Badmovies.org Forum

CLOVERFIELD (2008) 

There were a few threads from years back dedicated to the hype associated with this film, but I could find no real discussion.  I'd seen much of it on IFC (back in 2010 based upon my own old posts - and I remember that viewing - it was probably the last half hour).  Well I still have not seen the entire film (which is short) but I have now seen most of it.   I could not stand watching THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT because of the "unsteady cam" but in this film it works.  The fact that the dopey auteur taking the footage says strangely annoying, callous, or disturbing things makes this technique work!   I saw most of CLOVERFIELD this morning and I'm impressed.  It's been a long time since I actually found a film kind of frightening.  The glimpses of the monster (which we do get a good look at - but not a long look) and effective use of sound effects makes the film far more effective than any Toho feature I've seen. 

What did you think? 

I got to see it on the big screen and I was impressed, really impressed.  It was a slow  start up with the shaking ground, the loss of power, the collapse of the one building with just a glimpse of the claws as they slice the bridge.  But it worked well because the film didn't tip it's hand too quickly like some films of this nature usually do.

The battle scenes with the military were well done, and overall, there was no explanation for the creature..it just showed up and did what monsters do best. And sometimes you just don't wanna' know, because an explanation ruins the fun. Sometimes a monster just has to show up from nowhere and have some fun!  :bouncegiggle:

Umaril, I can't say I found the film "fun".  There were many aspects that were too close to that terrible day in New York.  But once I gave it about 1 minute, I was riveted.  I even looked at commercials which I generally don't do. 

I really enjoyed CLOVERFIELD - or, as you said, AHD, I found it riveting.  I recently rewatched it for the first time in a couple years and found it just as compelling.  It is my favorite American monster film.

Honestly, watching this today and seeing many aspects in it (or complaints to be made about it) I found it truly unsettling and memorable.  I kept saying to myself: "That's some scary sh!t!!"   All of its shortcomings as a "movie" progress the art of film-making.  It's kind of brilliant. 

I thought the giant parasitic bugs coming off of the monster were a very neat (and realistic) touch.

You bring up a good point about the 9\11 thing. I forget what channel it was on but on one of the news stations, the question was indeed asked if New Yorkers were ready for a film like Cloverfield given the 9\11 incident.  My definition of fun comes from the fact that it was just a good old fashioned space monster movie that made the monster the center of the film while also making it a mystery.


Indeed, Indy. A space creature would indeed run the risk of having parasites that not only  attack other living organisms, but I also thought that maybe the monster itself was female, and instead of parasites, the creatures may have been her young. Just my scientific mind burning a few extra logs here  :bouncegiggle:

I did like the fact that we never really get an explanation of the creature (outside the satellite falling into the sea at the end.)  I've told people that Cloverfield is a kaiju movie told from the perspective of the people we see in the city during such an attack.  They weren't the scientists trying to study the monster, they weren't the military trying to stop it, no one had a kid that some how had become the monster's friend or anything like that.

As for the 9/11 type imagery, to me that was kind of the point.  Think about the original Godzilla.  Think about what inspired it and what it was a reaction too.  There are many moments in that film (especially the uncut Japanese version) that echo the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and there aftermath.  Cloverfiled seemed to be doing something similar.

The film itself-I liked what I heard and what little I was able to watch.  I saw this in theaters and the shakey cam was a little too much for me.  I had to turn away every few minutes or else I would get a headache.  I should add this to my watch list. Maybe it will be more tolerable on the small screen.

I think you make a good point.  I've only seen this at IFC with commercial breaks.  Perhaps the commercials help.  Perhaps my old-ass CRT helps...  :teddyr:

I thought Saving Private Ryan (1998) really revolutionized the shaky-cam bit, which the only other movie that I could think of before that one that did it right was the short segment in Aliens (1986) where the Space Marines made first contact with the aliens underneath the atmospheric processor; both those movies did it right because they didn't overrely on it and instead made it a crucial part of the story instead of the entire story.

The Blair Witch Project (1999) did it way wrong because the whole movie was shaky-cam, which sucked because it distracted and detracted from the already paper-thin plot; I know that it was done to hide the low-budget quality of the movie, but still...take it easy on my poor eyes already!

What I saw of Cloverfield (2008) turned me off to it because of the immediate comparisons that I made at the time to The Blair Witch Project (1999), which probably wasn't giving the movie a fair shot, especially after hearing so many good things about it. They lost me at the bridge scene where I had switched it off, which at that point had made me realize that I was watching a shaky-cam version of Godzilla (1998), which again isn't treating the movie fairly; I should have let the movie stand on its own merits. I didn't look at the film from the documentary perspective that the film's creators were aiming for. All I interpreted at the time was a cheap knockoff of different movies thrown together. So I will have to give this movie another chance.

