just saw it! i had completely avoided these threads until after tonight anyways, it ruuuuuled.. loved it. i do agree with some of silent killer's gripes.. but when it comes down to it, franks comments sum it up! all characters die, monster prevails.. awesome!! and i didn't see anybody mention.. right after the helicoptor crash you can hear over the intercom, the military guy says something about the the target still being alive, and to commence the destruction command (can't remember the code name for it).. so clearly, ny was bombed to bits!!!!
Hammer down I think. I thought that was what was going on when they were in the tunnel, it was the hammer, blowing everything up. I want to go see it again while it's still in theatres.
Hasbro will be producing the toys. http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByCategory.htm?CD=2&ST=SO&ID=21030&PG=1
I found this pretty good picture of the beastie online -- more or less what I pictured based on the bits you see in the movie:
I loved this movie but the people I went with didn't care much for it. I just assumed there was more than one monster. If there was only one monster it must have really hated those kids because it followed them all over the city. The upskirt cam was a little over the top but the rest of it was great.
Okay, just got back from Cloverfield. Loved it. There were so many unanswered questions, so much to be left to the imagination! I'm really wondering what is was about being bitten by one of the parasites that caused soliders in bio-suits to drag Marlena off in such a panic.
Something that was suggested to me: if the relationship between the little monster and the big one are a parasite-host relationship, then the parasites' saliva may contain some super-powered anticoagulant, like mosquitoes have.
Yeah, that's what most people assume. That or if it's from space, some bacteria we can't handle. I dunno, more than 1 monster? I mean, that's something you think you'd hear about on the news or something or the military would know, no way would that be hidden. I just figured Manhattan was small enough (for a creature that size) to make it plausible that they'd run into it a number of times, especially since they were running around in circles. It's fast too, that thing moves.
Yeah, and did you notice that the room they put her in was stained brown from dried blood, like that's where they've taken many people to "pop" from bites.
Loved it but I liked The Host far better. The Host had great social/political commentary. Cloverfield had none. 1) Hated the people in Cloverfield. Really enoying individuals. 2) The monsters head lice would have killed them in the subways. I don't think these people could have fought off three ticks the size of dogs in the dark with one crowbar. Think of the exoskeleton of a lobster and how much harder it would be at dog size. 3) Girlfriend would have died from shock after being lifted off the rebar. She would not be running down the streets 10 min later. 4) Movie should have ended at the helicoptor crash. These people survived way to much. Super New Yorkers?!? 5) Monster must have died pre-nuke. I cant imagine someones camcorder surviving a nuke. 6) Monster was way cool but it seemed to change size. Was it 6 stories tall or twenty? I realize sometimes it was crawling but still... 7) I hated those people! Come on monster, stomp thier asses and make them stfu!
I usually hate social/politcal commentary, so I'm glad it didn't. I don't need an 1 1/2 movie telling me what to think, I just want an 1 1/2 of mayhem. It usually feels preachy and is rarely original. I'll decide my social/political views in the boring real world. Also, on the people, they did suck and got killed, I'd have been ticked if I LIKED them. I was routing for the monster.
i finally got around to seeing it last week. i've been marginally obsessed with it for a while and i was not disappointed. i know a lot of people give it flack because it's open ended and bag on the handicam thing, but that's what makes it awesome. it's visceral and pure. it's a group of people going through hell. that's it. i plan on preordering one of the toys, i want to see a sculpt first. hopefully i can see it again. seems like it's one of those that the first time out you're in awe too much to catch what's going on. i've read that the thign faling into the water in the last scene is a satellite, and that the tagruato company wakes the monster while trying to retrieve it. there is supposed to be a sibling monster in japan that the slusho company has been harvesting for their secret ingredient. it wreaks of godzilla, but i guess that's the point.
Good theory, could explain the bleeding that occurred just before she was rushed off. I'd also wager that, assuming that the smaller creatures are indeed parasites and not something more like offspring riding piggyback ala mother and baby spiders, all creatures involved are indeed intended by their designers to be extraterrestrial. The only two plausible origins for the creatures would seem to be either aquatic or outer space. Neither of the two creature designs would appear to be suited for underwater existence; particularly the parasites. Yep. I'm gonna go with space monster. I am totally geeking out.
A couple of refreshingly intelligent, well-thought-out responses to the film (not referring to this thread, mind you, but to the knee-jerk "horror movies are bad and stupid" side of the critical community). http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1844 http://www.cinebeats.com/ For those who don't know (or who have never taken a film class in the US) David Bordwell is one of the authors of the ubiquitous textbook Film Art: An Introduction. Despite sounding overly erudite, Bordwell has a great grasp on all genres of films, and this is a perfect example of what he dous best.
I'm almost finished with Bordwell's analysis, which is superb. Thanks for posting the links! To go slightly and fuzzily against the grain here, I'm also very glad that Cloverfield didn't try to be too clever with political messages. If all you want is a first-person monster attack flick, you got a good one. However, I do think that there is the potential for some interpretation of what this film is "about" beyond the ostensible "basics" for those inclined to take it to that level. I'm thinking not only of the *very* conventional "I've gotta save her!" plot that gives the film narrative, which might have something to say about the nature of personal obsession (a good thing or that which delays our heroes and thus kills them?) and also the obvious references to 9/11 (the visceral impact of a destructive but mysterious enemy on the previously secure psyche of a nation ... not unlike the original Godzilla subtext.) I mean, this is seriously film-geek stuff, but skylar said that's okay so there.
Having recently gone through a weird/painful breakup, I found myself very much identifying with the theme of the film and the motivation for the lead (Rob was it?) in that if this kind of shit went down tomorrow in Baltimore, I would likely still try to get to her and make sure she were OK, especially if she called for help. This fundamental sympathy and emotion of the humans was obviously starkly contrasted with the absolute animal motivation of the monster itself. It was concerned, primarily, with eating people. Basic sustenance. Maybe the film is speaking to the weakness and grief we experience due to our sympathy and emotion? I don't think the film was a direct 9/11 re-interpretation, but it obviously did make a point of our vulnerability as a species, and as individuals, to catastrophic events totally outside our individual (or even societal) control. And how the benefits of the high-tech concentrated urban living can instantly get turned upside down, when an urban area's single points of failure become obvious. I SO NEED to see it again in the theater, before it's gone. I saw it alone the first time, and may have to again, as nobody I know wants to see it very much. Idiots...
Sorry, Skylar . . . Paramount Planning Cloverfield Sequel Source: Variety January 31, 2008 Matt Reeves is in early talks with Paramount to direct a Cloverfield sequel, and, as was previously announced, he has also made a deal with GreeneStreet Films to direct The Invisible Woman. Variety says the timing of the projects will depend on how quickly Paramount can complete discussions with Reeves, producer J.J. Abrams and writer Drew Goddard to come up with another monster story for the Cloverfield sequel. There's a good chance the sequel will be Reeves' next film, in which case he will direct The Invisible Woman afterward. "Woman" is a Hitchcock-style thriller that probes the mind of a former beauty queen who turns to a life of crime to protect her family. Well, that didn't take long, did it?
Saw it last night, everybody who saw it said it sucked. I loved it. I may go see it again next week. even though its no longer relevant I enjoyed this idea from the previous thread:
Nice point. I found the human element of the film to be suprisingly touching. I wasn't expecting that at all. The characters transcended the 'loathsome yuppie' typecast I had read so much about---they were just people, doing what they thought was right, following their hearts. When Rob got that call from his Mom in the subway, I almost lost it... Anyway, glad I finally had a chance to see it. I thought it was amazing and totally unlike anything I'd seen before.
I will be pipe bombing the set of the sequel daily to insure that it never happens as it most likely WILL spoil in the innovation of this movie. when will they learn that when you do it right the first time you can pretty much NEVER do it right again?
When aesthetics become more important than the bottom line. Cloverfield's opening was unexpectedly the most successful January film opening, ever. You're right of course. Even if Abrams were to direct the sequel, it wouldn't have the same impact as the original. Even if the film is halfway good, this is still a really stupid and greed-driven decision. So typical. On the other hand, did the miserable sequel to "The Blair Witch Project" diminish the original? Temporarily perhaps, as did the obnoxious over-hyping of the film, but having viewed the original alone in a dark room late at night recently, all that was forgotten. I know not everyone appreciates it but I think it was a very fine little film. It helps to let go of all the baggage around it, the bad merchandising, the bad sequel ... as with anything. If you can bring fresh eyes and ears to something that went stale, you can review it anew. Cloverfield will stand on its own as a unique new approach to the giant monster attack genre for a long time to come.
