# Cloverfield (2008)



## toadhall (Jul 10, 2007)

So anyone caught the teaser yet?
Apple - Trailers - 01-18-08 - Large

I doubt it's Godzilla like how some people on the 'net have been speculating, but it would be fun to see huge monsters stomping about Tokyo-style.

(oh and first post! yay me.)


----------



## TK-421 (Jul 10, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

Wow is all I can say. It looks really interesting. Shot like a home movie. Kind of scary actually.


----------



## mogora (Jul 10, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

If it's all shaky-cam style and looks like a bad home movie the whole way through then count me out.  

Oh, and if we have to suffer through months of teases and internet puzzles a la Lost then I'm out doubly so.

Ok, so I'm a bit cranky this morning....


----------



## Ragnar (Jul 10, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*



mogora said:


> Oh, and if we have to suffer through months of teases and internet puzzles a la Lost then I'm out doubly so...


 
I reckon you'll be out then 

Ethan Haas Was Right - Look to the stars for help


----------



## TK-421 (Jul 10, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

Actually, it is not known if the movie will have the same look. See the Wiki article:

Cloverfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It actually might be about H.P. Lovecraft's _Cthulhu..._


----------



## mogora (Jul 10, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*



TK-421 said:


> It actually might be about H.P. Lovecraft's _Cthulhu..._



That would be the one thing that would make me ignore both shaky-cam and internet tease.  Although I'd still feel really ill if it were shaky-cam throughout.


----------



## TK-421 (Aug 8, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

Well, it's not C'thuluh. Here's something I dug up:

"Loose lips sink ships. So they say! According to reports from AICN, FilmStalker and The NYPOST we have the lowdown on the film. First off JJ Abrams was reportedly shooting scenes of the film at Coney Island and the owners of Coney Island leaked the following about the plot:
_"It's about an alien that wipes out all of New York City…The footage is taken the day before everyone dies. A bunch of kids come to Coney Island with a video camera. The movie is a flashback to that day."_​On top of that then AICN hits us with another interesting plot point on how the story will be told. According to them the movie will begin with a rescue team finding a camcorder with a tape in it. They hit play and the movie starts using the footage on the camcorder. Sounds ... umm... odd. "


----------



## purple_kathryn (Aug 9, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

I saw a trailer for it when I went to see transformers

now I'm definitely a sucker for the world under attack movies (either by aliens or natural disaster) but I'm worried that the camera style will put me off a bit.

Saying that it seemed that Abrams discovered that the whole - don't show thebig monster  thing - worked quite well with Lost and is making a movie out of it it now


----------



## TK-421 (Aug 9, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

I won't mind the homevideo feel as long as it's not a total disappointment like The Blair Witch Project.


----------



## TK-421 (Nov 2, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

A new trailer is coming out in a couple weeks and will play before Beowulf. 

A sneak peek apparently confirms the premise that it's a Godzilla-type attack on NY and the movie is mostly from the home video of someone who witnessed the attack and is played after the fact by someone who finds it. Apparently, there will be one huge monster and several smaller ones. 

Stay tuned for more.

Oh, and still no confirmation on the actual title but it seems Cloverfield may actually be it.


----------



## TK-421 (Nov 23, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

It is Cloverfield. It is shaky cam recorded and it is a classic monster-attacking-big-city movie.

See the new trailer:
Apple - Trailers - 01-18-08


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Nov 24, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

Seems interesting although I agree the shaky-camera thing will put some people off. 
It does get a bit nauseous if you're trying to watch a movie in an earthquake simulator


----------



## Cayal (Nov 24, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

Would be funny if it were his version of I am Legend.


----------



## Brigitte (Nov 26, 2007)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

The shaky camera thing might be a bit of a nusiance, but I'm liking the recent disaster scenario movies put out by Hollywood (I am Legend, the Mist, and this one)


----------



## Dave (Dec 18, 2007)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

This is being released on 1st February 2008, but still little is known of the plot other than what the trailers show.


----------



## biodroid (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

If its overhyped like the Golden Compass then it will most likely be bad. I think JJ Abrams should stick to tv because MI:3 wasn't that great, reminded me too much of Alias but with Ethan Bristow/Sydney Hunt, you get my drift.


----------



## Dave (Jan 18, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I saw the trailer for this and it looked interesting, but I won't be able to stand that shaky camera-work for the whole film.


----------



## TK-421 (Jan 18, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Not a bad review:

globeandmail.com: Just when you thought the streets were safe ...


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 18, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



TK-421 said:


> Not a bad review:


 
Yeah they make some fair points - It really depends on your expectations. You want high quality science fiction with a monster - you are not going to get it. If you love a good monster romp, because it is there - then you will have a smile

Be warned though, the film breaks a lot of Hollywood film conventions - again some will enjoy this - others not. Ignore most of what you see on the net regarding the monster - so far I have not seen anyone get close, and a lot of the speculation is downright wrong.

