Cloverfield

[wethepeople]

So who saw it? I remember there was a thread on it a while back when people were first trying to figure out what the monster was. Do you think it worth all the hype?

[SyntheticAngel]

So who saw it? I remember there was a thread on it a while back when people were first trying to figure out what the monster was. Do you think it worth all the hype?

Honestly after monthes of looking up things on the internet I don't think all the time I invested was worth it, but I did absolutely love the film. Even thought the camera angles did make my girlfriend sick.

Brennen

[Sextiger]

I just got back from seeing it and I thought it was pretty good, better than I expected.  You never get a real clear look at the monster because I swear it must change shapes, early on it seems to have a huge tail and like tentacles but by the end of the movie you don't really see them.  The director said the monster was like a baby so I suppose the changing look could be attributed to it growing up/evolving. 

[EnialisLiadon]

The camera angles made my friend a little queasy, as well.  Hm.

I wasn't really following the hype or caring about the film much; I just decided to go with friends who had been because I wantd something to do after my evening shift at work.

The film was entertaining, but that's about it.  Nifty action and stuff, but I hated the ending.  Hated it.

[Kowal]

There was an absolute absence of plot.  However, if you expecting entertainment and nothing else, you'll get it.

[The Atog Lord]

That was awful. Imagine Godzilla, with all traces of anything interesting removed, tossed into a blender with scraps from the Blair Witch Project. Now imagine that the blender was set to Suckify, after which the plot and worthwhile characters are strained out. The resulting beverage is Cloverfield.

With neither interesting characters nor a cohesive plot nor a message nor any other redeeming factors, an hour spent staring at a trash compactor would be more stimulating and less expensive.

[Matt]

I just saw it, and I liked it a lot. The suspense slowly built on me until I was very excited by the end. It probably was easier to follow for someone who lives in, or has ever spent time in, or has come within 50 miles of New York City. I purposefully refrained from any kind of spoiler apart from the first trailer, because I wanted to be as in the dark as I expected the characters to be, to heighten the experience.

I don't think it's appropriate to judge the movie outside of the context of what it was intended as, which was to portray what some people who live through a giant monster attack would see. No, there isn't a real strong plot, but that's real life: sometimes you go down dead ends. Sometimes you don't get to decide what happens to you, and sometimes you don't know what's going on and don't know what to do next. Not every film has to go Introduction-Rising Action-Climax-Denouement. If you're complaining that the characters didn't follow a plot, you might as well complain about the shaky camera - that was the entire point of the movie.

It's like complaining that Waiting for Godot had no plot. "UGH they just STAND THERE, talking, why don't they DO SOMETHING INTERESTING." It's a silly criticism.

[Disburden]

Godzilla rip off. Enough said.

Can't anybody write and develop a new mainstream film idea? Stealing Japanese films and adding hand held camera angles does not make a new exciting film for me.


No Country For Old Men, however, was good.

[dicemanx]

The movie was stunning - the shift from 3rd person to first person made an incredible difference and kept you on edge for the entire movie. Criticism about there being "no plot", or "undeveloped characters" or about being a "Godzilla knock-off" are unfair in my opinion because this movie purposefully did not aim at any of these things - it grabbed you in a small snippet of real time much too brief for any character development and took you on a roller-coaster ride for nearly 90 minutes. The "monster" wasn't even the point, so it is a disservice to label this film as a monster film knock-off  - the chaos, confusion and terror could have been just as easily generated in a more realistic scenario without resorting to using some fantastic monster. The ending was entirely appropriate too and was the only logical conclusion, as any other ending would have been too unrealistic and cheesy. Plus, the last Coney Island scene had a point for those that were observant enough to notice an object falling into the sea.

In other words, the movie was very good at what it intended to do - (over)analysis afterwards can spoil the effect.

[Sextiger]

I am kinda amazed that people say its a Godzilla rip-off when at the very least, this movie is leagues above a Godzilla movie.  I have seen about 10 godzilla movies and as for cinema, they are absolutely awful. 

[Matt]

You know how the second Back to the Future movie was the best one, because it revisited the scenes from the original movie, but 'behind-the-scenes'? That's what I liked about this one. Not being given a God's-eye view made the movie much more interesting. It reminded me in a lot of good ways of the first Half-Life game, in that you're kind of creeping around the back while the you only catch a few glimpses of the military-on-scientist violence, and the surely huge off-screen battles between the military and the aliens.

[Webster]

The movie was stunning - the shift from 3rd person to first person made an incredible difference and kept you on edge for the entire movie. Criticism about there being "no plot", or "undeveloped characters" or about being a "Godzilla knock-off" are unfair in my opinion because this movie purposefully did not aim at any of these things - it grabbed you in a small snippet of real time much too brief for any character development and took you on a roller-coaster ride for nearly 90 minutes. The "monster" wasn't even the point, so it is a disservice to label this film as a monster film knock-off  - the chaos, confusion and terror could have been just as easily generated in a more realistic scenario without resorting to using some fantastic monster.

The ending was entirely appropriate too and was the only logical conclusion, as any other ending would have been too unrealistic and cheesy. Plus, the last Coney Island scene had a point for those that were observant enough to notice an object falling into the sea.

In other words, the movie was very good at what it intended to do - (over)analysis afterwards can spoil the effect.

I'm in agreement with diceman on this subject

I was the only person who caught the part of the ending that you are talking about. It was amazing that none of my other four friends saw it. Oh yes, the use of nondescriptive pronouns. Now everyone will have to go back and watch it again to see what it was. I'll never tell...