f13.net

So the movie opens in 8 days.

Any speculation as to how it will do and most importantly what the monster is? Or maybe there isnt a monster at all ala Blair Witch Project.

What do you think?

I think we'll find out that everyone was dead the whole time.

After the trailers and the radio ads, I have no interest in the film. And I love monster movies.

Maybe it's the polar bear from Lost.

I'm pretty sure the monster will be dumb as shit.  No reason, just instinct.

So am I the only person in America who didn't even hear about this until tonight?

I don't watch a lot of TV...

I see it as a bit of high risk/reward situation. If it is good you will want to see it real early since it will be spoiled and negatively impact the movie watching experience to some degree. If it sucks you will just have to suffer through. I'm undecided but leaning towards going opening day.

My guess is some sort of dumbass looking alien thing that runs amok and then starts infecting people with some kind of alien disease that kills you. That's based on what I've seen in the previews.

I like to thing it's Cthulhu awakening and leaving R'lyeh to start his work on man, his cultists becoming as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy.

But it'll probably be some stupid mutated whale with legs or something.

Someone really needs to do a movie about Cthulhu awakening and showing everything that would happen. That would really be an interesting movie.

I'm thinking we never get a clear shot of the monster.

It's not coming to my theater, and I won't be rushing to the other theater to watch it unless I hear great things about it (mostly due to being lazy, as I am actually curious about how this movie turns out).  Actually I don't really feel the need to watch any of the non-limited releases in January or the first half of Februrary really.

It's the Monster of the F13 id or a physical manifestation of internet 'tardery on a global level.

Seriously though, it will do fairly well and will be number 1 picture the week it opens, mainly due to a very effective marketing campaign and that iconic shot of the statue of liberty's head being used as a bowling ball plus an intriguing viral campaign and lots of rumours around the internet.  Even people I know who aren't that into films have been talking/blogging about it.  Then again, I don't know how many screens it will open on. It'll probably only be number 1 for a week because Rambo gets released the following friday.

Will we see the monster?  Yes, I think we will.  Not doing so will make JJ Abrams the most despised pricktease in cinema history (for at least [insert random number below ten] weeks).  I doubt it will be clear because it's going to be shaky handheld for most of the film plus they've only got a budget of $30 million and I doubt it's all going on creature effects when they're trying to destory Manhattan too.  ("The Relic" had a budget of 40m 10 years ago and they showed the whole creature that was nowhere near the scale that this is meant to be). 

Is it going to be good?  Jury's out.  I am already ill disposed towards it because I have a real problem with that whole "shot from a real point of view" thing.  I hated Blair Witch for exactly that (and for the fact that it was fuckawful film) and I'm feeling negative about Cloverfield for the same reason: namely why, when you're running for your life and watching the world being destroyed around you, would you as a normal, everyday, non-news-cameraman type person, be concerned with capturing it all on video and keeping the camera to your eye the whole time?  I don't want to not like it but I will if that central conceit isn't carried off believably.

On the other hand, with the exception of the very dodgy CGI, this "news footage (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3zb0r_tagruato-ingles_blog)" is brilliant. 


http://www.cthulhulives.org/cocmovie/index.html

Well this is the same guy responsible for the television Lost, so some might argue he relishes the role of prick tease.

That's a good movie, but it's just the story "The Call of Cthulhu" No great awakening, not cultists rising to power. Just a nifty claymation style cgi cthulthu. It is well worth the $15 for the dvd though.

I just picked  up Dagon on Amazon. Man I hope it doesn't suck. Arrives today.

It's actually not too horrible.

I will likely be in the theaters next Saturday watching Cloverfield at a matinee. I don't spend night-time movie price money on movies anymore. But this one has me very intrigued, and I still like Lost, so I don't have a hatred of J.J. Abrams yet. Plus, Abrams did direct the best MI movie hands down.

Elaborate.

Dagon is one of the better Lovecraft inspired films.  It's not great but for what it is, it's pretty good.  It does capture the spirit of Shadow Over Innsmouth even if it's not absolutely faithful to the story.  It's amusing in places in a sort of Evil Dead-lite kinda way and some of the effects later on are pretty gross out. 

Compared to The Unnamble and The Curse it's excellent.  I liked it.

Are there _any_other good lovecraft films?

Decent special effects and make-up jobs, and the first half of the movie actually achieves some level of decent tension and atmosphere.  Things devolve a  bit towards the end of the movie, but overall it's non-campy and tense.  It's been a few years since I saw it, but I recall that the Lovecraft fan I saw it with enjoyed it.

The monster in Cloverfield is....Godzilla. I understand Matthew Broderick kills it.

The monster or the movie?

I didn't think Matthew Broderick could kill anything, well, unless they're on a road in Ireland.

Mathew Broderick married Godzilla.

Dagon is my favorite one.  Far and away.  Because it's fucking creepy in just the way that a Lovecraft film should be.

The version of "Dreams in the Witch House" done on Masters of Horror was pretty decent (same guys as did Dagon).  And you've also got stuff like Re-Animator and Evil Dead, both fun movies that are loosely Lovecraft-based but not really what I'd call "Lovecraftian".

"In the Mouth of Madness" was meh.  "The Dunwich Horror" was godawful.

The IMDB entry on Lovecraft (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0522454/) turns up a lot of stuff I've never even heard of.  Time to start filling my Netflix queue...   :ye_gods:

Straightforward adaptations - not so much.  Anything Stuart Gordon did basically so Reanimator, From Beyond and Dagon are probably the best of the bunch.  If you can find a copy of The Resurrected it might be worth a gander (it's a modern retelling of the The Case of Charles Dexter Ward directed by Dan O'Bannon).  Necromonicon is a collection of film adaptations but for the life of me I can't remember if I've actually seen it.  I'm pretty sure a housemate used to have it on VHS but there was likely heavy consumption of recreational pharmaceuticals involved so if we did watch it, I don't remember it.

Guillermo Del Toro is still talking about adapting "Mountains of Madness"  at some point.  Doubt it will happen soon though.

What's the one where peoples' pineal glands go apeshit and tentacles come out of their heads and take over?

That one wasn't so good.

On Cloverfield: If it's at the Cinerama, I will watch it early.  Otherwise, I'll probably wait for DVD.  Theaters no longer do it for me, except the Cinerama, which is movie-watching gold.

Oh God that would be awesome.

I'd like to see Burton take a crack at Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath.

I liked In the Mouth of Madness, mostly just because it wasn't a 'formula' horror movie and at least tried to push the boundaries a bit.  Lord Of Illusions (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113690/) from about the same time is ok, too.  It's obviously more Clive Barker's style but he borrows a bit from HPL here and there.

From Beyond. And it's just bad.

I enjoy watching the adaptation of The Colour Out of Space Die, Monster, Die! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059465/) Not very close to the original story, but entertaining. Dunno if it's out on dvd, I've got an LD of it.

It's confirmed that Cloverfield is not C'thulhu and the director promised you would get 'intimate' contact with the monster.

Whatever THAT means.  :pedobear:

I'm too lazy to back up my story with linkage.

Why not just watch a Godzilla movie?
Some of the modern ones are pretty badass in a   :awesome_for_real:  kind of way.
And the modern Gamera trilogy fucking rocks.

