Cloverfield review

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:39 pm

Kevin, first, understand this is pure speculation and I am talking out my ass even more than Frank does when discussing Chomsky (Love ya Franky):

The last scene of Rob and Beth on their day together, where they show a small splash in the waters off Coney Island was placed in the film for a reason. Could be a deliberate red herring, but it does imply an extraterrestrial origin. Now, could something made a barely visible splash transform into a humongous monster that levels NYC? Seems doubtful, especially when combined with Abrams saying that the creature is a baby and one that had lived under the waves for thousands of years.

My best bet is that the small splash was a part of the creature (or its mom) surfacing to take a quick look around before submerging. The alien origin is a bit of a cliche and I have a suspicion that Abrams will try to stay away from it.

Not sure the creature met its match in Central Park. It was not affected by conventional munitions and it is unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used within one of the most heavily populated areas in the US. Also, you never see the death of the creature, nor it even really hurt, and there is the small matter of the recording at the end of the credits saying "It is still alive".

To summarize, my guess is that it is a terrestrial deep sea monster that was not destroyed in Central Park. One can only hope that more information will be made available in the subsequent films, although if they have Jackie Mason star in the sequel, I will boycott (anyone who saw Cadddyshack 2, the worst sequel of all time will understand why)
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
swp
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby swp » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:18 pm

markabaddon wrote:To summarize, my guess is that it is a terrestrial deep sea monster that was not destroyed in Central Park. One can only hope that more information will be made available in the subsequent films, although if they have Jackie Mason star in the sequel, I will boycott (anyone who saw Cadddyshack 2, the worst sequel of all time will understand why)

I agree with your theory, but disagree with your pick for worst sequel of all time. The worst is clearly Escape From LA, which should never even be mentioned let along viewed. I have heard it refered to as "the movie whose name we fear to speak."

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:51 am

I have not seen Escape from LA, but read some script treatments of it. It sounds like they were playing some scenes up for camp and were not meant to be taken seriously. Again, I have not seen it, but that is what it read like to me.

Caddyshack 2, on the other hand, took one of the most iconic and most quoted movies of my youth, killed it, buried it, pissed on its grave and then went out and fucked its mother. Can you tell I have some animosity towards the filmmakers for desecrating the original?
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:21 am

Oh, come on, Mark . . . why don't you tell us what you really think?
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:35 am

I am sorry David, forgive me for being obtuse. The film was directed by some one whose intellect was on par with that of a slime mold. One of the few films I have seen that I have actively, viscerally, hated
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:19 pm

I'm enjoying the discussion, even though I've never even seen Caddyshack, the original, let alone Number 2.

(I just blew by page 700 of Gravity's Rainbow this morning -- on the home stretch! Truly, it was labot to get through this; I think I understood less than a third of it. Not that it's a difficult book to read, sentence by sentence . . . you just don't know, much of the time, why you're reading this or that, or how it connects to the rest.)
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:16 pm

I would wholeheartedly recommend the original Caddyshack, which is still a classic film.

In an effort to prevent thread drift for becoming too prevalent, Kevin, I neglected to ask earlier, why did you believe the creature was killed in Central Park?
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

rich

Postby rich » Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:12 pm

David Loftus wrote:...even though I've never even seen Caddyshack, the original...


Now that's just wrong.

Mark,
At the beginning of the film, there's a title that says the video was found in the "area formerly known as Central Park".

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:30 pm

Richard, I am aware that they say that.

My question should have been more explicitly stated as why would you think the monster was destroyed in Central Park when it was not able to be harmed by any weapons used against it?
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
kevinkirby
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island
Contact:

The Indestructable Ichthyoslothagus

Postby kevinkirby » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:27 pm

What the film showed was an initial carpet-bombing attempt from high altitude. Some smallish conventional ordinance hit the creatures back, causing it to flail a tentacle/hand down the length of a highrise. It seems likely that the Air Force wouldn't simply give up at that point. And, I remind you, there are non-nuclear devices which could leave of Central Park a series of extremely deep craters.

Of course, we really don't know if its hide can withstand the worst, or if the thing escaped, or even if there aren't thousands more of those guys out there.

In terms of cinematic quality, this film defies conventional analysis. It's a perfect demo of the latest computer generated animation and in-scene compositing techniques. I was personally made tense by several scenes, while fighting off a very real need to vomit after too much unedited handheld home movie stuff. Still, overall it's a great experience.

Here's a link to the imdb faq, which has some useful quotes regarding the filmmakers' monster concept:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:15 pm

Postby Ben » Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:22 am

I saw it last night. All in all, I thought it was a pretty inventive way of re-telling the ages-old cinematic tale of the giant monster laying waste to a city. Like in Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS, I resented the writer's choice for protagonists (of all the worms-eye POV we could have been given, he could only think of a bunch of beautiful rich yuppies?), but once the big beast started to kick NY ass, all past transgressions were forgiven. As expected, some critics are making negative comparisons to 9/11, but in that sense CLOVERFIELD isn't any superior to the original GODZILLA, with its allusions to Hiroshima/Nagasaki. There's nothing really new here.

I thought the bombastic score played over the end credits was a little jarring, especially since the previous 90 minutes seemed to enjoy screaming "this is real! Real! Real!", but maybe J.J. Abrams was just laughing in our faces for taking what essentially amounts to another monster movie so seriously.

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:23 pm

Ben, I have read a number of comments echoing yours about the "beautiful young yuppies". Gotta say that I did not feel that way during the film. Possibly because a minimal amount fo time (20 minutes or less) was devoted to their life before the creature attacks.

In news that will come as a shock to no one, Cloverfield 2 has already been greenlit and pre-production may begin soon. There are no indications as to what the focus of the film will be, but it cannot be any worse than Blair Witch 2, right?
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:15 pm

Postby Ben » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:12 am

markabaddon wrote:Ben, I have read a number of comments echoing yours about the "beautiful young yuppies". Gotta say that I did not feel that way during the film. Possibly because a minimal amount fo time (20 minutes or less) was devoted to their life before the creature attacks.


So? They still remain beautiful yuppies throughout the course of the film. All the mayhem and destruction doesn't once reflect badly on their shampoo commercial looks. Heck, even the girl who exploded at the halfway mark exploded in a very sexy way. :roll:

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:56 am

Ben wrote:Heck, even the girl who exploded at the halfway mark exploded in a very sexy way.



And that's what counts!

David Loftus

(who likely won't be seeing the movie, in any case, and resents having a homework assignment to watch television this week because it gets in the way of his obsessive pleasure reading)
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:36 pm

When is some genius going to make a flick told from the MONSTER'S point of view rather than the victim's pov?

The audience would never see the creature except when he looked at his reflection in the window of the buidling he was about to eat.

Sort of like Lovecraft's Outsider, n'est ce pas?
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests