Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Kurug3n on December 27, 2007, 11:47:54 PM

Title: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Kurug3n on December 27, 2007, 11:47:54 PM
Anyone planning on seeing it?

http://imdb.com/title/tt1060277/ (http://imdb.com/title/tt1060277/)
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on December 28, 2007, 12:12:38 PM
  The trailer certainly looked interesting and caught my eye.  I might see it just to find out whatever that thing is that decapitated the Statue of Liberty! ;D
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on December 28, 2007, 01:53:45 PM
Yes, I'm interested in seeing this. The trailer is pretty damn good.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 28, 2007, 02:39:44 PM
Seriously? This movie looks gay. Like, homosexual. Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla or something.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 28, 2007, 03:04:21 PM
Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla or something.


I feel the same way.

Looks like it will rely too much on shaky hand held camera movement to materialize shocks from the audience.
I'll pass.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Kurug3n on December 28, 2007, 04:06:57 PM
The trailer got me sucked into the hype much like Snakes on a Plane.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 28, 2007, 04:32:07 PM

I feel the same way.

Looks like it will rely too much on shaky hand held camera movement to materialize shocks from the audience.
I'll pass.

Me too. Oh yeah, and it looks like The Mist as well.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Kurug3n on December 28, 2007, 04:57:01 PM
Me too. Oh yeah, and it looks like The Mist as well.

The Mist? How? ???
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 28, 2007, 08:10:54 PM
The Mist? How? ???

I don't know. Really, I'm not sure. Something about people being trapped and not knowing what is getting them made me think of it for a few seconds during it's Sweeney Todd preview. I'm sure it won't be half as good as The Mist though. But I think in this they actually start running around town video taping themselves and what not.

Really though, if you guys were in that situation--what would you do? I'd start forcing myself on everyone. :D
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 06, 2008, 09:45:01 PM
so is this another remake of little shop of horrors  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Shop_of_Horrors)or something?

(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e15/Atlas2205/little-shop-of-horrors.jpg)

well, thats my impression
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: BeauButabi on January 06, 2008, 10:39:06 PM
HOLY SHIT! That MUST be it! The Cloverfield monster is gonna be Audrey II! Why oh why couldn't they just not feed the plants!?!?!?! ;D
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on January 07, 2008, 08:18:11 PM
Anyone wonder what happened to that girl draped behind that curtain with the guys in the biochemical suites? I thought she exploded or something.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 07, 2008, 09:33:06 PM
Anyone wonder what happened to that girl draped behind that curtain with the guys in the biochemical suites? I thought she exploded or something.


Infected by the monster's sperm.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Atlas2112 on January 07, 2008, 10:57:30 PM

Infected by the monster's sperm.
its nice to see that even monsters know hwo to have a good time  ::)
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 02:11:20 AM
When coming out of There will be blood, Sonny and I snuck into this one (no prize for guessing which was the better movie).

Exactly what I expected. Annoying shaky camera and a lot of loud noises to make up for the lack of thrill.
I'll admit some scenes did excite (the subway confrontation with the mini monsters and the stars scaling the remains of the building) but overall it was a dull, pointless piece of crap.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 20, 2008, 02:13:33 AM
When coming out of There will be blood, Sonny and I snuck into this one (no prize for guessing which was the better movie).

Exactly what I expected. Annoying shaky camera and a lot of loud noises to make up for the lack of thrill.
I'll admit some scenes did excite (the subway confrontation with the mini monsters and the stars scaling the remains of the building) but overall it was a dull, pointless piece of crap.

So you're stoked on the Cloverfield sequal right, FC? Anyways, hope you enjoyed TWBB-- if you want the soundtrack PM me.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 02:24:14 AM
So you're stoked on the Cloverfield sequal right, FC?


I'll be first in line when it comes out!
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Whalestoe on January 20, 2008, 02:38:53 AM

I'll be first in line when it comes out!

Uhhh, you'll be second in line. Right after me, well, that's if I've gotten around to seeing the first Cloverfield by then.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 02:41:36 AM
Uhhh, you'll be second in line. Right after me, well, that's if I've gotten around to seeing the first Cloverfield by then.


