Cloverfield

[GATEGOD]

I just realized that, you're right that was the only music used. I was too caught up in everything to realize that fact.

And yes, I believe she survived, nothing seemed to take down her helicopter, so she's alive.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Did I watch the same movie as most of you guys?

I liked it up until they were in the subway, then it turned into the run of the mill horror.

The Little freaky things were very reminiscent of the Aliens, though I did like the full grown creature.

Beth bugged me. First of all, when they took her off that metal spike thing, the shock and blood loss from that should have at least knocked her unconcious.
Secondly, three people surviving a helicopter falling from the height of a skyscraper, unlikely.
Thirdly, the set up.
OK. I get that we were watching a video but how? I think I need one of those Camcorders if it can survive everything that it did.
Also, who was showing the video?
Was it the Govt? If so, what happened next? Did the Monster die from the levelling of the city, the samed monster that survived every other attack? Or did it survive a direct attack that couldn't destroy a camcorder that was pretty much directly attacked?
Was it supposed to be some existential viewing of the tape and our cinema 'projectionist' found it which then also begs the question, what happened next?

Personally, I've read all the reviews and seen all the comments and quite frankly I don't know what all you guys saw because the film just didn't deliver.

 

[Randy Giles]

I think the film delivered perfectly.

And

Spoiler

no, the monster is not dead. There's already talk of a sequel, in fact. And at the end of the credits the words "It's still alive" are spoken backwards.

As for Beth, yeah maybe she should have passed out from shock, but blood loss? I don't know. It didn't pierce any major organs, the rod probably blocked almost all of the bleeding while she was on it, and they did wrap it up. And just because she was skinny didn't mean she didn't have resolve and a will to live.

I've seen this movie twice now, and I think it's the best monster movie ever.

However, that could possibly be because I didn't play along with all the viral marketing, and get completely obsessed over it while it was being advertised, I was just looking forward to it expecting a pretty good movie, and I got more than what I expected.

I need to go see this a third time in theaters.

 

[GATEGOD]

The film is meant to leave you wondering, keep you guessing, make you think and talk about it. That it why it's good.
The entire thing is one hectic camera movement after another as if it was a documentary, which again, is what makes it good.
It's different from everything else, and those things were nothing like the Aliens, Alien was much worse, this is as scary though, it bites you.. you explode.
They killed off everyone I liked though, and despite all of that, I believed what was happening, cause you are right if you question every little thing in a SCI FI movie, you won't love it.

'Sarcastic voice':Just like, oh so vampires are real? No way!! Buffy sucks :silly: No! Since you let yourself believe that in the show they are real Buffy is great!
That is why I am not going to question the things you brought up because it's a maybe it could, most likely couldn't but since it did, I'm going with it could.

But maybe you did watch a different movie :silly:

 

[Randy Giles]

BTW, BotD, are you basically saying one reason you didn't like it was because it wasn't neatly wrapped up and it leaves you wondering so many things?

Because that's the whole point. Maybe in the sequel we'll get more answers, but the point of this movie is we see this attack from the POV of this small group of people, people not privy to any special knowledge, just people trying to save a friend and then themselves and not get killed by some freak from the sea. And that's what we get.

I loved the movie because (maybe partly because I watched it on an almost IMAX-sized digital screen) it seemed so realistic, considering. I felt the characters were realistic, that the emotion was realistic, that the fallout from the monster was realistic (like I said...considering this is a movie about a monster), and the handheld camera approach made you feel like this was all really happening.

I can't believe they filmed this on such a small budget, I thought it was amazingly well done.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Spoiler Stuff - if you are reading this thread then you should be ready for spoilers

This totally defeats the purpose of telling the story this way.
Seems to me a sequel would just be another run of the mill monster story because you can't tell it through the Handicam again and if you take it to regular camera then you have a Monster Movie. What a lot of tosh either way.

As for Beth, yeah maybe she should have passed out from shock, but blood loss? I don't know. It didn't pierce any major organs, the rod probably blocked almost all of the bleeding while she was on it, and they did wrap it up. And just because she was skinny didn't mean she didn't have resolve and a will to live.

She had a hole through her body. The combined pain threshold and blood loss, and trust me there would have been a significant amount in that area to warrant something to happen, would have caused passing out - the human body is designed to do that.
As for 'wrap it up' again, all the did was put a shirt on the wound. This was different to a slice in the skin. She had an inch round hold all the way through her shoulder. The shirt would have had little effect not least because in that position there was a real inability to apply constant pressure.
One of the very unrealistic points in the film.
In a film like Godzilla, thats forgivable because the story process tells us it is fantasy, in this film, its not because it is supposed to be 'documentation' of an actual event.

BTW, BotD, are you basically saying one reason you didn't like it was because it wasn't neatly wrapped up and it leaves you wondering so many things?

Don't put words in my mouth because you know I don't like that.
First of all, I got bored of Lost 2 seasons ago. When I am paying £10($20) per ticket for a movie, I want it wrapped up, not forcing me to have to see the next one UNLESS it is part of an established series, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the likes. Even Star Wars: New Hope had an ending that was not in anyway saying there will be a sequel because you need answers.
There has to be resolution in a story and this didn't have any.

However, go back to the points I made that bugged me, they aren't questions that should be answered in another film. They make no sense in a sequel situation, they only fit here.

Why were we watching the tapes, what was the point of that and who was showing us it?
I don't need the answers of what this thing is, where it came from because thats the science mumbo jumbo that you get from the 'experts' perspective.
What I do need is the reason for the set up. We were 'allowed' to watch the footage that is owned by the US military, apparently, why?
Was it the Military showing us this or did the projectionist get the documentation from somewhere else?

Balderdash mate. This film was utter bollocks.

Because that's the whole point. Maybe in the sequel we'll get more answers, but the point of this movie is we see this attack from the POV of this small group of people, people not privy to any special knowledge, just people trying to save a friend and then themselves and not get killed by some freak from the sea. And that's what we get.

I loved the movie because (maybe partly because I watched it on an almost IMAX-sized digital screen) it seemed so realistic, considering. I felt the characters were realistic, that the emotion was realistic, that the fallout from the monster was realistic (like I said...considering this is a movie about a monster), and the handheld camera approach made you feel like this was all really happening.

We shouldn't have to wait for a sequel to get basic answers and like I said, a sequel would devalue the film even more.
You are also wrong in the setting of the film too. We aren't just seeing it from the POV of the average person caught up in it, if we was, we wouldn't have been given the designation and such at the beginning. What is happening is that we are watching the what happened because someone is 'allowing' us to watch it, thats the person who owns the tape. If that is the case then this set up means there are answers that could be easily gotten by asking the person showing the film.
The creators have tried to blur fantasy and reality here but it hasn't worked quite correctly and they've left things unanswered that should have been answered.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the storytellers are the people in the documentary, the storyteller is the one who has ownership of this tape.

I can't believe they filmed this on such a small budget

I really can.

and those things were nothing like the Aliens, Alien was much worse, this is as scary though, it bites you.. you explode.

They looked just like the Aliens which by the way, if they attach themselves to you...you explode!!

The film is meant to leave you wondering, keep you guessing, make you think and talk about it. That it why it's good.

No the film is meant to be someone showing us what happened during the incident, so that means there is someone there now. You can leave wondering if there are more, if you got all the little buggers and you can talk about it, but thats not what makes a film good. What makes a film good, if it is supposed to be shown in a believable context, that it is believable.
This wasn't.

They killed off everyone I liked though, and despite all of that, I believed what was happening, cause you are right if you question every little thing in a SCI FI movie, you won't love it.

Interesting that Science Fiction is predominantly aimed at a particular group, lets be honest it is us, the geeks. One of our defining features is our questioning of everything so now you suggest we should lose this feature to enjoy a film that doesn't hold water.
I didn't like any of the characters because they bored me, even the black woman that managed to survive.

'Sarcastic voice':Just like, oh so vampires are real? No way!! Buffy sucks No! Since you let yourself believe that in the show they are real Buffy is great!
That is why I am not going to question the things you brought up because it's a maybe it could, most likely couldn't but since it did, I'm going with it could.

