|
MisterBibs posted:what the hell did I just see I disagree, the first half (2/3rds?) of the movie are basically the film-makers trying to make you second-guess whether goodman is an insane lunatic or just a really hard core conspiracy theorist. Several scenes leading up to that moment (him apologising for "accidentally" running her off the road, the crazy dying woman at the door) lead you to believe that maybe he isn't quite insane and there is something else going on? Then they find out he's a loving psycho murderer with daughter related issues and it kicks off.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 13:47
|
|
with a kinda random/extraneous 
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Thing is, from frame one you know he's a nutterbar, and I'm not entirely sure if Malicious Crazy Person is a better path than Benevolent Crazy Person. Goodman could've been pissed that the two others were trying to (unsafely, in his broken mind) leave and disrespect the effort he spent to save them, without also being a creepy murdering daughter-replacer as well. I mean, that's the route they took, and they didn't so it badly, I just think it was a shade too much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Thing is, from frame one you know he's a nutterbar, and I'm not entirely sure if Malicious Crazy Person is a better path than Benevolent Crazy Person. Goodman could've been pissed that the two others were trying to (unsafely, in his broken mind) leave and disrespect the effort he spent to save them, without also being a creepy murdering daughter-replacer as well. I don't think he was a malicious crazy person though. He was mentally troubled and genuinely thought he was doing the right thing for most of the movie. He kills Emmett because Emmett admits that he was trying to take over control of the bunker from Howard. Up until that point he had shown kindness towards Emmett. He could have killed him right away but he let Emmett stay until the scissors incident. Then with Michelle he was trying to take care of her and recreate the relationship he had with his daughter. The only reason he goes after her is because she tries to escape. He wasn't being malicious just for maliciousness' sake. He was a mentally disturbed person reacting negatively when things didn't go the way he was hoping with Michelle. Oh and one of the funniest parts of this movie was Howard giving "Santa Claus" clues. "I am always watching you. I see everything you do...." lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Ehud posted:I don't think he was a malicious crazy person though. He was mentally troubled and genuinely thought he was doing the right thing for most of the movie. He kills Emmett because Emmett admits that he was trying to take over control of the bunker from Howard. Up until that point he had shown kindness towards Emmett. He could have killed him right away but he let Emmett stay until the scissors incident. Then with Michelle he was trying to take care of her and recreate the relationship he had with his daughter. The only reason he goes after her is because she tries to escape. He wasn't being malicious just for maliciousness' sake. He was a mentally disturbed person reacting negatively when things didn't go the way he was hoping with Michelle. I think we're kinda splitting hairs, here. When I speak of Malicious Crazy Person, I speak towards the kidnapping MEW and recreating the relationship he had with his daughter bits. I think it might've been more interesting if he was just a lonely crazy person whose actions were logical, it's just that he's a crazy person. "I accidentally crashed into you, felt bad, and saved you because you reminded me of my daughter" is more terrifyingly human to me than "You're the second person I've kidnapped to recreate my daughter" . The first one is  , the other skews toward Villain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Just finished watching and what the gently caress? To clarify, it's a good movie but it didn't feel complete. I was hoping the invaders were just another country so this movie could go down as one that exceeded in faking audiences out but oh well. Gaunab fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I think we're kinda splitting hairs, here. When I speak of Malicious Crazy Person, I speak towards the kidnapping MEW and recreating the relationship he had with his daughter bits. I think it might've been more interesting if he was just a lonely crazy person whose actions were logical, it's just that he's a crazy person. "I accidentally crashed into you, felt bad, and saved you because you reminded me of my daughter" is more terrifyingly human to me than "You're the second person I've kidnapped to recreate my daughter" . The first one is Fair enough! Gaunab posted:Just finished watching and what the gently caress? Eh at some point you can twist your way into gimmick territory