Finally, if you are running late for the cinema session keep going - the first 10 to 15 minutes really add nothing to the film


----------



## roddglenn (Jan 22, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Well it's certainly tense, gritty and edge of the seat stuff. It's what Godzilla should've been like (although I still liked Godzilla). The characters are believable - they start off as a bunch of fairly irritating socialites, but as they are literally thrown from one terrifying scene to another you quickly begin to feel for them. The really good thing about the film is that it is what is not shown that makes everything more scary. You catch glimpses mostly - there's only two scenes where you really get a good look at the monster.

The special effects are second to none and the use of the hand held camera works brilliantly to make you believe you're actually in the thick of the action (although at times you can almost start to feel ill with it all!)

Overall a damn good film.


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 22, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



roddglenn said:


> The special effects are second to none and the use of the hand held camera works brilliantly to make you believe you're actually in the thick of the action (although at times you can almost start to feel ill with it all!)


 
I was thinking about it today - something that really stood out in this film were the audio effects. In one sequence, that I dont want to explain for spoiling the story - the sound effects accurately tell the story around the characters - it was almost like a second narrative line being laid over the main point of view.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jan 22, 2008)

*Re: JJ Abrams' new movie: Cloverfield*

Sounds vaguely interesting but i hate dodgy camera work a la NYPD blue. Have to say I enjoyed Blair Witch tho...


----------



## roddglenn (Jan 22, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



MG1962 said:


> I was thinking about it today - something that really stood out in this film were the audio effects. In one sequence, that I dont want to explain for spoiling the story - the sound effects accurately tell the story around the characters - it was almost like a second narrative line being laid over the main point of view.


 
A very good point - the use of audio off camera is excellent.


----------



## kaelcarp (Jan 27, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

This movie was actually a good deal better than I thought it would be. Like most people, I felt a lot of anticipation after seeing the initial trailer. But after the initial surprise of it wore off, I started realizing that it looked like a Godzilla rip-off, and my expectations were low. Then I saw a pretty good review, so I gave it a shot, and I wasn't let down.

The first bit with the party and all that was annoying. It should have been shorter. I understand they wanted to establish characters, but it really just took too long to do that. It's not like these were deep characters anyway. They were all fairly shallow and

***SPOILER***

 the deaths, when they came, didn't move me at all. If the movie could have used one thing, was a compelling, sympathetic, charismatic lead character. It lacked that. All the characters were annoying.

*** END SPOILER***

But the film is very unique and it had me gripped, partially because I'm a New Yorker and recognized just about every place I saw, and I was here for 9/11, up close and personal, and it did truly capture the sort of confused panic of a sudden attack. The sense of dread was well handled, and the creature was interesting. I also liked the deviations from standard Hollywood fare, such as the ending.


----------



## Cayal (Jan 27, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Movie was average. It was Blair Witch with a monster.
There was ZERO explanation about the monster in the movie, you have to find that out later by googling it. Having the director/producer/writer tell you what happens is pathetic.

Any sequel made will either be in the vain method of hand held camera, which will be ridiculous, or using normal camera techniques which will make it a bad movie (as the hand held camera style is what makes it interesting).

5 out of 10 for me.


----------



## kaelcarp (Jan 27, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Jaire said:


> Movie was average. It was Blair Witch with a monster.
> There was ZERO explanation about the monster in the movie, you have to find that out later by googling it. Having the director/producer/writer tell you what happens is pathetic.
> 
> Any sequel made will either be in the vain method of hand held camera, which will be ridiculous, or using normal camera techniques which will make it a bad movie (as the hand held camera style is what makes it interesting).
> ...



I actually greatly preferred the fact that they did not try to explain the monster in the movie. It would have made the movie significantly worse if they'd taken the time out to do that. The novelty of the movie was that they _didn't_ explain the monster. I generally feel like science fiction movies do too much explaining. It's like the writers are so proud of their ideas that they can't help explaining them rather than just leaving them as the confusing thing they would actually be. I actually have this issue with a lot of science fiction stories as well.


----------



## Cayal (Jan 27, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

There was no novelty. It was two methods put together which had no plot and no explanation. 

Just a monster. Wow. I'll pay $15 to see a shaky camera and half a monster.


----------



## kaelcarp (Jan 27, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Jaire said:


> There was no novelty. It was two methods put together which had no plot and no explanation.
> 
> Just a monster. Wow. I'll pay $15 to see a shaky camera and half a monster.



It's two methods put together that hadn't been put together before, which is part of what the novelty is. I mean, that's where most novelty comes from - new combinations. There's not much around that is actually new.

I won't go into any major defense of the movie. Its characters are bland and boring. Its plot is, well, minimal. The monster is basically a variation on Godzilla with secondary creatures that remind one of the facehuggers from the Alien movies. And it's very short. There's plenty to criticize, and I can easily see why someone might walk out feeling like they wasted their money.

