Coverfield was total trash

I think you're totally wrong. The main concept for the film was to make it a personal point-of-view as experienced by the people caught up in the events. Abrams called it "a movie for the YouTube generation". It was an artistic decision by the film makers - and the film would LOSE a huge amount without it. If you don't like it, go and watch Godzilla instead! (a film which I also enjoyed, btw).

You seem to be saying that film makers should have no say in artistic decisions. That's crazy. It's like saying Picasso shouldn't have used blue paint during his "blue period" - "if I want blue paintings I'll look at them through blue glasses".
 
It was an ok film but the end was a bit wierd for me.

What was the scene after the credits as i dont think i saw it..?

What happens in the sequel?
 
I have never understood this ranting about "shaky cam", I think my eyes must adjust quickly or something, because I don't even notice it after a few seconRAB. It certainly doesn't make me sick. Some people are just whiny, sickly little babies.
 
I saw Cloverfield at the cinema, and despite a rather irritating first 15 mins I really enjoyed it (although the Korean monster film Host is much better and much funnier), if you don't like shaky handheld camera that really is your problem not the film's.

I would also recommend you go and watch the 1998 Godzilla if you want a glossy hollywood monster movie, it may be crap but at least the cameras are all proper 35mm cinema standard cameras.

I would really reccomend the OP does not watch The Blair Witch Project (a film I loved on first viewing) because not only is that filmed on handheld, it's also in black and white for half the film!

If you want to see a real example of true "trash" then get yourself off to watch the latest big-budget Nick Cage/Tom Cruise/(insert multimillion$ star here) blockbuster.
 
Quite a lot of people. As evident by the hours and hours of amateur-shot footage of September 11th (and other similar tragedies/disasters), which I believe the film was trying to replicate.
 
You judge the whole film even though you hardly watched any of it? Your loss.

If it had been filmed in the 'normal' way, it would have been yet another yawno monster movie. It was the first time a monster movie had been done in the 'first-person camera' fashion and as such, was unique and refreshing. If you personally didn't like it, then that's up to you and, as I say, your loss.

I'm guessing (probably correctly) that you're one of those people who decides to hate something simply because everybody else thinks it's pretty good. Once more, your loss.

Cloverfield is a very clever movie: it's a great observation on how Americans and the west in general deal with disaster (with some uncomfortable echoes of 911) and the subtle, minimal clues you can pick up on and then try to work out the origin of the monster, courtesy of the internet, can take you on a fantastic scavenger hunt... Unless you just watch the first 15 minutes and then decide you're an authority on the movie.
 
I don't like shaky camerawork. Full stop.

It's just awful. Can you imagine all the movie greats, if they were filmed with a shaky camera?

The Great Escape - I daren't think of it.

Dawn of the Dead (original 1978 version and the remake) - dire!

Star Wars seen from Luke Skywalker's shaky 'Moon Cam'.

Come on, how can anyone like a shaky camera? And yes, I did judge that movie, like anyone does. On something I don't like. :D
 
a couple of months ago me and some frienRAB were browsing the on-demand movies on btvision and came accross cloverfield, well we'd all heard it was good and decided to watch it, after 10 mins we all hated it, it was f-ing awful, my frienRAB were begging me to turn it over and while i agreed how terrible it was i wouldn't turn it over as i'd just paid
 
The camera technique literally made me feel nauseous. I enjoyed the film though, for what it was, even if the plot with the main guy running off looking for that girl and everyone following was utterly ridiculous. The actor who played the brother, the one killed on Brooklyn Bridge, was gorgeous though. :p
 
The whole shaky camera thing doesn't affect me in the slightest but I can see how it might be off-putting for some people, especially if they suffer from motion sickness.

As far as Cloverfield is concerned I thought it was awesome, but that's just my opinion.
 
I don't know what I expected from Cloverfield, but in the end me and the missus really enjoyed it. I'm not an Abrams fan to be honest, but thought this was quite good fun. I can understand why people didn't like it though. Myself I thought it was nice to see the human side to the old "invasion" story.
 
What sequel?

I liked the shaky camera - it made the film work. As darkmarsupial said, without the first-person pov we would have had just another monster movie.



Why is that ridiculous?
 
Confusing thread title, as I was wondering what the heck Coverfield was.

Anyway, while I didn't much care for the party stuff, I did really enjoy the second half of it. I think the style of the film takes a bit of getting used to, tbh. If the Op only watched 20 minutes, I don't think they can really pass judgement on the whole film.
 
i actually really enjoyed this film, the shaking camera effects were annoying at first, but as the film went on i found it different in a good way.
i loved the cliffhanging ending and i'm looking forward to watching the sequel :)
 
Back
Top