Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cloverfield (2008)

This is topic Cloverfield (2008) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=001366

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 01-16-2008, 12:21 AM:

For those concerned with spoilers, I'm staying away from those completely.

I caught this at a promo screening the studio did at our theatre. (Ironic, since it's a Marcus we won't be carrying the film, yet they rent out an UltraScreen to generate hype in the area.)

First of all: this movie isn't for everyone, and it had to be advertised in the hype-generating way in which it was in order to really work as an experience that sucks you in. I can see some will feel a bit let down by the ending, however I believe that it had a strong enough effect on me that a standard ending would've almost felt wrong. I haven't found myself this tense throughout an entire movie in a long, long time. Say what you will about the concept or storyline, this is a very short movie (under 90min) that really keeps things moving along at a great pace, I can't imagine someone watching this (without spoilers) who finds themselves completely disinterested. Yes, it's shaky handycam-style cinematography (if you can call it that)... however for a change I believe it was effective and well-done. If this was shot like your standard action/thriller, it would've detached us from the characters and killed most of the excitement. If this type of camera work bothers you, avoid very large screens. However even the Ultra wasn't too bad, considering it wasn't at its full 72 foot wide size (flat format). Also, an auditorium with a great sound system is a must for this one. Our Ultra's 12 subs were really moving some air.

Highly recommended! This is one of those "experience" movies that might not work with repeat viewings, however the first is a great one. It brings a brand new perspective to the "giant monster" genre, and it's an effective one.

[ 01-19-2008, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Mark Strube ]

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 01-17-2008, 10:13 PM:

Spoilers? What spoilers? Did I miss something because there was no big twist ending that I saw.

I just saw this tonight. Good idea on the perspective of an attack, but I didn't give a crap about the characters. At all. Not one bit. And break out the barf bags if your tummy didn't like The Blair Witch Project, this one will give you the same feeling

Can I please see a horror/sci-fi/monster movie without a love story in it? EDIT: or a love rescue in it.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-18-2008, 06:14 AM:

Overall this is a pretty cool monster type movie with effects that set a new standard. The monster and his slimy little pals in this film make Godzilla look like a wuss. A few redislous aspects thrown in the plot and Grainy/shaky image for sure but very appropriate to the effect of the film this time around. Had it looked more "Hollywoodish" it would not be nearly as effective. If you like monster type flicks this film will hold your attention. The uncmpressed digital sound track on the D-Cinema version has to be heard to be believed, absolutely astounding!!! If played back at the correct level and after this movie's run is over technicians will be sweeping up the mess left of what was the B chain. This film should have featured the return of Sensurround [thumbsup]

. Like "The Thing" and "Alien" and several other similar films Cloverfield will certainly go on to become a classic monster flick....

Mark

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 01-19-2008, 02:39 AM:

Yup, the first battle scene (also what's shown in the trailers) had me thinking, THANK GOD - a movie that FINALLY does sonic justice to the loudness of firearms... those M-16s were (and are) LOUD.

These types of films are always interesting to me; exploring the true depths of depravity (and stupidity) our emotions can take us to when under extreme stress - we'd all like to think we'd perform better, yet the wounded lion mentality rears its head again and again.

Oh and the effects were stellar... A+

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 01-19-2008, 05:27 PM:

Four of the first five Topics here have a current thread about CLOVERFIELD, which I think is a record. If it was on an Imax screen it would have been in all five. I think it's doing its job.

Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 01-19-2008, 06:18 PM:

I love movies, all kinds of movies, but all I could think of the whole dam movie was, Blair Witch, Blair Witch, Blair Witch, am I actually sitting here watching Blair Witch all over again. The actual run time on this movie minus the credits and the trailers was a mere 70 minutes!

As a professional photographer, I think the shaky cam think, is good if you use it sparingly, but not for the whole dam movie. I felt like this movie could have been so much more than what it ended up to be. It was a Cheap made movie that was not that good.

