Shadow Creepr on 4/2/2008 at 16:21
I went to see this yesterday and really enjoyed it. The shaky cam thing doesn't bother me; I don't think the film would have worked the same without it. It is definitely a see-at-the-cinema movie if nothing else to get the perspective of looking up and seeing the monster directly above 'you'. I felt the movie ran for just the right amount of time also. Absolutely recommend it.
Stitch on 4/2/2008 at 16:31
Yeah, I really don't get the whole "without the shakey cam you wouldn't have a movie" argument. IF THERE WASN'T A MONSTER THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A MOVIE EITHER.
Gingerbread Man on 5/2/2008 at 01:10
Hands down one of the best monster movies I have ever seen.
Hands down one of the worst monster concepts I have ever seen.
Well, maybe not worst, but it sucked a hefty amount of bag. My immediate thoughts are that it should have either looked more like something we might have on Earth or way less like something we might have on Earth -- regardless of its origins (which thankfully did not become the focus of awkward exposition, probably from that last helpful Army guy) it didn't do a whole lot for me as a creature. I liked the first few glimpses when it was more or less blundering around amongst the buildings, but it went a bit downhill from there -- culminating in a fairly ridiculous shot of one of the most pedestrian Stock Monster Physiology faces I can remember.
Everything else was pretty phenomenal, though. So maybe giant monsters just look kinda disappointing in real life, what do I know?
Ko0K on 5/2/2008 at 03:10
Quote Posted by Wikipedia
Artist Neville Page designed the monster, thoroughly creating a biological rationale for the creature, even if many of his ideas would not show up on screen. The key idea behind the monster was that he was an immature creature suffering from "separation anxiety". This recalls real-life elephants who get frightened and lash out at the circus, because the director felt "there's nothing scarier than something huge that's spooked.
Maybe it looks "pedestrian" because it's supposed to be a cuddly pup? The monster may develop new features as it matures, in which case its adult form may be a lot more intimidating. Hopefully that's what I'll get to see in the sequel, but something from a totally unexpected angle would also be great.
Scots Taffer on 5/2/2008 at 13:01
Just seen it.
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Hands down one of the best monster movies I have ever seen.
Hands down one of the worst monster concepts I have ever seen.
Agreed on the first point, the second point is debatable - the design would have been okay if they didn't keep changing it; scale, snout/no snout, tail capable of halving the Brooklyn Bridge or just for swatting flies? The thing looked so vastly different from one take to the next that you almost suspect they switched CG providers halfway through the flick. If you're going monster from the deep, I just want a giant fucking isopod creature with extra tentacles, bite and fucking claws on the arms.
Inline Image:
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/4328/cloloverfieldrv4.jpgFUCK YEAHHHHHHHHH
However my main gripe is with the very end, it's just such a let down in comparison to the rest of the movie, not that it was a stellar effort that far by any means but it was definitely watchable (despite the tunnel "nightvision" cliche and little crawley beasts). It's the
"oooh the camera" and not "oooh the multistorey beastie directly in front of me that eats me two seconds later" that kills it. Just a horrible pacing decision and terribly executed moment, I'd much rather they had a really awesome money shot close up (like at the subway) as they'd been making their way to the choppers (and not that near-miss that features before they get on theirs), like the cameraman falling a tiny bit behind and stumbling, falling, the camera rolling to come to a stop as the monster passes directly overhead as Shit Goes Down.
Also, on the very end:
are we to assume they died in the nuke or just pre-nuke-bombs that caved in the tunnel? Nuke doesn't make sense due to EMP, though the very last sound was of a big bomb... or maybe just a close bomb. Couldn't have been a nuke else how could they recover the camera anyway?And at the end of the credits you hear like a second or two of half-whispers, who knows what that's all about. (Edit: Apparently, (
http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=126) according to this, the words are "it's still alive" in reverse)
Anyway, if any of this nonsense about a Cloverfield sequel is true then I think they should break away from doing a handheld repeat and actually try a big budget traditional monster movie view of the same event but from the standard perspectives of oceanographer, military and so on, but try to retain some ingenuity in both the lead-up, pay-off and ending. (Edit: Although (
http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/846/846669p1.html) APPARENTLY, they're thinking of doing maybe another handheld, fuck that)
And yeah, "Roar" was pretty awesome.
Stitch on 5/2/2008 at 16:01
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
The thing looked so vastly different from one take to the next that you almost suspect they switched CG providers halfway through the flick.
Actually, one thing I really liked about the movie is the fact that despite a few money shots you leave the film without a clear idea of what the monster looked like.
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
(despite the tunnel "nightvision" cliche and little crawley beasts)
Nigga please, part of the fun of the movie is the fact that it is a repackaging of every genre cliche imaginable. If you've seen any monster movie then you're thoroughly fluent in the vocabulary upon which Cloverfield is built; the thrill of the movie is twisting in your chair as you know what's about to drop, and then the holy shit moment when it actually unfolds except there's ten times more HOLY FUCK than you were ready for.
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
It's the
"oooh the camera" and not "oooh the multistorey beastie directly in front of me that eats me two seconds later" that kills it. Just a horrible pacing decision and terribly executed moment, I'd much rather they had a really awesome money shot close up (like at the subway) as they'd been making their way to the choppers (and not that near-miss that features before they get on theirs), like the cameraman falling a tiny bit behind and stumbling, falling, the camera rolling to come to a stop as the monster passes directly overhead as Shit Goes Down.
Uh, can you clarify, because honestly I have no idea what you mean.
I personally really liked the ending of the film, as it
resolves the character arc of the main protagonist in a relentless manner befitting of the rest of the film.I saw the film again, and it held up surprisingly well to multiple viewings, even if certain scenes lack the sheer visceral intensity when stripped of surprise. My sole complaint with the film is that
the last act can't quite maintain the pace established by the second. The building crawling and whatnot doesn't quite play to the strengths of the personal camcorder angle, although the movie picks it back up for the helicopter run scene on.Also: I think I know everyone that was at that party.
Starrfall on 5/2/2008 at 19:16
Look there's spoilers in this post ok.
I thought the creature design was too anthropomorphic, and it was distracting because a few times it looked more like a giant alien than a sea creature from earth.
And I think that it could have ended just as well right after the copter crash, with the radio talking about the incoming strikes (and I actually though that's where it was going to end). I don't really know if the tunnel scene added much except a much better way to transition to that last shot of the happy day.
edit: also fucking catch me near a crowded bridge when there's a giant disaster going on it's like the most obvious target ever
Scots Taffer on 5/2/2008 at 23:02
Yeah spoilers herein.
Quote Posted by Stitch
Actually, one thing I really liked about the movie is the fact that despite a few money shots you leave the film without a clear idea of what the monster looked like.
The shot at the end in the park is pretty damn clear and also pretty unlike all those in motion around the city at nighttime shots. I got more of a tripody creature in mind with a huge :U face with big fucking fangs (from that subway shot) and the huge tentacle whipping behind.
I totally agree with Starreh too, in the city it could be some fucking weird tentacley sea-creature but in the last sequence it looks like an alien (those pinkish cheek bubbles wtf) and those spider-creatures things were less sea-creature and more starship-troopers. I mean, come on, GIANT FUCKING ISOPODS. I would have shit myself.
Quote Posted by Stitch
the thrill of the movie is twisting in your chair as you know what's about to drop, and then the holy shit moment when it actually unfolds except there's ten times more HOLY FUCK than you were ready for
Sort of, but not really. The intro with the monster arriving was a bit of a genuine thrill in its own right without really relying on too much genre convention, aside from Jurassic Park with the trembling glass of water I can't think of many intros that have people that up close and personal with the monster at the very beginning. The bridge scene, okay, yeah, granted and I liked the nightvision tunnel sequence better when it was done almost shot for shot in
The Descent.
Quote Posted by Stitch
Uh, can you clarify, because honestly I have no idea what you mean.
Not the ending in the tunnel, the park sequence with Hud, it fucking reeked. The rest was absolutely fine although...
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I think that it could have ended just as well right after the copter crash, with the radio talking about the incoming strikes
...would have been a good place to end it, if not, at least kill Hud there and perhaps have the camera thrown from the chopper, watching the couple escape and perhaps even a distant money shot of the bombs coming down on the monster.
But really, come on, it was well enough done but I can think of a million ways it could have been more awesome. Given that they are restricted to handheld for the entire movie you think they could have gotten more clever about, especially at the climax of operation damsel in distress, when you entered her room (finding her not-too-badly-impaled) with that already nicely-disoriented feel about where is up and where is down, holy fuck the whole room is tilting, but they really neutred that scene of any real tension as they're all just clambering about and worrying about her... I mean, the room is PRETTY FUCKING TILTED, I'd be scared about going out of the fucking blown out windows and down 39 stories but that's just me. I would've had Hud put the camera somewhere and have that scene actually be a lot more tense with worrying about their environment as well as bitch on a skewer.
At least that sequence gave you lots of upskirts with the hot black chick am i rite :cool:
Starrfall on 5/2/2008 at 23:30
Well there are other things that bugged me about the movie but changing them would make the movie pointless. (For example seriously, I would have ditched the fucking camera LONG ago jesus)
But that doesn't mean it's not a rad movie so everyone go see it. There are things I would change about plenty of things I like!
(For example I would change a song of fire and ice by FINISHING IT)
