CLOVERFIELD (no spoilers)
moviePig
'CLOVERFLEECE', 'CLOVERFLUFF'... so many snarky putdowns that'll have
to go unused. Oh, well... Bottom line is that the movie
works ...probably even a little better than BLAIR WITCH did. (Their
respective marketing campaigns have made WITCH the comparator of
choice.) In fact, if CLOVERFIELD were an import, you can bet we'd be
reading about foreigners teaching Hollywood a thing or two. Also, let
me say that, apart from some too-tame language, 'PG-13' was the
correct aim here... inasmuch as the sort of violence that tends to
bunch-up the MPAA's crocheted panties would, in CLOVERFIELD, clearly
have been distracting over-maim. (In some notable aspects, this
movie's nicely informed by Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS.) Unless
you're too stodgy for a little cinematic inventiveness, CLOVERFIELD's
well recommended.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Alric Knebel
It sounds about what I expected. Thanks. I was going to see it this
afternoon, but came down with something like the flu.
--
_________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
moviePig
> moviePig wrote:
> > 'CLOVERFLEECE', 'CLOVERFLUFF'... so many snarky putdowns that'll have
> > to go unused. Oh, well... Bottom line is that the movie
> > works ...probably even a little better than BLAIR WITCH did. (Their
> > respective marketing campaigns have made WITCH the comparator of
> > choice.) In fact, if CLOVERFIELD were an import, you can bet we'd be
> > reading about foreigners teaching Hollywood a thing or two. Also, let
> > me say that, apart from some too-tame language, 'PG-13' was the
> > correct aim here... inasmuch as the sort of violence that tends to
> > bunch-up the MPAA's crocheted panties would, in CLOVERFIELD, clearly
> > have been distracting over-maim. (In some notable aspects, this
> > movie's nicely informed by Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS.) Unless
> > you're too stodgy for a little cinematic inventiveness, CLOVERFIELD's
> > well recommended.
>
> afternoon, but came down with something like the flu.
Drink plenty of fluids, and take a couple of horror movies before
bedtime. (Btw, I notice I called anyone who *didn't* like CLOVERFIELD
"stodgy". I meant it, of course, in the most lovable, chin-chucking
way...)
Garondo Marondo
> 'CLOVERFLEECE', 'CLOVERFLUFF'... so many snarky putdowns that'll have
> to go unused. Oh, well... Bottom line is that the movie
> works ...probably even a little better than BLAIR WITCH did. (Their
> respective marketing campaigns have made WITCH the comparator of
> choice.) In fact, if CLOVERFIELD were an import, you can bet we'd be
> reading about foreigners teaching Hollywood a thing or two. Also, let
> me say that, apart from some too-tame language, 'PG-13' was the
> correct aim here... inasmuch as the sort of violence that tends to
> bunch-up the MPAA's crocheted panties would, in CLOVERFIELD, clearly
> have been distracting over-maim.
Maybe I'm not reading you right Piggy, happens all the time actually,
but the version of Cloverfield I saw today was rated R not PG-13.
moviePig
Nope, you read me right. Why do you think it's 'R'? (8.3 from 2,500
IMDb viewers, btw. Wow. And, contrary to what Harkness would say
right now about fanboys... I'll bet that holds up fairly well...)
Flasherly
"[The film's] stroke of genius: its nearly subconscious evocation of
our current paranoid, terror-phobic times." -Austin Chronicle
"[It's in the]...endlessly, cruelly commodified images from Sept. 11,
2001, that "Cloverfield" pursues wit." -Chicago Tribune
"If you've watched _Starship Troopers_. . .you won't be surprised by
the plot developments or creature design in this movie." -San
Francisco Chronicle
A western spin in swing to a Tokyo style of obsessive/neurotic
cataclysmic proportions? Everybody running around with their heads
cut off screaming the sky is falling? Sounds great. I was flattened
by Starship Troopers.
Garondo Marondo
I think its R because of the scene at the military medical setup.
trotsky
> 'CLOVERFLEECE', 'CLOVERFLUFF'... so many snarky putdowns that'll have
> to go unused. Oh, well... Bottom line is that the movie
> works ...probably even a little better than BLAIR WITCH did.
That's not hard to do.
(Their
> respective marketing campaigns have made WITCH the comparator of
> choice.) In fact, if CLOVERFIELD were an import, you can bet we'd be
> reading about foreigners teaching Hollywood a thing or two. Also, let
> me say that, apart from some too-tame language, 'PG-13' was the
> correct aim here... inasmuch as the sort of violence that tends to
> bunch-up the MPAA's crocheted panties would, in CLOVERFIELD, clearly
> have been distracting over-maim. (In some notable aspects, this
> movie's nicely informed by Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS.) Unless
> you're too stodgy for a little cinematic inventiveness, CLOVERFIELD's
> well recommended.
Mutefan wouldn't like it. I would like some back story, but even
without that the movie built in intensity really well. More or less
just a cinematic roller coaster ride.
Thanatos
<23b0b62c-3204-4e8e...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Garondo Marondo <Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, you should probably look at the actual rating instead of guessing
based on one scene or another. The film is rated PG-13.
moviePig
Well, treading near what I consider SPOILER-ish territory... I can say
that I actually found the absence of backstory, as well as the dissing
of frontstory, refreshing. Not the first time that sort of thing's
ever been done... but maybe the first instance for a 'PG-13' U.S.
horror-movie... (in a January, certainly...)
trotsky
I would like to see something revealing tacked on to the end like they
did with the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. Still a very good movie, but
something decent in terms of a storyline would've put it over the top
for me. I should also point out that I don't think an R rating would've
increased the level of intensity at all. One of the things that made it
so was excellent sound design, but it was kind of funny how the video
was supposed to be from a consumer camcorder but the audio still managed
to be state of the art.
moviePig
Fyi, Wikipedia does describe a little post-credit tack-on. (I'd
left.) However, my mileage definitely varies on the "missing
storyline". This movie's baseless horror is nominally reminiscent of
Hitchcock's cornfield crop-duster and Romero's opening cemetery-
stranger. If you can pull it off, it's distilled fright. Thus,
contrary to one reviewer's calling CLOVERFIELD "monstrously good fun",
my ample matinee audience (who I'm sure were pleased) sat quietly rapt
throughout. This ain't your father's GODZILLA, nor even THE HOST.
(Yeah, I noticed that about the sound, too. But, good cheat, imo.
And fwiw, several distant conversations *were* only half-
intelligible.)
Garondo Marondo
Spoiler.
Apparently, in the last scene when the camera reverts back to the date
on Coney Island you can see the monster falling from the sky and
hitting the ocean in the background as they're in the ferris weel. I
didn't see this while watching the film.
moviePig
wrote:
(Screenplay by Harold Pinter.) I missed that, too ...and hope that it
eventually hits YouTube.
nick
That's because they cut all the backstory scenes about the sick orphan
who puts a curse on New York City. Wait for the DVD for those.
nick
>
> - Show quoted text -
It must have been thrown out there by Will Smith's Hancock.
trotsky
> Spoiler.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Apparently, in the last scene when the camera reverts back to the date
> on Coney Island you can see the monster falling from the sky and
> hitting the ocean in the background as they're in the ferris weel. I
> didn't see this while watching the film.