In my opinion, its a one week wonder and then its over. It will have very little HBO appeal after the initial run. It, like the Blair Witch, will go into the vault and never be seen again! What a waste of time! Did I say I have an opinion on these kinds of movies.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-19-2008, 08:04 PM:

Being the world's biggest hater of the shaky/epileptic/Paul Dumbshit Greengrass cam, I will state that I thought it worked in this movie. This is the first time I have EVER seen this effect work, and it works only because of the storyline. Had that not been there, it wouldn't have been as believable.

That being said, I went into this movie not wanting to see it because of all the hype, but decided that since I knew it was only an hour and ten minutes long that I could sit through this "tv show" just so I would be able to understand what people were talking about in conversations of upcoming weeks. I did enjoy it though. Is this a great movie? No. It this a movie I am dying to see again? No. I may not even ever watch it again. Was I glad I saw it? Yes. Would I recommend it? Yes. Were there unbelievable or stupid things in it? Yes, but sometimes you just have to let it go.

That being said, I didn't know videocameras had night vision these days, but a friend watching the movie with me swore he had a friend that had that feature, so until Joe comes in here to verify, I'll just assume that some videocameras now have night vision. Regardless, I do want to know what make and model videocamera that was, because I've never seen a camera microphone do such a phenomenal job of capturing discrete 5.1 audio!!!

3.5 out of 5

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-19-2008, 09:18 PM:

I haven't seen this movie (yet), but wanted to comment on a couple of things.

quote: Steve Wilson
As a professional photographer, I think the shaky cam think, is good if you use it sparingly, but not for the whole dam movie.

With the premise of this story it makes sense. Isn't all of the movie's footage just from a consumer video camera these average people were using?

Only professional videographers are going to be pimping a broadcast quality camera on a Steadicam EFP. Average people aren't going to be using anything that makes their footage really smooth. I don't know too many other people in my town who would even bother enabling optical image stabilization or using a tripod.

quote: Brad Miller
That being said, I didn't know videocameras had night vision these days

Some consumer level video cameras do support infrared modes. I don't know which ones have a built in infrared lamp, but some outboard IR lamps are available as accessories for certain camcorder product lines. Sony has a HVLIRM Night Vision Video Light ($130) that works with three of their Handicam video cameras.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-19-2008, 10:12 PM:

Indeed if this had been done in typical smooth Hollywood style the film wouldn't have worked nearly as well...

Possible Spoiler but important tip below !!

Did anyone notice at the end video shot at Cony Island the thing landing in the water way in the background and to the left of the motorboat... indeed that answers the question where the monster came from!!

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 01-19-2008, 10:48 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
That being said, I didn't know videocameras had night vision these days, but a friend watching the movie with me swore he had a friend that had that feature, so until Joe comes in here to verify, I'll just assume that some videocameras now have night vision.

I have an older Hi8 Sony Handycam bought in 1999 which has an IR night vision mode. My newer HDV Handycam (HDR-HC3) also has this feature. Also, I know you were joking, however I do believe there are some consumer cameras that record the audio in 5.1. Now it's an approximate mix of course, but it might be fun to play with.

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 01-19-2008, 10:58 PM:

Obviously only the video was shot with the handheld... everything else was either post-production or with a mike team on the set [Razz]

I own a camera with "nightvision" on it (several years old) - though it's really not IR, it's just digitally boosted low-light detection. The tech isn't exactly new, though.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 01-20-2008, 12:12 AM:

Interesting. Both of mine are IR. (There's literally an emitter to the side of the lens that will cut your night vision if you place your hand in front of it.)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-20-2008, 12:46 AM:

quote: B. Miller
night vision, etc etc

Yeah. I shot a video called, umm, "Night Vision" quite some time ago. It was probably only a few months before you moved to Colorado. I had to use my uncle's Hi8 camcorder since only pussy-ass handycams aimed at the lowest level of the market have such gimmicks.

quote: Brad Milla
Regardless, I do want to know what make and model videocamera that was, because I've never seen a camera microphone do such a phenomenal job of capturing discrete 5.1 audio!!!

All camcorders can do this. It's what makes this movie so believable! Anyway I haven't seen this movie yet... does it have a shot where they waste 10 minutes panning up and down on some asshole's chest hair? That's what made Blair Witch so friggin' awesome and loved by everyone.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-20-2008, 07:26 PM:

Early matinee today at the Regal 15 in Eugene, #15, NEC 2K DLP. They didn't bother to turn on the preshow projector until the last minute of the preshow, so we got to watch the bulb warm up on the Regal logo. The previews and feature on the NEC looked & sounded very good (on a silver screen).

