Cloverfield Discussion

I don't get to see many movies with a 4 month old in the house, but I managed to escape to see Cloverfield. Stop reading immediately if you don't want spoilers. It's Blair Witch's first person camera work, applied to a small (for the genre) budget monster movie. The monster is cool. The little monsters are cool. The acting is sometimes good, sometimes awkward. The action is often great and very intense. And it will undoubtedly be the most hyped movie of 2008 until the spring blockbusters arrive. I really enjoyed the movie, but I'm posting this so you guys can have a place to talk amongst yourselves about this movie. Groundbreaking movie-making or just hype-making? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure my skull can handle watching it again- that jerky camera action gave me a headache. (Also, there was a Star Trek teaser trailer attached, and I'm almost ashamed to admit that I want it so badly it made me hurt. Please Abrams, don't screw it up)

Comments

The keyword in that diatribe was 'hyped'...

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie itself was pretty lame overall. I'm calling it Snakes on a Plane II.

Re:The keyword in that diatribe was 'hyped'...

[dknj]

i.e. Cloverfield was 'hyped' as a movie following a group of people USING A CAMCORDER. Who the fuck has a steadycam when they're filming a house party.

With that said, I know I have a much steadier hand than most people but thats because i grew up using a camcorder. Give a camcorder to your friend that's never touched one before and you'll have your very own Cloverfield in the making. There were plenty of parties I left to my friends to record came out a blurry mess. It also doesn't get better the drunker you get (which happened in Cloverfield) or when you're running for your fucking life.

Next jackass commenter that decides to complain about a movie that is hyped and describe as one way yet they expect a different experience (i.e. TooMuchToDo) needs to get cockpunched. People in the movie theater enjoyed the dizzying effect for 2 hours.

Re:The keyword in that diatribe was 'hyped'...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The problem is we're used to the regular monster movie. We see the government's point of view, we see them engage the monster directly, and we see them figure out how to kill the thing. In Cloverfield, we see some kids running for their lives, helping their friend save the girl he has always loved, and between the kids and the girl, there's a giant monster being shot at by army dudes.

It's not really a "giant monster movie" as we're used to, and I really think that's the problem most people have with it. I, personally, loved it. I'm a HUGE fan of TJ Miller (Hud, aka the camera guy), and I think it's funny that he's the only character to directly be killed by the monster.

Re:The keyword in that diatribe was 'hyped'...

[NtroP]

You idiots! That's called artistic license! It also helps to fuzzify poor special effects and give the "film" an "edgy" feel so supposedly beloved by trend-setting, market-leading (perhaps ironically-named) focus groups comprised of drooling morons.

The whole point of the movie is that it's the raw, unedited content of a consumer video camera that was found and is now being used as a piece of government evidence for the Cloverfield incident. I think we are supposed to feel like we have been given access to the raw content by the government (because we are a part of an investigation or an FOIA or something...) So in that sense you just get whatever happened to be on this tape (or SD card).

That being said, I don't know anyone who is that bad with a camera; even a small handicam which doesn't have the mass to help dampen small movements. I mean seriously, it's one thing to not hold it still or to zoom in and out too much, those are novice mistakes. But it is an entirely different thing to not hold the camera level while shooting or to completely cut off the head of your subject. Sure, if you are running and forgot to turn it off, fine, but no amature holds the camera at an extreme "artsy" angle while they are actively filming something. Admittedly, the odd angle often composed the image better than a straight-and-level shot would have, but someone who knows enough to do that would have a steadier hand and a better overall ability to compose scenes.

As an amateur videographer myself I've had to sift though hours and hours of tedious, useless, and horrendous raw clips from a variety of sources, including my own and I can tell you that it takes practice to be able to get usable content from spontaneous events and activity. It's almost impossible to get commercial content without a lot of planning and orchestrating, and that's assuming that you've got experienced hands on the camera(s). I was actually filming one time when the plane I was filming in crashed. The camera was on the whole time (you can hear me saying goodbye and that I was filming my death) and except for the actual impact (where the camera blanked out briefly) and the part where I was crawling out of the wreckage, my footage is more stable than Cloverfield's.

Cloverfield's videography truly made me feel like a pro was trying to act like an amateur and failing. The move would have actually been better, in my opinion, if they'd given the camera to the actual actors and made them do everything themselves while acting the actual scenes. You would have at leas gotten shakiness that made more sense with the action.

Once I was able to force myself to swallow the fact that I was watching completely raw, amateur handicam content I spent the rest of the movie trying to build my own story out of it as if I was viewing raw evidence for something I knew nothing about (which was true) and actually came away liking the movie. My wife, who gets sea-sick at the drop of a hat, even liked it (apparently there was too much violent movement to trigger more than just a headache for her). We are going again today to take our son to see it. It's painful to watch, but I appreciate the fact that someone has made a different kind of monster movie than the normal formulaic ones. I especially like the fact that no one survived. That, at least, was refreshingly realistic. Some movies need happy endings. This one was better without it.

/. Movie Reviews ? Can I getta 'paid shill' ?

[ohgood]

You know, it's nice when 50,000 people from /. help a torrent out, but a blair witch wannabe ? What's that, like a piece of nothing aspiring to be a piece of shit ?

I'm not sure

[Lord Apathy]

I saw the movie last night and I have to admit I'm not sure how I feel about it. The story was fucking incredible but I think the shaky camera was over done. It made my head hurt and confused the story at times. I think it could have been made with out it.

But I think my most concern is fuck the people. I want see the same story from the army point of view.

Re:I'm not sure

[fahrbot-bot]

Why do people treat shit camera work as though it's something raw and edgy?

When it's done on purpose, which is, unfortunately, too often.

Re:I'm not sure

[Blakey Rat]

Saving Private Ryan used hand-held cameras, but with a MAJOR difference: They were attached to Steadicam setups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steadicam

The Steadicam is a quite old invention in Hollywood used so that the camera has freedom of movement (much more-so than being on rails), but also remains steady with no vibration the entire time. Even reality TV shows like Cops use Steadicams to improve the camera work.

Recent movies like I Am Legend and Cloverfield have dispensed with the Steadicam and been filmed with just plain ol' hand-held camcorders with no kind of image stabilization. In I Am Legend, it's not so much an issue because the camera doesn't move nearly as much as it does in Cloverfield. This is an "artistic" choice to make the show look more "gritty", like the amateur camcorder footage of car accidents on the local news. It's a fine effect, but it shouldn't be used for an entire movie.

Re:I'm not sure

[Anonymous Coward]

But I think my most concern is fuck the people. I want see the same story from the army point of view.

Then you have your pick of every other fucking monster movie out there. Enjoy.

Re:I'm not sure

[PopeRatzo]

Just like the state of prosumer audio equipment has caught up with professional audio equipment and cannibalized the recording industry,

The fact that more people now have access to equipment capable of producing high quality music recordings has not "cannibalized" the recording industry. As you say, they have done it to themselves. Many of us would say that the availability of low-cost gear has "democratized" the production of music.

If there was ever an industry that deserved to be "cannibalized" it's the music industry. Just the fact that it's called the music industry says it all.

Maybe once the big-label big-distributer system of producing and delivering music has been destroyed once and for all, it will once again be known as just "music" instead of the "music industry".

And you know what? I'm betting that there will be more musicians able to make a living once the top-heavy system is gone. But, as you say, it will take innovation and creativity, something artists are supposed to be good at.

Re:I'm not sure

[NormalVisual]

Then why did the military get all riled up when they figured out she was bitten, and not just injured?

Because she was then considered to be a biohazard and was being segregated from everyone else as quickly as possible. At the very least, I'd guess they wanted to prevent Marlena McNuggets from getting all over anyone that wasn't wearing a hazard suit.

Re:I'm not sure

[Dun Malg]

Indeed, the most important traits of porno cams are:
1) lightweight
2) light attached
3) handle on top so you can grab it and stick it in places where the "action" is most visible

"You burn my nuts with that light one more time and I'm kicking your ass!"

Hollywood hype

[esocid]

I don't know why but I just can't seem to bring myself to think that this movie is going be anything groundbreakingly good. I've been watching rottentomatoes and the last time I checked the cream of the crop had it at 80%. I'm torn, but I still probably won't see it in theaters. The trailers just show you little enough that that's the reason I'm thinking it's just getting hyped, but hey I might be wrong.

Re:Hollywood hype

[HardCase]

I saw it and I want my 80 minutes back. It was pretty much a vehicle for special effects and jerky home video. I guess the acting was OK, but the story was, well, pretty poorly written. When I say implausible, I don't mean a monster attacking NYC, I mean the "reaction" of the characters to the event. My opinion? Cloverfield isn't a low budget scifi/horror show, it's a big budget TV show. Maybe it should have been an HBO film or something.

The Star Trek trailer? Please, god, don't let Abrams screw it up...

Re:Hollywood hype

[captnitro]

Just an alternative opinion. I hated Blair Witch, but I thought Cloverfield was the scariest movie I've seen in a long time. The scariest movie I've seen in a long time, if your local theater supports the dB level the movie really requires.

