Cloverfield
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,778
Likes: 0
From: Kona, HI
Ok I'm confused. Just got back from seeing it, really liked it. Stayed through the credits (man those were long) and heard the voice, def. sounded like Rob's. Thing is, I totally missed whatever falling into the water. I take it it happened right after/right around she said she had a great day? Is that the right clip?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,275
Likes: 12
From: Virgnia
Originally Posted by AZDelt,Jan 21 2008, 10:10 PM
Ok I'm confused. Just got back from seeing it, really liked it. Stayed through the credits (man those were long) and heard the voice, def. sounded like Rob's. Thing is, I totally missed whatever falling into the water. I take it it happened right after/right around she said she had a great day? Is that the right clip?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Jackson
you might not want to watch this if you have not seen the movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXWr...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXWr...eature=related
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: Bowie, MD
Originally Posted by FISH22,Jan 21 2008, 12:00 PM
LOL, you must be one of those people that need everything explained in a movie. I'll say it again, I loved it. Probably going to see it again with some friends. Oh and for that 'thing' falling in the water....did some "investigating" around the web and if any of you guys follow the whole japanese company thing with slusho, its supposed to be a piece of the companies satellite. Not sure where this will play in the story, but definitely interesting.
The story consist of a giant unknown creature that attacks Newyork and cost havoc. The guy felt bad that he and his "girl" didnt work out so he went to save her. at the end everybody (or it seems like it) has either died or is seriously injured.
Wheres the twist? what makes it different from godzilla destroying a bunch of buildings?(atleast with godzilla i saw more of the monster for more than a few seconds.)
just because we have difference of opinion doesnt give you the right to judge me on what kind of person i am. Just because you had fun watching a movie that gave you great effects does not make it a good movie.
why would i search the internet for information in a movie? arent i suppose to come up with conclusions during the movie rather than after it.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: Bowie, MD
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809873032/critic
I agree with most if not all critics that scored this movie a B
I agree with most if not all critics that scored this movie a B
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 325
Likes: 1
From: Philadelphia
Originally Posted by FISH22,Jan 22 2008, 12:09 AM
Its the part where its focused on the water/beach, right before it pans over to them. From what I've been reading, its a satelite....we'll just have to wait and see how this unfolds...I know it's gonna be good.
I think the story is the satellite crashes just off New York, and a mission is undertaken to recover it. In the process of retrieving it they mistakenly awaken a beast that's been sleeping at the bottom of the ocean for millenia. It comes up confused and hungry, dragging its giant undersea parasites with it and proceeds to go apesh!t all over Manhattan. I read that Abrams wanted the creature to exhibit "seperation anxiety" behaviour symptoms and act in general like a giant child acting out in search of something, I know not what.
I LOVED the movie, but I understand most of the complaints of the people who will go to their graves with this movie on their 10 worst list. I loved the first person single camera perspective, and I felt it did a great job of embedding the audience into the disintegrating world of the characters. However, if you got motion sick easily and spent most of the time wishing the cameraman would stand still, or longed to see the President, a general and a few scientists screaming at each other in a conference room about specific monster revealing details, then I can't call you an idiot for feeling that way. Its understandable, but you need to understand that the movie they MADE was not the one in your head. It was the one THEY wanted to make and I personally applaud them for sticking to their guns right to the last frame. We never learn anything other than what we see, and I'm fine with that.
For the sequel, my idea is to tell the same story from a timeline starting about halfway through the first movie, but from the viewpoint of a military biographer/camerman embedded with the frontline troops. You would get a more stable picture, as it would be a professional cameraman and MUCH more of the story details and secrets would be revealed.
My other idea is to retell the whole story from the perspective of a random Japanese tourist in Manhattan(subtitles and all) , but that would probably just piss everybody off even more! lol.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Tustin, CA.
Originally Posted by parkerdw,Jan 22 2008, 02:18 PM
I saw the satellite crash and also heard the voice after the credits. It does say "Help us" in such a way that when played backwards it sounds like "Its still alive". Yes, the recording is very creepy sounding and I'm not convinced its meant to be Rob speaking, but that's my best guess.
I think the story is the satellite crashes just off New York, and a mission is undertaken to recover it. In the process of retrieving it they mistakenly awaken a beast that's been sleeping at the bottom of the ocean for millenia. It comes up confused and hungry, dragging its giant undersea parasites with it and proceeds to go apesh!t all over Manhattan. I read that Abrams wanted the creature to exhibit "seperation anxiety" behaviour symptoms and act in general like a giant child acting out in search of something, I know not what.
I LOVED the movie, but I understand most of the complaints of the people who will go to their graves with this movie on their 10 worst list. I loved the first person single camera perspective, and I felt it did a great job of embedding the audience into the disintegrating world of the characters. However, if you got motion sick easily and spent most of the time wishing the cameraman would stand still, or longed to see the President, a general and a few scientists screaming at each other in a conference room about specific monster revealing details, then I can't call you an idiot for feeling that way. Its understandable, but you need to understand that the movie they MADE was not the one in your head. It was the one THEY wanted to make and I personally applaud them for sticking to their guns right to the last frame. We never learn anything other than what we see, and I'm fine with that.
For the sequel, my idea is to tell the same story from a timeline starting about halfway through the first movie, but from the viewpoint of a military biographer/camerman embedded with the frontline troops. You would get a more stable picture, as it would be a professional cameraman and MUCH more of the story details and secrets would be revealed.
My other idea is to retell the whole story from the perspective of a random Japanese tourist in Manhattan(subtitles and all) , but that would probably just piss everybody off even more! lol.
I think the story is the satellite crashes just off New York, and a mission is undertaken to recover it. In the process of retrieving it they mistakenly awaken a beast that's been sleeping at the bottom of the ocean for millenia. It comes up confused and hungry, dragging its giant undersea parasites with it and proceeds to go apesh!t all over Manhattan. I read that Abrams wanted the creature to exhibit "seperation anxiety" behaviour symptoms and act in general like a giant child acting out in search of something, I know not what.
I LOVED the movie, but I understand most of the complaints of the people who will go to their graves with this movie on their 10 worst list. I loved the first person single camera perspective, and I felt it did a great job of embedding the audience into the disintegrating world of the characters. However, if you got motion sick easily and spent most of the time wishing the cameraman would stand still, or longed to see the President, a general and a few scientists screaming at each other in a conference room about specific monster revealing details, then I can't call you an idiot for feeling that way. Its understandable, but you need to understand that the movie they MADE was not the one in your head. It was the one THEY wanted to make and I personally applaud them for sticking to their guns right to the last frame. We never learn anything other than what we see, and I'm fine with that.
For the sequel, my idea is to tell the same story from a timeline starting about halfway through the first movie, but from the viewpoint of a military biographer/camerman embedded with the frontline troops. You would get a more stable picture, as it would be a professional cameraman and MUCH more of the story details and secrets would be revealed.
My other idea is to retell the whole story from the perspective of a random Japanese tourist in Manhattan(subtitles and all) , but that would probably just piss everybody off even more! lol.
Well said
unlike some people......