Author Topic: Cloverfield  (Read 30941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Insert Coin(s) to Continue

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Liked: 2
    • Insert Coin(s) to Continue
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2008, 11:39:21 PM »
I agree with Galva completely. I am also a huge Kaiju fan and I really enjoyed seeing the story I've grown up on told from a new perspective. I thought the movie was planned out very well (what to show, what not to show). And the action was entertaining all the way through. It felt authentic and original.


Offline GalvaTRION

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
  • Liked: 4
  • Damn you, Bay.
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2008, 11:41:16 PM »

With all due respect, I think you're over-complicating it. It's really nothing more than just another monster movie. It only happens to be set apart because the POV is different, but that's all there is to it.

Do you give a damn about monster movies? Personally, I like them a lot. A good quarter of my DVD collection at the very least is dedicated to monster movies. I read up on them. I buy comics and toys for the monsters. I know what I'm talking about.

Hitting so many of the right notes (film wise) isn't an accident on the part of the film makers. The POV is what set it apart from the specific monster genre it was set in, yeah. I'm saying, however, that it correctly worked within the dai kaiju genre, which is damn rare for an American film. Japanese dai kaiju films have been stale as hell for years, and Cloverfield freshened things up by bringing the genre back to it's roots.

It's like what The Ramones did for straightforward rock music- stripping away the overcomplication, electronic noises, and gaudy new-wave artyness to return back to the three chords, three minutes, strong hook style that created rock music in the first place. What was new was speeding the music up, making it less refined, and of course, the uniqueness of Joey Ramone's wobbly vocals and sarcastic lyrics.

This is a topic about the film- so I'm discussing it. What I've said about it is not inaccurate- considering how well the creative team nailed the Japanese monster film (specifically the first Gojira) style down to the last detail, it's obvious they've done their homework. The only thing I'm not sure on is the Godzilla 1985 parasite thing. It seems to me an obvious parallel, but it could easily be a fluke. I'm looking forward to the DVD commentary to see if 1985 is mentioned.


Offline GalvaTRION

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
  • Liked: 4
  • Damn you, Bay.
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2008, 11:43:14 PM »
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
We'd be so happy together.
Always the young generation buying into the hype. I don't blame you. It's only natural that you would want to marry a movie and swap genitalia. Such love for a movie, any movie is completely natural.

Wrong, sir. Wrong. The only exposure I had to the film pre-seeing the thing was the trailer before Transformers. I don't bother with the bullshit games movies play these days to keep people interested. I've seen the movie 5 times in the theater- twice on opening day- so I could see it on the big screen as many times as possible since the chance to see a Japanese style dai kaiju film on the big screen has only happened to me once (Godzilla 2000- not a good movie, but marginally more magnificent on the big screen).

I'm a kaiju fan. Hard core. I love the movie because it was exactly what the giant monster genre needed. It was exactly what GINO (Godzilla 1998), Godzilla 2000, and Godzilla: Final Wars failed to accomplish, which is pulling out of the same-old-same-old stories while remaining faithful to the genre and it's roots. Spiritually, it's more an American Godzilla movie than what Emmrich and Devlin came up with (to wit: Making a 50s American style monster movie and slapping the name "Godzilla" on it). I respect the hell out of it for the simple fact that they didn't kill the monster- which is one of the major things that separates American style monster movies from Japanese ("America's awesome military or super science TRIUMPHS," versus merely surviving or hopefully having monsters destroy eachother).

Gojira was born from the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not in the literal sense of atomic bombings awakening a monster, but in the sense that the destruction caused left a mark on the Japanese, which worked it's way into their pop art. Just as in that case, 9/11 was used as the "BIG HORRIFYING EVENT" this drew from. The parasites that dropped off of the monster in Cloverfield seem to me an homage to Gojira Returns/Return of Godzilla/Godzilla 1985.

The smartest thing this film did was strip everything down to it's essentials. Explaining the monster is a big expository pain, and it serves to only lessen the suspension of disbelief- leaving it a mystery, and the first person perspective kept the movie feeling like a nightmare. It avoided the trap that keeps most monster flicks relegated to the hard core audience who either likes GIANT MONSTERS enough not to care about the rest of the movie, or find the attempts at sciencey-sounding words kitschy and fun on an ironic level.

