Cloverfield

MrNightly

audiobliss wrote: »

Alright, alright, you didn't enjoy the movie. We get the idea. Quit raining on the parade for those of us who did.

Hey, just trying to get the word out for those there might throw their hard-earned money away at a feeble attempt at entertainment...




















Actually, just trying to throw out big words... carry on!

dorokusai

Naked.....

MrNightly

Aroused...

dorokusai

{whispers} Call Me

OKAY! Enough gayness....no thanks to me!

MOVIE COMMENTS PLEASE!

MrNightly

...Shudders...

Ya know, the more I read this thread, the better Cloverfield seems....

Ron-P

I plan to rent this. That way I can pause it to barf...:)

bobman1235

Just got back. Loved it.

The point was to make you feel like you were there. The "home video" view was the best way to do it. It's not for everyone, but you know what you're in for when you go in; if you watch it knowing you'll hate it whose fault is that?

Seriously though, I thought it did a great job of giving you the feel like it was happening, and how you'd experience it. Once **** started happening (say 15 mins in) you don't notice the camerawork unless you're just being stubborn and WANT to notice it.

Plus they did some other neat stuff (I thought) with "old" video footage that was on the tape that really was a good juxtaposition (there's a vocab word for you) with the horrific things happening at "present".


EDIT : One other note about the shaky camera work - this is much different than something like Bourne Ultimatum, which didn't particularly bother me because I don't care, but I do agree is kinda pointless. I don't even know why they do it in real movies - I guess it adds some kind of frenetic energy to everything, and it's supposed to keep you on the edge of your seat and nervous maybe? I don't know. Anyway, the point is, that's just a stupid cinematography decision; in this it's supposed to be a HAND-HELD CAMERA held by a character. Completely different. Maybe equally annoying for you, but just saying. Different.

Chicha

bobman1235 wrote: »

Seriously though, I thought it did a great job of giving you the feel like it was happening, and how you'd experience it. Once **** started happening (say 15 mins in) you don't notice the camerawork unless you're just being stubborn and WANT to notice it.

I'm just a lurker here, but I had to respond to this.

I was nauseated after 10 minutes of Cloverfield, had to start fanning myself after 15 because I suddenly became VERY hot, and spent the next 10 minutes fighting to keep my dinner down. :mad: I finally left the theater because it just wasnt worth feeling so sick. It took me a good 15 minutes before my stomach settled down.

I sat in another movie for the next hour, til my group was out of their movie.

So for my $9 I got to watch two half movies--fun. Why the heck would I WANT to be stubborn and continue to notice the shaky camera? I would have much rather been able to ignore it and enjoy the movie!

Maybe you should realize that things affect others differently? Ya know, as opposed to stating that the only reason it would bother anyone is due to their stubborness and desire to be irritated with the movie. :rolleyes:

dorokusai

Most of the shaky camera folks must also be afraid of traffic, heights, people running, martial arts perhaps....

There's medication and therapy to get over motion induced sickness. It's ok, you're not alone.

Maurice

In my best Al Bundy voice:





















Any hooter shots?:cool:

dorokusai

Pg13

Maurice

Hell, I'm out.

Gretsch6136

I'd never heard of this movie before and just happened to see it today. I was slacking off from work for the afternoon and went down to the cinema and simply walked in and sat down not knowing what to expect.

I gotta say, This was an awesome movie experience! I really liked the whole first person handy-cam vibe. The action sequences were hyper-realistic as a result.

I kinda knew something big was going to be happening due to the whole set up of the film, but certainly wasn't expecting a monster flick! It was a real treat.

Yes, the handycam did take some getting used to, but I can't imagine the movie having the same visceral impact any other way. I don't recall this movie using any music to convey emotion. I could be wrong but I don't think there was a musical score at all. To have such an impact on the psyche without music telling you how to feel is quite unique!

As for the guy above who complained about the believability of running around with injuries and surviving a helicopter crash.......it's a monster movie for chrissake!! Maybe you should level your complaints at the believability of giant marauding monsters and go from there. With monster movies you're supposed to suspend your disbelief and just go for the ride.

The cool thing about this being first person is that there are so many other stories about the key events in the film that could be told. I smell the words SEQUEL or TV SERIES in the air already.

All in all I highly recommend this as a great and inventive piece of movie making.

Cheers,

Mark

MrNightly

Gretsch6136 wrote: »

As for the guy above who complained about the believability of running around with injuries and surviving a helicopter crash.......it's a monster movie for chrissake!! Maybe you should level your complaints at the believability of giant marauding monsters and go from there. With monster movies you're supposed to suspend your disbelief and just go for the ride.

Umm... exactly my point. It's a monster movie, not a first person hand-held camera movie. The only reason to use a first person hand held shaky camera is to make you think it's real, to put you in their shoes. If I want to see a vomit inducing film, I don't go to a monster film.

But whatever. I'm really glad people enjoyed this. Just goes to show the difference in tastes. I went in hoping to be blown away... I just couldn't get into it. If they remade it like a real movie, I would be there in an instant!

