Cloverfield

dmpoole said:
The difference is that the writers make Superman and Star Wars seem real for a couple of hours.
Cloverfield was a complete mess.
Click to expand...

So you hate the co-incidences in Cloverfield, yet you love the whole "Luke I am your Father" malarky. The amount of little connections in the star wars films are far greater than Cloverfield.

As for the whole location arguement, its a pointless one really. You could say that about any film and it would still sound stupid. New York is one of, if not the most recognisable cities in America. I don't think it would have been as good if it had been set in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between something beign "realistic" and a downright plot hole....

Superman is totally unrealistic yet there aren't any horrific plot holes....

This film is totally unrealistic yet there's one HUGE plot hole - i.e. the film-makers trying to be super clever, cute, cool and contemporary by having the Satelite debris visible at the end in the home movie - but yet forgetting they are making the monster come from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and that "looking for the sattelite woke up the monster".

That my friends is an EPIC FAIL. No matter how realistic the film is - it's downright annoy ing.
 
m0r94n said:
So you hate the co-incidences in Cloverfield, yet you love the whole "Luke I am your Father" malarky. The amount of little connections in the star wars films are far greater than Cloverfield.
Click to expand...

All 3 Star Wars films were planned out way before they were shot where Cloverfield looks like it was made up as they go along.
 
All these JJ Abrams fanboys make me laugh:

"It's good that the film gets you asking questions"

- No it chuffing well isn't. You should come away from a film having understood what went on in it.

"You need to check the backstory"

- There should be no need to trawl the net trying to find stuff out that should be on the screen somewhere during the course of the film.

"Coincidences are what makes the film good"

- No it isn't. If you want quirky coincidences go and watch a different genre. Pulp Fiction style twists don't belong in a disaster movie.

"Should have shown less of the monster"

-You don't know how lucky you are. When ALIEN first came out everybody was DYING to know what the alien looked like in full form, yet the film was so dark nobody had a clue. They lightened the film once every man and his cat knew what it looked like.
 
Yet again, your opinion. I personally like something that keeps me hooked, even after the films finished. Who says the journey has to end when the credits start?

The thing that makes me laugh is the amount of people on here who are crying about the fact they went to see a film vastly different from others that had preceded it. Yes, its a marmite film and I accept the negative criticism, its interesting to read others thoughts on the film. But I can't help but feel that in that last post you're trying to present your opinion as fact.
 
Last edited:
Damien. said:
Went to see Cloverfield for the 2nd time on Saturday. A vast improvement from the first time i watched it over a mates house on a poxy 17" CRT screen. I can safely say its a film you have to take a trip down to the local silver screen to appreciate and im sure a lot of people here will agree.

The shaky cam and flashing lights didn't make me fill dizzy or ill for 1 second. Although as stated in a few posts above, i think the running away from the golden bridge scene was abit ott.

Other than that, i thought the rest of it was brilliant. The film really sucked me in and in places i found it so tense that i resorted to clenching my fist, without realizing it. I thought the monster was great and very scary from the noise it made to the way it looked.

The one thing that made me think is that fact that this monster is just a baby looking for its mother. Roll on the 2nd one.
Click to expand...


I agree. Thats pretty much summed up my thoughts about the film. (Apart from maybe the last line :p)

Why are people more obsessed with the so called backstory? I know nothing of this. I never researched it, because its a film, no where in the film do they even know what the monster is, so why do people feel the need to **** the film off based on facts that you are not actually informed of? Am I missing something? Seriously, its a film and its NOT REAL!!!!!
 
Not really sure if I enjoyed it or not.. I thought the story was 'fairly' novel, and the camera work was a nice change, but at the same time it made me feel sick and I was a little disappointing with the general lack of conclusion (though this is J.J. Abrahams we are talking about.. master of plots left open and unexplained events!)
 
PhillyDee said:
Why are people more obsessed with the so called backstory? I know nothing of this. I never researched it, because its a film, no where in the film do they even know what the monster is, so why do people feel the need to **** the film off based on facts that you are not actually informed of? Am I missing something? Seriously, its a film and its NOT REAL!!!!!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know where to start.
 