But, despite its copious flaws, I thought it was pretty fun, and I liked the aspects of it that were somewhat novel.


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 27, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



kaelcarp said:


> But, despite its copious flaws, I thought it was pretty fun, and I liked the aspects of it that were somewhat novel.


 
Yes there were a lot of Hollywood conventions broken. I am an unabashed fan of the movie, but even as I saw it, I realised there would be a real polarisation of opinions - People love it, hate it, few I have heard so far have been netural.


----------



## Cayal (Jan 27, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Putting the Terminator in a Lord of the Rings style movie hasn't been done before either, doesn't make it good or innovative.


----------



## sanityassassin (Jan 28, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I've just seen the trailer over the past couple of days and it does look intresting, to make it more scary it is better to keep the monster out of camara because the anticipation is usually a lot better than the realisation, I may go and see italthough I am also not too big a fan of the shaky camara


----------



## kaelcarp (Jan 28, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Jaire said:


> Putting the Terminator in a Lord of the Rings style movie hasn't been done before either, doesn't make it good or innovative.


That's not quite the same thing. Cloverfield is a novel mix of a particular genre with a particular way of telling a story. The moster attack genre has always been done as a sort of epic scale story, usually with multiple viewpoints and many characters. To show it from a "down-on-the-ground" viewpoint is as much an innovation as the "fast zombies" were in _28 Days Later_. 

No, it doesn't make it a great movie. But it makes it marginally more original than typical blockbuster fare.


----------



## MontyCircus (Jan 29, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



MG1962 said:


> Yes there were a lot of Hollywood conventions broken. I am an unabashed fan of the movie, but even as I saw it, I realised there would be a real polarisation of opinions - People love it, hate it, few I have heard so far have been netural.


 
That's not really true. Seems to me most people think it was "alright", "decent" or "kinda fun".

I agree with them. For about the first half of the film I was really amped, really enjoying it. By the end it lost a bit of steam but it was still fun.

I'd give it @@@ out of @@@@@

Which would be a moderate recommendation type of thing



Jaire said:


> Putting the Terminator in a Lord of the Rings style movie hasn't been done before either, doesn't make it good or innovative.


 
Turns out Frodo is ancient relative of John Connor. The machines decide to stop ****ing around and go back, way way way back...to terminate the source. Hobbits, killer robots, dwarves, bullets, wizards, blood, spells, bullets. I would see that. It would make a pretty entertaining short fan film anyway.

Lord of the Rings: Judgement Day 

Actually...that's not far off from the Warhammer universe is it?


----------



## The_Warrior (Jan 30, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I liked the movie. It was pretty good, I've been wanting to see it for a long time. It caused a phenomon that started after the Transformers movie came out.
The only things that I didn'like about it was that it was short, and the ending. I didn't care if we didn't see the monster that much, as long as we got to see it. The shacky camra work did not bother me at all. I liked it actaully. Though it drove my dad nuts (ehehehehe).



8/10 for me.


----------



## Junomidge (Jan 30, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Saw it last night and was expecting to find the camera shaking more noticeable, but I didn't. It didn't bother me in the least, and while there was a sign on the door about refunds if you had to leave early, not one other person leaving the theatre even mentioned the camera and motion sickness. Personally, I loved the movie, and yeah I googled it after I got home. I'm also glad that I didn't 'like' the characters more, as that wasn't really the point of the movie. The movie was about a found tape after the fact, and wasn't just a drawn out attempt to manipulate my emotions.


----------



## starman7 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I'm hoping I won't notice the camera shaking too!


----------



## PTeppic (Feb 1, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Saw it this afternoon. Agree with many things previously said. The party at the beginning was starting to drag, especially for anyone who's seen the trailer. Where's that throaty roar and rush to the roof? When things started going down it worked pretty well - I thought the immediacy, panic and randomness of it all came across as presumably desired. However, there's only so much shaki-cam (TM) that I can take without heaving all over the row in front and Cloverfield was getting close. It works for dynamism and in-yer-face action but really needed to be broken up with some more traditional methods. Maybe more static/stable feeds from other cameras (troops, news, CCTV etc.). As ever, with monsters, less is more so for most of the film it worked very well.
Spoiler: 


Spoiler



Anyone come away from the little baby ones thinking Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers"?


As for the whole, it was always going to be a tick-off-as-they-die kind of film, so I wasn't overly bothered by getting to know them first  So, who's for the cross-over, Predator - vs- Cloverfield?

Plot holes, sorry but one or two bits really niggled.


Spoiler



Moving Beth, when they found her. Come one?! And then being able to move so fast in her condition! Unless it's an alien with super-skin, sufficient fire power should have brought down a monster even ten stories high, simple rules of ballistics and physiology. Switching the light on, on the camera? What sort nuclear batteries was it using? And would he really have kept it going when running for his life?


----------



## Ursa major (Feb 1, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Cloverfield was Mark Kermode's Film of the Week on Radio 5 Live.

(I'm not sure whether this would make me go and see it though.)


----------



## purple_kathryn (Feb 2, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I went to see it last night

After 20 minutes I started to feel ill and I do suffer from motion sickness.

it disappeared 20 minutes after I got home

I probably would have enjoyed it more if I didn't have to keep closing my eyes during the running sequences.

So I just want to warn people who suffer from motion sickness that it may not be the film for you!


----------



## PTeppic (Feb 2, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

The ticket seller at our multiplex wouldn't even sell me a ticket for it until she'd specifically pointed out the A4 size warning right in front of me on the ticket booth, about strobe lighting. They might want to add motion-sickness inducing un-steadi-cam.


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 2, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



purple_kathryn said:


> I went to see it last night
> 
> After 20 minutes I started to feel ill and I do suffer from motion sickness.
> 
> ...


 
Thats a shame really, maybe view it on DVD, the smaller screen does seem to compress the shaking a bit - But I think a fair rule of thumb would be, if Blair Witch affected you, this definately will


----------



## Vincent Tauscher (Feb 2, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I was pretty impressed by Cloverfield.  Honestly, I didn't know what to think when I saw all the previews, but I went anyways.  Boy, it was a wild ride.  I can see how a few people might have issues with motion sickness.  I personally had problems during those running scenes because I couldn't figure out what was happening and where they were going.  However, the acting and plot were very well done.  Even the romance in the movie fit perfect.

One comment though to all those who have seen it: Did it seem like the monster was growing stronger when getting shot at by missiles and guns?  There were several instances where it seemed like it made a complete and total recovery very quickly and actually became stronger afterwards (the helicopter scene being one example).


----------



## Cayal (Feb 2, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Plot? 

Don't make me laugh.


----------



## kaelcarp (Feb 3, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Vincent Tauscher said:


> Boy, it was a wild ride.


Well said. It was actually more like a ride than a movie in some ways.

In regards to the camera stuff, I really didn't have any problems with it, and I do tend to have motion sickness. In fact, after the first few minutes, I didn't even really notice the shaky camera.


----------



## KJ Pixie (Feb 3, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

The only issue I had trouble with is when they were inside the building and the strobe lights were going on and off.  The little pulse hurt my eyes a bit, but it wasn't the end of the world.

Great movie overall.


----------



## Lucien21 (Feb 3, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I really enjoyed it.

I loved the fact they never explained the monster. It made complete sense. The movie was scarier as the film was from the ordinary man point of view and there was no way they would have had any knowledge of the monster.

It was just them trying to survive and reach his girlfriend.

It was obviously a 9/11 comment when people had no idea what was happening until after the event, the confusion adds to the terror.

The film wasn't about the monster it was about a bunch of ordinary folks caught in a disaster.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 4, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Yeah because ordinary folks would do what they did. Take a camera and go save someone while a 80 foot monster is destroying everything.

Makes total sense.


----------



## Lucien21 (Feb 4, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Well it wouldn't be much of a movie without the camera. So I can't really complain about the artificiality of the camera being on. Considering the proliferation of Youtube and videophone cameras at major news events it's not totally unique that someone might document an attack like that, but they had to make it a movie somehow.

As for the ordinary folks not doing what they did....People will do all sorts of things for the people that they love.


----------



## purple_kathryn (Feb 4, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



MG1962 said:


> Thats a shame really, maybe view it on DVD, the smaller screen does seem to compress the shaking a bit - But I think a fair rule of thumb would be, if Blair Witch affected you, this definately will


that's the thing

I was fine during the Blair witch.  But I dont think it was as bad.  Not as much running anyway


----------



## The_Warrior (Feb 4, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Indeed Lucien, and remember guys, Hudd just had the camra with him. It's not ike he went over to the cabbnit(sp) and got out the camara and pressed recored. It was just with him when the attack happened.


----------



## kaelcarp (Feb 4, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Lucien21 said:


> It was obviously a 9/11 comment when people had no idea what was happening until after the event, the confusion adds to the terror.



As someone who was actually one of the people running from the burning World Trade Center, I have to say it was eerily realistic in that way and made me quite uneasy.

It didn't help that when I left the theater, I was standing in Times Square, not far from where a good deal of the action took place.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 5, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



The_Warrior said:


> Indeed Lucien, and remember guys, Hudd just had the camra with him. It's not ike he went over to the cabbnit(sp) and got out the camara and pressed recored. It was just with him when the attack happened.



The dude held it throughout the entire event. That doesn't happen.

And the army wouldn't let them leave to go get someone either.


----------



## Dave (Feb 5, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I just back from seeing it.





kaelcarp said:


> Well said. It was actually more like a ride than a movie in some ways.


It reminded me more of one of those Live-Action Haunted Houses at Amusement Parks than a Roller coaster. Especially, searching in Beth's Apartment Building and walking the Underground.

It's a very good camera to survive everything it did. I might get one. 

The other thing I thought was: "Brooklyn Bridge has been destroyed twice in two months" (I Am Legend).

The shaky-cam didn't bother me at all, I was pleasantly surprised by that and it meant I could just enjoy the film - I think the worst parts were those shown in the trailer.


Lucien21 said:


> I loved the fact they never explained the monster. It made complete sense. The movie was scarier as the film was from the ordinary man point of view and there was no way they would have had any knowledge of the monster.


I agree, it would have spoiled it to have any kind of postscript, though people in the cinema when I went were waiting for something else.

What spoiled it for me was that I read the DoD part at the beginning about the camera being found in "what was formerly Central Park". It was obvious that they were all going to die horribly!

As for whether they would go back and be allowed to - ordinary people can do extraordinary things when the opportunity arises - the characterisation was good. Rob put his case to the soldiers well and they are human too. It only took one soldier to help him. Hudd was very funny. I felt most sorry for Marlena - she just got dragged along - shouldn't have even been at the party and died in what looked like a homage to 'Alien'.

I've probably said too much - worth seeing though!


----------



## Dave (Feb 5, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Okay, sorry for the second post, but I was discussing this with my daughter who saw it last week. She hates the ending because it leaves too much open. Did they kill the Monster or not?

I assumed that the phrase "formerly Central Park" meant annihilation, but it could just be redevelopment. Personally, I don't have a problem with knowing whether or not the Monster was killed, but I realised something else. The tape was running out - the previous recording made at Coney Island said "only 3 minutes left.... I had a nice day...." The camera was not destroyed, it just ran out of tape/memory, so who is to say that Rob and Beth died. Maybe they survived?


----------



## Lucien21 (Feb 5, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Also there is an Easter Egg after the credits where someone can be heard to say

*SPOILER*


it's still alive.

plus  BD Horror News - 'Cloverfield' Sequel Talk, Violent Plans!


----------



## The_Warrior (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Cool, thanks for that.


----------



## Rich_SP (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

ok...my thoughts on the film:
Firstly it was excellent, better than i'd hoped (I really didnt think they'd live up to the hype). the shaky cam did not bother me in the slightest, but I will admit the party sequence could have been shortened.
As for those of who complaining over lack of questions answered, hazy plot etc....
that was the point.
the film is showing the events through the eyes of ordinary people, who don't have access to Army, Government, or Emergeancy Servce files, just as you would expect from such people. the film is an eye witness account, it's all about the experience ofbeing there, at the time and seeing it for yourself. 
as for the internet hype, i'm amazed this forum wasnt catoluging each development on the numerous websites created as background to the film. most other forums and movie websites have been. places like tagrauot, slsho and tidowave are very interesting. there have been fake news reports posted up on the net, showing the monsters first arrival (although u dont ever see the monster) a quick go on google on youtube will bring up most of this.
there is going to be a sequel for this, and i hope it doesnt end up as a carbon copy of this film (as most sequels usually are  ) but JJ Abrams has said that he'll only do it if they come up with another new and exciting idea. I reckon it'll be more of a generic monster movie and go some ways to explain wahts going on... after all my biggest question is: 
SPOILER

Why did Marlena explode????

anyway overall, a great film, and i'd definately recommend it.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Rich_SP said:


> As for those of who complaining over lack of questions answered, hazy plot etc....
> that was the point.



Well then you can never complain about a film ever again, can you? Apparently it is ok to have a piece of crap and call it gold because it's "point" was to make it as pointless of a movie as possible.
Yeah, people get killed. Cool! Why? I dunno, some monster from somewhere. 



> the film is showing the events through the eyes of ordinary people, who don't have access to Army, Government, or Emergeancy Servce files, just as you would expect from such people. the film is an eye witness account, it's all about the experience ofbeing there, at the time and seeing it for yourself.



lol, dude it isn't real. 

you see it for yourself from any number of ways. Aside from the monster, it is still completely unrealistic.

And considering there will be a sequel, the same method will be tired and tested and any plot will also be crap since it will have to use conventional methods and explain things.

Abrams is not a genius.


----------



## PTeppic (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

In response to Rich_RP's spoilered question:


Spoiler



Because she'd been bitten by the "baby" creatures. The medical staff seemed to know it was going to happen and rushed her into seclusion to reduce the mess. Something to do with chemicals in their bite. Since some existing animals put blood thinners in their saliva to help consume it or necrotising agents in their venom, it's not hard to extrapolate to the effects given. Much.


----------



## Dave (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Or, if you read my post, she...





Dave said:


> ...died in what looked like a homage to 'Alien'...



As for the Internet theories, I like the one that the Monster was a giant Lion. Resulting from someone mis-hearing a shout in the trailer of "It's alive!"


----------



## Rich_SP (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Jaire i know the film aint real lol, i was just pointing out that the film was striving as much as possible to put you in the position of the characters something which i think it did very well.
as for sequels, I'm sure they will bring out the same style and just rehash it over nad over till it stops making money, which is outrageous, but till i start hearing bout the next one, i'll keep a little bit of hope that they'll do sumin different and equally enjoyable.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Eventually they will have to explain it.

