I finally seen Cloverfield [Archive]

View Full Version : I finally seen Cloverfield

Mikey

Aug 31, '08, 4:07 PM

I finally seen Cloverfield......
Not bad, but not great either.....

Some observations ........

I didn't mind the shakey camera.
Kind of reminded me of my own filming when I used to make home movies back in the late 70's :smiley1:

The beginning build-up was way too long (before the monster came).
I was almost to the point I was going to fast forward through the beginning.
It seemed so long, it almost made me mad thinking (why are they wasting this much film and my time on this crap)

The guy looking for his girlfriend was an idiot.
Love is one thing, but this guy was just plain stupid.
How many of his friends died because of his folley.

His girlfriend was impaled in her back.
Within a few minutes she was fine and able to run.
Her wound even healed up by the end of the movie :smiley1:

The monster was pretty cool and different.
It reminded me of a bat/rat or something.

Speaking of the monster ........
Manhatten island is pretty big.......
How does the monster constantly accidentally show up where the star is over and over and over thoughout the movie ?

All in all,
A decent movie ....... but if I never seen it again, I wouldn't mind :)

toys2cool

Aug 31, '08, 5:27 PM

I liked it a lot more then I thought :grin:

darklord1967

Aug 31, '08, 9:38 PM

I finally seen Cloverfield......
Not bad, but not great either.....

All in all,
A decent movie ....... but if I never seen it again, I wouldn't mind :)

CLOVERFIELD is DEFINITELY one of those films that works BEST when you are in a movie theater with a huge screen, and good sound (that make you feel small and insignificant)... and a good audience screaming in fear right along with you

It's a classic rollercoaster ride.

I thought the film was absolutely fantastic when I saw it. And I actually went back three more times to see it. I thought the story and character development was very thorough and believeable, and the SPFX and action set pieces were INCREDIBLE!! I was not this amped-up and tense while watching a monster movie since 1986 during James Cameron's ALIENS (Which this movie cleverly borrows from at times)

But I think that I would have found the film far less impressive if I were seeing it for the first time on my home theater, by myself (or just with my wife and one or two friends).

Also, I went to see the film on openning night, and I purposely avoided any publicity other than the very first trailer which did NOT reveal the nature of the attack upon NYC. So I had no idea I was going in to see a monster movie.

The very first trailer for this film was very vague. Having gone through the horrific events of 9/11 in this city, I came away from that first trailer thinking, "Just what the hell is attacking New York??? Is it a terrorist attack?? Is it an alien attack??? Is it a natural disaster??? What is it??

Discovering what it was (just as the characters did) was a BIG part of the enjoyment for me.

Let me try to address some of your observations if I may:

Some observations ........

I didn't mind the shakey camera.
Kind of reminded me of my own filming when I used to make home movies back in the late 70's :smiley1:

This was one of the aspects of the film that I felt added to the sense of dread, panic, confusion, and hyper-reality... all at the same time.

As a cinematograoger myself, I was able to really appreciate the skill it took to shoot the movie in this style and still be able to super-impose some of those amazing special effects as cleanly as they did. Typically, effects of this nature require a computerized camera rig that can repeat the exact same move over and over again to shoot the different elements of the scene.

The beginning build-up was way too long (before the monster came). I was almost to the point I was going to fast forward through the beginning. It seemed so long, it almost made me mad thinking (why are they wasting this much film and my time on this crap)

Well this is a matter of personal preference, I suppose. The build-up in "ALIEN" or "ALIENS" (for example) was considerably longer there than it was in this film.

It seems to me that anytime a film of this sort skimps on the character development / exposition and moves right into the action, it is accused of having "no plot", "weak characters", and/ or "weak story".

Yet when a film really takes its time to develop who the players are, modern audiences get a bit antsy for "something to happen"... especially when they are watching from home.

It was essential to establish who these people are, what their motivations and inter-relationships are, and what their dominant character traits are, so that when everything unravels, we can understand how people react in a situation like this... and how their personalites might change / evolve under these horrific circumstances.