I didn't catch that either. Did it fall from the sky *and* have a
cloaking device?
trotsky
Come on--Hitchcock? He was a master storyteller--and had that sequence
in the middle of a movie full of master storytelling. There was no
story--perhaps you can tell us what happens when you get bit by one of
the smaller creatures, for example? Again, it was very entertaining,
but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like David
Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
moviePig
Something... really... bad...
> Again, it was very entertaining,
> but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like David
> Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
Well, my reaction's different. Although I'm not inclined to
immortalize CLOVERFIELD - or even to watch it again - the more I've
thought about it the more I like it as a nasty and poignant little
tone-poem. (Note, btw, that PITCH BLACK was sciFi-horror... whereas
this was just horror. E.g., I agree with those who've alluded to
CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)
nick
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hadn't thought of it in Lovecraftian terms but yeah, that's there,
so maybe the Clovefield creature was an escapee from The Mist, another
recent horror flick with Lovecraftian undertones.
trotsky
Okay, you've got me--when you veer from "Hitchcockian" to "tone poem
like" makes me defer to your ability to be more "Red Cloud like" than me.
(Note, btw, that PITCH BLACK was sciFi-horror... whereas
> this was just horror. E.g., I agree with those who've alluded to
> CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)
Anybody who thinks that has never read Lovecraft.
trotsky
nick, did the dingo eat your brain? Nameless creatures older than the
Earth hiding in a mist has a connection to Lovecraft, but a big ass
monster running around knocking down buildings does not. Moreover, for
a story to be "Lovecraftian", it will be "Poe like" in that there is
generally going to be a protaganist that is middle aged, educated, and
versed in scientific method who is in dogged pursuit of the facts.
Apparently, because people don't actually read anymore, any movie with
an ugly monster in it is "Lovecraftian".
moviePig
I thought exactly that. And, imo, it was King's Lovecraftiness that
made his novella worth reading ...and THE MIST worth watching for
going even further out on that limb (i.e., at the end)...
Derek Janssen
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would like to see something revealing tacked on to the end like they
>>>>>>did with the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. �Still a very good movie, but
>>>>>>something decent in terms of a storyline would've put it over the top
>>>>>>for me. �I should also point out that I don't think an R rating would've
>>>>>>increased the level of intensity at all. �One of the things that made it
>>>>>>so was excellent sound design, but it was kind of funny how the video
>>>>>>was supposed to be from a consumer camcorder but the audio still managed
>>>>>>to be state of the art.
>>
>>>>>Fyi, Wikipedia does describe a little post-credit tack-on. �(I'd
>>>>>left.) �However, my mileage definitely varies on the "missing
>>>>>storyline". �This movie's baseless horror is nominally reminiscent of
>>>>>Hitchcock's cornfield crop-duster and Romero's opening cemetery-
>>>>>stranger. �If you can pull it off, it's distilled fright.
>>>
>>>CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>so maybe the Clovefield creature was an escapee from The Mist, another
>>recent horror flick with Lovecraftian undertones.
>
> I thought exactly that. And, imo, it was King's Lovecraftiness that
> made his novella worth reading ...and THE MIST worth watching for
> going even further out on that limb (i.e., at the end)...
...And even though the monster may not have been *the* Cthulu, as
flailing fanboy teaser-rumors tried to call it back in July--
By the way, just for the record, *was* Ethan Haas right? ;)
Derek Janssen (who never did complete that flash-game ball thingy)
eja...@verizon.net
moviePig
> moviePig wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 2:14 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Come on--Hitchcock? He was a master storyteller--and had that sequence
> >> in the middle of a movie full of master storytelling. There was no
> >> story--perhaps you can tell us what happens when you get bit by one of
> >> the smaller creatures, for example?
>
> > Something... really... bad...
>
> >> Again, it was very entertaining,
> >> but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like David
> >> Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
>
> > Well, my reaction's different. Although I'm not inclined to
> > immortalize CLOVERFIELD - or even to watch it again - the more I've
> > thought about it the more I like it as a nasty and poignant little
> > tone-poem.
>
> Okay, you've got me--when you veer from "Hitchcockian" to "tone poem
> like" makes me defer to your ability to be more "Red Cloud like" than me.
(Don't you mean 'Flasherly'? 'Red Cloud' just gripes while omitting
certain parts of speech, e.g., articles...) I think of a tone-poem -
I assume you know it's music - as trying to set an isolated mood as
expediently, compactly, and purely as possible.
> (Note, btw, that PITCH BLACK was sciFi-horror... whereas
> > this was just horror. E.g., I agree with those who've alluded to
> > CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)
>
> Anybody who thinks that has never read Lovecraft.
Afaik, I've read most Lovecraft. And what he invariably aims for is
to disorient you and take you to a place where you'll feel
*existentially* frightened. There's very little plausibility-setup,
danger, or exciting suspense to speak of... just descent upon descent,
until a final imagery trap is sprung. Nick mentioned CANNIBAL
HOLOCAUST as the original found-footage horror... but I think it,
CLOVERFIELD, and Lovecraft also share some tactics in trying to hit
you where it hurts.
Lord Jubjub
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> nick wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 2:27?pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 19, 2:14?pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> moviePig wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 19, 9:32 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I would like to see something revealing tacked on to the end like they
> >>>>> did with the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. ?Still a very good movie, but
> >>>>> something decent in terms of a storyline would've put it over the top
> >>>>> for me. ?I should also point out that I don't think an R rating would've
> >>>>> increased the level of intensity at all. ?One of the things that made it
> >>>>> so was excellent sound design, but it was kind of funny how the video
> >>>>> was supposed to be from a consumer camcorder but the audio still managed
> >>>>> to be state of the art.
> >>>> Fyi, Wikipedia does describe a little post-credit tack-on. ?(I'd
> >>>> left.) ?However, my mileage definitely varies on the "missing
> >>>> storyline". ?This movie's baseless horror is nominally reminiscent of
> >>>> Hitchcock's cornfield crop-duster and Romero's opening cemetery-
> >>>> stranger. ?If you can pull it off, it's distilled fright. ?Thus,
> >>>> contrary to one reviewer's calling CLOVERFIELD "monstrously good fun",
> >>>> my ample matinee audience (who I'm sure were pleased) sat quietly rapt
> >>>> throughout. ?This ain't your father's GODZILLA, nor even THE HOST.
> >>>> (Yeah, I noticed that about the sound, too. ?But, good cheat, imo.
> >>>> And fwiw, several distant conversations *were* only half-
> >>>> intelligible.)
> >>> Come on--Hitchcock? ?He was a master storyteller--and had that sequence
> >>> in the middle of a movie full of master storytelling. ?There was no
> >>> story--perhaps you can tell us what happens when you get bit by one of
> >>> the smaller creatures, for example?
> >> Something... really... bad...
> >>
> >>> ?Again, it was very entertaining,
> >>> but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like David
> >>> Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
> >> Well, my reaction's different. ?Although I'm not inclined to
> >> immortalize CLOVERFIELD - or even to watch it again - the more I've
> >> thought about it the more I like it as a nasty and poignant little
> >> tone-poem. ?(Note, btw, that PITCH BLACK was sciFi-horror... whereas
> >> this was just horror. ?E.g., I agree with those who've alluded to
> >> CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > I hadn't thought of it in Lovecraftian terms but yeah, that's there,
> > so maybe the Clovefield creature was an escapee from The Mist, another
> > recent horror flick with Lovecraftian undertones.
>
>
> nick, did the dingo eat your brain? Nameless creatures older than the
> Earth hiding in a mist has a connection to Lovecraft, but a big ass
> monster running around knocking down buildings does not. Moreover, for
> a story to be "Lovecraftian", it will be "Poe like" in that there is
> generally going to be a protaganist that is middle aged, educated, and
> versed in scientific method who is in dogged pursuit of the facts.
>
> Apparently, because people don't actually read anymore, any movie with
> an ugly monster in it is "Lovecraftian".
The first few glimpses of the creature was Lovecraftian. But as more of
the monster was revealed in form and movement, it became more like
Godzilla than Cthluhlu
--
Lord Jubjub
Keeper of the Jabberwock
moviePig
(From Wikipedia: Ethan Haas - A man who once foretold the coming
destruction of the world;)
Well, yeah... but give it time...
trotsky
> On Jan 19, 2:55 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> moviePig wrote:
>>> On Jan 19, 2:14 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Come on--Hitchcock? He was a master storyteller--and had that sequence
>>>> in the middle of a movie full of master storytelling. There was no
>>>> story--perhaps you can tell us what happens when you get bit by one of
>>>> the smaller creatures, for example?
>>> Something... really... bad...
>>>> Again, it was very entertaining,
>>>> but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like David
>>>> Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
>>> Well, my reaction's different. Although I'm not inclined to
>>> immortalize CLOVERFIELD - or even to watch it again - the more I've
>>> thought about it the more I like it as a nasty and poignant little
>>> tone-poem.
>> Okay, you've got me--when you veer from "Hitchcockian" to "tone poem
>> like" makes me defer to your ability to be more "Red Cloud like" than me.
>
> (Don't you mean 'Flasherly'?
I meant "some anonymouse" if that works any better.
'Red Cloud' just gripes while omitting
> certain parts of speech, e.g., articles...)
Yes, Calvin goes into even more detail in a later post.
I think of a tone-poem -
> I assume you know it's music - as trying to set an isolated mood as
> expediently, compactly, and purely as possible.
If you can tell me of a tone poem that is as exceedingly loud as
"Cloverfield" you might be on to something. If you'd like you can
compare and contrast your analogy to my clichéd "cinematic roller coaster."
(Note, btw, that PITCH BLACK was sciFi-horror... whereas
>>> this was just horror.
Really? If we consult imdb they have "Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller" for
"Cloverfield" and "Action/Adventure/Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller" for "Pitch
Black" so I just don't know what to think anymore.
E.g., I agree with those who've alluded to
>>> CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)
>> Anybody who thinks that has never read Lovecraft.
>
> Afaik, I've read most Lovecraft. And what he invariably aims for is
> to disorient you and take you to a place where you'll feel
> *existentially* frightened. There's very little plausibility-setup,
> danger, or exciting suspense to speak of... just descent upon descent,
> until a final imagery trap is sprung. Nick mentioned CANNIBAL
> HOLOCAUST as the original found-footage horror... but I think it,
> CLOVERFIELD, and Lovecraft also share some tactics in trying to hit
> you where it hurts.
Well, if we look at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovecraft#Survey_of_the_work
they list the themes in Lovecraft as:
Forbidden knowledge, Nonhuman influences on humanity, Atavistic guilt,
Inability to escape fate, Civilization under threat, Racism, Gender, and
Risks of a Scientific Era.
"Racism" is a poor choice of words, in my opinion, and I've seen
"xenophobia" as a far better description of what he was driven by. Of
these listed on wiki., though, probably the one most like "Cloverfield"
is "civilization under threat" but this isn't really comparable to what
Lovecraft was writing about, which was sinister forces that few people
have even seen evidence of. We could go into a lot more detail, I
suppose, but I would just like you to point me at a Lovecraft work that
bears even a passing resemblance to "Cloverfield".
Also, nick never mentioned "Cannibal Holocaust" specifically, but did
mention Deodato, so kudos for not being so Italo-phobic (fear of
italics?) as to recognize which movie he was talking about. However,
"Cloverfield" was probably most influenced by "Blair Witch" which was
clearly influenced by "The Last Broadcast", which may or may not have
been inspired by CH. Too bad Harkness isn't here--he usually
straightened out crap like this real quick.
Ken from Chicago
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:963c62fc-fe80-401b...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> 'CLOVERFLEECE', 'CLOVERFLUFF'... so many snarky putdowns that'll have
> to go unused. Oh, well... Bottom line is that the movie
> respective marketing campaigns have made WITCH the comparator of
> choice.) In fact, if CLOVERFIELD were an import, you can bet we'd be
> reading about foreigners teaching Hollywood a thing or two. Also, let
> me say that, apart from some too-tame language, 'PG-13' was the
> correct aim here... inasmuch as the sort of violence that tends to
> bunch-up the MPAA's crocheted panties would, in CLOVERFIELD, clearly
> have been distracting over-maim. (In some notable aspects, this
> movie's nicely informed by Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS.) Unless
> you're too stodgy for a little cinematic inventiveness, CLOVERFIELD's
> well recommended.
>
Agreed, Spielberg's WOTW was like a film crew at ground level filming an
invasion. Abram's CF was like film camera's view on an individual level.
Well-done, scary grown up version of Scooby Doo gang finally confronting a
real monster.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-309521...@news.giganews.com...
There was nothing shown at the MASH unit. The scariest shot was in shadow.
-- Ken from Chicago
Thanatos
Well, there was that soldier wheeled by on the gurney with his entire
chest cavity ripped out...
Derek Janssen
>>
>>...And even though the monster may not have been *the* Cthulu, as
>>flailing fanboy teaser-rumors tried to call it back in July--
>>
>>By the way, just for the record, *was* Ethan Haas right? ;)
>
> (From Wikipedia: Ethan Haas - A man who once foretold the coming
> destruction of the world;)
>
> Well, yeah... but give it time...
Wiki:
----
On July 7, 2007, OMG WTF EHWR?! traced domain record information to an
individual with connections to an RPG company called Mind Storm Labs. It
was the first published evidence that Ethan Haas Was Right might be a
promotion for that company's forthcoming role-playing game, Alpha Omega.
Four days later, on July 11, 2007, Wraith, a former writer for the
now-defunct Total Gamer News, unaware of any previous proof, presented
further evidence (along with a photo comparison supporting his claim)
that Ethan Haas indeed was a promo for the Mind Storm Labs game Alpha
Omega.[5]
---
(How 'bout that, JJ was telling the truth!--It really *wasn't* his
fictional-fakey movie website promo...
Sure thought it was his, the way he hates the Internet-rumor community
because of his old AICN Harry Knowles grudges, and we thought the denial
just confirmed it.
Problem is, every OTHER studio now believes EHWR was a Cloverfield
promo, and as a result, we keep getting other annoying faux-bloggie
knockoffs, like that I Am Legend one a while back.)
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Invid Fan
Lord Jubjub <lordj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The first few glimpses of the creature was Lovecraftian. But as more of
> the monster was revealed in form and movement, it became more like
> Godzilla than Cthluhlu
Well, lets face it, anything shown on screen that doesn't drive the
viewer insane isn't Lovecraftian :)
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
moviePig
> In article <Q8SdnUlngfu6BA_anZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>,
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Thanatos" <atro...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:atropos-309521...@news.giganews.com...
> > > In article
> > > <23b0b62c-3204-4e8e-a525-1bd871c1d...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Per the MPAA, that's 'PG-13', no sweat... as long as you can't see any
of his naughty bits...
moviePig
What's Lovecraftian is remorseless, omnipotent, malevolence without
preamble... suddenly as close as the dustbunnies under your bed.
Stick some mythology on CLOVERFIELD's monster and it's *pure*
Lovecraft. Add a little sadism and it's Poe. Give it a plan, too,
and it's Clive Barker...
moviePig
> moviePig wrote:
> ...
> >>>> Again, it was very entertaining,
> >>>> but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like David
> >>>> Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
> >>> Well, my reaction's different. Although I'm not inclined to
> >>> immortalize CLOVERFIELD - or even to watch it again - the more I've
> >>> thought about it the more I like it as a nasty and poignant little
> >>> tone-poem.
>
> I think of a tone-poem -
> > I assume you know it's music - as trying to set an isolated mood as
> > expediently, compactly, and purely as possible.
>
> If you can tell me of a tone poem that is as exceedingly loud as
> "Cloverfield" you might be on to something. If you'd like you can
> compare and contrast your analogy to my clichéd "cinematic roller coaster."
Well. 'Also Sprach Zarathustra's pretty loud... and 'The Swan of
Tuonela's pretty dark... But the contrast would be that a tone-poem's
more monolithic than a roller coaster. Although CLOVERFIELD had some
thrill peaks, they were imo vastly more subdued than in (typical) sci-
fi. This was largely enforced by not only the filming style, but also
by what we were told at the outset about the outcome.
> (Note, btw, that PITCH BLACK was sciFi-horror... whereas
> >>> this was just horror.
>
> Really? If we consult imdb they have "Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller" for
> "Cloverfield" and "Action/Adventure/Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller" for "Pitch
> Black" so I just don't know what to think anymore.
Lucky, in this instance, that you have me to tell you...
(Yes, that is too bad. Know any Lovecraftian spells?)
No, Lovecraft never did dinosaurs per se, afaik. Nor would I gainsay
Wiki's scholarly analysis. But I will claim familiarity with the
shape of Lovecraft's scare-engine... which, uniquely, went for the non-
verbal, pre-conscious, unexplained 'original dread' that we all seem
to have. And that's different from Godzilla stalking Perry Mason, or
from the Lagoon Creature having underwater sex with Julie Adams. Like
Lovecraft's ancients, Cloverfield's monster mainly works on your head
just by being there. E.g., though there were the obligatory
successive reveals of it, notice the distinct absence of any money-
shot...
Warchild
Invid Fan <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
> In article <lordjubjub-1B978...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Lord Jubjub <lordj...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The first few glimpses of the creature was Lovecraftian. But as more of
> > the monster was revealed in form and movement, it became more like
> > Godzilla than Cthluhlu
>
> Well, lets face it, anything shown on screen that doesn't drive the
> viewer insane isn't Lovecraftian :)
Well, given that the movie is set in New York, how do we tell if people
are any more or less crazy than is normal for that city?
Emperor Caligula
It reaks of "Day after Tomorrow" type of garbage.
nick
> In article <190120082103075509%in...@localnet.com>,
> �Invid Fan <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Lord Jubjub <lordjub...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > The first few glimpses of the creature was Lovecraftian. �But as more of
> > > the monster was revealed in form and movement, it became more like
> > > Godzilla than Cthluhlu
>
> > Well, lets face it, anything shown on screen that doesn't drive the
> > viewer insane isn't Lovecraftian :)
>
> Well, given that the movie is set in New York, how do we tell if people
> are any more or less crazy than is normal for that city?
That's the least Lovecraftian aspect of it, the NYC setting, knowing
what ol' H.P. felt about New Yorkers and ethnic folk in general,
though he'd nod in approval at how most of the looters in the
electronics store scene appeared to be black.
trotsky
Big deal--if he was in Iraq he would've been sent back for a second tour
of duty.
trotsky
> On Jan 19, 7:28 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> moviePig wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> Again, it was very entertaining,
>>>>>> but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like David
>>>>>> Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
>>>>> Well, my reaction's different. Although I'm not inclined to
>>>>> immortalize CLOVERFIELD - or even to watch it again - the more I've
>>>>> thought about it the more I like it as a nasty and poignant little
>>>>> tone-poem.
>>>> ...
>> I think of a tone-poem -
>>> I assume you know it's music - as trying to set an isolated mood as
>>> expediently, compactly, and purely as possible.
>> If you can tell me of a tone poem that is as exceedingly loud as
>> "Cloverfield" you might be on to something. If you'd like you can
>> compare and contrast your analogy to my clichéd "cinematic roller coaster."
>
> Well. 'Also Sprach Zarathustra's pretty loud... and 'The Swan of
> Tuonela's pretty dark... But the contrast would be that a tone-poem's
> more monolithic than a roller coaster. Although CLOVERFIELD had some
> thrill peaks, they were imo vastly more subdued than in (typical) sci-
> fi. This was largely enforced by not only the filming style, but also
> by what we were told at the outset about the outcome.
"Typical sci-fi"? In your last post you referred to it as horror.
>> (Note, btw, that PITCH BLACK was sciFi-horror... whereas
>>>>> this was just horror.
>> Really? If we consult imdb they have "Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller" for
>> "Cloverfield" and "Action/Adventure/Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller" for "Pitch
>> Black" so I just don't know what to think anymore.
>
> Lucky, in this instance, that you have me to tell you...
You're just trying to evoke Brando's line in "Apocalypse Now": "The
horror...the horror..." None of this counts anyway until Calvin gives
us the definitive answer.
I disagree with that, too, because when Hud gets killed the monster is
coming right at the camera, and I think you see as much as you need to see.
moviePig
That was glaring, wasn't it? Given how such politically sensitive
shots can easily break an audience's spell, I wondered at the decision
to include them...
moviePig
(Yeah, I heard a different inflection when I wrote that. Try: typical
*SCI-FI*... or, stripping out the parenthetical "typical"...)
> >> E.g., I agree with those who've alluded to
> >>>>> CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)
> >>>> ...
> > Lovecraft never did dinosaurs per se, afaik. Nor would I gainsay
> > Wiki's scholarly analysis. But I will claim familiarity with the
> > shape of Lovecraft's scare-engine... which, uniquely, went for the non-
> > verbal, pre-conscious, unexplained 'original dread' that we all seem
> > to have. And that's different from Godzilla stalking Perry Mason, or
> > from the Lagoon Creature having underwater sex with Julie Adams. Like
> > Lovecraft's ancients, Cloverfield's monster mainly works on your head
> > just by being there. E.g., though there were the obligatory
> > successive reveals of it, notice the distinct absence of any money-
> > shot...
>
> I disagree with that, too, because when Hud gets killed the monster is
> coming right at the camera, and I think you see as much as you need to see.
Sure... but what's significant here is that you never see nearly as
much as you *want* to see...
Flasherly
> are any more or less crazy than is normal for that city?
Depends. Sharks, when handled properly, at times appear to be
receptive to caresses.
OTH - Take a walk on the boardwalk approach to NYC, and say there's
Scheider.
[Sheriff Martin Brody, a former New York cop, who is afraid of the
water, but lives and works on a small resort island.]
'Hi, Sheriff,' we might think nonchalantly to interject, 'how's it
hanging?'
"It's only an island if you're looking at it from out there [the
water]," underscores Sheriff Martin Brody [from the JAWS script].
trotsky
Agreed. At first you don't even know that it is a creature causing the
destruction. That's a typical monster movie convention where you don't
get a good look at the beast until the final reel, but it was especially
well utilized here.
Gil
wrote:
> Somebody speak english here. Is the flick good or not?
> It reaks of "Day after Tomorrow" type of garbage.
Film is very good. I went Friday with 8 others, and everybody enjoyed
it. Good summer entertainment - even in the winter. I recommend
sitting in the back of the theatre so the jerky camerawork isn't too
vertigo-inducing.
Emperor Caligula
Re: CLOVERFIELD (no spoilers)
Group: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 9:02am
(CST-2) From: gilbert...@sbcglobal.net (Gil)
.. I appreciate it. I'm starting to get the vibe that more like it than
those who don't, so it should be watchable.
Of course I was told "I Am Legend" was good to, so I'm reluctingly
taking your advice and headed to see Cloverfield.
moviePig
wrote:
> Re: CLOVERFIELD (no spoilers)
>
> Group: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 9:02am
> On Jan 20, 3:24 am, Caligula-37-41...@webtv.net (Emperor Caligula)
> wrote:
> Somebody speak english here. Is the flick good or not? It reaks of
> "Day after Tomorrow" type of garbage.
> Film is very good. I went Friday with 8 others, and everybody enjoyed
> it. Good summer entertainment - even in the winter. I recommend sitting
> in the back of the theatre so the jerky camerawork isn't too
> vertigo-inducing.
>
> .. I appreciate it. I'm starting to get the vibe that more like it than
> those who don't, so it should be watchable.
> Of course I was told "I Am Legend" was good to, so I'm reluctingly
> taking your advice and headed to see Cloverfield.
Even within this "genre", I AM LEGEND panders, and DAY AFTER TOMORROW
panders to juveniles. Relatively speaking, CLOVERFIELD does neither.
Go with confidence...
Gil
> .. I appreciate it. I'm starting to get the vibe that more like it than
> those who don't, so it should be watchable.
> Of course I was told "I Am Legend" was good to, so I'm reluctingly
> taking your advice and headed to see Cloverfield.
Little boots, I look forward to your opinion here.
Ken from Chicago
--
*** BEGIN REPLY ***
Panders how?
-- Ken from Chicago
moviePig
wrote:
> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
...a noble hero, a family-oriented context for tragedy, and an ending
lacking only a Disney choir.
RogerM
>
> (Screenplay by Harold Pinter.) I missed that, too ...and hope that it
> eventually hits YouTube.
I missed it too. Damn! I might have to go again.
--
nick
genius behind the character of Hud. Well, no, not really. Hud might
be the most annoying screen character since Lucky Larry in the
Poseidon remake.
RogerM
Actually, I was referring to the closing Coney Island video footage.
--
nick
due to terms of use violation.
trotsky
What, they don't allow home movies to be shown on YouTube now?
RogerM
> > > > > eventually hits YouTube.
> >
> > > > I missed it too. Damn! I might have to go again.
> >
> > > You don't need to see Pinter's listed credit to spot the Pinteresque
> > > be the most annoying screen character since Lucky Larry in the
> > > Poseidon remake.
> >
> > Actually, I was referring to the closing Coney Island video footage.
> >
> It was on YouTube but now all you get is: This video has been removed
> due to terms of use violation.
Yeah. I noticed that. Very frustrating.
--
moviePig
Pulling the Youtube video's gotta be some suit's Bad Idea. They're
grasping for a few extra Netflix rentals, at a cost to their movie's
considerable goodwill while it's still very much in theaters ...and
all because they were too subtle in the first place on what (perhaps)
was a cool reveal when I shelled out for my first-run ticket...
Padmar Mushkin
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> > Actually, I was referring to the closing Coney Island video footage.
>>
>> It was on YouTube but now all you get is: This video has been removed
>> due to terms of use violation.
>
>Pulling the Youtube video's gotta be some suit's Bad Idea. They're
>grasping for a few extra Netflix rentals, at a cost to their movie's
>considerable goodwill while it's still very much in theaters ...and
>all because they were too subtle in the first place on what (perhaps)
>was a cool reveal when I shelled out for my first-run ticket...
No "perhaps", it was there. I saw it clearly, but I heard about it
beforehand and was looking for it. I looked at a few of the YouTube
clips of it intending to post a link here, but they were such poor
quality you couldn't see a damn thing, so I didn't bother.
Alric Knebel
> 'CLOVERFLEECE', 'CLOVERFLUFF'... so many snarky putdowns that'll have
> to go unused. Oh, well... Bottom line is that the movie
> works ...probably even a little better than BLAIR WITCH did. (Their
> respective marketing campaigns have made WITCH the comparator of
> choice.) In fact, if CLOVERFIELD were an import, you can bet we'd be
> reading about foreigners teaching Hollywood a thing or two. Also, let
> me say that, apart from some too-tame language, 'PG-13' was the
> correct aim here... inasmuch as the sort of violence that tends to
> bunch-up the MPAA's crocheted panties would, in CLOVERFIELD, clearly
> movie's nicely informed by Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS.) Unless
> you're too stodgy for a little cinematic inventiveness, CLOVERFIELD's
> well recommended.
A week late -- due to illness -- but I left the theater about twenty
minutes ago. It worked as what it was, but I thought the creature could
have been shown clearer at the end, just for a little while. These guys
were, after all, trying to create a video record of the event, and it
seems like at one point, they would have turned the camera on to it and
shoot it carefully.
I don't think there's anything to see past the first viewing, and surely
not past a second. It was subtle film making, but it was definitely
effective. The sense of fear and destruction was palpable.
--
_________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
moviePig
Fwiw, CLOVERFIELD has received about as wide a range of critical
ratings as wide-releases ever get... from many critics' near-top to
others' near-bottom. And, for the most part, I think people are being
honest ....i.e., that the movie has much to offer, but that it's
something lots of folks don't appreciate. (And, repeating what I said
in another thread, I don't imagine it's a matter of intelligence...
but more like a different set of enzymes...)
Rick
"Lord Jubjub" <lordj...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lordjubjub-1B978...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <kJskj.43017$Ux2.26265@attbi_s22>,>> > On Jan 19, 2:27?pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 19, 2:14?pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> moviePig wrote:
>> >>>>> I would like to see something revealing tacked on to the end like
>> >>>>> they
>> >>>>> did with the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. ?Still a very good movie,
>> >>>>> but
>> >>>>> something decent in terms of a storyline would've put it over the
>> >>>>> top
>> >>>>> for me. ?I should also point out that I don't think an R rating
>> >>>>> would've
>> >>>>> increased the level of intensity at all. ?One of the things that
>> >>>>> made it
>> >>>>> so was excellent sound design, but it was kind of funny how the
>> >>>>> video
>> >>>>> was supposed to be from a consumer camcorder but the audio still
>> >>>>> managed
>> >>>>> to be state of the art.
>> >>>> Fyi, Wikipedia does describe a little post-credit tack-on. ?(I'd
>> >>>> left.) ?However, my mileage definitely varies on the "missing
>> >>>> storyline". ?This movie's baseless horror is nominally reminiscent
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> Hitchcock's cornfield crop-duster and Romero's opening cemetery-
>> >>>> stranger. ?If you can pull it off, it's distilled fright. ?Thus,
>> >>>> contrary to one reviewer's calling CLOVERFIELD "monstrously good
>> >>>> fun",
>> >>>> my ample matinee audience (who I'm sure were pleased) sat quietly
>> >>>> rapt
>> >>>> throughout. ?This ain't your father's GODZILLA, nor even THE HOST.
>> >>>> (Yeah, I noticed that about the sound, too. ?But, good cheat, imo.
>> >>>> And fwiw, several distant conversations *were* only half-
>> >>>> intelligible.)
>> >>> Come on--Hitchcock? ?He was a master storyteller--and had that
>> >>> sequence
>> >>> in the middle of a movie full of master storytelling. ?There was no
>> >>> story--perhaps you can tell us what happens when you get bit by one
>> >>> of
>> >>> the smaller creatures, for example?
>> >> Something... really... bad...
>> >>
>> >>> ?Again, it was very entertaining,
>> >>> but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like David
>> >>> Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
>> >> immortalize CLOVERFIELD - or even to watch it again - the more I've
>> >> thought about it the more I like it as a nasty and poignant little
>> >> this was just horror. ?E.g., I agree with those who've alluded to
>> >> CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> > I hadn't thought of it in Lovecraftian terms but yeah, that's there,
>> > so maybe the Clovefield creature was an escapee from The Mist, another
>> > recent horror flick with Lovecraftian undertones.
>>
>>
>> nick, did the dingo eat your brain? Nameless creatures older than the
>> Earth hiding in a mist has a connection to Lovecraft, but a big ass
>> monster running around knocking down buildings does not. Moreover, for
>> a story to be "Lovecraftian", it will be "Poe like" in that there is
>> generally going to be a protaganist that is middle aged, educated, and
>> versed in scientific method who is in dogged pursuit of the facts.
>>
>> Apparently, because people don't actually read anymore, any movie with
>> an ugly monster in it is "Lovecraftian".
>
> The first few glimpses of the creature was Lovecraftian. But as more of
> the monster was revealed in form and movement, it became more like
> Godzilla than Cthluhlu
>
So where did the Cloverfield creature come from?
SPOILERS
And I hate it when directors leave it up to the audience to come up with the
ending for their movies or TV shows
Derek Janssen
> "Lord Jubjub" <lordj...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:lordjubjub-1B978...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>>
>>The first few glimpses of the creature was Lovecraftian. But as more of
>>the monster was revealed in form and movement, it became more like
>>Godzilla than Cthluhlu
>>
>>--
>
> So where did the Cloverfield creature come from?
>
> SPOILERS
>
>
> And I hate it when directors leave it up to the audience to come up with the
> ending for their movies or TV shows
I see!...So, Slusho is really giving us a warning to save the
earth!--"Take your atom bomb tests to another island", is that it?
Derek Janssen (you'd think they could've slipped in a couple singing
twins on YouTube footage)
eja...@verizon.net
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I just saw it tonight too. I was pretty impressed. To me the best part
of it was that these apparently shallow, fashionably unshaven, hipster
types basically DO THE RIGHT THING when the chips are as far down as
they're ever going to get. The bitten girl even puts it into words:
"Why would you think I'm the kind of person who wouldn't come back for you?"
It didn't work out for them, but if there's a Cloverfield afterlife, they
can stand pretty tall at the entrance.
To me that was the big contrast with Spielberg's WOTW where we see lots
and lots of folks DO THE WRONG THING.
Ted
Rick
"Derek Janssen" <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:479D4055...@nospam.verizon.net...
spoiler
JJ has said that CLover was a creature from the depths of the Ocean which is
why it's hide was near invulnerable. But at the end of the flick when
they're showing video of Beth and Rob at Coney island you see something a
space ship maybe crash into the ocean in the far right of the screen. So
which is Clover an alien or something from the depths of the ocean?
Ken from Chicago
~Fwiw, CLOVERFIELD has received about as wide a range of critical
~ratings as wide-releases ever get... from many critics' near-top to
~others' near-bottom. And, for the most part, I think people are being
~honest ....i.e., that the movie has much to offer, but that it's
~something lots of folks don't appreciate. (And, repeating what I said
~in another thread, I don't imagine it's a matter of intelligence...
~but more like a different set of enzymes...)
~
~--
~
~- - - - - - - -
~ YOUR taste at work...
~ http://www.moviepig.com
Some people like coffee, some like chocolate.
Hey, how are your reviews my taste? Don't pin them on me. >=^>
-- Ken from Chicago (who likes both)
Thanatos
"Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.comzzzz> wrote:
> "Derek Janssen" <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:479D4055...@nospam.verizon.net...
> > Rick wrote:
> >
> >> "Lord Jubjub" <lordj...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:lordjubjub-1B978...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> >>>
> >>>The first few glimpses of the creature was Lovecraftian. But as more of
> >>>the monster was revealed in form and movement, it became more like
> >>>Godzilla than Cthluhlu
> >> So where did the Cloverfield creature come from?
> >> And I hate it when directors leave it up to the audience to come up with
> >> the ending for their movies or TV shows
> >
> > I see!...So, Slusho is really giving us a warning to save the
> > earth!--"Take your atom bomb tests to another island", is that it?
> >
> > Derek Janssen (you'd think they could've slipped in a couple singing twins
> > on YouTube footage)
> > eja...@verizon.net
> JJ has said that CLover was a creature from the depths of the Ocean which is
> why it's hide was near invulnerable.
Not sure why something from the bottom of the ocean would have skin that
can repel bunk-buster bombs and munitions that can penetrate tank armor.
Ken from Chicago
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-803A9D...@news.giganews.com...
Do you know how much PRESSURE exists on the bottom of the ocean?
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Which is why Aquaman would be a lot more powerful than people general
think--especially if played by Vinnie Chase.
Alric Knebel
My disappointment was solely in not seeing the creature CLEARLY. Scene
for scene, from beginning to end, it was some riveting viewing. It was
the best monster-destroys-city movie ever. It was EXTREMELY creepy.
And comparing it to BLAIR WITCH might give people the wrong idea. The
only resemblance is that it's presented as an amateur film. CLOVERFIELD
was better crafted in that effect.
And I didn't care that nothing was explained.
I assume the success of it might encourage someone else to try something
similar. I hope so.
Alric Knebel
The movie exceeded my expectations, mostly because it accomplished
exactly what I expected it to. My ONLY complaint, and a mild one at
that, is that I wanted to see the creature clearly for a bit. Maybe the
DVD will be slightly longer. That is the only way to encourage a second
and third viewing.
Ken from Chicago
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:HcmdnUFZrcFgUADa...@giganews.com...
Did you miss the scene where we DID see the creature clearly--before it
chomped whathisface with the camera?
-- Ken from Chicago
Alric Knebel
Yes, I did. But it was from that odd angle, and I really couldn't get a
fix on the size of it, and what its entire demeanor was like.
RogerM
>
> A week late -- due to illness -- but I left the theater about twenty
> minutes ago. It worked as what it was, but I thought the creature could
> have been shown clearer at the end, just for a little while. These guys
> were, after all, trying to create a video record of the event, and it
> seems like at one point, they would have turned the camera on to it and
> shoot it carefully.
>
Agreed.
> I don't think there's anything to see past the first viewing, and surely
> not past a second. It was subtle film making, but it was definitely
> effective. The sense of fear and destruction was palpable.
>
Yes, the personal viewpoint of staying with a small group throughout the
attack was very involving.
I am going to catch it a second time. Eventually.
--
RogerM
>
> SPOILERS
>
> And I hate it when directors leave it up to the audience to come up with the
> ending for their movies or TV shows
That is my big complaint with the film - unanswered questions. Given the
viewpoint of the film, it makes perfect sense that the questions are
unanswered, but I still don't like it.
--
RogerM
>
> I just saw it tonight too. I was pretty impressed. To me the best part
> of it was that these apparently shallow, fashionably unshaven, hipster
> types basically DO THE RIGHT THING when the chips are as far down as
> they're ever going to get. The bitten girl even puts it into words:
> "Why would you think I'm the kind of person who wouldn't come back for you?"
I mention that in an earlier post. She was offended that even a stranger
would think so little of her.
> It didn't work out for them, but if there's a Cloverfield afterlife, they
> can stand pretty tall at the entrance.
>
Very good point. As Faramir would say: "they showed their quality".
--
RogerM
>
> Not sure why something from the bottom of the ocean would have skin that
> can repel bunk-buster bombs and munitions that can penetrate tank armor.
No way to make claim reasonable. There is no living thing on Earth that
could survive more than a couple of minutes of what the military were
throwing at it. It's a mistake to try to rationalize the monster. It's
just a monster movie. The fact that Hud kept filming so long is more of
a point to dispute.
Besides, sea creatures survive high pressures by equalizing their
interior pressure with that of the environment, not by having steel
hides. Most deep sea animals burst from interior pressure if brought up
to the surface.
--
RogerM
Absolutely.
> It was EXTREMELY creepy.
> And comparing it to BLAIR WITCH might give people the wrong idea. The
> only resemblance is that it's presented as an amateur film. CLOVERFIELD
> was better crafted in that effect.
>
It was, but I would have preferred it if it had not been shot in that
style. Typical camera work tied to the single viewpoint would have been
more enjoyable for me. The handicam shots were more of a distraction
than worthwhile.
> And I didn't care that nothing was explained.
>
> I assume the success of it might encourage someone else to try something
> similar. I hope so.
>
I was thinking the same while watching it. I'd like to see more action
films with the single viewpoint storytelling aspect. You don't get an
overview, but you feel more like you are IN the movie.
It did a great job of taking me away from the real world for a while. I
don't buy many DVDs, but this one is a must buy for me.
One other beef - AGAIN the action happens at NIGHT, which means you
don't see as much as you would during daylight. Not nearly as bad as
AVP:Requiem, though.
--
RogerM
>
> The movie exceeded my expectations, mostly because it accomplished
> exactly what I expected it to. My ONLY complaint, and a mild one at
> that, is that I wanted to see the creature clearly for a bit. Maybe the
> DVD will be slightly longer. That is the only way to encourage a second
> and third viewing.
>
When it finished, I was thinking that there was really no reason to see
it again, but there have been things mentioned in various venues which I
want to see again, so...
--
RogerM
>
> Did you miss the scene where we DID see the creature clearly--before it
> chomped whathisface with the camera?
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
THE creature - or A creature. I thought that one was a LOT smaller than
what was tearing up Manhattan. I don't think the big one would have even
noticed Hud on the ground. There has been speculation about there being
a couple of monsters.
--
RogerM
>
> Do you know how much PRESSURE exists on the bottom of the ocean?
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
Plenty to crush steel-hulled submarines (as all movie-goers should
know). But the animals which live at the bottom don't have armoured
bodies in general. There are jellyfish down there. See my post in the
other thread about this.
--
moviePig
wrote:
> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
(The web site is ultra-explicitly NOT my reviews ...or taste. Its
recommendations have nothing to do with the little movie subjectivisms
I occasionally post here.)
moviePig
I agree with the above. Meanwhile, though, I fear that the mere fact
we're speculating about such things guarantees a sequel... to which I
*won't* look forward. (I believe it's easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle than for a serendipity to survive a
stencil...)
Invid Fan
Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> And comparing it to BLAIR WITCH might give people the wrong idea. The
> only resemblance is that it's presented as an amateur film. CLOVERFIELD
> was better crafted in that effect.
>
Well, Blair Witch was an entire different idea. Basically that was
filmed live action roleplaying, with the director acting as Dungeon
Master. No script, no real story arc for the characters, it was all put
together in the editing room. Cloverfield is a normal movie with odd
camera angles :)
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
moviePig
wrote:
> In article <D6SdnQG6RKdwugDanZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@giganews.com>,
Good point. It helps explain why, despite numerous reasons that it
should have, this movie didn't feel hackneyed...
RogerM
>
> I agree with the above. Meanwhile, though, I fear that the mere fact
> we're speculating about such things guarantees a sequel... to which I
> *won't* look forward. (I believe it's easier for a camel to pass
> through the eye of a needle than for a serendipity to survive a
> stencil...)
>
If they make another film (from the viewpoint of the military) I suspect
it will be more standard fare. Surely not (apparently) done on a hand
camera.
It would be a different kind of movie, but I'd go.
--
RogerM
>
> Well, Blair Witch was an entire different idea. Basically that was
> filmed live action roleplaying, with the director acting as Dungeon
> Master. No script, no real story arc for the characters, it was all put
> together in the editing room. Cloverfield is a normal movie with odd
> camera angles :)
Camera techniques aside, it isn't really. How many monster movies are
shot entirely from one viewpoint, staying with the one group though out
the film? I can't think of any.
--
Rick
"RogerM" <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:479DDC69...@ns.sympatico.ca...
into some scientists talking about ways to kill clover when Marlene was
getting sick.
Rick
marlena was getting sick.
Rick
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:sCKkj.308458$Fc.123011@attbi_s21...
> moviePig wrote:>>>> On Jan 19, 7:28 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> moviePig wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Again, it was very entertaining,
>>>>>>>>> but it doesn't compare to a really well told monster movie like
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>> Twohy's "Pitch Black", for example.
>>>>>>>> Well, my reaction's different. Although I'm not inclined to
>>>>>>>> immortalize CLOVERFIELD - or even to watch it again - the more I've
>>>>>>>> thought about it the more I like it as a nasty and poignant little
>>>>>>>> tone-poem.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>> I think of a tone-poem -
>>>>>> I assume you know it's music - as trying to set an isolated mood as
>>>>>> expediently, compactly, and purely as possible.
>>>>> If you can tell me of a tone poem that is as exceedingly loud as
>>>>> "Cloverfield" you might be on to something. If you'd like you can
>>>>> compare and contrast your analogy to my clichéd "cinematic roller
>>>>> coaster."
>>>> Well. 'Also Sprach Zarathustra's pretty loud... and 'The Swan of
>>>> Tuonela's pretty dark... But the contrast would be that a tone-poem's
>>>> more monolithic than a roller coaster. Although CLOVERFIELD had some
>>>> thrill peaks, they were imo vastly more subdued than in (typical) sci-
>>>> fi. This was largely enforced by not only the filming style, but also
>>>> by what we were told at the outset about the outcome.
>>> "Typical sci-fi"? In your last post you referred to it as horror.
>>
>> (Yeah, I heard a different inflection when I wrote that. Try: typical
>> *SCI-FI*... or, stripping out the parenthetical "typical"...)
>>
>>
>>>>> E.g., I agree with those who've alluded to
>>>>>>>> CLOVERFIELD's Lovecraft-ian aspect...)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>> Lovecraft never did dinosaurs per se, afaik. Nor would I gainsay
>>>> Wiki's scholarly analysis. But I will claim familiarity with the
>>>> shape of Lovecraft's scare-engine... which, uniquely, went for the non-
>>>> verbal, pre-conscious, unexplained 'original dread' that we all seem
>>>> to have. And that's different from Godzilla stalking Perry Mason, or
>>>> from the Lagoon Creature having underwater sex with Julie Adams. Like
>>>> Lovecraft's ancients, Cloverfield's monster mainly works on your head
>>>> just by being there. E.g., though there were the obligatory
>>>> successive reveals of it, notice the distinct absence of any money-
>>>> shot...
>>> I disagree with that, too, because when Hud gets killed the monster is
>>> coming right at the camera, and I think you see as much as you need to
>>> see.
>>
>> Sure... but what's significant here is that you never see nearly as
>> much as you *want* to see...
>
>
> Agreed. At first you don't even know that it is a creature causing the
> destruction. That's a typical monster movie convention where you don't
> get a good look at the beast until the final reel, but it was especially
> well utilized here.
But what was causing all the explosions that's and how did clover climb up
Lady liberty with a pare of hoofs.
Rick
On Jan 19, 11:03 am, Garondo Marondo <Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>> have
> > >>> to go unused. Oh, well... Bottom line is that the movie
> > >>> works ...probably even a little better than BLAIR WITCH did.
>
> > >> (Their
>
> > >>> respective marketing campaigns have made WITCH the comparator of
> > >>> choice.) In fact, if CLOVERFIELD were an import, you can bet we'd be
> > >>> reading about foreigners teaching Hollywood a thing or two. Also,
> > >>> let
> > >>> me say that, apart from some too-tame language, 'PG-13' was the
> > >>> correct aim here... inasmuch as the sort of violence that tends to
> > >>> bunch-up the MPAA's crocheted panties would, in CLOVERFIELD, clearly
> > >>> have been distracting over-maim. (In some notable aspects, this
> > >>> movie's nicely informed by Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS.) Unless
> > >>> you're too stodgy for a little cinematic inventiveness,
> > >>> CLOVERFIELD's
> > >>> well recommended.
> > >> without that the movie built in intensity really well. More or less
> > >> just a cinematic roller coaster ride.
>
> > > Well, treading near what I consider SPOILER-ish territory... I can say
> > > that I actually found the absence of backstory, as well as the dissing
> > > of frontstory, refreshing. Not the first time that sort of thing's
> > > ever been done... but maybe the first instance for a 'PG-13' U.S.
> > > horror-movie... (in a January, certainly...)
>
> > I would like to see something revealing tacked on to the end like they
> > did with the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. Still a very good movie, but
> > something decent in terms of a storyline would've put it over the top
> > for me.
>
> Spoiler.
>
> Apparently, in the last scene when the camera reverts back to the date
> on Coney Island you can see the monster falling from the sky and
> hitting the ocean in the background as they're in the ferris weel. I
> didn't see this while watching the film.
(Screenplay by Harold Pinter.) I missed that, too ...and hope that it
eventually hits YouTube.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
I wonder who was flying the spaceship?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, we can pretty much infer what happened from the frame:
a) New York was nuked, or pretty darn close
b) It worked, because the government was able to get in
and retrieve the tape
Ted
Anthony Buckland
"Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.comzzzz> wrote in message
news:pM6dnVDvSfFphAPa...@comcast.com...
>
...
> But what was causing all the explosions that's and how did clover climb up
> Lady liberty with a pare of hoofs.
It was plenty big enough to tear off her head in passing
and give the head a hurl up to midtown.
No problem with the source of the
explosions, except ... does the Army
really have that kind of force ready for
instant deployment on Manhattan?
We're talking either having tanks on
the island, or getting them across the
bridges or through the tunnel in the
face of far-beyond-rushhour crowds
going the other way.
Only nit I have to pick so far with a
top-grade movie.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, technically, they could have landed the tanks amphibuously,
given that Manhattan is an island, but no, there is no way they
have that kind of stuff readdy to go to Manhattan on a moment's
notice. Unless of course they had detected the Coney Island event
and had an idea that *something* was about to happen. (Although
even in that case, I would expect them to be more ready for a
terrorist event requiring massive evacuation [and you can bet *that*
planning *has* been done now] than something requiring tanks..)
Ted
James Gassaway
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-803A9D...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <R_udncFFn-lz5QDa...@comcast.com>,
>> "Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.comzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>> JJ has said that CLover was a creature from the depths of the Ocean
>>> which is
>>> why it's hide was near invulnerable.
>>
>> Not sure why something from the bottom of the ocean would have skin
>> that can repel bunk-buster bombs and munitions that can penetrate
>> tank armor.
>
>
reached the surface.
--
"Reading by the light of a lost Christmas day
It begins...."
moviePig
> "Derek Janssen" <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:479D4055...@nospam.verizon.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rick wrote:
>
> >> "Lord Jubjub" <lordjub...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:lordjubjub-1B978...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
> >>>The first few glimpses of the creature was Lovecraftian. But as more of
> >>>the monster was revealed in form and movement, it became more like
> >>>Godzilla than Cthluhlu
>
> >>>--
>
> >> So where did the Cloverfield creature come from?
>
> >> SPOILERS
>
> >> And I hate it when directors leave it up to the audience to come up with
> >> the ending for their movies or TV shows
>
> > earth!--"Take your atom bomb tests to another island", is that it?
>
> > Derek Janssen (you'd think they could've slipped in a couple singing twins
> > on YouTube footage)
> > ejan...@verizon.net
>
> spoiler
>
> JJ has said that CLover was a creature from the depths of the Ocean which is
Imho, JJ's movie works much better without his helpful explanations...
M.L.
>>
>> Apparently, in the last scene when the camera reverts back to the
>> date on Coney Island you can see the monster falling from the sky and
>> hitting the ocean in the background as they're in the ferris weel. I
>> didn't see this while watching the film.
I haven't seen Cloverfield, but according to http://themoviespoiler.com/
it was a satellite that crashed into the ocean and woke up the monster.
Thanatos
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-803A9D...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <R_udncFFn-lz5QDa...@comcast.com>,
> > "Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.comzzzz> wrote:
> >> JJ has said that CLover was a creature from the depths of
> >> the Ocean which is why it's hide was near invulnerable.
> >
> > Not sure why something from the bottom of the ocean would
> > have skin that can repel bunker-buster bombs and munitions
> > that can penetrate tank armor.
>
> Do you know how much PRESSURE exists on the bottom of the ocean?
Yes. Do you know how sea creatures survive it? Doesn't sound like you do
if you think it's because they have thick skin.
David Johnston
If it's good enough for Aquaman it's good enough for Godzilla.
Ken from Chicago
They have even water pressure throughout--ala Ed Harris uberdeep diving by
breathing hyperoxygenated water in THE ABYSS.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
By NOT having air cavities inside. Apparently the Creature did and thus had
the armored shell to withstand ocean pressures--and thus armored shells.
-- Ken from Chicago