part of the experience...
It is only a film after-all and it's up to the individual whether or not they want to fork out the money to go and see it, or buy the DVD.
These new forms of viral marketing are fun and if my wanting to watch this film means I am gullible and have fallen for the hype, then so be it. I enjoy being part of it.
Quote from: tube on Wed 21/11/2007 11:22:27
Won't affect me, as I got vaccinated against advertising when I was a baby. ;)
This is quite a funny comment. I have been studying advertising recently and a this is a common thing for people to think - most people believe they are completely unnaffected by any form or advertising. This is not necessarily the case, it is just that people are fully aware of the purpose of advertising - to guide consumers in a certain direction.
People know that advertising is meant to push people one way or another, but they still are often affected by it. If you have ever wanted to see a movie before it has come out, then advertising and marketing has worked in some way. Same if you choose any product over another product.
Basically, what I've found is that most people think advertising is something that affects everyone else, when this is really not the case.
Stupot put it best;
Quote from: Stupot on Wed 21/11/2007 12:15:50
These new forms of viral marketing are fun and if my wanting to watch this film means I am gullible and have fallen for the hype, then so be it. I enjoy being part of it.
Anyhoo, as I said before, I like this new form of advertising. If viral marketing can keep my interest even slightly, then it is a step in the right direction.
Looking for information about this movie (if you are interested in actually seeing it) it quite fun and exciting. And I am looking forward to the movie more than I would have if it had been crammed down my neck in the media. The advertising has worked, and I don't care.
Ooh, awesome - they have increased the size of the statues head!! In your photo Stupot there's a bright window just above her mouth and a bin to the left. In the new version that window isn't visible at all. They obviously do listen, which is one of the good things about viral marketting. Like the "alive" line. In the original trailer it was I saw it, it's alive, it's huge! and because so many people got confused by that I think they completely rinsed them by doing it again this time, and purely because of that I'm sure! :p Rob, Rob[ pause I saw it...it's alivBOOOOM.. lol. Yippee Kay-Ay mother GUNSHOTS to you TOO!
As for the advertising strategy....let's just say they're lucky on this occasion, it's one of the only viral campaigns that's ever actually excited me. I wouldn't normally give a toss! But monster movies have a lot of potential, everytime :D I think they're finally breaking new boundaries in monster-movie making lol. I'm not saying every new monster movie should be shot as if its on a hand-held camera, but providing every new one is as innovative to find a way to shock the audience they have a very good chance of it being hugely successful. Godzilla was highly anticipated but it didn't break any boundaries. It was an averagely shot film relying on it's centerpiece "new look" Godzilla CGI. And Matthew Broderick. Go figure ;) Something like the new King Kong really works like that because it's more about gloom, almost more sophisticated, and set in an earlier time. So I think Cloverfield's going to be quite successful. & I'm expecting some Godzilla intertextuality in there somewhere too ;)
Quote from: veryweirdguy on Wed 21/11/2007 13:05:47
Quote from: tube on Wed 21/11/2007 11:22:27
Won't affect me, as I got vaccinated against advertising when I was a baby. ;)
This is quite a funny comment.
I'm glad someone found it funny. Believe it or not, it was intended as a joke, not an assertion of my superior willpower. I'll be sure to replace the smiley with some kind of a written disclaimer next time.
Still I think I can safely say that there are definite differences in the way people react to specific types of marketing. As far as I can tell, it seems pretty certain most people share Stupot's view about viral marketing though. Heck, I'm all for making ads more entertaining even if they won't make me actually buy the stuff.
Hey guys, I made a Dinosaur comic (http://www.qwantz.com) to express my feelings about this movie. Enjoy or don't!
Btw, I like LOST.
(http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/730/comik9cloverfieldpx5.png)
Spoiler
Plot twist--T-Rex is actually the monster that everyone is running from but he doesn't know it!
For some reason, when ever I see those dinosaurs, I always picture them wearing rolerskates, and I have too look at the feet to remind myself they are not.
Hahahaha :D awesome comic! I have no clue about Lost but it still makes perfect cloverfield sense!!!
However, that raptors head is way out of proportion. If you ask Stupot, he'll explain in graphic detail how the raptors head is out of scale compared to the little blokey ::) But thats not the only mistake. Raptors are not even raptors. Why did jurassic park do that to us?
:P
ps; its not alive, or a t-rex, its a lion!!!11! lol
I'm guessing the only time you see the monster will be for quarter of a second in a reflection in a car windscreen, and that'll only raise more questions. There'll be minimal plot with a twist at least every 12 minutes and there'll be a cop out ending like "So what was the monster really and what was it doing?" "I'm sorry but that's classified". Just like Mission Impossible 3 and probably Lost.