I haven't seen it in a few years now but I remember diggin' it. I was pleasantly surprised cuz prior to viewing it, I kept hearing Blair Witch comparisons (i.e. "It's like Blair Witch meets Godzilla!") and I freakin hated Blair Witch...

Sigh - un - tiff - ick.  

I read that the creators imagined the monster as immature, a young specimen suffering from separation anxiety - an interesting idea.  Not knowing makes it fascinating.  

Why many filmmakers continue to forget that less is more (sometimes) I'll never understand.  There's a lot here, but mostly unanswered questions.  

Yeh, I couldn't take it.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1_MYTNGxm4

Oh, don't be such an old poop... :tongueout:  They could have been parasites carrying their own diseases. But the monster's young idea sounds good too, remember everyone thought that Godzilla was a female because of Minya.

 

That's a good point, but I think not knowing sometimes has it's benefits. That's because
a solid explanation might wind up being just a rehash of another idea, and might wind up causing the film to be unfairly compared to other films and subsequently judged on that film or films w\o being allowed to stand on it's own merits. When a film is trying to break out and stand alone, comparisons to other films can either make or break it.

Unanswered questions can cause the viewer some measure of confusion, I agree. However, if done correctly, it can still satisfy the viewer if the consequences of those unanswered questions don't compromise the movie as a whole. Sometimes the director just wants us to do the work instead of relying on a solid ending.  It's a way of them saying, "it's your film, not mine." Hope that helps.

I guess we like this movie.   :teddyr:

The movie was OK. For some reason, I found the viral marketing campaign more interesting.

When a movie runs the risk of dangerously sucking, like The Blair Witch Project (1999) for example, it always pays to have a viral marketing campaign like that movie did. Cloverfield (2008) came out at just the right time too, right when smartphones were starting to become popular; remember the dark old days before 2007 when there were no smartphones? So this cell phone footage movie really played into the introduction of new, hip technology rather well. Blair Witch kinda did that too with their Internet marketing campaign, which really hadn't been done for a movie before 1999.

Yeah, space monsters rule!  3 cheers for our giant buddy!  :cheers:

Off topic, but w\regards to space monsters, my fave will always be the cyclops from Lost In Space.    Oh what the heck, ALL monsters are cool.  :teddyr:

ALL monsters are cool?  :question:

I'm afraid I only made it about 15 minutes into Cloverfield.  I just didn't care for those characters at all.  They were all the sort of utterly empty, utterly full-of-themselves uber-yuppies that just repel me.  I never even saw the monster lol.  I should have used the FF button I guess.

Oh cool, it's Naginata from Yokai Monsters.  That was a very cool movie based on some very fascinating Japanese folklore. Yeah, some monsters might be dated in their appearance and screen presence, but all monsters are pretty well cool! I guess I'm just a monster kind a' guy.  :smile:

Yes.. ALL monsters are cool.

I didn't like Cloverfield.  There was all sorts of interesting stuff happening, like a monster rampaging through the city, the military fighting it, and even the small creatures roaming about.  However, that was merely window dressing for A ROMANTIC ANGST PLOT ABOUT A 20-SOMETHING GUY.  You know, the movie could have been about the group trying desperately to flee.  That would have been fine.  But, no!  They had to be going to rescue the guy's kinda-ex-but-not-really-ever-girlfriend-who-he-treated-like-utter-crap.  Boy, I sure care about that.   :hatred:

For me, the fact I did not care about these people, and actively disliked at least one, and their ignorance of what was happening, makes the movie work.  And I really would have expected to hate this movie. 

I don't agree about the "window dressing".  His friend at the beginning calls the lead a "douche" and means it.  Vacuous venal people (y'know, ordinary people) are faced with a complete new set of rules.  The douche attempts to be a man, perhaps self-consciously, but not self-righteously.  Facing death, his thoughts immediately turn to the woman he'd "treated like utter crap".  As we learn at the very end: they love each other.   The movie isn't really about them; it's about us. 

Maybe that's the hang-up. Because many of us would have simply been hightailing it the f**k outta there!  :bouncegiggle:

That's an interesting take on Cloverfield. Kind of a "love among the ruins" story as the lead has to rebuild and re-start from under both emotional and physical rubble. So it's also a story of death and re-birth on a few different levels.