I saw it as a welcome departure from the Bay/Bruckheimer formula with too-wide, sweeping, omniscient shots where everything's in view, all the time -- the movie didn't focus on the unlikely high-school hero, wasn't concerned with the monster's presence, the pinnacle of the movie wasn't about some magic weapon that would defeat it. It was hopeless and gritty and pretty frightening if you were close to 9/11. CGI was used sparingly, relative to a lot of films these days.

I liked it

[DetpackJump]

I loved it up until they survived the helicopter going down. I wished the movie would have ended with the crash.

Re:I liked it

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

+10 insightful.

How does a girl who survives getting impaled (already sketchy) manage to survive a helicopter crash? I've seen lots of movies like that, but usually with poor lighting and an insane credit card charge.

Star Trek teaser??

[teslar]

Also, there was a Star Trek teaser trailer attached

There was a Star Trek teaser attached and all you want to talk about is Blair Witch meets small-budget-monster movie? You must be new here.

Re:Star Trek teaser??

[RobBebop]

Posted by CmdrTaco

You must be new here.

This takes that joke to a whole new level. I hope this isn't a sign of the apocalypse. I'm gonna go to my bomb shelter now, just in case.

Very good, very original

[halivar]

I was expecting a rehash of the Blair Witch Project. Somethings that made it refreshingly different:
1) The main character, for me, wasn't Rob. It was the guy holding the camera. He was a complete idiot, but I loved him.
2) I thought there was clear character progression for Rob, from complete, insensitive jerk to heroic.
3) Clear resolution on the real story, which is Rob's relationship to whats-her-face.
4) Kick-ass special effects.

One caveat about the movie: bring Dramamine. Lots of it. I had two friends with me who missed the whole second half of the movie because they couldn't look at the screen.

Re:Very good, very original

[Zocalo]

One caveat about the movie: bring Dramamine. Lots of it. I had two friends with me who missed the whole second half of the movie because they couldn't look at the screen. Or just wait a while and download a CAM from BitTorrent; sooner or later someone's going to be swaying with the on-screen motion so smoothly that there will be a rock steady capture in DIVX format. :)

City Dwellwers

[mlingojones]

Why do these monsters always seem to appear in cities? There's been so many movie monsters popping up in New York, Tokyo... eventually, probability dictates that one should pop up in the middle of nowhere. That's what my monster movie's gonna be about: a giant monster that pops up in the middle of Kansas. It'll terrorize a corn field and like two farmers.

Re:City Dwellwers

[smellotron]

It'll terrorize a corn field and like two farmers.

Was that an errant "like"? Or did you really mean to say that a giant monster is going to befriend two farmers in the middle of Kansas?

Re:City Dwellwers

[Blakey Rat]

Population density = terror.

My question has always been: how come giant monsters are never mammals? Barring King Kong, I guess. the Japanese have several dinosaurs, a lobster, robots, and even the personification of smog. I'd like to see like a giant tiger-looking monster that's 80' tall eating people.

cloverfield

[fredex]

Sounds like the internal code-name for a new Intel processor chip.

Movie watching for those with very young children

[EngrBohn]

Good afternoon,

> I don't get to see many movies with a 4 month old in the house,
> but I managed to escape to see Cloverfield

Here's the trick my wife and I used for our "dates" when our son was younger - one of us would drop the other off to watch the movie and then go shopping for a couple of hours with child in tow. Then back to the theater where we'd do a hot driver swap, and the first to watch the movie then shopping for a couple of hours with child in tow. Then back to the theater to pick up the other, and we head off to dinner to discuss the movie. We took turns being first.

Take care,
cb

Godzilla movie from the POV of the civilians...

[m0ng0l]

Is what this basically was. Went to see it last night, good movie, but really not living up to the hype from before it came out. I'm already predicting the following:

1. Movie at least turns a profit on the theatrical release
2. DVD with some extras comes out
3. "Special Edition" DVD comes out with second disc with more back story (WTF *was* the monster?)
4. "Directors Cut Special Edition" DVD comes out with nearly a second movie on the third disc, with even *more* back story...
5. ***PROFIT*** ;-)

Re:Name the Damn thing

[Lord Apathy]

I'm nominating Shub-Niggurath

I can live with that but Abrams has already said there is no Lovecraft tie in. Thank god it wasn't Godzilla.

Offtopic Advice: I know there are some geeks out there that plan to have kids and some of you already do, CmdTaco. Pay attention because I'm about to give you some advice that you won't find in any blog or manual. When you buy kiddy shampoo make sure that you can tell what it is from feel alone. Make sure that when you are doing that blind shower grope the kiddypoo feels different from your conditioner. Trust me on this, you will thank me.

My fucking hair now smells like strawberry but on the upside it does have a nice bounce.

