Khanivor wrote: The reasons someone doesn't like a film aren't due to conformity, but due to the fact they... well, don't like it. Whatever the reason. As for logic... Oh, I don't know... the creature design for me wasn't quite right. The general feeling of fantasy-realism in the film was spoilt by the fact that this big spindly thing could withstand so much firepower. JJ Abrams is the master of keeping things ambiguous to conceal a lack of depth, though - or rather create a false illusion of one. Whilst I've read in an interview with the designer that the creature is inspired by an animal that's lost its parents, I've not really read anything coming from the producers that it's anything else. Nothing about Lovecraft, which some geeks hastily posit would be the reason it's so indestructible (phasing between dimensions and all that shit). Besides, none of that is explained in the film. The film is shallow enough to buy into the situation, and I could just about let it go that you could carpet-bomb the thing and it would still be intact (well, not really on second thoughts), but it is possible not to really get on or understand the characters choices and rationalisations. That's fair play. I'm not so sure, and this is where we agree, that they could've really played off there being a monster without showing it early on. It's intergral to the plot and the flashes of movement rather than showing it completely actually works. Any problems with a lack of genuine scares came from the pacing, "OH MY GOD" and use of the creatures, plus JJ Abrams bizarre "safe fear" concept, which allows for a lower rating and more bums on seats. Personally I think they could've dumped that and gone all-out on the moments of horror. You only see, what, one body and someone explode behind a curtain? There doesn't appear to be much actual death going on on-screen, more destruction than anything else. And even then, caring about Gap models (except for Lizzy Caplan, le sigh) isn't the best way to grip an audience. |
The Official "Cloverfield" thread - 1-18-08
•
Page 9
-
-
SlackMaster wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
Telepathic.Geometry wrote:
Again, relax Khani. You liked the movie, fair enough. For my money, this movie is a Hollywood version of the superior "The Host". Naturally we won't agree on this, but while you will argue that I am plain wrong, I'll simply agree to disagree.
Sorry, whilst I agree it's the superior movie, the only similarity between this and The Host is the fact that it's a monster movie with a creature that comes from underwater. Aside from that they're not comparable.
I prefer The Host's more real creature, that's big enough to terrify and small enough to hide. Its lolloping gait and general bizarreness makes it quite unique in the movie monster world.
I really didn't like the Host... the main characters are just so stupid and the story plods along to much.
Bear in mind it's a Korean film, Asian films generally have different pacing to Western ones. It combines satire with comedy and a monster movie and holds up, for me, on repeat viewings. It has a nice dark streak of humour too.
But hey, I'm not asking you to like it. I do believe though that you can adknowledge that a film is good, or better, than another without necessarily liking it all that much though. For me, I adknowledge the Prestige had a better plot and craft than the Illusionist, didn't stop me not enjoying it and the latter more! -
Huntcjna 13,890 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 17 years agoSaw this last night and I thought it was excellent, I can see why some people are saying it steals bits of 'The Host' but in fairness that stole bits of every major monster flick from the past 20 years so its all subjective.
I thought it was quite a visceral, disorientating piece of cinema. I was nearly sick in the first ten minutes getting used to the constant camera movement (and I never normally get motion sickness however I did watch it on a ridiculously sized cinema) but once I climatised I simply couldn't take my eyes off it.
It seems almost Blair Witch esque in the way its been marketed and I think its a film that will divide opinon as the techniques used are just too unconventional for some cinema goers. From a camera perspective though I thought it was superb, there was very little cutting in the major set pieces and it was very well acted.
They had better not make a bloody sequel though. -
I seen it yesterday and I thought it was great!
9/10 -
Huntcjna wrote:
Saw this last night and I thought it was excellent, I can see why some people are saying it steals bits of 'The Host' but in fairness that stole bits of every major monster flick from the past 20 years so its all subjective.
I thought it was quite a visceral, disorientating piece of cinema. I was nearly sick in the first ten minutes getting used to the constant camera movement (and I never normally get motion sickness however I did watch it on a ridiculously sized cinema) but once I climatised I simply couldn't take my eyes off it.
It seems almost Blair Witch esque in the way its been marketed and I think its a film that will divide opinon as the techniques used are just too unconventional for some cinema goers. From a camera perspective though I thought it was superb, there was very little cutting in the major set pieces and it was very well acted.
They had better not make a bloody sequel though.
I don't think the Host stole anything, rather more being a deliberate comment on monster flicks, a realistic updating and a comedy satire of several things all at once. It certainly has more depth, but it's trying to achieve something totally different than Cloverfield. -
WrongShui 6,858 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoIt was ok, monster was crap, characters unlikeable.
7/10 -
I just like how it was a commentary on post 9/11 culture, what with peoples incessant need to document things now. Also pretty fucking scary and tense in places too.
Should've ended with the chopper though. And no credits. -
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agoHuntcjna wrote:: I think it's a film that will divide opinion as the techniques used are just too unconventional for some cinema goers.
I think that this is a common misconception with movies like this - I mean movies that do things a little differently - though. I personally didn't like it, but not because of the unconventional stuff. No problem with the camera-work or seeing the monster early or with the fact that everybody dies in the end.
I've seen all of these things in other movies, and not had a problem with it, or even liked it. I just don't like the movie because I didn't like it. As I tried to explain, my rationalisation for why I didn't like the movie comes later, but honestly, if you fixed the things I didn't like, I don't think you'd have a good movie on your hands anyway.
My main problem was, I didn't like/sympathise with the characters. That's a universal thing in movies, tv series, anime, books, comics and games, and has nothing to do with any of the unconventional elements of the movie. -
WrongShui 6,858 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoThe Host certainly is something else entirely and I also enjoyed it more.
Also the first monster attack is nothing short of brilliance. -
Carlo 21,801 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 16 years agomanuel_garcia wrote:
Can you tell me what time into the film this happens? I'll close my eyes during the 'too early' reveal, then I can enjoy the film as YOU intended it.
I have to say after watching it that I was totally pissed off with the early reveal of the main protagonist, and it ruined the whole experience for me. I thought they had an awesome formula, decent actors and a nice sense of style, but then the tension was destroyed when they decided to give a nice full-body shot in the first act.
After that I just couldn't be bothered, the magic was gone and I didn't give a shit what happened. The whole premise of that film should have been suspense, and there's no better way to destroy that than by revealing all your secrets in the opening section.
They should have kept it to little glimpses every now and then, and revealed everything in the final shot. Now that would have been a film to remember. Wasted opportunity.
We could call it the manuel_garcia cut
-
hypernova 1,969 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 16 years agoWhat's The Host got to do with anything? -
hypernova 1,969 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 16 years agoHuntcjna wrote:
They had better not make a bloody sequel though.
I hope they do. From that interview ecuriel pasted, the back story sounds interesting, and I'd like to know why the creature was seemingly invincible. I'd prefer a sequel to explain stuff, rather than the irritating viral marketing they tried. -
Quint2020 3,484 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 14 years agoI saw this last night and don't know what i thought of it to be honest.
On the one hand i thought it was very well shot and the special effects were awesome, but on the other i didn't like half the characters, the ending was crap and left too much unanswered.
Bits of it were just so unbelievable they actually made me laugh "lets cross over to a half destroyed building that’s leaning to one side to get somebody that is probably dead" i mean i can see the guy doing that as he loved her but the others? please.
My opinion on this one is divided but I think it speaks volumes that I won’t be buying this on DVD when it comes out. -
jellyhead 24,356 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years agoSo they don't want to rush into a sequel but they'll probably film one before they do their next project?
Sounds good. 0_o -
Scurrminator 9,045 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 16 years agomr joe public: i hate american films, always holding your hand and explainging everything
*film comes out that explains nothing, leaves it to the viewer
mr joe public: WTF was going on, why didn't they explain anything, i hate films like that!
Oh and also, bar special effects (for a korean film) the host was shit. -
jellyhead 24,356 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years agoI liked The Host, it had flaws but it really interested me and felt like a breath of fresh air compared to the by the numbers dross that was being pumped out of the Hollywood money sewers.
Anything that tries to break the monotony should be applauded in my view. -
Scurrimator - you're entitled to your opinion, even if you're fucking insane and so wrong it actually makes me vomit. ^_-
edit - as for Cloverfield, it was so simple you could market it as a PH free shower gel. Any allusions to depth were purely illusions, JJ Abrams knows how to get nerds worked up over quite literally nothing! -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years agoTelepathic.Geometry wrote:
They never said anything like that.
For me, the big selling point was that the whole thing was gonna be done on a steady-cam -
cubbymoore wrote:
I just like how it was a commentary on post 9/11 culture, what with peoples incessant need to document things now. Also pretty fucking scary and tense in places too.
Should've ended with the chopper though. And no credits.
EVERYTHING references 9/11 these days. Who wouldn't document a party and then a disaster as it happens? It's hardly a commentary on mobile phones on gigs, is it?
How to reference 9/11 - set it in a big city, have buildings collapse, maybe some clothes or paper fluttering in the breeze. Instant depth!
See? Illusion in a simple monster film. Nothing more. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
So what constitutes depth for you? Shakespeare-references?
cubbymoore wrote:
I just like how it was a commentary on post 9/11 culture, what with peoples incessant need to document things now. Also pretty fucking scary and tense in places too.
Should've ended with the chopper though. And no credits.
EVERYTHING references 9/11 these days. Who wouldn't document a party and then a disaster as it happens? It's hardly a commentary on mobile phones on gigs, is it?
How to reference 9/11 - set it in a big city, have buildings collapse, maybe some clothes or paper fluttering in the breeze. Instant depth!
See? Illusion in a simple monster film. Nothing more. -
WrongShui 6,858 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 16 years agophAge wrote:
So what constitutes depth for you? Shakespeare-references?
The monster needs a tragic background. Maybe its wife was raped and murdered by some New York tourists back on Skull Island, -
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agoTelepathic.Geometry wrote: For me, the big selling point was that the whole thing was gonna be done on a steady-cam
phAge wrote: They never said anything like that.
I never said that they did. I was just saying that I was interested when I first heard that the movie would be shot from the perspective of steady cam(s). Was pretty disappointed when it turned out to be just one though.
If I were interested in the characters and how they dealt with the disaster, the movie might've been okay, but I was much more interested in the monster, where it came from, what the deal with the smaller monsterettes was, how the military were coping, how the government were dealing with it, what happens when you get bitten, theories on where it all came from, how the aftermath would be handled, how the media would discuss what was obviously a monster attack, how religious folk would interpret it, if all else failed, would they consider small nukes... Ya know, all of that shit right there really interests me. Considering that the premise raises all of these interesting issues, one guy I didn't even like trying to save his girlfriend didn't really interest me. -
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agoAlso, someone said that this was not a Hollywood-esque movie, and yet, DO WE NOT SEE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY's HEAD CRASH LAND ON THE GROUND IN THIS MOVIE! -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years agoTelepathic.Geometry wrote:
1. I was only taking the piss with the steadicams - a steadicam is a handheld camera, but one which is cleverly weighted and/or counterbalanced so as to make movement smoother and un-handheld like.
Telepathic.Geometry wrote: For me, the big selling point was that the whole thing was gonna be done on a steady-cam
phAge wrote: They never said anything like that.
I never said that they did. I was just saying that I was interested when I first heard that the movie would be shot from the perspective of steady cam(s). Was pretty disappointed when it turned out to be just one though.
If I were interested in the characters and how they dealt with the disaster, the movie might've been okay, but I was much more interested in the monster, where it came from, what the deal with the smaller monsterettes was, how the military were coping, how the government were dealing with it, what happens when you get bitten, theories on where it all came from, how the aftermath would be handled, how the media would discuss what was obviously a monster attack, how religious folk would interpret it, if all else failed, would they consider small nukes... Ya know, all of that shit right there really interests me. Considering that the premise raises all of these interesting issues, one guy I didn't even like trying to save his girlfriend didn't really interest me..gif)
2. Every single one of those things you list is stuff you'd expect in your average, generic monster-flick. Like I wrote earlier, I really liked the lack of those scenes you describe, as they are so obviously only inserted to help the audience keep up/not use their own imagination. All in all, I think you wanted Godzilla II, but got something entirely different. -
WrongShui 6,858 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoTelepathic.Geometry wrote:
Also, someone said that this was not a Hollywood-esque movie, and yet, DO WE NOT SEE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY's HEAD CRASH LAND ON THE GROUND IN THIS MOVIE!
That's depth.
Everyone including Eblowy McEatsPeople hates the french. -
Depth = more than what Cloverfield offered. If you think it had any kind of depth to it, you've had the wool firmly pulled over your eyes. Abrams is a master, as you know from Lost, of dragging people along paths he probably doesn't know ends, and this film isn't any different.
He knows that if you keep something ambiguous enough, you can create the illusion of something more. That's what Cloverfield does. It's like how modern art (or what I prefer to call modern thinking) offers you something, gives you a sorta context, and asks you to make the rest up yourself. Not that this isn't valid, but you can't pretend that it actually has something there beyond the initial context. A flurry of half-baked references does not make depth.
Seeing as we're talking about the Host, even if I still think it's a totally seperate movie, look at what that offers you. It offers a family drama of a child seperated from her simpleton father, who himself is driven to find her no matter what the cost to himself. You have a satire on family dramas (of which there are tons on telly in Korea) as well as a degree of interpersonal relationships with reasonably complex characters who share a common theme, people who haven't quite made it in life.
The alcoholic brother with the only college degree, the sister who can't quite make it big in her sport, the father who see's himself as a failiure and the son who never had a chance. You have them pulling together after tragedy, of which the director masterfully pulls together some really black comedy (typical of Korean cinema).
You have, for a change, the Americans as the bad guys. The initial incident with the chemicals was based on an ACTUAL incident that happened when they poured a ton of formaldahyde into the river. Then there's the political commentary about how the US military manages to pull the strings of the anaemic South Korean government, and the cover-up and use of chemicals bioweapons on Asian soil.
That's depth. Something Cloverfield really doesn't have, which probably explains why the ticket sales have dropped so dramatically in only its second week. -
Oh and anyone who thought Cloverfield wasn't anything but slickly produced Hollywood entertainment needs their heads checked.
Big-budget effects? Check.
Big set-pieces? Check.
Characters without much depth nor completely understandable motivation? Check.
It was very slickly made, cynically marketed and does what I expected and nothing more. I enjoyed it but I'm not gonna pretend it was something it isn't. All that changed was the perspective, that's all... I'm not gonna read into Doom because all of a sudden it goes first-person on me.
The attempt to make the film more than it is through marketing just panders obviously to those who like to play games, that's all. The actual product shares very little with the marketing, and I don't think the marketing worked all that well. Everyone hyped up on it saw it in the first weekend, now that's tailed off you can see its true performance. I'd hazard they spent so much time making it seem interesting to the internet geek crowd they forgot to provide for the multitudes who don't spend far too much time on forums. The single trailer didn't say much, the name was obscure, interest wasn't built up. That's my guess anyway!
In fact the marketing and relation to the film is really what interest me most about Cloverfield. There's not much to say about the movie itself because it is what it is. The attempt to make it a cultural phenomenon (which it seems to have failed at beyond becoming cult) is more worth looking at.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