That being said I am interested in Cloverfield.  Will probably catch it the monday after its release.  Not every day giant monster movies get to the theater.
Hell, I went to see Dragon Wars which I actually enjoyed for what it was.  (Dumbass story, but cool monsters.  Loved the Apaches vs Dragon Thingies parts.)

Cut away the Korean legend parts it would have been what Reign of Fire should have been.

Having asked for next Wed-Fri off, completely forgetting Cloverfield was coming out, I'll be going to see this at a matinee on Friday to avoid the crowds.

Heh, a trailer was released on the net quite a few months ago but it didn't have the name then.  It was a random trailer that literally had no name to it (I think the quicktime url for the trailer just had the date).  I just found out yesterday that it's coming out and it's name actually, but I recognized it from the old trailer.

Looks interesting though, I'll at least check it out.

Yup. Used to be called 1-18-08.

Here's a URL to a review of a pre-screening.

ACHTUNG!   SPOILERS SPOILER SPOILERS.  Do not read this link if you don't mind learning the super secret and/or how shitty and/or awesome this movie is.  ACHTUNG!
I was trepidatious about reading it, but I'm glad I did, for what that's worth.

http://edomaniac.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/10/1218859-cloverfield-spoilers-and-review

That reviewer just seemed bitter that the monster wasn't explained better. Cloverfield was not the movie he was looking for imo.

I am having alot of trouble getting interested in this. Every review I've read has talked about the handheld camera work. Bleh. I hate that shit. Maybe if it wasn't so overdone these days I could tolerate it but sadly that's not the case. I fully expect my daughter's next Barbie movie to have "Hand held" camera work to make her feel like she's really right there with Barbie!

Harry at aintitcool gave it his patented slobbering fanboy review, which means it probably sucks.

Well here is his review

Spoilers below



Spoilers are really below








Yep really










Harry knows what CLOVERFIELD is!!!

Utterly Brilliant.

What is CLOVERFIELD?

For the past year or so, that’s been the question that everyone has been asking. Well… they also wanted to know: What was that trailer? What’s the name of this movie? Who are those actors? What is a SLUSHO? What does any of this mean?

Having seen the film, I can tell you – I have completely forgotten the marketing. I no longer care why the film is titled CLOVERFIELD, I don’t think it has a secret meaning – other than the fact that the movie that the marketing would lead you to, if it will… will knock your cinema-going mind into the floor of the theater.

CLOVERFIELD is a bold genre-reinvention unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.

The basic premise that we know is there. The film is found footage, not an assembled film. The footage is recovered in Central Park. From trailers and ads you know that it probably starts at a party, something happens, and we think there is a giant monster. You’re pretty sure there’s a giant monster attacking New York City… specifically Manhattan.

Well, I’ve just come home from watching CLOVERFIELD. The security on me and my wife for seeing this movie was un-frickin-believable. I suppose some would have the temptation to snap a pic of the monster and send it out online to end, forever, the “mystery” – but folks… there’s no mystery.

The movie is fucking brilliant. It’s what we were told it was going to be. An intimate perspective on an impossibly grand scale human disaster beyond most human levels of comprehension.

What is the monster? How do you describe something that doesn’t look like anything you’ve ever seen before? It’s not a fucking upright walking whale. It doesn’t look like any iteration of GODZILLA that we’ve ever seen. It is enormous. And even though I’ve seen it… I am hard-pressed to come up with a comparative creation. You know that big fucking thing in THE MIST? It isn’t that. Is the creature a biped? I’m not sure, I think it might’ve been a four-legged beastie… it has a tail, it has teeth and freaky eyes like that horse that died in ANIMAL HOUSE. It’s kinda of a grayish-yellowish-off-white looking thing. But more important than the creature is what this fucker does. He basically goes bug-nuts.

The creature isn’t the groundbreaking thing about the film. It is, but it isn’t.

You see, what has me so excited about this film is that this is the giant monster movie that isn’t at all like any giant monster movie we’ve seen before… but is exactly that movie.

I guarantee you that as this movie takes place… all the shit that you’ve seen in Giant monster movies is happening. Somewhere a general is screaming about nuking New York…. Somewhere is a politician screaming that you can’t nuke New York. Another General wants to know why our weapons are not affecting this thing. A PRESIDENT wants to know where it came from – and several thousand journalist are trying to figure all that out too.

But this film isn’t about the scientist, the generals, the Presidents, the mayors or any of the big people. This time, the film is from the perspective of those people that live in those buildings that the monster is breaking through. This is about the people running in the street that scream, “GODZILLA!!!” and run. This is about trying to survive that insanity. Not just that, but to try and save one life.

Like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but instead of Nazis it’s a giant monster.

This is a handheld camera movie – knowing this and knowing not to sit too close is probably a good thing… but having said that… you can’t sit far enough from the screen to feel safe. As many of you people know, I am in a wheelchair – and while watching movies, I have my brakes on. There was one moment, so unexpected and so intense that I went 3 ft back.

What about the characters?

You learn everything you need about them in the first 20 minutes. Rob is going to Japan to a new job. He has a brother Jason and a best friend Hud who gets strapped with filming testimonials at his surprise party – but Hud has the hots for Marlena and got talked into it by Jason – who was told to do it by Lily, who loves him. Oh – and they’re taping over a tape that Rob shot of the morning after he and Beth finally did it – after being friends forever. But now he has to go to Japan for his career and Beth shows up with some dick at his party because he didn’t know how to talk with her after they had sex.

It’s a fairly real situation that could happen to anyone. These are just regular good people in the rat race – and trying to have a good time. When the shit goes down.

I wasn’t expecting to like any of the characters. That changes… a lot.

My favorite character? Probably Hud… our cameraman. He’s not a professional photographer, though this “tape” tells an incredibly focused and direct story of epic sweep and filled with intimate reveals. But HUD is “the best friend”. But if I could compare him to any character actor, I’d say he’s like a reigned in Bill Paxton. He’s not going around screaming obscenities… but the shit that comes out of his mouth cracks me up.

The story of this film is actually beautiful though. When the world goes to fuck, you instantly think about the person you love that you don’t know is OK or not. That’s this story. Beth left Rob’s party before the shit went down. They had a fight. When it all goes to hell – Rob and his friends are just trying to get off the island, when a call comes… Beth is somewhere… she can’t move, she’s bleeding and she needs help. And oddly… 911 is busy.

This group of friends sets off through the biggest sort of hell you can imagine to save Beth. Characters die. Shit goes horribly horribly wrong – and it rules!

There’s no score, there’s no rules, there feels like there’s no script and no movie. It feels found, but it is so huge that you can’t ever really believe that… but handheld film just has never had a story of something this fantastical or huge happen. The movie is a landmark genre film. A true milestone in film.

It is all at once art, commercial and grotesquely gleefully gargantuan.

This frankly launches two giant film careers at once. As of this second, I will see and eagerly anticipate every film that J.J. Abrams produces. This sort of stepping back from a genre convention and reinvention is EXACTLY what needs to be done. It isn’t simply going, “Oh, I can make a better Godzilla movie,” but the audacity of saying I’m going to tell that story from one of the most loathed film approaches – the found footage – and simply make the most fucking amazing found tape ever. It won’t just be what it is, but the characters and the story and the emotion and the scope and the journey that the tape takes us on. I can’t wait to see what’s next.