I understand why you liked the film, seems you have issue making coherent sentences so obviously your brain is a little backward...or did you catch whatever STD Emma had at the awards tonight and it has messed up your brain😛

Either way i'm going to d my best Peter Griffin voice - "What"?!?!?!

 

[GATEGOD]

Are you on something

What I said was: this isn't real, you are trying to see the film as if it is real. It is a science fiction movie wrapped into a documentary, showing a fictional event in the real world. Which is what Buffy does. There aren't demons and vampires in the real world, yet in Buffy Joss portrays them as if there were. There isn't really an Alien/sea monster in the world, but in the movie it is portrayed as if there is. What I'm not getting is why you are trying to make it out as if this was a non fiction movie... It is trying to make you feel as if you were there, as if it was real, an event that isn't real. That is what scifi shows do, they try to make you believe in what you are seeing so you dive into the verse of the show. This movie did just that. I don't want you to stop questioning everything I want you to stop questioning the fact that the movie is sci-fi yet portrayed to be real. You are supposed to believe in these things in the context of the movie. Just like the aliens in alien, or the vamps in buffy, or zombies in an apocolyptic movie. Everything we learn, and there is very little, all of that is what makes you think and question. Not whether or not she would pass out, or if it's possible to survive the crash. They did, so it's possible. Just like the moster was killing people so it's possible. In the context of the movie atleast.. blah blah blah

"If it is supposed to be shown in a believable context, that it is believable.
This wasn't."

Yes, it was. Anyways you hated it so theres no making you like it :silly:

*bye*

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

What I said was: this isn't real, you are trying to see the film as if it is real. It is a science fiction movie wrapped into a documentary, showing a fictional event in the real world. Which is what Buffy does. There aren't demons and vampires in the real world, yet in Buffy Joss portrays them as if there were. There isn't really an Alien/sea monster in the world, but in the movie it is portrayed as if there is. What I'm not getting is why you are trying to make it out as if this was a non fiction movie

You have misunderstood the point then.

The Film makers decided to make this film a certain way, what they did was try and make it as a real event using actual footage found.

The little bit at the beginning that gives us where the film was found and the codename tells us this.
The makers tried to be clever, they tried to say that this was 'genuine' documentary footage that was 'discovered' ala Blair Witch.
What they failed to do is follow this out. The error was in saying this was footage discovered then just ending the movie without any real questions answered. They wanted us to believe it was a real situation hence the documentary style but they failed on that level and if they failed on that level, the movie failed full stop.

I understand that the film is Science Fiction, the point is the movie was supposed to be presented in a Science Fact sort of way.
Your comparison is flawed because you are comparing different stories presented in different medums.
Obviously you are the one that didn't understand what the film makers were attempting, probably explains why you liked it. People who don't understand something go to the bits they do and put the story together themselves.
Its simple really.

This movie did just that. I don't want you to stop questioning everything I want you to stop questioning the fact that the movie is sci-fi yet portrayed to be real.

Why would I stop questioning something the creators set up for me?
Look it is simple, if you didn't understand the concept of this movie, thats fine. Go nuts. But don't try and bring me to your level.
There was an intent with this movie an intent that was definitely missed and if you can't understand that, fair game, but seriously you need to put more in understanding film.

You are supposed to believe in these things in the context of the movie.

Which is exactly where they missed the point.
They set this movie up to 'be real' but in the end they failed to deliver that.
The context of this movie wasn't big monster attacks New York, the context of this movie was supposed to be Actual documentation of an event that happened that was discovered.
What we actually got WAS Big Monster attacks New York which is how they failed and why I don't like the film. They promised me one type of film and delivered another.

 

[GATEGOD]

The context of this movie was big monster attacks New York, the context of this movie was Actual documentation of an event that happened that was discovered.
What we actually got WAS Big Monster attacks New York which is how they failed and why I don't like the film. They promised me type of film and delivered another.

I actually got that, I was saying everything else to convince you :lmao: I believed what happened so I liked the film, you didn't so you didn't like it.

 

[GATEGOD]

Bored of the Dead agrees: If you understood what they tried and they failed in that but you believed what they actually did then not only did they fail you but you failed them and to try and convince someone else the wrong way is good tells me alot more about who you are...

You have a hard time comprehending things. lol I don't think they failed, I believe they succeeded. I got that it was a actual documentary in n.y. with a big ass monster, not that it failed, it didn't.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

You have a hard time comprehending things. lol I don't think they failed, I believe they succeeded. I got that it was a actual documentary in n.y. with a big ass monster, not that it failed, it didn't.

Seems you are the one having a hard time comprehending things.

They created a film with a small part at the beginning that tells us someone found this documentary.
This in and of itself raises questions that have to be answered within the narrative of this movie.
These aren't answered thus making this a different movie than the one they tried to say it was.

They TRIED to tell us this was a bona fide documentary when in fact it was just a Monster Movie.
If they wanted it to be a simple Monster Movie we didn't need that bit at the beginning, that bit is irrelevant in fact it is detrimental to the narrative(I hope the words i'm using aren't too big for ya, in case they are go to Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online )they project one movie and it ends up another.
That tiny bit at the beginning isn't to put the film into our world, but take us into that one as a living breathing participant but that was not seen through the end.
It's like An Inconvenient Truth and having it end The Day after Tomorrow.
They accidentally meshed to storytelling techniques into one film, one taking over the other not working in tandem.

They failed in their objective and that is what makes this movie wrong and thats what I don't like.

If you can't grasp the mistake they made, well thats not my fault. I can't explain it any clearer than I already have. If you look at a film with the view of 'fire bad tree pretty' and you can't draw the difference between intent and actuality then that is fine, I dare say you're not the only one, but don't try and make out that I am missing something when in essense its your naivity/ignorance/plain stupidity(delete as appropriate) that is blurring a line that shouldn't even be there in the first place.

 

[GATEGOD]

:lmao: ignore list a vh member.. nah :silly:

But seriously, What I must be confused about is that I believe that this is a documentary type of a film, which isn't a documentary at all, it just has that feel to it, set around these people during a horrific event. Using one characters point of view through 80% of the story and other character's pov the rest of the story. What I thought they were trying to make was something that is new and not the every day monster movie, and yet not the every day documentary either. So they used both and came out with this movie. The beginning I'm guessing was from the governments files, they must have went back in and found it or it was dug up years later. If you don't think so that's cool, but I liked it... so... can you drop it. I love being called stupid by you and all but just because our opinions differ? I'm sorry but no.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

:lmao: ignore list a vh member.. nah :silly:

But seriously, What I must be confused about is that I believe that this is a documentary type of a film, which isn't a documentary at all, it just has that feel to it, set around these people during a horrific event. Using one characters point of view through 80% of the story and other character's pov the rest of the story. What I thought they were trying to make was something that is new and not the every day monster movie, and yet not the every day documentary either. So they used both and came out with this movie. The beginning I'm guessing was from the governments files, they must have went back in and found it or it was dug up years later. If you don't think so that's cool, but I liked it... so... can you drop it. I love being called stupid by you and all but just because our opinions differ? I'm sorry but no.

First of all, I said delete as appropriate. If you feel that stupid is the answer thats not me calling you stupid that is you looking at the options and picking the one that fits as the answer.

Secondly, the point of the film done in this style was to bring us into their world, have us be part of that universe as active particpants, much as in this reality you would be gaining facts/evidence/understanding from watching Documentaries like 'Fahrenheit 9/11', 'An Inconvenient Truth', 'Supersize Me' yadda yadda.
Part of the experience of this movie is that, which is why there is the set up at the beginning and this does work for quite some time into the movie. It, however, loses its way. It loses the point it has, it loses the hook that will make this one of the greatest films ever made or one of the worst. It falls into a run of the mill Monster Movie and that was definitely not the aim, if you believe all the hype that has been broadcast about this film.
If it fails to deliver on its selling point, on its 'unique' (and I'm using '@' because it isn't as unique as you are supposed to believe) storytelling method then it has failed. Doesn't matter if the rest is good if it has failed on this then it is wrong.
If you are making an omlette but your eggs go mushy and make scrambled egg instead, it might taste just as good but you've failed to make the omlette you set out to make.
In this case however, the film itself wasn't that great in my opinion.
As I said before, the film was good up to the point of being in the subway but after that, it got beyond absurd (The Military would have confiscated the Camera off these guys immediately never mind let them continue filming in that mall and thats just one of the things that was wrong) and the large monster was pretty decent but the little 'Aliens' were really quite poor.

