misterryno Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Alrighty.....I haven't read through this entire thread yet and maybe I won't. I know that everyone has their own opinions and that is fine with me. I just want to know one thing......is this movie worth seeing in the theater or should I wait for the DVD to come out? THANKS ahead of time for your answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I dunno. I saw a matinee screening at my local theater (union landing) and the audience outright boo'd at the end. Personally, if you're going to see it, see it in the theater and before too many spoilers are released... uhm.. like this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I feel the emotional impact of the movie will be drastically lessened if viewed on a small screen. It will change "form" to a degree from a "roller coaster" into a simple "video tape". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I honestly think that you should see this in the theaters with the exception of whether or not you have a home theatre with a large screen and a good surround sound system. If you're in the theater, sit close to the middle or towards the back especially if the screen is huge. I've seen this 3 times viewing it at different distances and it while experiencing it at mid distance gave you a more immediate feeling, sitting farther meant seeing everything a lot better. Any closer is too close. The sound design is amazing. It would be hard to believe that a small handheld recorded something so alive... lol. Dark Horizon lists different types of image sources for the movie. 35mm film, the Genesis, etc. http://www.darkhorizons.com/2008/cloverfield.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandit29 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Ya I would definitely see this movie in a theater. Just go in the morning, its cheaper. It's going to lose alot of its impact when its released on DVD/Blu-ray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 http://www.darkhorizons.com/2008/cloverfield.php OK so they used DigiBeta... So then it IS an HD master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 OK so they used DigiBeta... So then it IS an HD master. The Genesis system uses hardrives. it's a huge camera, they used to film Superman Returns. We used it to film a documentary here and it's way too big to run around with. I'm assuming they used it to capture images used for inserting FX. And they also used 35mm. I'm guessing all of these were transferred and matched to digibeta look without sacrificing quality, because some shots were way too clean to be just handheld digibeta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misterryno Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 THANKS AGAIN for the replies......I usually won't see a movie in the theater unless the special effects and the sound is good. So....since those 2 aspects seem to weigh heavily with a few of you....then I may just go see the matinee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baronv Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Just saw the movie, I'm not going to go into character motivation or plot points since this IS a monster movie and characters will be made to do things to move along the storyline. Plus I've seen enough people in real life do dumb things so if some of the characters here seem to be doing idiotic things, well real life is filled with the same...drunk drivers, suicide bombers, mass murderers, etc. All in all an average movie for me, lots of following the group in dark hallways, dark buildings, dark tunnels, dark areas, etc., I just pretended the whole time that Cloverfield was the first-person view of the events from the American Godzilla re-make movie since that was also based in NY and it had little critters of it's own running around town, had a camera man as a main character also, with the military blowing city buildings chasing the monster. I would recommend it as a DVD release at best for those on the fence about seeing it in a theatre unless you can get a really good early showing price on it. Of course I was expecting more of a full-blown monster movie which this really wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do not disturb Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Of course I was expecting more of a full-blown monster movie which this really wasn't. like a typical M. Night Shyamalan film. its like going to a massage parlor to get a happy ending but not getting the ending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 like a typical M. Night Shyamalan film. its like going to a massage parlor to get a happy ending but not getting the ending. yeah, i HATE that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 The Genesis system uses hardrives. it's a huge camera, they used to film Superman Returns. We used it to film a documentary here and it's way too big to run around with. I'm assuming they used it to capture images used for inserting FX. And they also used 35mm. I'm guessing all of these were transferred and matched to digibeta look without sacrificing quality, because some shots were way too clean to be just handheld digibeta. Crap. I meant HDCAM. I get DigiBeta and HDCAM confused all the time. Stupid Beta family tree and it's Betaness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenius Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) One little qualm I had about shaky cam, no one ever sprints and holds a camera facing forward. If you're running for your life your arms flail while you run. So I wasn't nauseated but there were a couple times where I did the whole "yeah, this shot would happen" sarcastic smirk. Thank God they didn't do realistic running though, that would have been the most annoying movie ever. The only scene that really grabbed me as awkward was the scene after the chopper incident. It seems like Hud is getting annihilated but his body ends up fine enough where they have to check that he's dead? Also, what happened to the monster next? It totally seemed like the camera would logically get left behind there as the couple sought safety. It was the only real instance where I felt the camera ploy was a bit forced. EDIT - Spoiler ratified. Edited January 22, 2008 by jenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obakesan Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Quick question to all who have seen this film. Is the entire film done in shaky handy cam mode or is it only various parts? Sounds interesting to see when it comes out here but am abit worried all the shaking cam stuff will make me a bit queezy. Sae the longer trailer during AVP2 and that was shaky enough lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) One little qualm I had about shaky cam, no one ever sprints and holds a camera facing forward. If you're running for your life your arms flail while you run. So I wasn't nauseated but there were a couple times where I did the whole "yeah, this shot would happen" sarcastic smirk. Thank God they didn't do realistic running though, that would have been the most annoying movie ever. The only scene that really grabbed me as awkward was the scene after the chopper incident. It seems like Hud is getting annihilated but his body ends up fine enough where they have to check that he's dead? Also, what happened to the monster next? It totally seemed like the camera would logically get left behind there as the couple sought safety. It was the only real instance where I felt the camera ploy was a bit forced. EDIT - Spoiler ratified. Yah, that was a bit forced, I was REALLY hopeing that when they were getting off the building for some reason hud would toss the camera first to make a jump, but then we'd end up filming hud as the building finally colapsed. that would have been great, but i guess a little too convienient. I agree completely, that monster had a mouth that was like 5 stories tall, why would it even bother trying to eat a human, let alone mayb bite him in half somehow. that was a bit thick. they could have just killed hud in the chopper crash, made some tearful remark as the pry the camera from his hand, tha woulda been sad. like a in shock "we gotta keep filming, gotta keep filming gotta keep filming" thing. I know some victums of trauma say that filming the horrors of the event kind of keeps them "out" of it. Like "i'm filming not experiencing. So i can sorta see why filming would be important to someone, too bad they don't mention that angle. Edited January 22, 2008 by KingNor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Will Cloverfield be forever forgotten due to a somewhat popular actor dieing right after it came out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see how the two events are connected. Perhaps if some national tragedy occurred...and while Heath Ledger's death is sad and tragic in it's own way, I don't think it's of the scale to make people stop thinking about everyday life. Just IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see how the two events are connected. Perhaps if some national tragedy occurred...and while Heath Ledger's death is sad and tragic in it's own way, I don't think it's of the scale to make people stop thinking about everyday life. Just IMO. I was just trying to be topical T.T and trying to liven my current gloomy mood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Sorry, my bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenius Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) I was just talking to a friend of mine and I told her I saw Cloverfield last night. She said "A bunch of the girls at the office saw it together. They all hated it and told me not to bother. Apparently you don't learn anything about the monster and everyone just dies. Sounds like the movie forgot to have a point." I told her that, as a guy, I thought it was fun the whole way through but I couldn't really disagree with anything her girl friends told her. I get the feeling this one might have big divides amongst the sexes as far as who likes it. Edited January 23, 2008 by jenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promethuem5 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 When I saw it, the theater was full of 14-16 yr-olds, who felt about the same way... I think you partially need to know what kind of experience to expect going into the film... that or, middle-schoolers are just dumb (my personal theory). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Just got home from the post-movie Perkin's run. The single most important, and most often broken, rule of creating a good monster movie (in the horror/thriller/suspense sort, rather than the Godzilla sort) is never show the monster. The best tool one can work with to make a monster movie good is the viewer's own imagination. Give tantalizing glimpses, suggestions, even some misdirection. This rule is to be applied more than simply literally, as well. Keeping the monster's origin, and even it's ultimate fate, shrouded can be excellent storytelling tools, and I believe Cloverfield did a remarkably good job with that. If you're looking for overt and blunt storytelling devices to lead you through the movie, you're going to be disappointed. This, of course, is not the same as suggesting there's some deeper meaning behind the movie, as one poster put it with their puddle and abyss analogy, it is a simple monster/disaster movie. I don't expect there are any great truths to be found, nor were they intended. But a game is played with the viewer, making you more than a passive observer. You have to look for things, piece bits together, and form an idea in your mind. I've always appreciated that, and it's so rarely done in modern entertainment (even more rarely is it done well). Even in the genres most suited towards it. I would say this is the best monster movie I've seen in a very long time. Everyone in the group I watched it with loved it, regardless of gender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promethuem5 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm trying to figure out where all the 9/11 allusion theories keep coming from... can we now not have anything bad happen to NYC in film without 9/11 naysayers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I remember when there was an uproar over the movie "The Two Towers". People are dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenius Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm trying to figure out where all the 9/11 allusion theories keep coming from... can we now not have anything bad happen to NYC in film without 9/11 naysayers? There's at least one party goer that asks "Oh my God, are we under attack again??" or something similar so that might be it. I've heard people say that it plays on post 9/11 emotions but any disaster film in a major city is going to do that at this point. If you're looking for overt and blunt storytelling devices to lead you through the movie, you're going to be disappointed. What if you're looking for anything subtle? How about an allusion or two to something beyond what we're shown? You'll also be disappointed. Really it's just a 75 minute chase scene. I did like how they hold back on showing the monster for a while and I do think they did everything right with the timing of the reveals and such. You have to look for things, piece bits together, and form an idea in your mind. I've always appreciated that, and it's so rarely done in modern entertainment (even more rarely is it done well). Even in the genres most suited towards it. See, this is it, I didn't get that feeling at all. What was there to look for or piece together?? For me it was all just "Crap, Monster... RUNNNNN!!!!" "Phew, we're safe, but we gotta find the girl." "Crap, MONSTER! RUN!!!!!!" "Phew, we're safe, but we gotta find the girl." "Crap, MONSTER!!!!! RUNNNNNNNNN!!!!" "Get to the choppah' GOOO!!!" "I love you" "Well, I did love you, but then you were a douche bag but I guess you've redeemed yourself..." Squish. I will also agree this is the best monster film I've seen in a very long time. In fact, I can't remember the last monster movie I saw, good or bad, so that praise doesn't mean as much as it should. Very fun, but it feels a lot like porn to me. I enjoyed watching it but I didn't really take anything from it and I can't imagine myself watching it again soon. The idea that they're going to revisit the topic in a sequel or a manga is pretty exciting to me. I'd love for this to be lumped into something larger that really does lend it some substance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Have these been posted? I didnt really read this thread until I saw the movie but I never seen these. http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/06/video-...ired-by-slusho/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 It already has been lumped with something larger. You've been following the viral marketing, right? There is hinting at the origin of the monster in the background of one scene, combined with information on the Taragutu website. There's certainly some entertaining non sequiturs on the all mock corporate websites, and an interesting YouTubed news segment covering the destruction of the Chuai oil rig. I do believe that if you didn't follow the movie related websites, you are missing a part of the experience. I can certainly see where many would argue you shouldn't need to follow all the extra material to get that subtler side of the story, but I feel that it's a great hook to sink into people's imaginations, and certainly allows the storytellers to show much more than they could believably work into the sort of film they were making here. Even all that aside, the movie itself is basically is one big chase scene, I certainly won't argue against that being its primary angle. It's a thriller, suspense broken up with quick segments of adrenaline. The subtle side is leading the viewer's imagination through what it doesn't tell us, making us wonder and imagine. I feel it does that really well. There's certainly an overlooked market for this sort of film, and related internet media, though it obviously won't appeal to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenius Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Yeah, I think my following the Internet stuff made the film more fun for me as opposed to the other people I've heard opinions from. Hopefully a DVD release will somehow have a bonus that lets you get into all that Internet stuff, I think that will make the DVD be better received. I'm definitely *trying* to base my comments on the film though to what the film gives us. I have a similar gripe with Macross. A lot of the supplementary information for Macross is what helps glue it all together and I wish more of that glue was present in the shows itself. I think an artist gets greedy when you make your audience search out supplementary information even though it can very easily be argued that that supplementary information is part of the art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm trying to figure out where all the 9/11 allusion theories keep coming from... can we now not have anything bad happen to NYC in film without 9/11 naysayers? I love seeing NYC get destroyed movie after movie, I hates me some of that pretentious city. Like what's up with that commercial they're running in my area (SF bay area) where New York is begging for my money to fund some truck that gives food to the homeless. Good cause and all, but is NYC really so full of itself that it thinks it