Then there’s Matt Reeves, I don’t know this guy. But I’ll tell you what. You’re gonna mark his name after this. He just came out with a film about as SUNDANCE as you could imagine. This is like an INDIE film – that you’d dream Spielberg would make. Remember the beard’s WAR OF THE WORLDS? Now just imagine that, but with the disarming nature of handheld photography. Where if the camera got dropped and suddenly you’re looking the other way… you don’t see the seams. There’s no backlot, this isn’t two blocks at a time… it’s fucking Manhattan being torn to fuck and they’re just smack dab in midtown and midtown has giant lice monsters and some monstrously huge creature… and then there’s the fucking military… and they are on target, and buildings get hit, shit is going everywhere – and the man directing this apocalypse is Matt Reeves and the planning to just deliver what this spectacle is – is daunting. But sir, BRAVO!

Folks – CLOVERFIELD is worth the obsession, worth the months I’ve had to put up with fans wondering what the hell it was – worth having to deal with reporters asking me what it was – and I didn’t know either. This is a towering movie. A complete reinvention of the disaster movie, the giant monster movie and even the love story. I absolutely love this film and the only thought I had when it was over was how I wanted to watch it 5 more times today.

I want to see the details, I want to watch this film once I’m so familiar with it that I can appreciate the complexity of the frames and the shots. To try to pull the film apart – but I don’t think you’ll be able to. It is just that fucking good! And the flaming hobos... holy fuck man... flaming hobos, but not with shotguns!

Good Bad Robot, Good Bad Robot!!!

 

We've sunken so low as to copy/paste one of Harry Knowles' reviews here?

This is the first time in my life I've ever wanted to go watch porn so I could see less sloppy blowjobs.

Meh, at least it killed any slight interest I had in seeing the film.

On the other hand, I don't suppose cam copies will be much worse than seeing it in the theater.

could you tell the difference?

That is a serious review? Because it reads like a satire where some prick edited away the punchline.

I hate JJ Abrams. I also hate that my friends tend to fall for shitty marketing like this. I'll get someone to pay for me to go see it and then laugh at them when it sucks.

And I remember he had a review like that before Ep 1, and he loved Jar Jar.

Ignore everything that fat tub of lard says.  Its pretty much been proven he is on the take from any studio who will give him stuff.
That being said, I have seen some other preview reviews on various forums that says its pretty good if you like Daikaiju movies (Godzilla and Rodan and Gamera and stuff), and Blair Witch styled films.

Considering I really liked Blair Witch and I read G Fan whenever I can get it (Godzilla semi pro magazine that's been running for close to a decade now.  Currently quarterly, given the fact no new Godzilla movies have been made in a few years.   Some of the articles are from guys who write for Fangoria and Starlog.) I really want to see it.  (Note to self: finish painting that Godzilla Aurora model rerelease I got for 1.50 at Job Lot....)

It's a lion! :) Hilariously, there were thousands of people who claimed after the first trailer that one of the characters says "It's a lion! It's huge!". Google it (http://www.google.com/search?q=cloverfield+%22it%27s+a+lion%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a). The line is actually "It's alive! It's huge", but to this day there are people on IMDB insisting that it's a lion.

If I ever wrote a review like that, I'd probably shoot myself in shame.

Jesus Christ.

Maybe it was a Siberian tiger from San Francisco?

Heard an interview with JJ on Adam Carolla this morning. He said the "Blair Witch meets Godzilla" label is fair, which means there is not a chance in hell I will see it on a big screen. If I want to vomit, I can do it by drinking way too much, which is a lot more fun.

Found out when I got to work this morning that my theater would be getting this after all.  Put together a print this afternoon (looks like it's going to be a really fucking short movie, about an hour and a half at most not counting the trailers and end credits), so I'm heading back in about four hours to go dry run it.

Tell us how it is.

Also why is JJ getting the credit for this? He's the producer. Big whoop.

I'm seeing this on Friday with some people. I'm not a film snob. I'll tell ya how it goes afterwards.

JJ is the producer and Drew Goddard (who also writes and produces for Lost) did the screenplay, so it comes across as almost a side project to Lost.  The way JJ's name is plastered across most of the promotionial material would suggest that even though he isn't directing, this is very much his project.  That and the fact that the director has a pretty atrocious filmograpy, so he's not really the guy you want to highlight.

Side Note:  There's a teaser trailer for Star Trek attached to the print.

As far as telling you how it is after I see it... I can already guess that this is going to be one of those movies that people end up either loving or hating.  The fact that it's supposed to be made up almost entirely of footage that one of the characters is filming will probably be enough to turn a lot of people off (even I'm going in expecting to be annoyed by it).

Ok, my initial "make sure you all go in with low expectations" review here:

 :uhrr:

I'm not really going to dissect the plot here (there isn't one anyway, and to point out plot holes, or shit like "there's no way that person should be able to get up and walk with the injury they've got" is almost missing the point of a movie like this) or how the movie was shot (you likely already know whether or not the camera thing is going to bug you).  The fact is that the commercials pretty much give away the beginning and the end (we know the whole movie is what's on that camera, and we're told in some of the trailers and at the beginning of the movie that the camera was found by the military in Central Park), so unless you really manage to get yourself to care about the "guy goes to rescue the woman he loves" thing, there's really only two things to focus on.

The first would be the special effects, and the creature, and to be fair, what precious little we get of that is (mostly) cool, with a few moments of awesome.  A bit of not so awesome too, but overall good stuff.  I think people are focusing a little too much on what the creature is.  We don't get its origin, and giving a physical description of it only dulls the suspense of struggling to see it early on in the movie (and thus takes away one of the few things about this movie that actually works).  And that's really one of the only times when the movie does work.  When the characters can shut the fuck up long enough to make you feel like you're there and trying to figure out what the hell.

In fact, let's talk about the characters (the second of the aforementioned two things to focus on).  Harry's review would have us believe that they are in fact the best part of the movie, and that it's nice to see this kind of movie from the perspective of "real people" rather than the military or the president of whatever.  Fuck these 20-something, obnoxious, clichéd fucking "real people".  Every second the camera guy opened his mouth was pure fucking torture.  You want to see real people deal with some sort of extra-normal situation, watch fucking Night of the Living Dead or something.  Yeah, I'm probably overstating how annoying they were, partly as a reaction to Harry's review, but to see this cast who look like rejects from the O.C. or something, be help up as an example of "real people" seems like such a far fucking step back from movies like the aforementioned Night of the Living Dead that have a broad range of believeable characters struggling to deal with a situation beyond comprehension, and no amount of relationship drama can turn the two-dimensionial twats in this movie into characters I can give a shit about.

But most of you in this topic are going to see this movie anyway, and I'm willing to bet that a decent number of people are going to think it was a great fucking movie, and wonder what the hell I was talking about.  And really, I encourage going to see this movie, despite what I have to say about it.  As flawed as I think it is, it's a fairly unique experience (even if it is just Godzilla and Blair Witch mashed together), and like I said, I'm sure there are going to be people here that appreciate it in a way I just don't.  Go in with low expectations, and try to block out the characters as much as possible and just get into it as much as you can.  Also, feel free to walk into the movie around 15-20 mintues after it starts (the entire first reel is character setup, and the party you see in the trailers, which builds up all the relationship drama).

