Help support the Mego Museum
Help support the Mego Museum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I finally seen Cloverfield

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Mikey
    Verbose Member
    • Aug 9, 2001
    • 47242

    I finally seen Cloverfield

    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

    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

    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
    Ultimate Mego Warrior
    • Nov 27, 2006
    • 28605

    #2
    I liked it a lot more then I thought
    "Time to nut up or shut up" -Tallahassee

    http://ultimatewarriorcollection.webs.com/
    My stuff on facebook Incompatible Browser | Facebook

    Comment

    • darklord1967
      Persistent Member
      • Mar 27, 2008
      • 1550

      #3
      Originally posted by type1kirk
      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:



      Originally posted by type1kirk
      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
      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.


      Originally posted by type1kirk
      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.



      Originally posted by type1kirk
      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.



      Originally posted by type1kirk
      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
      Well her wound didn't actually heal, it was just de-emphasised a bit.

      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 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!


      Originally posted by type1kirk
      The monster was pretty cool and different.
      It reminded me of a bat/rat or something.
      And how!


      Originally posted by type1kirk
      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.
      I... am an action figure customizer

      Comment

      • ctc
        Fear the monkeybat!
        • Aug 16, 2001
        • 11183

        #4
        >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.

        Comment

        • darklord1967
          Persistent Member
          • Mar 27, 2008
          • 1550

          #5
          Originally posted by ctc
          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.




          Originally posted by ctc
          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.




          Originally posted by ctc
          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:






          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.



          Originally posted by ctc
          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...
          Last edited by darklord1967; Sep 2, '08, 10:02 AM.
          I... am an action figure customizer

          Comment

          • Mikey
            Verbose Member
            • Aug 9, 2001
            • 47242

            #6
            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.

            Comment

            • Seeker
              Neptunians RULE!
              • Feb 20, 2008
              • 1954

              #7
              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
              Lo there do I see my Father.
              Lo there do I see my Mother and my Sisters and my Brothers.
              Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the begining.
              Lo they do call me.
              They bid me take my place among them.
              In the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever.

              Comment

              • megoscott
                Founding Partner
                • Nov 17, 2006
                • 8710

                #8
                How are the DVD extras on this?
                This profile is no longer active.

                Comment

                • darklord1967
                  Persistent Member
                  • Mar 27, 2008
                  • 1550

                  #9
                  Originally posted by MegoScott
                  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".
                  I... am an action figure customizer

                  Comment

                  • Mikey
                    Verbose Member
                    • Aug 9, 2001
                    • 47242

                    #10
                    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.

                    Comment

                    • darklord1967
                      Persistent Member
                      • Mar 27, 2008
                      • 1550

                      #11
                      Originally posted by type1kirk
                      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.

                      Hmmm. Fair enough.

                      But in any case, my initial point still stands: It could NOT be the same monster that attacked Beth's appartment building way uptown just minutes before the bridge's destruction.
                      I... am an action figure customizer

                      Comment

                      • YoungOnce
                        Career Member
                        • Aug 29, 2007
                        • 966

                        #12
                        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.

                        Comment

                        • ctc
                          Fear the monkeybat!
                          • Aug 16, 2001
                          • 11183

                          #13
                          >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.

                          Comment

                          • darklord1967
                            Persistent Member
                            • Mar 27, 2008
                            • 1550

                            #14
                            Originally posted by ctc
                            >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.
                            I... am an action figure customizer

                            Comment

                            • ramsey37
                              • Jun 18, 2001
                              • 0

                              #15
                              Originally posted by darklord1967
                              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

                              George

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