Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1-18-08
- Thread starter OutThere
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wtf is that website? It reminds me of some of the stupid viral stuff that they did for Lost, that never really meant anything and had no real bearing on anything.
Yeah that was a pretty terrible little bit in the teaser...unnecessary and poorly done.
Yeah that's the problem with these virally-marketed big-hype kind of things...they really have so much to live up to, that if they suck, they really suck.
alright, so I just remembered that I downloaded the trailer. It looks interesting, so much that I went onto Google to find out as much as possible. I'm hoping it'll be as all the websites are saying "an account of the situation from their view" rather than constant cuts to army folk bases and some radar base with folks playing cliched music reminiscent of the current situation... yea. Could do with something fresh in the "Big Monster Film" category.
I sit and wait
I sit and wait
Anyone seen the 'official site': http://www.1-18-08.com/ Really weird but the images are the same as the trailer, maybe there's more to come?
if you grab most of the photos in the center and shake them back and forth rapidly....
Totally agree. I hope it is something much more than that, especialy with a teaser like this one with such potential (possibly).
Bringing back this topic because the movie opens later this week.
The commercials are still willfully vague, but from the online checking I've done, it appears it is a Godzilla movie, in genre if not in actual name.
Which is interesting, because they're once again trying to do a serious version of one of the most juvenile concepts around. The 1998 version of "Godzilla" actually succeeded somewhat, but I dunno...I still can't help feeling that "giant monster" movies are a bit silly, no matter how well they're done.
On the other hand, the plot does remind me of that famous "Kill-'em-all" episode of The X Files. And that was freaking scary!
The commercials are still willfully vague, but from the online checking I've done, it appears it is a Godzilla movie, in genre if not in actual name.
Which is interesting, because they're once again trying to do a serious version of one of the most juvenile concepts around. The 1998 version of "Godzilla" actually succeeded somewhat, but I dunno...I still can't help feeling that "giant monster" movies are a bit silly, no matter how well they're done.
Hmm. If it's going to be yet another zombie movie, I'll take a pass, if only because we're hip-deep in them.
On the other hand, the plot does remind me of that famous "Kill-'em-all" episode of The X Files. And that was freaking scary!
I watched it...I must say if you get motion sickness easy then don't sit in the front row.
I won't reveal anything but it was alright....I've seen it all before..nothing new. I was impressed with the visual effects in the movie but that was about it......it was worth it.
I Think The Mist and the upcoming Diary Of The Dead will do the docu-type movie better than this one.
Bless
I won't reveal anything but it was alright....I've seen it all before..nothing new. I was impressed with the visual effects in the movie but that was about it......it was worth it.
I Think The Mist and the upcoming Diary Of The Dead will do the docu-type movie better than this one.
Bless
I am no huge movie critique. I know crap when I see it, but I judge movies based on the follow criteria. Was it worth my 8 bucks and 80 minutes.
My God, yes. Yes it was. It can make you feel a little queasy but it is very well done docu-style film. The best? Prolly not but it was defiantly worth the time and the money. And you have to see it in the theaters, only way to give it justice.
9/10
My God, yes. Yes it was. It can make you feel a little queasy but it is very well done docu-style film. The best? Prolly not but it was defiantly worth the time and the money. And you have to see it in the theaters, only way to give it justice.
9/10
Saw it, thought it was fantastic (although the thirteen-year-olds scattered hither and about annoyed the piss out of me). Of course, I'm always a little wide-eyed when I see stuff on the big screen...
Aside from the relatively stale framing device (this tape is recovered footage) -- that I honestly shouldn't complain about, since all framing devices are stale by this point, I thought it was a return to the most fundamental aspect of storytelling, personal experience.
First-person cinema is very rare. The problem with first-person stuff is that you generally know that the storyteller will survive, except if the writer uses a cheap trick. Here there are no cheap tricks, and the storyteller is no safer than anyone else.