can justify funneling money from all over the country to feed it's homeless? there's plenty of homeless in SF why shoud my money go to NYC. because of this, i welcome the aliens, robots, giant monsters, earthquakes, zombie vampire virus's and anything else that feels like putting that city in it's place. btw this ends quite possibly the rantyest day i've ever had. I'ts been great guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Hopefully a DVD release will somehow have a bonus that lets you get into all that Internet stuff, I think that will make the DVD be better received. I'd certainly like to see all that on the DVD. Especially as I doubt the various websites will remain hosted forever. I'd say more, but I'm at about hour 30 and a half without sleep. Tend to ramble a bit too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I thought the movie was brilliant. It seemed like it was presented in a simple manner but it really was more than what it was. First of all the intercutting between the coney Island scenes was a brilliant strategy. You get background story while watching a tape unedited. plus the effects were solid... not only the monster but the liberty head, the sets, the other monsters... they were like it's fleas right? I like the fact that it wasn't the obligatory tough military guy played by Nicholas Cage and the hot scientist played by Jessica Alba. I know you guys find depth in that, but that's just too stale from the moment it landed. Instead you got unknowns that are believable as real people. Though I remember Marlena from the series "Class". Also I was glad that the monster was chosen to be revealed slowly. A friend of mine called and she said that people told her that you barely see the monster... And I'm like BS... the monster gets to be in your face by the end. And when they show it it's freakin unbelievable. I think the weight of the story is presented as people ask themselves (and everyone wonders this) what would you do in an event of a devastating catastrophe, except in this case it's in a way fantastical manner. Where would you go, who would you save and in what order? Who would you get in touch with first? And to what extent would you go out on a limb for that person? I feel like a lot of people come in to this movie screaming, I want to see the monster and totally miss it. The devastation was so real but at the same time there was enough entertainment to call it fun. The monster wasn't just for great effects but it was to remove you far enough from reality to say its ok that I'm watching people suffer and still say that it was fun to see it. But it was never funny to make it seem ridiculous, which most effects heavy movie seem to do a lot now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 My take is just that they show just enough of the monster without ever showing too much (though they skirt the line in several scenes). In this day and age where Hollywood effects crews are unwilling to leave anything to the imagination, I can see where many people would say, "They barely even show the thing!" You never do get a clear, wide shot of the creature. The wide shots are all as it's tromping through the city, buildings getting in the way, smoke rising and billowing around it, and the camera doing it's low-quality zoom function. The clear shots are all from awkward angles, looking up at the beast. I do agree that from the way a lot of people talk, you'd think they never show more than a shadow.I heard a couple people grumbling to that effect as they left the theatre. No imagination. Need to be shown everything, their hand held the whole time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Oh, did anyone catch what the voice at the end of the credits says? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do not disturb Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Just got home from the post-movie Perkin's run. The single most important, and most often broken, rule of creating a good monster movie (in the horror/thriller/suspense sort, rather than the Godzilla sort) is never show the monster. The best tool one can work with to make a monster movie good is the viewer's own imagination. Give tantalizing glimpses, suggestions, even some misdirection. This rule is to be applied more than simply literally, as well. Keeping the monster's origin, and even it's ultimate fate, shrouded can be excellent storytelling tools, and I believe Cloverfield did a remarkably good job with that. If you're looking for overt and blunt storytelling devices to lead you through the movie, you're going to be disappointed. you pretty much said everything M. Night Shyamalan said when he was hosting an airing of Signs on cable a few years ago....which was a terrible movie BTW. if its that obvious that thats what makes a good monster movie, then everybody would be doing it. it worked the one time but hes been doing the same schtick in all his movies and the majority of them have failed to deliver IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necron_99 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I love seeing NYC get destroyed movie after movie, I hates me some of that pretentious city. Like what's up with that commercial they're running in my area (SF bay area) where New York is begging for my money to fund some truck that gives food to the homeless. Good cause and all, but is NYC really so full of itself that it thinks it can justify funneling money from all over the country to feed it's homeless? there's plenty of homeless in SF why shoud my money go to NYC. because of this, i welcome the aliens, robots, giant monsters, earthquakes, zombie vampire virus's and anything else that feels like putting that city in it's place. btw this ends quite possibly the rantyest day i've ever had. I'ts been great guys. QFT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.