HORROR MOVIES 101

Re:Cloverfield: We are sooo into spoilers by now

divinemsjunebug — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 07:00:12 GMT

I am definately going to buy this movie when it comes out on DVD. I really liked the fact that being in the audience you were actually apart of the group running and you were in the dark as to what was going on just like everyone else. The more I think about Marlena's exploding part, I am also wondering if they didn't shoot her, I wonder if people got bit they turned into the little bug creatures...hmmmmm. Very interesting. I did think the monster was pretty great looking. It looked like a cross between a bat and a bit of a lizard face. Another one of my friends went to see it and I told her to just watch the water at the end of the movie and tell me if she sees anything interesting...she said she watched it and didn't see a thing, she also didn't care for it. You know, it really seems that I like a lot of movies that other people don't like...I wonder why that is...sigh. Oh well. I thought it was very cool and I think the fact that I didn't have any FACTS is what made it really scary and great.

Re:Cloverfield: We are sooo into spoilers by now

usesoap — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:20:01 GMT

I want to watch it again, too, for I have a feeling that the jittery camera will work much better on the small screen, and will not be so overpowering as it was. It was interesting to note what a steep decline it took in its second week (67%), and that it was bested at the box office by (*sigh*) that cinematic cancer known as Meet the Spartans.

The one scene with Marlena (or Miranda!) is something I would like to watch in still-frame. I am not sure if it exploded of if she was killed by the military before something really bad was going to go down.

I suppose I will have to wait for the supposed magna comic that is rumored to be released.

Re:Cloverfield: No Spoilers(yet)

divinemsjunebug — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:25:40 GMT

Don't read my post if you haven't seen it yet, I don't want to spoil anything for you.

Thanks for those links (SPOILER ALERT) no I didn't see the splash on the last part of the tape when they were at Coney Island. I would like to see it again. I have to say that movie was pretty awesome!! It was so friggin real that I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. I liked that home-made feeling, although I did have to close my eyes several times because my stomach was lurching from the movement. I thought the monster was very cool and the little monsters. It was really cool when (was her name Miranda, god I've already forgotten) had been bitten and then they took her to the back tent where she exploded. I also got goosebumps toward the beginning when the statue of Liberty's head comes flying with claw marks on her face. That was really cool.

I am definately going to buy this movie when it comes out on DVD.

Re:Cloverfield: A Brief Tangent

divinemsjunebug — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:23:59 GMT

Hey thanks for posting that! Wow, that brought back a LOT of memories. I remember it was about 1971 or so when I was about 6 years old, my neighborhood friends and I tried to build our own giant Robot out of bricks, wire and sticks. We were so upset that it didn't come to life...hee hee. That was so funny, I had forgotten that he kind of had an Egyptian looking head. All of those old Japanese shows were so much fun to watch.

Well, my friend just called and she wants to go so Cloverfield, I am actually going to take some Dramamine and see how I do. I'll let you know what I think!

Re:Cloverfield: A Brief Tangent

usesoap — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:22:24 GMT

*L* I always ask people if they've seen Johnny Sokko and His Flying Robot, to no avail as well. Where I lived, the local UHF station showed it with Ultra-Man, and while Ultra's name endured, Sokko was designated to the dustbin.

I found this YouTube clip of him a whie back to make sure I was not crazy.

I also remember watching a "Creature Double Feature" every weekend with some lame host, but it always ensured that there was some sort of Japanese terror waiting, like Attack of the Mushroom People.

Re:Cloverfield: A Brief Tangent

divinemsjunebug — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:33:21 GMT

I thought, from the trailers, that it was pretty clear that it was filmed to look like a home-made documentary. I think this style makes things more scary because it seems more real. I haven't seen the movie yet but I have always loved the big monster movies. I've seen all the old Godzilla movies and when I hear Godzilla's Roar or screech or scream (whatever you call it), it, I feel a lot of nostalgia. I also remember watching Giant Robot, my first crush was Johnny Sako when I was about 5 or so (has anyone else seen it? I have never met another person who has watched that) ANYWAY, I think I am going to have to wait until it comes out on DVD to watch it though because I know I would get sick. I just about threw up at the IMAX theater with some friends the other day about the Mt. St. Helen's Disaster, so anyway, it looks like I will be waiting for a while to see it.

Re:Cloverfield: A Brief Tangent

FroggyBaBe15876 — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:17:51 GMT

I saw Cloverfield the other day and was quite impressed with it. I liked the cam-corder style filming for once in my life, though it (or the popcorn, I'm not sure) made me a little nauseous and I almost had to leave the theater for fear of up-chucking. The acting far surpassed that of Blair Witch (although that's not really saying much) and it was damn funny in places, too. But the ending, in the words of one of the characters, was "...a terrible thing." I didn't stay after the credits because of my upset stomach but I will have to check out those other links that one guy put in.