We'll camp out. Maybe we can even share a tent or better yet, a sleeping bag.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: geoman-1 on January 20, 2008, 10:49:50 AM

We'll camp out. Maybe we can even share a tent or better yet, a sleeping bag.
Oh no you di'int!!!  FC, you are stone-cold BUSTED! Well, I guess it's finally over between us FC.
But as they say, all good things come to an end. :'(
But I won't forget you FC. How could I forget our frolicking in the park, sharing chocolate milkshakes at the ice cream
parlor, pillow fights at the slumber parties, painting each others toenails, the Barry Manilow concert...oh so many great memories...!
Au Voir, Adios and Arivaderci... :'(


 I have just  one question FC... HOW IN THE HELL CAN I GET THIS " I LOVE FIRECRACKER"  TATTOO REMOVED FROM MY ASS!!??
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2008, 12:54:39 PM
I have just  one question FC... HOW IN THE HELL CAN I GET THIS " I LOVE FIRECRACKER"  TATTOO REMOVED FROM MY ASS!!??



The same way I got my "Geoman is a hottie" one off.

(http://www.kalustyans.com/pictures/Cheese-Grater-ss.jpg)

Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: geoman-1 on January 20, 2008, 03:04:43 PM
 ;D...















...Ouch! :(
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Groggy on January 21, 2008, 12:34:56 PM
I think I'll pass on this one. I don't like much sci-fi/horror on the best of days, and the premise/style of this film seems like it would annoy the crap out of me. Sorry.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 28, 2008, 09:10:28 PM
I think I'll pass on this one. I don't like much sci-fi/horror on the best of days, and the premise/style of this film seems like it would annoy the crap out of me. Sorry.

You don't like SF/horrors, you don't like spaghetti westerns, you don't lik porn... You basically don't like movies.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Sonny on January 28, 2008, 10:35:52 PM
I'm so glad I didn't spend money on this one.  It was the perfect filler movie to get into when you have nothing else better to do for the moment. And I was seriously contemplating leaving about half way through, but then I thought, well for one, it's free, and the other good thing is that i won't ever have to see it again and when my friends (who were very eager to see it) rave about it as if it were actually good, I can smile at them and pretend to be interested, without them knowing I know the truth of its.... horribleness. 


Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Arizona Colt on January 29, 2008, 04:27:39 PM
This was an awesome horror picture. Loved it. Thought it was great and everything was well done about it. Thought the monster was fabulous. Definitely a movie to see on a big screen. The shaky cam didn't bother me and you got to see some good shots of the creature. The last scene is supposed to reveal a clue about the origins of the monster whether it be from outer space or under the sea. A poster on another board made an interesting remark about this film--that it's essentially a love story at the core and a film about friendship. The character of Rob, realizing the danger, forges ahead to save the woman he loves when in all probability she is already dead. His friends try to stop him but he tells them to go on ahead that this is something he has to do. A small few of them reluctantly decide to join him. Good downer ending, too. I'm glad I spent money on it and will probably do so again. It's one of those 50/50 movies that splits people down the middle but most horror fans like it. Loved how the director teased you with brief snippets of the monster and its first reveal is all the better for it. Also dug how nothing is known about the monster and also it's hinted at that the military know something about the smaller monsters as they seem to carry some kind of biological bacteria that causes those bit by them to explode shortly after contamination. This is what that crap ass US GODZILLA should have been. Bring on the sequel.

In an age of lame, half-hearted, callous, egocentric remakes this was a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 29, 2008, 06:02:20 PM
The last scene is supposed to reveal a clue about the origins of the monster whether it be from outer space or under the sea.


A coworker told me he saw an asteroid falling from the heavens in the background when the couple were on the Ferris Wheel at Coney Island.
We both came to the conclusion that the creature was an entity from across the stars that hitched a ride on a comet and crashlanded into the earth's ocean.

Then again, This coworker could have been blowing smoke up my ass.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Sonny on January 29, 2008, 07:50:23 PM

Then again, This coworker could have been blowing smoke up my ass.


That might be the closest thing to the truth.  I don't get why people read so much into these things, I mean who fucking cares where the monster came from? Use your imagination and be happy about it. It's just a movie. 
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Arizona Colt on January 29, 2008, 09:04:29 PM
It was the films director who said in an interview there was something in the last shot. I think it adds an extra layer of creativity when a director will add things to the movie which aren't immediately noticeable or will raise debate or questions about the film itself.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: titoli on January 31, 2008, 06:12:20 PM
It's funny, in the internet age, to see how old hands of communication still stick to old tricks. Are they effective, I wonder?
I'm referring to the people who are in charge of the publicity for this movie (I know next to nothing about it). Today I read on a newspaper a little short article (just a few lines) on how this movie marks the beginning of a new kind of horror, so realistic that american spectators had to take bags to puke into while watching it. This is clearly all work of the press agents who got a link in the newspaper's desk. They probably didn't see the film, either. I wonder if these people realize how infos have started to circulate in the last 10-15 years. But, yes, they are probably  just defending their jobs.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Arizona Colt on January 31, 2008, 10:50:57 PM
It's funny, in the internet age, to see how old hands of communication still stick to old tricks. Are they effective, I wonder?
I'm referring to the people who are in charge of the publicity for this movie (I know next to nothing about it). Today I read on a newspaper a little short article (just a few lines) on how this movie marks the beginning of a new kind of horror, so realistic that american spectators had to take bags to puke into while watching it. This is clearly all work of the press agents who got a link in the newspaper's desk. They probably didn't see the film, either. I wonder if these people realize how infos have started to circulate in the last 10-15 years. But, yes, they are probably  just defending their jobs.

