Cloverfield craze?

Nacho · Mon 04/02/2008 12:02:41

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?

Miez · Mon 04/02/2008 23:38:43

Saw it, loved it. Nightvision FTW!

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.

[close]

Emerald · Tue 05/02/2008 18:33:09

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...

[close]

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...)

Nacho · Wed 06/02/2008 07:25:28

The command is [ hide ] [/ hide ]

Emerald · Wed 06/02/2008 20:42:37

Now you tell me...

Miez · Wed 06/02/2008 22:09:47

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.

Stupot · Thu 07/02/2008 01:14:24

...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.

Sam. · Thu 07/02/2008 02:18:23

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."

PsychicHeart · Thu 07/02/2008 02:34:07

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.

[close]

Besides that though, yes. I loved it. =)

Nostradamus · Thu 07/02/2008 16:57:25

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.

Nacho · Thu 07/02/2008 18:22:08

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

[close]

till the

Spoiler

Central Park scene

[close]

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.

Stupot · Thu 07/02/2008 19:24:47

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.

[close]

Nostradamus · Thu 07/02/2008 19:58:27

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.

MrColossal · 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.

Nacho · Fri 08/02/2008 07:49:50

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.

Nostradamus · 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.

Nacho · Fri 08/02/2008 15:51:44

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?

Nostradamus · Fri 08/02/2008 18:11:23

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.

Nacho · 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.

Emerald · 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