 

[Blondie Bear]

I saw it again last night, this time with Dramamine. It was okay. I still spent the first 10 minutes or so wishing the monster would show up and eat these people because they were so freaking shallow I couldn't stand them. At least Hud showed some character development. It helped to think of him as Caboose from that Halo series Red v Blue.

I refuse, however, to get involved in the argument up there ^ though it's been a fun read. : popcorn:

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I saw it again last night, this time with Dramamine. It was okay. I still spent the first 10 minutes or so wishing the monster would show up and eat these people because they were so freaking shallow I couldn't stand them. At least Hud showed some character development. It helped to think of him as Caboose from that Halo series Red v Blue.

I refuse, however, to get involved in the argument up there ^ though it's been a fun read. : popcorn:

I get that we were supposed to not like the characters or care for them because they are white rich folks in New York but honestly, I think that is balderdash. Its a different kind of film done a different kind of way and I'm JJ Abrams and if you don't get the point then you're stupid so tell everyone you love this movie so they don't think you're stupid.

The film was pretentious crud, so I absolutely agree with you but in no way am I trying to draw you into the above discussion.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Mostly I didn't like them cause they're the same as a lot of the idiots I go to school with (it's tough being almost 30 and still in college--though at least now I'm a grad student and it doesn't look as bad). I've been at that party. I left after an hour. So I guessed I was predisposed to not liking the characters en masse, but once they were individuals, they weren't too bad.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Mostly I didn't like them cause they're the same as a lot of the idiots I go to school with (it's tough being almost 30 and still in college--though at least now I'm a grad student and it doesn't look as bad). I've been at that party. I left after an hour. So I guessed I was predisposed to not liking the characters en masse, but once they were individuals, they weren't too bad.

Collectively they were a cliche but we're told that was done on purpose because it's a comment on that culture - ok, does that mean because I'm told it is going to be that, I should like it?
Thats smacks of someone trying to tell me they couldn't do them another way so made the characters and now come up with some convoluted pretense afterwards.

Individually they again fit the cliche of the genre but again, that was done on purpose so instead of being bored with it as we would in other films, we have to like it because we're told in advance.

Again, I say balderdash.

There was so much potential here and it was not developed on instead they seem to have realised the problem but to beat the furore of fans and critics saying 'blah, blah, cliched, blah, blah, pointless blah, blah' they said it was done on purpose.

Balderdash!

 

[Harley]

She had a hole through her body...blah, blah, blah {big paragraph}

When I was watching the movie, when it shows them running to the helicopter, I was like "What? How can she run? She could barely walk a minute ago." And the boy I was with was like "adrenaline (sp?) can make people do amazing things." and I'm thinking that's how people are just going to write that off.

Don't put words in my mouth because you know I don't like that.

And just to play devil's advocate and be a pain in your ass, he technically wasn't putting words in your mouth. It was a question. Rhetorical, maybe. But a question none the less.

 

[LittleMissLikesToFight]

My boyfriend and i cringed when we heard "sequel". even if i DID like this movie, how the hell do you make a sequel? There isn't even a need to, and if its the same monster since it survived, well then there goes any of that suspense and discovery... its going to bomb.

 

[GATEGOD]

There doesn't need to be a sequeal This movie was great on it's own. But if they did make a sequel I'd guess it would be so completely different. They would probably follow someone from the military or the overall event to show how much damage it was doing, how many people were dieing, and what the military was doing. But I don't think they need to, but I'd go see it.