Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cloverfield

This is topic Cloverfield in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000937

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-16-2011, 12:17 AM:

***

Here is a movie that feels like a very long short film. Runs 84 mins but the actual running time is 73 as there are 11 minutes of credits.

You kind of know where the movie is going based on the video camera and the deparment of defence message at the beginning.

I thought this was going to be a low, low budget affair kind of like Blair Witch, what I found was pretty decent effects, excellent sound mix and the utter distruction of New York City.

Lots to be explained and perhaps this was an experimental film. Can't see a sequel, but I liked it. I am stunned that Cloverfield made $80 mil with a budget of $25 mil

Acting was ok and there were a couple of solid thrills. I liked the walk in the underground subway.

DVD: ****
Sound: **** Dolby 5.1

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-16-2011, 11:53 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I am stunned that Cloverfield made $80 mil with a budget of $25 mil

Why in the world is that stunning? It was a low budget movie with a good marketing campaign. There are lots of examples that have done big business, with some way more than 80.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-16-2011, 01:24 PM:

That movie did have a cool marketing campaign. Starting with an amazing trailer that made you say - "woah what the hell was that?" ...and then left you with no title for the movie. For a while the movie was known only as "J. J. Abrams" and the release date.

Then there was the web of phony corporate internet sites that sprung up everywhere which lead people to spend a ton of time diving down a rabbit hole trying to learn more about the movie.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of that budget was spent on marketing.

All of that... and I've still never seen the movie. [Frown]

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 02-16-2011, 02:30 PM:

I recall it was one of those films that caused nausea in some viewers due to the jerkiness of the camera, like Blair Witch. That is the only similarity between the two.
I recall getting ready to start it when two guys walked into the auditorium with an air of defiance carrying their popcorn and soda and sat amongst the front third area of the auditorium. Alone. As if they heard about what physical effects the film caused to some people, and thus they were challenging the movie to "Hit them with their best shot."
They thought it was a "good ride."

Posted by Dan Biegner (Member # 6026) on 02-21-2011, 03:16 PM:

Not a huge fan of the film, to be honest. There were concepts I enjoyed, but overall, was let down. It was no The Host, for sure.

Another good low-budget movie though is "Monsters." Made on a budget of $500,000. Totally great! Feels a little bit like 28 Days Later meets War of the Worlds. Much preferred over Cloverfield.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-21-2011, 03:36 PM:

Monster's was amazing. didn't do all that well at the box office but amazing nonetheless.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-22-2011, 12:03 AM:

Somewhere around here I may still have a piece of paper that a student posted on the bulletin board outside my old office at USC.

It has my "Cloverfield" ticket stub and a receipt from 7-Eleven for some Pepto Bismol immediately afterwards.

[puke]