|
**spoiler free** I couldn't wait until Friday. I just couldn't. I knew there was a screening of Cloverfield tonight, and I knew I had to be there. So I entered the contests, but came up short. I threw a hail mary. The NOW Magazine office is on the way home from work, and I knew that sometimes they give away passes that haven't been picked up by 6. Score. Sadly, couldn't get a hold of the regular suspects to accompany me, so I went solo. Packed house, but oddly, of all the advance screenings I've seen, this one didn't make me check my cell phone at the door. One of the most secretive productions of all time, and they didn't enforce that stupid policy. Thank god for that. Mind you, the host said they had "special equipment" that would detect camera use, and that if you're caught, you're gone. Didn't happen as far as I could see. Still, let's hope that becomes the standard from now on. Oh yeah, the movie. Let me throw a few titles at you. Jaws. Gojira. Blair Witch. Aliens. Independence Day. You'll be hearing those mentioned in pretty much every review, so I thought I'd get those out of the way. I'd like to discuss the film further, but I know there's lots of people out there that want to go in cold. Let me say this: It's awesome. You can really lose yourself in it. Most of what you'll hear from the media is about the hype for it. What's interesting about that is that the hype wasn't really manufactured by the studio, the media and the internet took up that gauntlet themselves. Bottom line is, the film withstands it all. You want to go in to pick it apart, there'll be plenty of ammo for you, but you're a jaded bastard who will never enjoy anything ever again anyway, so there's no hope for you. Everyone else should be damned impressed. Now, some caveats. The choice to go first person was a ballsy one, but it works beautifully. Sure, there's some shakycam instances, but it's much more professionally executed than that there other film what was shot on handycam. So don't let that aspect scare you off. Second is something that's only recently come out: it's damned short. I'm talking 84 minutes with some long-rear end credits (also, nothing happens after said credits, save for some unintelligible audio garble, so feel free to leave. You're welcome.) Honestly, you won't complain about the length. Hell, you'll be glad it's not longer. It's tight. There's minimal filler, and they even manage to have characters you give a crap about. Third, I don't know how it's going to play on second viewing. I think the real power of the film is the initial exposure, when you're unsure what the hell is going on. Setting it in New York also adds a big nine eleven feeling, which is of course directly referenced, both by the characters and in several destruction sequences. But dammit, it makes the whole thing even more terrifying, since it's that much more realistic. If you can put yourself in the moment, it's an incredible ride. I'm sure it will open to crazy numbers this weekend, but it's one of those films that's worth seeing in a packed house. I don't think there'll be another film experience like this for a long, long time. So go see it this weekend with everyone else. Hey, it's less than 90 minutes out of your life. PROS: Intense experience, great visuals, tight pacing. A classic. CONS: May not meet ridiculously high expectations, shakycam is a bit off-putting at times. 4.5 Stars
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2008 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
This was an amazing movie. Like batphantom, I won't reveal any details, because he's right: cold is the way to go. The movie was everything that I hoped it would be: it never deviated from the perspective set at the beginning to give some sort of fanservice third-person reward for coming. Despite that, the first-person is done really well. There are parts that drag a little, but you know what? In real life, the narrative doesn't cut from exciting bit to exciting bit, and it does a really good job of balancing a truncated timescale with a feeling of how drawn-out the experience was for the characters. Everything works, at least from what I could tell. There's no completely unnecessary crap added in, the empathy they ask you to develop for the characters is all directly related to the story, but it gives you enough to actually care about them. There are parts of it that are pretty brutal, and they were very well done in my opinion. I love that the cast was unrecognizable (to me anyway, I guess they've done other stuff) because it made it feel just that much more like it was really happening. Yes, they're all really hot, but they still felt pretty much like real people. I read the anticipation thread in CD, I read about rumors and the ARG and new the backstory and personally I feel that all of that was very enriching. But I went with a friend who knew nothing about it except that it was a monster movie and she 100% agreed with its awesomeness. The only part that was a downer was that I was informed that something happens after the credits, so I stayed and it was really disappointing. Oh well. 5/5. A great way to start off the year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 09:29
