Someone please explain to me the POINT of making a movie about monster movies with humans in it and the humans just run away from the monster and don't engage it in any kind of way? Because I'm so curious....Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. No huge robots? No lasers? PASS.

Mars23 said:

According to Whitney Matheson, blogger for USA Today, it's best to expect nothing. She liked it, although she said the "Blair Witch"-type shaky camera work can be unsettling. Sit far back, if you can.

By the way, I think the monster will look like this:

Tom said:

X 10

2ndRevolution said:

because people just run away from big threatening things like the world trade center collapse. It's not supposed to be fun games, it's horror.
[Edited 1/17/08 12:21pm]

ufoclub said:

...the world trade center wasn't a monster. Bad analogy dude. I don't get your post in relation to my question at all. But enjoy the movie. If I wanted to see people run, I'd stay home and watch track and field.

2ndRevolution said:

The point was to "explain to" you what "the point" was since you asked. But now you're asking what the point was of that...

And the filmmakers did draw upon 911 footage reaction style as well as candid, authentic war footage for inspiration for the emotional content of the scenes in this film. Using the monster as a symbol for an issue or "real" threat has been an artistic choice since horror films of the old Universal days of black and white! In this case I think the filmmakers are a bit tongue in cheek about the seriousness of there destructive symbol. The point was to make a cool "godzilla" movie but with a new American authored monster.

2ndRevolution said:

Apparently, as ufoclub suggested, the attempt here was in part to make an unconventional monster film. They wanted to explore a story decidedly not about the monster because, let's face it: If a HUGE friggin' monster attacked your town now, would you be concerned with cryptozoology or pissing the thing off with your tiny weapons, or running for dear life? They wanted to tell an allegorical yet realistic tale here about human relationships and survival dynamics in the face of sudden, virtually uncontainable and inexplicable deadly threat. "The monster," as it were, is simply life in today's terrifying world.

But your point is well taken. If the humans were merely running from the monster, makes for a somewhat unengaging horror film for aficionados of the traditional genre. The producers mention they've taken care of relevant expectations by supplementing the primary threat with other -- shall we say "corollary" -- threats that the humans are forced to take on more frontally.
[Edited 1/17/08 14:08pm]

SPOILER ALERT!







Movie Review: Cloverfield

by Steve Fritz
Newsarama.com

By now just about everyone knows the trailer for Cloverfield.

Via a handheld digital camera, you see New Yorkers anxiously milling about a side street wondering just what in the world is going on. There’s an explosion, what looks like a meteor arcing across the steel towers of Gotham, and it crash landing on said street causing all kinds of damage as it tears a ton of prime real estate.

Then the last shot shows that the debris that was seen arcing across the sky is the head of the Statue of Liberty, or what’s left of it.

As one can imagine, when this clip was unleashed as a preview during The Transformers last year, it caused more than its share of buzz. As it turns out, that was purely intentional. After all, Paramount Pictures and creator JJ Abrams (Lost, Alias, MI:3 and the upcoming Star Trek) have a lot of knowledge mining the fields of sci-fi, fantasy and horror fans. Side note - yeah, the media machine has made Abrams the only name associated with Cloverfield (and this review isn't helping), but the film was directed by Matt Reeves and written by Drew Goddard - Abrams produced.

But what’s important is what you didn’t see both before and after this clip. Before it, you have to endure a 20 minute, video taped party scene all shot from a true amateur’s video camera. It’s only in the last minute that the building the partiers are in starts to quake, forcing them all to run into the street.

What’s both incredibly pointed and wickedly evil, if you think about it, is what happens after Lady Liberty’s bust makes its run down a New York City avenue. After the dust settles, the first thing New Yorkers start doing is taking shots of the statue with their cel phones…and our personal cameraman is busy videotaping them taking and transmitting their shots.

