Chefelf.com Night Life: Cloverfield - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Cloverfield

#76 User is offline   mireaux7 Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 475
  • Joined: 24-September 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dallas, texas
  • Interests:art, tennis, films...esp foreign films-those are some of the best ones ive seen, video games, reading, travel.
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 January 2008 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Slade @ Jan 23 2008, 07:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So what you're saying is your long-winded post was just as unnecessary as all of your other long-winded posts, and you could have condensed it down to something much more brief with no loss of information?


is my post "long-winded"?....or are you just a slow reader?

youre the only one who seems to surface any issue about it, so i would have to consider the latter.

interesting avatar..is that a screenshot from Michael Jackson's "Thriller" music video?

QUOTE (njamilla @ Feb 23 2008, 08:16 AM)
Shit, Fuck, Piss: I had to say that because I can on this website. (Thanks Chef!)

QUOTE (chefelf @ Feb 23 2008, 10:30 AM)
That's what I'm here for.
0

#77 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 23 January 2008 - 04:22 PM

QUOTE (Despondent @ Jan 23 2008, 09:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Don't act surprised, you told us about that Weeks ago.

Yeah but weeks ago it was speculation based on the trailer and I was called "wholly mistaken." I was looking for confirmation.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#78 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 23 January 2008 - 05:56 PM

every single review i read at rottentomatoes mentioned BWP. www.rottentomatoes.com

peter travers of rollingstone said this

"Look, I'm not that bothered that the structure of the movie is lifted from The Blair Witch Project"

This post has been edited by Jordan: 23 January 2008 - 06:08 PM

Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#79 User is offline   Dorothy Icon

  • We supply it, we demand you eat it.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,604
  • Joined: 17-May 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Seattle.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 23 January 2008 - 06:08 PM

Ok, so I saw this movie and I thought it was a good movie...

...to see...

on dvd. sick.gif

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jan 23 2008, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Why is it that every disaster/monster movie, when considering the human effects, has to ask the question, 'What will the statue of liberty think of this?'
laugh.gif

"The problem is, you're not a kangaroo... that's a bear... and he's in your pants."
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"
0

#80 User is offline   TheOrator Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 January 2008 - 11:30 PM

I'm gonna go from what appears to be the crowd here and say I really enjoyed this movie.

Get out your salt, guys, this movie's about to be spoiled!

I really liked Hud, the (apparent) protaganist. I thought it was daring to make a loser the main character. I thought that even though the party scene was largely irrelevant, it was also entertaining. The love interest served only as a plot device, and wasn't intrusive or forced like they all-too-often are. I thought the camera work itself revealed much about Hud's personality. I thought the monster was pretty cool. I thought the fact we never really saw it gave us a sense of the fear they must have felt. They didn't know any more than we did, and, more importantly, we didn't know any more than they did.

On the whole, I give it a thumbs up.


PS (avec spoilers)
Did anyone else catch the pod going into the bay at the end when we saw Rob and Beth's day at Cony Island? My dad didn't so I was wondering if it was missed by most people.

I didn't myself stay 'til the end of the credits, but knew as I left the theater I was probably missing out on something.

Now I kind of wish I'd stayed.

God, I sounded like an idiot in this post, but I'm too tired to fix it tonight.

I might issue a retraction tomorrow.

Good night.
"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
-John Carpenter's They Live

"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space


nooooo
0

#81 User is offline   Heccubus Icon

  • Ugh.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 4,954
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Canada

Posted 24 January 2008 - 08:03 AM

I still think that the comparisons to The Blair Witch Project are effectively ended as soon as you get past the homemade feel / found footage / whatever you want to call it. That said, I'm a staunch supporter of the Blair Witch Project's merits as a horror film, while Cloverfield was a pretty desperate grasp for a similar effect. I think that if the people who decided to go with the Camcorder look were trying to obtain a similar effect to what the BWP managed to attain, they failed miserably. All it did was make the screen shakey. Also, I have my doubts that anyone in that situation would be able to hold a camera straight, not to mention the fact that the camera itself must've had exceptional battery life if we're to believe that the course of events in the film took place over seven hours.
0

#82 User is offline   georgelucas4greedo Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 371
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 January 2008 - 10:45 AM

Hec: I thought the same thing about the battery. I also wondered why the DoD didnt edit the tape down in some areas, because the tape was obviously copied to a DoD file.

