[Heccubus]

This looks like crap. Blair Witch Project meets 9/11. Blah.

I think you're wholly mistaken.
1) The Blair Witch comparison is stretching it. A lot. The only similarity is the use of hand-held cameras, which in this case is definitely being used for a different effect. In the Blair Witch Project it was used to recreate the idea of the footage being "found" in the woods, as if we were watching the three students' documentary attempt as it happened. In Cloverfield it looks more like its being used to grant the audience a POV perspective on the events surrounding whatever the fuck happens in this movie.
2) Not every movie that contains a disaster set in New York is referencing 9/11. In fact, there is no parallel here, other than it being a big bad thing that happens in New York City. That conclusion is so off the mark that it makes me wonder whether or not you're just the sort of cynic that I've seen reacting to this movie with a preconceived ill regard for it just because a lot of people are interested in it. It seems less immature to just wait until it comes out to garner some sort of opinion. That's not to say the people going "HOLY SHIT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST MOVIE EVER YOU GUYS JESUS FUCKING CHRIST" are right either, since they're the ones who are more likely to be let down, but let's just reserve judgment for when it actually comes out and let the kids have their fun.

This post has been edited by Heccubus: 02 January 2008 - 12:54 AM

[civilian_number_two]

1. I think you need to watch it again before assessing that the shaky footage is being used to a "different effect" than in BLAIR WITCH. The trailer opens with a note telling us that what we're about to see is found footage, and then we're treated to characters talking directly to the camera, characters who presumably are dead, hence the found footage. The shaky camera is not the only similarity. A third similarity will be that the dialogue will have to be "real," hence lots of "Oh my God I am so scared" garbage instead of any characterizations or a storyline. I guess the difference is this footage is found in Central Park, and not in the woods.

2. I didn't put "New York" plus "disaster" together to find a 9/11 angle. What I saw was New York plus ATTACK plus hand-held footage from camcorders held by civilians plus a shot identical to one I actually saw on the news 6 years ago of a building being hit by something and a fireball busting out deep down a hallway of skyscrapers. Then another of characters running toward a hand-held camera away from smoke and wreckage. The only difference being that these shots were taken at night and the ones in 2001 were in the morning. So no, not cynical, not way off the mark. You'll hear this comparison again and not just from me. A lot of people watched the news back then and will recognize these shots as well.

2a. I don't know how it's "immature" or "cynical" to watch a trailer and to say "this looks like crap." I based my opinion on the trailer, not on the film. Maybe had I said "This IS crap," you might have me at jumping the gun, but "immature?" I have seen a lot of movies and a lot of trailers too, and this trailer is garbage. Its main power is that it taps into tested material that has worked in the past, eg hand-held "found" footage and those familiar and terrifying images of New York from 2001. However it jumps the shark with the Statue of Liberty head flying right out of the harbour and landing conveniently in frame. From an objective POV, that would work, but if I'm expected to believe that a subjective camera held by one of the characters in the storyline just happened to be right there for that perfect shot, well, I expect lots more of the same in the final film. And that is a trick the Blair Witch folks never pulled, and that looks like crap.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 02 January 2008 - 05:55 PM

[Chefelf]

I had quite a chuckle when I saw the commercial. Cloverfield = Godzilla?

<offensive accent>Look ouuuut! It's Cloverfield!</offensive accent>

[Heccubus]

I had quite a chuckle when I saw the commercial. Cloverfield = Godzilla?

<offensive accent>Look ouuuut! It's Cloverfield!</offensive accent>

I thought something like that too
As excited as I am for Cloverfield, I really do expect to be let down at least somewhat. No movie with this much marketing exposure can possibly live up to the hype. So while I'm quick to defend it for what I do see, essentially, as virtues, I am expecting 100% to be at least a bit let down by the end product, regardless of these saving graces.

This post has been edited by Heccubus: 02 January 2008 - 12:44 PM

[mireaux7]

does any other guy besides me think that the brunette in the first trailer is a hottie? the brunette that says "Rob..have fun in Japan"

[Slade]

I'm not excited in the slightest. It looks like standard monster-horror movie fare, except adding poor camera handling and faux-eyewitness accounts to the mix. Seriously, what's the big deal about NYC that so many stupid disaster/monster movies have to have it blown up?

