Coverfield was total trash

No it wasn't. The whole idea of the shakey camera was to give the impression that the film was shot by the amateurs who were caught up in the events, not to make the cinema audience think they are there.

And in that situation some people might very well go into the city - I would certainly be tempted! Anyway, I don't think they "trotted off into the heat of battle" - their close encounter with the monster and the soldiers was more of an accidental meeting.
The believability of the mission to save Beth was set up in the first 15 minutes of the film. It worked for me. Some people do really care about each other and I think it's entirely believable for someone to try to save someone else even though they might not be alive. Furthermore, you have to have some suspension of disbelief otherwise you'd end up with a very dull film; that's part of the dynamic of an action / suspense film - some character in the film decides to do something that the cinema audience feels uncomfortable with.
 
What do you mean "try and make a movie" and "try to release a movie"?
They did complete Cloverfield, and they did release it, very successfully.

The camerawork was actually very carefully thought out and meticulously planned. They had really done their homework on how amateurs shoot film and they got it exactly right. Plus they had to insert cgi effects into that shaky 'amateur' style film in a way that fitted seemlessly. It was brilliantly done IMO. Not lazy.
 
Actually, you're wrong Eye Sea. For this movie, at least, I preferred the shaky-cam style. I saw this at the cinema, and found it really enhanced the dramatic feel -and my involvement- in the film as it did help me buy-into the feeling that I was there as part of the group. They do a fairly similar thing at the start of Saving Private Ryan and that too, makes those beach scenes feel much more real to me. I'm not saying I would want to watch films in jerky-cam all the time, far from it, but (for me) it worked on Cloverfield, and certainly made the monster-in-NY experience more thrilling and exciting than, say, the static and pedestrian camera work on Godzilla.

It's obviously not your thing, that's fair enough; and I'll admit the visuals do lose quite a bit of their intended atmospheric effect when transferred down to DVD/TV size, but that still doesn't automatically make it a worthless venture just because the style doesn't appeal to your palate. I think it's good when film-makers try out a different approach now and again. This one didn't work for you, maybe the next one will.
 
Exactly. The Statue of Liberty's head bouncing off buildings and landing basically in front of the "shaky cam" was fantastic, not to mention the debris from the flying head. As were the rockets from the army and the glimpses of the Monster. Very well done imo!
 
I totally agree with you, Round of applause, I thought it was good, just don't know what they plan to do with the sequel. :rolleyes:



I thought he was a good laugh, sounded a bit like Jason Lee though, lol
 
I have to admit, I was not looking forward to this, as Blair witch put me off ( hated that film), the kind of hand held shaky look

but Cloverfield is actually a pretty good movie , it has its down points, for me the creature/monster looks a mess, could have done a lot better, but hey thats just my opinion, the suspense was built up as the film went along, does leave it open for a sequel , this could be done from the militarys point of view.

if you are to watch this just go with it in a open mind and enjoy


listen to the commentary on the dvd and the creature is only supposed to be acting like a baby looking for its mother, so maybe theres a bigger one to come
 
Just skip the terrible start with the annoying characters in a room and get to where it all starts. It incredibly overrated but it's worth seeing the scenes with the monster and other things like that.

And like me, when you start to get motion sickness, just stop it and have a break and go back to it another time.
 
I enjoyed the film, I love a good disaster movie :D Mind you, I don't get motion sickness, so had no problems with that.

I also agree that going to save Beth was believeable, because they were unable to get off the island, the bridge had collapsed. I think the frienRAB were in shock, and didn't want to be seperated.
 
Agree completely. What makes Cloverfield fresh and different is the filming style. It also adRAB hugely to the realism aspect and doesn't feel like a Hollywood film. It really makes you think of how you would cope in a situation like that.

Have to laugh too about the OP claiming it was "total trash" after watching just 15 minutes.



I wouldn't. I think everyone who likes the film would agree that the shaky camera is what makes it work. Yes it's not for everyone but it worked in this film for a lot of people.



I disagree about being able to skip the first fifteen minutes and not miss a thing. It makes you understand why they all go after Beth and caring for the characters is a huge aspect to the film IMO.
 
No. I just heard it was a good flick. But as soon as I saw that guy's girlfriend lying in bed at the start, and all the jibberish small talk that went with it and the shaky camera, I knew I wasn't gonna like it.

Call me old fashioned but I actually like effective direction and a steady CAMERA.:p
 
The way that the monster is filmed - whenever it appears the cameraman doesn't hold the camera on it for long - was exactly how amateur film looks - the classic example being the Zapruder film of the Kennedy Assassination, where the camera dips away from the car just at the crucial moment. It was a very brave decision to do it that way, and I think it works really well - leaves a lot to your imagination and adRAB a lot to the tension. I particularly liked the scene on the roof when the camera briefly shows the monster approaching along the street but then turns back to what's going on on the roof - it leaves you feeling really tense, not knowing exactly where the monster is or how close it's getting. I think the scene in Central Park when the monster is shown properly is less successful, but I heard in an interview that they felt they had to do at least one proper shot of the monster just to satisfy the audience.
 
It's not a fresh filming style; REC, for example, came out before Cloverfield, and the obvious before that. Unless you mean adding in the monster and the epic scale of it, then fair enough.
 
One of my problems with the film was more or less the opposite: the story-telling was too tight to be credible as "found" footage. For example, that party scene gave you a clear picture of that guy and his relationship with that girl with relatively little wasted time.
 
Back
Top