Out.

dholmes

I thought the movie was good,not worth all the hype since last summer! The shaky camera got on my nerves at first but after awile I got use to it & enjoyed the movie.The dvd will have some house shaking bass I bet!!

NeilGabriel

bobman1235 wrote: »

The one complaint I've seen here and elsewhere before the movie even comes out is the whole shaky camera thing, so if that's a turn-off for you you may want to avoid it.

I love JJ Abrams so I want to see this soon. And considering there will be lots of "surprises" in the movie I want to see it ASAP so none of them get spoiled - I HATE spoilers.

The camera work made me think Urban Blair Witch.

bobman1235

Chicha wrote: »

I was nauseated after 10 minutes of Cloverfield, had to start fanning myself after 15 because I suddenly became VERY hot, and spent the next 10 minutes fighting to keep my dinner down. :mad: I finally left the theater because it just wasnt worth feeling so sick. It took me a good 15 minutes before my stomach settled down.
...
Maybe you should realize that things affect others differently? Ya know, as opposed to stating that the only reason it would bother anyone is due to their stubborness and desire to be irritated with the movie. :rolleyes:

I meant if it bothered you artistically, not physically.

NeilGabriel

Chicha wrote: »

I'm just a lurker here, but I had to respond to this.

I was nauseated after 10 minutes of Cloverfield, had to start fanning myself after 15 because I suddenly became VERY hot, and spent the next 10 minutes fighting to keep my dinner down. :mad: I finally left the theater because it just wasnt worth feeling so sick. It took me a good 15 minutes before my stomach settled down.

this happens to my wife...she calls them hot flashes....

Chicha

dorokusai wrote:

Most of the shaky camera folks must also be afraid of traffic, heights, people running, martial arts perhaps....

lol. Be afraid? How is the motion sickness caused by fear? I love rollercoasters, rock climbing, and have no fear of heights. It was just how I was physically affected by the shaky camming.

bobman wrote:

I meant if it bothered you artistically, not physically.

ahh--gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

neilgabriel wrote:

this happens to my wife...she calls them hot flashes....

Really? I'd never heard of women getting nauseated during a hot flash. I guess I could say I get them too then........when sitting in a theater watching a movie shot with a handheld camcorder. Otherwise, not so much. I'm only 27--that better not be starting already!

wingnut4772

I think I will skip this movie. I don't feel like barfing in the
theater.

jakelm

All of you, have to admit, the movie would have been alot better if the hand-held cam was a sub plot and not the main footage. A great monster sci-fi movie does not have to be shot entirely on a hand-held cam. As a sub plot, it would have been a fantastic movie.

Bill Ayotte

wingnut4772 wrote: »

I think I will skip this movie. I don't feel like barfing in the
theater.

If you have ever had a rough helicopter ride and not lost lunch, you will be ok. It's actually not as shaky as I thought it was going to be, Blair Witch was A LOT worse.

Bill Ayotte

jakelm wrote: »

All of you, have to admit, the movie would have been alot better if the hand-held cam was a sub plot and not the main footage. A great monster sci-fi movie does not have to be shot entirely on a hand-held cam. As a sub plot, it would have been a fantastic movie.

A great sub plot would have been to make it an R rating and show more of the tape that was recorded over......Those of you that have seen it know what I am talking about.:D

wingnut4772

Bill Ayotte wrote: »

If you have ever had a rough helicopter ride and not lost lunch, you will be ok. It's actually not as shaky as I thought it was going to be, Blair Witch was A LOT worse.

I have and I came really close to hurling. Just the discomfort is not fun.

bobman1235

jakelm wrote: »

All of you, have to admit, the movie would have been alot better if the hand-held cam was a sub plot and not the main footage. A great monster sci-fi movie does not have to be shot entirely on a hand-held cam. As a sub plot, it would have been a fantastic movie.

I do not even remotely agree with that. The whole point of the handheld was to immerse you in the action to make you feel like you were part of it. As soon as it's relegated to a "sub plot" you're taken out of that realism immediately, and the handheld becomes just annoying shaky shots in the middle of a normal movie.

jakelm

bobman1235 wrote: »

I do not even remotely agree with that. The whole point of the handheld was to immerse you in the action to make you feel like you were part of it. As soon as it's relegated to a "sub plot" you're taken out of that realism immediately, and the handheld becomes just annoying shaky shots in the middle of a normal movie.

First/Third person shooter games make me feel all cozey and warm and part of a bigger world. Watching a home movie for 1.5 hours on a shakey video camera, does not.:p

But to each their own..

bobman1235

Oh yes, it's all opinion, I"m not trying to put down your view just saying my own

MrNightly

** Group Hug, Group Hug ***











There, don't we all feel better?!

Music Joe

A couple of Purple Monsters and front row it...a night to remember :eek:

audiobliss

MrNightly wrote: »

** Group Hug, Group Hug ***











There, don't we all feel better?!

Not really...NOW I feel like I could vomit...

:D