J.J. Abrams' Cloverfield Questions

By Got3n
in The Media Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Enthusiast

TruAmbitionz

Posted
Posted
To be honest, I don't think the movie lived up to the hype. The monster was just a typical horror/godzilla type monster, the camera work, although part of the story, was unsettling and got old. The ending was abrupt, but it did make an impression. The first 20-30 minutes all take place at some party and it sounds like an episode of gilmore girls. So all in all i liked the middle of the movie when all those stupid people from the party died. Looking forward to star trek being much better than colverfield.

I have to agree on this.

I understand the effect they were going for with the camera style but I think they took a little too far.

Most people at a casual party can hold a camera somewhat steady. The camera was more wobbly and intense at a party than when they were running or getting attacked.

My head hurt watching this and I was in the back seat of the theater.

It was a good movie, don't get me wrong.

Grand Master

Rappy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Omg, is this from Lost? :omg:

I saw Cloverfield last night as well. And I must say, it's one of the most immersive movies I've ever watched. I could almost feel the dust in the opening attack scenes.

Props to J.J. Abrams for creating one of my new favorite movies. A very deserved 8.3 on IMDB

-Ax

No its from Cloverfield I think we could be safe to say Thats the monster nothing is that big in the sea...or is it?

Grand Master

episode

Posted
Posted
I have to agree on this.

I understand the effect they were going for with the camera style but I think they took a little too far.

Most people at a casual party can hold a camera somewhat steady. The camera was more wobbly and intense at a party than when they were running or getting attacked.

My head hurt watching this and I was in the back seat of the theater.

It was a good movie, don't get me wrong.

He was drunk at the party. Plus that was the first time he had ever used the camera.

Yes, the first 15 minutes of the movie were at the party. But think about it. You were watching what was on the tape. Thats why it cut back to old portions at certain points. When the night started, they were going to film the whole party for Rob, so that was what was on the tape.

And Abrams should be getting kudos for not giving the movie a 'proper' ending, not be getting knocked for it. Dare to be different.

The movie was about the survival of the friends from the party. Not about the monster. Everyone from the group, (except Lilly in the helicopter - which means that was resolved as well) died, so the movie WAS concluded. Thus, it had a proper ending.

No its from Cloverfield I think we could be safe to say Thats the monster nothing is that big in the sea...or is it?

Or is it a whale or something? I don't understand how it would be on a white sand beach when they were fighting it in Central Park at the end.

Or are there multiple monsters?

As shown in the end of the movie, the monster came down not far from NYC, but there was other 'attacks', like the one on the oil rig, that were much further away.

Grand Master

Rappy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
He was drunk at the party. Plus that was the first time he had ever used the camera.

Yes, the first 15 minutes of the movie were at the party. But think about it. You were watching what was on the tape. Thats why it cut back to old portions at certain points. When the night started, they were going to film the whole party for Rob, so that was what was on the tape.

And Abrams should be getting kudos for not giving the movie a 'proper' ending, not be getting knocked for it. Dare to be different.

The movie was about the survival of the friends from the party. Not about the monster. Everyone from the group, (except Lilly in the helicopter - which means that was resolved as well) died, so the movie WAS concluded. Thus, it had a proper ending.

Or is it a whale or something? I don't understand how it would be on a white sand beach when they were fighting it in Central Park at the end.

Or are there multiple monsters?

As shown in the end of the movie, the monster came down not far from NYC, but there was other 'attacks', like the one on the oil rig, that were much further away.

Yeah maybe, I think the fact the thing is pretty big could indicate they killed one and maybe its trying to tell us that they can kill them

Grand Master

ANova

Posted
Posted

I didn't much care for it. What was the point other than to show a bunch of people creating a drama and then trying to save themselves? No explanations of any kind for anything and an abrupt ending that really could have happened 20 minutes after the monster first attacked.

The director failed miserably if he tried to make it appear realistic as well.

Grand Master

sundayx Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

This movie is hit and misses, mostly hit, an immense "experience" and very original style of depiction of movies in this specific genre. However the ending was quite a let down, I could have hoped for a better, having more impact and chaos. Otherwise this is an immense movie that everyone should go experience.

Grand Master

Osiris

Posted
Posted

Well if your messiah JJ is trying to be so daring why did he feel the need to be so predictable?