All in all, it's worth a good watch.

Re:Cloverfield: A Brief Tangent

TheWorkingDead — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:32:02 GMT

Dr_Gor:
I thought the American 'Godzilla' remake was a very good monster movie, if only they had called it something else. This creature bore NO resemblance to Godzilla other than he was a giant lizard-like monster! < GOR >

Ever see Godzilla GMK(Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidora)? It's basically a reboot of the Godzilla series, which they do every decade or so. Anyway, in this version Godzilla has apparently been absent since the first encounter in the 50s, and at a military briefing one of the soldiers mentions that he thought Godzilla had been sighted in America. He's told that the Americans were sorely mistaken, they don't know what that was, but it wasn't Godzilla.

Pretty cool.

Re:Cloverfield: Starting to get into Spoiler Territory

Dr_Gor — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:43:09 GMT

I have heard nothing but good things about this movie and I can't wait to see it. I have never met a 'giant-monster movie' that I didn't like! Not one! I was a little dissapointed both of the 'King Kong' remakes because they just weren't as good as the original! It's True! But actually, they are BOTH very good movies and I enjoyed them a lot! I thought the American 'Godzilla' remake was a very good monster movie, if only they had called it something else. This creature bore NO resemblance to Godzilla other than he was a giant lizard-like monster! I am kinda expecting the 'Cloverfield' monster to resemble the american version of Godzilla... I am probably wrong so PLEASE don't tell me! That is the only bit of mystery left to me about this movie! (Curse you, FANGORIA!) I have already read the basic plot outline and several scenes in detail and listened to and read all the reviews, so really the only mystery left to me is what the monster looks like and the ending. Can't wait, though! As for the 'Blair-Witch' style of filmaking, I can think of only one other movie to use that technique, to great effect I might add, and that is Ruggero Deodato's notorious 'Cannibal Holocaust' ! I enjoyed 'Blair Witch' a great deal as well, but I was a little dissapointed in the ending... Judgeing from these two movies, I would say that the 'first-person-shakey-handheld-camcorder' method of film-making can be quite effective! (Not to mention inexpensive!) ... anyhow, I can't wait!

< GOR >

Re:Cloverfield: No Spoilers(yet)

Risselada — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:49:49 GMT

TheWorkingDead:
I think the problem is of expectations; even though the ads were very clearly all handheld, home-video style footage, people were expecting a more standard monster movie, instead of a Blair Witch-style film(although this film, to me, is 100% more effective than the Blair Witch). So yes, warning, the film is all from one perspective, one videotape that is property of the government and evidence of the events that happened. And yes, there is a big, big monster.

I had no idea this was the style. I loved Blair Witch, and this makes me want to see Cloverfield even more!

Re:Cloverfield: Starting to get into Spoiler Territory

TheWorkingDead — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:44:54 GMT

Well, that review veered a bit towards spoiler territory there, particularly towards the end, but I'll concede most of the points you brought up, even if it doesn't change my opinion of the film.

I didn't min the love story in this film, mainly because, beyond providing the impetus for the entire 'story', it wasn't overdone. Mainly it was there as a reason for the group to not just get the hell out of Dodge. The glimpses to what was on the tape before Hud taped over it are not only character developing, but help us understand why this guy would risk almost certain death for a woman who hurt him so badly at his going away party. And yes, it provides another clue as to where the monster came from.

For my part, I really enjoy the restrained, mysterious aspects of the story. I liked how the characters weaved in and out of the main action. This is probably what upset so many people; they wanted a movie that focused on the monster, and instead got a movie that focused on one group of people trying to survive as the monster invaded. New York(and the monster) is huge, and these people are tiny, it makes no sense that the beast would be a constant threat(a la Jason Voorhees) for the entire running time.

In the end, the appeal of a monster movie is the thrills, not the chills. Godzilla, The Host, all of those giant monster movie build off of spectacle more than actual creeping terror, and this movie succeeds in that department. Usually that might be a complaint, but this movie has much more depth to it than, say ID4

Re:Cloverfield: No Spoilers(yet)

usesoap — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:54:45 GMT

I think I've been pretty cautious in my review I submitted for our local newspaper, so here are my thoughts and I do not think I gave much away:

For its many faults, “Cloverfield” must be given the highest of praise for this – it knows its target audience extremely well.

It began with a juicy-but-coy teaser trailer with this summer’s mega-blockbuster “Transformers.” It revealed no title, no recognizable stars (only producer J.J. Abrams name was credited) and no idea as to what it was really about.

The only tell-tale image was that of the head of the Statue of Liberty rolling like a bowling ball down a dark New York City Street while masses flee in panic.