I liked the movie a lot. Very well done, suspenseful, etc. I can absolutely believe some subs will be blown by the seat-rattling soundtrack. [thumbsup]

3.5 out of 5.

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 01-21-2008, 07:52 AM:

Surprisingly I really liked this; I give it 8/10. Having heard about the shaky cam beforehand I thought for sure it would wreck the movie, but this probably is the one movie where it works well! I'm looking forward to seeing this again, definitely recommended if you like monster movies. As has been noted, the subs do indeed get a serious workout, there were some chairs and ceiling tiles rattling; overall amazing sound mix. I also really enjoyed the music during the ending credits (“ROAR! (Cloverfield Overture)”...can't seem to find the soundtrack though, as that's pretty much the only music in the movie I guess they aren't releasing one? drat! ). Saw this in cinema 11 at AMC's Tysons Corner 16, picture and sound were excellent in this fairly large 500 seat room.

[ 01-22-2008, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Tom Mundell ]

Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 01-21-2008, 11:13 AM:

So I've been trying to boycott digital projection because I'm becoming one of those "Damn kids just don't get it" types. The midnight showing of this Thursday night was digital (in a 200 seater) and I figured this movie would be a good one to try and see with a nice shine on it. I loved the film, enjoyed every minute of it.

I went back Saturday to see it on a 525 seater without digital and found this is the one movie I've seen that needs to be enjoyed without digital FIRST. If you feel the need to watch it again and catch things you missed then do digital.

All in all, good suspense without the crappy music lead-in and false scares. Decent acting, it seemed realistic enough without being cheesy. Good use of the shaky cam, seriously, at no point did anyone have an excuse to say they were suprised so please stop acting like it.

---Matt

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-21-2008, 01:31 PM:

Cloverfield was shot on video, not film. What do you think you're gaining by seeing this show transferred to a 35mm film print?

I'm all for the preservation of true film-based production and projection done in the manner of film done right. However, 35mm projection isn't adding any extra layer of quality to any movie shot on video or even run through the quality bottleneck of a 2K digital intermediate and 2K CGI work flow. With some of the poor quality control that happens with 35mm prints made at high speed and in mass quantities you may be looking at a significant drop in quality for 2K rendered movies.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-24-2008, 11:13 AM:

Here's a CNN video piece on audiences getting sick due to the "shakey-cam" thing.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2008, 01:16 PM:

I know a couple of people who were made sick and/or walked out of this movie. Was this movie shot at 24fps? If so I don't think I'd get sick. If it was shot at 60 and then made to work at 24fps like Blair Witch then I don't think I would fair very well.

Makes a good argument for home theater vs movie theater, though.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 01-24-2008, 09:16 PM:

Blair Witch shot at 60? Are you talking interlaced? So really 29.97fps but 59.94 interlaced fields, then screwed with to make it work at 24fps? That's never a pretty process... although Magic Bullet does a pretty nice job of it.

Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 01-24-2008, 11:56 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Cloverfield was shot on video, not film. What do you think you're gaining by seeing this show transferred to a 35mm film print?

I'm all for the preservation of true film-based production and projection done in the manner of film done right. However, 35mm projection isn't adding any extra layer of quality to any movie shot on video or even run through the quality bottleneck of a 2K digital intermediate and 2K CGI work flow. With some of the poor quality control that happens with 35mm prints made at high speed and in mass quantities you may be looking at a significant drop in quality for 2K rendered movies.

Is the 35mm print ADDING anything? No. The Digital print added something and whatever it was, it took away a bit of the chaotic feeling. I'm not going to argue technical specs and such, once you see the movie you may be able to discuss what helps and hurts the experience.

---Matt

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-25-2008, 09:56 AM:

Video, with ILM effects and Skywalker Sound applied. The motion-trackers sure had their work cut out for them.