As per the movie, the acting was pretty bad. But, luckily, the actors kept their mouths shut for most of the movie. The army scene was a little forced as well. The stereotypical rogue general lets the kids through...o plz.
It seems like everyone is over the nitpicking. Too bad.
0

#83 User is offline   TheOrator Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 January 2008 - 05:27 PM

QUOTE (Heccubus @ Jan 24 2008, 07:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Also, I have my doubts that anyone in that situation would be able to hold a camera straight, not to mention the fact that the camera itself must've had exceptional battery life if we're to believe that the course of events in the film took place over seven hours.


I'd have to think that the government isn't in to deciding what is and is not relevant in evidence like this--as exemplified by the fact all of Rob and Beth's day at Coney Island remained on the tape--and assume the camera was only on for eighty-five minutes.
"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
-John Carpenter's They Live

"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space


nooooo
0

#84 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 January 2008 - 12:04 PM

Mireaux: I'd say I'm an average speed reader. I just don't like to waste my time reading a really long, drawn out rant that can be summarized in two sentences if it's not rather entertaining. I'm not trying to insult you or your post and say that it's not entertaining, it's just obviously, a very long winded, standard spoilerish review affair, as opposed to, say, a humor website making fun of a movie as part of a humorous review. And you gave a bottom line that the film sucked. I just don't think it merited such a long-winded post, that's all.

Concerning my avatar, I'm being pretentious and not telling you. tongue.gif Janey mentioned who it was in the avatar thread, and Barend also referenced it. He's not a zombie, but Thriller is one spectacular music video.

Orator: What else does the government do but decide what is relevant/available and what is not in intelligence contexts? tongue.gif
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#85 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 25 January 2008 - 06:30 PM

QUOTE (Heccubus @ Jan 24 2008, 08:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I still think that the comparisons to The Blair Witch Project are effectively ended as soon as you get past the homemade feel / found footage / whatever you want to call it. That said, I'm a staunch supporter of the Blair Witch Project's merits as a horror film, while Cloverfield was a pretty desperate grasp for a similar effect. I think that if the people who decided to go with the Camcorder look were trying to obtain a similar effect to what the BWP managed to attain, they failed miserably. All it did was make the screen shakey. Also, I have my doubts that anyone in that situation would be able to hold a camera straight, not to mention the fact that the camera itself must've had exceptional battery life if we're to believe that the course of events in the film took place over seven hours.

Sure, Hecc. The comparison to BWP isn't to say it will be as good as some think the BWP is. If Cloverfield tried to rip off the gimmick of BWP, that's the comparison. It is not meant to elevate Cloverfield; it is meant to denigrate it. But it definitely is the same gimmick. It's "found footage" filmed by characters in the story on a camcorder. How much more do you need to say "This film is copying that film?" Do you only make the comparison if the stories are identical?

That question about the battery holds for BWP as well. I'm sure when the kids went into the woods, they hadn't planned to get lost for days, but they managed to have battery power for the whole time. I think they drop a line to suggest they have batteries for days, but even if so it doesn't ring true.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#86 User is offline   Heccubus Icon

  • Ugh.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 4,954
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Canada

Posted 26 January 2008 - 01:21 AM

Well with the Blair Witch Project, they were out filming a documentary. I think it's easier to believe that they had more than one battery for their camera. Plus hours on end pass between the scenes that we watch. In Cloverfield, the camera is running continuously from about 5:00 PM until 7:00 AM the next morning or something like that. No one handheld camera battery that I've ever seen can run for that long on a single charge.
0

#87 User is offline   TheOrator Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 January 2008 - 11:04 AM

QUOTE (Heccubus @ Jan 26 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well with the Blair Witch Project, they were out filming a documentary. I think it's easier to believe that they had more than one battery for their camera. Plus hours on end pass between the scenes that we watch. In Cloverfield, the camera is running continuously from about 5:00 PM until 7:00 AM the next morning or something like that. No one handheld camera battery that I've ever seen can run for that long on a single charge.