Edit:  I really shouldn't even be partially surprised by Harry's praise of the characters.  This is a guy who thought Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning had great character development (and not in the context of a half-naked Diora Baird (http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4599/2006thetexaschainsawmassacrethebeginning010iq1.jpg)).

I tried to avoid all this but frankly, I think you've summed up pretty much my expectations of the film.  I fucking hated Blair Fucking-Why-Can't-They-All-Just-Fucking-Die-And-Leave-Me-The-Fuck-Alone Witch because the whole "filmed like it was real" concept that was meant to make it immersive was the thing that took me right out of the film.  Plus they were stupid cunts who deserved everything they fucking well got.  Also - not scary.  At all.

You know, the only part of Blair Witch I found scary was the very last moment of the movie. The dude standing in the corner just like the murdered kids had. That was kind of creepy.

My fiance (yeah, I'm getting married, I'm kinda weirded out too...) wants to see this but I have zero interest. I think it's mostly a gut level reaction to all this hand-held=immersive crap that is going on right now.

Yep, that was genuinely creepy.

Double plus yes. I liked the Blair Wittch a lot, taking into account just what it was. It got way over-hyped, but I think for what it was trying to be, it was fairly effective.

I've tried to avoid as much spoiler material on this as I can, I expect to see it and enjoy it on Saturday.

The older I get the less I'm able to give this shit a pass.

Attention Hollywood:  A busted arm pinned under a bookcase will sufficiently immobilize someone to put them where they need to be for a plot point while still allowing them to be freed and run away more or less under their own power.  A sucking chest wound and/or compound fracture of the femur IS NOT A WALK-IT-OFF WOUND.

I saw Blair Witch when it came out on the big screen and didn't rate it much then.  I watched it a couple of months ago on the small screen where the effect of hand held black and white 16mm generally worked better but I still found myself bored to tears.  The last scene is effective but it really needed more of it for the other 89 minutes or however long it was.  I appreciate what the film-makers were trying to do but to be honest, it was pure fail as far as I was concerned.

I know a lot of people who like it.  I even respect some of them.  Hell, I might even respect you.  Personally I just fucking loathed it.  If it had been more like "Man Bites Dog" (to give another example of a low-budget, hand-held, b&w 16mm film) in terms of quality, it would have been soooo much better.

Cloverfield at least has the advantage of money.  I'm also pretty determined to see it and hope that I like it too.

Cloverfield differs from Blair Witch due to the sheer scope of what is going on.  Anyone who ever plans on seeing Cloverfield must see it in the theater, because what redeeming qualities the movie has are going to be completely null and void on even the best home theater set up.

Well, I liked Blair Witch, but I saw it on DVD not the theater, and I've only seen it the once. So it isn't like I thought it was a fantastic achievement in filmmaking, but it was an interesting experiment. It's as interesting for the way the marketing worked than it is as a film.

Also, Blair Witch 2 sucked monkey cock.

One review I read (which was short of spoilage anyway) pointed out that JJ Abrams achieved the desired semi-Blair Witch effect by reversing the usual monster movie thing. Studios generally get themselves all drooling over fancy CGI, spewing out crap like that last Godzilla movie, because they can't help but go Gods-eye view to show off their tech. Abrams, meanwhile, made it scary by making it smaller. Not the monster itself, but the point of view, that of the people getting trampled, rather than succumbing to the studio/budget pressure to show them as specks getting trampled from afar by omgCGIrun!

I knew I was going to wait for rental/streaming anyway. These types of movies aren't usually my thing anyway. I just think it's interesting what he could do with this sort of classic type of movie, which makes me even more interested in what he could do with Trek.

Without the first 15 minutes, that shit was fucking awesome. It made up for I am Legend.

Someone is going to mention the fact that you also think that ID4 is fucking awesome.  I suppose it might as well be me.  That said, I figure my opinion on Cloverfield might well end up being in the minority.  Everytime I was getting into the fucking awesomness of it, the fucking stupidity invariably ended up cockslapping me back into reality.  Spoilers: People do not get up and run around after being impaled through the chest and left bleeding for hours, and the movie should have ended with the helicopter crash because 3 people managing to live through that was fucking cartoonish.

That was my second biggest complaint besides the first 15 minutes. The movie was another case of not knowing how to end it.

What move was ID4? Too many freakin' acronyms...

Independence Day.  Also known as SHIT!:The Movie

It's only known as "SHIT!" to people who can't shut their brain off before they walk into a theatre.

Hancock is going to fucking rule.

Who's Hancock ?

Will Smith's character in his new movie.

Also, the title of the movie.

Ah.  So we've to 'Fucking Be There' ?

I ask merely for information.

He plays a superhero. That drinks. And sleeps on benches. And might be homeless. And causes more damage when he saves someone than the situation would have caused if it worked itself out.

"I make this cape look good".

I can hardly wait.

You're asking too much.

And somehow, with that avatar, I don't know how that could be.

That sounds interesting.  Note the lack of green.

Independence Day.

Edit: Weird I missed a page.

(http://www.howard.edu/library/Reference/Cybercamps/camp99/Katherine/imageFD3.JPG)

I liked it. Best. Movie. Evar? Hell no, but I did like it. And many douchebags with popped collars died.

Though, seeing my neighborhood get trashed sucked. Aaaand, unless Beth lived in the Mandarin Oriental hotel, her apartment was in the wrong tower on that building.

Hancock? Yeah, I'm seeing that.

There were two times when I had to actively bite my hand to keep from being the only guy laughing in the theater.  One of them was, "let's go inside and see how high we can get."  I wish I could remember the other, but it was probably just as juvenile.   :oh_i_see:

I went in with very low expectations and I walked out quite happy. The movie was very entertaining and my only real complaint was with the amount of running they  did the shaking camera got annoying on roughly two occasions.

Now I just hope they don't ruin it by attempting to do a sequel.

I liked it, except for the fact that the shaky camera made me horrendously motion sick, more than anything I've ever seen.  Bourne movies, etc.  Nothing that bad.  So I may have left the theater feeling pretty awful, but I had been entertained.  As long as you shut your brain off, it's good. 

I liked Cloverfield a lot, without qualification.  The shaky camera in this instance was a plus.  It definitely captured that whole Blair Witch 'oh my god I'm in the movie' vibe.

I do wish they'd resolved more loose ends, though.  Maybe that's a telltale sign of a sequel.

Girl lays in her apartment dying for hours, then is sprinting for her life a scene later. How'd they survive the helicopter crash? :uhrr: Anyone bitching about not seeing the monster didn't watch the whole movie. Right before camera-douche gets eaten you get a pretty good look at it. Also, no closure at all. A text only screen with some military document detailing what happened, etc, would've been nice. I mean, you have to assume it was killed somehow, otherwise the tape would never have been found. Shaky cam never bothers me, don't get motion sick and I loved the Bourne movies. All in all, decent flick. Though, most of my theater was bitching that it sucked.

Apparently, after the credits are done rolling, there's a radio broadcast that says it's still alive.  But it's played in reverse or something?  Dunno.  I smell a sequel or something either way, but who knows. 

When you're dying I'll be still alive. And when you're dead I will be still alive.

Yeah, it's pretty creepy at the end of the credits with that voice.  But it didn't really belong in the movie.  It was The Ring creepy, not Blair Witch creepy.  It was actually the only thing I didn't like.

I was disappointed, though.  I stayed until the credits were done hoping to see more monster goodness.

I'll admit to liking it a lot as well, though with a few annoyances.

First, why do we have to be subjected to narration by the WORST character in the movie? I was hoping one of the chicks would pick up the camara and leave the fuck for dead.

Also, he didn't point to the monster enough....sure, there were some nice shots, but geez. Look at your feet, or film awesome monster?

Characters sucked. Premise and such Rocked.

Spoiler: I know I am not the only person who cheered inside a bit when the B2 Spirit bombed the shit out of the thing...only to have it leap back up alive.

Even going in with lowered expectations, I couldn't give it a better comment than 'it was entertaining'.  It's not a bold new landmark in the field of cinema by any measure, but stuff blew up and people died, so it satisfied my desire to see a monster beat the crap out of New York.

At least it was better than Godzilla and Transformers, to the extent that I didn't walk out of the theater unhappy about having spent money on it.

The main character I think was called a "douchbag" at some point. Quite accurate. He's never played Half Life or he would have kept the crowbar.

Seems more like its a setup for a TV series, "Earth vs the Indestructible Monster".

So basically Cloverfield is like Independance Day in that it's essentially a B-Movie with a huge budget?
I have no issues with that.

Lots of ID4 hate in this thread. I didn't think it was that bad. But then, I saw it when I was 12...

Heh, same. :awesome_for_real:

I saw The Abyss when I was 12.   That was a good movie.  Ooh, also Young Guns and Willow.

Meh, if film awesome monster means getting munched on, I'm shooting my goddamn feet as I run like a little bitch.


Nah, I actually wanted the fucker to go down, that's my home town.

But sometimes he wasn't running, just crouching while crying he's scared. Or filming his friends instead, while they point for him to film the monster.

Saw it this afternoon.  Shit that was a fun movie.  It's not a cinematic masterpiece, but damn I enjoyed myself.   Definitely holes all over the film that are a bit of a distraction, but overall I really enjoyed it.   The shaky cam works and works well I thought. 

Isn't shakeycam one of those things that makes Haemish's head explode into a barrage of shit-kicking attack ferrets?

If so, I'd like to hear a review out of him.

Oh, yea, duh. I enjoyed it at the time. Hard to watch nowadays though. A bit to ra ra candycorn.

I was even more entertained by the arguments after the movies among the geekset.

I have the exact same view of ID4:  I enjoyed it at the time, but now I can't stand it.  Glad I didn't shell out for any DVD version of it  :ye_gods:

Cloverfield is nothing like ID4, though.  I'm not sure why they'd even be mentioned together at all.

I went in with the "this is probably going to suck" mindset.

Was blown away. I was very happy with this whole thing.

I only really had a problem  with the one scene that everyone points out.

The helicopter thing? Since it landed where it landed, I would be possible to survive that if it landed a certain way The autorotation of the chopper gave it a more sustained descent than just falling out of the sky. At the least, it was more believable than the other scene.

Saw it  in a DLP cinema. As a side note I fucking love that.  To the point I'll skip the neighborhood cinema because it's the older, suckier technology.

Sometimes. Shakycam is mostly a shitty tactic thrown into good films, and can really screw up an otherwise good film. Bourne Supremacy was REALLY REALLY BAD about it.

My review of Cloverfield is on my blog. If you don't want to read the whole thing, just know that I fucking loved it.

I really enjoyed that movie. For what it is (i.e. a monster movie), exceptionally well executed. I loved Hud's moronic comments throughout, he's supposed to be the dopey guy, so don't be hatin' on Hud. 

Definitely worth seeing at a top quality cinema. I specifically went to a DLP/THX set-up and it was worth it. Great movie watching experience.

Was bummed they didn't show the Trek teaser though.

"I mean, wouldn't it be freaky if some flaming homeless guy came running out of the dark at us?"

That was good.

There were a couple of moments  involving Hud that got a good laugh out of me.

"That's just something else...also horrible."

For all the talk about how annoying they were, Hud definitely  sticks in my head in a good way.

Poor Hud. He wasn't even good enough to be properly eaten.

Time to add a spoiler tag to this thread?

I get to see it the day after I become unemployed (barring the arrival of any new contracts between now and then) so am encouraged to hear it's good.

After seeing the movie, there really shouldn't be any surprises about what the movie is, nor about the fate of the characters.

No.  I haven't seen it yet (maybe tonight), but I wouldn't consider anything here a spoiler.  Honestly, I'm not sure -- given the premise of the movie -- if there could be any spoilers.  Big monster and little monsters come and fuck up city.  Protagonists die.  Done.

Now, if there were an origin story on the monsters, maybe that could be spoiled.

As is typical with JJ Abrams stuff, there is apparently all sorts of stuff available on the web about origins that is also very subtly referenced in the film.

That's one of the lines that stood out to me as being funny, but completely out of place in the movie.

hi there i just started playing eve. i was told if i wanted to join one of your corps i needed to be a forum member and get to know you guys.  my wife and i watched cloverfield last night and i thought it was pretty good.  i did find a link to a site that speculates the origin of the monstor.  but i am not sure about if i should post it yet not sure if it would make any of you angry.  i  will say i searched for cloverfield sequel on msn search engine and found it that way. 

gal than

Hey gal, welcome aboard. See that key above Ctrl, below Caps Lock, Shift I think its called? You should try it some time. As for linking sites, go ahead, but feel free to not pimp your blog.

Saw it yesterday.  I thought it was vastly entertaining, despite its flaws.  An hour and a half well spent.

Apparently, there's a part at the end, in the Coney Island footage, where if you look closely at the water before it focuses on Beth and Rob, you see something spalsh down in the ocean.

Yeah, I checked that out yesterday, and it's pretty noticeable.  People seem to think that it's a Japanese satellite that was mentioned in some of the viral marketing.

Also, at least one person has thrown up while watching Cloverfield at my theater every day since it was released.

The closest I came to that was that one scene that was backlit. Not from motion sickness.

My buddy that went last night had to walk about about 30 minutes in because of motion sickness. He talked to the theater manager who gave him a refund and the manager said about 2-3 people per showing have that problem.

Yeah, refunds/rainchecks for motion sickness aren't too uncommon (I seem to recall giving a number of them out when we had Bourne Ultimatum).  For whatever reason though, people getting motion sickness while watching Cloverfield don't try to leave the auditorium until it's just a little too late.

The film worked for me, though a couple of friends really did not like it.  One thing I love is the snarky name for the camera guy.  I won't say brilliant, but H.U.D. works for a laugh.

The ticket taker at the theater I went to also mentioned people having problems with motion sickness. Though if anyone got sick in my theater they were considerate (read: quiet) about it.

Opening weekend of $40m on a budget of $25m.  As soon as I saw how low the budget was in proportion to the hype, I knew it was auto-win financially, because even if it was terrible they'd have made all their money back before word of mouth could get out.

I could see some repeat business as the obsessives out there look a second time in a big case of "spot the clues."

Hey, at least Cloverfield solved an old D&D issue: "What does a tarrasque look like, anyway?"  :awesome_for_real:

Page 117 of the Monster Manual II has a picture of a tarrasque.

(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y222/Abagadro/comicbookguy_300x566.gif)

Great monster movie.  Up there with The Thing, Alien, and Predator.  Finally someone in film rediscovered that making us use our imaginations is more thrilling then X million budget for CGI/effects, or buckets of fake blood.



Good:

- Seeing a quick glimpse of something,  then having an exlposion and a skyscraper fall down while a crowd of people panic and run away?  Good.

- Marlena being hustled away while crying blood,  hazmat suited guys yellling quarantine and soldiers freaking out?  So much better then a tacky effect.  You never find out what exactly happened,  besides the fact it looks like she exploded in the quarantine tent.


I was under the impression that Lilly managed to get out on the first chopper?  Or did I miss something?

ATTENTION MIGHT DO A LITTLE SPOILERING BELOW!





^^^  Yeah.  She probably made it.  I'd like to think the others made it as well, but probably not.  But there is a SMALL chance.  They never mentioned finding bodies.  If the camera could make it so could they, right?  :heartbreak:
To me, the monster looked more like a giant Knarloc from Warhammer 40K.  Big leathery skinned mofo.  Cept this one was huge and was more streamlined.  Its honesly VERY similar to the Gryphon design art that the first American Godzilla movie would have had in as a foe for Godzilla.  Thinner and no wings, but same basic "feel" of its skin and body.  Course the little monsters are from many giant monster movies from Rodan to Legion.


END SPOILERY





Overall I thought it was fucking fantastic.  Probably the best or 2nd best giant monster movie ever made.  (The original 1954 Godzilla still being the motherfucking king though.  Original or Raymond Burr version is still great.)
You care about the cast and how heroic they really are given their circumstances.  Normal people wouldn't do what they did to try to help each other.  Most people would run like hell.

I don't get motion sick as far as I can tell so it wasn't a problem.  Didn't get sick at sea in the Navy, didn't get sick at Blair Witch, didn't get sick here.  Might have gotten a tad queasy playing Marathon 2 on XBLA though.  Not really sure. (Game sucks anyhow.)

Its gonna be hard watching Godzilla and Gamera films after this though.  Too science fictiony, and seeing what really happens to people when a Daikaiju (giant monster) attacks in intimate detail sort of spoils it all... :(

Oh yeah, and how is this for a PERFECT song to come up on my iPod when I got in my car?  "New York Minute", the Eagles Hell Freezes Over version. 

 :mob:

It seems like the major splits are between people who like the cast and those who don't, and people who are put off or overly affected by the camerawork.

I freely admit to liking nearly every Godzilla movie. Though I admit that only the first one is what I'd really call a quality movie.

Someone I consider my goto expert on monster/horror movies bitched about everything from the pace of the movie to the complete lack of originality in themes.

I enjoyed it though.

He was over here. :headscratch: And the point...











                                           Was way the fuck over here.   :yahoo:

That was my thought on that as well.

Since I'm not sure if the entire thread is considered spoiler territory now...

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

From some statements from the director that I've read today, apparently part of the thought process that went into the design of the monster and how it was acting and everything is that it was a baby suffering from separation anxiety, ie, that it was lost and scared and lashing out at everything in sight.  Which makes one wonder what the momma would look like in comparison. 

END


Either way, I plan on seeing this again in the next few day with some friends.  There's all sorts of small things I've seen mentioned in places I plan on trying to spot for myself. 

Was in the middle of typing a long rant about this movie, then accidentally hit back page.  To summarize: Did not like.  This movie is pretentious and two-faced to a whole new level.  On one hand it's telling us that it's a fun, scary monster movie re-imagined from a different perspective.  On the other hand, let's hunt on the internet for clues to the origins of the mysterious monsters !  I know what they want, and it's MORE OF MY MONEY.  Well, they're not getting it.

Kudos on the marketing, guys.

Fuck you, Hud.

I'm sorry you wanted this formula:

Backstory of Characters > Monster Attack > Find Out Origin of Monster > Rescue Girl > Kill Monster > HAPPY ENDING WITH WEDDING

Seriously people like you are responsible for movies like Meet the Spartans or 27 Dresses, something amazing comes along that doesn't fit the old formula, and you reject it because everything isn't laid out on a silver platter.

Watch more independent films.

You want a movie with a self-contained plot and a resolution at the end?  Away with you, peasant!  /beret

Phildo wants lore.

lol.

He did read that shitty backstory book on LOTR though.

Dork.

What are some of the hidden things in the movie? I know I'm going to be seeing this movie again, so it wouldn't hurt to try and see it for myself. I saw the Coney Island footage splash. It wasn't hard to figure out that something was about to be shown. Top right of the screen near the ferry if you didn't catch it.

For one scene when they're in the penthouse you can see the ghost of a kid hiding behind the drapes.

Okay,  that's more like it.  But really, what I WANTED was for them to either make a movie about people during a monster attack with COMPELLING CHARACTERS, or to go the other route and just do a goddamn monster destruction frenzy.  And don't you blame me for Meet the Spartans!  I haven't paid for one of those dumbass parody flicks since Scary Movie 1.

As to Schildo's comments, I just left the theatre feeling angry and unfulfilled.  Sure, we got to see a tiny bit of cataclysmic destruction, but most of the movie was Rob chasing after forgettable-brunette, while Hud makes moronic comments that would probably get him thrown OUT of the fraternity if they ever found out.

And yes, I like lore.  You can keep your movies without backstory and character motivation to yourself, buddy.


Edit: And the zerglings?  Why?

Hey, not all parody movies were awful. Not Another Teen Movie was legitimately funny.

Phil does not like movies, it has been established.

All parody movies are funny! Be it Mel Brooks, Leslie Neilsen, the Wayans, or teen shit.

Nope, I don't like movies.  Absolutely hate 'em.

Please tell me that was supposed to be green. There isn't a Wayans who has done anything even remotely amusing in 15 years.

Woah, woah, woah! (http://imdb.com/title/tt0110443/)

^^^  That movie kinda sucked dude. 

If you had said "The Last Boy Scout", you may have gotten a pass since its one of 2 bearable Wayans movies.  (The other being Im Gonna Get You Sucka.)

Remember I said bearable, not good.

As to the whole I NEED LORE.

No.  No you don't.  That's what made Cloverfield so awesome.  Shit isn't explained.  It just IS.  Monster arrives.  Why?  Where?  How? 

Nobody knows. 

THATS THE FUCKING POINT.

That is what made it so effective.

Did you need to know what planet the Alien came from in Alien?  Howabout all the info on the derelict ship?

NO YOU DID NOT.

Same thing, only better given the whole first person perspective and all.

Hell, we have no idea if Hammerdown worked, and there is a 90% chance our last 2 survivors in Manhattan died, and about a 75% chance everyone we saw in the movie died.

You leave unnerved, unsettled, depressed, and disturbed.

AND THAT FUCKING ROCKS.

I'm Gonna Get You Sucka is far from merely bearable.