I'm the first person to hate the hell out of SHAKEY CAM- as far as I'm concerned 9 times out of 10 it's a dodge for being unable to properly choreograph a fight scene. Cloverfield is the 10th time, the instance where it was utilized correctly. The shakeyness was disorienting, but to compensate they used excellent composition to keep the scenes interesting, and dare I say beautiful at times. The 4th time I saw it in theaters, I focused mostly on that aspect, and was amazed at the effective imagery.

I'm tired and ranting right now. I'll probably rant more about my sloppy love of this movie tomorrow, but I'll leave it at this: If I were some simpleton sucked into a hype machine, I'd own the Pirates of the Carribean series (crappy pander-fests), have a Barack Obama sticker on a hybrid (refuse to own either), and be sitting here, typing this message while listening to... I dunno. What do kids listen to these days? Rap music?

That's a whole lotta words that I'm not going to read.

Condensed version: It is the best Japanese monster movie made in years and years, and I love it enough that I'm saving a hundred bucks to buy that bigass, overpriced toy of the monster.


Offline Gaseous Snake

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2008, 11:44:17 PM »
If Cloverfield were a woman, I would marry it, grovel at it's feet, satisfy it's every need, and have our sex organs switched out so she wouldn't have to feel the pain of child birth for the fifty babies we'd make together. If anyone touched her, or looked at her, I'd beat their faces into the floor with a burlap sack filled with ten penny nails, and throw his body into a well.
We'd be so happy together.
Always the young generation buying into the hype. I don't blame you. It's only natural that you would want to marry a movie and swap genitalia. Such love for a movie, any movie is completely natural.

Wrong, sir. Wrong. The only exposure I had to the film pre-seeing the thing was the trailer before Transformers. I don't bother with the bullshit games movies play these days to keep people interested. I've seen the movie 5 times in the theater- twice on opening day- so I could see it on the big screen as many times as possible since the chance to see a Japanese style dai kaiju film on the big screen has only happened to me once (Godzilla 2000- not a good movie, but marginally more magnificent on the big screen).

I'm a kaiju fan. Hard core. I love the movie because it was exactly what the giant monster genre needed. It was exactly what GINO (Godzilla 1998), Godzilla 2000, and Godzilla: Final Wars failed to accomplish, which is pulling out of the same-old-same-old stories while remaining faithful to the genre and it's roots. Spiritually, it's more an American Godzilla movie than what Emmrich and Devlin came up with (to wit: Making a 50s American style monster movie and slapping the name "Godzilla" on it). I respect the hell out of it for the simple fact that they didn't kill the monster- which is one of the major things that separates American style monster movies from Japanese ("America's awesome military or super science TRIUMPHS," versus merely surviving or hopefully having monsters destroy eachother).

Gojira was born from the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not in the literal sense of atomic bombings awakening a monster, but in the sense that the destruction caused left a mark on the Japanese, which worked it's way into their pop art. Just as in that case, 9/11 was used as the "BIG HORRIFYING EVENT" this drew from. The parasites that dropped off of the monster in Cloverfield seem to me an homage to Gojira Returns/Return of Godzilla/Godzilla 1985.

The smartest thing this film did was strip everything down to it's essentials. Explaining the monster is a big expository pain, and it serves to only lessen the suspension of disbelief- leaving it a mystery, and the first person perspective kept the movie feeling like a nightmare. It avoided the trap that keeps most monster flicks relegated to the hard core audience who either likes GIANT MONSTERS enough not to care about the rest of the movie, or find the attempts at sciencey-sounding words kitschy and fun on an ironic level.

I'm the first person to hate the hell out of SHAKEY CAM- as far as I'm concerned 9 times out of 10 it's a dodge for being unable to properly choreograph a fight scene. Cloverfield is the 10th time, the instance where it was utilized correctly. The shakeyness was disorienting, but to compensate they used excellent composition to keep the scenes interesting, and dare I say beautiful at times. The 4th time I saw it in theaters, I focused mostly on that aspect, and was amazed at the effective imagery.

I'm tired and ranting right now. I'll probably rant more about my sloppy love of this movie tomorrow, but I'll leave it at this: If I were some simpleton sucked into a hype machine, I'd own the Pirates of the Carribean series (crappy pander-fests), have a Barack Obama sticker on a hybrid (refuse to own either), and be sitting here, typing this message while listening to... I dunno. What do kids listen to these days? Rap music?

That's a whole lotta words that I'm not going to read.

Condensed version: It is the best Japanese monster movie made in years and years, and I love it enough that I'm saving a hundred bucks to buy that bigass, overpriced toy of the monster.
Thank you.


GLaDOS

  • Guest
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2008, 12:13:13 AM »
Condensed version: It is the best Japanese monster movie made in years and years, and I love it enough that I'm saving a hundred bucks to buy that bigass, overpriced toy of the monster.
I am in great pain right now.


Offline GalvaTRION

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
  • Liked: 4
  • Damn you, Bay.
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2008, 12:16:52 AM »
Condensed version: It is the best Japanese monster movie made in years and years, and I love it enough that I'm saving a hundred bucks to buy that bigass, overpriced toy of the monster.
I am in great pain right now.

Do you give a rat's ass about monster movies? Do you like sports instead, or something?


Offline RobtheBarbarian

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4049
  • Liked: 8
  • Snarl!
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2008, 12:49:54 AM »
I've never actually seen it, but cynicism springs eternal.


Offline FordPrefect

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1168
  • Liked: 2
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2008, 02:55:25 AM »
I have to agree with Galva. I'm not normally a fan of giant monster movies, nor do I have a great love of shaky cam (HATED Blair Witch), but watching this movie in the theater really made me feel like this was the best film of it's type that I'd seen. I think it taps into the fun memories I had of going to Universal Studios and  Disney/MGM Studios. The first person perspective really made it feel like a ride sometimes. It's one thing to have lots of "God's eye view" shots of the monster stomping on ant sized people, it's more interesting when you see this stuff coming at you in a few scenes.

The trailer was great because it showed you enough to get your attention, and then it didn't tell you hardly anything else about the movie. I hate a lot of movie trailers these days because they give you way too much information. Some of them tell you almost everything that happens in the movie except for the ending, and you can pretty much figure that part out based on the tone of the trailer and everything else you were presented with. 

I also like that we didn't always see the monster because the film was really more about the crisis it creates for the characters rather than what it looks like, it's origin story, or it's motivation. That's why I'm a little confused when people say they were "disappointed" by the look of the monster. Sometimes it feels like a McGuffin, so would it really be more effective if it were designed differently? I actually thought it looked pretty original. When some people asked me what it looked like I said,  "Well, I don't really know what to compare it to, but it looks pretty messed up."

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Incidentally, I didn't get the seasick feeling some people got from the shaky cam. As long as they don't start physically moving the seats during these scenes, I'm good to go. Normally I'd say the movie is best viewed on the biggest screen you have access to, but if it's really a problem for you, just watch it on a normal TV screen / computer monitor and you should be fine.


Offline GalvaTRION

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
  • Liked: 4
  • Damn you, Bay.
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2008, 05:16:13 AM »
I never got the sick feeling a lot of people did, except...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

My friend on the other hand had to keep looking down at the floor intermittently. I joked that they oughta be selling Dramamine at the door... they'd clean up.


Offline esoobaC .T bocaJ

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3759
  • Liked: 5
  • Jolly Snowflake day!!
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2008, 05:59:56 AM »
6 people, 6 people said the movie sucked, that means 6 people have no idea what makes a movie awesome
flesyht etah tsum uoy ,flesyht evas oT


Janitor

  • Guest
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2008, 07:46:01 AM »
I know what makes a good monster movie.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Offline Nick

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1532
  • Liked: 0
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2008, 08:35:33 AM »
What an under-appreciated classic Monster-a-Go-Go was. :D
Killing me won't bring back your Goddamned honey!


GLaDOS

  • Guest
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2008, 09:40:33 AM »
6 people, 6 people said the movie sucked, that means 6 people have no idea what makes a movie awesome
I can tell you one thing: The suffering and slaughter of people I do not find entertaining, fun or "awesome".


Janitor

  • Guest
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2008, 10:09:35 AM »
What an under-appreciated classic Monster-a-Go-Go was. :D

As the kids say...True that.


Janitor

  • Guest
Re: Cloverfield
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2008, 10:12:04 AM »
6 people, 6 people said the movie sucked, that means 6 people have no idea what makes a movie awesome
I can tell you one thing: The suffering and slaughter of people I do not find entertaining, fun or "awesome".

Not for entertainment. Not for fun. Just for Science.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 10:14:13 AM by Action Batch »