The guy looking for his girlfriend was an idiot.
Love is one thing, but this guy was just plain stupid. How many of his friends died because of his folley.

I've heard this critique before. My only response (regarding this particular film) is to say that in the heart of even the most modern cynical films there often is a touch of sentimentality to hopefully balance things out a bit.

Rob truly loved Beth. It truly ripped him up inside that he was going to leave New York for Japan, seeing her dating another man, and that he never told her that he loved her. When Rob's brother Jason told him how important it was to tell Beth of his true feelings for her (shortly before the attack) this may have sparked something in Rob. Additionally, Jason's sage words may have had an even greater impact upon his brother Rob after he was killed during the attack upon the Brooklyn Bridge.

It is NOT logical. It is NOT reasonable. But Rob felt that if there was even a chance that Beth was still alive somewhere (based her frantic phone call), then it was worth it to him to go find her, possibly rescue her, and tell her that he loved her.

Ultimately, each of them saying "I love you" was the final thing either of them did before they were killed by the dropping of the bomb upon New York.

While watching this film, I asked myself if there was anyone in my life that I loved so much that I would go through that kind of peril to locate them and possibly rescue them.

The answer was a resounding "yes". And again, I've been up-close and personal on some real life horror and mayhem here in NYC. I saw those types of un-reasonable, and illogical super-heroics repeatedly during 9/11. I heard of that type of extraordinary human bravery during Katrina back in 2005.

That is that human tendency. But it is a tendency that most people (thankfully) are un-aware of until some form of tragedy strikes and puts a loved one in danger of horrible death.

Consider this: A loving mother or father will most definitely run directly into a burning, crumbling, collapsing building to save their infant child which they can hear crying in its crib.

The motivation there also is purely love.

Why are Rob's actions in this film any less believeable... or "stupid"?

It was not because of Rob's folly that some of his friends were killed. It was in spite of his actions that they were.

Just remember, when Rob decided to try and find Beth, he calmly and rationally tried to talk his friends into NOT coming with him.

His girlfriend was impaled in her back.
Within a few minutes she was fine and able to run.
Her wound even healed up by the end of the movie :smiley1:

Well her wound didn't actually heal, it was just de-emphasised a bit.:grin:

As for being able to run around after being impaled through the shoulder: Let me tell you: This is most certainly NOT beyond the realm of possibility. The human body, surging with adrenaline during chaotic, life-threatening situations, is capable of amazing things, even while severely injured. Soldiers in combat (for example) have taken part in battles and all kinds of gruelling physical activity, only to return to base and realize that they were working with a broken limb all along.

Athletes have done amazing things while badly injured too. When "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler fought Tommy "The Hitman" Hearns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqEUX2Vw6k&feature=related) back in April of 1985, that was 3 of the most exciting rounds of boxing ANYONE had ever seen (or is likely EVER to see). No "Rocky" movie could ever hope to compare. But when Hearns fought the second and third rounds of that fight, it was with a BROKEN HAND... shattered on Hagler's head after only the first few furious seconds of round one!

The monster was pretty cool and different.
It reminded me of a bat/rat or something.

And how!

Speaking of the monster ........
Manhatten island is pretty big.......How does the monster constantly accidentally show up where the star is over and over and over thoughout the movie ?

Ah!! Excellent question!! The answer is quite simple really.
JJ Abrams has refused to confirm nor deny this, but one thing is absolutely certain:

There is more than one creature in this film.

Just look at the scale of the creature that is viewed from the aerial helicoptor shot at the end of the movie as our characters appear to be escaping: That creature is SO HUGE that it is shoulder to shoulder with 50-story buildings around it.

Now compare that monster to the FAR SMALLER creature that our main characters encounter at the end of the film in Central Park (the one that swallows "Hud" the cameraman and them spits him out). That creature was (at best) 5 stories tall.

There are some interesting frame comparisons of the various monsters from this movie that have been done by fans and posted on youtube that are pretty conclusive.

What we are likely dealing with here is a "baby", it's mother, and possibly as many as two other monsters (not counting the "scurriers" of course).

