Quote from: CallousYou're not lost.  You have a stream.  Follow it downstream and you will get clear of the woods.  Stop crossing the stream and walking in circles!

By the end of the movie, I was SO rooting for the witch...

Thanks for that, I was annoyed as hell by it too.  I started yelling for them to stop whining and start a fucking forest fire.  That will get some help in there for you and might just fry the witch while you are at it.
Of course when my friends and I went camping we were always armed to the teeth and pretty trigger happy so the whole "Witch lurking outside the tent" thing didn't scare me much.

I think I'll pass on Cloverfield.  I have vertigo issues and the "shaky cam" makes me nauseous.

Quote from: GrimjackThanks for that, I was annoyed as hell by it too.  I started yelling for them to stop whining and start a fucking forest fire.

My friend and I, who watched The Blair Witch together (and made snide comments thoughout), vowed to always carry 5 gallons of diesel fuel to the woods when we went witch hunting.  

It was singularly the least scary "scary" film I have ever seen.  In fact the only remotely scary thing that happened, was when someone got a cell phone call and stepped on a plastic cup as he left the room.  

I am also not a big fan of the shaky cam.  The Bourne movies were tolerable (mostly since they were good movies).

Quote from: RChandlerI wasn't too fond of the cute twentysomething yuppies. I was hoping to see them all die. They had way too much screen time.

I was fond of the monster. It was cool. But we didn't get a glimpse of it until fifteen or twenty minutes in, and even then, they just kept teasing us with it. It wasn't actually shown to us until the end of the movie.

There were a few exciting/suspenseful sequences, but this felt a lot like the 1998 Godzilla (the execrable American one): too much people talking and running, not enough monster destruction. In a Japanese monster movie, Godzilla emerges, fucks shit up, then leaves, and *then* the humans show up and start planning retaliation (generals strategize, mad scientists scheme, pilots prepare to deploy crazy new experimental vehicles, et cetera). So you've got your fill of the beast, and you're ready to see people strike back.

The shaky cam was annoying, and I felt kind of ripped off by the way that we never got the glory shots that you expect in this kind of movie -- monster eats people, monster fights military, monster tosses cars around. Lots of people who have seen the movie still can't tell you exactly what it looks like.

Compared to The Host (an excellent monster movie from Korea), this is a big old 'meh'. Had I known, I would have waited for Cloverfield to come out on DVD.

In brief, I went to a monster movie, but what they gave me was Dawson's Creek.

I wasn't really looking for or expecting any of those things.  Just about every monster movie made is full of that, and I was hoping for something different.  If it had met the criteria you outlined, I'd have been really disappointed and probably not hung around until the end.

Quote from: Tom BI wasn't really looking for or expecting any of those things.  Just about every monster movie made is full of that, and I was hoping for something different.  If it had met the criteria you outlined, I'd have been really disappointed and probably not hung around until the end.

Bah! Fie! Fie, I say!

...

Okay, you have a point. Those are elements of just about every good monster movie ever made.

However, those movies are kind of few and far between. I mean, when was the last good kaiju-type monster movie? King Kong doesn't count; Kong was way too sympathetic. Although his flip-out-and-go-bananas-in-the-street sequence was awesome. What have we had, other than the Godzilla movies? There was The Host, there was Negadon... shucks, that's it.

So I was excited about Cloverfield, because when J. J. Abrams said he wanted to create a Godzilla-type monster for Americans, I thought he was serious.

One awesome thing about Cloverfield: hooks. The movie is full of them. Why did this happen? Why did that happen? Where did those... things come from? Were they excreted, or scraped off, or what? The definitely set up a sequel, or at least an expansion into other media (such as that manga that's coming out). Very slick on their part.

Quote from: jgantsYeah.  I love the TV show, "The Shield" and liked the cinematography of the movie,  "The Kingdom" - and they both use some shakycam mixed with regular shots and other stuff.  I can handle that.  Even the last Bourne movie didn't really bother me.

But a whole movie of that ala Blair Witch is just too much.

That's true, I love "The Shield" and I think the way they shoot it works perfectly but I just couldn't stand Blair Witch.  Good point by Callous though about taking diesel fuel on witch hunts so at least now I can say I've learned something from discussing the movie.

Saw it last night, and thought it was excellent.

Of course there were a few gripes -- the indestructible camera with it's everlasting battery, and the post-helicopter crash scene that sacrificed versimiltude for narrative payoff -- but overall I found it to be thoroughly enjoyable. The shakycam was fine, as were the dialogue and performances. The chance to see the monster stomp New York from an aerial pov near the end was great, too. I also liked the parastites, they were both scary and credible.

Most importantly though, I liked that it was short. Too many films linger over unnecessary details these days. Cloverfield is a tight, compact little package that delivers it's story in the required time without directorial overindulgence. I came out of the cinema feeling far more satisfied with the film as a result.

4/5. I'll definitely be buying the DVD on release.

Shaky-cam = Automatic Fail

If I can't see what's going on, then I don't give a shit about your movie.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerShaky-cam = Automatic Fail

If I can't see what's going on, then I don't give a shit about your movie.

It's nothing like as bad as some people have made out. Everything that the audience needed to see (the monster, the parasites, the visceral effects of the rampage on people, places and things) was right there on the screen, often for extended intervals. I didn't even have to think about what was going on, it was all fairly obvious.

Quote from: DrewIt's nothing like as bad as some people have made out. Everything that the audience needed to see (the monster, the parasites, the visceral effects of the rampage on people, places and things) was right there on the screen, often for extended intervals. I didn't even have to think about what was going on, it was all fairly obvious.

In terms of being able to see stuff, yeah, you could definitely see what's going on. If you don't like shaky cam because it makes you sick, however...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIn terms of being able to see stuff, yeah, you could definitely see what's going on. If you don't like shaky cam because it makes you sick, however...

That's fair enough.

They should shoot movies like this with a steady-cam, then add all the camera shake in post production.  That way when it comes out on DVD they could offer theatrical release version and the "not-so-nauseating" version -- sort of like how you can choose Full Frame or Wide Screen.

I hereby raise this thread from the dead!

I saw this a year or so ago and decided to dust it off again and give it another watch. It was worth it....


Spoilers....
















This didn't even register with me on the first viewing, but right at the end, the last shot in fact, something interesting occurs.

It's after they nuke Manhatten and the bridge collapses - the video reverts back to the original footage of the date the 2 main characters went on 3 weeks earlier. They are looking into camera and waffling at the fun-fair by the coast. In the background, towards the far right of the shot, you see something drop from the sky and crash into the sea.

I missed that part until a friend pointed it out to me. Made it a much better movie.

Quote from: jeff37923;380736I missed that part until a friend pointed it out to me. Made it a much better movie.

I rewatched the ending about five times and never saw a fucking thing.

Otherwise, I enjoyed the movie.  It's not amazing, it's certainly no Host, but it's a million miles better than the idiocy that was Blair Witch.

And I agree with Drew's comments, particularly on the welcome brevity (seriously, longer doesn't mean better).

Quote from: Balbinus;380745it's certainly no Host,

Unlike many, i'm glad of this. I watched Host due to the hype and just thought 'meh'. I watched Cloverfield due to the hype and thought 'hmm'.

I'm waiting for the the film i watch due to the hype where i go, "groovy!"