Some theaters had signs for this film that if you suffer easily from motion sickness you shouldn't see the movie due to the nature of the cinematography. Like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT before it, there were a number of people who threw up while watching the film due to a number of the scenes having chaotic camera work during the more harrowing scenes in the movie.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Sonny on February 02, 2008, 11:44:09 PM

Wow. no further comment
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Arizona Colt on February 03, 2008, 12:03:19 AM
Here's a link to further news about it.

http://www.fangoria.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=84168
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on February 07, 2008, 11:15:57 AM
  Saw this last night and I'm gonna agree with AC on this one.  I'm not a huge fan of horror/thriller movies, but this one was pretty good.  I liked the fact that you're just dropped into the movie with no explanation and left to figure things out for yourself, like where did the creature come from.  Also thought it was very well done to hint at what the monster looks like throughout the movie and build up to the big shot at the end.

  Shaky cam didn't bother me, the ending was good, and the use of an unknown cast helped a lot I thought.  By the way, I didn't see the splash at the end until I got home and read about it.  I prefer to think up my own backstory as opposed to some Japanese satellite crashing into the ocean and awaking this monster.  But that's just me. O0
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Arizona Colt on February 07, 2008, 02:54:42 PM
  Saw this last night and I'm gonna agree with AC on this one.  I'm not a huge fan of horror/thriller movies, but this one was pretty good.  I liked the fact that you're just dropped into the movie with no explanation and left to figure things out for yourself, like where did the creature come from.  Also thought it was very well done to hint at what the monster looks like throughout the movie and build up to the big shot at the end.

  Shaky cam didn't bother me, the ending was good, and the use of an unknown cast helped a lot I thought.  By the way, I didn't see the splash at the end until I got home and read about it.  I prefer to think up my own backstory as opposed to some Japanese satellite crashing into the ocean and awaking this monster.  But that's just me. O0

Cool, Ben! I tried to find the websites you had to follow to figure the thing out but was unsuccessful. Wasn't the guy Rob going to Japan to be a Vice President for some kind of Cola company or something to that effect?
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: titoli on February 07, 2008, 03:32:34 PM
Quote
Some theaters had signs for this film that if you suffer easily from motion sickness you shouldn't see the movie due to the nature of the cinematography. Like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT before it, there were a number of people who threw up while watching the film due to a number of the scenes having chaotic camera work during the more harrowing scenes in the movie.

Thanx. But this has nothing to do with the visual content of the movie which was what the article hinted at. And it's strange that I never heard of such occurences in Italy: I think it's a publicity ploy. But, thinking about it, maybe in Italy they don't sell in theatres the same stuff you eat in USA... ;)

Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Arizona Colt on February 07, 2008, 03:45:09 PM
It has everything to do with the VISUAL CONTENT of the film. The constant shaking of the camera ON SCREEN can cause a similar reaction akin to someone being seasick. Why do you think this a publicity stunt? It's mentioned on numerous sites. I personally know at least one person who got queasy while watching the film and it was one of the people I went to see it with. A number of other people told me that it gave them a headache trying to adjust to the constant movement of the camera.

Here, we have soda, popcorn, goobers, raisenettes, candy bars, nachos and other assorted fattening and sugary coated sustenance. What do they have in Italian theaters?
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Sonny on February 07, 2008, 06:40:31 PM
Thanx. But this has nothing to do with the visual content of the movie which was what the article hinted at. And it's strange that I never heard of such occurences in Italy: I think it's a publicity ploy. But, thinking about it, maybe in Italy they don't sell in theatres the same stuff you eat in USA... ;)



How keenly lovely of you to point that out. Truly. Which is precisely why publicity stunts like that are necessary. Not every country swarms with easy targets. Or does it?
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on February 07, 2008, 08:39:01 PM
Quote
Cool, Ben! I tried to find the websites you had to follow to figure the thing out but was unsuccessful. Wasn't the guy Rob going to Japan to be a Vice President for some kind of Cola company or something to that effect?