In the following months, the internet was ablaze with speculation, conjecture, frame-by-frame analysis of the trailer, and complete dissection of the fractured bits of dialogue heard within. Then, various vague links began sprouting up that gave on tangential clues (Slusho, anyone?) as to what “Cloverfield” promised.

It was the same lightening-in-a-bottle momentum gathered by a little independent film called “The Blair Witch Project” was able to capture a decade ago.

So strictly does it adhere to its conviction of presenting us with a “first-person” account of a giant monster invasion, though, that it begins to work to “Cloverfield’s” disadvantage.

For even as a I sit a day following my screening of the film, I am at a loss for garnering that same pre-release rush that the film’s marketing department so masterfully executed.

A disclaimer: For anyone who has the slightest feeling of motion sickness, you have two options: 1) stop reading the review now, for there is no way in hell you should watch this film beyond the opening credits, or 2) read away and make sure to stock up on the Dramamine before purchase of your ticket.

For “Cloverfield” is a small-scale perspective of a monster with rather large scales. In other words, it re-imagines the old city-leveling creature features of yore for the “You Tube” generation.

It’s a rather nervy conceit. Where films from the the era of “Gojira” (known more popularly as “Godzilla”) were able to bolster suspense with creative editing, a swelling soundtrack and a more omnipotent perspective, “Cloverfield” is cramped behind the lens of a 20-something party boy who didn’t even want to take pictures in the first place and tells us the tale of destruction entirely from.

The “footage” that is “Cloverfield” is a government document, a recording found in the wake of the monster attack and also provides (for better or worse) the film its narrative structure. While throwing a going-away fiesta for Rob (Michael Stahl-David), a group of pretty, empty yuppies decide to document the occasion with a farewell video. Rob’s dopey best bud, Hud (played by T.J. Miller) is reluctantly designated the cameraman. It is to our benefit that Hud is at least blessed with a Seth Rogan-like stoner wit, for he serves as our accidental narrator for the majority of the film.

He also comes in handy during some of the film’s unnecessary attempts to add human drama amidst the chaos. Rob’s girlfriend is trapped is a nearby building and Rob somehow convinces a cadre of idiots to duck and weave through the wreckage in an attempt to save her.

It is within those moments that almost brings the borough-busting beastie to a halt. The film’s shaky-cam perspective is made bearable in those moments where we get those fleeting, first-person glimpses at the encroaching terror. It plays out like sort of reality TV special that would immediately suck you in (“’America’s Craziest, Savage Monster Attacks’ will be right back after these messages!”). But for the sake of attempting a more traditional approach to storytelling, writer Drew Goddard felt obligated to saddle it with a love story as well.

Just as “Blair Witch” did years ago, I suspect “Cloverfield” may pick up momentum with its detractors, who view it as all build-up and a failed follow-through.

But while “Cloverfield’s most audacious gambit is its Achilles’s heel, it still does not diminish the countless jolts, nifty special effects and innovative approach to a tired genre that seemed destined to live the rest of its life on the Sci-Fi Channel.

It may become a cultural relic like “Witch,” known more for its marketing campaign than its content, but it deserves more credit for its visceral savvy than the majority of bloated, neutered thrillers greenlit by major studios, for its successful attempt to make city-stomping monsters matter to a new generation.

P.S. If you can't stay past the final credits and what to know what was said in the scratchy message, here you go...

P.P.S. Wanna know what spalshed in the water in the final frames? Try here and there are a few pics taken illegally at screenings, so I'm not going to help you there. But if I can find them...

Cloverfield: No Spoilers(yet)

TheWorkingDead — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:48:14 GMT

So, judging from reactions I've seen elsewhere, this has the potential to become a pretty hot topic. Cloverfield: What did you think? I'm going to avoid spoilers here, so anyone still interested in seeing it can safely read my opinion without having anything ruined for them(that may not be the case in later posts, but I'll mark my topic with the word Spoilers if I go into detail).

I loved it. Absolutely loved it. I was in an opening night audience, and everyone in the theatre was really getting into it. People laughed at a few bits, there was quite a bit of screaming, a couple people shouted 'Holy sh!t!' and generally the audience responded positively to the film. Then the credits rolled and most of the people around me loudly claimed Cloverfield was the worst movie they'd ever seen.

I think the problem is of expectations; even though the ads were very clearly all handheld, home-video style footage, people were expecting a more standard monster movie, instead of a Blair Witch-style film(although this film, to me, is 100% more effective than the Blair Witch). So yes, warning, the film is all from one perspective, one videotape that is property of the government and evidence of the events that happened. And yes, there is a big, big monster.

I love monster films, big destructive monster films. This isn't Godzilla, it's closer to The Host, but it of course owes a debt to Godzilla that anyone who's seen the trailer will recognize. I won't say any more until the thread gets going, but what did you guys think? Has anyone spent any time tracking down the hidden website? Anyone interested should google Tagruato.