It's also similar to second-person literature in that the audience is placed in the story but manipulated, forced to conform to behaviors they would not follow in order to maintain the story's integrity. Here again, the audience is passive, being manipulated by the storyteller's environment, and yet there's never the sense of being manipulated in order to further the plot. The characters' motivations play out to their logical ends and there are no fortunate coincidences or feelings that the plot is stretched to the breaking point.
Despite the framing device, there's no lack of immediacy. Some critics have criticized the acting and scripting as relatively lukewarm, but I have to say that it seemed intense and real to me throughout. Of course, some critics have also said the film was "cashing in on 9/11," which is precisely the idiotic protectionism that a transgressive like me loathes above all other pretensions (God forbid a "big monster movie" take place in New ****ing York). The weak attempts at humor seem genuine, the natural response of a person pushed to the breaking point. Above and beyond that, I found them amusing. Some thought the characterization weak -- I would consider it subtle, richly-considered, and anything but the patronizing "hey, look at me, I'm the MAGICAL NEGRO" archetype-plundering of most modern literature. (A little Joseph Campbell can be a dangerous thing)
There's an "if you blink, you'll miss it" moment right at the end that answers some of the criticisms of the film (my wife's chief criticism, for instance).
I believe one "problem" with the movie is that it's intensely visceral. You have to, as I did, watch wide-eyed for the full length of the movie. If you detach yourself, as a critic, you'll completely miss all of the virtues of the film (its beautiful plotting, seamless transitions, fantastic special effects, and only mild hyperrealism) and start taking cheap potshots at it ("Damn 9/11 exploiters with their vacuous too-pretty cast and their unelegant dialogue!").
I contrast it with The Mist, which I saw a while back. I liked it because it basically brought the novella (one of my long-time favorites) to life. At the same time, I was far more aware of its quality of camerawork (and far more detached from the story) than I was with Cloverfield. So go see it, enjoy it, and try not to look at it as a member of a particular genre and so forth. Yeah, it's a "big monster movie," but a damn unique one, and I think you'll get out of it what you put in.
Aside from the relatively stale framing device (this tape is recovered footage) -- that I honestly shouldn't complain about, since all framing devices are stale by this point, I thought it was a return to the most fundamental aspect of storytelling, personal experience.
First-person cinema is very rare. The problem with first-person stuff is that you generally know that the storyteller will survive, except if the writer uses a cheap trick. Here there are no cheap tricks, and the storyteller is no safer than anyone else.
It's also similar to second-person literature in that the audience is placed in the story but manipulated, forced to conform to behaviors they would not follow in order to maintain the story's integrity. Here again, the audience is passive, being manipulated by the storyteller's environment, and yet there's never the sense of being manipulated in order to further the plot. The characters' motivations play out to their logical ends and there are no fortunate coincidences or feelings that the plot is stretched to the breaking point.
Despite the framing device, there's no lack of immediacy. Some critics have criticized the acting and scripting as relatively lukewarm, but I have to say that it seemed intense and real to me throughout. Of course, some critics have also said the film was "cashing in on 9/11," which is precisely the idiotic protectionism that a transgressive like me loathes above all other pretensions (God forbid a "big monster movie" take place in New ****ing York). The weak attempts at humor seem genuine, the natural response of a person pushed to the breaking point. Above and beyond that, I found them amusing. Some thought the characterization weak -- I would consider it subtle, richly-considered, and anything but the patronizing "hey, look at me, I'm the MAGICAL NEGRO" archetype-plundering of most modern literature. (A little Joseph Campbell can be a dangerous thing)
There's an "if you blink, you'll miss it" moment right at the end that answers some of the criticisms of the film (my wife's chief criticism, for instance).
I believe one "problem" with the movie is that it's intensely visceral. You have to, as I did, watch wide-eyed for the full length of the movie. If you detach yourself, as a critic, you'll completely miss all of the virtues of the film (its beautiful plotting, seamless transitions, fantastic special effects, and only mild hyperrealism) and start taking cheap potshots at it ("Damn 9/11 exploiters with their vacuous too-pretty cast and their unelegant dialogue!").
I contrast it with The Mist, which I saw a while back. I liked it because it basically brought the novella (one of my long-time favorites) to life. At the same time, I was far more aware of its quality of camerawork (and far more detached from the story) than I was with Cloverfield. So go see it, enjoy it, and try not to look at it as a member of a particular genre and so forth. Yeah, it's a "big monster movie," but a damn unique one, and I think you'll get out of it what you put in.
I saw the film tonight and liked it quite a bit. The entire film is shot on a single camcorder and nothing else, so you never find out what the monster truly is or where it came from, but you do get a real good view of it somewhat toward the end.
I wish I understood what people liked about it... I got back from it a few hours ago and it was... meh. Big monster smash buildings. People run. Woo yay... meh.
I realize the movie was intended to be "oh look we have this footage from this monster attack" and that is what it was. It did stay true to its purpose but for me, the purpose was lame. If you watch the trailer for 84 minutes straight that's pretty much the movie.
I realize the movie was intended to be "oh look we have this footage from this monster attack" and that is what it was. It did stay true to its purpose but for me, the purpose was lame. If you watch the trailer for 84 minutes straight that's pretty much the movie.
After this review in the Times, I doubt I'm going to see it:
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/movies/18clov.html
Though SthrnCmfrtr's enthusiastic review makes me reconsider...
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/movies/18clov.html
Manohla Dargis said:
Though SthrnCmfrtr's enthusiastic review makes me reconsider...
i got back about 40 mins ago. I left early cause i thought i was gonna puke. it was that bad. I just talked to my brother who stayed and people were booing at the end... and some guy stood up and yelled "what the___ (insert bad word)
I left when they were at the military base and they said they were going to take bigger actions and gave them advice to go get a helicopter. I can handle kingda-ka at six flags but not a movie...a million dollar budget and they couldn't afford a freakin tripod/dolly. (They should have looted one) my rating: 4/10 my brother told me the ending and it was to dumb...
also second row
I left when they were at the military base and they said they were going to take bigger actions and gave them advice to go get a helicopter. I can handle kingda-ka at six flags but not a movie...a million dollar budget and they couldn't afford a freakin tripod/dolly. (They should have looted one
) my rating: 4/10 my brother told me the ending and it was to dumb...also second row
Living in NYC, I can say that the attack in Cloverfield barely reminded me of 9/11. Maybe the fleeing and screaming from lower Manhattan brought up some memories, but nothing major.
I was focused more on the reviewer's emphasis of the sheer stupidity of the whole thing. There is a later passage in the review where she said she thought she had some hope that the film would redeem itself with a critique of our voyeuristic culture, but that the movie didn't even make a half-hearted attempt to pursue this theme coherently. I just got the vibe that this is another glitzy movie with no point.
I must have missed that. Care to elaborate (or PM me to avoid posting spoilers) Thanks.
i got back about 40 mins ago. I left early cause i thought i was gonna puke. it was that bad. I just talked to my brother who stayed and people were booing at the end... and some guy stood up and yelled "what the___ (insert bad word)
I left when they were at the military base and they said they were going to take bigger actions and gave them advice to go get a helicopter. I can handle kingda-ka at six flags but not a movie...a million dollar budget and they couldn't afford a freakin tripod/dolly. (They should have looted one
You completely miss the point. If this movie had been filmed in the typical Hollywood, Jerry Bruckheimer fashion, it would have stunk something up fierce. The point of the movie was to show a monster attack from the civilian's perspective, and to do that, the handheld effect was necessary. Comments like these make me wonder if you even knew what you were going to see.
My theater was divided into two sections... all the 20-somethings and older filtered in early and had their seats in the middle to the back, when suddenly a pack of junior high kids waltz in 5 minutes before the show starts (had to have been about 40-50 of them)... and they all take the first 5-6 rows. The end of the movie came around, and everyone around me was talking about how good it was, while a kid near the front loudly questioned the movie's sexuality, with his buddies chiming in. Just two examples of conformity, but it clearly shows the level of maturity required to appreciate this movie.
JJ Abrams gave a lecture at TED that i think provides some interesting insight to the film (no spoilers):
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/205
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/205