Yay for JJ Abrams!
I have to admit though, it does look fun and I'm quite likely to go and see it
It's out tomorrow, YAY! Should be good!!! HAHA! AND Matt Reeves, the films director saw my fake "Cloverfield" YouTube video WOOO!!! LOL
http://laist.com/2008/01/09/laist_interview_88.php
I want to see it...hopefully since my wife has tomorrow off, we can cruise over to the theater and check it out. Hope it's good ^^
It's not out til Feb 1st in the UK.
So all that 011808 stuff was useless.
I've just seen the four minute extended clip and I must admit I got some vibes of "teen-horror" cheesiness... I hope it's better than that, I've been looking forward to this film for six months.
Just saw Cloverfield. Mostly spoiler free review hidden just in case.
Spoiler
Parts of it were amazing, but the characters the movie follows were mostly unlikeable and prone to the bewildering sort of Hollywood decision making that always gets people killed in movies like this.
It sort of struck me in the same way the remake of I Am Legend did a few weeks back. The first half is really riveting, but the longer it goes on, the harder it was for me to buy into the experience. It's a breezy hour and a half (if that!) but, in the end, I was a bit let down. More than anything, I wish they had never showed the monster in its entirety.
I knew nothing about the movie except for what I saw in the trailers (I knew there was viral marketing for it but didn't follow it... maybe that would have filled out the story more, I don't know...). For most of the movie, what little you see of the monster is so disjointed and brief that I couldn't figure out how to connect all the dots. Actually, that "bits and pieces" approach was smart and well done. They should have left it at that. When the finally showed it, I thought it was a bit of a let down. Several people in the theater laughed at the big reveal. But that may have owed more the the sudden, ninja-like appearance out of nowhere trick that the monster pulls. My girlfriend loved the movie but she complained even more than I did about the monster on the drive home. That's the trick with something really alien. In small doses it's frightening. Once you see the whole thing, it may just look silly instead. I feel it's important to say that with the exception of The Thing and the first Alien movie, most movie monsters usually leave me cold, so your mileage may vary when the big reveal comes.
The mini-cloverfields (or whatever they were) are pretty cool though. However, they are wildly inconsistent. They can tear through a platoon of machine gun toting soldiers like tissue paper, but a couple of slacker with cell phones in a dark tunnel can fight them off with only a few scratches to show for their trouble (except for one poor girl... her fate is the only moment in the movie that really shocked me).
The military is typically inept (as you would expect in any monster movie). They can't hit the broad side of a barn for the most part and when they do, the monsters is unaffected by their firepower, for no adequately explored reason. Standard stuff, really.
If you can overlook good looking young people doing very dumb things as the world goes to hell around them, then you'll probably like the movie. I did, but it's a bit like a run of the mill adventure game. Once you've played it, you know you'll never play it again. I can safely say, I don't think I'll buy it on DVD but it was worth seeing on the big screen. In fact, I'm not sure it would work on the small screen at all. I would recommend seeing it on the biggest screen you can, with the best sound system available. The sound design is amazing. The little cloverfield's chittering, chewing sound was creepy as fuck (pardon the language, but the noise really chilled me. Hair stood up on my neck and everything!)
Some of the people in the theater loved it. A few booed and shouted "bullshit!" at the end. I thought it was pretty middle of the road... which is too bad. It could have been GREAT. It SHOULD have been great. Oh well. Still worth ten bucks.
That's my take on it anyway.
- Ponch
I am so god damn excited about this movie. But from what I've been hearing it's just ok, not genre changing. I'm going to be so disappointed.
I just watched it...
It was really good. I haven't been following this thread, so bear with me.
Spoiler
The best thing about aliens is that we don't know what they look like, so we can make them into anything. This movie does it so well IMO. New York City is a complete wreck near the end.
The Thing is probably still one of the scariest and frankly freakiest horror movies I've seen. Still, thanks for the heads up Ponch, I will be seeing this in February! Goddamn release dates! I know what happens in the movie now, which is a bit sad, but I'm still really looking forward to seeing it "all go down" :)
A rather blunt spoiler (http://blog.motorphilia.com/?p=9)
It reveals the monster for those who are curious and can't wait till they can see the whole movie
Just seen it.
Brilliant. Worth the hype.
Spoiler
I'd been avoiding reviews and possible spoilers so I wasn't sure if we were going to get to see the monster properly or not. I was kind of glad that we did but on the other hand, it might have been quite cool if we didn't. For me the film could well have ended when the helicopter crashed. That scene was intense and would have been a great moment to end it on. The fact that they walked away still able to run was a bit far-fetched.