At the end of that sequence is when we then get to see the Chrysler building implode on itself. It causes a sense of foreboding I personally hadn’t felt since I lived barely 20 miles away from the World Trade Center and on September 11 ran to my window to watch it collapse and a gigantic pillar of smoke rise up in its place. Believe me when I say it’s the most surreal and incredibly unnerving feeling you will ever have the misfortune to endure.

As pretty much everyone now knows, Cloverfield is Abrams reinterpretation of the Godzilla story.

“I began thinking, what if you were to see a monster the size of a skyscraper, but through the point of view of someone, relatively speaking, the size of a grain of sand?,” said Abrams. “To see it not from God’s eye or a director’s or from an omnipotent point of view.”

He also asked an interesting question to himself. If a giant monster attacked the city, wouldn’t people be documenting it (and then posting it on YouTube)?

What makes Cloverfield such a gut wrenching experience is he managed to pull it off. For the rest of this exceedingly short film (it clocks in at about 75 minutes) we follow six New Yorkers who must endure not only the Godzilla experience, but some of the nastier elements of Alien and Escape From New York. Abrams readily admits that he also borrows heavily from Blair Witch, as the film is shot exclusively from the point of view of one of the partiers and his video camera (he even admits that he’s doing it for “posterity”).

While the Blair Witch elements made my buddy hate the film in the end, I personally think Cloverfield has to be one of the most exciting and visually gripping films I’ve seen in ages. For the remaining near-hour of film footage, I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. Yes, while it ran it made me feel like I did a couple of rounds with Muhammed Ali in his prime, but it also made me want to go back in the ring and endure it all again.

The genius behind Abrams’ madness is two-fold.

The first is the obvious. The camera techniques and special effects he uses end up feeling as dirty as watching Saw. Yes, Abrams employed an exceptionally talented crew of cameramen and FX gurus (some of whom are now working on the live action version of Avatar). He sets things up so that Hud, the cameraman who represents our point of view, never really gets a solid shot of the monster or its consequences. Abrams calls these shots “near misses” and in their own way do a lot to generate that gut level dread that is the core of the movie.

There’s also a subtext to the entire shooting process. It isn’t long before we realize Hud is shooting over a used tape. What’s underneath occasionally slips out, and it provides a subtext and eventually a second story that will end up nearly as important as the primary.

The other thing Abrams did is put together an extremely talented cast of future superstars. While all these actors have some serious chops, they are only now just starting to make names for themselves. Here’s the list of the six primary characters: Rob (Michael Stahl-David, who appeared in The Black Donnellys), Hud (TJ Miller, who apparently is a veteran standup), Lily (Jessica Lucas, who just joined CSI), Beth (Odette Yustman), Marlena (Lizzy Caplan, Mean Girls) and Jason (Mike Vogel, Felicity). How many of these names do you honestly recognize?

Because there is no one doing a star turn in the film, you end up believing them to be much more ordinary folk. Yes, they make some decisions that make you wonder. Still, I don’t think the film would have been any better if you had readily recognized name in the midst. Any dumb point in the plotting is quickly forgiven by the power of the acting of these six.

What is assured is when all is said and done, Cloverfield is going to go even further in establishing Abrams’ name. While there’s nothing in the film you haven’t seen before, per se, the way he and his people have managed to mix recognized ingredients and come up with something startlingly powerful bodes well for his future. If he manages to put this kind of innovation with well-used ingredients and successful experimentation in Star Trek as he does with this film, don’t be surprised if the Hollywood community starts talking about him in the same reverent tones as Lucas, Spielberg or Cameron.

Then again, there are many who canonized Abrams merely after seeing the advance clip. The big difference is after seeing Cloverfield, you realize that it just might be the case, and Abrams is the real deal.

2ndRevolution said:

1 - it's not a movie about monster movies

2 - In most monster movies... The monster comes, detroys and kills while humans flee.

3 - I have never seen a monster movie where NO ONE engages the monster. Usually someone does. In this one, the Army tries to take it out.