Again, Hecc, I gotta think the camera was only on for eighty-five minutes.

And they spent a while in the Electronics Store if you don't want buy that.
"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
-John Carpenter's They Live

"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space


nooooo
0

#88 User is offline   looktothesky Icon

  • Tudo Bem.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,542
  • Joined: 10-November 03
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:Portugal

Posted 28 January 2008 - 09:42 AM

Do cellphone batteries come precharged, or do you have to charge them up yourself? Is it the same for video cameras?

The video camera used was a Panasonic HVX200. Our friends at IMDB have kind of answered the question in regards to its battery life.

QUOTE
How does the camera's battery last for seven hours or more? It doesn't. The camera is turned on and off many times throughout the night (a seven-hour period), which preserves the battery life for a cumulative recording time of about 74 minutes.

The entire movie is (within the fictional realm of the story) nothing but raw footage from digital video card(s) recorded on a single video camera (the camera used, a Panasonic HVX200, uses 1 to 2 digital P2 cards for recording -- although many high-end cameras, like the Sony F23, were used during filming, they were not the ostensible camera in the movie universe). No one has edited the footage we're seeing. The cuts occur when Hud turns off the camera. We see pieces of "old footage" whenever Hud checks the recording, rewinds or fast-forwards it.

The battery only needs to last for as long as the movie does without credits--again, 74 minutes. A fully-charged camcorder battery will last longer than that.

>>>>This can be discredited due to the fact that P2 cards create new "files" for each new start and stopped clip. Thus the camera does not rewind when using P2 cards,. A clip is simply selected and then played, old existing footage is not overwritten, it is either uploaded to a computer or deleted to make more room. Furhermore P2 cards are VERY expensive, making it unlikely Rob would buy 2, let alone one large sized, which at their largest hold 16 gigs worth of video. Even on standard definition at the lowest recording quality this does not equal 84 mins of recording time. However, the HVX200 can be used with both standard definition and high definition tape (length up to 90 mins). This is how the footage would have been shot according to the film. Making the "one chunk" style we see in the film possible, making the length possible, and allowing for old footage to show through. More than likely the original tape was digitized, compressed and uploaded onto an SD card after the military had found it and that is also how the title footage was added onto the tape. This would be done as the tape would be reviewed many times and would eventually wear out. Transferring it onto an SD card would allow the footage to be watched over and over again without compromising the integrity of the footage.<<<<<<


I saw it, it was alright, I wouldn't want to see it again.
PRECIOUS VELIUS....
0

#89 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 29 January 2008 - 02:24 AM

I finally read a review of the film. It mentioned both BWP and 9/11.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#90 User is offline   Heccubus Icon

  • Ugh.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 4,954
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Canada

Posted 29 January 2008 - 06:21 AM

Because America is still struggling to find ways to bring up 9/11 to ensure that people keep thinking about it, and familiarity breeds understanding. By comparing it to something people recognize, and have probably seen, the reader is more likely to pay more attention. Besides, if you take something like using a handheld camera to film a horror movie, people are automatically going to compare it to whatever they think was the first party to use that method. In this case, people assume that the camcorder look was first used with the Blair Witch Project (to the best of my knowledge, it wasn't, but I'd have to double check on that) so they immediately draw that parallel, despite the fact that the aesthetic is more or less where the comparison ends. Critics talk out of their ass 99% of the time when it comes to movies. That's why bullshit Jerry Bruckheimer movies can have commercials after opening that are plastered with all kinds of positive reviews, despite being a fucking celluloid abortion. I'm amazed that you would bring up something a critic said to try and back up your point.

But regardless, what is accomplished by arguing whether or not a movie is similar to another? Nothing. All you're doing is proving or disproving that two completely unrelated movies have some base similarity. It still doesn't make Cloverfield a better movie or a worse one. It just shows that there are a few parallels between the two films.
0

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size