Cloverfield

I just watched it, and I must say, this is a must see.

The monster - codenamed cloverfield - is some of the best CGI I’ve seen in a while. Also, the whole “from the cam” film style is really refreshing.

It’s nice to see something different for a change.

If you’ve seen it, feel free to give your $0.02.

I thought it had really great effects, especially Spoiler: The little crawly things.

personaly i think it looks really boreing.i said that about a lot of movies and i saw them and loved them…id rather wait to rent it…

Such genre of movies requires very strong actor’s play. Because it attempts to tell a story on the go and any signs of overacting are easily noticed.
About the SFX - as someone said: “I will never trust the news again” :slight_smile:

It was pretty cool i gotta say. But why would you give a sissy name like cloverfield to a giant man eating monster (I, personaly, thought that that was the name of the operation to get rid of the monster)

I get motion sick, so that did a number on me, but it was cool. Why would you hold onto a camera that long though? The rest of the movie i found very realistic (those bugs are like the ones in my basement)(jk) with the peoples actions and reactions. BUuuuuut, i liked it.

Umm… ya happen to recall a lil’ ol’ crapper called “Blair Witch”, only this time rehashed for a monster flick? And then any of the vast number of copycat cameramen trying to get that dizzying “real head motion” effect in every 2-bit TV thriller since then. I’d say enough already.

…and not run out of tape/memory/battery? whatever.

:rolleyes:

Yea, the CGI in “Blair Witch” was amazing…/src

And then any of the vast number of copycat cameramen trying to get that dizzying “real head motion” effect in every 2-bit TV thriller since then. I’d say enough already.
Well, I don’t know how things are over there in Arkansas, but here in NJ we don’t have time to watch “TV” all day — so yea, for me it was refreshing, because other than “Blair Witch” this was the only other, non-independent, theater feature that I’ve seen using the “camcorder” filming style.
^
How many of those have you seen?

Very true.

Cloverfield is the name of the Investigation into the monster attack in the aftermath of the attack, it’s not actually the name of the monster. It’s the name the government have given to the event itself.

Personally, i think it was a freaking awesome flick. The Blair Witch Project, for all it’s good intentions, treated us to characters we never really grew to care for. The characters in Cloverfield, tho, are very likeable, if maybe a bit shallow. They’ve basically taken the idea that Blair Witch used and did more with it than just curse a lot and shake the camera.

I though it was great. It’s more an experience than a movie, and even tho the camera-style is maybe a bit corny, they do it with such a perfect balance of “somewhat steady shot” and “crazy-ass what-the-hell-am-I-looking-at-right-now?!” franticness. Even the craziest shots are not without some hint of what’s going on, tho. The effects are pretty spectacular, and with the lack of any music in the background some of the scenes are almost disturbingly realistic.

I also love the way they were able to sneak in a whole sub-plot in such an extremely clever way. You’ll know what I’m talking about if you’ve seen it. I thought that was one of the most brilliant ideas they could have come up with, and made the ending all that much better. Definitely a fresh take on the whole “Camcorder Movie” thing.

And it’s nice to see a monster movie where there are a ton of people panicking and just going nuts screaming and running and falling. I mean, sure, you see that kind of crap in every monster flick. But in THIS monster flick, you’re IN the crowd. You’re running away from the monster yourself, and it works perfectly. When you’re in a relatively calm crowd and then all of the sudden all hell breaks loose and there’s just pandemonium breaking out all around you, it does a good job of getting the adrenalin pumping. I was really excited about seeing the flick, and now that I’ve seen it I’d say it lived up to my expectations and then some.

EDIT: for the record, Blair Witch was not only an “Independent” movie, it was a Student Film. They shot it in a week with like $5,000, no crew and borrowed equipment. For that film, the ‘handy-cam’ way of shooting just really more of a budgetary thing… they just couldn’t afford to hire a crew and quality equipment, so they came up with the gimmick. Also, for the record, “In The Woods” (pre-dating Blair Witch - same premise, but the Jersey Devil instead of a witch) had the same idea a year earlier. Their ‘gimmick’ was arguably better, but they still failed to make a really decent flick. Worth a rent if you’re interested in this sort of weird film trivia crap, tho.

Im going to go with the majority with this one… some neat CGI, but the camera was total crap. Wish I would have saved my money.

Hey, thanks for the insight/info Squiggly_P

About the name though, are you sure it’s the name of the investigation? I mean couldn’t it be the government designation for the monster itself?

Anyway, I completely agree with you on everything else.

that’s what it looked like in the little intro thing.

i think it was like “case file designate ‘Cloverfield’” or something… i could be wrong…

(gee, i guess I’ll have to just go see it again to be sure) :stuck_out_tongue:

I work at the movie theater and get free movies.

i honestly wish i didn’t see that movie

the constant shaking and infrasonic sounds actually made me feel nauseas by the end of the movie. I found the plot to be really unimaginative, a simple mash up of several different movies.

yes the cg was cool.
but that’s not enough for me