Cloverfield - Spoilerific discussion thread

Done!

Hey my post was hijacked!


It's all good.

Ok. I guess I'll throw my hat in the ring. When I saw the drops of goo fall from the monster, and then figured out that they were some ucky crunchy spider lobster alien lice...I almost wet my pants.

I LOVED the fact that his perfect little day (the best day) was slowly being erased to the (absolute worst day) and last, of his life.

I also enjoyed the ending. The realization after coming along with this rag tag group of younguns, that in the end, you were simply a voyeur to past events.

I also like how they didn't spoon feed you everything. Although I'm sure I'd like to know more about "How it came to be." Somethings are best left completely unfleshed out. There are photos on 1-18-08 that lend the idea that it came out from the ocean, and supposeably (I missed it in the movie) that there is a crashing of something in the water in the background in the final scene of Coney Island. There have been some viral ARG stuff out there, and although I've looked at some of it, I think there's much more hidden out there. I think I might have even started a thread about it months ago. (I'll go back and check later.)

There were some things though, that didn't ring true for me...especially with discussion in the light of day. Almost all of it was from the helicopter scene forward. The fact that after being heavily bombed, that the creature could STILL reach up impossibly high to swipe the helicopter down, stretched credibility.

That and only the kids, and not the safely strapped in and highly trained soldiers survived the crash, sat badly with me also. The cockpit is supposably the safest place on a helicopter.

And lastly...while I TOTALLY got off on a full up close view of the big monster (was there more than one I wonder??) the fact that you could hear said monster stomping from far away in the city, but that he silently waited or snuck up on the kids in central park??? A stretch.

All in all though it rocked. I know there's more viral tie in with the hero's job in Japan and the monster..and if anyone has done the digging, please share.

But 25 million dollar budget? I thought it would have cost 4 times as much. If you weed out the 15-20 minutes of party footage and the 10 minutes of credits, it's hard to believe that
the meat of the movie was a single hour. That's how you do it compared to King Kong 4 hours of unrelentling madness. Hit em hard, hit em fast, and leave em wanting more.

There's more stories to be told of Cloverfield, and I loved the normal (bit of a doofus guy) perspective.
I hope there's different POV's in the future.

Hammerdown baby.

Totally agree with your review Jen... it was a great film, and although some parts did not really gel, it was overall an amazing and unique experience.

I too also like the face that the story was not spoon fed, becuase after all it is a video recount and not intended to be a structured story.

I am going to see it again tonight, taking my folks to see it, as I do with all must see movies.

-Cub. =o)

Yeah, when they showed the news report with the "parasites" falling from the monster, I think I let out an audible groan of "Ohhh nooo...." in the theater. As soon as they saw the rats all heading in one direction down in the subway tunnel...yeah, you all need to start running NOW. Rats leaving a sinking ship isn't just a clever saying...

I really liked the way the relationships between the main characters was portrayed, too. I felt like I actually knew those people, because they translated very well to people I know in real life, and how I would interact with my friends. I also really liked the little sub-story between Hud and Marlena, where at the party she was doing all she could to get away from him and the camera, but in her last moments she was calling out for him as the government guys dragged her behind the curtain...to meet a particularly nasty fate it appeared.

On a side note, thank God for Hud. I think if he weren't the one filming--and adding his unique commentary along the way--it might have been a little too intense. Having him make me laugh every now and again made it so I didn't have a heart attack. Although, his talk of flaming homeless people made me simultaneously laugh, and want to kick him in the face.

I also really liked the fact that we didn't get all the information handed to us. Just as it really would have been. Which makes sense, considering the whole thing is viewed through their camcorder, but as a storytelling device, I really felt like it added to the chaos and fear, only finding things out in bits and pieces through hastily filmed news reports, etc.

Also, here's a link I found while researching the background story, ARG elements. It gives a pretty good synopsis of the events leading up to the movie: ‘Cloverfield’ Mythos Explored: Monsters + Marketing = Millions

Two stories from my night:

During the party scene, after it had gone on for a while, my friend Melissa turned to me and asked "When are the monsters going to show up?" at the EXACT moment the lights went out and you heard the first BOOM. I replied "Right about now, I think."

Then, on our way out of the theater, in the parking lot, someone had the bass turned way up in their car. As they drove by, it really made me jumpy and nervous...bass noises should be off limits after seeing Cloverfield.

There's one thing that I am really scared of now that I've seen that film...


...Flaming homeless people.

-Cub. =o)

I thought it was kind of cute that, of the all the characters, only the girl in the party dress and high heels survived. It's your basic urban survival gear, I guess.

I finally read this thread. Because I finally got to see the movie. And HOOO BOY! Was Cub ever right when he said it was one of the best films of the last 24 months. Easily! I haven't felt that good feeling you get when you leave a cinema for a long, long time! You guys've said it all so far, the good stuff about the film, such as how you don't get spoonfed (which was a thing I absolutely loved!)

About how the monster *suddenly* appears on top of them however, I think the camera skipped a few beats between when it wasn't there and when it was there, at least that's the way I figured it to be.

Also, I didn't see anything in the background near the end either. If anyone's seen what, where, when, near the end of the film, please spoiler it for me, because I need to know My curiosity demands it of me!

Otherwise I'll just say DAMN GOOD MOVIEMAKING!

-Fred

Well Fred, I was paying attention the second time round and I only just saw it... but if you look carefully, on the last scene before the camera runs out of tape (when they are at Coney Island) when he films outside of the ferris wheel towards the water (just before he turns it back around to film them) in the far distance you see a feint splash in the water.

Now, the story behind that is:

The comapny he was going to work for in Japan (and be Vice President) specialised in satellite technology... I am not sure whether it was orbit satellites, or submarine monitoring satellites, but either way, a space satellite either fell into the water, or they dropped a submarine satellite into the water on purpose. This in turn did something to wake the monster that was always there, dormant.

And if you stick around to the end of the credits (it's not really worth it because the credits are LONG) you hear a sound one the camera where it appears to say "help us"... but play it backwards, and it says "it's still alive".

Interesting indeed.

-Cub. =o)

Cubase wrote:Well Fred, I was paying attention the second time round and I only just saw it... but if you look carefully, on the last scene before the camera runs out of tape (when they are at Coney Island) when he films outside of the ferris wheel towards the water (just before he turns it back around to film them) in the far distance you see a feint splash in the water.

Now, the story behind that is:

The comapny he was going to work for in Japan (and be Vice President) specialised in satellite technology... I am not sure whether it was orbit satellites, or submarine monitoring satellites, but either way, a space satellite either fell into the water, or they dropped a submarine satellite into the water on purpose. This in turn did something to wake the monster that was always there, dormant.

And if you stick around to the end of the credits (it's not really worth it because the credits are LONG) you hear a sound one the camera where it appears to say "help us"... but play it backwards, and it says "it's still alive".

Interesting indeed.

-Cub. =o)

I did stay for the credits, but it was because of the music. Really fine music.

It's interesting that the name the composer, Michael Giacchino (he does everything for JJ), gave to the piece is "Roar! (Cloverfield Ouverture)". For those of us who know classical music, we know that Ouverture is a piece written to start either a larger piece, like an Opera, Oratorio, Whatever, or to start the whole concert.
Now, did he use that word properly or only as just another name? If he did use it in its sense, then, indeed, something's going to happen :O

And if you stick around to the end of the credits (it's not really worth it because the credits are LONG) you hear a sound one the camera where it appears to say "help us"... but play it backwards, and it says "it's still alive".

I always stay 'till the end of the credits. But how in the heck do you play the audio backwards? Also, how does one figure out which clip to play backwards and which to ignore - or are you pulling our leg?

DrPaul wrote:

And if you stick around to the end of the credits (it's not really worth it because the credits are LONG) you hear a sound one the camera where it appears to say "help us"... but play it backwards, and it says "it's still alive".

I always stay 'till the end of the credits. But how in the heck do you play the audio backwards? Also, how does one figure out which clip to play backwards and which to ignore - or are you pulling our leg?

Played that part of the end credits as it has been uploaded on YouTube (forwards and backwards)... also recorded forwards, and reversed it myself to double check... it's true.

-Cub. =o)

Ok. Time for someone to rain on this parade. That is, it's time for an alternate opinion.

First of all, I agree with mostly all of the positive comments here. That is, I agree on the detail: the fresh perspective; an original way of presenting a monster movie; the original ending; the effective spfx. I could go on. There are many positives to this movie. And it was, at one level, a piece of entertainment.

But. . .

IMHO, most movies (an this genre in particular) require some basic elements. For example, character. The characters in this film were one dimensional. In addition, the style of the film (which has some positives) made it difficult to get to know the characters as people. They were only images on the screen. Frankly, I wasn't involved with what happened to these people. They were less than stereotypes: they were sketches. Not fully fleshed out. Who cares what happens to them?

We might have cared if another essential part of filmmaking would have been present: a plot. Oh, yes, I hear you. . .the plot was "escape from the monster and/or rescue the girl." I'm sorry, we need more than that. Even in a monster movie (a classic B movie type), we need a hook, a story line, a plan of action, a path to follow.

So, in the absence of a plot and character, what are you left with? A special effects display. That's all it was. And that can be enough, if that's what you want. There's nothing wrong with a guilty pleasure of a movie that's mostly a visual experience. And, like I said, the new perspective (i.e. a "found video") was very interesting. But. . . a great movie?!?!?

I'm sorry. . .I'm afraid not.

Gary, I am afraid you (like many others) have fallen into the trap of expecting the wrong things from the wrong type of film. Not saying that people expected an Oscar winner too much from a possibly bad film... more like a mis-classification of the genre.

Think Blair Witch, with a bigger budget and you are probably on the money with Cloverfield.

A lot of people left the cinemas asking for 3 things:

A solid plot
A back-story and explanation behind the happenings
And fully fledged character development

Unfortunately they were not given these 3 things.

Now think: what is the fictional situation set up by this film that brings us to watching this footage? It if of course the fact that we are watching somebody else’s recovered video camera. Now, in that sense I think the film is spot on in terms of how it portrayed the characters and the situation, completely un-cut and as it happened.

If I were to lend you my camera after the Christmas family celebrations Gary, you would watch it, but would you ask for character or plot development, and would you ask for a back-story to every little thing that happened in the footage? Probably not because you know that you are probably not going to get those answers from this footage, and you are merely a fly on the wall in the story that is being told by my camera... the experience captured on film.

The same goes for Cloverfield... however under much, much more interesting circumstances. We are nothing more than a fly on the wall in someone else’s documentary, un-edited, and under-developed (as with most handy-cam footage), they way it should be.

I personally think any attempt to over dramatize the characters or the story would've cheapened the experience significantly, and the lack of full character development, and solid explanation, or even proper reasoning behind the progressions of their actions were spot on in solidifying the genre, and making this impromptu documentary seem VERY real.

Yes, I said 'genre'... because like Blair witch and other film of its type, their characteristics do not contain character developments, spoon-fed plots, or well developed reasoning... as they are, after all, presented to us as they would be if you were to be the one who found to footage yourself.

Unfortunately I think you may have mis-aligned you expectations of the film, because in my opinion it did perfectly well for its genre. It is not Independance Day, Godzilla or even Armageddon (all Sci-Fi action dramas)... it is a different genre all together... that of the un-cut action mockumentary, and so it does not need to adhere to the basic elements you though it should. The bility to interpret the film is indeed up to the viewer, and I guess one can only experience it to it's true potential if they feel comfortable in the genre, which I guess Gary you did not... and that's nobody's fault... just how you chose to interpret it.

-Cub. =o)

You make very valid points, Cub. Hey, I can enjoy a flick on it's own terms as well as the next guy. For example (and a crazy one at that), I thoroughly enjoy "Monty Python And The Holy Grail" on its own terms. I don't demand plot, character, etc. for a movie like that.

But my complaint is that, perhaps, Cloverfiled was trying to be something more than it wound up being. So, on that level, it failed.

But I could be wrong.

Hey, movies are like any art (or food). Some people like the dish, some people don't. Nothing wrong with that. For example, I hate Indian food, even though I know many people love it, and so it must be good. For me, it's like eating church incense.

Ah, viva la difference. If we all agreed on everything we liked or didn't like, it would be really boring, don't you think?