GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
Horror
Check out the latest in horror news and discussion, if you dare!
50

Cloverfield
Topic by: ScottWeinberg
Posted: January 10, 2008 - 4:28 PM PST
Last Reply: November 14, 2008 - 10:40 AM PST

page  1  2  3  4      prev | next
author topic: Cloverfield
underdog
post #41  on February 19, 2008 - 6:59 PM PST  
> On February 19, 2008 - 5:26 AM PST hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I kinda felt sorry for the Cloverfield monster... the way the film was shot, without attributing any motives to the monster's actions, made it look like the poor thing was just running for its life all over Manhattan as it was harassed and scared by little tanks and fighter jets. For most of the film it looked like the monster's only goal was to escape, but it couldn't find a way out of the maze of streets. So I wonder what real-life situation and animal the film-makers based the monster's behavior on....
>
But don't forget it was also sending out those frightening little alien spawn too, right? Our protagonists had to fight them off in the hallway of the tilting apartment building. Those seemed to have no real purpose other than to scare and kill, but maybe they, too, were confused and lost. Didn't the mother monster start destroying things before it started getting attacked by human weapons? It seemed pretty destructively evil to me, but maybe I should go back and see it again.

hamano
post #42  on February 19, 2008 - 8:02 PM PST  
Well, an idea that popped up at one point in the film and also discussed on various internet forums is that the monster was actually some sort of US military experiment that got loose... The "tanker" that supposedly capsized near the Statue of Liberty may have been a secret floating lab or transport ship in disguise from which the monster escaped.

Realistically, I don't think a creature of that size could withstand more than a few hits from missiles and bombs and tank shells unless it had some kind of armor shielding or maybe a really thick layer of mucous covering its body... It didn't look like it was bleeding very much or even that damaged at the end.
troublemaker
post #43  on February 19, 2008 - 8:41 PM PST  
> On February 19, 2008 - 8:02 PM PST hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Well, an idea that popped up at one point in the film and also discussed on various internet forums is that the monster was actually some sort of US military experiment that got loose... The "tanker" that supposedly capsized near the Statue of Liberty may have been a secret floating lab or transport ship in disguise from which the monster escaped.
>
> Realistically, I don't think a creature of that size could withstand more than a few hits from missiles and bombs and tank shells unless it had some kind of armor shielding or maybe a really thick layer of mucous covering its body... It didn't look like it was bleeding very much or even that damaged at the end.
> ---------------------------------


The monster being a military weapon makes sense its imperviousness to all the projectile weaponry. While discussing this with my buddy we decided the monster had to:

a) be some military experiment
b) come from the depths of the ocean
c) from space

but I guess answers are what sequels are for huh?
Battie
post #44  on February 19, 2008 - 9:50 PM PST  
> On February 19, 2008 - 6:59 PM PST underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> But don't forget it was also sending out those frightening little alien spawn too, right? Our protagonists had to fight them off in the hallway of the tilting apartment building. Those seemed to have no real purpose other than to scare and kill, but maybe they, too, were confused and lost. Didn't the mother monster start destroying things before it started getting attacked by human weapons? It seemed pretty destructively evil to me, but maybe I should go back and see it again.
> ---------------------------------

I stumbled on something online before I went to see the movie and supposedly the subway monsters were mites that were falling off the monster. And they actually did look like mites, on a huge scale. It could explain the whole blood thing to a certain degree...if you got a lot of anticoagulant pumped into you...*ponders*
Battie
post #45  on February 19, 2008 - 9:52 PM PST  
> On February 19, 2008 - 8:41 PM PST troublemaker wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> a) be some military experiment
> b) come from the depths of the ocean
> c) from space
>
> but I guess answers are what sequels are for huh?
> ---------------------------------

I'd say from the ocean since Lady Liberty bought it first, but it wouldn't be breathing air if that was the case.
underdog
post #46  on February 20, 2008 - 10:00 AM PST  
I buy the "Army experiment gone wrong" theory, though now I want to see it again just to pay closer attention. From your notions above it does start to sound a bit like an American "The Host" doesn't it? (Obviously, very obviously, both films owe a huge debt to Godzilla, too.)
jross3
post #47  on February 20, 2008 - 11:28 AM PST  
> On February 20, 2008 - 10:00 AM PST underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I buy the "Army experiment gone wrong" theory, though now I want to see it again just to pay closer attention. From your notions above it does start to sound a bit like an American "The Host" doesn't it? (Obviously, very obviously, both films owe a huge debt to Godzilla, too.)
> ---------------------------------

I read (on a site referenced from Wiki) that the creator's early-development idea was for it to be similar to some kind of mutated blue whale - but obviously that idea has been heavily modified by the time it reached theaters. But apparently whales also have mites, so the little critters play a similar role.

But as stated above, if it's an oceanic creature, why does it breathe air? If it breathes air, why has it never come ashore before? it has no fins. It can't just swim up to air if it needs it, right? so... does it live on Monster Island? I hear it's not nice this time of year (or any other...)
hamano
post #48  on February 20, 2008 - 2:38 PM PST  
> On February 20, 2008 - 11:28 AM PST jross3 wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> But apparently whales also have mites, so the little critters play a similar role.

Whales have all sorts of little critters living on them. The crabby things are obviously based on the whale louse. But they're vegetarian and rather peaceful. They only grow to about an inch at the most.

> But as stated above, if it's an oceanic creature, why does it breathe air? If it breathes air, why has it never come ashore before?

Maybe it breathes through its skin like a frog. Also it had those puffy red balloon "gills" on both sides of the head that seemed to inflate/deflate at regular intervals (before it gobbled Hud). One shot of it rampaging through the city, I thought its whiplike tail was fringed with a fin membrane like a tadpole's (or a Poliwag's, for you Pokemon fans). So I think he has amphibian DNA... like a big salamander with some bat-like features.
NLee
post #49  on February 21, 2008 - 12:19 PM PST  
You guys are so easily impressed. Somebody made "Godzilla 2008" and renamed it to "Coverfield", and then everyone goes Goo-Goo-Gaa-Gaa. What's next? Remake "War of the Worlds" and call it "Horsell Common"?
EmpressStephanie
post #50  on February 21, 2008 - 3:34 PM PST  
One site I read said that the monster encountered a chemical that was accidentally dumped into the ocean (a la the Host) and grew to that size so the little spider-ma-bobs were actually little tiny parasites on its body that grew when it grew.
EmpressStephanie
post #51  on February 21, 2008 - 3:36 PM PST  
> On February 19, 2008 - 9:50 PM PST Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On February 19, 2008 - 6:59 PM PST underdog wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > But don't forget it was also sending out those frightening little alien spawn too, right? Our protagonists had to fight them off in the hallway of the tilting apartment building. Those seemed to have no real purpose other than to scare and kill, but maybe they, too, were confused and lost. Didn't the mother monster start destroying things before it started getting attacked by human weapons? It seemed pretty destructively evil to me, but maybe I should go back and see it again.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> I stumbled on something online before I went to see the movie and supposedly the subway monsters were mites that were falling off the monster. And they actually did look like mites, on a huge scale. It could explain the whole blood thing to a certain degree...if you got a lot of anticoagulant pumped into you...*ponders*
> ---------------------------------

Oops someone already said what I said.

d'oh.
underdog
post #52  on February 21, 2008 - 4:49 PM PST  
> On February 21, 2008 - 12:19 PM PST NLee wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> You guys are so easily impressed. Somebody made "Godzilla 2008" and renamed it to "Coverfield", and then everyone goes Goo-Goo-Gaa-Gaa. What's next? Remake "War of the Worlds" and call it "Horsell Common"?
>
> ---------------------------------

Well, it's not like they hid their Godzilla origins or anything. They just updated the tale - so did The Host for that matter - and made it something scarier and more immediate by shifting the POV to first person. So while it owes a debt to Godzilla, clearly, it's not like it's Gus Van Sant's scene for scene remake of Psycho either. Just as Godzilla was spawned by post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki Japan, this one obviously has some post-9/11 residue. At any rate, it sure beats the actual Godzilla remake!
hamano
post #53  on February 21, 2008 - 7:46 PM PST  
Aw, I wish someone WOULD make a Godzilla remake this good. As a Godzilla fan of long standing I enjoyed Cloverfield MUCH more than any of the recent Godzilla updates, including the sNOTzilla in NY movie. What this film has in common with the original Godzilla is that the monster has minimal "personality"... they couldn't resist giving subsequent Godzillas various amounts of "personality" which just made them less scary to ridiculous. The same goes for all the various dinosaurs that Steven Spielberg had anything to do with, King Kong, and sNOTzilla.
underdog
post #54  on April 22, 2008 - 2:21 PM PDT  
So now that Cloverfield is out on DVD, my question is, does it work as well on the smaller screen? For those who hadn't seen it before, did you like it? For those who saw it in theaters and watched it again on DVD, did it still work? (Or does it work better?)

Seems like it'd be less motion-sickness inducing, at least...
hamano
post #55  on April 22, 2008 - 2:38 PM PDT  
> On April 22, 2008 - 2:21 PM PDT underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Seems like it'd be less motion-sickness inducing, at least...
> ---------------------------------

Get a pair of these and one of these.
Vanamonde
post #56  on April 23, 2008 - 2:25 PM PDT  
> On April 22, 2008 - 2:21 PM PDT underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> For those who saw it in theaters and watched it again on DVD, did it still work? (Or does it work better?)
> ---------------------------------

Life is too short and there is so much more to rent. I saw it at the theater and really don't have the will to see it again.

I would rather rent "The Omega Man (1971)" with the late, great Charlton Heston. Definitely recommended if you have never saw - unless you hate Heston.

"Cloverfield" wasn't bad. It just wasn't that good (to me).
Vanamonde
post #57  on April 23, 2008 - 2:31 PM PDT  
> On April 22, 2008 - 2:38 PM PDT hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
Get a pair of these.
> ---------------------------------

Some VR Glasses right? Where do I find infomation on this model?

And, yes, I have heard they cause problems unless you hold your head perfectly still.

SirenTiger
post #58  on April 23, 2008 - 5:34 PM PDT  
shrdlu etaoin


> On April 23, 2008 - 2:31 PM PDT Vanamonde wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On April 22, 2008 - 2:38 PM PDT hamano wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> Get a pair of these.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> Some VR Glasses right? Where do I find infomation on this model?
>

Ah. I thought they were an S & M mouth gag.


> And, yes, I have heard they cause problems unless you hold your head perfectly still.
>

Ditto S & M mouth gags.
Vanamonde
post #59  on April 25, 2008 - 3:21 AM PDT  
HA! HA! HA!

SirenTiger, I like your handle and I like you! Welcome to the fray!
shiftless
post #60  on May 5, 2008 - 11:38 AM PDT  
OK, I just saw this over the weekend. Way over-hyped. I knew nothing about the film going into it (yep, avoided all discussion of it) other than it was a monster movie.

I hated the hand-held camera work although I was able to accept it once I realized it wasn't going to go away. However the constraints of that choice made for some pretty bad and unnatural dialog, just so they could get some information out to the audience. And they *really* tested my suspension of disbelief by having the characters continue to film through the whole movie. Real people would have ditched the camera about halfway through the movie and it became really silly and distracting.

I don't think it was a terrible movie but it's not what I want to see when I go see a monster movie. I like cinema that has beautiful and impressive filming, and I don't want to feel like I am watching YouTube. And characters should do things based on what's happening, not what furthers the plot or unrealistically justifies ridiculous conceits.

I think it would have been a better movie with regular camera work and no-camcorder or just a little camcorder at the beginning for the romantic flashbacks.
page  1  2  3  4      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.