Cloverfield

[Gav]

So i just got back from Cloverfield, a film which i've been looking forward to since the Transformers movie was released. As you'll know there's a lot of hype surrounding the film, and to be honest i wasn't disappointed with the end result. It's a great monster movie. I'd recommend it. Anyone else seen it?

[Andy Turnbull]

Not yet. Going to see it next week.

Andy

[Gav]

Spoiler: The monster is big.

[Andy Turnbull]

Heh! Dammit just once I'd like a midget monster to terrorise New York.

Andy

[The Doctor]

What the hell is this film about? All I know is the name of the film and whenever I have the radio on there are ads which say nowt other than the bloody name of the film! It's pissing me off.

-Ralph

[Andy Turnbull]

Giant monster attacking New York.

Andy

[Gav]

Basically, it's about a huge monster attacking Manhattan. It's all shot through a camcorder so you see it from the perspective of the average joe on he street. Some really clever pieces throughout.

[The Doctor]

Hmmm. Sounds a bit Blair Witch Project.

-Ralph

[Gav]

The only similarity is the perspective, it basically pisses all over the Blair Witch Project - which i enjoyed also.

[legios]

I've got to say that so far I haven't been particularly interested in going to see this. A lot of the hype has talked about it as a "Giant monster movie that is about the impact of the Giant Monster on regular people rather than about the monster."

Which in honesty isn't the kind of talk that draws me to a Giant Monster movie. As can be seen from my DVD collection I have a tendency to like my giant monsters to be upfront, centre-stage...

That and the fact that I hear most of it is done in "shake-o-vision", which is likely to make me lose interest very swiftly.

Karl

[Gav]

Everyone made a big deal about the 'shake o vision' but it's not really that distracting. I like the change of pace, keeping the audience in the dark as much as the characters themselves. Plus the monster scenes are incredible.

Karl, see it....see it with your eyes!

[legios]

gav said:

Everyone made a big deal about the 'shake o vision' but it's not really that distracting. I like the change of pace, keeping the audience in the dark as much as the characters themselves. Plus the monster scenes are incredible.

Karl, see it....see it with your eyes!

It might be necessary... they won't let me use UAV's to monitor giant monsters anymore. Apparently they cost too many millions of yen each for them to keep being blown up every time.......

But seriously, I have been thinking about seeing Cloverfield but haven't come to any decisions yet. (Funnily enough though, the thing that seems to have acted as a draw for some folk - J.J. Abrams involvement - is tending to have the opposite effect on me).

Karl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I think you'll have to see it, Karl, if only to maintain your credibility as someone with informed views on what's good and bad in the giant monster movie genre.

I saw it this morning. It's a damn good film. I may not watch it again, since most of its plus points are tied to not knowing what's going to happen. But I would say it must be seen at least once.

It's one of those films that has me leave the cinema, looking around at the city and wondering where I've been for the last hour and a half, and if everything is still normal.

To go off a bit at a tangent, the trailers:

Star Trek teaser - fell completely flat.
Iron Man - can't see it bringing anything to the cinema that I haven't seen before, but I'll probably watch it when it comes out, just to pass the time.
National Treasure - I think I'll enjoy this, though I missed the first one. Was it decent enough?
Jumper - one I'll definitely see as soon as it comes out. Great concept.

Martin

[legios]

martinm said:

I think you'll have to see it, Karl, if only to maintain your credibility as someone with informed views on what's good and bad in the giant monster movie genre.

Fair point there Martin. Need to log the hours of the knowledge starts to go out of date.

I'm am still thinking about going to see it. However, I also quite fancy seeing "No Country for Old Men", mostly because it is done by some of the folk who did "Fargo", and I'm not sure how much time I am going to have to get to the cinema in the coming few weeks.

Have to see what pans out. I am considering it though - after all, it can't be any worse than the last US giant monster movie I saw, and it would have to be very bad indeed to be as bad.

Jumper - one I'll definitely see as soon as it comes out. Great concept.

I saw a bus advert for that on my way back from work this week. It started me laughing at "Jason Bourne meets the Matrix, then there was the tag-line. "Anywhere, Any time, Instantly" which did amuse me (sounded like an advert for FedEx or something. Then the title "Jumper" in big metallic letters. The first thing that popped into my head was - and coming soon the sequels "Cardigan" and "Woolly Pulley".

Karl

[The Doctor]

Jumper? What's that?

-Ralph

[kayevcee]

Something about an unfeasibly attractive bloke with wire-fu powers who can teleport amid incomprehensible camera cuts dragging an unfeasibly attractive woman along with him, as far as I can tell from the trailer. Maybe it's not a good trailer.

-Nick

[legios]

I was going to answer "I haven't got a clue, despite seeing the trailer" but Nick has clearly seen the same trailer that I have, and retained more of it so it would seem.

Karl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

The premise behind Jumper is that throughout history there have been certain people who posess the power to teleport, generally using their powers (as one would) to escape from enemies and one's problems in general, and nick stuff, but also in some cases manipulate the course of history. And there is an order of Jumper-hunters (led by Samuel L Jackson) who have throughout history hunted down and killed Jumpers who they consider a danger to the humanity. It sounds rather X-Men-ish, though without any organisation on the side of the Mutants, and with an organised and competent organisation of Mutant-hunters.

Could be good, could be bad, but it's enough for me to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Martin

[jameso]

Cloverfield - brilliant.

[Mark_Stevenson]

jameso said:

Cloverfield - brilliant.

I concur.

[Bogatan]

I to concur. Did anyone else stay till the very end. It left me a little baffled but I wont say more for those who have yet to see the film.

Andy

[Dark Stranger]

You mean until after the credits? Might go see this tonight.

[Bogatan]

Yeah right at the very very end of the credits. Its hard to understand but I thought I got the gist of it and looking online its seems I was pretty close although theres a few different meanings to it. How someone worked out the second meaning, well some people have waaaay to much time on their hands.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I didn't stay to the end. Can you please start a separate spoiler thread and explain? We can use it to discuss the film in general.

Martin

[Bogatan]

OK, if you sit through an incredibly long end credits (well not LOTR longs but still) at he very end there is some static in which you hear someone say "help us" so the straight forward ending is that Kris and or Becky? are still alive. Which makes sense as the camera was found in a somewhat whole condition to remove the SD card.

But, this is the bit were I think who works that out, played backwards the message becomes "its still alive"

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

bogatan said:

OK, if you sit through an incredibly long end credits (well not LOTR longs but still) at he very end there is some static in which you hear someone say "help us" so the straight forward ending is that Kris and or Becky? are still alive. Which makes sense as the camera was found in a somewhat whole condition to remove the SD card.

But, this is the bit were I think who works that out, played backwards the message becomes "its still alive"

Hmmm. Well, since I like happy endings I'll choose to take the 'us' as proof that they both lived. But all in all, I can't say I wished I'd waited through the credits for just that.

As for the "it's still alive" thing, I bet someone just made it up knowing it would be hard to disprove. It's no big deal anyway, since we were never told it died in the first place.

Thanks for that anyway, Andy.

Martin

[jameso]

Andy's probably come across this in his internet trawling too, but apparently at the end of the film where you have those last few seconds of the earlier happy footage of the boy and girl on their date, you can see a tiny object falling into the ocean in the top hand corner of the screen which is apparently a satellite crashing to earth, and then when the company who owns the satellite investigate they free the monster, which has been there for thousands of years.

[kayevcee]

A satellite crashed directly on top of an ancient slumbering behemoth? What are the odds?

-Nick

[jameso]

Well, it's not the satellite that wakes up the monster, it's someone else pissing about a few weeks later. But yeah, it must have landed pretty close.

[Bogatan]

The version I read was a little different something about chemicals. Theres a crazy website slusho. something that is apparently the company who the guy was going to work for. I think the satellite was theres as well. In the history section on the site it talks about the sons founder discovering a new fantastic taste in the deep sea. And (metaphorical) stuff about it turning a a little fish into a big fish. You can also make your own superhero drink flavour which look a little like transforming plastic cups.

And I agree with Martin I prefer a happy ending to this sort of film. So Im happy taking the message at face value.

Andy