CLOVERFIELD- Post Release Discussion - Page 6

Being a long time Godzilla fan, I was very excited to see a "fresh take" on a giant monster movie. I'm sure there were executives at Toho are looking at this film for possible ideas for their next Godzilla film.
I enjoyed this film very much.

The shots with Hud on one side of the street and Rob and the girls on the other and the military just blasting away between them gave a real sense of power to the attacks being mounted against the monster. The final "money shot" of the monster was well worth it for me. What we had a chance to see was a very sfx dependent movie made with a more manageable Hollywood budget. I can only hope it gives the studios to consider giving other directors a chance to make their own visions of action/sci-fi/giant monster movies so we won't always have to wait until May every year for the big budget blockbusters.

One of the very first lines in the film is Rob saying that this is Beth's parents' apartment. Now, you can hate him for his own apartment when we see that later, but still.

I have a few little points to add after reading through this thread:

-Darkmite already hinted at this, but the military probably had a bunch of found footage to choose from. Of course we got the one in which the cameraman was both stupid enough to go into the heart of the shit and lucky enough to stay alive and get shots of Clovie. It's like if you had a citywide coin-flipping contest: we should be surprised if there weren't at least a few people who got twenty heads in a row, even though it'd be unlikely from their perspective.

-I don't just tolerate shakeycam, I love it. No nausea at all, either. Maybe it's just that I'm young and am immersed in video games and YouTube, but it seems perfectly natural to me.

-That said, I agree with Andre that the director wasn't nearly strict enough at adhering to the actual circumstances of the camera. Hud would probably hold it at his side when he was running or fighting. The military would certainly confiscate it if some dude was walking around their triage with a camera on his shoulder or face. There's true Blair Witch survivor cam, then there's first-person 'eyeball' POV, then there's shakey close 3rd (think Owen running through the streets near the end of CoM). Cloverfield is supposed to be just the first of these, but it drifts between all three, like Reeves wanted to cheat every once in a while.

If Giacchino's Roar! track doesn't get released for purchase on iTunes, there's gonna be some trouble. I had no problem with the "reality-based" approach of this film until I heard that theme. It was so damn good, it made me wish that they had made a traditional film, just so I could get a full score out of it. I was very happy to see that he's composing the score for Star Trek. The man can homage like nobody's business.

And you New Yorkers really need to get over the freakin' geography. Has any movie ever done this properly? Every movie ever filmed in Seattle has fucked up the geography, and the same is true of any city I've ever lived in. It's more important for a movie to make dramatic use of the environment than to show the proper placement of the streets. Accept it and move on.

Regarding the indestructible nature of the monster. He can withstand nuclear destruction yet he still suffers from parasitic lice? I mean presumably those things are blood suckers and can pierce 'Clover's skin, yet the military can't make a dent?

In Godzilla 1984, he had giant lice, so this wasn't exactly a new idea. In fact, a lot of these complaints just don't register as flaws if you're a longtime kaiju fan. Of course it's indestructible...it's a goddamn giant monster. What else would it be? The giant monster has giant parasites? Sure, why not?

If I can accept a giant moth that flies around with tiny singing girls, then nothing in this movie is going to threaten my suspension of disbelief. It's a giant monster movie. I was just surprised that it didn't appear to have a ranged attack of some kind. Maybe in the sequel, it will be revealed that lightning shoots out of those headbags.

They probably just feed/clean from his skin, like those things that hang on to sharks.

Oh I'm all for silliness and giant monster movies. The problem with Cloverfield is the are large part of it is occupied with boring idiots that are not at all the usual monster movie material.

In a post I made earlier (that got deleted ) I suggested a better ending would have been some second type of monster (Kong, Mothra, Gamera, etc) turn up and have a big smackdown rather than the two saps under the bridge sulking.

That's more along my idea of a giant monster movie.

cough '85 cough



* Unless you were referring to release date and not US title, sorry.