And having 4 sequels using video cameras will just be silly.


----------



## PTeppic (Feb 7, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Even sillier, but something we talked about at work, would be using camera phone video. Whilst they were on the bridge, escaping Manhattan, we saw various other people in the crowd using such cameras. The story could pick up there, seeing our film-1 heroes as background subjects...


----------



## Rich_SP (Feb 8, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

i would personally like to see some DVD extras where by we see, shorter, versions of the evnts through other peoples eyes. maybe a selection of f-15 minute clips from all osrts of people all over Manhattan, and maybe even people from the oil tanker seen on the news clips, or the oil rig which u see parts of as part of the viral marketing campaign. that'd be a cool way to flesh out a 2-DVD version


----------



## ap0ckalypse (Feb 10, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

SPOILERS AHEAD

I finally made it to see this late last night, and I was very impressed.

So often these films follow the monster and a group of VIPs who are somehow knowledgable of the monster or have some relation to it, etc.  So they figure out what the situation is, and the rest of the film uses the city as a giant playground as they fight it out.  The most we really ever see of "normal people" is a little screaming and running down the street.

As what someone else said, I loved that we never knew exactly what the monster was or why it was there.  Because they wouldn't have - and the film limits our point of view to theirs.  If we knew more than they did, we wouldn't be quite as "there with them"...we wouldn't be active participants, as this film attempts to immerse the audience in the experience of the characters.

It was the first time I've seen a monster movie where the weight of the destruction you see is really portrayed.  By bringing it down to street level, you get a great depiction of the tragedy and panic that takes over a densely populated area in the face of that destruction.   I never had any trouble with accepting Rob's insistence on going back and getting Elizabeth - I got the impression that had he not lost his brother, he may not have.  And it served as a great tool to bring us into the maelstrom.

And I can't say I know where Jaire is coming from at all.  Abrams is damn talented.


----------



## Brigitte (Feb 11, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



ap0ckalypse said:


> I never had any trouble with accepting Rob's insistence on going back and getting Elizabeth - I got the impression that had he not lost his brother, he may not have. And it served as a great tool to bring us into the maelstrom.
> 
> And I can't say I know where Jaire is coming from at all. Abrams is damn talented.


 
I actually disagree, I think he would have gone back anyways, because he was already showing signs of possibly doing so before his brother was killed (the cell phone call being on the Brooklyn Bridge).  I also have to disagree about Abrams.  He's not damn talented... he's brilliant!

I loved this movie.


----------



## ap0ckalypse (Feb 11, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Brigitte said:


> I actually disagree, I think he would have gone back anyways, because he was already showing signs of possibly doing so before his brother was killed (the cell phone call being on the Brooklyn Bridge). I also have to disagree about Abrams. He's not damn talented... he's brilliant!
> 
> I loved this movie.


 
Ha...agreed.  Great movie.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 11, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

There is no talent about taking two already done ideas and putting them together.


----------



## kaelcarp (Feb 11, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Jaire said:


> There is no talent about taking two already done ideas and putting them together.



Sorry, but that's not true at all. You may have a beef with Cloverfield or Abrams, but most of art is taking ideas already done and putting them together in novel ways. There is no single other movie like Cloverfield. While I have definite problems with the movie, I'll acknowledge that it is unique, even if its influences are quite clear.


----------



## Brigitte (Feb 11, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



kaelcarp said:


> Sorry, but that's not true at all. You may have a beef with Cloverfield or Abrams, but most of art is taking ideas already done and putting them together in novel ways. There is no single other movie like Cloverfield. While I have definite problems with the movie, I'll acknowledge that it is unique, even if its influences are quite clear.


 
I have to agree. There might be some similiar to Cloverfield, but never quite exact. Writing new movies or books, 95% of the time, is using another idea and molding upon it (i.e., the use of zombies is nothing original, but yet WWZ, Cell, Night of the Living Dead, or The Anomaly all flourish). So, in point, Cloverfield may not be "originally original", but it uses a new concept that is substantially unique over its competitors.

Jaire, you must have really not liked this movie, cuz it sounds like you've got a major vendetta against it or something.


----------



## ap0ckalypse (Feb 11, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Jaire said:


> There is no talent about taking two already done ideas and putting them together.


 
Except that there's more to this than just the two ideas.  It's the execution.  The movie did a fantastic job of not only depicting the destruction and characters, but of the film's pacing as it takes us into the heart of the maelstrom with it.  

And, frankly, the above statement isn't true, anyway - the guy that invented Reese's?  Bloody brilliant.


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 11, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



ap0ckalypse said:


> Except that there's more to this than just the two ideas. It's the execution. The movie did a fantastic job of not only depicting the destruction and characters, but of the film's pacing as it takes us into the heart of the maelstrom with it.
> 
> And, frankly, the above statement isn't true, anyway - the guy that invented Reese's? Bloody brilliant.