Also, as you alluded to, the only way that a city this big can possibly be attacked at so many different locations simultaneously is if there is more than one monster.

ctc

Aug 31, '08, 10:32 PM

>Not bad, but not great either.....

I agree, but I think I liked it a little more than you did. It's no "Godzilla: Final Wars" but it WAS entertaining. AND it had a weird monster.

>I didn't mind the shakey camera.

I didn't wither, 'cos I didn't find it all that shakey. "NYPD: Blue" had a jigglier camera than Cloverfield did.

>The beginning build-up was way too long (before the monster came).

Hmmmm.... I sort of agree; but once things got going I realized it was 'cos they had a fair amount of character bits to introduce.

>It was essential to establish who these people are,

It MIGHT have been possible to do so in a much smoother way; but they had a lot to get in, and were hamstrung by the need to make it seem like a "real" film. You've got to get people to spill their guts, but in an everyday way....

>The guy looking for his girlfriend was an idiot.

People say that; but I didn't have a problem with it. He was still kinda shell-shocked about breaking up, so it didn't seem unnatural that he'd be so desperate to find her. No chance of getting back together if she's dead. And him being so out of his mind was one of the things they set up with the long intro.

>It was not because of Rob's folly that some of his friends were killed.

Nah; it was 'cos of their OWN folly. But they made it pretty clear that Rob was the leader of the group, and in times of duress folks cling to the leader; needing leadership and normality. Too bad he was distracted by the girlfriend thing. I thought it was interesting how the cameraman constantly went on about how stupid they were all being, BUT WENT ALONG WITH IT ANYWAY. (That's actually a very realistic response. People do all sorts of dumb stuff under duress.)

>The human body, surging with adrenaline during chaotic, life-threatening situations, is capable of amazing things,

Not just that; but her injuries weren't actually that bad. Most folks freak out at the smallest amount of pain: shock takes you out of the game long before damage does. For a hit like hers, as long as her juggular wasn't snipped she'd have a while to go before dying. The rebar would act like a cork as well, so she wouldn't have bled as much as you'd think from the wound.

So it was definitely stretching things a bit, but not completely unrealistic.

>The monster was pretty cool and different.

I saw the monster before seeing the film and kinda had my doubts; but once you see it in action it was pretty nifty. Sorta reminded me of one of them 50's Kriby giant monster comic monsters.

>How does the monster constantly accidentally show up where the star is over and over and over thoughout the movie ?

You'd be amazed how easy it is to lose something big during a chaotic disaster. (Without proper reports during urban combat you can actually lose track of a troop of tanks.)

>What we are likely dealing with here is a "baby", it's mother, and possibly as many as two other monsters

I've heard that from a few plces. It's tough to tell if this is the case, or it was bad editong, or it's another weird "hint" they dropped into the flick. But the story I most often hear iss that the tanker which sinks in the river just before the big attack contained a baby, and the parents came to recover it.

Don C.

darklord1967

Sep 1, '08, 7:45 AM

Not bad, but not great either.....

I agree, but I think I liked it a little more than you did. It's no "Godzilla: Final Wars" but it WAS entertaining. AND it had a weird monster.

Well, I think I liked it a LOT more that either of you guys.

I've seen ALL of the Godzilla offerings, and I thought Cloverfield quite simply blew them ALL away.

I've never been truly frightened while watching a Godzilla movie... not even as a kid during the early 1970's. To me, Godzilla was just a guy in a bad dragon suit stomping through a fake-looking miniature city. Quite comical, actually. Godzilla even smiles, dances, laughs... ugh!

Frankly, Cloverfield scared the crap out of me on more than a few occasions.

I saw the monster before seeing the film and kinda had my doubts; but once you see it in action it was pretty nifty. Sorta reminded me of one of them 50's Kriby giant monster comic monsters.

Hmmm. I can see that. Very good comparison.

You'd be amazed how easy it is to lose something big during a chaotic disaster. (Without proper reports during urban combat you can actually lose track of a troop of tanks.

