I liked it. It got a lot of mixed reviews, but overall I thought it was fairly unique and entertaining. My only beef was that there wasn't enough monsters. I mean, more monsters scenes in a monster movie are needed!
Did anyone else see it?
Printable View
I liked it. It got a lot of mixed reviews, but overall I thought it was fairly unique and entertaining. My only beef was that there wasn't enough monsters. I mean, more monsters scenes in a monster movie are needed!
Did anyone else see it?
Wife and I went to see it yesterday. I really loved it, but it's not going to be for everyone. Very hard-core about its concept, no deviation from the "found footage" trope. No soundtrack, no steadicam, no scientist in a white coat explaining everything, as I said, it's hard-core. I got the impression that many of the folks in the audience did not enjoy themselves.
Whatever. It's an avant-garde monster flick. In a strange way it reminded me of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, in that you're getting a huge even told from an ant's eye-view. For that alone I was ready to forgive it any minor problems.
I loved how it subverted the Hollywood tendency to over-explain everything. It's a sin in the hack screenwriter community to leave anything blank. Every little thing must be filled in. If Timmy runs from a dog, we must see a flashback where we learn why Timmy is afraid of dogs. If a monster shows up, a scientist must explain where the monster came from. Etcetera.
So bravo to the makers of Cloverfield for bucking all of that horse-hockey, and making a film where you're in the dark, just like the characters. And kudos to them for sticking to the found footage idea without compromise.
I predict a lot of people are going to hate it. And it's going to be a classic for years to come.
The movie was way overhyped. The camcorder perspective was interesting for how it made you feel like you're part of the action, but then it makes people physically ill too... hardly seems like a good thing. I personally didn't get motion sickness, but many others in the theater (wife included) did.
The plot.... what plot? There was none. There were also few surprises in the movie.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Anyhow, overall I'd give the movie a :thumbsdown: . There were entertaining parts and the cinematography did work in some ways while failing in others. I was able to somewhat enjoy watching the film, but in retrospect- it wasn't very good. :no:
Lemur, I too am annoyed with how many movies feel the need to rub our noses in the most obvious things, apparently thinking us too dense to understand otherwise. However, doing the exact opposite and explaining nothing isn't always good either. The movie leaves you knowing nothing more than you did from seeing the trailers. It was more a ride than a film imo.
I saw it with some friends, it was the first time I'd been to the movies in ages. It was very enjoyable I thought.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Also I was expecting it to go on for longer, though apart from those 2 things I liked it. The not-knowing-why part annoyed me at first but then afterwards I thought about it and decided I'd prefer that to some half baked tale about a scientific experiment gone horribly wrong which everyone would probably complain about anyway.
Origin of the monster spoiler:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Alright. I really enjoyed the movie immensely. I thought the camera work was perfect for a the movie as well as being left in the dark about the monster so you were in the same boat as the people in the movie. So the whole you and they didn't know or have more knowledge than the other. Like for instance showing the monster I dunno, sneaking up on them from behind or whatever and them not knowing.
As for the "magic-camcorder". Im guessing it might have been some camcorder with a disc or he stopped it off 'n on or something I dunno but getting to realistic kinda ruins that part of the movie I suppose. And when Beth got lifted off of that bar (ouch!) and was soon running through the streets like she was 100%, I'd say adrenaline was the factor there (I've read several book about WWII where a guy was shot once or twice but didn't notice it until the fight was far from over due to adrenaline kicking in).
Tincow,
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
My only question is, how in the world did the military get there so darned fast?? I mean common that was lightening quick.
And did anybody stay until the end of the credits?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I personally loved the movie and already saw it for a second time.
I found out some more things about the monster specifically
Don't read if you haven't seen it already!!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It was a good movie...nothing special though. I personally didn't like the cam moving the entire movie...a new trick but still ineffective at boosting ratings. I also don't like the lack of plot, drove me nuts.
Oh yeah, I neglected to mention that. They had freaking tanks there in what? Half an hour at the most? Within a couple hours from then, they had setup field hospitals and were evacuating the populace via helicopters. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
Yea, but then again... if there was 100ft "thing" walking around in one of your largest cities in the your country... you'd have the military there as fast as possible! They're lucky it wasn't a man in a rubber suit or they woulda been in a world of hurt lol.
Be that as it may, remember how long it took to get jets in the air around DC and NYC 6 1/2 years ago? And how long the NG took to get into NOLA in 2005?
CR
Are we talking about realism in a movie where a gigantic monster 100s of meters tall destroys New York City? If so, let me also point out that I think it's foot prints were not deep enough. Surely that much weight would have collapsed the many tunnels under the streets and made larger holes.
BOO THIS MOVIE!
Well... Im guessing that half the time he was stepping on cars, people, military what-not cushioning his steps so he didn't make any real large foot prints in the ground. OR!! Maybe he had the feet of camels! Now there's something to think about.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
i liked it. the fact that we are dealing with fire breadthless godzilla meant for me that i wasn't going to expect it to be realistic.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Went to see it today and have to say I enjoyed it. The perspective of the movie was a great touch, although at times you really want to make the camera guy turn the thing to where the actual monster is.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
But then again, I'm sure that wouldn't be my main concern when in the midst of a monster versus world fight. And keeping the audience in the dark did in fact make the movie more interesting.
Also, I don't quite understand the 'magic' camcorder criticism. I mean, most modern day camcorders have enough power to stay on for 7-8 hours, right? Now I'm more surprised at how the thing managed to survive all the battering it received during the whole ordeal - I dare say the lens should have broken at least a dozen times. But really, it's not that big a deal in my opinion.
Decker.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
:balloon2: