Cloverfield(2008)

Users who are viewing this thread

Maulds

Accidental Bastard
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
As for it's origins, again, you never learn of them, though you know it's an alien, because you see it crash into the ocean at the end

OK I said the same thing, but JJ Abrams has made comments about the thing having been in the ocean for thousands of years. Seems what we saw hit the water was a satellite thats somehow tied to the Slusho company or Tagruato or something...?

But if you wanna see the monster just look at this mirrored poster image. Thats it exactly, except it isn't made of clouds, dust or debris
monster.jpg.
 
  • 38
    Replies
  • 1K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Dodge_Sniper

Active Member
Messages
4,791
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
OK I said the same thing, but JJ Abrams has made comments about the thing having been in the ocean for thousands of years. Seems what we saw hit the water was a satellite thats somehow tied to the Slusho company or Tagruato or something...?

But if you wanna see the monster just look at this mirrored poster image. Thats it exactly, except it isn't made of clouds, dust or debris
monster.jpg.

That's a decent reprisentation of the monster, but it looks slightly different in the movie. And Maulds, I'll PM ya later regarding the new origins of the monster. I've learned new stuff since this thread, and don't wanna bore the members :D

I still think the handheld type of filming helped out a lot. Hid any CG-flaws, and made the movie seem much more realistic.
 

Ashl33

The OTz Gold-Digguh!!
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
i watched this movie with my boyfriend a little while ago, a few months ago actually and it was an awesome movie !!!
 

Zorak

The cake is a metaphor
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
my girlfriend got it for my birthday

I actually quite like it, the monsters fairly unique and obviously pretty uber.

The filming style annoyed me though, it didn't work in Blair Witch, it didn't work here.
The problem lies in if your shooting your film from a first person, handheld perspective, it is most likely in an attempt to make the audience empathise with the characters, and to make it feel like they are in the action too.
However, since it's a Hollywood blockbuster, all the characters are fucking annoying banshee lunged cunts whom deserve nothing better than being mutilated by parasitic monsters, and in which case proper camera angles would have sufficed.
 

Dodge_Sniper

Active Member
Messages
4,791
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
my girlfriend got it for my birthday

I actually quite like it, the monsters fairly unique and obviously pretty uber.

The filming style annoyed me though, it didn't work in Blair Witch, it didn't work here.
The problem lies in if your shooting your film from a first person, handheld perspective, it is most likely in an attempt to make the audience empathise with the characters, and to make it feel like they are in the action too.
However, since it's a Hollywood blockbuster, all the characters are fucking annoying banshee lunged cunts whom deserve nothing better than being mutilated by parasitic monsters, and in which case proper camera angles would have sufficed.

Allow me to repost a brilliant review of this movie.

Who would have thought that the writer of UNDER SEIGE: DARK TERRITORY would one day end up directing one of the most groundbreaking films in the past twenty years? I just got back from seeing the top-secret JJ Abrams project known only as CLOVERFIELD and ran directly to my computer to slam out some thoughts, all of which are positive. This is going to sound extremely bold, but CLOVERFIELD is life changing. Sure it's just a movie and yeah, it's not the best movie of all-time, but it will change the way films are made and will forever become a classic among young movie viewers everywhere.

Slice and I chatted a bit about this in the car, so there might be some overlap in our opinions, but do you remember the first time you saw JURASSIC PARK? Do you remember how it altered every film to come after it and your expectations? CLOVERFIELD works the same magic as it's so incredibly convincing and effective that it's mere existence will challenge your views of other films - "it just wasn't CLOVERFIELD" will become the new line heard round the campus.

Why is the film so damn effective? Funny how just yesterday I read an article online about horror video games and why they're better than actual movies. The author’s observations led him to believe that one of the main reasons was the game player is essentially THE character in the game, thus the gamer is experiencing the events first hand, which can be terrifying. CLOVERFIELD puts the same thoughts to the test by sticking a camera into some “Joe Smith’s” hands, and shooting the entire movie first person. The effect is that the viewer in the theater subconsciously feels as if they are that person with the camera. I know it has been done before (BLAIR WITCH, DIARY OF THE DEAD), but none done with such competence. What results is an actual scary movie with some genuinely creepy, tense moments and the fruition of well-developed characters.

The screenplay was truly in touch with reality. What transpires is an astoundingly believable situation, which we're supposed to be laughing at. A giant monster attacks New York City? Seriously? The fact that it's 100% believable only aids in the fear factor. The absolute best part of Drew Goddard's screenplay is that we learn nothing about the monster or it's parasites that jump off its back. We are left guessing until the end, but not having answers spoon fed to us only makes the film that much more frightening.

And although we don't learn anything about the monster's origins, we do get plenty of ass-kicking creature FX. The fact that the film is shot in first person helps hide many of the CG flaws making this one of the most realistic monsters to ever hit the big screen. Besides looking just fearsome, both the giant monster and its parasites have the most gut wrenching sounds.

The roar, which many of you have heard online, shakes the theater. If you see this film in a well-equipped theater, expect to have your balls shaken by some of the best sound design to ever hit a theater. The explosions and roars, and especially the creepy noises made by the parasites, will chill you down to the core. An effective score and sound design can turn a good movie into a great movie, which is the case here.