Or even just an off-camera Godzilla-esque roar and a blast of fire-breath shooting in, hitting Clovie, who then falls onto the Central Park bridge, crushing them in a burning heap. THE END.

J.J. Abrams was on the Howard Stern Show this morning and he said the studio will more than likely make a sequel, and he's not opposed to it, so it's probable if they find the right material.

It's possible that it did have an attack, though. Right after the group runs down into the subway, Hud, discussing why they can't go back up, says something along the lines of "it was like the air caught on fire!" The way it was phrased immediately made me think this was the monster's attack. If that wasn't the intention there's really no point to that particular line, as a giant rampaging beast and the military assault we witness would be reason enough to prevent them from going back up without specific mention of the air catching on fire.

Then again, what benefit would breathing fire be to an aquatic animal?

Why did they have Lily (I think that's her name) get in the other helicopter? I mean it was obvious at that point they were just trying to widdle it down to Rob and Beth, so she had to be gotten rid of, but why that way? Her helicopter didn't even explode or anything. Hell, I thought for sure she would buy it on top of Beth's apartment; the section she was standing on would give way and collapse and she would plummet to her death. Would've made walking along that roof much more suspenseful if someone had already died from it.

Oh, and as for any complaints of "how did they get so many place so quickly", obviously, HUD turned the camera off at some points (walking in that subway tunnel for one) so there was a lot more than what we saw, he just choose to not film the boring parts. This could also explain the battery life if he turned it off for long periods of time.

I know. If you live in LA, you pretty much do not care at all about this fuck up that all movies do.

In ten minutes, actors will walk from from Sunset and Vine to Belmont Shores, Long Beach.

I could swear I saw that helicopter crash as the other one was leaving.

Meh. And, that's the point. Since there's no real character there we're forced to try and figure him out from his surroundings. And his surroundings are pretty damn fine. Like I said before, why should we care?

I don't understand the relationship between "he has it good" and "I don't care what happens to him". That would be the equivalent of driving past a horrible crash where you could help out because both the cars were BMWs. I still care because he's human, and regardless of financial or sexual status, I don't wish that fate on anyone.

This is the same mindset typing shit like "Why couldn't Lindsay Lohan have died instead of Heath Ledger?"

I guess I'm used to characters having huge apartments because it happens so often in TV series and such. It's become just one of those things that always happens in fiction and therefore becomes ignorable, like ugly guys having hot wives or everyone saying 'bingo' instead of 'yes.'

This reminds me of the Ferris Bueller thread, and weirdly enough I agreed with Andre then (that Ferris's richness detracted from his goodness) and here I think the two are unrelated. The thing is, Rob isn't doing anything bad, he's just doing something stupid. And it's not something uniquely stupid: heck, the 'guy going for the girl in emergency' is classic; that's why Shaun of the Dead included it, right?

Also, Shaun endangered many more people, in a plan that made much less sense once they'd achieved relative safety (Liz's Place).

I guess I didn't mean to imply the two were connected. The 'he has it good' bit just provokes a certain amount of envy, that's all. But as the film progresses you have to admit there really isn't anything else you can say about Rob's character (likely due to Abrams trying to make it 'reality'). And that lack of character leads me to not really care about him.

Maybe you'll like him/them more after seeing the deleted scenes... or not:

http://www.creature-corner.com/?type=news&id=3148

Yeah, the 9/11 allusions are obvious (sudden attack on NYC, collapsing buildings, panic in the streets, events caught on tape, etc)... but I read another review (brief as it was) online that brought some other 9/11 parallels into focus for me:

"Even after watching (experiencing, to be exact) the film, I could not do away with fear and terror that the monster brought. The origin of the CLOVERFIELD monster was not revealed at the end of the film. And it neither was killed nor avoided. The audience does not know what the true identity of it is. To me, the monster is like metaphors for ever-present fear and uneasiness in the whole world, in this year of two thousand and eight, that we could never know their cause and symptoms."

