# Cloverfield



## Hanzo (Apr 29, 2008)

I searched and did not see any Cloverfield on here. I thought it was an awesome movie, although got annoyed at people bitching about the motion sickness when they knew it was shot by handheld camera. I thought the monster and the parasties were threatening looking and kick ass, as well with their design and the visual effects. 

 I will be looking forward to the sequel.

 Oh, and kids should not see it...a bit bloody, hint...exploding woman >.>


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Apr 29, 2008)

I saw it the day it came out in sweden. It's an awesome movie because it's so differnt from the action/monster movies you see these days (die hard 4 anyone?). This may be why many my age (16) don't like it. All they want is awesome speciall effects, hot chicks and shooting >.<


----------



## Hanzo (Apr 29, 2008)

Ishnuvalok said:


> All they want is awesome speciall effects, hot chicks and shooting >.<



 But it had awesome Special Effects, and shooting...and hot chicks. And blood and gore, no sex but who cares? I didn't wanna see boobies anyways


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Apr 29, 2008)

Hanzo said:


> But it had awesome Special Effects, and shooting...and hot chicks. And blood and gore, no sex but who cares? I didn't wanna see boobies anyways



The fact that It showed more about the people and their character development and shaky camera (it worked really, really well in Cloverfield). What they want is what I call "transformers syndrome". Given that everyone said that the transformers movie was awesome. Shure it had nice special effects, but other than that....just no.


----------



## Hanzo (Apr 29, 2008)

see I liked Transformers too, but I liked Cloverfield more because of the character development


----------



## NerdyMunk (Apr 29, 2008)

Hanzo said:


> I searched and did not see any Cloverfield on here. I thought it was an awesome movie, although got annoyed at people bitching about the motion sickness when they knew it was shot by handheld camera. I thought the monster and the parasties were threatening looking and kick ass, as well with their design and the visual effects.
> 
> I will be looking forward to the sequel.
> 
> Oh, and kids should not see it...a bit bloody, hint...exploding woman >.>



Personally I liked the film and any other kind of independent genres


----------



## Xephier (Apr 29, 2008)

Honestly i think the movie had potential, but WHY did it need to be shot with a sonycam! There's a reason why they use movie cameras to shoot movies, cuz it looks 100% better, imho I thought blair witch was the worst movie(not THE worst, but worst out of movies that people thought was good)ever invented. Shooting a movie in such a manner is like saying, hey, let's cut out all the special effects, take out all the sound editing so it echo's and sounds like crap, all in the interest of making it feel like you're really there.. riiiight. All i heard about blair witch was how it was sooo scary, and people actually left the movie theater cuz it was That scary, then i watched it and i was like WTF... it damn near bored me to death, curling woulda been scarryer when they yell SWEEP!

All in all, im not doubting that this movie has greatness potential, but shoot a version/sequell with a hollywood quality cam, and well talk.


----------



## Hanzo (Apr 30, 2008)

Xephier said:


> All i heard about blair witch was how it was sooo scary, and people actually left the movie theater cuz it was That scary, then i watched it and i was like WTF... it damn near bored me to death, curling woulda been scarryer when they yell SWEEP



Well the cool thing about cloverfield gave, that Blair Bitch did not, was the Visual FX...and the blood and gore , and also the way it ended was executed perfectly, it made you guess. Plus when you look at the dates and all that, the event is suppose to take place next year, like saturday May 23rd...that's next year....which maybe thats when they will release the sequel.


----------



## Xephier (Apr 30, 2008)

Well, my main question to you(having seen the movie) did the shakey camera syndrome add anything good to the movie? or could you agree that it woulda likely been 50% better with camera work like that seen in the newer godzilla movie?


----------



## Rhainor (Apr 30, 2008)

It coulda used to have been a *little* less shaky, but the home-movie feel does add a great deal of atmosphere to the movie.

That said, Cloverfield is pretty much the only movie I've ever seen where I thought the shaky camerawork was a good thing.  In movies where the default camera angle is your general third-person "floating camera", shaking drives me nuts.


----------



## Hanzo (Apr 30, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> It coulda used to have been a *little* less shaky, but the home-movie feel does add a great deal of atmosphere to the movie.
> 
> That said, Cloverfield is pretty much the only movie I've ever seen where I thought the shaky camerawork was a good thing.  In movies where the default camera angle is your general third-person "floating camera", shaking drives me nuts.




agreed, maybe people with motion sickness should have seen it on DVD. Which is another thing that pisses me off, they complain about motion sickness and knew it was shot by POV camera, HELLO!?


----------



## RouShu_wolf (Apr 30, 2008)

Honestly, I loved how this movie used a hand-held camera. It wasn't like Godzilla where you just SEE the person with the camera screaming and running, you ARE that person, you BECOME that person. The point of this movie wasn't to look amazing. The point of the movie was to let the viewer experience the first-person anticipation and fear that the characters in the movie do. Granted, we probably all aren't as stupid as Hud seemed to be most of the time, but it was amazing for doing something that most other monster movies don't...let you see the characters and get to know the characters, rather than just having them all die in a bloody mess while you watch from a safe distance.


----------



## Hanzo (May 1, 2008)

RouShu_wolf said:


> Honestly, I loved how this movie used a hand-held camera. It wasn't like Godzilla where you just SEE the person with the camera screaming and running, you ARE that person, you BECOME that person. The point of this movie wasn't to look amazing. The point of the movie was to let the viewer experience the first-person anticipation and fear that the characters in the movie do. Granted, we probably all aren't as stupid as Hud seemed to be most of the time, but it was amazing for doing something that most other monster movies don't...let you see the characters and get to know the characters, rather than just having them all die in a bloody mess while you watch from a safe distance.





it was kinda sad to watch Marlena die, although she died a cool death. Was cool seeing hud die since he got bitten in half and we brifely see it, but pause it right, you see the blod and legs and stuff when he falls from the creature's mouth


----------



## NornHound (May 1, 2008)

Cloverfield is an awesome movie. The characters were just like any ordinary person, no one was the stereotypical blond-who-saves-the-day, they were realistic in that sense.  I loved how it was filmed, via handicam, and the fact that there was no music.  I hate how in horror movies, which should have suspense in the _acting_ and the story itself,  is when you're basically told what's going to happen next. I want to see good acting, not sit there and watch a group of poor-quality actors with a overblown *soundtrack* telling me what's happening =\. Soundtracks help with the film, yes, but Cloverfield worked with the realistic-characters and without music playing the majority of the time.

The fact that you hardly saw the monster itself, was awesome. It makes you want more of the story, and changes the characters. Unlike in other movies, you weren't shown the monster in all its glory; 30 minutes into the film, and one or two of the main characters OR a scientist did not magically find out what type of creature it is and its weaknesses. It does not become 'scary', at that point.

I don't know about the prequel/sequel/etc. Hopefully it'll have the same mood, and new monsters of every kind are not added, etc.  No comment about the manga prequel, for one thing.


----------



## Grimfang (May 1, 2008)

Yes, the movie just fucking rocked.

It was told from a character's point of view. Somehow, it felt more intense and real to not have it cutting around to different locations and different scenes and such.

The quickest example: Take 9/11. Or some other catastrophic event. Usually, people don't know what's really going on. But it's freaky, and unsettling. Cloverfield really captures that feeling of chaos and confusion.


----------



## sgolem (May 3, 2008)

I saw it with half a group that was film geeks and half that weren't.  The indie film geeks seemed to like it while the others didn't.  This surprised me, since there were a ton of technical things that I expected them to get pickey about and they didn't.

I enjoyed it.  I can see why others might not, though.


----------