1. When they are going over the bridge, who didnt see that one coming?

2. In the tunnels, c'mon again, predictable as the replies of JJ zealots..

On to other points:

1. How, how the devil did the thing sneak up and kill the camera guy at the end? I dont get it, did it just go into "Stealth" mode and manage to pop-up and surprise them? I see in typical JJ fashion, aka lost style, we dont actually get a nice picture of the monster until virtually the last scene...

2. Couldn't we have taken 2 seconds to explain the whole "bite thing"

Despite the monster looking like something from the Resident Evil props and specialfx department I enjoyed it and the offspring were a surprising change. The ending is acceptable due to the clue from the credits, and the final scene at Coney island is a nice indication of its Origin, however I can clearly see why people would be disappointed with the movie as it does leave alot of unanswered questions, the camera work is almost nauseiating and the film is quite short. Perhaps I would have been in the same boat if not for the fact due to someone elses illness I got to see the movie for free :)

Grand Master

Mathachew Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I'm curious as to why film makers seem to think that so much shaky/wobbly camera is good. I have great eyes and can stomach a lot, but Bourne Supremacy was borderline unwatchable and I did feel some strain on my eyes. I haven't seen this movie yet, so I can't comment on it, but from what others are saying, it looks to be not much different.

Note to Hollywood: shaky cameras are ok, just don't over do it. It's bad enough that we see tons of it on YouTube, but c'mon, you're professionals.

Mentor

Liandros

Posted
Posted
I'm curious as to why film makers seem to think that so much shaky/wobbly camera is good. I have great eyes and can stomach a lot, but Bourne Supremacy was borderline unwatchable and I did feel some strain on my eyes. I haven't seen this movie yet, so I can't comment on it, but from what others are saying, it looks to be not much different.

Note to Hollywood: shaky cameras are ok, just don't over do it. It's bad enough that we see tons of it on YouTube, but c'mon, you're professionals.

the shaky cam made the movie. it is what makes the movie so immersive. i could not see this movie being filmed with steady cameras. it just would not have the same effect.

Grand Master

Rappy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
the shaky cam made the movie. it is what makes the movie so immersive. i could not see this movie being filmed with steady cameras. it just would not have the same effect.

Yeah its pretty cool, it has that like Youtube Effect which makes it awesome.

Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted

I have an issue with the film and something J.J. Abrams stated in an interview.

As most of us know by now, at the end of the film something drops in the water. Now I haven't seen this yet, but I'll take people's word for it if they've seen that, but it doesn't add up with something Abrams said. In an interview with /Film, Abrams states the monster is "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.” Obviously that "thing" that lands in the water isn't thousands of years old, so how can we rationalize this?

To say the least, I'm confused. If something did land in the water from outer space, (1) what was it? (2) is it really connected with the monster? (3) how long was it between April and it attacking the city? (4) why did it swim out to the other to attack an oil platform before coming back to NY to attack the city? (5) what is Abrams talking about if what landed in the water was indeed the monster?

I'm sure I could come up with more, but you get the picture.

Grand Master

Rappy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I would assume maybe a meteor or something and it came with a bacteria on it that made something small really big and angry who knows, I think its the sort of the film that leaves you wanting more which is typical Abrams in a way.

Experienced

Lyric

Posted
Posted

I actually walked out of the movie theater and got my money back after about ~15-20min into it. As they didnt tell us at the beginning that it could cause motion sickness, and was completely video taped handheld. This movie was terrible and I was sick to my stomache for hours afterwards leaving the movies.

I was wasn't suprised either, when about 10 others walked out as well and were asking for their money back.

Grand Master

episode

Posted
Posted
I actually walked out of the movie theater and got my money back after about ~15-20min into it. As they didnt tell us at the beginning that it could cause motion sickness, and was completely video taped handheld. This movie was terrible and I was sick to my stomache for hours afterwards leaving the movies.

I was wasn't suprised either, when about 10 others walked out as well and were asking for their money back.

First, how can you know it was terrible if you only watched 15-20 minutes?

Second, why would you see a movie you knew nothing about? If you knew anything about it, you would know it was filmed using a handheld camera.

Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted
First, how can you know it was terrible if you only watched 15-20 minutes?

Second, why would you see a movie you knew nothing about? If you knew anything about it, you would know it was filmed using a handheld camera.

That's exactly what I was thinking as well.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.