Don't Be a Menace is almost as funny too btw...


As for Scary Movie, yes, I think it's funny. I don't think it's great or anything, but I do think it's funny. I'm sure that makes me strange or something around here. That's fine. You guys are strange to me too.

You forgot Low Down Dirty Shame (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110399/). Awesome fun movie.

I agree with how your assessment of the ending, it was pretty fucking cool.  And as far as the monster stuff went, yeah, that was cool too.  The problem is that after seeing it I hear about people saying that there was all kinds of shit hidden in the movie, and I'm not cool with that.  Don't allude to there being a back story hidden on the internet or in a single frame of film, either tell us or don't tell us.

Furthermore, I would have absolutely loved this film if it weren't told from the perspective of these particular survivors.  The only one I actually liked got exploded, probably by alien spores or something like that.  Meanwhile, I'm left laughing at and being completely removed from the situation because of the dialog.  It did nothing to enhance the movie and everything to destroy it for me.

So, in summation: Awesome monster film, absolutely ruined for me by the fact that 90% of the time the moronic characters couldn't keep their mouths shut, and the producers feeling the need to be mysterious about the whys and hows of said awesome monster.  Also, the zerglings were silly.

I liked Scary Movie.  Scary Movie 2 was even funnier.  Scary Movie 3... did not enjoy.  I think the Wayans can be funny, but it has to be the right element and right scenario.

Good flick.  The camw as a little too shaky though.  It gave me eye strain.  Felt like I had spent 6 hours reading by candlelight.

There is something kind of lame about having to pick out little bits in a couple of frames, read director interviews and visit websites to learn the story. I'm fine if they don't want to have a real backstory but in that case just don't have it. I don't want a fucking "multimedia experience" where I have to mail off my cereal box UPCs for a special decoder ring.

People's enjoyment of the movie seems to hing on what they think of the characters. Seems fair to me to say that lame characters = lame movie.

Then don't search for the stuff. It's just another level for those who want to hunt it out.

I don't understand the complaints about the characters.  For B monster movie territory,  they were great.  

Even great monster movies tend to have one real character,  maybe a couple partial characters,  and a bunch of cardboard cut-outs or straight archetypes.  Alien franchise?  Fuck,  I love the Thing but hell if I can tell who's who sometimes in that movie besides McCreedy, Childs, and Quaker Oats guy (who was more of a cameo).  There were like 3 or 4 "random bearded guys" I always have no clue about.


Film explainations of monsters are overrated, anyway.  It's always either:  A. Came from outer space! or B. Science gone mad.
(Which option is chosen is usually dependent on if we are more afraid of foreigners or technology as a society at that point.)

I thought the characters were pretty funny.  The worst was Malrena, she was way too stereoptypically emo.

It's readily apparent that Marlena was supposed to be played by Zooey Deschanel.

If this were just another B movie then, yes, they would be passable.  The problem is that the movie forces us to focus on their characters to a much greater extent than your average Godzilla knockoff does.

And as far as Marlena goes, I noticed the Zooey Deschanel thing too.  That's probably why I liked her.

Nice obs

Then I woulda been even sadder when she died.  But I actually liked everyone for some reason. 
Which shouldn't have happened since I hate rich 20 something yuppies. 

As to the backstory?  It doesn't really explain all that much anyhow.  Its better if folks don't go digging the net for it.
And it merely amounts to: Bad Corporation's secret drink ingredient is found on bottom of the sea.  Digging platforms wake up monster.

Doesn't add much IMHO.

As to the Zerglings?  Lots of monster movies use littler critters.  Rodan had them.  Most versions of King Kong had them.  The 98 Godzilla had them.  The aborted 90s Godzilla movie had them as a design.  Godzilla vs Destoroyah had them.  One of the Mothra trilogy had them.  Gamera vs Legion had them.

Its a common part of the genre.  (I'm sure there are more I am forgetting.)

Oh yeah.  Someone needs to give me 100 bucks so I can buy the Hasbro toy they are currently hawking on sight unseen preorder.  14" tall.  Electronic effects.  2 heads.  A couple of the critters.  SEVENTY POINTS OF ARTICULATION.

Clover can help Godzilla beat up Fortress Maximus!  :awesome_for_real:

Slusho is featured in episode 1x02 of Alias.

The more you know, and such.

No, they really weren't.  If we're going to be tethered to a group of characters for the entire duration of a movie, and if by observing these characters we're supposed to be seeing what it would be like for "real people" to be in this kind of situation, then these characters are epic fucking fail.  Like I said pages back, stuff like Night of the Living Dead shows that you can be doing a Horror movie with characters that seem realistic as opposed to looking like you pulled them all off of the set of the teen drama T.V. series being flimed a few lots over at the studio.

If you want to set the bar lower because it's a "B monster movie" go right ahead, but to me it's wasted potential.  This movie could have been more than just 30 mintues of awesome mixed in with an hour of suck.  It feels like it wanted to be more, but couldn't because four years of working on Felicity together convinced Abrams and Reeves that this is a realistic view of young people today.

After Marlena was bitten, I kept thinking Man, shouldn't they sanitize that wound? Who knows what kind of germs those things have. Then she exploded.  :awesome_for_real:

Saw yesterday afternoon in an empty theater and was pleasantly surprised.  My new rule for movie enjoyment is to go in with the lowest expectations possible.  Just assume that every movie will be the worst movie you've ever seen and a total waste of money, and you will be happy*.

* Offer not valid for AvP2, which really is the worst movie you've ever seen and a total waste of money.

I pretty much have that attitude, which is why I only see 3 or 4 movies a year in the theatre any more. Unless it is something I feel I just can't miss, I wait until DVD/On Demand/HBO.

FUCK YEAH!


I agree.

I haven't seen it, but I'd agree anyways. The best type of scripts to me are when scenes segue from one to the next with just action (action in the literal sense of the word..not talking about genre).

Alas, all the lore will be explained in Cloverfield 2, oh well.

They're just lucky they kept the budget down and made everything they needed in the first weekend, because it dropped almost 70% in the second.  Word of mouth shot this movie dead.

People have no taste in other words.
 :heartbreak:

I don't think it was just word of mouth (since reviews and such have been pretty mixed as opposed to overwhelmingly negative), although word of mouth about the sheer amount of people that get motion sickness watching the thing might have hurt.  The thing is, the whole marketing campaign was based on not giving out a lot of information, and building up all this mystery as to what this movie was even about, so everyone who actually gave a shit went to the theater the first weekend before everything got spoiled for them.  That's part of the problem I think with the already being worked on sequel, because that marketing campaign can't work a second time.

Since they almost doubled their budget opening weekend, I'm sure they are crying great big crocodile tears at their second weekend.

And the sequal will have all the acclaim of Blair Witch 2.

Well, it can't be a worse movie than the Blair Witch 2. At least it's likely to have ZOMGBOOMCRUSHRAAARRGGG!

I wouldn't mind if the sequel was your standard huge monster destroying major city, complete with the president getting cold feet on pushing the big red button, as long as it involves things getting killed.

Hell, run it parralel to this storyline, but with more "oh shit the world is doomed" and less shaky cam nonsense.