In the end, I was disappointed - and not by the movie. CLOVERFIELD is one of those films you wish you could see for the very first time again because the impact will just never be the same on second viewing. I treasured the experience of getting to see this in the theater and it will forever leave a mark on me. "This is a story that needs to be told..." there are still good movies to be made – and people who have the heart to make them.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
I don't mind hand held cams, but please God give them the foresight to remove the shakes for the sequel, PLEASE.

I think this movie could have been so outstanding if not for this characteristic.
 

Dodge_Sniper

Active Member
Messages
4,791
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I don't mind hand held cams, but please God give them the foresight to remove the shakes for the sequel, PLEASE.

I think this movie could have been so outstanding if not for this characteristic.

Whaaaat? Hand held produces exactly that, a shaky, more realistic tone. If you were in the middle of a situation like that, you wouldn't exactly be the best director. I honestly think that if this movie were filmed in a regular filming style, it'd have tanked the box office, and failed miserably. Most of the emotional connections with the characters and the humor only works because of the hand held style of filming. Take that away, and Cloverfield is just another Godzilla flick with a new monster and no origins explained.

In fact, that's another reason this only works hand held. If they don't explain it in hand held, that's fine, because we know just as much as they do. Don't explain it in a regular film, and everybody gets pissed off.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Whaaaat? Hand held produces exactly that, a shaky, more realistic tone. If you were in the middle of a situation like that, you wouldn't exactly be the best director. I honestly think that if this movie were filmed in a regular filming style, it'd have tanked the box office, and failed miserably. Most of the emotional connections with the characters and the humor only works because of the hand held style of filming. Take that away, and Cloverfield is just another Godzilla flick with a new monster and no origins explained.

In fact, that's another reason this only works hand held. If they don't explain it in hand held, that's fine, because we know just as much as they do. Don't explain it in a regular film, and everybody gets pissed off.

Listen we have been over this before...uh, I guess I restarted it. ;) You can have a hand held stabilized cam that gives the same kind of "be there" feeling, that tells the exact same story with the same perspective, without the jerks induced nausea imo. I don't expect you to agree. :)
 

Dodge_Sniper

Active Member
Messages
4,791
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Listen we have been over this before...uh, I guess I restarted it. ;) You can have a hand held stabilized cam that gives the same kind of "be there" feeling, that tells the exact same story with the same perspective, without the jerks induced nausea imo. I don't expect you to agree. :)

I understand that, but hand held camera without shakes is unreal. Explosions and all, that'd cause you to shake the camera.
 

Zorak

The cake is a metaphor
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
lol you can't compare the cinematic and camera usage in Saving Private Ryan to Cloverfield lol, it's a no brainer.

I will always maintain the 1st person handheld camera POV is a cheap way of avoiding the directors usual work.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
lol you can't compare the cinematic and camera usage in Saving Private Ryan to Cloverfield lol, it's a no brainer.

I will always maintain the 1st person handheld camera POV is a cheap way of avoiding the directors usual work.

Not to start an argument, but why not? Being on the beach in Normandy was just as much being there as Cloverfield other than it was a camera perspective instead of someone taking home movies.
 

Obdurate

Active Member
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Well comparing Saving Private Ryan to Cloverfield is kind of wonky because they're different genres, and they use their cameras differently. Technically you can compare them, and surely comparing them in terms of what you liked more is acceptable, but it gets wonky when you compare them for different reasons. It's like going, "Man, I loved P.S. I Love You!" "Ah, it wasn't as good as Blade Runner." Wonky (I like that word!) context.

I think it was me and you that went over the camera usage before though, Minor, lol. I still haven't seen Cloverfield, but nobody can change your mind if the shaky cam makes you nauseous and that's fair enough. I happen to like the gimmick but it got a little over saturated for a bit there, and it made the effect worse, just like anything if it gets overused. I feel sorry for you since you don't like it. Did you like stuff like the Bourne series?

And this isn't to Minor, but I read a bit of that one review that Dodge posted. A revolutionary film? Like I said, I haven't seen it but I'm gonna doubt that immensely. I mean, Cloverfield sounds cool and from what I have seen, it looks damn entertaining but it's only a monster movie with shaky cam. Blair Witch had it, Cannibal Holocaust had it before that... just seems like a little much to give it THAT much praise. Wow.
 

gillibean

Member
Messages
324
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Realistic or not, the shaky cam made me ill and got in the way of the movie. If they hadn't been so obsessed with obscuring everything you were supposed to focus on, it might have been a good movie.
 

Zorak

The cake is a metaphor
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
Not to start an argument, but why not? Being on the beach in Normandy was just as much being there as Cloverfield other than it was a camera perspective instead of someone taking home movies.

Because in my opinion more thought has to go into camera placement, directions, lighting etc
In Cloverfield it's obviously just put wherever the characters are.

I'm not saying first person doesn't work sometimes, even on Saving Private Ryan since we are using that example- there is a small part in first person where the front hatch of the landing boat opens and the Normandy beach suddenly falls into view, that's a great shot for instance.

But for a whole movie of first person? A whole movie of first person alongside a bunch of annoying screaming, crying yanks?
As I said before it's very hard to feel empathy when the monster was the least annoying of all the characters :24:
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top