Jump to content

anyone see cloverfield yet?


rikshaw

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I just got back from the theatre. It was pretty cool. I was hoping for better, but I still enjoyed it. My main beef with it was something that would be too much of a spoiler, so I won't say it.

 

I did not stay until after the credits - what did I miss?

 

One thing I was happy about was that it blew "Blair Witch Project" out of the water. That movie was a MAJOR disappointment. I mention it because of the obvious parallels between the two movies. I was concerned that this would end up being another "Blair Witch" - thankfully I was wrong.

 

My recommendation - sure, go see it, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I had a chance to go see it today but chose not to. I boycott that type of shaky camera filmmaking. I just don't understand why they insist on shooting that way. For me it doesn't do anything other than make me sick.




Dan

 

 

Its a perspective choice. They do it because more so than in most movies, it makes the audience associate with the characters and feel their emotions more. Notice: perspective shots are only really used in comedy when something embarrassing or disturbing happens. In horror, thriller and action films, it gives the audience a feeling of association with the heros, and only in bad horror is it shown from the perspective of the creature (IMHO).

 

Its more common in society nowadays. Hell, on April 16th, CNN ran the same POV video from a cell phone over 100 times, easily. When it happens that way in reality, film must adapt their methods to create a "real" experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I had a chance to go see it today but chose not to. I boycott that type of shaky camera filmmaking. I just don't understand why they insist on shooting that way. For me it doesn't do anything other than make me sick.

Dan

 

You will absolutely hate this movie then. A lot.

 

That said, I usually feel the same way. Fr'instance - the last "Bourne" flick (I can't even remember the name) had me SO pissed off, the only reason I stayed and watched til the end was a pig-headed "I paid my money I'm gonna see it" attitude. In the end it wasn't worth it - the "shaky camera thing" was really f*cking annoying and that ended up being my major impression of the movie - can't remember the story, can't remember who was in it (other than Damon), can't remember much of anything other than that camera shaking all over the place.

 

But at least in Cloverfield it makes sense. It actually adds to the story and is a good thing here (although still annoying at times). The "technique" is valid here, and I didn't have a huge problem with it. Still, you probably won't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Its a perspective choice. They do it because more so than in most movies, it makes the audience associate with the characters and feel their emotions more. Notice: perspective shots are only really used in comedy when something embarrassing or disturbing happens. In horror, thriller and action films, it gives the audience a feeling of association with the heros, and only in bad horror is it shown from the perspective of the creature (IMHO).


Its more common in society nowadays. Hell, on April 16th, CNN ran the same POV video from a cell phone over 100 times, easily. When it happens that way in reality, film must adapt their methods to create a "real" experience.

 

 

I don't get more involved in the film because they shoot it with a shaky videocamera..I get nauseous. I can understand the "reality" bit in this movie and how the whole movie hinges on it..but I'd rather see a well shot movie than a first person perspective anytime. I also don't like the underlying theme of this one. Why can't people make a monster movie just to freak people out? Why does it have to have a message:mad:

 

Back to the video camera shooting, for me it's a lazy way of film making..it's also cheaper, which from what I've read is how this movie got made. I'll wait to see it on DVD as it isn't as sickening on my smaller TV. Once word gets out though, i don't see a reason to watch it. It was like The Blair Witch..once word got out about it not being real it just wasn't a good movie anymore.

 

 

 

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You will absolutely hate this movie then. A lot.


That said, I usually feel the same way. Fr'instance - the last "Bourne" flick (I can't even remember the name) had me SO pissed off, the only reason I stayed and watched til the end was a pig-headed "I paid my money I'm gonna see it" attitude. In the end it wasn't worth it - the "shaky camera thing" was
really
f*cking annoying and that ended up being my major impression of the movie - can't remember the story, can't remember who was in it (other than Damon), can't remember much of anything other than that camera shaking all over the place.


But at least in Cloverfield it makes sense. It actually adds to the story and is a good thing here (although still annoying at times). The "technique" is valid here, and I didn't have a huge problem with it. Still, you probably won't like it.

 

 

Yeah, I waited until Bourne came out on video to watch it and really enjoyed it. I wouldn't have been able to watch it in the theatres though for sure.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I had a chance to go see it today but chose not to. I boycott that type of shaky camera filmmaking. I just don't understand why they insist on shooting that way. For me it doesn't do anything other than make me sick.




Dan

 

 

I feel the same way about that 'zippy' fast frame {censored} they're doing a lot of on TV these days. It was kinda cool at first but it's so overdone lately it's just become annoying now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't get more involved in the film because they shoot it with a shaky videocamera..I get nauseous. I can understand the "reality" bit in this movie and how the whole movie hinges on it..but I'd rather see a well shot movie than a first person perspective anytime. I also don't like the underlying theme of this one. Why can't people make a monster movie just to freak people out? Why does it have to have a message:mad:


Back to the video camera shooting, for me it's a lazy way of film making..it's also cheaper, which from what I've read is how this movie got made. I'll wait to see it on DVD as it isn't as sickening on my smaller TV. Once word gets out though, i don't see a reason to watch it. It was like The Blair Witch..once word got out about it not being real it just wasn't a good movie anymore.





Dan

 

 

It may make the basic coverage and b-roll shots cheaper, but it makes special effects more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I want to see this movie, but preferably from the very back of a large theater. More than Cloverfield though, I really want to see this new Rambo movie. From what I've seen so far it looks Very intense, and probably much closer to the roots of Rambo than the fiasco of the last one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I want to see this movie, but preferably from the very back of a large theater. More than Cloverfield though, I really want to see this new Rambo movie. From what I've seen so far it looks Very intense, and probably much closer to the roots of Rambo than the fiasco of the last one.

 

 

Yeah I'm going to see it next week. I am with you on this one.

 

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

i saw it tonight and i thought the movie was very well done. even though it looks like it is someone flailing around with a camera, every movement, from the type and amount of random jiggling to the person with the camera turning it around and talking into it, and thought and a specific purpose to it. i cant really say more without giving away, but i thought they did an excellent job of translating the concept from the script to the screen.

 

EDIT: shoot, i was late and missed the star trek trailer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
i saw it tonight and i thought the movie was very well done. even though it looks like it is someone flailing around with a camera, every movement, from the type and amount of random jiggling to the person with the camera turning it around and talking into it, and thought and a specific purpose to it. i cant really say more without giving away, but i thought they did an excellent job of translating the concept from the script to the screen.


EDIT: shoot, i was late and missed the star trek trailer!

Psssst.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!!!!! DON'T READ BEYOND IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE YET!!!!

 

the movie is a piece of {censored}

 

its horrible

 

the movie its self is good, i liked the realistic camera recording, and the characters are ok in developing but my beef is with the whole mystery behind it. the slusho deal and what not, and that japanese corporation stuff, none of it is explained in to movie, NONE OF IT!

 

i went to all the sights that held parts of the story, ya know, and after reading tons of "theory's" on what the deal with the monster is i said "screw it", and decided to go see the movie. i was very eager to know the mystery behind the monster, i could not wait for them to tie in the slusho stuff to the plot. but no. the worst part of all is that if you go to 1-18-08.com you see a picture of a guy holding and omelette of some sort, wiggle the photo and it turns around and japanese stuff is on the back of it. i was so eager to see what weight this held to the story, how something so small such as an omelette chef could play such a big roll in this monster dubbed "cloverfield"...

 

but no. nothing answered.

 

they better make a sequal A.S.A.P explaining everything, because i am PISSED:mad:

 

[/RANT]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...