Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudman
i would like to see a sequel but i don't think it will be as good. Cloverfield was unique and a sequel won't have that and they can't just do the same thing again. If they do it from a 3rd person who watched it all unfold, that sounds a bit pants also because cloverfield was so good because it was right in the action.
|
This is much the same as my thinking on it. The reality angle does seem to be a one-time thing with this movie.
Further to the shaky cam work --- I find that most people out there who own vidcams take shaky video. Most people don't know what they're doing, they walk around while the video is running, creating footstep jerks, they bump into stuff and create muffled impact sounds, etc. In some kind of crisis that stuff would only be compounded. Running while filming? Forget it.
All that jerkiness etc HAD to be in there, for full reality effect.
If it was filmed using better techniques using more professional and smoother methods it wouldn't have had the same effect.
Personally I really got it, and enjoyed the uniqueness of it. For about the first 20 mins of it I recall wondering where the fuck they were going with this, but once things started to heat up I all but forgot about the camera work.
It's a tough call, on one had I'd like to see more, as in a sequel, but on the other hand I just don't know how it could be done with the same "reality" feel to it and pull it off with anything close to the same oomph the first film had.