Kevin's Watch

I understand that, but it still drives me nuts because I think it's often overdone to the point that watching it makes me almost throw up and gives me a pounding headache.

I think the narrative is so strong, I really didn't notice it.

I noticed. How could you not? Still, I was able to ignore it for the most part because of the logic behind it. Unlike the last 2 Bourne movies, where the reason for the shaky cam is style.

The Bourne movies are nearly unwatchable because of it.

At least no one was standing with their nose in a corner at the end of it!!

Dear God! That was one of the creepiest things I've ever seen.

i think the shaky thing worked well. i still have no idea what happened on the bridge - and that makes the feeling of dread even stronger.

Harbinger wrote:At least no one was standing with their nose in a corner at the end of it!!

I loved that ending. Best bit!!

Cail wrote:The Bourne movies are nearly unwatchable because of it.

thank good ness someone else thinks like me. Unneccesary camera shaking is annoying to the fullest. I understand that the director wants to get a mood across, but there is the right way to do it (Scorsese) and the wrong way to do it (Greengrass)

There are great action sequences in both movies, but you can't tell what's happening due to the camera work.

Yeah; I didn't notice it much the first time I saw the Bourne Supremacy, but on a second viewing it really bothered me.

I have to admit that at times the shaky cam in the Lord of the Rings bugged me too. Especially the Moria scene with the Cave Troll.

I went and saw it on Thursday by myself. It was just me and one other person in the theater.

I really enjoyed it. Yeah, it was predictable as hell

Spoiler

I got from one of the previews I saw that it was a recovered recording and guessed everyone involved died

, but a hell of a ride. Yeah, some cliches, but acceptable, and one of the giant monster movie cliches was so damn well done

Spoiler

the army with tanks moving in on the street, and jets flying by dropping bombs gave it SUCH a rich new feel being right in the middle of it instead of it being shot from a nice distance away in traditional monster movies of the genre like Godzilla

. And I liked that on the tape, there were, in a manner of speaking, two disasters going on. Kinda almost poetic too, I thought. And I like that guy who took the camera was named Hud, like HUD (heads up display) in videogames or whatnot, which is the area of the screen where you see the action. I found that clever.

Zahir posted :

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.

I see that this thread has not gotten much attention lately...

I just watched this Tuesday night (after the Phoenix Suns debacle, I needed some type of other monster to watch that was not in the guise of the San Antonio Spurs), and went back in and reread this thread.

To help with Zahir's post (and this may be old news), but at the very end of the movie when Hud's tape ends, it goes back to the scene at the amusement park where the couple are on top of the ferris wheel fiming themselves...roughly about 3 weeks prior to the night of the going away party. In the background, all the way to the right of the screen, there is a big splash where something very large falls from the sky and crashes into the water. So whatever the monster was, it dropped down from the sky.

So where we get no answers on what this monster is or where it came from, this little clue at least give the impression that the monster was from outer space.

Also, early on in this thread I saw a comparison of this movie to The Host. Other than a new type of monster that no one has ever really seen before, I was no similarities in the two movies whatsoever.

i can not wait to get this on dvd so i can watch it ever so closely. i may even ask julie to buy it for me.

jelerak wrote:
Also, early on in this thread I saw a comparison of this movie to The Host. Other than a new type of monster that no one has ever really seen before, I was no similarities in the two movies whatsoever.

I haven't seen Cloverfield, and can only go on what little I gathered from its advertising, and the even less I have heard from others. The build-up gave me the impression that there was a similar viral angle to The Host.

Spoiler

Though I doubt it would be the Red Herring it's meant to be in The Host.

The creature itself looked like it bore more than a passing (someone even told me striking) resemblance to the one in The Host. Apparently, it also has similar origins. Not that The Host was the first to do a mutant monster created by man's indifference and stupidity, of course.

Was there also not a central plotline in Cloverfield of the main characters trying desperately to find someone important to them?

Cloverfield kind of intrigues me, though it's not burning away at me to see like The Host did. That's partly because I find modern US cinema is largely creatively defunct when compared to modern Asian cinema and, well, The Host was a masterpiece.

I am going to spoiler this...I hadn't in earlier posts, and thought twice about it later on.

Spoiler

The origins of this beast were not man made, but strongly hinted at in the end of the movie that it was from outer space.

I didn't find too much similarity in the monster to the one in The Host. Not that others may disagree...

And the plot line of trying to find someone important...that goal is reached in the movie with still quite a ways to go until the end. But, in all fairness...many horror / thriller movies are based upon that plotline, not just these two.

Monster from The Host :

Monster from Cloverfield :



You never really get a good look at it in the movie. This is one of the best artist's renditions that I have seen.

jelerak wrote:

Spoiler

And the plot line of trying to find someone important...that goal is reached in the movie with still quite a ways to go until the end. But, in all fairness...many horror / thriller movies are based upon that plotline, not just these two.

Oh, absolutely. Not the most original of devices. However, that one film should closely follow the other, within the same genre, and especially when the first was such an enormous international hit, that leans towards a clearer link. Especially when you consider the US trend of remaking or adapting anything from Asian cinema which achieves fame.

Not that I'm saying Cloverfield is a rip-off . . . I haven't even seen it . . . I'm just curious.

How about the virus sub-plot?

The virus sub plot was non existant.

Spoiler

There was a scene that involving a bite from one of the parasitic creatures that did not end very well for the character, but that was more of an infection rather than viral.

You are really going to have to see the movie yourself to make your own opinion, but I just don't really see the comparison between the two movies.

Has anyone else on here seen both The Host and Cloverfield? I would like to get some other opinions on the comparisons of them, if so.