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing it. Going to echo the "holy poo poo thats good". The car crash at the beginning got a good jump out of me, I watched it in IMAX and the sound was incredible throughout the whole movie. I didn't really like the original Cloverfield and only wanted to see this because of Goodman and it being a bunker/survival movie, Goodman was loving INTENSE. The aliens were cool and a big part of me is hoping this becomes an anthology and we get an invasion action movie ala 'Battle for LA' but not complete poo poo. I don't quite think the radio message was a honeypot for the aliens, it mentions taking back the eastern seaboard and that Houston needs help, not that they took back Houston. Also despite the aliens being very powerful they also seem very vulnerable, she took that ship down because it (or the green gas?) was super flammable. I believe it would be a war of the worlds type thing with a suckerpunch that fucks everything up initially but the tide turns once the vulnerability is discovered. Fire/explosions in this case instead of disease. I don't quite get why he didn't want the other guy touching her early on, was it him just being overly protective of his "daughter"? TheDon01 fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Mar 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Movie ruled. Wasn't expecting the ending really at all but it was cool and neat. I would enjoy more offbeat movies like this to be made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The actual act, or how it was done? The minute beardo tried to cover for the other one, I knew he was either getting a bullet (since you can't have a gun without it going off in the movie somewhere) or slammed into the bin right then and there. I was really expecting the latter, and to be honest I'm glad it went down how it did. Don't think I could stomach seeing him dunked into the acid bath live. Movie rocked hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Movie rules, I loved the duck curtain. My theater had the sound turned up stupidly loud, probably louder than anything I've seen in years and it worked great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Movie was pretty good, John Goodman is always so funny! Didn't care for the ending. Tricked haha! Also spacefarers need to learn to stop putting massive obvious weak points on their craft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Thought there were interesting gender/patriarchy motifs in the movie but not sure what they meant. Her story about the girl being dragged through a hardware store, how she should have saved her like her brother would in her own encounters with their own father and then how Emmit protected her and she didn't protect him. During that scene Emmit was cast in a boy's blue and she in a girl's pink. Lots of girls escaping their dads or dudes. BONUS OBSERVATION: The cat puzzle and John Goodman both "missing" an eye with the puzzle missing it's pieces and Goodman winking with the same eye just before she stitched him up What does it all mean?! I loved the movie, it was deceptive and very clever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Houston isn't an alien trap. It's visible for narrative convenience, not as some kind of super-secret hint that it's not really Houston. Even if it were, they spend the entire movie characterizing Michelle as a survivor, as someone who's tough and quick-thinking to the point of making it through situations where she 100% ought to be dead. If there are a couple thousand Michelles in the world the aliens are hosed, that's the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
drat good movie. But it would have been better if they didnt have any sort of hints that goodman had kidnapped and killed before. Because without that, the whole rest of the movie could have happened where they would be pro explorong the outside or escaping goodmans escalation. Everything else could have panned out the same but there would have been the lingering question of who was right during the whole movie. That even feels like the original direction sonce beardo helped build the drat thing. We'd have to assume that the other chick died before construction of the bunker since it happened while he was still in high school before he gave up on life. And theres no way he would have showed her a picture of someone other than his daughter with beardo being a local
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Bit of a tacticool thing, but can you really make a decent the-air-is-poo poo suit out of a shower curtain? That poo poo is flimsy as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Bit of a tacticool thing, but can you really make a decent the-air-is-poo poo suit out of a shower curtain? That poo poo is flimsy as hell. You definitely could, don't know about effective filtration for the mask though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
I liked it a lot more than the original. I think it would've been better without the Cloverfield title on it since the reveals would've been a bit more out of left field. It's still solid and John Goodman is great at being off a few pegs. I need to watch Barton Fink again. This entire movie is really fascinating from a marketing and overall perspective with the secrecy, the lack of tie in to the original, and it being shot completely different. I don't even know what to think about the entire process, but it's cool to see something crazy be tried.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Movie rules, I loved the duck curtain. My theater had the sound turned up stupidly loud, probably louder than anything I've seen in years and it worked great. Just saw it on "IMAX", yeah the volume was way up and it was awesome loved the movie off topic but these IMAX branded screens aren't really IMAX screens are they? I remember seeing IMAX educational movies as a kid at like museums and poo poo and I felt like the screen was way way bigger, like it wrapped around the room
