J.J Abrams "Cloverfield" project.

I saw it and thought it wasnt bad, I liked it, yeah the second the movie ends i think "WTF? no answers?" But all in all great movie, love how realistic everything happens, as if thats how it would be in real life, a lot of reminders of 9/11.

Thing I hated was the 10 15 year old girls behind me talking throughout the movie! I was waiting for a quiet part in the middle part to then id turn around and say stfu!, unfortunately, there was no quiet parts in the middle of the movie really.
 
dvpixl said:
in the last shot of the film, there is a clue to where the monster came from.
Click to expand...

I've heard about that, but didn't see it when I saw the film last night. I'm going to have to go again to catch that and see it all again. Great movie!
 
mcgeedigital, you really should have linked that and given spoiler warnings for those who haven't seen it yet.












+++++++++++ SPOILERS BELOW +++++++++++

The HINT at the ending was a splash in the water, while the main character and the chick were on the ferris wheel. When I watched the movie I thought I saw something in the right hand corner, but wasn't sure since my friend didn't. This happens prior to the actual events and is supposed to be part of a satellite that falls in the Atlantic ocean. Speculation based on viral advertising is that either this part or while people are searching for this part, the monster is woken up.

EDIT: Also, I heard a rumor that something happened at the end of the credits, so I naturally stayed to find out. There was a audio message at the end of the film that sounded like 'help me'. But while looking online, when that is played backwards, it says something like 'its still alive'.

Videos can be found on popular video sites with footage and sound clips.
 
Last edited:
+++++++++++ SPOILERS BELOW +++++++++++


Yeah, with the quality of cams out there currently, you will probably not see the splash. I am sure more info or even better vids will come out in the following days. Look at the viral advertising for more information about the sat dropping into the ocean. The company that owns the sat that dropped into the ocean is also supposed to own the company that the main character works for.


Another thing to note is that I am sure this film was meant to be recorded as part of the hype. Especially with the final audio of the film being in reverse.


Who thinks we will see another film based on this monster?
 
i think we will, unfortunately.

***************SPOILERS****************

i think there was more than one monster... think about it, the monster smashes the helicopter then when they get out its there... didn't hear any stomping... and the monster looked wet, as if it just got out of the water....

**************END SPOILERS**************
 
SPOILERS

Wow, so some guy named "Matt Reeves" came out of nowhere and said, "You know what Peter Jackson? You know that big monster-movie you made for 250 million dollars? Well I'm going too make a movie 100 times better than that. And I'm going to make it for one-tenth the price".

I thought this movie was brilliant. I avoided any and everything related to the movie ever since first seeing the trailer and I believe that allowed me to see it without some of the built in scorn that a lot of people have had to go through after being bombarded by the non-stop marketing. I didn't have to deal with any, "well, they haven't showed that moment that I saw in the trailer yet so I know that has to be coming up" (that always messes with my viewing experience). I went in, basically virgin, wanting to see a cool movie. And boy did I ever.

Somebody pointed out something that I didn't even think about until after the movie was over. THERE'S NO SCORE. Can you imagine that? A Hollywood movie - any Hollywood movie - no matter how different - without a score??? And I never thought about it once. This movie was so balls-to-the-wall crazy that you just strap in and enjoy the ride.

The three things I was curious about the most - the acting, the camerawork, and the sound - all passed with flying colors. Admittedly, I was a little skeptical of the acting when we're at the party. But once the monster hits, it's so shocking, so in-your-face, so improbable, and so somehow believable, that you completely forget about the acting. Even that chick who I think was in Transformers did a good job. Or maybe she didn't. You see, that's the thing about this movie. The monster stuff is so intense, and pulls you so far in, that I think you forgive any parts of the film you would normally criticize, particularly in a genre-reinvention movie like this (and please super-nerds - don't give me the name of some 90s art film that opened in 4 theatres that already did this. I know it's not the first time a movie has been shot from the perspective of a camcorder).

The camerawork - crazy flippy jiggly camerawork has never bothered me. People say they walk out of the Bourne movies and Blair Witch wanting to throw up. That stuff has never bothered me. As long as it's inherent to the film, I never think of it. Having said that, this movie does get pretty bumpy along the way. And if you see it on a big screen, be prepared to get a little dizzy at times. I can see how this would take some people out of the movie. For me, it made it all the more real. I was always looking for that moment where the director might have said, "You know what, since this is a big moment here, instead of being completely careless with the camera, just compose her a little more nicely than normal". But it never happened. It always felt like the camera was being held by a real person. Very good job on this.

And the sound was the most interesting part for me. Because sure you can have this crazy camcorder jiggly image going on the whole time, but if you were to use the real camcorder microphone, you might have some pretty pissed off audience members. So I wanted to see how they pulled that off. Looks like they used regular mics and then just did a little distortion in post. Would be interested to hear someone in-the-know explain what they did. It worked for me.

I will admit that I thought I was above movies like this at this stage in my life. But I realized that's only because they haven't made a good monster movie in forever. King Kong? God-jilla? Older "classics" where the effects are so bad that it's impossible to look past them? These are what I have to use for reference. Cloverfield reinvents moster movies. And I think it's going to have a huge impact on how films are made (studios will start to approach things from more of a low-fi perspective. Picture composition will be thrown even further out the window). Go see this movie! It's great!

