Cloverfield

[BleedMe]

I saw it yesterday. Loved it. It's probably been said but the focus of this film is definately not the monster itself, it's a group of people struggling to survive, which makes the appearances of the monster even more spectacular. Don't get me wrong, you see the monster plenty of times, but you always get the feel that it's just there in the background which is a good thing. It made that helicopter scene towards the end breathtaking. It actually looked like something that would be filmed at a safari park (in terms of how natural and realistic it looked), but you know, just a bit more monstery and with some death and destruction thrown in. People who have seen it will know what i mean.

[Pesci]

Saw it earlier and thought it was absolutely fantastic. Loads of my friends didn't seem to get that it was more about the characters than the monster itself and were all like AH THAT WAS FUCKING SHIT. It was really well developed, can't think of a single thing I didn't like about it from top to bottom.

[Turbo Yannis]

I wasn't too sure about it, I like parts of it but other parts didn't sit right with me. Despite a few moments of him being funny, I found the dude with the camera way too fucking annoying.

What did make me laugh though was at the cinema, when the film had finished, some dude just shouts "What the fuck was that all about!?"

Better than the actual film

[Benji]

I wasn't too sure about it, I like parts of it but other parts didn't sit right with me. Despite a few moments of him being funny, I found the dude with the camera way too fucking annoying.

What did make me laugh though was at the cinema, when the film had finished, some dude just shouts "What the fuck was that all about!?"

Better than the actual film

I swear down, almost every single person I've spoken to has had at least one person shout that after the film :lmao:

[Turbo Yannis]

What made it funnier for me was that seconds before the guy shouted that, someone tried to start a slow clap.

Fail'd.

[AJ]

I saw this last nght and whilst I thought it was a good film there were a few things stopping it from being a great film for me.

First was the tub of pasta which tasted a bit dodgy that I bought from ASDA and ate before I went in which I think combined with the camera style knocked me really sick. (I get pretty bad motion sickness, if that's what you would describe it as).

I too thought Hud was pretty irritating at times. I spent a lot of the film wondering how we were so unlucky that the biggest idiot ended up with the camera.

Also, how durable is the camera? I mean, wow. Battery life too.

I didn't really follow any build up for the film at all. I saw the one trailer with the statue's head being knocked off and that was it. I try and avoid anything and everything before I see a film because there are so many trailers released these days when you go to watch the films themselves it's like trying to spot what ISN'T in the trailers >_> I didn't even know about the handheld camera style before I was in the cinema. So I guess how un-clued up I was kinda affected my experience.

Oh and my cinema lets you take just about anything you want in. Drinks, sweets, fast food. Just as long as it isn't alcohol.

It's also pretty good for giving you the movie running lengths. If you're ever curious you could try www.myvue.com as they're pretty accurate.

[HeartlineTwist]

While the camera's durability is questionable (although it really only has a serious fall (toward the end)), the battery life makes sense because the movie is essentially shot in real time. Or, in other words, I could buy a camera battery lasting for as long as the movie lasted (minus the "flashbacks").

[JairusCain]

yeah dude... if u cant find a video camera that has a battery life of 74 minutes... you need to find a new camera... or at least a new battery.

[Gazz]

Actually my mate, leaned over about an hour into the film and went 'Who are they saving?' but he is a bumbling pothead.

[cmb211087]

Watched it earlier, still kinda feel sick now, damn 'motion sickness'.

First time in a while that I've gone to watch a film and everyone has just been totally silent when the film ended, and I dunno whether that was because they thought the film sucked or that they like it because it sucked them in, for me it was the latter.

Did that girl explode? Army killed her? Because all I saw was lots of blood hitting the screen, as at that point I was very close to throwing up so wasn't looking at the screen much

Oh and the girl they saved, she was damn close to dying then the next second is running for her life, feeling no pain. Guess fear blocks out everything eh

[EndOfAnEra]

What's worse is that at the end, she's shown clearly raising her left arm, which shouldn't have been all that possible.

[Captain Eo]

Oh and the girl they saved, she was damn close to dying then the next second is running for her life, feeling no pain. Guess fear blocks out everything eh

[supergrass]

Did that girl explode? Army killed her? Because all I saw was lots of blood hitting the screen, as at that point I was very close to throwing up so wasn't looking at the screen much

[Turbo Yannis]

Although I said how he annoyed me in the film, I just watched an interview with T.J Miller.

I officially love that man now. He's hilarious.

[GA!]

Also, how durable is the camera? I mean, wow. Battery life too.

Considering the length of the film, the battery life and tape life are perfect for a standard camcorder. My Canon HV20, which I believe is basically what they used but a Sony version, could have filmed that. Cameras can also take a lot of abuse before breaking - but there were only a couple of instances where the camera bumped to the ground anyway.

As for the film itself it was awesome. Definitely something you need to see at the cinema (for the atmos) or else its going to be balls. I love how people on IMDB are dubbing it as the 'worst film ever' because of things like the lack of monster action and how its shot on a camcorder. That's the point, the stupid fucks.

[Benji]

Here's a question, how do you see a sequel? Do you see it as a regular movie or another handheld?

To me I don't think you could go regular camera after that, personally I'd go one of three routes, one would be another story involved the other guy on the bridge with a camera, then we can have brief seconds of crossover, two would be the journalistic route, having a reporter with their film crew trying to find out what the fuck is going on, and three, if you really wanted to reveal more I'd say would be the military route with those cameras that go on top of the helmets to record missions and the such.

[MalaCloudy Black]

You could always go the regular movie route with a fictional documentary about the attack and aftermath, I think that'd be kinda interesting.

[Benji]

You could always go the regular movie route with a fictional documentary about the attack and aftermath, I think that'd be kinda interesting.

I dunno, whilst I like the idea, I think that'd be a better DVD extra or something, I don't think it could give across the same feeling the original did if it didn't feel like 'real time'.

[supergrass]

I really can't see a sequel working on this one. From a camera point of view, if you move from a hand held to a conventional film taking in the events from the side of the military you lose one of the components that made Cloverfield what it was. But then if you do another one in the same style it's almost like you'd be trying to hard to try and repeat the same thing.

Another of the great things about it is the lack of regard for the monster in as much as what it is and where it came from. Essentially it's just about friends finding each other, the monster/s are just a roadblock in the way as much as the fallen buildings or anything else. To do a follow up then goes into the explanation and again it feels like it'd take away from what Cloverfield is/was.

I'd love to see this film again for the first time, but I can't. Making another would be interesting and I'd definitely watch, I just can't see how it would be done without disappointing in some way.

Edited February 5, 2008 by supergrass

[Benji]

Like you say though, the monster is a backdrop, it isn't the main issue, a lot of people could have been trying to save others, some could have been trying to fight back or help out, some could just be looking for answers, some could have tried to follow through with the evacuation. I get what you mean, I like it as it is, but the monster is what causes the tragedy, the real tragedy is in the stories. Obviously the 9/11 connotations come in, people wondering what's happened, looking and hoping for their friends survival, the work of the police and military to get everyone safe, the work of the firefighters and their relentless attempts to help, there's always more than one story in a tragedy like this but I do get what you mean, the camera style may feel repetitive, thus why the other two were different camera style suggestions