Page 5 of 5
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 9:27 pm
by ItisWritten
jelerak wrote:... 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.
Reading elsewhere, the falling object is supposedly a satellite, which in some way causes the dormant creature to awake or grow. I don't know how much of this is rumor, but it opens up a whole new batch of speculatives.
--a dormant sea creature, awakened by the satellite?
--a sea creature, altered/mutated by the satellite's tech?
--a sea creature, altered/mutated by something attached to the satellite?
--a creature attached to the satellite that changes/mutates because of exposure to the ocean, Earth's atmosphere or the combustion of reentry?
I could go on ...
What I want to know is the words that are muttered just at the end of the credits. They are barely audible and indistinct. It sounds like "fail-mumble" and I can't find anything on it. Closed-captioning doesn't pick it up, either. Anybody?
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 10:16 pm
by Montresor
jelerak wrote:
You are really going to have to see the movie yourself to make your own opinion . . .
Well, obviously, that goes without saying. The problem is, I have no particular interest at all to see Cloverfield

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:22 pm
by Cagliostro
Montresor wrote:
Not that I'm saying Cloverfield is a rip-off
I'll do you the favor of saying that Cloverfield is a ripoff. It's basically the same as any "giant monster terrorizes major city" movie. The original bit about it is perspective. I've never before seen something like this handled in documentary style and so in the thick of things. It wasn't especially amazing, but it was especially interesting seeing things happen as if you were there. Generally the perspective has been from a distance, and usually for budgetary reasons.
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:40 am
by sgt.null
the quick cuts, the background stuff makes me want to buy the film and watch it over again. good call on abrams part.
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:24 pm
by wayfriend
I just netflixed this cool movie called "Cloverfield". Anyone ever heard of it?
I really liked it, and agree with lots of the comments already posted. But I will add:
While things were somewhat predictable, they weren't any more predictable than any other horror movie you might see. And it didn't really detract from my enjoyment. I got a good "edge of my seat" buzz from this movie, which happens rarely enough to me these days.
I think the character development at the beginning pays off, because otherwise you wouldn't feel any suspense or anticipation. I actually got absorbed by the humorous happenings at the party.
And I was somewhat impressed with being able to pull off a coherent plot and likeable characters through Hud's unintelligent camera handling.
The DVD extras explain that the monster in the movie is a baby. It's just been born, doesn't know what's going on. It's roars are really about being scared at what's going on rather than trying to be mean and intimidating. The movie makers actually wanted to generate a little bit of empathy for the monster -- not sure if I can see it going that far myself.
I'll have to go back to the DVD and see if I can see the spaceship landing.
Oh, and Odette Yustman may just knock Jennifer Conelly out of the pantheon of godesses and take her spot.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:12 am
by sgt.null
i need to rewatch the movie.

i am hoping to get Quarantine this weekend. the film style seems to be the same as Cloverfield?
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:25 pm
by Rigel
I don't know if it's been mentioned (I haven't read this whole thread), but there's a point on the bridge where Hud (I think) sees someone else with a video camera pointed right at him. JJ Abrams said he was interested in doing another movie, based on that other camera, and perhaps developing a whole series based on other people's experiences during the disaster.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:34 am
by sgt.null
Rigel wrote:I don't know if it's been mentioned (I haven't read this whole thread), but there's a point on the bridge where Hud (I think) sees someone else with a video camera pointed right at him. JJ Abrams said he was interested in doing another movie, based on that other camera, and perhaps developing a whole series based on other people's experiences during the disaster.
i would like to see that. so JJ wanted a franchise?

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:19 pm
by Kevin164
sgt.null wrote:i need to rewatch the movie.

i am hoping to get Quarantine this weekend. the film style seems to be the same as Cloverfield?
You can catch the original movie that Quarantine was based on called REC. on youtube. The last five minutes of that one are pretty terrifying.
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:54 am
by sgt.null
Kevin164 wrote:sgt.null wrote:i need to rewatch the movie.

i am hoping to get Quarantine this weekend. the film style seems to be the same as Cloverfield?
You can catch the original movie that Quarantine was based on called REC. on youtube. The last five minutes of that one are pretty terrifying.
thank you! will search for that and report back.