Yes, a division of tanks that you have lost visual contact with in a foreign city, during a communications blackout is one thing.

But we're talking about an enormous, lumbering, plodding creature that is smashing entire buildings as it moves about. There are military, civilian, and press helicopters constantly looking down on it and maintaining visual contact (pretty hard NOT to see it!).

In fact, if it were only ONE of them (like the one seen from above near the end of the film), it would be virtually impossible to lose track of its position... unless it were incredibly fast-moving, and could somehow burrow underground and disappear from view... which this creature did NOT demonstrate the ability to do. No, not even the tallest buildings of New York's mighty skyline offered much cover for that beast.

Plus, the Real Estate of New York City (if you are familiar with it) makes it chrystal clear that this is more than one monster.

THESE ARE THE FACTS:

Please refer to this Map of Mahattan and it's bridges as you read along:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/darklord1967/CloverfieldMonsterMap.jpg

The earliest reports indicated the monster's first known point of origin as The Hudson river (due to the overturned tanker and the destruction of the Statue of Liberty at Liberty Island).

The creature then obviously makes landfall somewhere along the south western tip of Manhattan and begins to cut a swath of destruction, headed Northeast.

Now, our main characters first encounter the monster when they leave the party apartment located on Broome Street (in the southwestern "Tribecca" area of Manhattan, near the river). After the Statue of Liberty head is hurled onto their street, this monster comes stomping through Broome street and everyone ducks for cover inside of stores, etc.

"Marlena" (the brooding dark-haired girl) is left out in the street, but somehow survives the monster's walk-by. She's the one that mutters, "...It was eating people..." when everyone came back out to the street.

In any event, the monster that walked through Broome Street was seen headed east (away from the Hudson River) and then must have turned sharply to the left and headed North. At some point the monster must have veered in a northwesterly direction (as evidenced by the destruction of Beth's apartment building located uptown at West 59th Street / Columbus Circle).

Now the police and military are next seen directing civilians southeast-ward (away from the (known) creature's position and heading) and toward the Brooklyn Bridge into Brooklyn.

The Brooklyn Bridge is located considerably farther southeast than Broome Street and certainly a good distance away from Beth's West 59th Street pad. It is our southern most bridge (of 4) that links Manhattan to Brooklyn and Queens.

As this mass exodus walks across the bridge toward Brooklyn, another monster rises from the East River, and attacks and destroys the Brooklyn Bridge. This is the incident where Rob's brother Jason was killed.

Remember: The first creature had already made landfall and was headed uptown (north). In fact, Rob had received the frantic phone call from Beth saying the she needed help and "... couldn't move..." while he was on the Brooklyn Bridge.

At that moment, Beth was obviously calling from her badly destroyed apartment building located all the way up north on West 59th Street Columbus Circle.

Even if the creature turned east, entered the East River somewhere along midtown (59th street or so) , and even if it swam back south, it would have encountered no less than 3 other bridges along the way (The 59th Street "Queensboro" Bridge, The Williamsburg Bridge, and the Manhattan Bridge), and it would certainly have paused long enough to destroy any (or all) of them before reaching the Brooklyn Bridge.

If the monster stayed on land (more likely scenario), why would it circle back southward (deviating from its current northern trajectory and position at 59th's Street), make its way all the way back downtown, re-enter the river and attack the Brooklyn Bridge (our southern-most bridge)?

And even if it did that, HOW could the monster traverse that distance so quickly with so many buildings in it's path to destroy, and with so much heavy firepower resistance of the US military continually raining down on it, and blasting up at it?

Answer: It couldn't, and it didn't. This is a different creature altogether.

And again, just examine some frame-grabs of the various monsters throughout the film and you'll see that they have VASTLY DIFFERENT physical characteristics, and sizes.

But the story I most often hear iss that the tanker which sinks in the river just before the big attack contained a baby, and the parents came to recover it. Don C.

JJ Abrams and Matt Reaves are just having an ENORMOUS amount of fun with the audience's speculation on all this and they are keeping mum (as they likely prepare a sequel).