That was my only gripe, though.
I had high hopes and I wasn't let down.
Now I'm looking forward to Cloverfield 2.
An enjoyable film. Yes you do see it!
I agree completely wit Stupot. Great film.
I saw it on friday, here films reach later... I enjoyed it, but I also agree with Stupot. And I also think that m0ds started this thread asking about if the "moster" changes it' s size during the film, no? I think it does, and I don' t think I spoil anything if I say "When it is between skycrappers" compared to "The scene after the helicopter". When he is between the skycrappers I think it must be like 10 times bigger than in the scene of the helicopter (In one he must be like 150 meters tall and in the other not more than 15). A bit flaw, no?
Saw it, loved it. Nightvision FTW! ;D
Just a tiny little thing that bothered me:
Spoiler
Towards the end of the movie, when the guy carrying the camera around gets killed by the monster I think the creature is shown just a little too long and too "pretty". I could have done with something a little more ambiguous.
It was very original, and was a good ride. Not particularly scary, or thought-provoking, or amazing, but it was intense and keeps your attention. A couple things annoyed me, such as
Spoiler
suddenly the camera is equipped with nightvision, right around the time they need it; or the way they managed to survive the helicopter crash with virtually no injuries - in fact, they seemed to be goddamn invincible... even the camera, which is made of like, diamond or something. And the monster's size was totally inconsistent, and it always somehow managed to be within tail's reach of the protagonists...
Also the seemingly endless state of panic the main characters are in gets a little old (phrases like "Oh my God!" and "Run! Run! AHH!" and "ROBBIE! WHY ARE YOU RUNNING OFF FOR THE FIFTEENTH TIME?" are repeated so often they lose all meaning...)
The command is [ hide ] [/ hide ] ;)
Now you tell me...
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 04/02/2008 12:02:41
A bit flaw, no?
Hell, it eats cars for fun and pulls down skyscrapers by the dozen. It spawns zerglings all over the place... it can grow and shrink as much as it wants to, I guess. ;)
...and they're making TWO sequels.
From what I gather they are going to be two new versions of the same event, from different perspectives. I don't think this will be good.
I'd rather they just carried the story on and the monster carries on destroying other cities and the rest of America, and then the "zerglings" (great word) should grow into massive Cloverfield monsters and together they'll wipe out the world....
except for one man.
And in Cloverfield 4 Will Smith stars as the last man alive, driving around New York in a sportscar among wild animals with a dog in the passenger seat.... oh shit, wait, that's been done.
Stupot, director matt reeves has pretty much ruled out a sequel telling the same story on handheld, and has only suggested at ONE seqel.
from rotten tomatoes:
"It seems that as yet, there are no definite plans as to the direction of the sequel, but it's clear that we probably won't be seeing a rehash of the handheld style of the first as has been reported."
Reeves: "The thing about doing a sequel is that I think we all really feel protective of that experience. The key here will be if we can find something that is compelling enough and that is different enough for us to do, then it will probably be worth doing."
I've gotta agree with Emerald on
Spoiler
the way they managed to survive the helicopter crash with virtually no injuries - in fact, they seemed to be goddamn invincible... even the camera, which is made of like, diamond or something.
Besides that though, yes. I loved it. =)
This movie was shot brilliantly, it really sucked you in, made you feel you were there. It was thrilling and intense and the fact that you actually don't know how it happens is cool. Not all movies need to have good ends, or ends at all.
To settle a few of your nitpicks - the monster didn't "change size", there were several of them. Remember the scene when soldiers said "things are falling from it" and little monsters were falling. And there were several monsters int he subway. So it's common knowledge there are many monsters of varying sizes \ stages of maturity.
As for the helicopter crash, how do you know the severity of their injuries? it doesn't really show! For all you know they could be badly injured, you can only see their faces pretty much. And you don't even really know how bad was the crash itself or what really happened.
A big part of this movie is that you don't actually know what the big picture is of what is going on. All you see is bits and pieces so there could be several explanations for confusing scenes. And that's the beauty of it. You shouldn't attack points in the plot if they didn't make sense to you, because you don't know what's going on at all. You only saw part of the picture.
IMDB has an untitled Cloverfield sequel listed due 2009 but no details. I think Reeves and whoever is behind it will give false informations and clashing false interviews about a sequel and it's style, the magic of this film is that you didn't know what to expect and they don't want you to know what to expect in the sequel.