No, no, no.  The sequel is going to be about Rob and whatsherface after they survived the firebombing of Manhattan.  They're going to wake up in the rubble and run into Will Smith who is at that very moment fighting off hordes of vampire-zombie-robots being controlled by the aliens who sent the original Cloverfield monster as an advance force to soften us up.  Cameos will include Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell and Jason Mewes.

I would watch that.

Much like with Assassin's Creed, the lion's share of the money Cloverfield brought in should be given to the people who came up with the marketing campaign.  That movie wouldn't have done shit at the box office without it.

Part of the big 2nd week-end drop can be attributable to lots of people seeing it the previous Monday which was a holiday.

 :awesome_for_real:

Maybe, maybe not.  It was quite a low budget marketing campaign and mainly spread through word of mouth.  What was it?  A couple of trailers and a load of websites?  That's hardly going to be expensive. 

Blair Witch was a box office success and made the directors millions through a fantastic marketing campaign as well.  This was mostly done by publicity stunts such as buying all the tickets at the midnight showing they had at Sundance and paying people to queue for it which meant that people thought it was a fantastic film as well as getting "word of mouth" promotion over the internet (even to the point of getting IMDB to erroneously report that the 3 actors were all deceased, propogating the myth of reality about the film.)  The total cost to Lions Gate was minimal but the revenue generated is stuff of legend.

I desperately hope they're smart enough to drop the Blair Witch schtick for the sequel and film it more traditionally.  I wouldn't mind a little Aliens 2 remake-slash-Halo with some super Marine squad going in to clean it out.  "Game over, man!  Game over!"

It's not that I didn't like the shakycam.  It was a cool twist and the difficulty of conveying a real plot through a single lens that is also a character is not to be underestimated.  But I don't need 3 or 4 hours of it.

I never said it was an expensive marketing campaign, I said it was an effective one.  The first trailer (you know, the one they attached to Transformers, a movie which did about $320 million at the box office in the U.S.) got people interested in this movie before we even knew what its name was.

Somehow I managed to read "would" for "should" in your original statement.  In which case, yes, the marketing people should get their dues for the campaign. 

need.

more.

caffiene.

Moviegoer A: "So I saw Cloverfield over the weekend."
Moviegoer B: "Yeah, so what's the monster look like?"
Moviegoer A: "I don't really know, they never really show it clearly."
Moviegoer B: "So do they kill it in the end?"
Moviegoer A: "I think, maybe.  I don't know."
Moviegoer B: "Do the good guys survive?"
Moviegoer A: "Maybe.  I'm not sure."
Moviegoer B: "This sounds like bullshit.  I'm not seeing it."
Studio Beancounter: "Who gives a shit?  We made our money!  Small budget FTW!"

For those of you that haven't seen the monster...

There ya go. (http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=monstersh9.jpg) Just before it tears the East Village a new asshole.

Moviegoer A is a fucking liar who did not see the movie. There are several good, clear shots of the monster. It just doesn't look like other movie monsters, or have an easy allegory to real life animal like a giant lizard or ape or anything. It walked like a praying mantis with a lizard-like tail, gray skin and insect-like mandibles and eyes.

Pretty close to Godzilla only smoother.

Trilaterally symmetrical below the waist.  The scene in the park where he eats the cameraman (OMG SPOILER) is as clear a shot of above the waist as anyone would ever want of anything.  People who say you can't ever see it probably left halfway through because they had to throw up in the lobby.

Saw it tonight finally.  Thought it was pretty good.

Shame I'd read some stuff on this thread before going in as it spoiled the best bits.

Ok, so some thing has been bothering me for a while about this, what the fuck happened to the tentacles? In the beginning all you see of the monster are tentacles, yet once you start getting more and more full body shots, no tentacles. Its really pissing me off.

Only tentacle I remember was the tail.

It has long, gangly arms that might look like tentacles in brief clips.  I'll see if I can find the model image of it....


Edit: here it is
http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.htm?BR=863&ID=21030

Spoilers  - At this point dont complain.

Yeah, I saw the toy and I saw the movie, in the beginning there is tentacles I was positive, one smashed the bridge and killed the brother.

That's what I'd thought I'd seen too, but everyone I've talked to attributes it to being the monster's tail, so...who knows.  A tentacle was still my first thought, and thinking back, it didn't look anything like a tail. 

That was the tail.

Liked the movie a lot.

Disliked the monster itself.

Hated the zerglings (fucking fillers!). They subtracted 15% by my global appreciation of Cloverfield.

http://www.digitaldesk.it/roadtol/

Except if you look at the hasbro toy, the tail is WAY to short and doesnt look anything like the tentacle in the movie. Ill see if google can get me a better image of the tail.

Well grats for an original idea, even if I didn't see the movie.  As an early champion of sequels now I gotta say "PLEASE FUCKING STOP".

*120-day bump!*

So, I've had this film lying around on DVD for months without seeing it. I never saw it in theatres, I never saw any trailers of it, I never read any reviews.

Just finished watching it now, and I liked it a lot, it was wonderful! It was great! Well, pretty good, at least. Wasn't bad by any means. There were parts that weren't that good, though. I guess I could've liked it a lot better. In fact, I didn't really like it, it was pretty terrible. It was bad. Awful. Terrible! Bah, boo!

(No, really, I liked it)

Isn't Owen Wilson dead?

I think he tried to kill himself... Or something like that.

Also, mods move this to the movie section? Might not be worth the bother.

I only watched this recently too, really liked it. Girlfriend can't watch more than 20 mins of it before getting motion sickness :/

I had the same issue in the theater. I spent a lot of time staring at the ceiling trying to stay un-sick. I liked the movie though and staring at the ceiling doesn't cause you to miss as much as you'd think.

I've never had the motion sickness. I read all the time in cars, trains, whatever.

Only time I've been sick in a car was in an old beetle, the heater was broken, I had just eaten for the first time in over a day, and I had just gotten out of an ear operation. Of course, the windows were hard as fuck to roll down, so it was on the floorboards.

The wife and I watched this on DVD a month or two back. It does suffer a little from the transition to little screen, but I still enjoy the shit out of it.

I liked it more on little screen.  mostly b/c i didn't feel the need to vomit.

Can't remember if I saw this little or big (projector in my, "office"), but I don't remember getting barfy.  I did rather like this movie.  Predictably, my wife did not.

Watched it this past weekend. I really liked it. Maybe I had low expectations. The camera guy getting eaten was the best part. I almost laughed! I was also glad no one survived. If I was supposed to want the main characters to survive, then the movie failed. I loved it as a spectacle.

I to am slow on the uptake, and just finally saw this movie.  Absolutely loved it.  Excellent pacing, awesome action sequences, overall fun story.  Loved pretty much everything about it.  Kept me on edge the entire time I watched it, and had some amazing visuals (like when they get caught in the middle of the regiment of soldiers attacking it with armor support).  And despite a few quibbles (giant monster or no, hard to imagine something with skin tough enough to take a couple of direct hits from 2,000 lb. bombs and apparently not  have a scratch), I actually felt the movie kept itself reasonable and never broke immersion for me.  Going to be one of the few movies I own on DVD.
Hey, Lily lived!  Which I think she kind of deserved, since her boyfriend got the distinction of being the first one killed.