Cloverfield

[blueerica]

I think that a big part of it is the negative word of mouth. Perhaps you guys had audiences that loved it, but in the theater I was in people were vocal about their dislike of the film - like they were angry or something.

Everyone who was gonna see it saw it, if you liked it, you liked it, and if you hated it you were gonna tell everyone to not see it - or at least that's the impression I got.

[Chernabog]

Wow, everyone in the theatre I was in seemed to love the film (except for the two senior citizens who left halfway). But I saw it at the arclight, where audiences are a LOT more sophisticated.

Honestly my expectation is that audiences these days would be smart enough to deal with ambiguity in film, but obviously people are too stupid to think for themselves or have fun with the film. They need it spelled out for them. They need the man in the white lab coat saying "oh yes, and the satellite fell from the sky, it was shot down by the Russians, and it awoke a being from beneath the sea. It grew and grew. Now let's discuss the monster's motivations. Now let's diagram the monster. Here's a 3-D model of the monster, that you can look at in excruciating detail to see exactly what it looked like. Now we're going to explain what happened to New York City afterwards. Now we're going to interview the surviving members of the group you just saw, blah blah blah." It would kill the intensity of THIS film.

Well, maybe some of that would be appropriate for a sequel, but I thought the film was brilliant in exploring a "what would really happen in the first 7 hours if you were right there" sequence. If the filmmakers spell it out in a sequel, them maybe the filmgoing public will like the first one more because they don't need to think for themselves.

It's one thing not to like the movie on its own terms, but to not like it because it didn't spell everything out is dumb.

And if they don't make a sequel, then Cloverfield will be relegated to "cult favorite" status, I suppose.

Just like what happened to Donnie Darko. Ever see that film? The original cut was brilliant, made you go rewatch to figure out what was going on, etc. etc. Then the director (proving that the original cut was a fluke) decided to make a director's cut which spelled out exactly what was happening. One of the worst films I'd ever seen, completely destroying any sense of fun, wonder and ambiguity. Yet I read reviews that think the directors cut was great because they "finally understand what was happening". F**k them.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Just like what happened to Donnie Darko. Ever see that film? The original cut was brilliant, made you go rewatch to figure out what was going on, etc. etc. Then the director (proving that the original cut was a fluke) decided to make a director's cut which spelled out exactly what was happening. One of the worst films I'd ever seen, completely destroying any sense of fun, wonder and ambiguity. Yet I read reviews that think the directors cut was great because they "finally understand what was happening". F**k them.

Truer words. I wanted to beat up that director's cut in a bar brawl.

I am still on the fence about seeing Cloverfield in theaters. I really wanted to see it. I love Drew Goddard. LOVE. But I am prone to get motion sickness watching something like that on a big screen, so I may wait. What most excited me about the plot was seeing a monster/disaster film in the first hours of the attack, when chaos and ambiguity reign, and the terror is paramount because nothing is explained. It's what you would experience if it was happening to you.

That's what so many horror film creators don't seem to get (or perhaps its the studios, and not the writer/directors): the less you know about what lurks in the dark, the scarier it is. There can be a clever/cool set-up (a neglected boy who drowns in a lake while camp counselors are macking on each other; a child molester killed by a mob of angry parents), but the moment you explain *how* those monsters come back from the dead, the moment you try to explain what evil is, etc., SNORE.

There's a reason why people like Goddard and Joss Whedon are fans of H.P. Lovecraft. The guy knew how to tell a spooky, puzzling and exciting tale.

[blueerica]

I couldn't agree with you more, Chernie. J and I were totally shocked at the reactions around us, but we just sort of looked at each other and realized that it's probably what a lot of our country's movie-goers are like. I'm pretty happy that Ogden has an art crowd that's into indie stuff, what-not, but I think most just aren't into it.

This reminds me that I have Best of the Fest tickets for tonight! Woohoo!

[BarTopDancer]

I don't think I am a stupid movie watcher for wanting to know more.

Monster attack! Blow stuff up! Find tape.

Perhaps it's better left for a sequel. It didn't belong in the beginning of the film, but I am not a stupid movie watcher for wanting to know more, or not liking the pure ambiguity of the movie.

I went into the movie hoping for a monster blowing up NY. I got more. It left me wanting more. Doesn't make me less intelligent then you or make my movie viewing skills less educated then any of you who liked it how it was. I really resent the implications that those who wanted more are stupid.

[blueerica]

I really don't think anyone said you were less intelligent for wanting to know more...

I know we just talked about it, but I'm putting it here for posterity.

While we may disagree on the beauty of ambiguity in films, the fact that you question these things, insightfully so, proves that you're not some stupid movie watcher - at least to me. Stupid movie watchers are the kind of people that dismiss something before it even had a chance to sink in.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, I want to know where the monster came from. I just don't fault the movie for making the monster scarier, and the hand-held camera experience more realistic by not explaining everything that my curiosity rose to.


There's a difference.

Are you curious about more than the movie told you? You're a fine audience member.

Are you angry at the movie for not telling you everying you thought you should know? You're a nimrod.

[Strangler Lewis]

Then Aristotle was a nimrod.

My personal theory is that the entire movie was an NYU film school project.

Maybe I should see it first.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I don't think I am a stupid movie watcher for wanting to know more.

Monster attack! Blow stuff up! Find tape.

Perhaps it's better left for a sequel. It didn't belong in the beginning of the film, but I am not a stupid movie watcher for wanting to know more, or not liking the pure ambiguity of the movie.

I went into the movie hoping for a monster blowing up NY. I got more. It left me wanting more. Doesn't make me less intelligent then you or make my movie viewing skills less educated then any of you who liked it how it was. I really resent the implications that those who wanted more are stupid.

There's a difference between wanting to know more (or thinking that the movie didn't work on its own terms... but hell, EVERYONE wanted to figure out what was going on, everyone had questions at the end of the movie that they wanted to figure out, everyone wanted to know where the monster came from, etc.) and needing the man in the white lab coat to spell it out in detail in the movie itself to make the film a good movie.

I think people who needed the man in the white lab coat were completely missing the point of the film.

I didn't say "if you didn't like the movie you are a stupid person", because that would be a ridiculous thing for me to say. Sorry if that was the way you took it.

[Alex]

I'm fine with it in this case but the line isn't a solid one. The movie could have been even more authentic and have ended at the 50 minute mark, down in the subway when the battery died or with Hud realizing that he has better things to be doing than worrying about zooming in on things.

Then I'd have been pissed at the movie for starting a story and not getting to what I considered a satisfactory conclusion. And I'd feel whoever was saying "but it was real and authentic" would be a poseur trying to get all hoity on me.

If, at the end of the movie, a person doesn't feel that enough was provided for the overall to be enjoyable that is their opinion. I don't think it is quite to the nimrod level of existence.

Of course, most of the word of mouth I've been hearing is "don't go see it, it'll make you sick."