Even though this has probably already been asked, what camera was this shot on?? Since the picture held up well on a huge screen, my guess is that they shot it on something pretty sweet and then added some "messy" filters to the final look.

prediction: Brandon loved this movie. (and that will be the only thing he writes in his review)
 
Last edited:
++++++++++++ spoilers ++++++++++++

While I will never officially know if there was more than one of those on Earth. I believe I read that they confirmed their is only one monster during the attack on NYC. Obviously excluding the parasites that were on the monster.

I really enjoyed the movie and I am glad I didn't take part of the viral campaign. I enjoy the mystery part of the film.
 
I didn't look into the Viral stuff until after I saw the movie. I'm glad I kept it that way.

Holding back on talking about the main stuff till later, since it is still soon. But I do have a lot of questions.



SPOILER -- Location of easteregg

Look to the right of the frame when the camera goes from Rob and Beth to the ocean while on Cooney Island. Don't watch center frame.

And there is an audio clip at the end after credits roll...though it is nearly indistinguishable until reversed.
 
came out with a headache but enjoyed it, looked like hvx footage on some scenes and I am pretty sure they used the genesis for the maya composites
 
This was a GREAT movie! The audience had so many reactions! I just came from the theater and when the movie was over a girl behind me said "DAD!!! Why did you take me to this dumb movie?! I was going to see Alvin and the Chipmunks!! Thus sucked!" And she was probably 12 years old. I thought it was amazing though! The voice of the man runnind the camera didnt bother me at all. It should be like that. They wanted it to feel like it was REAL people REALLY filming it not actors with cool voices. I would definitely recommend this movie to someone that can take pride in a good film. If you are hoping for a happy little movie with the main character slaying a giant monster at the end and saving everyone, then stay home!
 
Did anyone else understand it this way: The beginning text states that this footage was found on an SD card... but the movie clearly shows that the footage is being shot to tape. They refer to it in the dialogue and the whole intercutting of the Coney Island footage would only work with tape. It might be nitpicky, but that kept bugging me... just because everything else seemed so well thought out as far as convincing camcorder / home video feel etc.

I took my 12 year-old sister. She loved it.
 
Owen said:
Did anyone else understand it this way: The beginning text states that this footage was found on an SD card... but the movie clearly shows that the footage is being shot to tape. They refer to it in the dialogue and the whole intercutting of the Coney Island footage would only work with tape. It might be nitpicky, but that kept bugging me... just because everything else seemed so well thought out as far as convincing camcorder / home video feel etc.

I took my 12 year-old sister. She loved it.
Click to expand...
]

While I saw that, the probability that the camcorder would have lasted seven hours on a battery and survived a helicopter crash are pretty remote. I chose to let it all go.
 
That's easily explainable. It was transferred to a a more stable medium somewhere along the way - an SD card.

Now that I'm starting to read some of the criticism after I saw the movie (thank God I didn't read it before - it would've been in my head the whole time), it seems that a lot of critics hated these characters. I don't think the characters were necessarily likeable. But I didn't hate them. "Hipsters" are becoming the "yuppies" of our time - easy to dislike - and I don't really like people who try to be too cool for school either. But I was with these guys. I was genuinely sad when the guy finally found the girl and realized how bad of shape she was in. I think people are looking for excuses to hate this movie. And it's so different from every other movie, they have a lot of ammunition. But I thought it was great.
 
I really enjoyed this actually, and I thought the narrative style was really different and interesting (especially with the cutting to old footage on the tape).

Also, before the movie started they showed a trailer for the new Kevin Spacey movie "21." I worked on that movie for a couple days as an extra, and I saw myself in the trailer! It was a pretty hilarious moment.
 
I wanted to like this movie, but was somewhat underwhelmed. I could nitpick a few things, like the idea that something shot by a guy with a camcorder could look and sound this good, but I was willing to suspend disbelief on that one. Also, I'm all for pushing the art form into new directions but about midway through this the shaky cam really got to me and started making me physically nauseous. However, I'm getting over a cold, so my threshold is currently low. What I couldn't excuse however was the lousy vocal performance from the guy supposedly holding the camera. I didn't find him convincing at all and this severely diminished my ability to get into the film. He sounded like someone in a cozy sound booth pretending to be scared instead of actually being there. Plus, his voice was just annoying. He sounded like a douche-baggy orange county frat boy. There were definitely some effective moments, in particular the tunnel attack and some monster moments towards the end, but I think beyond the gimmick of the concept there really isn't much there. It's a couple of sketchily drawn characters running and screaming for 70 minutes. I'd rather watch War of The Worlds again and get the same experience, without the nausea.
 
I just got back from seeing it. Tons of folks in the theater hated the ending and hated the movie but I loved it. I think audiences expect to see something and when they don't get it....all of a sudden the movie sucks. It wasn't about the monster or the city or anything (that was the biggest gripe, not knowing what it was or where it came from) BUT it was about the people...the ending was perfect for me.

I invested in the characters, especially Hudd he was hilarious and had everyone laughing. The shaky camera didn't bug me at all...not even a little. I love the style of it all...very confusing and loud and chaotic and but LOVED IT THAT WAY. I stick to the description of that documentary handy cam footage from Paul Greengrass in that it feels real, like you have ot get to the situation and what you miss you actually gain in the energy created by it...especially when combined in this movie with its great sound and such to CREATE what you miss.

Overall I enjoyed what I saw, I have nitpicks like most others but aside from those the movie was great!

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