I don't want to give away too much beyond what is in the film already, but listen to the DVD audio commentary, and you'll hear some subtle hints from the filmmakers about this possibly being revealed as more than one monster attacking NYC in an upcoming sequel... or possibly even revealing that various creatures had actually attacked multiple cities (around the world) simultaneously...

Mikey

Sep 1, '08, 8:21 AM

One of the things that ruined Cloverfield for me --- a bit --- was the main characters.
It's the Alien-3 factor...........
I didn't like any of them, so I didn't care what happened to them.
As a matter of fact, I was secretly wishing the Monster would eventually just kill them all.

Seeker

Sep 1, '08, 9:17 AM

Nice breakdown there darklord. Makes sense seeing it on the map.

Mike I agree. I think that was the whole point of the LONG intro of those superficial yuppies. I found myself wishing the same thing. GOD eat them already. I was surprised I actually found myself caring for any of the characters at the end like I did.

But that may have been the point. Look at any mega disaster. At first its just a bunch of radom people with you. Your out for yourself but as you struggle to survive/escape you bond with you fellow survivors

MegoScott

Sep 1, '08, 9:21 AM

How are the DVD extras on this?

darklord1967

Sep 1, '08, 10:58 AM

How are the DVD extras on this?

Well... the extras include some deleted scenes, alternative endings, outtakes, a documentary titled "The Making of Cloverfield", behind the scenes featurettes, some commentary by director Matt Reeves and "hidden research" into case designate "Cloverfield".

Mikey

Sep 1, '08, 11:48 AM

As this mass exodus walks across the bridge toward Brooklyn, another monster (this one with tentacles) rises from the East River, and attacks and destroys the Brooklyn Bridge. This is the incident where Rob's brother Jason was killed.

The DVD documentary stated the body part that destroyed the Brooklyn Bridge was not a tentacle.

It said, they originally had it planned the creature's arm would smash the bridge, but they opted to used his TAIL instead -- to make it look more like an accident on the creature's part.

darklord1967

Sep 1, '08, 1:39 PM

YoungOnce

Sep 1, '08, 9:32 PM

I agree that this movie worked best up on the big screen. You do have to appreciate that they made a realistic depiction of how contemporary folks would respond to a "monster" attack in a big city.

To me , that was the novel idea in this Godzilla-type creature movie. Just that sense that if you were on the ground, you wouldn't really know what was going on.

ctc

Sep 2, '08, 12:01 AM

>I've seen ALL of the Godzilla offerings, and I thought Cloverfield quite simply blew them ALL away.

...even "Final Wars?!?!?" But that one had Captain Gordon..... Only person to face down Godzilla with a sword....

Really. Captain GORDON.....

>It could NOT be the same monster that attacked Beth's appartment building way uptown just minutes before the bridge's destruction.

Fair enough. I'm kinda hoping they do a sequel. Reading some of the interviews with the producers it seems like they had a lot more story they hadn't squished into the first one.

And you can never have enough giant monsters.

But.... FINAL WARS.....? With Godzilla vs Fraudzilla.....?

....really....?

Don C.

darklord1967

Sep 2, '08, 8:07 AM

>I've seen ALL of the Godzilla offerings, and I thought Cloverfield quite simply blew them ALL away.

...even "Final Wars?!?!?" But that one had Captain Gordon..... Only person to face down Godzilla with a sword....

Really. Captain GORDON.....

But.... FINAL WARS.....? With Godzilla vs Fraudzilla.....?

....really....?

Don C.

Ummm... yeah. 'Fraid so. I have always found the ENTIRE Godzilla franchise hackneyed, corney, and way over the top CAMPY. It seems that those films were always made with the childish schoolyard premise of "...Who would win in a fight between Godzilla and (insert the name of your favorite big monster or robot here)..."

Goofy wrestling matches between stuntment in bad rubber suits who stomp through miniature explosions and cities fashioned from cardboard and balsa wood... it's all INCREDIBLY dull to me... and about as "frightening" as a group of cute kittens playing with a ball of yarn.