Dracata said:
Not really sure if I enjoyed it or not.. I thought the story was 'fairly' novel, and the camera work was a nice change, but at the same time it made me feel sick and I was a little disappointing with the general lack of conclusion (though this is J.J. Abrahams we are talking about.. master of plots left open and unexplained events!)
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the film but a few people i have spoken to said it made them feel sick as well.
 
Nice camera work I though.
Awesome CGI.

Too many things I didn't like, or wasn't believable.

Meh film :/

Also needed to be half hour longer or more, seemed way too short.

I'll watch it again, prolly grow on me. Loving the whole "lost" nes about it :)
 
Last edited:
Damien. said:
I can safely say its a film you have to take a trip down to the local silver screen to appreciate and im sure a lot of people here will agree.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have watched it on my speaker setup, I don't know what was going on at the cinema but the surround sound seemed quite off at times.
 
dmpoole said:
All 3 Star Wars films were planned out way before they were shot where Cloverfield looks like it was made up as they go along.
Click to expand...

Well is every second of your life planned out? Second to that would it be if a monster started ripping through your neighbourhood?

No, a lot of the day people go through their life as it happens, so why this movie should look like it wasn't made up as it goes would lose the effect of it being simply, someone having a camera amidst all that chaos.

Wouldn't you say so? :)
 
ChrisJSY said:
No, a lot of the day people go through their life as it happens, so why this movie should look like it wasn't made up as it goes would lose the effect of it being simply, someone having a camera amidst all that chaos.

Wouldn't you say so? :)
Click to expand...

No.

The camera is the most stupidest part of the film.
During all that chaos no normal person would keep a camcorder rolling and would have thrown it to lighten the load.
What they could have done was presented camcorder man has somebody who normally does war correspondents from Afghanistan etc and that would have given some reality to a bloke keeping the camcorder running.
However, some of the shots were plain stupid : monster to the left and he's recording his mates over the road.

It was a poor film and the writer must be laughing his head off.
Perhaps thats what fell in the sea at the end.
 
i saw it last night. initially, i almost walked out of the cinema, as nothing grabbed me. but when all hell breaks loose it gets very interesting. my favorite 2 parts of the film are..

spoiler.
when the four of the guys/girls are running down the street then a rocket go's whizzing past their head toward the creature, you dont actually see iT because loads of troops and tanks go past, firing all their weapons and the characters cant get their heads up because of all the firing, at this point did i realise the sound was immense, it felt as though i was in a battefield!


also, when they are in the helicopter trying to escape, and the B-2 bomber flies over head and carpet bombs the creature, and the guy is shouting and cheering because they hit it (i was aswell, obviously not shouting it out in the cinema though) and from nowhere it jumps through the cloud and nails the heli, and the guy is praying to god that they don't die when it is falling through the sky (ive never panicked in a film before like i have watching that part lol)

overall i give it 9/10
 
I watched it on Friday last week. I was so looking forward to it and I wasnt disappointed. Only problem was.... I got motion sickness from all the camera shake :)
 
Damien. said:
Went to see Cloverfield for the 2nd time on Saturday. A vast improvement from the first time i watched it over a mates house on a poxy 17" CRT screen. I can safely say its a film you have to take a trip down to the local silver screen to appreciate and im sure a lot of people here will agree.

The shaky cam and flashing lights didn't make me fill dizzy or ill for 1 second. Although as stated in a few posts above, i think the running away from the golden bridge scene was abit ott.

Other than that, i thought the rest of it was brilliant. The film really sucked me in and in places i found it so tense that i resorted to clenching my fist, without realizing it. I thought the monster was great and very scary from the noise it made to the way it looked.

The one thing that made me think is that fact that this monster is just a baby looking for its mother. Roll on the 2nd one.
Click to expand...

You didn't watch it in the Palace in town did you?

Might as well watch it on your mobile phone, with gameboy headphones :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom