J.J Abrams "Cloverfield" project.

IF THEY MAKE A SEQUEL

If they're going to make a sequel to this movie, they have to be as inventive in making it as they were in their approach to the first film. Here is my sequel idea. Show the exact same event, but from someone else's camera. And in this different POV, reveal new things about the event that further the story of what happened, why it's happening, etc. Could be really cool.
 
c.g._eads, I was thinking along the same lines, but I would hope they would be making it for the right reasons and not to milk more money out of movie goers.
 
Saw it, finally.

Its really difficult to dislike this movie, because it goes for such a different approach, that even its inferior points can easily be forgiven.

So, the bad things first:

SPOILERS AHEAD-BEWARE

BAD

The plot. The inventiveness of the movie needed a much better plot. The acting was pretty average. Never felt connected to the characters. Since the movie has practically "real-time"feel to it, certain deaths that happen in the movie were just very easily "forgotten". At the same time, certain "decisions"- like the team up for the "quest" was not believable, as well as the unnavoidable "Night SHot" scare. The little "aliens" were also too similar to other franchise's "aliens"if you know what I mean...And couldn't the Helicopter fly a bit higher? Or how would such a HUGE monster even take notice of a small guy with a camera? Why did it care, with planes bombing him?

The Good- The Style. The cinematography, the pace, the realistic integration of effects, the sound design- brilliant, OSCAR WORTHY, and, of course, the camerawork. I love music. In fact, I am a visual artist normally inspired by music to help create visual stories. This movie goes for about 2 hours without music AT ALL- and I never missed it. Fantastic.

And, of course, the monster. It was a spectacular monster design.


Plot aside, It felt like a very exciting Disneyland ride. Sincerely, tough, this was their intention from the start, and it worked on what they wanted to achieve.

This is as close to a "Dogma" monster movie as we're ever going to get.

If they do any sequels, they HAVE TO DO IT in a similar fashion. This can be a signature of the franchise. I hope they focus more on the story in the next one, while keeping the exhilarating style and pace!

Go see it. Its very good entertainment.
 
Last edited:
jpeck said:
I am sure he was intended to be the 'douche bag best friend'. One might say he was perfect for that role and did an excellent job at it.
Click to expand...

My bigger problem is that he didn't sound convincing as the guy behind the camera. His performance wasn't believable, which is magnified by the believability of the people in front of his lens. The fact that he was annoying as well didn't help matters. To me his performance had that fake disembodied quality you get in a lot of video game voice overs.
 
c.g._eads said:
Can you imagine that? A Hollywood movie - any Hollywood movie - no matter how different - without a score???
Click to expand...

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN



c.g._eads said:
IF THEY MAKE A SEQUEL

If they're going to make a sequel to this movie, they have to be as inventive in making it as they were in their approach to the first film. Here is my sequel idea. Show the exact same event, but from someone else's camera. And in this different POV, reveal new things about the event that further the story of what happened, why it's happening, etc. Could be really cool.
Click to expand...

A second camera! That's pretty funny, because it's possible to relive the same timeline, but from the perspective of different characters. Sounds like RESIDENT EVIL 2 the video game. The first perspective is Leon's. Then you play it again as Claire.
 
Batutta said:
My bigger problem is that he didn't sound convincing as the guy behind the camera. His performance wasn't believable, which is magnified by the believability of the people in front of his lens. The fact that he was annoying as well didn't help matters. To me his performance had that fake disembodied quality you get in a lot of video game voice overs.
Click to expand...

I hear people daily on the public transit that sound fake and unbelievable, but there they are, standing in front of me. Some people are just like that. The most telling thing about his character was when he was informing everyone at the party that his best buddy hooked up with the chick.

I assume that whoever was behind that camera would have a sense of disembodiment.
 
Yeah, I thought it was a pretty cool idea, until I started reading all over the internet the dozens of other people who already mentioned it. Including the director himself! But the way he was telling it, the idea might not live as a traditional sequel, but as snippets on youtube or other mediums. Sounds kinda cool.
 
So see it in the theaters or just rent the DVD?
Click to expand...

I say theaters for the immersive experience. I thought the sound in particular was very well done.

It is shaky...but if you sit in the back its not too bad.
 
Last edited:
I read a interview with JJ, they were asking him about a second movie and he said if they decided to do one it would be the same event filmed from a second point of view.
 
jpeck said:
I hear people daily on the public transit that sound fake and unbelievable, but there they are, standing in front of me. Some people are just like that. The most telling thing about his character was when he was informing everyone at the party that his best buddy hooked up with the chick.

I assume that whoever was behind that camera would have a sense of disembodiment.
Click to expand...

I did not mean his personality was fake. I meant his performance as an actor was fake and lousy, meaning he's just a bad actor. Perhaps in a different kind of movie he wouldn't have bothered me so much. But the other actors were mostly doing a very good job reacting realistically to the situation, so when I had this other guy in my ear all the time screaming fake emotions it took me out of the film.
 
if you see it in a theater see it at on with a film projector because I think DLP is giving this movie a bad rap. I'm not certain but I think going from digital to digial is a little too crisp from frame to frame and gives it jerky artifacts that are unpleasant... I seen it first from film and had no issues and just dismissed the whiners. last night I seen it at a DLP theater and felt the camera motion was a little more unpleasant. a transfer to film probably introduced a little organic smear to make it bearable. any thoughts on this?

I'm a run and gun hand held camera operator-- and I edit my own footage so I was used to the whips and shakes and although "Hud" may be a douche bag he's a better camera op' than i am-- I never stop recording though. this is a cool forum lots of info and wisdom to be had.
 
nllm_oo_mlln said:
if you see it in a theater see it at on with a film projector because I think DLP is giving this movie a bad rap. I'm not certain but I think going from digital to digial is a little too crisp from frame to frame and gives it jerky artifacts that are unpleasant... I seen it first from film and had no issues and just dismissed the whiners. last night I seen it at a DLP theater and felt the camera motion was a little more unpleasant. a transfer to film probably introduced a little organic smear to make it bearable. any thoughts on this?

I'm a run and gun hand held camera operator-- and I edit my own footage so I was used to the whips and shakes and although "Hud" may be a douche bag he's a better camera op' than i am-- I never stop recording though. this is a cool forum lots of info and wisdom to be had.
Click to expand...

Distance from the screen probably affects how you'll react to this. Someone said this movie is probably best viewed on an ipod and there's some truth to that. Hand held, shakycam usually bothers me less when I see it on TV. I've never been against hand-held camera work on principle as it can be effective, but for me it has to be used judiciously and broken up with relatively static shots. When you go from shaky shot, to shaky shot, to shaky shot without giving the viewer a moment to orient themselves or rest their eyeballs the only emotion you'll evoke is nausea.
 
I have seen it twice from the two extremes in a movie theater.

Front Row:
My girlfriend got sick in the front row, but I don't have trouble with sea sickness or fast camera moves. The bonus is that some of the final shots of the monster are stunning on a big screen from that distance.

Last Row:
An extremely watchable distance. You are less likely to feel sick in the last row. So, if you are worried about it, the last row is the place to be.

See it in a theater, at least for the sound.
 
My friend actually puked in the theatre due to motion sickness. I told him to sit in the back and center and if he started to feel ill, to look off to the side.
 
I didnt have any motion sickness and I thought the movie was pretty damn good. 90% of the audience was complaining as we left but for what it was, I think it was done really well. It was just a fun ride.
 
***SPOILERS (though, if you've gotten this far not sure I needed to warn you) ***

I TOTALLY dug this movie. Though I've read a lot of people griping about the filming style...the whole debate and nausea comments bring back the dialogue everyone was having about The Blair Witch project.

I think this film took the same technique as Blair Witch and made it 100 times better. Yes, sometimes it was too shaky. But, it was real and never took me out of the movie. After 10 minutes I knew I was in good hands. I knew that the camera was gonna be all over the place but I also knew the director was gonna make sure I saw what he wanted me to see. So, I went with it and really loved it.

Flaws? Yeah, what movie doesn't have flaws? But it was eerie, creepy, disturbing, frightening, scary...it was the first NYC movie that made me NOT miss NYC. I mean it was a good old fashion monster movie right down to the epic music during the end credits. And I LOVED it.
 
Saw C-field tonight. Thought it was the best monster movie I've seen since Aliens, though admittedly I don't see a whole lot of monster movies.

Shaky-cam did get to me a bit, but not too bad.

Best thing I can say about this movie is that after about ten minutes into it, my pulse didn't get below 100 until I got to my car afterwards.

--SM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top