 
Yes I agree. I have been watching monster movies for 40 years, and there are a number of unique elements to this film that will make it stand out. As you suggested, this story is told on a very personal level. Except for King Kong, this is almost unheard of, and to my knowledge never been done with this type of monster film.

And yes the film does have flaws, the plot feels very forced, and at times a bit set piece. But when it is all said and done, you really dont care when you are white knuckling your cinema seat.


----------



## ap0ckalypse (Feb 12, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



MG1962 said:


> Yes I agree. I have been watching monster movies for 40 years, and there are a number of unique elements to this film that will make it stand out. As you suggested, this story is told on a very personal level. Except for King Kong, this is almost unheard of, and to my knowledge never been done with this type of monster film.
> 
> And yes the film does have flaws, the plot feels very forced, and at times a bit set piece. But when it is all said and done, you really dont care when you are white knuckling your cinema seat.


 
BIG SPOILERS

One thing I think this movie did really well is make you feel the death of its characters.  Not with overwhelming sadness, but almost a sense of shock.  Especially Melena.  She's just...gone.

Death meets most people when their life is unfinished.  The story arcs in our lives aren't always complete when death takes us.  It's sudden and - just like that - we're gone.  I think most people, if given a chance to speak after their death, would say "But I'm not done!"

That's the way it felt in Cloverfield.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 12, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Brigitte said:


> Jaire, you must have really not liked this movie, cuz it sounds like you've got a major vendetta against it or something.




It's average. I give it a 6/10.

I will probably get it on DVD and all that and give it another viewing no doubt.

But I do not see an 'genius' that is meant to be JJ Abrams. (I don't watch Lost or anything else he is involved in either)


----------



## Dave (Feb 12, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



ap0ckalypse said:


> One thing I think this movie did really well is make you feel the death of its characters.  Not with overwhelming sadness, but almost a sense of shock.  Especially Melena.  She's just...gone..


I agree. It was as if you could share their own adrenalin. Even Rob did not feel the death of his own brother until the point where he had to tell his mother on the phone. That is why I can quite believe that he would return to rescue Beth.

As for the plot, it wasn't anything special.





ap0ckalypse said:


> Except that there's more to this than just the two ideas.  It's the execution.


That is exactly why the film is worth seeing, and what made me go to see it myself, the fact that there is nothing else like it (yet).

Maybe JJ Abrams is over-rated by the critics, but this was clever, and 'Lost' is also very clever (though rapidly becoming tediously over-extended.) I think he deserves some credit.


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 12, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

There are a few good comments here - As far as Abrams is concerned, I gave up on Lost sometime ago. Sure throw some mystery around, but dont expect me to commit to 4 years if you are not going to let anything out.

In a sense Cloverfield is an extention of the Lost formula, but in a self contained film, it worked well - Not knowing anything other than the POV characters actually worked for me - there is talk of multiple sequals, and as long as Abrams gives us something for the investment - he might just balance it well

I guess for Abrams, the Star Trek film will be his Waterloo - treckies fans have expectations in plot and tone, and he will not be able to stray to far from that. How he balances his own style with the Star Trek universe will make the film a definate go see.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 12, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



MG1962 said:


> there is talk of multiple sequals, and as long as Abrams gives us something for the investment - he might just balance it well



I really just cannot see a sequel, or multiple sequels working well. The hand held camera formula will only work once (More than one person doing it at the same time will just be ridiculous and lose the 'realness').


----------



## kaelcarp (Feb 13, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

SPOILERS

I didn't actually feel for the characters much at all. I didn't really care about them much. I pretty much found them annoying. To me, they were like annoying sidekicks on an adventure that was essentially shown as a first-person experience. If not for the need for dialogue and the need to show a few things, I might have preferred it simply being one guy with a camera throughout. And the party part went on too long and contained exactly the kinds of people who I mostly avoid in real life.

I liked the movie, as I've said, as a theme park ride of sorts.


----------



## Dave (Feb 13, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

But that was realistic, parties are filled with people you don't like, and their friends, who you like even less (though I agree that the party part did go on far too long, and I've read that same criticism elsewhere too.)

I hated the fact that everyone was talking on their mobile phones, and recording everything on the phone cameras, but again, that is realistic; it is exactly what would actually happen.


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 13, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Jaire said:


> I really just cannot see a sequel, or multiple sequels working well. The hand held camera formula will only work once (More than one person doing it at the same time will just be ridiculous and lose the 'realness').


 
Well one of the ideas kicked around was following a news team while they try follow the story. But yes if we do the hand cam gig again, I can see people tiring very fast


----------



## kaelcarp (Feb 13, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Dave said:


> But that was realistic, parties are filled with people you don't like, and their friends, who you like even less (though I agree that the party part did go on far too long, and I've read that same criticism elsewhere too.)
> 
> I hated the fact that everyone was talking on their mobile phones, and recording everything on the phone cameras, but again, that is realistic; it is exactly what would actually happen.