|
|
|
Pretty great. The shakycam that I was extremely worried about going in is actually the most prominent in the first fifteen minutes, which is funny considering its before all hell has broken loose and everyone's running like hell. The characters were believable (almost irritatingly so in Hud's case) and weren't just stupid horror movie cannon fodder, and they don't pull the 'something cool is happening right next to the camera but we're not showing it!' bullshit, at least not enough or for a long enough time to where it detracts. Trying to keep any spoilers minimizes, its definitely worth seeing. If you have extremely high hopes it may fall below them, but as for my extremely low expectations, it definitely surpassed them in pretty much all ways. "Its a lion!" 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 10:44
|
|
|
In my opinion this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The shaky-cam was excruciating, which would've been excusable for the sake of realism if the film wasn't injected with every contrived Hollywood plot-device known to man. From a "I have to tell her I love her" plot, to the comic relief sidekick, to the fact that almost every one looked like a loving model, this movie was doing everything it could to keep me immersed in the film. Instead the P.O.V. striving at realism and the stack of cliche's played a tug of war with my attention span and left me angry and irritated by the film's end. (Which was after two better resolution points that occured) Pros: The monster was kind of cool. Cons: All that's mentioned above, plus a lacking of likeable characters, and some horrible plotholes and unrealistic decision making on the characters plot. .5/5 Stars
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 11:19
|
|
|
What the hell, JJ? I'm not really sure what my collegues above me saw, but my Cloverfield was 80 minutes of nausea and frustration. The hand-held camera monster movie idea, like communism and the Disney Channel, is a great idea on paper. What a pitch. A monster attacks New York, and we see it all in the gritty realism only a handheld camera can bring to the audience. Unfortunately, also like communism and the Disney Channel, this just pans out to sheer obnoxiousness. The weeks leading up to tonight I've been talking with people about why this is such a good idea. I kept saying "I don't wanna see the monster clearly, that would ruin it" and "I'm so glad it's gonna be shakey, I'll really get into it and feel like I'm there." Well, shut the gently caress up Me-Three-Hours-Ago. You don't know what the gently caress you want. I'll give the movie this: The characters are excellent. Granted, I was rooting for the monster at the end to kill these annoying pricks, especially Hud, but the way they're established and the way they made it so I cared about them was very well done. As for the monster, I didn't get a good look at it (T-Rex head + scythe arms + lobster tail? Huh?) or the tiny things that came off it, which is what I wanted, but in hindsight, I was much more interested in it than watching these people walk around (90% of the movie), so it sucks in this regard. The movie reminds you you're in a theater the entire time because you have to look down at your shoes every few minutes to not throw up on the guy in front of you. The Blair Witch was completely different. In that movie, they were professional cinematographers, and so the camera, while not on a dolley, wasn't shaking like crazy. I don't know why every person that this movie had to go through put their thumbs up to this. Wasn't the shaking like, done later? Couldn't someone have toned it down? Maybe turn the Shakey-O-Matic from "Mexican Jumping Beans" to "Scared White Guy With a Camera"? Wait for DVD. I'm sure it'll be decent on a smaller screen. I dunno, I'm getting sick of midnight premieres that I consider walking out of. I should really stop. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 11:52
|
|
|
This is probably the greatest monster movie ever made, and the most fun I've had in a theatre in as long as I can remember. I just wanted to say those two lines first so I make it clear how much I loved this movie. However, if you EASILY get motion sick do not see this movie. I highlight easily because the two times I've seen this movie in packed theatres, I have yet to see a single person barf or even complain of nausea, so I'm convinced that the people complaining about the camera work must really be easily affected. The camera is shacky, yes, but its not like in Bourne Ultimatum or Batman Begins where the camera is literally cutting all over the place and you have no idea whats going on. Most of the shaky moments are ongoing clips and it still manages to capture lots of the action (although sometimes sideways or upside-down). I seriously believe that "Oh God, they handed us barf bags when we came in..." is just goons blowing poo poo out of proportion. The monster was wonderful. Where I sat I heard people talking before the movie and they all thought the monster would stay hidden and the movie would "suck". At the end of the movie there was a moment of silence and then cheering and clapping. You see the monster...its huge and its scary. The movie manages to build-up suspense and thrill you without gore-fests and other cliches that our current monster movies poo poo out. This movie needs you to empathize with the characters, if you don't build up that empathy in the first 20 minutes, you might hate this movie. That being said, I and everyone I've talked to really liked the characters. They act real, they panic, they do really stupid poo poo for really good and believable reasons. Awesome movie...easily lives up to the hype. 5.5/5.0 Anonymous Zebra fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jan 18, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 17:38
|
|
|
The quickest and easiest breakdown of this movie goes like this: 1) If you are prone to motion sickness do not watch this movie. It will make you ill. 2) If you are someone who can't stand cliches, do not watch this movie. The plot is a big monster attacking New York and a guy tries to save the girl he loves. 3) If you demand that your characters be quirky and cute and likable like Juno do not watch this movie. The people are just plain old Manhattan yuppies trying to get ahead. 4) You need every little thing explained by the movie or you become angry If all 3 of the above criteria do not apply to you then see this movie. You will basically get a hell of a wild ride and some pretty original situations and shots. This is a monster movie/creature feature that is executed in a completely new style and based upon that I am going to give this a 4/5. I really, really liked this film. edit: added a fourth reason that bothered some people I saw this with, and clarified that I really did enjoy the hell out of Cloverfield. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jan 18, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 19:37
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The quickest and easiest breakdown of this movie goes like this: This might need some clarification. 1) If you have severe motion sickness you will become ill when you see this movie. I'm basically a bitch when it comes to being nauteous and after the first fifteen minutes I stopped really noticing it. 2) 'Monster attacking a city' isn't a cliche, and the love angle isn't handled in a 'these people barely know eachother' or any other dumb horror movie way, its pretty realistic. 3) The movie doesn't have hamburger phones or other manufactured quirkiness so if you love that stupid bullshit you will find the characters lacking! As far as I can tell they're just regular (but fairly successful) people living in Manhattan. Don't let the dumb nitpicks of goons make you hesitant to see an awesome movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 20:29
|
|
|
Don't believe the hype train. My girlfriend and I bought into the hype and were both incredibly disappointed. I'll echo some of the sentiments already stated: 1) The shaky cam effect is used too much. I'm not one to get motion sickness at all, but the first 15 minutes of the movie almost made me throw up in my mouth. 2) Wooden characters that detract from the realism Abrams was trying to achieve. Hud was probably the biggest culprit. "I'm not going to tell anyone you had sex with Beth now, but I'll wait two minutes to tell everyone at the party for comedic effect. 3) Too much love story bullshit. Get your telegraphed romance (i.e. "I have to go back for Beth.") out of my innovative monster movie. 4) The entire loving movie is in the previews. I felt cheated, and I will never pay money to see another J.J. Abrams movie in theaters. The guy is a hack who built street cred among nerds to gain a fan base. Maybe it's just the fact that I'm well-read, but nothing in the movie surprised or shocked me. Anyone who thinks this movie shakes the foundations of the monster genre is only living in a dream world. 2/5 Pros: Short run time, a character's head exploding (this is in the previews, so I'm not ruining poo poo for you) Cons: Wooden characters, shaky cam overused, previews ruined the entire movie, military personnel breaking protocol for total strangers, telegraphed love story, faggy cameraman
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 22:18
|
|
|
I was impressed by this movie. Seeing a piece of the monster fairly early allowed me to focus on what was going on, and not "come on show ittttt!" the whole time. The characters were great, and acted like normal every day dudes act (telling everyone the rumors, and the emotions throughout the movie were spot on). Definitely a huge turn up from all the poo poo "horror" movies we've seen all of the last 3 years. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2008 23:33
|
|
|
This movie was awful. It was pretty much "The CW Presents: Godzilla 1998." Not a single thing the characters do makes an ounce of sense. They spent 20 minutes of the movie fleshing out characters that I ended up hating, a couple cool shots of the monster, and the rest of the time idiots running stupidly towards pointless scenes that have been seen in every other monster movie you've seen since 'Alien.' I saw 'The Mist' a couple weeks ago for the first time, and it was BY FAR the better monster movie of the two. Don't buy into the hype. See 'The Orphanage' which was released a week ago and is a far better horror movie. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 00:02
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing it ad I have to agree with it being a good film. It does "borrow" from a lot of other great horror films, but I see it more as a nod to them, reflecting what it was that made it so good. There were a few moments that you really had to suspend your belief a bit, for the sake of the film, but they were easy to forgive and didn't take away from the movie. The only parts that I didn't dig were some of the lines that were spoken by the characters....just a tad unrealistic under the circumstances...but again, they were easy to overlook. All in all it was a lot of fun. Nothing groundbreaking by any means, but I enjoyed it and I feel that it will be a classic for what it is. pros: easy to follow, GREAT sounds, really placed you in the WTF!! mode that the characters were in. I also really liked the whole ARG aspect as it adds to the whole package. cons: some choices, words, and actions were not too realistic for the reality of the situation. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 00:09
|
|
|
First let me start off by talking about the hype. I don't think, at this point, that Cloverfield is completely separateable from the hype surrounding Cloverfield. A lot of people I guess played the ARG, freeze-framed the preview, whatever. All I can say for myself is I saw the teaser and the trailer, and went in expecting something better than "Godzilla" with Matthew Broderick, and I thought it delivered. I'm going to give the rest of this review in bullet points, because shut up. - Shakeycam: The use of handhelds was, in my eyes, very successful. It helped give an immediacy to the thing, it was a cool stylistic choice. And yes, there's a ton of stuff that's less than realistic about having a camera work perfectly for a long night of monster-madness, but whatever, it's a movie. I'm fairly sensitive to motion sickness and the lick, the Borne movies are usually hard for me to watch, and had no problems with the film. Other people I went to see it with couldn't keep their eyes on the screen for too long or they'd vomit. So judge based on your own stomach. One last note: Frequently "shakecam" also refers to a style of editing, especially in fight scenes. I loving loathe this style, and feel like it prevents the viewer from seeing anything that's happening. This is my main problem with the Borne movies, or the newest Batman movie. Cloverfield, while shot on handhelds, did not really have this. Most of the action was surprisingly clear. - Characters: The characters in Cloverfield were well drawn and better developed than most monster movie fodder. Having said that, this is not a movie about the inner lives of several hipster Manhattanites, we have Wes Anderson for that. I thought the first twenty minutes, before the monster attacked, drew the characters skillfully. I liked them and understood what they were doing. Honestly though, I didn't end up caring all to much about them - they were people I was on the ride with, and not much more. In this, they served well. They worked as good narrators, and points of reference, but the movie was more about the monster than them. -Realism: Okay, okay. Rob was stupid, Beth should have been dead, the Solider never should have let them out, whatever. It made it more fun, so it should have stayed in. -The Monster: I feel like a lot of people, both in this thread, and in the theater, were let down by the monster. I have no idea what people were expecting. Maybe some kind of explanation? But that completely goes against the premise of the movie, the whole found-footage thing. Anyway the monster was cool. The "zerglings" were not used well enough, they seemed really to only add one or two suspense sequences, but the big bad was good looking, scary, and fun. I don't know what else to say. Overall: Overall Cloverfield was an extremely fun movie. It felt like a theme park ride, it felt on-rails and maybe guided by stupid people, but it delivered near constant thrills. Unless you can't stomach shakey-cam or have a hard on for proving fantasy to be unrealistic, you'll like this. 4/5 - A very, very solid and fun monster movie. Not "great," but a skilled and sucessful genre flick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 01:05
