OT: Cloverfield

[texafana]

Sucked. Yawn. Not much more to say.

[STORY_TELLER]

Really? Haven't seen it, but my friend did and he said he enjoyed it. Said it had a short running time but didn't feel like it was abnormally short. Like 70 minutes?

My impression from the trailers is that it's a gimmick narrative ala 'The Blair Witch' meets 'Godzilla'.

[Sassie]

The trailer reminded me of Blair Witch. I was hoping it would be good. I love scary movies. Guess I will just rent it on video. Thanks for letting us know.

[brywool]

I thought it was awesome. Just got back. yeah, it was done with a handheld video camera, which was a drag, but it also put you into the movie more. I liked it a lot.

[STORY_TELLER]

I thought it was awesome. Just got back. yeah, it was done with a handheld video camera, which was a drag, but it also put you into the movie more. I liked it a lot.

lol... it wasn't shot with a handheld video camera, but it was treated in post production to make it feel as though it was for that "docustyle" approach ala blair witch.

Another friend of mine just gave me a thumbs down on it too. You liked it though? I haven't seen it so I'm weighing if it's worth it or not. I'm told it was only a 70-75 minute movie.

[piecesofeight]

Exactly. It's all about opinion. That's why I don't listen to opinions to often..unless they they come from a lot of people I respect and they all feel the same way. I am always surprised that one person right away won't do something because one person says not to.
Just like half these monkeys that are in the media that get paid to give their opinion..that's all it is..yet especially with talk radio..we listen..just because someone is getting paid to give their opinion. That's all it is.

[brywool]

I thought it was awesome. Just got back. yeah, it was done with a handheld video camera, which was a drag, but it also put you into the movie more. I liked it a lot.

lol... it wasn't shot with a handheld video camera, but it was treated in post production to make it feel as though it was for that "docustyle" approach ala blair witch.

Another friend of mine just gave me a thumbs down on it too. You liked it though? I haven't seen it so I'm weighing if it's worth it or not. I'm told it was only a 70-75 minute movie.

Right, I get that it wasn't really shot on a handheld, but that's what they wanted the audience to think. I dug it. As far as how long it was, does every movie have to be a 3 hour epic? Some movies can sustain that time, others cannot. This one was just the right length. I dunno, I thought it was a fun time.

[larryfromnextdoor]

I thought it was awesome. Just got back. yeah, it was done with a handheld video camera, which was a drag, but it also put you into the movie more. I liked it a lot.

lol... it wasn't shot with a handheld video camera, but it was treated in post production to make it feel as though it was for that "docustyle" approach ala blair witch.

Another friend of mine just gave me a thumbs down on it too. You liked it though? I haven't seen it so I'm weighing if it's worth it or not. I'm told it was only a 70-75 minute movie.

Right, I get that it wasn't really shot on a handheld, but that's what they wanted the audience to think. I dug it. As far as how long it was, does every movie have to be a 3 hour epic? Some movies can sustain that time, others cannot. This one was just the right length. I dunno, I thought it was a fun time.

this may be a great movie.. but i cant stand that "docustyle" look .. i HATE it.. the Bourne Supremacy 3 was filmed just like that .. ugh! im old fashioned.. i like a big still screen a.k.a. Gone With the Wind..

some of those CSI's are filmed that way... the camera will start on a shoe or something,, then up to the ceiling, then to half a face.. zoom out.. find the face.. zoom in... all i want to see is a full screen shot and a good script.. .. the world has just passed me by...

[texafana]

>>> SPOILER ALERT <<< Don't read unless you want to...



I didn't want to post more about it until later, anyway....yah the whole "first person" camera shlong took it's toll on me and others about 10 minutes into it. The movie had some serious potential to be "entertaining" but instead they went with the first person camera "real" mode of movie making. This can work at times, but they cleverly have so much movement going on it's difficult to allow your eyes to "focus" on the special fx, well...the little fx there is in the movie. Hats off to the trailer though, this one will totally "bait and hook em" the general audience that is. It will probably take a few days or weeks for the real truth about the movie to spread via word of mouth. Which is, the trailer was probably the best piece of modern movie advertising since Blair Witch. The real truth about the movie is:

-The camera movement will make you sick until you get used to it.
-The story is not original.
-The monsters look very CGI, hence the fast motion to cover it up.
-It makes it seem the monster has weapons which seem to blow buildings up, etc. Wrong, it just has long arms. So where do we get what looks like asteroids, weapons, destroying the buildings are coming from? huh??
-Too many questions left un-answered, too many holes.
-3 cool parts. The initial part when the head of the SOL comes off, falls into the city. The little creatures that spawn off the main monster. The part when the camera guy gets chomped by the monster.

I've noticed alot of younger viewers are actually enjoying the "motion sickness", "survival" aspect of the movie, etc. Perhaps if you don't require much story or substance the motion sickness and survival aspect of the movie might appeal to you. But to me "The Mist" was similar to this and they delivered a much more entertaining 2 hours than this movie. Even the slower paced "I AM LEGEND" was more entertaining.

The movie:

Party, earthquake, monster, buildings fall, people scramble, army fights, monster spawns little monsters, boy saves girl, army fights monster, hitch a ride on a helicopter, monster thought to be dead, rises up and hits the chopper, they crash, main camera guy gets chomped by the monster (the only time a long clear shot of the monster is available), boy and girl document their names on the video because they know they're about to die, the city gets bombed, everyone dead, credits role.

The monster was rumored to be a mutant whale, it is not. I heard several people saying it looked like a combination of a bat/lobster/crab? At one point it looks like something falls from the sky, so it could be an alien. No explanation is given.

I was suckered in by the trailer. I was expecting way too much. If I never saw the trailer and I didn't pay a premium price, I might have enjoyed the movie better. But as it stands I wish I would have rented it or saw it at a dollar theater. Very dissapointed. I know Rambo won't let me down.

[Memorex]

I'm 41 and normally hate that kind of filming. But I saw the movie last night and loved it. I thought it was intense. I had heard that because of budget reasons, they purposely did not show much of the "monster". So I was prepared for that.

The ending was the only ending it could be, though you want more.

Normally, the limited views of that camera style are more annoying than anything for me. For instance, fight scenes in movies. But for this movie, it added to my stress level.

Not sure how this will play on a TV with medium sound. I think the theater environment made it better.

Opinion is just that. I truly hate when people say something sucks. Nothing "is" anything. What you feel is all you know. Except for the guitarist for wisted Sister. He sucks.

[NealIsGod]

I heard people are getting sick watching that shaky camera shit. No thank you.