*SPOILERS* The Very End

[Scorpinox]

*stop reading if yer a spoilers nazi*

Anyone else notice at the very very end, when they're at coney island, in the background you see something fall from the sky into the ocean near a boat. To me this is them trying to say the monster came from space, chilled out in the ocean for about a month, then came out and smashed stuff up.

My Review

[Blakey Rat]

I just posted a review on my blog: http://blakeyrat.com/2008/01/19/cloverfield/

I'll paste the text here, but I'm still thinking of going back and revising it.

---

The one sentence review: Cloverfield is unfortunately kind of disappointing, and bring your Dramamine if you're sitting close to the screen.

Look, I like kaiju movies. I like serious Godzilla, the Godzilla of the 50s and 90s. I like crazy Godzilla, the Godzilla of every other decade. Yes, even Godzilla's Revenge. (What? It's funny... don't look at me like that.) I like crazy Gamera, and I believe honestly that Gamera truly is friend to all children. I like the serious Gamera of the 90s, which are still pretty crazy when you think about them, just with more gruesome effects. I even like Garuda, even though it's not really in the same genre.

I'm also the first person to proudly say that despite its name, kaiju movies are an American invention, damnit. Even if you don't think King Kong counts, there's still this awesome little flicked named The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms which not only fits the genre's conventions perfectly, but was released a year and change before the original Godzilla and had special effects by Ray Harryhausen and was written by Ray Bradbury and you really can't beat that.

So what I'm getting at here is you'd think I'd enjoy Cloverfield simply by default, and I didn't really. It had some moments that were truly worthwhile, but the film as a whole just didn't gel for me for whatever reason. And it didn't help that...

Spoilers Ahead ... the monster sucked! All I can say about the monster is that it's a good thing the cast and crew kept it such a tight-lipped secret, because if they'd released photos of it I think it would have hurt their chances at the box office. Yes, gentle viewers, New York was being destroyed by a monster that not only had killer lice, but literally could not stand upright. Being one hundred feet tall? Scary. Waddling around on flippers? Not scary. The two even out to give the general reaction, "eh." When the reaction to the main character of your film is "eh" (and let's face it, people go to kaiju films to see the monster), then you got problems.

The second problem is that Cloverfield doesn't explain anything. Where does the monster come from? I dunno. Why is it in Manhatten? No clue. How come when the little killer lice bite you your head explodes? Shrug. I'm ignoring the questions that apply to all monster/horror movies, such as: "how come weapons that can penetrate 20 thick reinforced concrete are useless against fleshy creature?" and "why the hell are they just standing there gaping when they're in mortal danger?" Even Spielberg's War of the Worlds gave a BS explanation for the alien's presence. (They buried the spaceships a million years ago, then teleported into them under cover of a thunderstorm... God that movie sucked.)

Cloverfield also makes use of the new popular technique to make movies and TV shows look "more real" by not using a steadicam at all. Actually, the entire movie is a first-person viewpoint from a camcorder held by one of the characters, which flashbacks provided by the un-erased parts of the tape he was recording on, so that when the camera jogs or skips you see a few minutes of what it recorded a couple weeks before the events of the movie. I thought that was pretty clever. I'm not a huge hater of the hand-held camera look like a lot of people are, but I do want to warn you if you're going to see the movie that this camera movies. There are several-minute long scenes of it pointing randomly downwards while the characters are running. There's one shot where the camera falls 40 to the ground. (I want to know what model that is, damn it's durable.) Unlike, say, I Am Legend or Battlestar Galactica which are filmed with hand-held cameras that are held pretty steady, the camera in Cloverfield really, really moves. I sat too close to the screen, don't make the mistake I did.

So, in short, despite some exciting moments, I think the negatives of Cloverfield outweight the positives and I left the theater pretty disappointed.

Re:Another movie there

[thomas.galvin]

Say a film crew gets picked up and is in that push where the army is taking on the critter. We can here some rumors where the critter come from as told by the grunts. It wouldn't even have to be a film crew. It could take the form of an after-the-fact report, kind of a "here's what we were able to piece together about the monster" thing assembled from various sources by the military. You could have film from traffic cameras, cell phones, security systems installed in stores and ATMs, those night vision things like we see from attack helicopters in Iraq, all kinds of things. That would allow them to be a bit freer in the narrative - we could actually follow the monster - and it would be an interesting comment on how much of a surveillance society we have become; "everyone in New York is dead, but we still have film of the entire thing."

Re:Movie watching for those with very young childr

[bataras]

15 years later that child in therapy...

"Every time a movie trailer comes on or I go past a theater, I have to go shopping. I can't figure it... my credit cards are maxed..."