Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Just watched Cloverfield...

steveo87

steveo87

22/11/2022 - got a maths joke.
WTF?????
Seriously what is the piont of that film?
eighty one minutes of uestions with no answers, was the monster an alien? Godzilla style experiment gone wrong or just something JJ Abrahams thought up whilst thinking up series 769 of Lost?
Seriously did anyone on ere actually enjoy that film??
cos according to Wiki everyone basically gave up life after it came out cos theree was no point living afterward.....

....Then I watched Ferris Bueller's Day Off and now feel much better, now wheres my weed.....
 
I thought it was reasonably enjoyable; not sure whether we were meant to relate to the characters or despise them given their affluent New Yorker status. But the effects were good, and the opening was left kinda open ending (that is if you can conceive the lead characters survived an atomic bombing).

I think a sequel is in the pipeline regardless.
 
steveo87 said:
WTF?????
Seriously what is the piont of that film?
eighty one minutes of uestions with no answers
Click to expand...
I really liked the fact they didn't answer all the questions, made it (an admittedly outlandish concept anyway) more realistic). Genuine question: why must a film answer all your questions?

To be honest I didn't think they took the format far enough, way too many contrivences for my likeing, but I still comend them for making the effort and trying something different with a mainstream film.
 
It's an entertainment. It isn't a learned treatise. It uses camera angles and special effects to create something like a thrill ride that lasts about 90 minutes. It does that fairly effectively, but does not reveal the meaning of life.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
It's an entertainment. It isn't a learned treatise. It uses camera angles and special effects to create something like a thrill ride that lasts about 90 minutes. It does that fairly effectively, but does not reveal the meaning of life.
Click to expand...

true, but it still didn't do anything for me and just felt totally apathetic towards it when it fifnished....
 
steveo87 said:
true, but it still didn't do anything for me and just felt totally apathetic towards it when it fifnished....
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, but then you went on to disparage all those who did like it. I liked it, you didn't.

At least we can both agree that Ferris is a superior movie.:)
 
One of my favourite bits: when they're in the military hospital, and the impregnated person comes in on the stretcher, the army shoots them there and then. No stupid 'OOO, what might happen, lets walk away and leave it for an hour' BANG! BLOOD!

By the narrative standards of any monster movie incredibly intelligent - doesn't explain anything, just tells a very basic story of survival, and in many ways bears better comparison with a Romero zombie flick than traditional monster movies. The whole thing about 'OH, there just so annoying'...what, set it in Manchester on a council estate for some verité and easy association?

Great film.
 
steveo87 said:
true, but it still didn't do anything for me and just felt totally apathetic towards it when it fifnished....
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can understand if you didn't get on board with the format then it rather would, the characters were boring nothings and all the bits that most people seem to rave about I wan't particularly interested in because I just really did not care at all about any of the characters. I suppose the argument could be made that that in itself was realistic, as there's no reason the camcorder would be carried around by a group of interesting people anymore than a bunch of dullards.

One would have been nice though :(

To be honest it was of personal interest to me as I'm quite a fan of that type of film, ala Blair Witch and, to a lesser extent, Children of Men.
 
I liked the film, some of it was a bit obvious, but the monster was awesome

I'd like to see a sequel about the army battling the monster
 
"What is it?"
"I don't know, but it's winning"

:cool:

According to internet rumour (I know) the monster was only a baby, hence why it was just stumbling around going "arrrrgggh" (as babies do), and that if they make a sequel mummy will make an appearence :eek: :D
 
Mate of mine who saw it on DVD and in cinema said it's better on the smaller screen cos your eyeballs don't have to move around so much...
 
kyser_soze said:
Mate of mine who saw it on DVD and in cinema said it's better on the smaller screen cos your eyeballs don't have to move around so much...
Click to expand...

Not that much of the movie is blurred in that way. How sensitive are some people, or is it just a desire to complain about anything different?
 
I saw it on a 120' screen, and it's not the blurring, it's the constant motion that lots of people didn't like - especially on a really big screen. TBH there were a couple of points where there was definite eye-muscle aching for me, but I've played lots of FPS games, so didn't get motion sickness the way some people did.
 
kyser_soze said:
I saw it on a 120' screen, and it's not the blurring, it's the constant motion that lots of people didn't like - especially on a really big screen. TBH there were a couple of points where there was definite eye-muscle aching for me, but I've played lots of FPS games, so didn't get motion sickness the way some people did.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who got sick from it. If you drive a car, your eyeballs are moving all the time. Most people are able to do it without becoming physically ill.

In fact, your eyeballs are moving all the time. If you look at any of the old concentration studies, you see that when people are told to fixate on some object or dot, their eyes spend most of the time darting all over the place.
 
kyser_soze said:
Mate of mine who saw it on DVD and in cinema said it's better on the smaller screen cos your eyeballs don't have to move around so much...
Click to expand...

Well I saw it on a four inch monitor on a plane and would like to see it on a bigger screen. Still enjoyed it though. I've read about a few things that I missed, so I will definitely be watching it again.

I like the fact that it didn't give you all the answers. We were seeing it from 'their' perspective after all, and they didn't have a clue what was going on so why should we?

Apparently the sequel will be showing the same events as filmed by another New Yorker, who was seen briefly in Colverfield as they were crossing Brooklyn Bridge.
 
Some parts of it I enjoyed but overall I did not really feel...I dunno...satisfied.

The one bit I really liked was when they are on the street and then all of a sudden the army guys appear en masse and open fire on the monster. Sounded great through my speakers and sub :D
 
I think the whole film would have worked much better if you hadn't actually seen the creature(s) very much until right at the very end (See "Alien" etc ). The main creature was a bit "Jurassic Park" & I didn't find it very scary.
 
I thought it was ace - just really exciting and the monster was cool too.

I didn't have anything clever to say afterwards apart from "that was EXCITING"
 
I loved it. It really made me grin like an idiot. It's just the sort of movie that floats my boat.

Ferris Bueller, on the other hand, is a piece of shit.
 
rhod said:
I think the whole film would have worked much better if you hadn't actually seen the creature(s) very much until right at the very end (See "Alien" etc ). The main creature was a bit "Jurassic Park" & I didn't find it very scary.
Click to expand...

Umm...you don't see it properly until the end. The most you see of it during the film is when they're overflying it in the chopper. Everything else is jusy quick glimpses looking up to where the miltary are firing.

Are you sure you've seen it :p
 
Hehe - maybe I'm getting it mixed up with something else, but I do seem to remember some big slimy looking things stomping around amongst the skyscrapers.

I just think it might have been more exciting just using sound design and the terrified descriptions of people fleeing.

They seemed to use this technique a bit more in the film "The Mist", but even when you do start to see the nasties, you're still thinking "Hmmmm nice CGI, but..."
 
I must come across as a right wuss, but I found it really scary :confused:. I don't usually watch horror movies anyway, but I dunno...just the bit where the girl's stomach explodes *_* ewwwww. Freaked me right out. I thought it was cleverly done, but I agree that it left too many things hanging and unanswered. I don't think there should be a sequel, I think they should have just answered a few more questions in the first one - like just some subtle hints or something, like overheard military talk or documents left lying around for the camera to rest on for a minute.

Anyway, I do think the camera work was really good - it made it feel more realistic and I felt it on a personal level. F.R.E.A.K.E.E.E.E!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Just finished audiobooking the Silmarillion
Replies
9
Views
346
Idaho
Idaho
savoloysam
Is it OK to watch Al Pacino after 11PM?
2
Replies
31
Views
823
editor
editor
DaveCinzano
What films are currently on your TO WATCH list?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
ska invita
Books that critique religion that aren't just atheism type things
Replies
0
Views
127
ska invita
ska invita
T & P
Your favourite film trailers you’ve watched again and again
Replies
17
Views
562
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Back
Top Bottom