Just saw this today, opening night here in PR... loved it! The theater was about half-full, and the first five minutes of so they were making fun of the flick but they got into it eventually.

The biggest reaction here was when Hud turned on the nightvision on the camera. That really got the audience worked up (in a good way).

The bass was intense, too, especially right before the movie started, with the "beast walking" sound effect. Really helped put me in a "giant monster movie" mood.

Any other day I'd feel the whole "Beth's building" rescue was a waste of time and utter filler to pad the movie out, but I was so into the movie by the time that scene came along and it was, admittedly, so well done that now I think I really appreciate that "adventure movie" taste it gave the movie for a few minutes.

And I dunno what the general opinion is here, but I thought the acting was pretty damn good. Michael Stahl-David in particular was great, and if someone can point me in the direction of Jessica Lucas' house, I'm completely ready to stalk her. The Chris Mulkey cameo brought a grin to my face, as well, I gotta say.

I completely missed checking for falling things from the sky during that last Coney Island shot... but I plan on seeing the movie again with some pals later in the week, so maybe next time.

And to the people saying that it's completely unbelievable that people stuck with Rob as he went to look for Beth... who stayed with Rob? His brother, his brother's girlfriend (who said she considers Rob a brother to her) and his best friend. Out of all the people at his party, aren't those three pretty much the ONLY people you'd figure would go along with Rob? Sure, there was Marlena, and even Hud pointed out that he found it odd that she stuck around, and the impression I got was that she preferred being with Lily and that she's probably just that kind of person. The conversation after she saves Hud from the lice-things cements that even more.

It's not like a fuckin' passerby tagged along. I mean, jeez.

Some interesting stuff in the Production Notes. Sorry, if they've been posted before.

Saw this last night. The theater was almost empty. Guess the word-of-mouth fall-off is going to be right steep on this one.

I also didn't read this thread before seeing the movie, so I had no advance information besides the small amount of mainstream marketing I couldn't avoid. Having now read all seven pages (!), I'm generally in sync with the common reaction. However, I'd sum it up like this:

Not a very good film. However, a great ride.

Doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Characterizations serviceable at best. Shallow theme. Rewatch value (my measure of the depth of the material) likely low.

However, it carries off the conceit (for the most part), and achieves in its best moments a remarkable intensity.

Glad I saw it, enjoyed the experience, and now it's checked off the list.

Following on what Greg David said, we here in Seattle laughed derisively at how Sleepless in Seattle misrepresented the layout of our fair city. We may grudgingly enjoy the story, but I don't know any Seattleites who don't mock that film without mercy when given the smallest opportunity.

And yet, nobody else gives even the tiniest shit.

I think we all have to get over it. Movies take place in Movieland, which is like Epcot Center's world showcase plaza in that everything is really close together and all the non-interesting stuff is missing.

At least one exception comes to mind. Breach gets D.C. geography about right. It's just one of the many small details that shows the film was crafted by people who cared about their work.

Spider-Man 2 has an elevated train running through Manhattan, I think.

I would agree that in terms of their quest, money is an unrelated element. The film isn't protraying the characters as entitled to do what they're doing because of money (which isn't analagous, but just the same). But in the opening twenty minutes we see that these people lead spoiled lives, which is never endearing. The reason why the little tramp became universally loved is because he's an underdog with no money. You want to see him get some rewards. Here, and the filmmakers may be so "in movies" they have no idea how much money everything that was had would cost, you never get the sense that the money angle was thought through, or perhaps it was in the sense that they used it to have the opening shots of Central Park, and felt there had to be a through line. Just the same, had the party been in a cramped apartment, with half the action on the roof (and perhaps apologizing to some neighbor along the way) it might have made everyone involved a little more endearing. Might have.

I was thinking about this, and it's totally fair. This is one of the rare giant monster movies where the central monster is not completely the protagonist. That's something of a victory.

We usually just flick em off, yell at em, grab our nuts and go "You want a piece?" that tends to put off all sorts of foreign invaders (read: tourists).