This was a terrible picture, and I usually give movies a wide berth. Half way through, I kept wanting "Rob" to get it because I got tired of hearing them shout his name. 'Let Rob go, he's an idiot.'

The backwards reactions of the character with the video camera grated on me, too. Everytime something big would occur, we'd see it for a few milliseconds, then a swish pan to the crowd or his pals reacting - where the shot would stay. Well, if the character had the presence of mind to keep the camera on his friends, why wouldn't he be transfixed on all this tremendous action a few blocks away? Obviously, if it had been real the kid would've been running away anyway and we wouldn't have seen anything (as opposed to the stationary shots of the crowd reacting). This attempt by the filmmakers to build suspense only annoyed me.

I think the handicam/reality angle was just an excuse to make up for the lack of a solid story - or at least a satisfying resolution.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-28-2008, 10:00 AM:

It was OK and would have been MUCH better if not for the ultra-shakey cam. I get the look it was trying to achieve but as Roeper said in his review, people shooting on consumer video cameras don't shake THAT much. We actually had to move from the middle of the theater to the back row because my wife was feeling motion sick (and the screen was only 30 feet or so).

Effects were cool and the concept was good but the camera work made it difficult to watch.

2 out of 5 stars

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-28-2008, 05:47 PM:

Looking at the trailer I'm fairly convinced this movie was shot in HD at 24fps... especially since the trailer I watched was HD and it was fairly detailed and there were no motion artifacts.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-28-2008, 07:11 PM:

According to IMDB it was shot with the following cameras:

Panasonic AG-HVX200
Sony CineAlta F23
Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-28-2008, 07:44 PM:

quote: Matt Barth
I went back Saturday to see it on a 525 seater without digital and found this is the one movie I've seen that needs to be enjoyed without digital FIRST. If you feel the need to watch it again and catch things you missed then do digital.

I don't get this one either... Actually the effects are going to look far better projected digitally than from film.

Mark

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-28-2008, 08:52 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I'm fairly convinced this movie was shot in HD

I had the same feeling. Some of the shots looked too good to be NTSC.

I also saw an article that said they used a Viper, as Lyle mentioned.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-29-2008, 01:54 PM:

You can be sure it was shot in HD... had it been done in NTSC there would have been ALOT of noise in the video in dark scenes. NTSC cameras need the gain boosted considerably to be able to pick stuff up in dark places... this raises the noise floor typically +6db to +12db! Also, its the same amount of gain boost used weather CCD or toobe pickup.
Any NTSC loooking scan line effects would have been added after the fact...

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-29-2008, 02:25 PM:

* Panasonic AG-HVX200
* Sony CineAlta F23
* Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera

Not exactly the kind of video camera gear you can pick up at Best Buy for around $700.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 01-29-2008, 07:54 PM:

(note I know nothing about video cameras)

So, If I was to shoot a 1hour 1/2 of footage of a monster attack on my city, how big would my memory card need to be on my camera?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-29-2008, 08:53 PM:

If it's 1920 x 1080, 24P, shouldn't it be (in round numbers and no compression):

2MB/frame = 50MB/sec = 3GB/min

So a 90-min. feature would be 90 * 3GB = 270GB.

Someone will probably shoot a hole in my math. [Wink]

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 01-30-2008, 04:24 PM:

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
x 32 bits/pixel / 8 bits/byte= 8,294,400 bytes/frame
x 24 fps = ~200 MB/s -- this is faster than any single disk drive can handle
x 60sec x 90min = ~1,000,000,000,000 bytes, or ~1 Tera B. ( in decimals )

Obviously the movie files are smaller than this ( I've seen longer movies down in the 50-60GB range ); but to do streaming vid work, you can see how big of a data transfer rate you would need (200MB/s is 8x faster than most disk drives today).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-30-2008, 07:48 PM:

Actually David is the more correct... About 270gb is what I believe it was. Th3ere was also alot of other junk on the drove... previews and such. Am pretty sure it was all on a WD 400gb drive. Loading/verifying time into the Dolby Server only took us 24 min. with the hot swap drive. 5 min. later we were watching the show.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2008, 08:20 PM:

Different variables are at play in DCI-compliant JPEG2000 movie files.

Compression levels can vary. But those compression levels are typically not nearly as squeezed as the bit streams of VC1 and AVC encodings on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movie discs. The movie files usually run at bandwidths between 150Mb/sec and 250Mb/sec and consume much of the space on a portable 300GB hard disc.

Some movie files may be significantly smaller. I heard the last Harry Potter movie took only half the time to ingest as most JPEG2000 movie files. But that movie file probably still had a data bandwidth significantly larger than that of any Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movie.

The Doremi server used at most Carmike locations is RAID-based -likely U320 SCSI, but I don't know for sure. I would be surprised if it is SATA or SATA II RAID. 250 million bit per second sustained bandwidth is very practical for many RAID setups. By comparison uncompressed HD-SDI has a 1.485 Gb/sec bandwidth. Some RAID applications are able to handle that.

Let's also not confuse bits with bytes. Sure no single hard disc can sustain a 200MB/sec data rate. 250Mb/sec bandwidth (the upper end of the DCI spec) is 31.25MB/sec. That is a practical bandwidth to sustain for some disc setups, especially if they're RAID-based.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-31-2008, 09:17 AM:

I think Allison's question was more along the lines of what size memory card somebody would need on their HD Camcorder to film 90 minutes of a monster attack (that they were witnessing). i.e., Do normal consumer HD Camcorders have 90 minutes of capacity.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 01-31-2008, 11:25 AM:

Yes Lyle, that is exactly what I was asking! Just give me a simple answer on what sized memory card if one big enough is available to rich NY folk that live in high rise apartments overlooking Central Park.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-31-2008, 01:40 PM:

I thought this movie was great. I love the clashing aesthetics of these fantastic events being captured in the most ordinary way. The writing is really clever and smart, and the sound mix is pretty awesome. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 01-31-2008, 03:10 PM:

It's difficult to say, Allison, without you're being more specific as to what recording codec you want to use and what kind of quality you expect. If you are using a Panasonic camera with P2 cards, and you want to record in the DVCPRO-HD format at 1080/60i, you are looking at about one gig of memory per minute (while David's math above is correct, you DO have to take the format's considerable inter-frame compression into consideration to give your question a practical answer). Since "Hud" is ostensibly holding an HVX-200, which has a dual card slot and can record seamlessly from one card to another, you are looking at two 32 gig cards in tandem to make 64 minutes, which is about the running of the film less credits. OBTW, each card is over $1000 each, but you did specify "rich New Yorkers". You can't do a 1080/24p record with this camera, so you don't save anything there. Recording 720/24p active-frame-only will require two 16 gig cards for about 80 minutes. Any of the various standard-definition formats would obviously need much less. All of these times are theoretical, though, as the camera also records in meta-data and other system information in addition to the video.

Here's the thing, though, vis-a-vis Cloverfield. If you have seen the film you know that the party and the monster attack are being recorded over other footage, that of Rob and Liz and their day at Coney Island, and those scenes are shown from time to time as the dude starts and stops the camera. That means the whole thing is being done to tape, as you would not get this effect recording to card. A nit-picking point, to be sure, but there it is.

- - - - -

Having said all that, I enjoyed the movie very much. I grew up with the whole 1950s giant-monster cycle of films, this was a nice albeit differently done throwback to a much-loved genre. Certainly took the awful taste of the Godzilla remake out of my mouth.

Didn't take them too long to put the camera up on eBay.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-31-2008, 05:42 PM:

Mark, does that model camera also come with the night vision and phenomenal 5.1 microphone?

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 01-31-2008, 07:27 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
I didn't know videocameras had night vision these days

Ever see the Paris Hilton video?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-31-2008, 07:43 PM:

Sadly, I was just thinking the same thing...

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 02-01-2008, 02:42 AM:

It's a movie about a giant monster from outer space. The camera has to be accurate? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-01-2008, 07:26 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
Mark, does that model camera also come with the night vision and phenomenal 5.1 microphone?

I meant to comment on that in my review. We're supposed to be watching recovered footage shot on an amateur camera yet the sound mix is incredibly directional and dynamic. Doesn't really fit.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-01-2008, 06:00 PM:

How did the cameras [spoiler]survive the nuke at the end?[/spoiler]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-01-2008, 06:07 PM:

Joe,
If you had paid attention you would have heard and seen during the movie that it was a RAMDISK he was recording on, not tape. Also, did you notice that at the end of the movie(Cony Island) it actually showed the very begninning... IE: the Monster plunging into the sea from the clouds above... way in the distance beyond the blue boat that sails by????

Something else to ponder... How did the Columbia Astronauts video tape survive falling from 15 miles up in the sky? It was exposed to super high temperatures, G-forces, and impact that should have obliterated it.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The Doremi server used at most Carmike locations is RAID-based -likely U320 SCSI, but I don't know for sure. I would be surprised if it is SATA or SATA II RAID. 250 million bit per second sustained bandwidth is very practical for many RAID setups. By comparison uncompressed HD-SDI has a 1.485 Gb/sec bandwidth. Some RAID applications are able to handle that.

The Dolby Show Store is capable of sustained data rates of about 220 mbps give or take a little bit. The data transfer rate is one of the self tests that the server goes through on boot up. The Doremi's I've seen don't clock anywhere near that speed although in fairness they may have been SATA 1 RAID 5 units. The Dolbys in this area are all STATA 2 Raid 5 units. BTW: RAID 5 sacrifices data speed a little bit for the redundancy and reliability it offers. To give you an idea of how powerful the Dolby Show Store is we installed two systems in a plex and someone accidentally deleted the "Cloverfield" show file off #3's Show Player. So they simply pulled up and ran the file that was in #4's Show Store but over in #3... The films had 30 minute staggered starting times and the RAID in #4's Show Store unit had no problems moving that much data for two theaters simultainously for nearly a days worth of showings. The RAID HD, and Ethernet port Activity Lights were a blinkin faster than I've ever seen... around Mach 3! After they built the show back up in #3 and played each show as normal from it's own server the "activity" lights calmed down to normal. Yes there were KDM's loaded in both theaters gear. I'm not sure the Doremi could pull this feat off as reliably.

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-01-2008, 07:01 PM:

First of all I haven't even seen the movie.

Secondly if they were recording to a RAMDISK, then how would they be able to record over old footage?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-01-2008, 08:01 PM:

Joe, The movie is about 30 days into the future from today... you'll be able to do that by then, remember, technlogy advances really fast [Big Grin]

. Better go see the movie...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-01-2008, 08:04 PM:

I'll wait for the home video k thanx.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2008, 10:18 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I'll wait for the home video k thanx.

Afraid of throwing up from seeing it on the big screen ha??? Well, I will admit that the third installment of Bourne Ultimatium was better on the smaller screen [thumbsup]

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-02-2008, 12:26 PM:

Saw it last week and thought it was pretty good for what it was. Will definately get on DVD as there is no point in getting this one in either of the next generation formats. Of course there are already talks of a sequel.

Best site I found for answers to the movie including what fell into the water in the Coney Island scene (and no it was not the monster or an egg).

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

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-02-2008, 01:46 PM:

Wasn't it shot in HD?

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 02-02-2008, 03:13 PM:

I would have enjoyed this much more if the camera wasn't so shaky! I mean, even MY home movies are less shaky than this! The premise was similar to Blair Witch - i.e. someone's tape is found, and that should have justified the use of the shaky-cam effect.

However, the effect just doesn't work on such a large screen. After 20 minutes, I had to walk out of the auditorium before I threw up [puke]

I was expecting something along the lines of Bourne Ultimatum's shaky cam (which I just managed to tolerate), but this was just too much. Perhaps it was the fact that I couldn't get any further away from the giant screen in this cinema...

I think I'll wait until it comes on TV, or rental DVD - in my opinion movies like this are best suited to the small screen. The visual and audio effects in the part of the movie I saw were really good though!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-04-2008, 01:34 AM:

By gawd, I wanna see this converted to the IMAX screen!! The theatre will have those airplane barf bags attached to all the seat backs. It will be, watch the movie, lean foward, puke....sit up, watch the movie, lean forward, puke....sit up, watch the movie, lean forward, puke.....repeat for 2 hours. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-04-2008, 02:05 AM:

Nothing says "we love our customers" like making them throw up. Barfing is pleasant and FUN! Wheeee!!!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-04-2008, 08:14 AM:

Didn't bother me even a tiny bit......

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 02-04-2008, 08:50 PM:

It didn't bother me either, I think people for sure are making a bigger deal about this then it really is. 1 out of maybe every 100 people seeing this are going to be affected.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 02-08-2008, 09:28 AM:

I'd be surprised if it was that high (1%) ... that being said, I've never been affected by this.

**spoilers - or possible spoilers below**

quote: Michael Gonzalez
what fell into the water in the Coney Island scene (and no it was not the monster or an egg)

I've gotta give a "bah" to that, all the trivia on IMDb and other sites is way too ambiguous to say definitively that it was or wasn't the monster. ...not to mention that it's just a website, nothing official!

However, interesting to note, the title for the Polish release is "Projekt: Monster" which seems to be less on the lines of an alien - unless of course it was other aliens that began the project. [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 02-08-2008, 03:59 PM:

Godzilla on cgi steriods.
0.5 out of 5 stars.

Posted by Danial Simmonds (Member # 4638) on 02-12-2008, 05:06 AM:

Cloverfield a total spoiler!
Eventhough prople want to watch the movie, well it has great action but the handy cam style of the movie has made a lot of people vomitted [puke]

, fainted and also passed out in the cinema [Roll Eyes]

what a great tragic for this movie...

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 02-12-2008, 07:18 AM:

SPOILER!!!!!!!!

Actually Jermey it was the monster that fell, on Aintitcool.com or comingsoon.net they had an interview with the director and he said that that is indeed what it was in the final shot.

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 02-12-2008, 02:55 PM:

I think the film must be at least 20 minutes of credits... but hey, it's better than The Mist.

Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 02-12-2008, 07:05 PM:

... has any film ever created such a media hype and 'buzz' on the forums as this film?

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 02-13-2008, 08:30 AM:

Quoting the ever-quotable Jim Bedford from 1.19.08:

quote: Jim Bedford
Four of the first five Topics here have a current thread about CLOVERFIELD, which I think is a record. If it was on an Imax screen it would have been in all five. I think it's doing its job.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-13-2008, 12:17 PM:

Bump.

I finally watched Cloverfield. It was released on Blu-ray June 3, but the BD didn't show up at any of our local video stores until this week. Cloverfield is a decent monster movie, but I'm glad I only rented it.

The movie is entertaining, but you have to fight your brain to accept certain things that aren't logical or plausible. The large amount of military firepower seemed ineffective against the creature without any visual clue as to why. The monster didn't have any armor, force fields or anything else. If a creature is just a flesh and blood animal it won't matter if it's 30 stories tall. Just one single AC-130H Spectre Gunship flying on a 360 degree rotational attack pattern would shred that thing down to a big pile of smoldering, bloody goo.

The "wah wah wah" sounds the smaller parasite monsters made when they attacked sounded unintentionally comical. The audio effect seemed more like something from a kid's cartoon show. It just sounded like some goofball person mouthing sound effects into a microphone.

The shaky cam stuff wasn't as bad as I was expecting. The camera movement looked like typical hand held amateur style video. Video quality was well above what you normally see from "prosumer" level camera gear. However, I would have liked this more if they had kept the video gamma intact rather than muting it to try to get it to look like film. Guys, we all know it's video. Leave it looking like video! I think it would have made the experience more immediate and real looking.

Pretty good surround mix on this one. Kinda breaks the rule regarding the camera POV theme. However, badly recorded mono or stereo audio from a top mic would have sucked -but that's what would have been needed if a totally purist approach had been taken.

quote: Michael Gonzalez
Saw it last week and thought it was pretty good for what it was. Will definately get on DVD as there is no point in getting this one in either of the next generation formats.

Having seen the Blu-ray version, Cloverfield definitely has HD-levels of detail. The DVD is definitely a lesser product. Even the supplements on the Blu-ray version are in HD. The piece about the movie's visual effects is interesting. It shows some of the match move work flow, various rendering passes and other pre-viz stuff all in HD quality.