Cloverfield | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 496 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614093
Today 6
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
Cloverfield
 

offline Babaouo from Dolce (Monaco) on 2008-01-18 23:55 [#02165015]
Points: 787 Status: Regular



10/10 amazing. well executed. go see it


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-01-19 00:25 [#02165022]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



i kinda enjoyed it. but i regret seeing it at the cinema.
maybe i was sitting too close but it made me and all my
friends feel ill. action movie where the person whos filming
is getting involved in lots of movement just doesnt look
good on the big screen :S

another thing is..
high budget monster movie trying to add realism = awesome
monster movie trying to add realism by filming entire movie
on handheld camera = also, awesome idea
watching a supposedly handheld recorded video.. on a giant
big screen cinema, just totally takes away from the point of
the movie.
i dunno. i wanted to enjoy it but i kinda hated it. 5/10


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-01-19 00:34 [#02165023]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



I loved the idea of doing the movie Blair Witch-style, but I
just didn't like how such a large portion of the movie
consisted of the camera looking at the ground, or at
peoples' legs, or at something other than the 50-story-tall
monster that's plainly in view. Or, it would be in view if
they would point the damn camera at it. Maybe it's just me,
but I also felt like the movie never really developed the
monster/creature beyond the fact that it wanted to eat
people. I guess it doesn't need any more motivation than
hunger to attack NYC, but I left the theatre without any
clue as to where the thing had come from. Aside from that,
my only gripe with the movie was that the helicopter scene
was so pathetically cliched and unrealistic. The special
effects were pretty well done, though, and the acting wasn't
terrible.

It wasn't a bad movie, but I'm still on the fence about my
rating. I'm not quite sure what to give it yet.


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-01-19 00:42 [#02165025]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker | Followup to Zephyr Twin: #02165023



yah, i agree with this.
except! i didn't really have a problem with the monster.
noone knows where it came from/why he's there and destroying
the city. all they know is that there's a monster and it's
there and destroying the city.
i was happy they kept it with this amount of knowledge.


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-01-19 00:47 [#02165026]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to pigster: #02165025 | Show recordbag



oh, yeah sorry I should have explained what I meant more
clearly. I'm cool with everyone not knowing what the hell is
going on for 99% of the movie, but it would have been nice
to have a "news report" from a year or two after the attack
come on at the very end of the movie and fill in some of the
details. I'm not saying everything needs to be described in
100% scientific detail, but it would have been cool to get
an insight into the state of the world a few years after the
attack, or something to that effect.


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-01-19 00:52 [#02165029]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



im guessing everyone died ^^
the end of the movie has some static intermission or
something, apperantly says 'its still alive'.
that's most likely there to leave the doors open for a
sequal (definite probs!).
if there is no sequal, then yes, i'm afraid the only
conclusion is that IT KILLED EVERYONE!!


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-01-19 00:55 [#02165030]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to pigster: #02165029 | Show recordbag



Well, I highly doubt it would be able to kill everyone,
unless they never used nuclear weapons against it, or if
it's somehow impervious to the effects of a nuclear blast.


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-01-19 01:34 [#02165031]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



maybe if the sequal involved humans making their own
godzilla style beast, and it had tusken raider's riding on
it's back. and there was some epic monster fight. i would
happily watch that for about an hour and a half.


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-01-19 01:37 [#02165032]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



imagines the greatest movie never made..

actually, the idea for a rambo sequel someone posted about
is probably the greatest movie never made..


 

offline bogala from NYC (United States) on 2008-01-19 01:44 [#02165033]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular



I cried at the end


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-01-19 02:20 [#02165036]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



i watched the elephant man last night.
i almost cried at the end.. OF BOREDOM.
oh snap.


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-01-19 02:58 [#02165041]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



I must say that I'm glad I saw this movie in the theatres,
because it needs to be ridiculously loud and viewed on a
large screen to really be substantial. I think watching it
on a small tv with crappy sound and average volume levels
would make the flaws of the movie more obvious. If my first
time seeing it was at my house instead of the movie theatre,
I probably would have hated it outright.


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-01-19 03:27 [#02165042]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



hmm. yeah. i just cant tell anymore :S
i also saw transformers at the cinemas. now that was
a shit a movie, but on the big screen with louds noises and
all, it was enjoyable.
there is NO CHANCE i'd ever watch that shit on dvd.


 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2008-01-19 15:02 [#02165304]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker | Followup to Zephyr Twin: #02165026



my thoughts exactly, haven't seen it yet though.

Nice avatar. great job!


 

offline Sido Dyas from a computer on 2008-01-19 16:04 [#02165316]
Points: 8876 Status: Lurker



Interesting.
Shit i need to see this movie. (opens torrent sites)
Did you see my original Cloverfield topic when the first
trailer surfaced? I was all hyped up back then. I have been
amused by all the fan hype crazines on the internet since
then . Its like "if you drink a bottle of ketchup and
wear 3D goggles you can spot the monster at 02:37 in the
trailer"
and " use this code to unlock secrets about
the movie at this adress blah blah...."
and people
just sucked it in. Its funny to me that this movie succeded
in creating similar promotional hype as "blair witch" when
using the same basic movie concept.

Anyways , to me this shit looks very good on paper (me and
raimons have had the same idea for years) .But i guess i
will be just as dissapointed as you guys in the end
."BURN HOLLYWOOD BURN!!"
But when you say everybody dies at the end joy fills my
heart cause i was like chearing for the aliens in
Independent Day and other ridicilously high budget B movies.

I will post my thoughts on the movie here later.


 

offline WooferAttack from Milano (Italy) on 2008-01-21 09:40 [#02165945]
Points: 12920 Status: Lurker



i saw the monster on you tube... it's pretty nice



 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-01-21 09:41 [#02165947]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to Gwely Mernans: #02165304 | Show recordbag



haha, ab-so-Lutely.


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2008-01-21 15:47 [#02166101]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



I only just heard of this film today, going to see it as
soon as its released over hear though, trailer looks great,
hope they don't show too much of the monster though...

JJ Abrams better hurry up with that Dark Tower movie though!
I think he's got the talent to do a really good adaption,
now if only they could find a way to make Clint Eastwood
look 25 years younger...


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-01-21 15:56 [#02166104]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to pantalaimon: #02166101 | Show recordbag



wait... you hope they don't show the monster?


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-01-21 19:17 [#02166131]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



it's the whole, the less you see the scarier it is.
let your mind play tricks on you and make up your own
monster, as opposed to some cgi awkward bug thing with a
throbbing pouch on its head :S


 

offline Wolfslice from Bay Area, CA (United States) on 2008-01-21 20:54 [#02166148]
Points: 4909 Status: Regular



Hmm, I didn't like it at all. It's not the camera style I
have a problem with (I loved Blair Witch), it just has
really crappy one dimensional characters with lame motives--
it's not scary at all if you don't care if anyone lives or
dies. 2/5 for me


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2008-01-22 12:43 [#02166345]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Followup to pigster: #02166131 | Show recordbag



exactly!


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-01-22 12:47 [#02166349]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to pantalaimon: #02166345 | Show recordbag



yeah, but, it's a big budget hollywood flick not an art
film. they have to show the monster eventually or
people will begin shitting multiple bricks.

though, I understand what you're saying, and I actually have
to agree because when they first showed the creature passing
overhead in downtown manhattan, I thought it looked quite
different from when they showed it at the end. I was kind of
confused by that, and almost preferred how I had initially
"seen" it.


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2008-01-22 13:00 [#02166353]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



Do Americans actually say 'dude' as much as the people in
this film?


 

offline Cliff Glitchard from DEEP DOWN INSIDE on 2008-01-22 14:34 [#02166404]
Points: 4158 Status: Lurker



over 30 mins of the film is just a sap with a camera running
around shouting "Rob!"



 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-01-22 15:55 [#02166430]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to Indeksical: #02166353 | Show recordbag



I think some do.


 

offline Sido Dyas from a computer on 2008-01-22 16:07 [#02166431]
Points: 8876 Status: Lurker | Followup to Indeksical: #02166353



Yep some of them actualy do. I knew one who said dude and
different variations of fuck or motherfucker a minimum
of like 200 times per day.


 

offline rad smiles on 2008-01-22 16:20 [#02166433]
Points: 5608 Status: Lurker | Followup to Sido Dyas: #02166431



thats what we call a badass


 

offline Babaouo from Dolce (Monaco) on 2008-01-22 19:39 [#02166498]
Points: 787 Status: Regular



Its true. I'd say 25 % of the youths in this area say dude
fuck and motherfucker or mutherfuck it dude that many
times...

its on the decline thank god.

I like how the orgin story was contained in one 12second
clip at the end.


 

offline bogala from NYC (United States) on 2008-01-22 19:52 [#02166500]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular



dude is a very contagious word.


 

offline rad smiles on 2008-01-22 19:56 [#02166506]
Points: 5608 Status: Lurker



ooh scary


Attached picture

 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2008-01-23 00:13 [#02166584]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular



just watched it tonight at a friends house - downloaded a
cam recording.

totally enjoyed it, im almost glad i saw it in a format
where i had even less of an idea what was going on due to
shoddy image quality and the like.

and yeah, the characters were 2 dimensional, but i didn't
really need to care for them - i was in it for the
spectacle. i feel like it succeeded quite well at the task
the film set out to achieve.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2008-01-23 00:25 [#02166586]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular | Followup to hedphukkerr: #02166584



you watched a cam recording of a cam recording!


 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2008-01-23 01:07 [#02166590]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular | Followup to cygnus: #02166586



when we started watching it was difficult to tell if the
camera movements were by the buy in the theater or that
cameraman from the film :P

honstely, i dont think that much fidelity was lost :P


 

offline bogala from NYC (United States) on 2008-01-23 01:17 [#02166591]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular



Just listen for someone eating popcorn


 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2008-01-23 01:32 [#02166592]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular



there were a few well placed seat creaks are well as a few
people who went to get candy a bit late walking in front of
the camera through the first 10 minutes.

always elicits a chuckle tho - you gotta know what youre
getting into.


 

offline dave_g from United Kingdom on 2008-02-02 06:14 [#02170780]
Points: 3372 Status: Lurker



I saw this lastnight at the cinema. I'm not really into
films and haven't been to the cinema for about 3 years maybe
due to lack of interest in modern films. So here is my
review:

I would like to say that I really enjoyed Cloverfield. It
did require me to accept a few odd ideas, like someone would
document everything instead of just dump the camera or at
least turn it off.

There may be spoilers ahead!

I got annoyed that the audio didn't distort when they were
filming a few feet from a tank firing its main gun. Again,
the car windows would smash due to the shockwave. There were
a few moments like this were the illusion was shattered for
me at least. I suspect most cinema goers are so brain dead
from hollywood effects and general tosh they were fine with
it.

There was, however a distinct lack of pathetic action film
ideas. Apart from the party at the start, there was no
music. only sound effects to add to the atmosphere.
Infact I detached from the film a few times during its
length and thought how it reminded me of playing the
original half life.
I would say that it is more like watching someone play a
computer game than watching a hollywood film. (This is 100%
a compliment)

Watching this as a brit, I was prepared to believe that
those idiotic New Yorkers were prepared to head towards the
massive monster to rescue their friend. Most people would
leg it, but not these fine young folks from "the home of the
brave". So brave, they discarded a crow bar instead relying
on their (lack of) kung fu prowess. (ffs haven't they played
half life?!?!)

I'm not sure what to make of the monster. It seemed to
evolve throughout the film. In my mind in the first half I
imagined something different to what I saw. Then later on it
appeared to be different again.

I enjoyed the fact that a lot of good looking young people
died. This made it much more realistic. Yeah shit happens
and you die. Not like other action films. Thank goodness for
this decision.


 

offline dave_g from United Kingdom on 2008-02-02 06:22 [#02170785]
Points: 3372 Status: Lurker




I like the way it avoids standard hollywood cliches and
ideas.
The comic relief of the cameraman is great and really added
to the reality of the film. If you can suspend your
disbelief much less than other films, you should have a
great time.
Just like AFX music has a sort of distinct "sound", so this
has a distinct "look"; the look of JJ Abrams. If you've
enjoyed Lost or Alias, you will love this film. Don't expect
to leave with any mysteries solved. Expect to be
entertained.

Reviewers that claim it can make you feel sick need to stop
watching paint dry and play some computer games. I never
once felt sick, except when viewing the hotdogs in the
cinema foyer.

- - -

So in conclusion, it is at least a 9/10. It's not a
masterpiece, but it is brilliant. It's clever. Almost too
clever, but thankfully not quite. Highly entertaining and
gives you plenty to talk about on the journey home.

Recommended.


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2008-02-02 06:27 [#02170787]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



"I got annoyed that the audio didn't distort when they were
filming a few feet from a tank firing its main gun."

yeah, i think i posted a similar thing earlier.
i just found the whole premise of the film incorrect. its
sposed to be filmed on a small handcam, and yet i'm watching
it in a cinema in high definition with surround sound and
whatnot.

it shouldve just been released on youtube or something to
retain the credibility of it all.


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2008-02-03 16:13 [#02171313]
Points: 12423 Status: Regular | Followup to pigster: #02170787



I heard originally jj abrams wanted to have the sound in
shitty mono and all, but paramount wouldn't have any of
that

So I Don't Know


 

offline OK on 2008-02-03 17:06 [#02171338]
Points: 4791 Status: Lurker | Followup to pigster: #02170787



credibility of a monster film...

I watched it last night, I enjoyed it.


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2008-02-03 19:02 [#02171389]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



Am I the only one who was annoyed by the fact this movie was
constantly aiming the camera at shit no one cares
about/wants to see?


 

offline Babaouo from Dolce (Monaco) on 2008-02-04 00:52 [#02171531]
Points: 787 Status: Regular



Well it could be an HD hand camera. I mean the guy was vice
president of slusho Japan. He could afford it.



 

offline KEYFUMBLER from DUBLIN (Ireland) on 2008-02-04 03:22 [#02171567]
Points: 5696 Status: Lurker



I enjoyed it overall. Nice pace/buildup. Lots of nice jumpy
parts. I read lots of reviews saying that the style was too
youtubey... i think thats part of the point. A film for the
times.

The allusions to 9/11 were obvious too but again i think
thats needed.......... look at the origional godzilla...
unashamedly about nuclear attack. Being too subtle can wiork
againts you. The suicide bomber as well as the mega-atack
were both dealt with very well. The scene with the tank
appearing was done well... very suprising. I'd see it
again.............


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2008-02-04 03:45 [#02171570]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



My girlfriend cried at the end. I laughed quite heartily at
certain points. It was pretty good, not quite the
reinvention of action cinema some people are heralding it to
be, but still entertaining. Monster design was a bit wank
though. If the things going to have no explanation as to its
origin and, as such, no grounding in any kind of reality the
design should've been much more insane. Just all crazy
tentacles and gaping maws and massive eyes on sticks and so
many limbs you cant even keep count. But then thats just a
personal preference. Overall 7/10 good, solid movie.


 

offline KEYFUMBLER from DUBLIN (Ireland) on 2008-02-04 03:54 [#02171572]
Points: 5696 Status: Lurker



the whole "what is it", "where does it come from" etc is
referencing the uncertainty and unknowingness of the general
public to terrorist attacks. It's obvious! We're suppose to
be right there with the characters.. not fed plot
lines/explainations like traditional sci-fi films....


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2008-02-04 04:15 [#02171576]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Followup to KEYFUMBLER: #02171572 | Show recordbag



Exactly! This unknown, incomprehensible evil (terrorism)
should've been unrecognizable to the human eye rather than a
large gorillalizard with an extra pair of arms. But yes good
film, heavy handed message (which I think it needs to be to
get through to a lot of people considering the films lack of
a rigid narrative).


 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2008-02-04 06:58 [#02171600]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker



I thought it was alright. The stupid part was the end where
you get a good look at the whatever-it-is. That ruined it. I
liked it being off in the distance, where you could just
make out it's form.


 

offline SPD from United States on 2008-02-04 08:49 [#02171621]
Points: 1090 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



HUDCAM!


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2008-02-04 12:34 [#02171701]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



did anyone see the satellite hit the water in the very last
scene?


 


Messageboard index