Cloverfield (Matt Reeves, 2008)

Message

pemmican · #76 Post by **pemmican** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:57 am

Something from the sky, no? ...while the only two theories the film floats as to the nature of the creature are that it's come from space and that it's come from the bottom of the ocean. This needs further explication?

P.

#77 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:58 am

Maybe it came from beneath space

CSM126 · #78 Post by **CSM126** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:01 am

pemmican wrote:Something from the sky, no? ...while the only two theories the film floats as to the nature of the creature are that it's come from space and that it's come from the bottom of the ocean. This needs further explication?

There's shit floating around the internets with a whole backstory about a Japanese satellite or something falling out of the sky into the ocean. Perhaps it sunk and hit the beast and woke it up or God knows what.

pemmican · #79 Post by **pemmican** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:16 am

I vote that it came in on a meteor-born spore. Spores aren't used in nearly enough horror films. Spores are some scary shit. There's already been a punk band called the Spores - why not a horror movie?

A mini-archive of 9/11-Cloverfield articles:
http://www.mahalo.com/Cloverfield_9-11

P.

Magic Hate Ball · #80 Post by **Magic Hate Ball** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:22 am

Saw it again last night. Loses a lot of punch the second viewing, which is too bad, but the first viewing still sticks with me as being ridiculously intense; the second viewing knocks it down but the first viewing doesn't impede on the second viewing so much that the first viewing is marred tremendously by the second viewing. The lacklustre second viewing may have had to do with the fact that, unlike the first viewing, the second viewing had a crowd of first-viewing and probably drunk people laughing all the way through, even in the silent parts, but that's the joy of cinemas, no?

In any case, I will force a third viewing upon myself to finally see that thing falling into the ocean at the end, which I missed at the first viewing and second viewing.

tavernier · #81 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:33 am

Definition of Masochist wrote:Saw it again last night....

....I will force a third viewing upon myself....

#82 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:35 am

I accidentally saw a picture of the creature someone snapped in the theater on LJ Image Generator, take that Shrouded In Mystery

GoldenPilgrim · #83 Post by **GoldenPilgrim** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:48 am

This movie gave me a headache, it's probably the first movie that I've seen that is meant to be watched on a YouTube sized screen. Sitting in the second row did not help.

The character actually holding the camera was terrible comic relief and was driving me insane.

All in all though, it was a really fun movie. Half the theatre hated it, which was great. 20 or so minutes into it the guy behind me said, "shit man, I think the whole movie is like this," and practically everyone was either complaining or calling their friends to tell them NOT to see Cloverfield.

jorencain · #84 Post by **jorencain** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:39 pm

Magic Hate Ball wrote:Loses a lot of punch the second viewing, which is too bad, but the first viewing still sticks with me as being ridiculously intense; the second viewing knocks it down but the first viewing doesn't impede on the second viewing so much that the first viewing is marred tremendously by the second viewing.

That's a lot of viewing.

tavernier · #85 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:50 pm

GoldenPilgrim wrote:Half the theatre hated it, which was great. 20 or so minutes into it the guy behind me said, "shit man, I think the whole movie is like this," and practically everyone was either complaining or calling their friends to tell them NOT to see Cloverfield.

Now that's what I call "word of mouth"!

HerrSchreck · #86 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:58 pm

jorencain wrote:
Magic Hate Ball wrote:Loses a lot of punch the second viewing, which is too bad, but the first viewing still sticks with me as being ridiculously intense; the second viewing knocks it down but the first viewing doesn't impede on the second viewing so much that the first viewing is marred tremendously by the second viewing.
That's a lot of viewing.

You didn't mention his Upcoming Third Viewing (Forced Upon Himself).

Barmy · #87 Post by **Barmy** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:51 pm

People are actually expending mental energy speculating where the monster thangy came from? Kill me now.

This does need to be seen in a theater because the best thing about it was the audience hatred.

tavernier · #88 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:53 pm

Barmy wrote: Kill me now.

Barmy shouldn't be posting such a tantalizing proposition.

#89 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:40 pm

Besides, wasn't it already agreed upon before the movie even came out that it was

Spoiler

Chtulu

?

pemmican · #90 Post by **pemmican** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:10 pm

Since apparently I started this line of conversation (where the thingy's from), I hereby offer to die in Barmy's place. It's only fair.

P.

Magic Hate Ball · #91 Post by **Magic Hate Ball** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:34 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:
jorencain wrote:
Magic Hate Ball wrote:Loses a lot of punch the second viewing, which is too bad, but the first viewing still sticks with me as being ridiculously intense; the second viewing knocks it down but the first viewing doesn't impede on the second viewing so much that the first viewing is marred tremendously by the second viewing.
That's a lot of viewing.
You didn't mention his Upcoming Third Viewing (Forced Upon Himself).

I think I'm bleeding.

bunuelian · #92 Post by **bunuelian** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:49 pm

domino harvey wrote:Besides, wasn't it already agreed upon before the movie even came out that it was
Spoiler

?

But such unfathomable horror is infinitely unknowable, hence the confusion.

Antoine Doinel · #93 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:03 am

Coming soon to a toy store near you, the Cloverfield monster

miless · #94 Post by **miless** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:13 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:Coming soon to a toy store near you, the Cloverfield monster

I love how there's no picture up.

franco · #95 Post by **franco** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:16 am

But it reveals something that you can't tell from the trailers.

miless · #96 Post by **miless** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:36 am

franco wrote:But it reveals something that you can't tell from the trailers.

what, that it comes with "Special Cloverfield collector’s edition packaging"?

#97 Post by **domino harvey** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:52 am

miless wrote:
franco wrote:But it reveals something that you can't tell from the trailers.
what, that it comes with "Special Cloverfield collector’s edition packaging"?

FUCKING SPOILER-TAG THAT, ASSHOLE

Magic Hate Ball · #98 Post by **Magic Hate Ball** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:36 am

domino harvey wrote:
miless wrote:
franco wrote:But it reveals something that you can't tell from the trailers.
what, that it comes with "Special Cloverfield collector’s edition packaging"?
FUCKING SPOILER-TAG THAT, ASSHOLE

HUD DIES HUD DIES HUD DIES

GoldenPilgrim · #99 Post by **GoldenPilgrim** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:39 am

Magic Hate Ball wrote:HUD DIES HUD DIES HUD DIES

And thank the lord.

jbeall · #100 Post by **jbeall** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:51 pm

I have no clue whether or not forum members like football, but I love Gregg Easterbrook's "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" columns for espn.com. He's all over the place, and had this to say about Cloverfield:

Gregg Easterbrook wrote:OK, to watch a monster movie, you must suspend disbelief about the idea of 500-foot-tall sea monsters. But if there were such beasts, wouldn't they be subject to laws of physics and principles of biology? Almost no explanation is given for the ultra-huge creature in "Cloverfield," except a hint that it was disturbed by a deep-seabed experiment. So it's a 100,000-ton sea-floor thing; Godzilla was said to weigh 20,000 tons, and the "Cloverfield" monster is a lot bigger. If this creature lived at the bottom of the ocean, why is it adapted to the substantially different pressure of the surface? Deep-sea creatures would die rapidly if brought to the surface, yet the "Cloverfield" beast strolls around Manhattan. How come the sea monster has lungs and breathes air? The creature must be an amphibian, or it could not leave the water. To possess lungs, part of its life cycle would need to occur on land, and a 100,000-ton living object in intertidal areas would, at some point in history, have been noticed.

There's a little more, but I don't know how to spoiler-tag. If you go to the column, it's about halfway down the page.

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

Cloverfield (Matt Reeves, 2008)