I want to see a monster movie where the monster crosses the entire United States (or Europe) unharmed by constant attacks by the military, only to stop and systematically destroy a tiny rural Idaho (a small town near Amiens, France), then die following a sordid love affair with a fat and ugly girl with low self esteem due to the monster's one weakness being human sexual fluids, or maybe love or something. And at some point, someone needs to play soccer with a poodle.

I'm also going to change the title of this thread for clarity.

[Sailor Abbey]

I get seasick just watching the trailer.

[sesame_street_hustler]

Seriously, what's the big deal about NYC that so many stupid disaster/monster movies have to have it blown up?

the reason why New York City is so often chose in Hollywood seems to stem from various reasons and theories. Everyone from Spiderman, Superman, the ninja turtles, batman, and countless others call NYC (or some fictional derivitive of it: Gotham City, Metropolis, etc) home.

1. it has one of the highest concentrations of people in the world as far as cities go. Only Tokyo, Mexico City and few others have higher concentrations

2. Its a place that many Americans can identify with, even if they have never been there.

3. It has countless symbols of American pride, the Statue of Liberty being the greatest.

4. The city itself operates with a intricate system: the crowds of people, the subways, the taxis, the buildings so close together, that any disaster that occurs pretty much results in chaos of catastrophic proportions.

5. Of all American cities, it is the one that has had the most attacks on it in history. No other American city has had more threats or actual attacks. Not even D.C.

[Heccubus]

Yeah that pretty much sums it up... If you watch Japanese monster movies they usually seem to take place in either Tokyo or Osaka. I know there's a few exceptions, but I can't remember which. I don't think "King Kong Vs. Godzilla" took place in a major city but I'm not 100% on that. Plus that movie isn't really American OR Japanese. Kind of a weird, poorly envisioned hybrid of both.

[looktothesky]

I hate how no one seems to know anything in real detail about it. Sure it adds to the mystique and things, but inquiring minds need to know!

[civilian_number_two]

Noone will ever know anything about it, even after it's over. They're going to play it just likle Blair Witch, pretending it's "found footage," so the movie itself won't reveal much of what it's about. In order to get some clue, you'll need to wait for Cloverfield 2: Book of Shadows.

[Despondent]

Found an image some artist drew up. You know, it probably doesn't KNOW it's a monster. It probably just needs a little love.

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

Cloverfield will be a jerk-around flick. You can expect average performances and average characters. The script will only be good enough to keep you from walking, that being, it will keep you in 'suspense' until the end where the whole film is concluded with something really stupid.

I'm guessing that if you do leave the cinema at the halfway mark, you'll take nothing with you.

A great flick I just saw is NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Many in the audience were bickering about the 'anti climactic' ending. I for one was not upset, I could have left 10 mins into the movie and taken with me a proper representation of a sociopathic killer.

Cloverfield is a stupid name, I'll skip this one.

[Heccubus]

Well maybe once your ten foot Coen Bros. boner goes away, you'll take Cloverfield for what it is: a horror movie. Horror isn't a genre you go into looking for well-rounded characters or performances. You go into it looking for thrills, chills, and maybe some blood 'n' guts. There's the odd piece of cerebral horror (ie: The Exorcist) that really gets under your skin, but horror is NOT a genre for film buffs.

[Itaritz]

It seems like the standard special effects/action/suspense/stupid crap fare to me, with a bit of hype added due to the ADD-based advertising technique of leaving off the name on the first trailer. I still can't believe that actually worked. Oh yes, and the so-called documentary filming style, or whatever euphemism they've used for "We couldn't afford to hire camera dudes so we had some drunk guy do it and turned it into a theme in much the same way that we turned our inability to think of a decent name into an advertising ploy." Ugh.

And on top of that, I don't think it's really possible to pull this genre off anymore. Godzilla has simply poisoned people's perception of it. Even if this is brilliantly done (which it won't be) it will still seem like a joke because I, for one, will, by all indications, think "Haha, Godzilla," every five minutes.

This post has been edited by Itaritz: 12 January 2008 - 11:06 PM