If I had known beforehand that Cloverfield was a movie about a giant monster(s) that attacks New York, I would NEVER have gone to see it. That genre of film just does not appeal to me.

Fortunately for me, I didn't know the subject matter beforehand, because, in my eyes, Cloverfield turned out to be a really clever, well-made, stylish, edge of your seat THRILLER... especially when viewed in a darkened movie theater.

Seeing MY city under siege like that by a creature that no one understood or could defend against... it was absolutely nightmarish. And the openning night audience I saw the film with agreed ENTHUSIASTICALLY.

ramsey37

Sep 2, '08, 8:31 AM

Ummm... yeah. 'Fraid so. I have always found the ENTIRE Godzilla franchise hackneyed, corney, and way over the top CAMPY. It seems that those films were always made with the childish schoolyard premise of "...Who would win in a fight between Godzilla and (insert the name of your favorite big monster or robot here)..."

Goofy wrestling matches between stuntment in bad rubber suits who stomp through miniature explosions and cities fashioned from cardboard and balsa wood... it's all INCREDIBLY dull to me... and about as "frightening" as a group of cute kittens playing with a ball of yarn.

Granted, Godzilla movies are an acquired taste, and they can frequently be kinda goofy. I've never allowed that to stop my enjoyment of them, however ;)
http://megomuseum.com/albums/ramsey37/baredancing2.gif
George

Mikey

Sep 2, '08, 10:12 AM

Godzilla must be doing something right considering he's still alive over 50 years after his debut.

Remind me in 50 years to do a survey and see if anyone still remembers Cloverfield :smiley1:

darklord1967

Sep 2, '08, 11:03 AM

Godzilla must be doing something right considering he's still alive over 50 years after his debut.

Remind me in 50 years to do a survey and see if anyone still remembers Cloverfield :smiley1:

I'll wager that I'll definitely find someone who remembers Cloverfield in 50 years (especially if we get the likely sequels).

Are you willing to wager that anyone in 50 years (or even TODAY for that matter) will even remotely consider Godzilla (a goofy, doe-eyed lizard with a zipper up its torso) terrifying?:smiley1:

ramsey37

Sep 2, '08, 12:00 PM

Are you willing to wager that anyone in 50 years (or even TODAY for that matter) will even remotely consider Godzilla (a goofy, doe-eyed lizard with a zipper up its torso) terrifying?:smiley1:
His zipper is actually on his back beneath his dorsal spikes ;)
George
"Oh no, there goes Tokyo...."

ctc

Sep 2, '08, 11:17 PM

>I have always found the ENTIRE Godzilla franchise hackneyed, corney, and way over the top CAMPY.

That's kinda sad. Having seen the original versions on the recent Master series DVDs I gotta say that the first few were actually very serious and earnest films. I think for us it's kinda hard to see that 'cos we've been exposed to the whole run (which includes a lot of really silly films from the 60's and 70's) and we grew up with effects that were MUCH better than what they had for the originals. Kinda makes us a bit jaded.

>Who would win in a fight between Godzilla and (insert the name of your favorite big monster or robot here)..."

Oh yeah! THAT'S the stuff!!!!! It's kinda like the superhero thing: you NEED that connection prior to the film, otherwise it's gonna be a non-event. I've always loved giant monsters. ANY giant monsters. So seeing Godzilla vs whoever is a kick. 'Course I've never liked Batman, so no matter HOW good the film is, to me it's just more Batman. It's a taste thing.

>Seeing MY city under siege like that by a creature that no one understood or could defend against... it was absolutely nightmarish.

AHA! That's how the Japanese felt about Godzilla. He reminded them of what it was like to be nuked. Kinda goes with my last point: sometimes empathising with a film is the result of something that has nothing to do with the film itself. I can see Cloverfield; a film showing New York being taken apart, hitting a certain nerve with resident New Yorkers.

And that's something that happens, or doesn't. LIke Batman for me. I don't have that prior connection, so it's tough for a Batman story to win me over.

>Are you willing to wager that anyone in 50 years (or even TODAY for that matter) will even remotely consider Godzilla (a goofy, doe-eyed lizard with a zipper up its torso) terrifying?

I would; especially considering how many super-budget new films that are gonna happen between now and then. Godzilla is a fixture here, and an absolute mania in Japan. They have stores that sell nothing but Godzilla merchandaise all over Japan.

When was the last time you saw a Batman store? Yup; and NOBODY would imagine Batman being irrelevant in 50 years.

Don C.

darklord1967

Sep 3, '08, 3:20 AM

ctc

Sep 5, '08, 9:49 AM

>I may have to give the ORIGINAL Godzilla film a chance just to see if it is as serious as you say.

If you do, get the Master Edition, and watch the Japanese edit. The American one is pretty good too; but you see a lot more of the effect Godzilla has on the country in the Japanese one. (It's more depressing too; especially the "We'll be with father soon, son" scene....)

Even "Godzilla vs the Thing/Mothra" was pretty good, and not as silly as I remembered it. They DO get silly fairly early on, but like I said, I have no problem with that as long as I get some giant monsters.

Don C.

vulcan2074

Sep 7, '08, 3:20 PM

Darklord
Awesome in depth explanation of Cloverfield. I actually Really Liked that Movie alot. It was definately worth waiting in line for. I can't wait for the sequel.
V~2074

Hector

Sep 9, '08, 12:48 AM

I'll wager that I'll definitely find someone who remembers Cloverfield in 50 years (especially if we get the likely sequels).

Are you willing to wager that anyone in 50 years (or even TODAY for that matter) will even remotely consider Godzilla (a goofy, doe-eyed lizard with a zipper up its torso) terrifying?:smiley1:

Why would any of us wager on this subject 50 years from now?

We will be all DEAD by then.

You diss Big G...I diss your overgrown tick/squid hybrid.

:smiley1:

Hector

Sep 9, '08, 12:52 AM

I can watch Godzilla movies over and over again...sure it's a dude in a zipper suit...but they are a lot of fun.

Cloverfield?

One viewing was enough for me. Wasn't even scary to me...just annoying.

I consider it a big budget Blair Witch Project.

If I want camera-shaking...I watch one of my own home movies, lol.

:smiley1:

Hector

Sep 9, '08, 12:59 AM

War of the Gargantuas...now that my friends is an awesome movie.

http://www.henshinonline.com/images/tamblyn_interview_03.jpg

:grin:

ctc

Sep 9, '08, 1:50 AM

>War of the Gargantuas...now that my friends is an awesome movie.

....AND it's the next one they're doing a Master Collection version of. Comes in a set with Rodan.

>I consider it a big budget Blair Witch Project.

I consider it a big budget "Boggy Creek." (The Blair Witch BEFORE the Blair Witch.) But I did enjoy it. (Two words: Giant. Monster.) It was an attempt to do something a little different, and I appreciate different. (Wether it works or not.) And I didin't think it was that bad a film. Not GREAT; but not bad.

I'd watch it again.

Now, if someone wanted to do a film where the Cloverfield monster fights Godzilla....

Don C.

Mikey

Sep 9, '08, 6:32 AM

Zilla would win in a second.

He'd toy with Cloverfield like a cat with a mouse --- then Zilla would make Clover toast when he got bored with him.

chalwa

Sep 9, '08, 11:18 PM

I recently saw the Gojira (Godzilla) DVD and have to say I didn't miss Raymond Burr one bit. It's a very dark film esp. in light of the war a decade or so earlier. Highly recommend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_(1954_film)
Regarding Cloverfield, I didn't find it much more than annoying either. I have a better movie experience if I (as most do) find a person who you can sympathize and empathize within the cast. Doesn't have to be like me, socially, economically or politically. The person I 'swap with' if you will. I just couldn't find that in this movie. This isn't a hard and fast rule for me, but in this movie in particular I suppose I needed that.
A MUCH better monster-with-no-history was shown in the movie I watched right after Cloverfield; 'The Host', a South Korean film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Host_(film)
YouTube - The Host trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNbZE8NX0nk)
Look at one minute and nine seconds into the trailer. That thing coming up behind that little girl chilled me to the bone.
It has comedy and horror elements that are sewn together perfectly. I empathized with the entire main cast esp. the geeky ne'er do well who only wants to save his daughter.
It's hard to find but if you can, get this movie. It has one of the best no cop out endings in recent memory. Even with subtitles, which I am not fond of but will tolerate I loved it.
I am not from New York so it is less personal to me but I found this movie much much better than Cloverfield.
The balcony is closed.:wink:
bestest