I could see complaining about how you couldn't connect with the character's plight because they didn't set up the relationship very well between them, or that the whole Beth thing seemed kinda forced and not enough time to invest in them, etc. You know, normal cinematic squabbles and laments.

But saying you couldn't connect with them because they were a bunch of rich kids?

The fuck?

98% of the movies I enjoy have characters that are nothing like me, be it physically (the looks department, and I mean for better or for worse) or pocket-change wise (or any other number of ways).

I mean, say you didn't like it 'cause they didn't set it up well enough for you, but don't tell me you didn't like it because he's rich "so whatever".

Maybe I'm overtly misinterpreting the complaints here, but at least that's what it's coming across as.

ETA: I think they did a well enough job to humanize the characters enough so they don't come across as stowaways from The Hills.

I personally have no problems with the fact that Batman is my favorite superhero (over say Spiderman), based on Bruce's status, wealth, or priveleged upbringing.

And I grew up "lower middle class", raised by a working class single mom in a townhouse.

Actually, it sounds more like that since the characters were not developed as best they could be, all we had to go on was the fact that they were "rich hipsters", which automatically engenders a feeling of dislike and hatred.

I, however, do not agree with that assessment, I feel as though they gave us just enough information and relationship moments for us to care about them.

Doc's on the ball with that. I love Philadephia Story, rich people can be endearing, it's just - as Doc nailed - since that's what we get most out of the characters, it does them no favors. Then again, it may make it easier to swallow their deaths.

Batman uses his resources to help the common man, so your point is moot.

Saw this movie opening night here in NYC and agree with most of the comments from the chewers. The main characters are all idiots that make stupid decisions and that's what makes them incredibly annoying. One of my greatest joys in movie was the fact that the minority woman appears to have survived. I don't remember who said that Beth was gorgeous but they need to see the movie again because Lilly (sp?) was much more beautiful. Beth looked like a Megan Fox clone to me.

Funny anecdote, after the movie ended in my theater (the Regal on 42nd), a guy gets up from his seat before everyone else and it turns out to be the actor that played Hud. All of the main cast was at the showing (except for the two actors playing the brothers). The actor yelled out to the theater asking what was the general opinion was of the movie and took one question from the audience: which of course was about the creature's origin and the response was "We have no fucking clue." And the actress Jessica Lucas is just as fine in person as she was in the movie.

Ehn, I need to see a character acting like a dick before I start disliking him. I guess I don't have that strong an inferiority complex that I get against somebody just 'cause they're well off.

Anyways, straying away from that a moment: am I the only one who thought the monster looked like a cross between the Ripley alien and the final Satan from End of Days?

Have you ever hung around rich hipsters? The percentage of non-douchery is low.

I agree with whoever made the Shaun of the Dead comparison. If you can follow the decisions made by the characters there, then it shouldn't be a leap to follow the ones here.

Also, it's implied that Rob and Jason's parents aren't nowhere near Manhattan.

To rehash: Rob, his brother Jason, their best friend, Jason's girlfriend who considers Rob a brother, and Marlena who's a bleeding-heart of sorts and a friend of Lily's.

Like I said before, and before I start sounding like a broken record, those are exactly the people I'd expect to go off together. And let's not forget that they were well on their way to evacuating the city until Rob got Beth's distressed call on the bridge. They were forced to go back into Manhattan and THEN did Rob get the overwhelming urge to go seek Beth out.

We can assume Lily goes with him because she cares alot about Rob and Beth (plus, the whole Jason connection) and Hud because, well, best friends, man. Marlena's decision doesn't come until the alley scene where she continues with them instead of walking down to where the soldiers are.

I've seen dumb movies with dumb characters make extremely dumb decisions. I honestly don't feel this is one of those. I don't think you need to take a large leap to understand where they're coming from and the why's of it.

Yeah, I have, they're over here too.

