Cloverfield

okay i thought it was a good movie, good story and effects

but i didnt like the fact that half time u couldnt tell whats going on cus camera all over the place but i guess its expected from a pov movie.

also, the ending sucked

that is all.
 
Went to see it yesterday and thought it was very good, a fresh take of a monster film. kept me at the edge of my seat most of the way through. I kinda expected the film to end like that and I think they did a good job on the ending since it's supposed to be from someone's handheld camera.



*Spoiler*
Besides you kinda already know how the film is gonna end at the very beginning since the tape was retrieved in central park.
 
Last edited:
dmpoole said:
I haven't pretended anything.
The plot line is absolutely ridiculous with so many holes in it.
Click to expand...
I'll humour you for a bit then. Firstly, what holes? Secondly, any holes can be explained by the simple fact that no, you're not getting the full story. That's the whole point. You're getting an unedited, first-hand account of what happened to a small selection of people.
 
Just came back from the cinema with the missus. We were both like - meh. I preferred the blair witch project to this. In the end we decided to do a double whammey and went to see Penelope afterwards - guess which one was the better film - u guessed it - not cloverfield ;)
 
Saw this tonight. Absolutely loved it! I really didn't mind the obvious plot holes in the film, it added to the POV feel to the film.

*Spoiler Alert*
I liked the fact that this didn't have the typical hollywood ending where miraculously the people win. One thing that was kind of weird was that the monster at the end, when it's looking down at Hud, looks a lot smaller than when it was in the city. Other than that i loved it.
 
mark1 said:
*Spoiler Alert*
I liked the fact that this didn't have the typical hollywood ending where miraculously the people win. One thing that was kind of weird was that the monster at the end, when it's looking down at Hud, looks a lot smaller than when it was in the city. Other than that i loved it.
Click to expand...

In the city it was as big as a skyscraper and in the park it was 10 foot tall.
It was probably a baby one.
Did they have the same writers as LOST? - make it up as we go along.
 
mark1 said:
Saw this tonight. Absolutely loved it! I really didn't mind the obvious plot holes in the film, it added to the POV feel to the film.

*Spoiler Alert*
I liked the fact that this didn't have the typical hollywood ending where miraculously the people win. One thing that was kind of weird was that the monster at the end, when it's looking down at Hud, looks a lot smaller than when it was in the city. Other than that i loved it.
Click to expand...

SPOILERS

The only way i can explain this is that the creatures stance was different - you can see it in the street that it can move on more then 2 legs, kinda looks like its crawling but in some parts it appears to stand on its hind legs or whatever the hell you'd call them so its a lot taller.

Gonna have to re watch it to confirm that theory though :(
 
I saw it tonight. And without a doubt it was.... ok and a fun watch.

It should be credited for its fairly original approach of the 'monster' genre. It wasn't cheesy, it wasn't Americani'z'ed, and I thought it caught the sense of panic well.

Bad points: It was a monster film in New York, there wasn't going to be scope to make it a epic, heart tugging masterpiece. But it wasn't intended to be. It was a damn good watch, and the visuals and sound really added to it.

I would say a 7/10 is a very fair rating.

The 'explanations' of the whole thing on the internet are very ropey to say the least.
 
dmpoole said:
Did they have the same writers as LOST? - make it up as we go along.
Click to expand...

JJ. Abrams again. The viral marketing campaign helps to explain a lot of the back story to the film.

dmpoole said:
I haven't pretended anything.
The plot line is absolutely ridiculous with so many holes in it.
Click to expand...

So, do you not like anything then? You could pick out plotholes in any film, to say that its a great reason to dislike Cloverfield is to say its a great reason to dislike every film, ever.

dmpoole said:
In the city it was as big as a skyscraper and in the park it was 10 foot tall.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that big, the only reason it hit the helicopter is that it seemed to jump. You saw how big it was when Hud looked out of the window of Beths apartment, not exactly Skyscraper standard.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone get the make/model of the camcorder and sd card - cos damn Ive got to get one - its was 'Top Gear/Gadget Show' indestructable!!! :p

Overall a well executed film considering the idea, the cinematography obviously was there to involve people as if they were the camera operator and worked well to humanise the story and to skate over the obvious plot weaknesses. The film just wouldnt have worked without the first person view and it was a 'stroke of genius' to use it in such a way to get away with the fact the viewer never becomes omniscient...

Really hope a sequel doesnt get made since the premise/execution will be extremely poor and probably will need to backtrack the story to answer half the plausible questions left in this movie. Why do people need a sequel to vindicate their thoughts/assumptions on the original? In my opinion the ending leaves it very nicely open to interpretation (though the credit ending is where someone should have told J.J. to leave well alone - just wasnt needed)...

m0r94n said:
For me, that would ruin it abit. Id wager that if there is to be a Cloverfield 2 it would be either from:
a) The Armies point of view: When they were in the shop and the soldiers appeared they all had cameras ontop of their helmets. Possibly something along the lines of this, very similar to what they did in Halo when they introduced the flood through Jenkins.
b) When Hud was filming, theres a bit where he sees someone else filming him, its only there for about a second but the cameras cross paths. Maybe this would be a different group of survivors who might have gotten away (could even have them in the helicopter that Lily was placed into).

There are so many little things they could do aswell, like different scenes from different viewpoints. Like the bit in the makeshift field hospital, you could see what happens to Marlena from the point of view of the solders.
Click to expand...
Bet youre a Half-Life + expansions fan ;)

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
m0r94n said:
b) When Hud was filming, theres a bit where he sees someone else filming him, its only there for about a second but the cameras cross paths. Maybe this would be a different group of survivors who might have gotten away (could even have them in the helicopter that Lily was placed into).
Click to expand...

I missed this post at first but theres been talk of a sequel already and this is what Matt Reeves (director) has mentioned.

Heres the quote
Matt Reeves said:
"There's a moment on the Brooklyn Bridge, and there was a guy filming something on the side of the bridge, and Hud sees him filming and he turns over and he sees the ship that's been capsized and sees the headless Statue of Liberty, and then he turns back and this guy's briefly filming him. In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment, and I thought there was something interesting in the idea that this incident happened and there are so many different points of view, and there are several different movies at least happening that evening and we just saw one piece of another
Click to expand...

In another interview he said
Matt Reeves said:
While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go. The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In today’s day and age of people filming their lives on their iPhones and Handycams, uploading it to YouTube… That was kind of exciting thinking about that
Click to expand...

Im not sure about a sequel but the ideas are there already it appears.

edit: missed another quite important quote about possible sequels.

Matt Reeves said:
The idea of doing something so differently is exhilarating. We hope that it created a movie experience that is different. 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. Obviously it also depends on how [Cloverfield] does worldwide and all of those things too, but really, for us creatively, we just want to find something that would be another challenge
Click to expand...

Its good that at least if they do do a sequel they're approaching it carefully
 
Last edited:
dmpoole said:
In the city it was as big as a skyscraper and in the park it was 10 foot tall.
It was probably a baby one.
Did they have the same writers as LOST? - make it up as we go along.
Click to expand...


Hahaha 10ft, seriously?
It was huge.

How the hell did they "make" it up?
And when was the last time you watch any series? Lost is only at S4, whilst 24 is at what, 7? 10?

Star-trek had about 7 series each, ..I mean hell there's hundreds of series that have more seasons than lost. What do you want 1 season to end it all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom