Cloverfield Discussion 511
I don't get to see many movies with a 4 month old in the house, but I managed to escape to see Cloverfield. Stop reading immediately if you don't want spoilers. It's Blair Witch's first person camera work, applied to a small (for the genre) budget monster movie. The monster is cool. The little monsters are cool. The acting is sometimes good, sometimes awkward. The action is often great and very intense. And it will undoubtedly be the most hyped movie of 2008 until the spring blockbusters arrive. I really enjoyed the movie, but I'm posting this so you guys can have a place to talk amongst yourselves about this movie. Groundbreaking movie-making or just hype-making? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure my skull can handle watching it again- that jerky camera action gave me a headache. (Also, there was a Star Trek teaser trailer attached, and I'm almost ashamed to admit that I want it so badly it made me hurt. Please Abrams, don't screw it up)
I'm not sure (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw the movie last night and I have to admit I'm not sure how I feel about it. The story was fucking incredible but I think the shaky camera was over done. It made my head hurt and confused the story at times. I think it could have been made with out it.
But I think my most concern is fuck the people. I want see the same story from the army point of view.
Hollywood hype (Score:5, Interesting)
Very good, very original (Score:5, Interesting)
1) The main character, for me, wasn't Rob. It was the guy holding the camera. He was a complete idiot, but I loved him.
2) I thought there was clear character progression for Rob, from complete, insensitive jerk to heroic.
3) Clear resolution on the real story, which is Rob's relationship to whats-her-face.
4) Kick-ass special effects.
One caveat about the movie: bring Dramamine. Lots of it. I had two friends with me who missed the whole second half of the movie because they couldn't look at the screen.
Refreshingly good (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Just enough exposition to make you care about the characters
2) Once the action starts, it doesn't let up - I think only Aliens (22 years ago) had me at that level of intensity for a full hour
3) Leaves you guessing - not everything needs to be explained or wrapped up in 90 minutes, and consequently, you're left not knowing anything more than the characters do
4) Outstanding effects (invisible or otherwise) that don't get in the way of the story
5) Finally, a scary flick that isn't torture porn!
All in all, a great (if fairly mindless) monster movie. What the 1998 version of Godzilla should have been.
Re:The keyword in that diatribe was 'hyped'... (Score:1, Interesting)
Rocky Horror Picture Show (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought it was pretty good. Some umor... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm not sure (Score:2, Interesting)
Shaky cameras are what ruined the part 2 and 3 of the Bourne movies.
Why do people treat shit camera work as though it's something raw and edgy?
Re:question for those that like Cloverfield (Score:3, Interesting)
Godzilla movie from the POV of the civilians... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Movie at least turns a profit on the theatrical release
2. DVD with some extras comes out
3. "Special Edition" DVD comes out with second disc with more back story (WTF *was* the monster?)
4. "Directors Cut Special Edition" DVD comes out with nearly a second movie on the third disc, with even *more* back story...
5. ***PROFIT***
Re:I thought it was pretty good. Some umor... (Score:2, Interesting)
That's as much a testament to this story's power as anything.
I think that's true to an extent, but I also think it has to do with the fact that we've had a few major disasters in the USA within the last 10 years. First 9/11, and then New Orleans. Consequently I think most reasonably mature people above a certain age have had plenty of time to have contemplated what it would be like to lose someone during a disaster.
Of course the whole movie was set in New York. And shortly after the monster first appears, there's a scene in the street that looked similar to how things looked in NYC when the first WTC tower collapsed. I think this movie meshed very, very well with the fears of our times. Not about aliens of course -- the alien was necessary because they didn't want to make it strictly like some type of plausible disaster rehash. Without an alien the story would have been too limiting, and the plot too obvious. No, they had a winning formula here. It was very well done.
Re:I liked it (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The keyword in that diatribe was 'hyped'... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hollywood hype (Score:5, Interesting)
The Star Trek trailer? Please, god, don't let Abrams screw it up...
Re:I'm not sure (Score:4, Interesting)
If there was ever an industry that deserved to be "cannibalized" it's the music industry. Just the fact that it's called the music industry says it all.
Maybe once the big-label big-distributer system of producing and delivering music has been destroyed once and for all, it will once again be known as just "music" instead of the "music industry".
And you know what? I'm betting that there will be more musicians able to make a living once the top-heavy system is gone. But, as you say, it will take innovation and creativity, something artists are supposed to be good at.
Re:Another movie there (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The keyword in that diatribe was 'hyped'... (Score:3, Interesting)
Strange, everyone in NYC suddenly uses Nokia! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The keyword in that diatribe was 'hyped'... (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole point of the movie is that it's the raw, unedited content of a consumer video camera that was found and is now being used as a piece of government evidence for the Cloverfield incident. I think we are supposed to feel like we have been given access to the raw content by the government (because we are a part of an investigation or an FOIA or something...) So in that sense you just get whatever happened to be on this tape (or SD card).
That being said, I don't know anyone who is that bad with a camera; even a small handicam which doesn't have the mass to help dampen small movements. I mean seriously, it's one thing to not hold it still or to zoom in and out too much, those are novice mistakes. But it is an entirely different thing to not hold the camera level while shooting or to completely cut off the head of your subject. Sure, if you are running and forgot to turn it off, fine, but no amature holds the camera at an extreme "artsy" angle while they are actively filming something. Admittedly, the odd angle often composed the image better than a straight-and-level shot would have, but someone who knows enough to do that would have a steadier hand and a better overall ability to compose scenes.
As an amateur videographer myself I've had to sift though hours and hours of tedious, useless, and horrendous raw clips from a variety of sources, including my own and I can tell you that it takes practice to be able to get usable content from spontaneous events and activity. It's almost impossible to get commercial content without a lot of planning and orchestrating, and that's assuming that you've got experienced hands on the camera(s). I was actually filming one time when the plane I was filming in crashed. The camera was on the whole time (you can hear me saying goodbye and that I was filming my death) and except for the actual impact (where the camera blanked out briefly) and the part where I was crawling out of the wreckage, my footage is more stable than Cloverfield's.
Cloverfield's videography truly made me feel like a pro was trying to act like an amateur and failing. The move would have actually been better, in my opinion, if they'd given the camera to the actual actors and made them do everything themselves while acting the actual scenes. You would have at leas gotten shakiness that made more sense with the action.
Once I was able to force myself to swallow the fact that I was watching completely raw, amateur handicam content I spent the rest of the movie trying to build my own story out of it as if I was viewing raw evidence for something I knew nothing about (which was true) and actually came away liking the movie. My wife, who gets sea-sick at the drop of a hat, even liked it (apparently there was too much violent movement to trigger more than just a headache for her). We are going again today to take our son to see it. It's painful to watch, but I appreciate the fact that someone has made a different kind of monster movie than the normal formulaic ones. I especially like the fact that no one survived. That, at least, was refreshingly realistic. Some movies need happy endings. This one was better without it.