Yeah, I missed that too. But I'm not going to pay another $7 to check it out. I'll download a torrent or something and just skip to the end to catch it.
The movie 'CLoverfield' was like going to a theme park for a ride.... It was fun and exciting... But for the whole movie experience, it lacked story,character depth, conflicts..... There were a bunch of flaws in the movie,but i didn't care because it was that exciting and good....
I thought it was interesting, though I can understand someone who goes in expecting the 'usual' in a monster movie (as far as giving you all the answers on a plate) being disappointed. I respect what they tried to pull off, though. The POV was very well done.
Very fun experience. Definitely worth the $8. The only similarity between it and the Blair Witch is the non-stationary camera. Obviously not everything is going to be answered since the movie is just the tape that they shot. Told a good story nonetheless.
I kind of wanted more for what i paid for seeing... I'm paying Hollywood to entertain me and tell me a story with explanation and character depth.... I hate it when i have to guess and knit pick of whats to come of the monster and the movie... All that marketing and infomercials they did for the movie to lure us in to seeing it and not one explanation of what the heck is this monster doing and why??? I still enjoyed the movie immensely but there are some major flaws in it though...
You guy's should check out this Korean movie called "The Host"... Both pretty similar in terms of monster and evacuation in the plot.... It's also a foreign film which means the average American will no way in hell see it because it's too boring for them or they just don't want to broaden their horizon a little....
this was a bad movie....dont waste your money on this. go see the great debaters if you havent seen it yet.
SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Spoiler Never explained where the stupid monster came form. Never explained what the hell were those little things that were falling from the monster. Ending is super gay. What the hell happened to Hud's crush? I could go on and on.
I haven't seen it yet, but I thought it was understood that you aren't going to get a lot of background information or closure because the movie is supposed to be the film that the government finds in the aftermath.
Obviously you wouldn't find out about the monster and its origins if you were one of the cast. I mean, they're running around in chaos and you expect everything to be laid out in this context for the viewer? It did what it needed to do, I thought. To show the chaos and them surviving it. Think about 9/11...we didn't know much about what happened after it til a while later, so it's not that big of a stretch for us to not know anything. I dunno how they're gonna do a sequel though, with a standard shoot of a movie...maybe a documentary of some sort of the aftermath?
You could do a documentary, you could do it from the perspective of the military, or you could just make it a normal "big picture" movie that tells the whole story from beginning to end.
You know I saw that to but unfortunately it runs contradictory to what Abrams said about the monster in the production notes for the movie that were leaked onto the web last week. Here is the link to were you can find the production notes (Beware though for those who haven't seen the movie there are major spoilers throughout the notes): http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40821 Once you have the notes just search for the paragraph titled "Building a Better Monster". For those of you who are lazy you can find what Abrams said here: Spoiler Building a Better Monster The visual effects for “Cloverfield” were produced under the direction of visual effects supervisors Kevin Blank, Eric Leven of Tippett Studio and Michael Ellis of London-based Double Negative. Tippett created all the shots that include the monsters, while Double Negative was responsible for all of the other destruction and sequences which did not include the monster. The concept for the monster (affectionately known simply as “Clover” in-house) is simple, says Abrams. “He’s a baby. He’s brand-new. He’s confused, disoriented and irritable. And he’s been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years.” And where is he from? “We don’t say – deliberately,” notes Goddard. “Our movie doesn’t have the scientist in the white lab coat who shows up and explains things like that. We don’t have that scene.” Not only is the creature disoriented – he’s downright angry. “There are a bunch of smaller things – humans – that are annoying him and shooting at him like a swarm of bees,” observes Reeves. “None of these things are going to kill the monster, but they hurt it and it doesn’t understand. It’s this new environment that it finds frightening.” For the monster’s design, Abrams engaged veteran creature designer Neville Page, who had just finished creating characters for James Cameron’s upcoming “Avatar” (and is currently working on Abrams’ “Star Trek”). “So much has been done in so many different movies with large creatures that the trick was to find a way to create a unique character,” explains Abrams. The producer had first become familiar with Page’s work through the designer’s series of instructional DVDs for The Gnoman Workshop. “One of the things that struck me about Neville’s instructional videos was the way he approaches everything from a realistic point of view. He develops non-existing creatures, but can explain to you their physical makeup, musculature and skeletal structure.” Adds producer Burk, “Neville was the first person we met with. And he’s amazing. He doesn’t just think about designing the creature, he thinks in terms of how it would walk, how it would breathe, what its skin would be like, how it lives – everything.” Once Page’s designs were complete, it was up to Tippett Studio to implement and refine the monster for inclusion in the few – but crucial – shots in which he appears. “We did a test, where we inserted him into some background plate shot in downtown L.A.,” explains Leven. “We experimented with different looks, in terms of not only the creature itself, but how it would interact with the camera and with light.” Another facet of the design was added at director Reeves’ suggestion. “I wanted him to have that sort of spooked feeling, the way, when a horse is spooked, you can see the white of its eyes along the bottom. And you see that when the military is firing on him, where he becomes completely agitated and confused.” As part of a “post-birth ritual,” as Abrams describes it, the monster is seen early on scratching his back on a building (destroying it in the process), to remove a layer of parasites that are set loose to wreak their own havoc on the city. “Drew and I were struggling with, ‘When you have a monster that size how do you keep the characters from seeming totally irrelevant?’” says Abrams. “How do you have any one-on-one struggle?” Explains Goddard, “Because he’s so big, we knew it was going to be difficult to have intimate sequences. It’s not like any of the characters could fight him or that anyone could even figure out a way to hurt him.” And because of that, the idea of the parasites was born. “They’re these horrifying, dog-sized creatures that just scatter around the city and add to the nightmare of the evening,” Abrams says. “The parasites have a voracious, rabid, bounding nature, but they also have a crab-like crawl,” Reeves explains. “They have the viciousness of a dog, but with the ability to climb walls and stick to things.” In addition, the parasites also move more rapidly than their giant host counterpart. “Tippett Studio has a lot of expertise with these kinds of fast-moving creatures that can destroy people and rip them to shreds, which is always a lot of fun to work on,” says Leven. “They’re like little whirling dervishes that just destroy anything in their path. They’re totally deadly.”
I think alot of people missed the point of the movie, it was about a bunch of ordinary people who had to make life changing decisions in an extraordinary event, I loved the fact that the movie was about the people and the choices they made rather than the monster.
saw it tonight and enjoyed it. i think the part that makes it most interesting is the lack of background and closure and certainly that's going to help if they make a part 2. you can't really make a monster that hasn't been done in some way or form before, so i think they did a nice job here. the chick who played beth was smoking, she seemed like she went to the jennifer love hewitt school of acting.
I loved the fact that this movie allowed your imagination to run wild about the monster, and what happens after. I really don't see how else they could have ended the movie besides having the camera ran out of batteries.
I think this movie is one part of a greater picture... Spoiler Check out all the Cloverfield characters' myspace pages. They are all "typing and speaking" in character. The date is current. This leads me to believe that they survived. and I think something major happened right when the camera went off. This may seem far fetched, but I think that Cloverfield is just one part of something HUGE. I think Cloverfield is just a movie that introduces "the villain" of a whole series. The seqel will reveal the "heroes" who saved the characters from the monster. I think it might be a Voltron movie after all is said and done. I don't know...maybe I'm looking too much into it.
