Cloverfield

Post Reply New Topic

This movie basically sucked. I don't understand why people think it's good. Throughout the whole movie, they had a moving camera and it was made like a home video, it was being told by one person's perspective, the movie never says where the monster came from and why it was there. The battery never runs out, nor the tape or did he use a big camera that uses VHS tapes.
What killed the movie was the ending, the huge bomb drops to kill off the monster and the camera gets buried because the bridge they were hiding under falls and the characters die and the tape ends and it shows him and his girlfriend being at Coney island and then the movie goes blank and the credits roll. It was very disappointing for my boyfriend and I. Thank god we didn't spend any money to see this movie because 20 dollars would have been a waste. We had Regal tickets instead and those were wasted instead. Of course I offered to repay my boyfriend since I was the one who wanted to see it but he said not to worry about it.

IMO this movie would have been a lot better if they made it the regular way like other movies instead of like the home video way.

Just hope he does a better job with Star Trek 11...

We've had to clean up so much puke in cloverfield and refund so many tickets it's ridiculous. You'd think people would understand that it sucks.

it sucked, the only good bit was in the tunnels, and that's cz im afraid of spiders.

I just came back from it a few hours ago. Orginally we were gonna see Alvin and the Chipmunks, but when we got their it was already playing so we saw that instead. To me it was an okay movie.

while I usually can identify well if a movie will suck or not, I did not know I would read the spoiler to the movie. hehehe.

[quote="Spokane_Girl"]This movie basically sucked. quote]

If you thought that was bad why don't so see Spider-Man 3!

How could you have hated that movie!! I loved it!! ! I wonder if the guy and the girl survived the bridge collapse...
and the home movie way made it better for me!
the producers set up an ARG (alternate reality game, clues hidden throughout the physical and virtual world, and in ads and stuff, there was a halo ARG and a Nine Inch Nails ARG, and others that arent having anything to do with those, one I rescently found in WIRED magazine)
the hints in the so far have only said (to me) where it came from, the camera guy was right, from the ocean.
if you look closely, on one of the promotional sites where it has pictures supposedly taken by Manhattan inhabitants shows the capsized oil boat, it has a name on it, TAGRUATO CORP. if you go to their website, they have a page that (and it is fake because they're motto is 'bleeding the earth out since 1946') shows there drilling site, one shipping to Manhattan. another site, called TIDO, protesting Tagruato says they were effect ancient unexplored depths of the ocean. they drilled into it's home and it followed them to Manhattan.
Can't see how you hate it, I loved it.

I want to watch Cloverfield because I like the idea of the film being made from the perspective of a normal person with a cam. I will reserve my judgement if its good or not till I see it.

BTW. and you ask how they don't run out of tape, the movie's 88 minutes long, I have cheap camera that can film triple that.

They did 7 hours of filming. The guy even says at the end it's been seven hours since the thing hit.

Here's the thing...you're bashing the movie for what it's trying to do, rather than how well or how badly it does it. If it hadn't been shot with a video camera, had explained where the monster came from, and been a far more typical monster movie overall--then it wouldn't have been "Cloverfield."

I, for one, enjoyed the film for what it was. I found it both incredibly silly and quite thrilling, and just very entertaining overall. It takes a lot of suspension of disbelief if you want to take it seriously, but taking it for what it IS rather than expecting it to be something it's not makes it much easier to enjoy this film. It's not realistic. It's not scientific. It's certainly no masterpiece. But it's fun and gimmicky and strangely intense.

yeah it doesn't mean they filmed during all seven hours!

oh Veresae, glad to see you agree with me

It wasnt a bad movie...there just was no ending!
And I don't mean it was a bad ending, it just didn't have an ending! It just stoped the film and started to rolled the credits.

I'm really curious about this movie, I think I might go see it this weekend.

So, you're saying that the movie about the giant monster that smashes up New York and has to be bombed is flawed because some parts aren't realistic?

Sarcasm aside, it's to be expected that there's going to be dissent when any art form veers from the usual path. There's tons of "standard" movies about giant monsters terrorizing cities, they're called "Godzilla". Cloverfield is trying to shake things up a bit (pun on the cinematography! how clever...) by not using every established cliche. Kudos to the creators.

If no movie maker ever took a chance, we'd still be watching silent black-and white films. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I never understood the hoopla around "Blair Witch", but apparantly I'm i the minority, as the movie was very successful.

It's very analogous to scientific experimentation. Not every experiment is successful, but you don't know unless you try...