QuoteTo settle a few of your nitpicks - the monster didn't "change size", there were several of them. Remember the scene when soldiers said "things are falling from it" and little monsters were falling. And there were several monsters int he subway. So it's common knowledge there are many monsters of varying sizes \ stages of maturity.
I had that in my mind... but from
Spoiler
the subway scenes
till the
Spoiler
Central Park scene
just happened a few hours... They grow fast, then! :) Anyway, we allways can use that "It' s an unknown monster and we do not know its developement stages" helpfull sentence.
Spoiler
From what I gathered there was only one giant monster, and he pretty much stayed the same size. He may have appear larger in the end scene because he seemed to stand on his 'hind legs' whereas he'd been pretty much on all fours throughout the film.
The little fuckers that dropped off him all seemed to be the same size and there was nothing to suggest that they grew at all. I have to say they seemed almost mechanical/electrical to me. I'm wondering if they (and the 'mother') are actually a kind of bio-mechanical species created by man.
Nacho, as you said these creatures are unknown to use (aliens) so we can't know their growth rate.
Stupit, nothing in the movie suggested they grew at all, true, but nothing suggested that they didn't.
Plus, who said we saw how all the creatures got there? Just because the smaller creatures who we saw in that scene falling from the big one were the same size doesn't mean there weren't other creatures in different sizes that we just didn't see spawning.
As I said in my previous post, we only saw a small part of the big picture, the part the movie's protagnoists lived through, so all these assumptions and nitpicks are out of place, since what you saw isn't the whole picture.
The director of the movie also stated there was one big monster and it was a baby. Check the IMDB faq, it's neat.
Why being so defensive Nostradamus? :) It was just a movie, a good one, but nothing else, it' s not a Gospel to worship...
I don' t know if the monster changed it size... If it didn't, and any of the other explanations is the good one, the director goofed explaining it to the expectator.
Not being defensive. Just saying in this type of movie you can't really see "this doesn't make sense" because we don't know the big picture.
Quote from: Nostradamus on Fri 08/02/2008 09:47:03
Not being defensive. Just saying in this type of movie you can't really see "this doesn't make sense" because we don't know the big picture.
Then, the director failed making the spectator to see the big picture, no?
The spectator wasn't supposed to see the big picture!
Don't you get it? :o
You're never supposed to really know all of what happens, not before the movie, not during the movie, not after the movie. And that's the magic of it. It leaves you wondering. It's not a regular movie. It only gives you the story of the gang with the camera, NOT the story of what happened in NY that time.
Plus it leaves a place for a sequel to show you the big picture.
I completelly agree that the movie is good even if it does not show the big picture...
BUT
If you agree that the MOVIE DOES NOT SHOW all the STUFF... Why do you pretend to know that the "Middle monster" is one of the little ones which has grown?
Why do you tell me "you can' t really know what is happening" and your following step is "here happened this, and this!"? It' s totally contradictory.
QuoteThe spectator wasn't supposed to see the big picture!
Don't you get it?
You can't just say that. You have to judge what happens based on what actually happens, not on what may or may not have happened.
I mean, by your logic I could argue that Schindler's List is actually about a cyborg sent back into the past to kill Hitler - but it's never shown on-screen, so you'll have to wait until Schindler's List 2 to find out the truth :P
That might actually make me WANT to see a sequel to Schindler's List!
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 08/02/2008 19:04:34
I completelly agree that the movie is good even if it does not show the big picture...
BUT
If you agree that the MOVIE DOES NOT SHOW all the STUFF... Why do you pretend to know that the "Middle monster" is one of the little ones which has grown?
Why do you tell me "you can' t really know what is happening" and your following step is "here happened this, and this!"? It' s totally contradictory.
I was just giving a possible explanation. It's not the only one possible. For me the most logical is either this or just that other sizes of monster could arrive and we just didn't see it.
The point is there is explanation, maybe one of these maybe another, but there's no single thing in the movie that is illogical or impossible or is the producers' mistakes, because we didn't see all that's happened. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Quote from: Emerald on Fri 08/02/2008 19:43:31
QuoteThe spectator wasn't supposed to see the big picture!
Don't you get it?
You can't just say that. You have to judge what happens based on what actually happens, not on what may or may not have happened.