Be that as it may, I can't dislike a person outright if they haven't done anything to make me dislike them. With rich hipsters, the big word is "yet", but until that "yet" arrives... what am I gonna do? Be an asshole and cold shoulder a guy/character just 'cuz?

Same deal with this movie. They're rich hipsters. They didn't do anything outstandingly douche-y. So, no hard feelings.

The percentage of non-douchery amongst any segment of the Earth's population is low.

I still can't see anyone other than Marlena as a hipster. Hell, Rob is in a suit and is getting promoted to VP at his job. Until he starts talking about Vampire Weekend or wearing women's jeans, he looks like a yuppie to me.

According to the logic presented, Shaun gets a pass because he's a charismatic (ie: funny) blue collar worker= the CHEWER demographic. Plus he feels like a richer character due to the writing, attention placed on him, and performance. Plus, he's the slacker underdog unlikely-hero. You're supposed to root for his dumb (AKA brave) decisions. Plus zombies seem more manageable/avoidable/defeatable than a kaiju.
Maybe we should label them as the "Gentrifiers" instead of "Hipster".

Plus, it's just so satisfying to smash those slow-moving bodies with a cricket bat. I can't imagine doing the same to a kaiju being the same.

I for one loved it. I'm pretty much in the same boat as Nick, it's a giant monster movie that's fun. Not perfect, but the best we've gotten in a while. I can't believe that there's a new kaiju movie out that didn't set your feet on fire while slapping your face, and people are arguing about the characters' salaries. I thought Matthew Broderick and his girlfriend were more annoying in Godzilla '98 than any of the characters in Cloverfield.

I also love that "kaiju" doesn't set off the spell-check here on the forums.

Saw it again yesterday, and I want to comment on one thing that could've been touched on before;

-Rob's apartment is different from the place we first see him at in the opening of the movie, as the first thing he says is, "Beth's dad's place".

So the place we see him at later is not as nice, but equally as ridiculous for someone his age to be able to afford(that's the one with all the spray paint on the walls.

Doesn't really bother me, just thought I'd attempt to clear that up.

But (as a counter point) it's not as if Rob does anything "evil" with his resources (unlike Ferris Bueller ), besides own some real estate. Shouldn't that then be a moot point? I'd think that people having a serious discussion about a film wouldn't want characters judged by prejudices, but by their actions. Considering we don't even know what he does for a living or even with his money (or how he obtained it), people are jumping to conclusions. And, I think in a pinch, he demonstrates some respectable human traits like regret, bravery, self-sacrifice. He certainly doesn't force anyone else to come with him. I think it's better to judge a character based on those actions and not a perceived negative like "huge apartment".

I end my post with a valid use of a semi-corny quote from Batman himself:
"It's not who we are but what we do that defines us."

This is pretty much what I've been thinking while reading this entire thread. My lame sister is a fucking hipster; these folks were not.

Says the guy with a "White Boy Afro". BINGO!



* That's OK, I have old school Vans, a hoodie or 2, and a "Cabbie" hat. And my last pair of glasses were quite chunky (free with my old crappy retail eye plan!).

Here's what it was like for me:

Nothing at the beginning gave me reason (by my own standards) to think one way or the other about the characters, then as the party went on I started to become attached to them on a simple level - Hud is funny, Rob is sad, they each like a girl yet have obstacles, etc. - and then comes the big talk on the on the balcony. It was so cheesy and awful, with talk of 'love' and 'moments' - as though Rob was about to decide not to go to Japan, but instead go for Beth - but then immediately that's when the shit starts to happen.

Right then, I was hoping that the movie would do more with this; I thought it could be sort of a deconstruction of the love stories and other simple plots we get in movies. Maybe we'd see the characters in a different way, maybe we'd realize the true importance of their problems when compared to a real disaster.

But it never really happened, except for the I-love-you deaths at the end. I thought that was a really great and mean way to finish this story, but it didn't feel like it went along with the rest of the movie.

I'n my defense, my 'fro is completely natural.