Cinnie said:

Lammastide said:

I noticed a sawdust pile on my way out, so....yup.

FruitToAttractBears said:

Sit in the back and it's not bad.

Saw it tonight. Abrams did a good job. I don't think it will change the face of horror, but it will go down as one of the most well-executed high-concept works of the genre in a long time.

RodeoSchro said:

You saw?!? Cool! Glad not to be made a liar.

Lammastide said:

"High-concept"?

FruitToAttractBears said:

You disagree?

Lammastide said:

What was high concept about it?

FruitToAttractBears said:

Filming the entire movie through a video camera?

Inventing an entirely new monster?

I'm not saying these thing definitely are "high concept" but they're somewhat original ideas.

FruitToAttractBears said:

"high concept" = show a fantastic mega monster movie from the ultra realistic viewpoint and emotionpoint of a few hapless victims loaded with traits of current American youth through the stylistics of current real documentation mediums and means.
Or, in other words: a Godzilla movie done in the style of Blair Witch Project.

FruitToAttractBears said:

Godzilla meets Blair Witch Project meets 911 meets modern amateur video... with one of the most effective viral campaigns ever! That's like CRAZY high concept! The stuff of studio exec wet dreams!
[Edited 1/18/08 22:21pm]

ufoclub said:

I get what you're saying but...Godzilla: bindun. "Blair Witch" style: bindun.

Mash 'em together and that's "high concept"? Bascially this was pretty much like "The Host" but American, better, and with less likable characters. In the end, it's not much more than just another monster movie.
[Edited 1/18/08 22:24pm]

FruitToAttractBears said:

People are so bitter about movies today. Just enjoy it for what it is or leave people's opinions alone. If they thought it was high concept, what's it to you?

Let them be happy with the film. There's no need to bring them down or have them justify their reasons.

FruitToAttractBears said:

The key to a high concept work is not (necessarily) its originality, but rather its marketability; its "wow" factor. If a work can be succinctly conceptualized, branded and executed with almost certain market attention, studios consider it high concept. And this movie absolutely fits the bill.

purplesweat said:

I'm not bitter at all. I actually really enjoyed the movie and would recommend it to anyone. But when I hear people raving about it like that I have to wonder if that's not cognitive dissonance talking. After all, there was a lot of hype for this movie. And since when is it wrong for someone to have a conflicting opinion...?

FruitToAttractBears said:

I just wonder why you care so much if another person thinks its better than you thought? Who cares if they're riding on the hype? Maybe they are, maybe they're not. It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks, right?

purplesweat said:

I'll you what's REALLY original. If they do a sequel, they might do the exact same night/events, but from the point of view of entirely different people.

RodeoSchro said:

Copyright that, Schro!

I was really impressed with how they were able to make the computer generated images move so perfectly with all the shaky footage. The sound effects were also incredible, kind of painted a picture of what was going on in the background even without having to actually see it.

It's a good movie that doesn't dwell too much on the generic "hero saves love interest" theme. It's in there, but thankfully they don't obsess over it.

I really didn't find the ending all that abrupt, they explained what was going to happen if they didn't get out in time - how else could they have ended it really?

The calmer scenes in the movie were also great at building up the tension, especially with all the stuff you hear going on in the background.

RodeoSchro said:

purplesweat said:

If the military or something else can't beat it, then I don't want to see it.

I am really psyched about going to go see this!

As someone who watched all those Godzilla movies as a kid, I often wondered what was going on inside those many, many buidings that were being smashed to bits. This is right up my alley!

2ndRevolution said:

Okay.

OK I saw it tonight. First off, I'm dizzy from the camera work. i may have to lie down its that strong at points. i had to look away a couple of times.

The cast was cool, couple of cheesy bits but it didnt take away from the main story. I like the idea of nobodys playing the lead roles. Not to sound or be insensitive but I did like the 9/11 references - the stairwells, dust, papers flying, buildings collapsing. I like how they didnt focus directly on the monster too much.
the best part despite the shaky camera work is the idea that the story is being watched by someone after the event. i suppose its a comment on modern day technology and all that.

i wont give away anymore details but suffice to say it was good.

Cloverfield: Five Facts Behind The Film



FACT ONE: It Came From Japan

Producer J.J. Abrams took his son to a toy store in Japan and saw rows and rows of Godzilla toys. Feeling that the U.S. lacked a giant monster of its own, he decided to a make his own creature feature that would be filmed entirely through the point-of-view of the people on the ground, running for their lives.

FACT TWO: "Felicity" Fans Are in for a Shock

Abrams picked his childhood friend Matt Reeves to direct the film. Together, they created Felicity, a show about young New Yorkers looking for love. But while the most exciting moment on that show was the time Keri Russell cut her hair, in this movie the entire city gets hacked to pieces.

FACT THREE: This Poster Doesn't Lie

As a kid, Abrams loved Escape From New York. But he felt cheated that the image of the Statue of Liberty's head lying in the street on the movie's poster wasn't actually in the film. Abrams finally got to see it on the big screen in the teaser trailer that appeared before Transformers last summer.

FACT FOUR: They Never Meant to Call It That

To keep the movie a secret, the project was given the codename "Cloverfield," after a street near Abrams' office. The filmmakers had planned to release the movie as Greyshot, the name of a key Central Park location. But the temporary title spread through the internet so quickly that crew decided to keep it.

FACT FIVE: Will There Be Anyone Left for a Sequel?

Rob (Michael Stahl-David) and Beth (Odette Yustman) run to catch the last helicopter out of Manhattan. Do they make it? We're not telling. But Director Matt Reeves has stated that if they do a sequel, it might take place during the same monster attack, but seen from another camera.

We saw it tonight - LOVED it! I thought the editing was just terrific (Oscar worthy) and the execution of the CGI/FX in the context of the hand-held perspective as flawless. IMO, the little squids were scarier than the big monster - and that was scary!

saw it too, opening was so boring i almost left, but when that first "boom" happened it was all balls 2 the wall!

also, why does new york get picked on so much?? i mean EVERY freaking disaster movie starts or features new york...

other than that, thumbs up!

DiminutiveRocker said:

I enjoyed it very much as well.

Just saw it in a freezing theater... The South isn't supp-pp-posed to g-g-g-get c-c-c-c-old...

Hey, someone Orgnote me about the last scene. I saw stuff, but I'm not sure what...

I liked it. There were some good moments of suspense, and the effects were rendered nicely. I also liked that they didn't attempt to explain the monster's origins. You don't actually need to do that to make the movie enjoyable. It's not a terribly original movie, but it was enjoyable.

Even at barely 90 minutes, it started to feel too long (the intro party stuff bored me and they spent far too much time in the subway). I don't need a monster movie to give me character development, but when it does I wanna have some sort of attachment to the characters on screen. I wanted more monster and less party people.