Hector

Sep 9, '08, 11:31 PM

The Host was excellent...the only scene I didn't like is where the entire family starts crying hysterically in that gym...it goes on forever...and it becomes quite comical...but other than that...great movie indeed.

ctc

Sep 10, '08, 12:18 AM

>'The Host', a South Korean film.

That's a good one too! Very entertaining. (I liked the scene with the stop sign!) I don't consider it a really "good" film either, since it sort of jumps around a lot plot-wise; and.....

SEMI-SPOILER ALERT:

...I hate the sort-of happy ending thing. So.... it eats everybody right away EXCPET the kids, which it keeps around for later...?

Don C.

chalwa

Sep 10, '08, 8:54 AM

The Host Spoilers:
This trailer is better:YouTube - trailer UK ver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJnq9sm4Zxk&feature=related)

My memory may be failing but I thought I remembered several other (adult) bodies in that pit. I'll have to go back and see as I am old and forget things easily.
But of the ones that were eaten and dropped as bones so slowly at first and then became a torrent: whoa!

"I didn't like is where the entire family starts crying hysterically in that gym...it goes on forever"
Yeah, that's my least favorite scene. I attributed it to cultural differences in perceptions of humor and forgave it.

I actually liked the ending a lot. I don't want to give away too much but I didn't think it was too happy all things considered. But that's just my opinion, different strokes and all that, eh?

And by the way, Zilla would indeed kick this monster's tush too!

bestest

ctc

Sep 10, '08, 10:12 AM

>Zilla would indeed kick this monster's tush too!

Probably, mostly due to Godzilla being, oh a hundred times bigger. The Cloverfield monster/monsters might put up a fight though. They're bigger, and we haven't seen too much of what they can do.

SEMI-SPOILER ALERT 2:

>I remembered several other (adult) bodies in that pit.

There were; but I recall only the kids were still alive. It seemed kinda... I dunno; cop-out to me. They'll show huge amounts of death and destruction, but leave the named kid intact 'cos that'd be too much. That sort of thing bothers me, mostly 'cos it hilights the NPC status of everyone else the monster ate.

Don C.

chalwa

Sep 10, '08, 12:51 PM

>They'll show huge amounts of death and destruction, but leave the named kid intact 'cos that'd be too much.

Huge Spoiler alert!
Do not read if it'll make you mad at me!:wink:

I didn't see it that way because said kid actually died at the end. (one of 'em anyway). Besides, ya gotta suspend a bit of your disbelief in most horror movies.
Oh, and I'm sorry I hijacked this thread. I'll stop.:yeah:
bestest

unataper

Dec 12, '08, 7:48 PM

I haven't seen this film yet, but after reading a few pages, I see that I don't need to now. :smile:

Gorn Captain

Dec 21, '08, 11:05 AM

Hated the shakey cam.
Gave me a head-ache.

Hated the characters, especially the camera man. What an annoying little git that guy was! Let's shove a camera under everyone's noses during their most private and emotional moments.
"Hey, your brother just got crushed to death. Any comments for my documentary?"

And let's keep on filming, no matter what. Don't let people being eaten get in the way of great cinema.

Bring back Godzilla!!!!!!!!!
Please!!!!!!

Gorn Captain

Dec 21, '08, 11:08 AM

Zilla would win in a second.

He'd toy with Cloverfield like a cat with a mouse --- then Zilla would make Clover toast when he got bored with him.

Yeah!
After more than 50 years, The Big G is still going strong....
And the more recent ones have good effects and great action.
Well, maybe not the last one, that sucked bigtime...