I looked some too, but as I was looking for them I decided to just let it go and enjoy the movie as is/was.  :)  And I think you've got it about Rob, he was going to Japan as vice-president of a company called "Slusho" I think.  My sister said something about Slusho having a connection with the monster/creature but I thought it was kind of a stretch. ;)
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: titoli on February 08, 2008, 03:33:27 PM
Quote
It has everything to do with the VISUAL CONTENT of the film. The constant shaking of the camera ON SCREEN can cause a similar reaction akin to someone being seasick. Why do you think this a publicity stunt? It's mentioned on numerous sites. I personally know at least one person who got queasy while watching the film and it was one of the people I went to see it with. A number of other people told me that it gave them a headache trying to adjust to the constant movement of the camera.


Nothing but the fact that in Italy I never saw bags distributed to patrons nor I ever saw anybody throw up in a theatre because of a movie. And I saw movie which warranted such I reaction like, in the '70's, the Argento movies. But I'll tell you: I'll go to watch this movie next week and report (I'll bring with me a bag). Anyway, if Blair Witch Project is the term of comparison I can understand the throwing up but that has nothing to do with camera movements.

Quote
Here, we have soda, popcorn, goobers, raisenettes, candy bars, nachos and other assorted fattening and sugary coated sustenance. What do they have in Italian theaters? 



As you may know, each place in Italy got its very tipical dishes. In Rome, some favourites are

(http://www.ilcucinario.it/RICETTE%20FIGUGATE%20STAMPA/TRIPPA_POMODORO/DSC00025.jpg)
trippa al sugo


(http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3803/dscn1451wx5.jpg)
rigatoni con la pajata

(http://www2.regione.veneto.it/videoinf/rurale/precedenti/anno%202006/2/img2/bucatini_amatriciana.jpg)
bucatini all'amatriciana

(http://www.campodelconte.it/images/fotoagri/Abbacchio.jpg)
testarelle d'abbacchio

I could go on and on.

O0


Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Arizona Colt on February 08, 2008, 03:46:55 PM

I can understand the throwing up but that has nothing to do with camera movements.



Look up "Motion Sickness" and tell me what you find.

They serve dishes like that in Italian movie theaters? If so, they look delicious.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: titoli on February 08, 2008, 03:48:16 PM
Quote
They serve dishes like that in Italian movie theaters? If so, they look delicious.

And great to throw up!
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on February 08, 2008, 03:53:22 PM
Trippa (con sugo), bljak! (http://clicksmilies.com/s1106/wuerg/vomit-smiley-003.gif)

One of those things that always make you remember what was it like to be a kid...
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: titoli on February 09, 2008, 01:41:24 AM
I'm no kid but I still go for it, though I prefer pajata. Never liked coda, though.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on February 09, 2008, 03:50:23 PM
  There were only two or three scenes where the use of a handheld camera actually bothered me.  But not to the point of actually throwing up, I mean come on, it wasn't that bad of shaking. ;D
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: titoli on February 11, 2008, 06:23:57 PM
Saw the movie tonight and enjoyed it. Expecially because (as differently from similar products) doesn't dabble in melo subplots. After the lame introduction (you have to put up with it 10 and more minutes) it goes full speed ahead and then never lets go. Reminded me of Cruise's War of Worlds but it has not the melodramatic ballast, the usual stupid subplots and characters. The influence of Blair Witch Project is only in the general concept of having a hand-held camera as the only POV: but, thank god, it all ends there. All on all, this is a great way of showing special effects' state of art: and theuy really impressed me. As already written, this must be seen on the big screen. I don't think it makes much sense on a small screen and I don't think that its interest goes beyond the impressive special effects. Strangely, the two scenes mentioned by FC are the lamest (the little monsters being beaten to pulp are ridiculous). The scenes on the streets are much more interesting by far; really, they take you there. 8\10     

The brown paper bags stuff is all crap, as I suspected.
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: Arizona Colt on February 11, 2008, 09:57:00 PM

The brown paper bags stuff is all crap, as I suspected.

Why do you keep saying it's crap? I haven't seen any brown bags being handed out but I told you a friend did become nauseous from the constant motion of the camera and here are comments from people who were affected by motion sickness from the film. Granted, it doesn't bother everybody much like not everybody is affected by getting seasick or car sick so I don't get why it is so hard for you to understand...

http://www.fangoria.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=84168
Title: Re: Cloverfield (2008)
Post by: titoli on February 12, 2008, 08:57:45 AM
You don't want to understand: in Italy there's no talk of brown bags, no theater ad on newspaper recommends patrons to arrive with one; and there's no report on newspapers of people throwing up. What does this mean? That american audiences are more sensible? OK, so be it.