|
Post by Edge618 on Jan 20, 2008 1:57:07 GMT -5
Hey, maybe for a sequel, they could have it start with a camera again, but have it start where the 1st left off. Like,have a completely different guy filming the the original 2 charachters running under the bridge at the end, and then showing them get smashed underneath, and then have the new camera man and company hide while the monster runs away and continues attacking. Then they could reveal more about where the monster came from and why its there.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Weinstein on Jan 20, 2008 2:01:32 GMT -5
Just came back from a midnight showing. I thought it was pretty good, but I wish more information was given about the "creature" and where it originated. Yeah. Stuff like that.
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Jan 20, 2008 2:09:16 GMT -5
Am I the only one who wasn't bothered by the camera, in the slightest? No headache, or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 20, 2008 2:25:09 GMT -5
It was an average film with a mistake of making it a documentary. Luckily I have my IAL to watch
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Jan 20, 2008 2:29:57 GMT -5
That "mistake", is what made it great for me. Had it been a normal movie, I wouldn't have even wasted my time on it.
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Jan 20, 2008 3:57:53 GMT -5
I could put it in my top 10.....easily.
The Mist, 1408, and Cloverfield are probably my top 3 movies for 2007-2008(so far).
|
|
|
Post by c14rock on Jan 20, 2008 6:54:58 GMT -5
That "mistake", is what made it great for me. Had it been a normal movie, I wouldn't have even wasted my time on it. I agree...I loved the way it was filmed. It was definately a cool "gimmick" but it really helped me get pulled into the movie. I saw it with a few people, I was the only one to not get sick. I don't get it, it wasn't bad at all.
|
|
|
Post by jake_317 on Jan 20, 2008 8:22:29 GMT -5
take some dramamine if you have motion sickness. it's never bothered me. and ANYONE SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW of a movie theatre, deserves to get sick. How can you sit that close, not break your neck, and not get sick? really?
Wow, with a regular camera it would been about as interesting as...a regular monster movie.
Alot of people are crapting on this movie for it's "allusions of 9/11." God, Manhattan has been killed a million times before in stories, comics, and other films, why do crtitics act like a storyteller deserves death by firing squad if they do a apocalypse-esqu picture in Manhattan? If this movie was about Global Warming, instead of a badass monster, it'd get an Oscar.
Does anyone think this story has an tie-in with Lost at all? Just trying to bring up some discussion. I know that was on-topic before the film came out, but i havent seen Lost in ages, and really have no idea what is going on with it storyline-wise.
|
|
Stinger TNA
Main Eventer
"Support TNA"
Joined on: Mar 31, 2010 19:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by Stinger TNA on Jan 20, 2008 10:59:42 GMT -5
When it would frequently turn to the side, I got a bit dizzy. But otherwise I was fine. I think I got a bladder infection because half an hour into the movie I had to piss but waited until the end to do so.
|
|
Stinger TNA
Main Eventer
"Support TNA"
Joined on: Mar 31, 2010 19:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by Stinger TNA on Jan 20, 2008 11:00:47 GMT -5
Hey, maybe for a sequel, they could have it start with a camera again, but have it start where the 1st left off. Like,have a completely different guy filming the the original 2 charachters running under the bridge at the end, and then showing them get smashed underneath, and then have the new camera man and company hide while the monster runs away and continues attacking. Then they could reveal more about where the monster came from and why its there. That is no bad idea at all.
|
|
|
Post by jake_317 on Jan 20, 2008 11:01:42 GMT -5
That's why i urinate before i go into the theatre, and keep the soda to a minimum during the first 30 minutes of the film.
|
|
Jacob
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: May 15, 2006 14:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 16,577
|
Post by Jacob on Jan 20, 2008 11:20:19 GMT -5
Just came back from a midnight showing. I thought it was pretty good, but I wish more information was given about the "creature" and where it originated. Yeah. Stuff like that. Everybody says that about the monster, but what they're forgetting is this was a first hand account of the attack. These where just normal people living their lives, they had no idea what it was or where it came from, so how could they know what it was? The explanation is probably going to be what the sequel is about. Are there more of these things under the sea? What actually caused it to make it's way onto land? Is the Cloverfield monster still alive? Was it captured? Will they perform tests on it? No doubt all of these questions will be answered in a sequel, I just hope they don't make it too far fetched.
|
|
|
Post by GreatJunta36 on Jan 20, 2008 11:31:38 GMT -5
Just came back from a midnight showing. I thought it was pretty good, but I wish more information was given about the "creature" and where it originated. Yeah. Stuff like that. Everybody says that about the monster, but what they're forgetting is this was a first hand account of the attack. These where just normal people living their lives, they had no idea what it was or where it came from, so how could they know what it was? The explanation is probably going to be what the sequel is about. Are there more of these things under the sea? What actually caused it to make it's way onto land? Is the Cloverfield monster still alive? Was it captured? Will they perform tests on it? Yes the cloverfield monster is still alive. If you stayed til the end of the credits you hear a faint garbled message that sounds like "Help Us". When you play it backwards it says "It's still alive" btw: my opinion on the movie is that it was the scariest movie I've ever seen in my life. No hype, no bullsh*t. I was TENSE and it felt so damn real. Kudos for making a movie filmed in that handheld style. There were a lot of people saying how stupid it was as they were leaving the theater. Everyone's got their opinion, but I say f*ck that. I"m sick of being spoon-fed the entire movie to me. I'm glad that there was no explanation and that the ending was so abrupt. It made it that much more real
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 20, 2008 11:33:41 GMT -5
Am I the only one who wasn't bothered by the camera, in the slightest? No headache, or nothing. I wasn't bothered by it at all, either. I was, though, sitting in the last row of the theater, so that could have something to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by GreatJunta36 on Jan 20, 2008 11:39:27 GMT -5
Just for fun I looked up Cloverfield on Wikipedia and I didn't notice this:
"Rob and Beth take shelter under a bridge, where they each briefly address anyone who might find the camera. Sirens sound and an explosion collapses the bridge, partially covering the camera with debris. Rob and Beth proclaim their love for each other, before a second explosion completely covers the camera in rubble. The final scene returns to footage from the month before, where Rob and Beth are enjoying a date at Coney Island. In the distance something falls out of the sky and splashes unnoticed into the water, suggesting the creature is extra-terrestrial." Did anyone notice that??
|
|
|
Post by Codesters on Jan 20, 2008 12:08:04 GMT -5
I saw it Firday and loved the movie, it was pretty interesting seeing it in a somewhat first person view. And Im hoping ofr a sequal after hearing the "help us....its still ALive" voice after all the credits... I think it would be cool if in the sequal they shot it in a theatrical version and show a different presective instead of the home camera.
|
|
Stinger TNA
Main Eventer
"Support TNA"
Joined on: Mar 31, 2010 19:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by Stinger TNA on Jan 20, 2008 12:59:10 GMT -5
Everyone at first thought it was another terrorist attack.
Plus did Marlena explode or did they kill her by making her explode?
|
|
ryanissexy
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 25, 2002 15:29:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,240
|
Post by ryanissexy on Jan 20, 2008 13:02:18 GMT -5
Awesome movie, wasn't crazy about the ending I would have them rather done an epilogue of a news report or something saying what ultimately happened.
|
|
|
Post by Death Bear on Jan 20, 2008 13:17:46 GMT -5
Posted this in the other thread that got locked:
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 20, 2008 13:29:27 GMT -5
Just for fun I looked up Cloverfield on Wikipedia and I didn't notice this: "Rob and Beth take shelter under a bridge, where they each briefly address anyone who might find the camera. Sirens sound and an explosion collapses the bridge, partially covering the camera with debris. Rob and Beth proclaim their love for each other, before a second explosion completely covers the camera in rubble. The final scene returns to footage from the month before, where Rob and Beth are enjoying a date at Coney Island. In the distance something falls out of the sky and splashes unnoticed into the water, suggesting the creature is extra-terrestrial." Did anyone notice that?? Popular belief is that the piece falling out of the sky is a part of the Tokoratu (spelling?) satellite, I could have that name entirely wrong, but you get the idea. The satellite played an integral part in Cloverfield's viral marketing campaign in the fall, so most believe it to be somewhat of a shout out to anyone who followed the process since the beginning. There are a ton of hidden things in the movie for those who followed the viral marketing for the past eight months. That's just one of the reasons why I'm going see the movie again.
|
|