JJ Abrams Movie, Cloverfield Monster

Post by **jelerak** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:23 pm

Host yes. (very good)

Cloverfield no.

Post by **Zahir** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:37 pm

I saw Cloverfield yesterday. Liked it very much. Don't know what folks are talking about with "bad dialogue" because it seemed to me very naturalistic. These are fairly ordinary folks, not brilliant wits. Hud, given the premise that once given the camera he kept rolling, would pretty much have to be some kind of nerd, but a good guy.

The monster looked vaguely aquatic, IMHO, but other than that like nothing I've ever seen before. And the whole parasites thing was disturbing beyond words--if indeed they were parasites. Recall what Hud said about one of them trying to "pull" him somewhere. And I just knew that turning on the night vision was going to be terrifying. I JUST KNEW IT!

BTW, me is quite the fan of Lizzy Caplan. She was on the (sadly) failed sitcom The Class as the photographer with a dark, edgy way of looking at things.

Oh, and I didn't stay for the closing credits (had to answer the call of nature) but I've heard from various sources there's an audio bit at the very, very end that says "Its still alive."

Way, way cool!

Post by Ki » Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:32 pm

I read that JJ Abrams decided to make the movie b/c the US didn't have a monster movie equivalent to Godzilla.

Post by **Kil Tyme** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:59 pm

Yes, and also from the point of view of the people running away vs from the pov of the monster, military, scientists, etc that the other movies have done.

Post by Ki » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:33 pm

i read too that if there is a sequel, it will be shot from another perspective, not a continuation type of sequel. you just got to love jj abrams!

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:36 pm

I've seen some previews, but nothing showing the monster. What the hell is it? Mythological? Man-made? Entirely new?

Post by **Zahir** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:29 pm

The monster is entirely new. It looks vaguely aquatic, but the articulation of the limbs alone looks just weird. The mouth kinda looks right for maybe sifting krill, maybe.. Its rear section kinda/sorta looks like it could be used to propell the thing through water.

Hud, the guy with the camera, now and then wildly speculates on its origins--from a deep sea creature to an alien to something man-made. But no answers.

Post by **Usivius** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:11 pm

saw the movie too. 7.5 out of 10.

The premise is pretty straight forward, but as has been said, there are no scientists in the movie to explain where it came from etc. Just a bunch of (very annoying) 20-something people, running for their lives and looking for another one who is 'lost'.
Given that, it was well done. An enjoyable popcorn movie that was nicely short (1h25m).
The writer was obviously trying to make it different by adding the human element, not just with the first person POV but being around these people all the time, including the 15 minute intro to their (rather shallow) lives.
I likes the girlfriend of the brother of the main guy, but no one else did I feel sympathetic towards, therefore didn't really care if they died or not.

FX were very well done. Left you wanting more. Many people will feel cheated, but it did exactly what intended to do in showing the creature. Very different and quite creepy. And the spores/parasites!--- yah, VERY creepy.

And no music soundtrack! Never has that been done as effectively since The Birds! Kudos to the team there! And the closing music is quite dramatic. Nice touch.

Overall, wel done, but nothing really beyond being well-shot monster movie with a neat premice.

Post by **matrixman** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:32 pm

Good review, Usivius. The movie definitely sounds like it would be more fun in the theatre with an audience, what with the Blair Witch vibe. (Incidentally, Blair Witch didn't have a music soundtrack either.)

Post by **Usivius** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:44 pm

agreed. But in this case I think my subconscious didn't require one for BW as it looked and felt rooted in total reality. Cloverfield was an obvious big-buget movie that dealt with the incredible/fantasy/scifi in a realistic manner--- I guess my brain was kinda telling me that this (musical) element was missing form the big budget movie.

Post by **balon!** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:23 am

Just got back from it. I thought it was perfect, easily in my top five.