2ndRevolution said:

I think he's getting at...when disaster strikes, people flee. Regardless of if it's a monster (which don't exist) or the World Trade Towers collapsing. Most monster movies ARE an allegory of something and this particular movie has been compared to scenes from 9/11, so I'd say his analogy was right.

Lammastide said:

Actually some of the movie is people fleeing. MOST of the movie follows a few friends who have been separated from from one of their friends and they are attempting to A) Get Her & B) Get out of NYC alive.

2ndRevolution said:

So when a monster invades your town or terrorists attack it, I have to remember to orgnote you to find out how you "engaged" the monster/terrorists. You're honestly telling me you won't see the movie because people RUN AWAY and try to save themselves? Wow.

Okay guys, watched the movie last night, I was kinds annoyyed with the way it was filmed on a hand held camera, some times it moved so fast u cant see whats going on... and the guy holding the camera got soooo anoyyin too, his voice just pissed me off in some scenes

U do see the monster, Im not gonna say what it was/looks like, but it was pretty cool, the face was a bit of a let down, but hey ho!!

Over all i'll give the movie 5 1/2 outta 10! Could of been better..

best scene is in the subway and in the chopper hehe


Enjoy the movie guys!

RodeoSchro said:

Nah looks nothing like this, but the other Monster/s looks a little like this, crossed with the monsters from starship troopers! lol

The fairly jaded movie reviewer that's on the radio station I list to really liked it (and that takes a bit). My hubby is really looking forward to it. I can take it or leave it.

superspaceboy said:

Absolutely. Abrams has said, though, that they recognized a film of people merely running from something huge, impersonal and undefeatable would be flat. As a pointed remedy to this, they added the other smaller, more face-to-face threats... like what they encounter in the subway and what happens to Marlena.

Seems the film is getting some very positive reviews early out the gate! Maybe this'll put more vigor behind thoughtful horror.

And I haven't yet seen the film, so I don't know if it's of this caliber, but wouldn't it be AMAZING if it took an Oscar of some sort -- for cinematography, editing or directing, maybe? I'd love to see a horror piece reach that level of achievement.

Lammastide said:

Silence of the Lambs did!

Lammastide said:

oooohhh i cant do it!!!!! i wanna but i cant!!!!!

ufoclub said:

Good call.

Yet SOTL could as readily be considered a sort of psychological thriller. I'd love to see a winning film that employs conventions that are specifically hallmarks of horror -- monsters, supernatural stuff, etc. I can't think of any such horror nominees for, say, Best Picture since The Sixth Sense... and that was the first since Jaws, I think. The genre is the redheaded stepchild of film.
[Edited 1/18/08 10:13am]

purplesweat said:

Highly unlikely, but in such a turn of events, my crazy adventurous ass would try to find a way to help get rid of the huge son of a bitch. I don't go to the movies to see "real" shit, okay? If a giant monster really did attack a city, of course people (not me...)would run. That's art imitating life. When I go to the movies, I want to see some shit I WOULDN'T see in real life, okay? Lasers, giant explosions, huge robots, choreographed fight scenes, etc. Still, the movie looks boring.

I saw it last night at the midnight showing...got motion sickness halfway thru the mf lol ...still, I really liked it.

Byron said:

I've heard early reports of people actually getting sick. Don't know it they're true or not.

Lammastide said:

I had to close my eyes from time to time or look over at the wall or up at the ceiling to get my barings back lol ...

It was bad for about 5 minutes or so...

It's an arresting project and worthy of repeat viewing, but the shaky cam effect gave me a bad case of vertigo.

2ndRevolution said:

Chances are a huge monster invading New York is something you won't see in real life.

And if you want to find a way to get rid of the bitch, good luck because even the military can't beat this one.

my best friend just saw this without me.

Just saw it. EXCELLENT movie. I really, really enjoyed it.

Make SURE you watch the very last frame. Look to the right of the screen, in the background. I'm talking about the last scene, before the credits.

2ndRevolution said:

Don't worry, everything you're worried about is moot.