I mean, by your logic I could argue that Schindler's List is actually about a cyborg sent back into the past to kill Hitler - but it's never shown on-screen, so you'll have to wait until Schindler's List 2 to find out the truth :P
Again, This movie is NOT a regular movie. A regular movie shows you all that's happened and then you can say things are impossible or are mistakes. Here you saw the private story of a few people that happened to be in the area where it happens, you're never supposed to see the big picture, it's supposed to remain a mystery. By the movie's end you don't even know what these creatures are, where they came from and what's their agenda. Cos that's not the point of the movie. The monsters aren't the stars or subjects of the movie, the people with the camera are. You can't say "this and that is impossible because I didn't see i so it didn't happen" because they never showed you everything in the first place, and they had no intention in having you know all that's happened there.
I won't go on discussing with you because you are a Barça fan. ^_^
I agree with your point, Nos. I don't think anyone here disagrees. The guy at the end sums it up when he says something like"If you've found this then you already know more than we do". Actually, as the viewer we don't know any more than them apart from the fact that it was found and was called 'Cloverffield'.
But none of us know anything about the nature of the monster. All we know is what it looks like and that it had little creatues dropping off it. ie what wee saw on the recording. We can speculate all we like and it will be fun but we won't know anything for sure until the sequel (as a Lost fan I'm used to this).
Quote
The point is there is explanation, maybe one of these maybe another, but there's no single thing in the movie that is illogical or impossible or is the producers' mistakes, because we didn't see all that's happened. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's reasonable to assume that if something illogical happens, it should at least
hint at or
allude to some sort of plausible explanation. Otherwise, any explanations after-the-fact will just seem like retconning, and they will, at the time, seem like a mistake.
Lost provides mystery. You're not sure what the hell is going on, but you're sure that the writers
mean for things to not make sense. There's no speculation as to whether the mysteries in Lost are intentional or not.
The devoted fan might assume that their beloved director/producer is more competent than he seems, but most people wont, and so it's common practice to ensure that anything that resembles a plothole is filled.
Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 08/02/2008 02:20:58
The director of the movie also stated there was one big monster and it was a baby. Check the IMDB faq, it's neat.
For realsies, anyone who has seen the film and has the vaguest interest in it should do this.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq
Okay... Sorry for bumping, but I just saw the movie and it was soooooooooooo fcuking disappointing! To me, the whole movie was just an intro where you were left with clues. I actually waited for something to happend. There were a clear beginning, but there were no bloody middle and no goddamned end!
I understand that it's supposed to be mysterious and stuff like that, but it's mysterious to a level that makes it uninterresting. You just don't open conflicts in a movie if you're not going to unveil them for the viewer. Even lost was better on that than this piece of crap...
/rant
Sorry, I just had to unwind... I had huge expectations, and now I hate it. Prolly my own fault!
EDIT: I did actually enjoy the parasites though! They were a fun diversion and the only actually tense moment in the whole movie.
I just got an email today saying this movie has been done by RiffTrax (http://www.rifftrax.com).
That is all.
vicgt0r the point of the movie WAS to keep it open, to have no clear end and to keep you wondering. The whole point was to make something different and not just another Godzilla movie.
But to calm you down, there's a sequel coming up. Maybe more information will be revealed there.
I just recently caught this and my experience can be summed up like this:
Hud: Oh my god!
*Pan to the monster. Show the monster out of focus for .3 seconds. Pan away to something mundane like rubble or feet or the back of a girl's head.*
Hud: Did you guys see that?!
Me: No, I didn't you asshole.
*Repeat as necessary*
Actually, I thought it was kind of a novel idea with some nice execution and some stuff that was just too unbelievable in the "no way he kept filming during that, this is so hokey" kind of way. A fun ride to be sure, though.
I quite liked that it didn't even attempt to offer an explanation of anything during the whole shebang. If a scientist had stepped into the frame suddenly and said something about nuclear waste being dumped down the deepest ocean trench and the resulting seismic activity, that "unbelievable-hokey" meter would have gone right off the scale.
Quote from: Nostradamus on Wed 23/04/2008 12:35:23
vicgt0r the point of the movie WAS to keep it open, to have no clear end and to keep you wondering. The whole point was to make something different and not just another Godzilla movie.
Yeah, but in my head, this was change for the worse.. I am looking forward for the sequel though! Another thing that bothered me was "Hud". I actually don't thing I've ever seen a more annoying main character.. He was just really bugging me and I were hoping he'd die and that someone would take over the camera.
Quote from: Nostradamus on Wed 23/04/2008 12:35:23
vicgt0r the point of the movie WAS to keep it open, to have no clear end and to keep you wondering. The whole point was to make something different and not just another Godzilla movie.
But to calm you down, there's a sequel coming up. Maybe more information will be revealed there.
Something different and not just another Godzilla movie? There can never be enough Godzilla movies! Take that, Australia. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOISbaA2G18)