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:Just saw it on "IMAX", yeah the volume was way up and it was awesome You saw LieMax. Real IMAX theaters exist, but you have to find them. I honestly don't mind LieMax too much, if the film wasn't shot in IMAX. It'll have great sound and picture anyway, so it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:You saw LieMax. Real IMAX theaters exist, but you have to find them. I honestly don't mind LieMax too much, if the film wasn't shot in IMAX. It'll have great sound and picture anyway, so it's fine. Yeah, in Melbourne we have an 'IMAX' at the Hoyts Highpoint cinema that's fine but just somewhat large, but we also have the actual, full-blown IMAX at the Melbourne Museum which has the insane jumbo screen (and was recently outfitted with laser projectors).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
I read all of the spoilers because I'm an idiot. Will I still enjoy the movie if I go see it knowing all the twists? Or is it really reliant on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I read all of the spoilers because I'm an idiot. Will I still enjoy the movie if I go see it knowing all the twists? Or is it really reliant on them. It's like knowing spoilers ahead in all movies: instead of wondering what the twists are, you're anticipating them instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
There have been studies that say being spoiled can result in more enjoyment when watching/reading a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
Ehud posted:Eh at some point you can twist your way into gimmick territory The twist in general is gimmicky. The aliens were probably a way to have some sort of attachment to the original but really brought me out of the movie. Even though the setpiece was cool, the movie turned into a video game cutscene. Also these had to be the shittiest alien invaders ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I read all of the spoilers because I'm an idiot. Will I still enjoy the movie if I go see it knowing all the twists? Or is it really reliant on them. It's a movie driven by great performances, solid dialog, and wonderful atmosphere. Knowing what happens at the end doesn't change any of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I read all of the spoilers because I'm an idiot. Will I still enjoy the movie if I go see it knowing all the twists? Or is it really reliant on them. I read the spoilers too, and I still enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Just got back from a morning matinee and Ho. Lee. poo poo is John Goodman ever an excellent actor, he can be legitimately terrifying with just a mean look and the cuddliest dude ever with a grin and he switches between them with mechanical precision. My review is that it was totally worth my $4.98 and I'm glad I went. Shoulda been able to see a far-away Clover rampaging in the lightning at the end though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Mmmm, very against the idea of the monster from Cloverfield being called Clover. Edit: There was nothing post-credits right? I didn't stick around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
WASDF posted:Edit: I don't think all movies need post-credits scenes or anything, but this is one of those movies that I felt would've benefited from one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
WASDF posted:Mmmm, very against the idea of the monster from Cloverfield being called Clover. Clover recruited Winsted to his special team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
This movie was loving great. Kept me guessing right up until the reveal whether it somehow was all just a ruse or not. The alien design was a little dull, though; too much the modern style that tries to be really out-there but winds up just being samey, and odd for oddness' sake, rather than actually communicating something about the creature. Was it unusual that the hunter alien had a foreskin over its face? Sorta if you've never seen Tremors, but it didn't feel like it made the creature any more threatening or any scarier. And the UFO was basically the tripod from Spielberg's War of the Words without legs. The final shot with the lightning silhouetting the massive alien craft was cool, though. iSheep posted:There have been studies that say being spoiled can result in more enjoyment when watching/reading a thing. People still go to see Shakespeare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
iSheep posted:There have been studies that say being spoiled can result in more enjoyment when watching/reading a thing. If that's the study I'm thinking of their method was to take the last chapter of a book and put it first and not a "psst, did you know that Keyser Soze was dead the whole time?". It's really more in support of the "Castle/Mulder/Bones is just about to be shot...2 day earlier..." style of storytelling which is incredibly popular in television than supporting the telling of spoilers. I sort of wish that they didn't need to use the dying woman because it removed ambiguity from the "attack" portion of the story. It would be hard to write a way to dispell her disbelief but it would have made for an incredible double fakeout if she got above ground in her suit and thought it was all a hoax and then found the body. Plus it kind of made her removing the mask when hearing insects feel slightly "tactical realism" dumb just because it could it only meant that the toxin worked on humans only, not that the air was clear. One really nice touch is that when you think about how John Goodman thinks, him flipping out when he touched her arm makes way more sense if you image the cast is an old beared loser he hired and his 12 year old daughter. Of course he'd flip out at nearly any contact. I can't get mad at the marketing tie-in even if it was blatant and jarring. There's a fantastic movie in there with great acting and presence from John Goodman just it also has a tacked on alien action scene straight out of Signs with the same kind of "we got beat by these aliens?" feel It got them in the door to see Goodman so that's alright with me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:
Michelle has seen that the toxin does indeed kill animals earlier when Howard showed her the two dead pigs. So her seeing the birds meant that the air was clean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I can't get mad at the marketing tie-in even if it was blatant and jarring. What was the marketing tie in? I saw a teaser trailer and never saw any marketing for this movie beyond that. Caught it in theaters because of the rotten tomatoes score, lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
I knew the ending going in and thought it worked totally fine, while the three people I was with had no idea and thought it was a really stupid choice. I actually do think that knowing where this movie is going makes it work better, and it doesn't do anything to lessen the impact of the rest of the film. I also loved every song in the movie, even when they were hilariously on the nose with their lyrics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:What was the marketing tie in? I saw a teaser trailer and never saw any marketing for this movie beyond that. Caught it in theaters because of the rotten tomatoes score, lol Using Cloverfield in the title did everything for this movie. I hate to say it but "the Cellar" with John Goodman doesn't make $25m in a weekend. I say marketing because even though it's clear the monster portion is a reshoot, the actual monsters aren't even visually related to the Cloverfield monster. You could nearly imagine two reshoots. One because the test screenings felt they needed an action payoff and the had to choose between monsters, aliens, or North Koreans. Then another to add the mailbox and change the title to get butts in seats. Because it doesn't match up well as a Cloverfield side story. Just a mailbox and a title.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
I've had I Think We're Alone Now stuck in my head for like two full days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Using Cloverfield in the title did everything for this movie. I hate to say it but "the Cellar" with John Goodman doesn't make $25m in a weekend. I say marketing because even though it's clear the monster portion is a reshoot, the actual monsters aren't even visually related to the Cloverfield monster. What makes it clear that they weren't in the original but from a reshoot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
WASDF posted:What makes it clear that they weren't in the original but from a reshoot? This had ambiguous apocalypse written all over it. His radio has no contact and then you've got organized resistance in multiple states having victory against the invaders. The "I heard a car" but it being monster sounds works fine when a neighbor later shows up but not when the world has been scoured clean by monstes, but some post sound work can make them monsters. Plus the booze being in his truck doesn't make nearly as much sense as it being in her nearby crashed car and she gets surprised by him in her escape and uses it to burn him alive. This movie seemed to be headed right toward a matte painting reveal of the world on fire/dead/Night of the Comet red dust at the end to prove the psycho right. It's not structured well for an alien action finale. While watching it the shot of the mailbox skidding into frame with Cloverfield Lane on it was the capper. Did you really feel like it was a contiguous portion of the same movie? It felt jarring to me. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Mar 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Really weird and enjoyable movie. I can see how the end is going to put some people off but it worked for me, because why not Aliens? I'm still undecided on whether or not Cloverfield should have been in the title. On one hand it feels gimmicky and just a cheap way to sell tickets, on the other I think it ads some validation to the movie going full sci fi at the end. Still felt kind of unnecessary and strips the film of it's individuality a bit. I thought it was great though. I wouldn't change much about it. It's like a buffet of twists and genre switches that blend together pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 00:48
|
|