Sure, it was realistic, but it was boring as hell. Gratingly boring and irritating. I understand that it was necessary for a bit, but I think it went on about twice as long as it needed to. Perhaps they needed to pad the movie a bit (given its rather short length). I liked the contrast of the dumb, superficial partying with the dead seriousness of the later events, but it was more than needed.


----------



## kaelcarp (Feb 13, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Really, from an artistic standpoint, they shouldn't make another one unless there is a compelling artistic reason to do so. But since the movie industry is more about commerce than art, I'm sure _Cloverfield 2: Clover Takes London_ is in the works already, with or without a decent story. This isn't the sort of film for which sequels are usually a good idea.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 14, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

^ Exactly right. But it will make money because the first one did so well.


----------



## Delvo (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

What does the title mean?


----------



## Dave (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



Delvo said:


> What does the title mean?


Does it mean anything?
Or was it a very interesting smokescreen to cover what the story was really about, and to have an internet viral discussion about the film and the meaning of the title before it was released?


----------



## Urien (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I think it was the name of the street outside his office. Used originally as a working title, they decided to stick with it.


----------



## biodroid (May 19, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

This was the best monster movie I have seen in a long time. I am glad it was not a Godzilla clone where the monster looks like a giant T-Rex. Genuinely a freaky movie for me and the whole hand-held camera did it for me and made it feel like you were really in the thick of the action. JJ Abrams is very good at what he does and I hope he keeps continuing what he is doing, keep up the good work!


----------



## steve12553 (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I just saw this within the last couple of weeks. The reactions of the people involved was realistic, the main characters were people you could care about, The idea was really clever, but...................
The hand held camera bouncing around definitely will prevent me from watching it a second time. Some movies, in spite of everything that was done right, have an irritating quality that makes them nearly unwatchable.


----------



## Dave (May 26, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*



steve12553 said:


> The hand held camera bouncing around definitely will prevent me from watching it a second time.


Before I saw it at the cinema, that was my worry. I'd heard that people had walked out feeling sick. When I saw it myself it wasn't that bad at all. Did you watch the DVD on a small screen? Maybe that makes a difference?


----------



## steve12553 (May 26, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I did watch the DVD. I wasn't sick by any means but it did irritate me. Some films just don't inspire me to see it again even if it was an interesting concept and story.


----------



## kaelcarp (May 26, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

I watched this again on DVD not long ago. I have to admit that after the second viewing, I actually like the movie more. I'm not sure exactly why, but it was pretty well done and I enjoyed it.

Unlike others, the moving camera didn't bother me in the least. Most of the time I wasn't even thinking about it at all. I saw it in the theater, too, and it didn't bother me there either. I suppose it's one of those things where different people have a different tolerance for it.


----------



## Nesacat (May 26, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Yes. I didn't have a problem with it in the cinema or at home on DVD. However, several people had to leave the cinema during the show. They had dizzy spells and had to throw up. 

As for the movie itself, I liked it the first time and it's grown on me ever since. I liked the way it ended and the fact that the 'creature' is not all that obvious and clear. In fact, the hand-held camera was a big part of the allure. It made me feel as if I were a part of the whole thing.


----------



## Dave (Jun 18, 2008)

*Re: Cloverfield (2008): JJ Abrams' new movie*

Having just seen this again on DVD, I still didn't have a problem with the shaky camera. I didn't find it as good the second time though, all the surprise is lost, and the lack of any real substance to the story is more evident. I still think it is very novel - there is really nothing else like it - but I can't ever see a sequel being as good. And the party scene seems to go on even longer on the second viewing.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 19, 2008)

I just saw this movie last Tuesday. I think it's a one time see, but it was better than I expected.


----------



## JoanDrake (Jun 22, 2008)

Several possible sequels:

From the viewpoint of the monster. (I don't really mean to eat NYC, I'm just misunderstood)

From the viewpoint of the military (wasn't Cloverfield the military code name?)

From the viewpoint of somebody far away, watching on TV, (maybe somebody the original people call)


----------



## Paperkut (Jul 1, 2008)

Only i can say its that i give 5/5 to the movie, but i got more questions that awsers!


----------



## Cayal (Jul 12, 2008)

Paperkut said:


> Only i can say its that i give 5/5 to the movie, but i got more questions that awsers!



Then how is that worth a 5/5?

I watched it this morning on DVD.


----------



## kaelcarp (Jul 14, 2008)

Cayal said:


> Then how is that worth a 5/5?
> 
> I watched it this morning on DVD.



I wouldn't give it a 5/5, but to be fair, some of the best movies leave you with more questions than answers.


----------



## Niolani (Jul 31, 2008)

I thought it was great, you could imagine you were there and the ending was sad but good in that it wasn't expected.


----------