|
|
|
I know there was a lot of hype surrounding this movie, but I only got into it a couple weeks ago. However I really liked this movie. I am a huge lost fan and really was looking forward to this movie when I found out J.J. Abrams was producing it. It has that myserious feel to it that Lost fans have gotten used to. Here is my quick rundown of what I liked: - A very unique way to do a monster movie. I liked that it felt like it wasn't scripted and the movie achieved at making you feel you were really watching someones camera rather than a hollywood movie. It was a new experience that I had never felt before while watching a movie. -One thing for people who watched it already, and this is true to J.J. and LOST...At the very end, when they are on the ferris wheel you can see a meteor crash into the ocean in the background. This lets us know that it was alien... Overall 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 03:13
|
|
|
I thought this movie was just okay. It didn't want to be a straight-up monster movie, so much of it was focused on the relationships of the people involved. Unfortunately they were all annoyingly beautiful people with poorly written dialogue. I never really felt an attachment to any of the characters and that detracted from the movie severely. Also, and of course this is a matter of opinion, the monster was pretty uninspired. I found myself wishing for the whale-beast from the fan fiction guy in the hype thread. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 03:46
|
|
|
I saw it, and I was a big fan. Sure, the characters weren't stellar, and the monster itself wasn't as cool as that whale thing fanart, but the way the movie kept me involved and on edge throughout so many of the scenes (most especially the helicopter scene and the bugs "RUN RUN RUN!!!!!" made it a thrilling experience. I'm glad it was so short, the shaky cam gimmick, although it really made the atmosphere, also made the movie somewhat difficult to watch at parts. I know people that complained that it was too hard to tell what was going on in Transformers because of the camera, and those people should not go see this movie. Also, don't see it if you're not willing to go along with some of the more illogical parts, like why they're actually carrying a camera in a constantly life-threatening situation and how they could survive the helicopter crash, what the gently caress but overall, it was great. Best movie I've seen all year 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 03:54
|
|
|
Honestly, I agree with everything Digital Osmosis said. Adding some more to my other post: triumphant chordate posted:I don't get why you guys expected so much out of this movie. I thought it was great, for what it did. After seeing the trailers I thought I'd be disappointed by some lovely monster movie, but it was put together very well. The monster wasn't supposed to be the focus of the movie, which is why they show it to you that way. I didn't get any of the motion sickness from the shaky cam, and I loved the first-person view of Cloverfield. I think it was a good choice for the movie, and for a monster movie in general. I hated the poo poo Rob did, mostly "let's go back for Beth," but I didn't really care for the characters that much. Hud was funny, everyone else was a regular person. They weren't "annoyingly beautiful," come up to NYC and look around. It's average around here. The whale thing from the drawing was a lot cooler than the monster, but it doesn't really matter. The monster isn't the focus. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 04:54
|
|
|
Where the gently caress was Matt Broderick?????? It should have been godzilla!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but not really, awesome, awesome movie. It was made even better when after about 10 minutes in the main character goes "Hi, Im Robert Hawkins." Made me and my friend die of laughter because we live in Papillion, Nebraska. Which is about 15 minute drive from Westroads Mall. HA! 5/5 Edit: The scene with the sideways building; When the go into the building next to it, they could have taken the elevator, if only they had fought their way through 6 minutes of zombies and antlions. FYI (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 06:50
|
|
|
HanabaL03 posted:-One thing for people who watched it already, and this is true to J.J. and LOST...At the very end, when they are on the ferris wheel you can see a meteor crash into the ocean in the background. This lets us know that it was alien... Please tell me this is true. I didn't notice this. If this is true the movie gets a +1 from me. - I normally hate it when action movies do the shaky-cam during fight scenes, but I was more than able to deal with it in this movie. - They showed you enough at times, unlike in Lost. Right as I would think "gently caress SHOW ME" they would. Of course, in typical JJ style, it was bits and pieces. - The beginning went on too long for my liking. 3.5 (+1 if the above was really true) / 5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 08:08
