Who's going to see Cloverfield? (warning - spoilers)

Killbert-Robby · Post by **Killbert-Robby** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:34 pm

Jim North wrote:So I did in fact put Cloverfield together at work today.

Turns out, the "humans" are actually tiny aliens who's culture just happens to strongly resemble ours, and the "monster" is really a US astronaut who doesn't realize he's causing massive damage as he's walking around the alien landscape.

Then, after the credits, it's revealed that this isn't true and the monster is really a mutant goat from the Earth's core.

DAMMIT

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:55 pm

I may go see it. I do really want to see it, but I won't get the opportunity immediately so I'll probably listen to what people say about it and then decide if it's $9 worthy, or worth just waiting for the DVD.

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:24 pm

So far it's gotten a 71% approval rating over on Rotten Tomatoes. That's not bad. Not great, but not bad.

Jackhass · Post by **Jackhass** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:35 pm

Probably not...

...it looks like it would make me sick. That's no a comment on it's quality but on the fact that these damn shaky-cam movies give me motion sickness.

Ekolter · Post by **Ekolter** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:45 pm

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch gave it a 'C-'.

Ryan can go see it solo. I can't, I will be hurling within the first minute of that shaky camera shit.

Robbie · Post by **Robbie** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:05 pm

It's going to turn out that the monster is the mortgage crisis!!!

I'm sorry.

I'm really sorry.....

ShineDog · Post by **ShineDog** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:23 am

71% fresh is pretty damn solid for a movie of this nature, considering how many critics treat this sort of thing..

Im pretty pumped about this, but its not out till the 1st here.

Dr Neo Lao · Post by **Dr Neo Lao** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:43 am

Holy Snap! This means that Australia actually has a movie before some other country!?!?! I thought we always got everything last...

My world is falling apart!

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:02 am

ShineDog wrote:

Im pretty pumped about this, but its not out till the 1st here.

Which means someone will spoil it for you before you get to see it.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:08 am

Dr Neo Lao wrote:Holy Snap! This means that Australia actually has a movie before some other country!?!?! I thought we always got everything last...

My world is falling apart!

Not LONG before any other country.

Yeahduff · Post by **Yeahduff** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:31 am

Killbert-Robby wrote:
Jim North wrote:So I did in fact put Cloverfield together at work today.

Turns out, the "humans" are actually tiny aliens who's culture just happens to strongly resemble ours, and the "monster" is really a US astronaut who doesn't realize he's causing massive damage as he's walking around the alien landscape.

Then, after the credits, it's revealed that this isn't true and the monster is really a mutant goat from the Earth's core.
DAMMIT

He's messing with you. That's actually a spoiler for 27 Dresses.

Noise Monkey · Post by **Noise Monkey** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:47 am

...I can live with that.

BrownEyedCat · Post by **BrownEyedCat** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:22 pm

MixedMyth wrote:They actually addressed this in some of the commentary I saw on The Third Man, since it did something similar albeit not with monsters. If you have a huge buildup and ultimate reveal of a character, you had better damn well deliver to the audience or it'll ruin the whole movie for them. It's a very difficult thing to do. Much easier route would be a steady reveal, where you can demonstrate why this monster's form is so scary (think the xenomorphs from the Alien movies).

The Third Man's reveal is classic.

That's the true test of any reveal - if the audience has the entire plot figured out ten minutes into the movie, and the reveal happens thirty minutes into the movie, and it's still awesome, you've done it right.

The zither music made it.

Dr Legostar · Post by **Dr Legostar** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:40 am

BrownEyedCat wrote:
MixedMyth wrote:They actually addressed this in some of the commentary I saw on The Third Man, since it did something similar albeit not with monsters. If you have a huge buildup and ultimate reveal of a character, you had better damn well deliver to the audience or it'll ruin the whole movie for them. It's a very difficult thing to do. Much easier route would be a steady reveal, where you can demonstrate why this monster's form is so scary (think the xenomorphs from the Alien movies).
The Third Man's reveal is classic.

That's the true test of any reveal - if the audience has the entire plot figured out ten minutes into the movie, and the reveal happens thirty minutes into the movie, and it's still awesome, you've done it right.

The zither music made it.

Sixth Sense did it well.

TheSuburbanLetdown · Post by **TheSuburbanLetdown** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:16 am

The Sixth Sense was amazing. Too bad none of his other stuff can reach that level. He fell into the weird twist trap.

Levi-chan · Post by **Levi-chan** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:22 am

Just saw it. Fucking awesome.

The shaky cam wasn't actually that bad. Say, a little worse than Saving Private Ryan's, but definitely not as fucked up as Bourne's.

The movie is so amazingly tense, I had to tell myself again and again that it was just a movie. A lot of my friends who I watched the movie with echoed the same sentiment.

The only problems I can find is the occasional bad acting, and the shortness of the whole fucking thing.

Definitely watch it.

9/10.

Levi-chan · Post by **Levi-chan** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:56 am

As an addendum, I just want to say the the Star Trek teaser attached to the whole package is MOTHERFUCKING SWEETNESS.

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:12 pm

Oh, yah, just remembered I wanted to look and see just what that was going to be all about . . . the original and the next gen crews have both stated that they're not going to be making any more Trek movies, but the trailer showed the Enterprise, so I was hoping that it wasn't going to be what I thought it might be . . . and now that I've looked it up, it is, and I'm horribly disappointed.

We'll just have to see if they can make up for that disappointment by actually doing it well. No, more than well, it had better be one of the bossest things ever created or no respect for them.

K-Dawg · Post by **K-Dawg** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:27 pm

Saw it last night, I liked it.

For those wondering the shaky cam is REALLY BAD in the beginning. I'm a person who doesn't get phased by those but it really made me feel a bit blah, but once the story kicks in the shaky cam gets much better.

Jessi_B · Post by **Jessi_B** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:33 pm

Just got back from it - I loved it. It's so refreshing to see an AMAZING horror movie instead of badly made "torture porn" movies (like "Saw IV"). The shaky cameras got me a little nauseous, but it's the first horror movie in a while that actually surprised and startled me.

Levi-chan wrote:As an addendum, I just want to say the the Star Trek teaser attached to the whole package is MOTHERFUCKING SWEETNESS.

OH HELLS YEAH. I was looking forward to that movie before, but now I'm confident that it will be incredible.