Firstly, the monster. At the end credits I saw, "Them!", "The Beast from 20,000 Leagues" and "King Kong" screenshots ltd.. blah blah blah. Anyway, somewhere in the movie there was a picture of those three things. Or three pictures. But it made me think. The monster must've been created as an idea as a combination of Them! The Beast and King Kong. A sort of aquatic primate, but it's lice was the mini-hive creating monster. The CGI was excellent and well done. Abrams did a nice job of not shoving it in you're face, when you know that after a few times of being directly under a giant monster, you would die. It's believable.

The dialogue was totally believable but maybe because I have the Olympia version of Hud, and I found a little piece of my life in that character, it was really easy for me. It all sounded like the natural flow of conversation you would be having in that exact situation, with those exact people. Which brings me to general plot.

Once you accept that fact that this movie is about a giant monster destroying NYC, then all you have left is the little details. It's really easy to screw that up, because that's where the main hunk of the movie is going to be. The premise that it all takes place at a going away party sets up a good place to bring together a survivor group of people, but keeping it believable.

You couldn't keep a two hour movie going if the whole thing was about the character running to a helicopter and escaping within the first ten minutes of the attack, so they place another easy and simple plot runner, the love interest. Normally cheesie but again, totally believable in this situation. "It just so happens" that the camera is owned by the type of person who would run towards the monster, but thats the expected detail. You simply wouldn't have a movie if your characters ran away.

Anyway, all in all, perfect for the genre. An instant personal classic.

Post by **A Gunslinger** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:20 pm

I gotta see this thing.

Post by **matrixman** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:05 pm

Good review from you too, Balon! The more I read about this film the more I'm intrigued. Maybe I can find the willpower to see it over the weekend.

Post by **iQuestor** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:16 pm

AWESOME! I loved it. Loved it. must see.

other opinions?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:38 pm

yes.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:59 am

It was good but way, way too predicable. I suppose it's a contradiction to say it's predictable, and then spoiler it, but:

Spoiler

You know from the first 2 seconds that all the main characters are going to die. If you can't figure this out by what's on the screen, well . . .

I also knew exactly when the first explosion, the first sign of the monster, was going to happen. To the second. They wrapped up the "drama" of the characters, and then you know it's time for some fireworks. It's supposed to be surprising, but if you're a student of story-telling, you know exactly when act 1 ends.

And of course you know when they turn on the night vision, there's going to be monsters. It helps that you can hear them. But then we're supposed to be scared/surprised? They beat you over the head with it. It's not a surprise at all.

And after this monster taking missiles, bombs, gunfire, etc. without even a visible wound, it's not surprising when (yet again) it rises out of the smoke after (yet again) having 1000 bombs dropped on it. It shows no weakness whatsoever. That's fine. But then don't expect us to be tricked into thinking that the thing has died when nothing hurts it whatsoever.

But I did have fun. It's a neat ride. Nice graphics. Good monster film. I wish it had actually been scary, though. Or even suspenseful. But at least it wasn't silly like that last Godzilla movie.

Post by **Kil Tyme** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:38 am

I am hollywoods best bet cause I am always surprised by movie endings no matter how others see it as predictable. I guess I just let em take me where ever they want to go and I'll just watch and enjoy the ride without figuring out the ending or who is going to die. The only exceptions are the teen horror flicks that even I can safely say that it's a given that the first teens to have sex are going to die.

This movie actually surprised me all the way through and parts of it are still staying with me with images popping up from time to time even a week after seeing it. National Treasure didn't do that; I had to keep asking myself, what movie was it that I saw the other day?

Post by **Zarathustra** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:02 am

Crap! I thought I was going to get tons of responses of people agreeing with me.

I didn't mean to say that anyone who didn't see this stuff coming wasn't bright. Maybe it was a lucky guess.

Post by **Cail** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:04 am

Christ Malik, am I going to have to start a "Flicks round-table" thread?

Post by **Zarathustra** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:08 am

Cail wrote:Christ Malik, am I going to have to start a "Flicks round-table" thread?

Damn my arrogance. Where's the tea?

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

JJ Abrams Movie, Cloverfield Monster

Cloverfield