|
|
|
HanabaL03 posted:-One thing for people who watched it already, and this is true to J.J. and LOST...At the very end, when they are on the ferris wheel you can see a meteor crash into the ocean in the background. This lets us know that it was alien... If this is the case, that makes that part far awesomer, and I wish I'd noticed it then. All in all, I thought the movie was quite enjoyable; as noted previously, it doesn't really tread new ground, and is more or less Blair Witch meets Godzilla with 9/11 backdrop. Nonetheless, it still is quite interesting, if only for the 'What the hell is going on' factor; the only part of me that was really unsatisfied is that bit of me which loves knowing the 'What, why, and how' of the film; if you want any sort of explanation for what is happening, or how it is happening, you won't find it. Also, on the motion sickness aspect, I think it must have something to do with theaters people see it in; at least 4 out of the 5 of us experienced it to one degree or another, and it seemed a sentiment echoed by other goers as well. I'd disagree about the first 15 minutes being the worst for it, though, as For me, the subway attack had one of the biggest cases of camera fling. It was almost a relief when it fell on the ground briefly. Nonetheless, it's still worth seeing at least once, in my opinion. 3.5/5; would be higher if I hadn't felt sick for half of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 08:21
|
|
|
HanabaL03 posted:-One thing for people who watched it already, and this is true to J.J. and LOST...At the very end, when they are on the ferris wheel you can see a meteor crash into the ocean in the background. This lets us know that it was alien... I work at a theater so I saw it ahead of time and didn't see it, but my girlfriend did so i watched the end again today and still didn't see... am i blind or something?!?! Also, the shaky-cam is a little to intense at times but the movie was very engaging and i enjoyed it. The of the stuff towards the end "Oh hay i can run around and stuff even though i was impaled" and the "Oh look this 35 story monstar can walk silently while i run to pick up the camera" but nothing bad enough to prevent enjoyment. 4/5 StrayChild fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Jan 19, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 08:36
|
|
|
Incredible movie! I was one of the very few who was not bothered at all by the shakycam. I absolutely loved how intense this film was. The subway, and of course all of the scenes with the monster and bugs were amazing. There were a few non action scenes that just blew me away too. 5/5 I said come in! fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Jan 19, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 09:02
|
|
|
It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it wasn't entertaining or scary for me at all. The movie did an effective job of simulating a first person perspective of a catastrophic monster attack, but for me, it didn't make for good entertainment. The shakycam was distracting and for a majority of the time, I couldn't really see what I was supposed to be scared of. Like Sarx noted, it also felt like there were far too many Hollywood plot devices forced into the movie that ruined it for me: the "I love this girl, I have to tell her" motive to drive the plot, how all his friends (all handsome or gorgeous) handily agree to follow him into certain death and the "oh crap, what's that behind you" when he turned on the nightvision. The characters were also flat and uninteresting; either build them up and make them more rounded, or don't and just get right into the action and skip the episode of Dawson's Creek. It was a really interesting movie and I had high hopes for it, but ultimately it didn't live up to the hype for me. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 09:25
|
|
|
Okay on behalf of regular movie goers don't believe anyone rating this movie above a 2.. and no I didn't suffer any kind of nausea. Didn't even notice the shakey cam really. Okay so the brother dies, right? Instead of maybe crying about it or showing any kind of human emotion action hero Rob has to sprint into an electronics store so he can go find a cellphone to call some bitch he had a one night stand with. "No.... we're going with you!" Marlene doesn't feel so good, okay doctors rush her then apparently she explodes. Hey who has time to think the general is going to tell us the exact time to evacuate. Wouldn't you know that's going to work out perfectly. Okay yeah then the monster shows up and Hud is going to stare at it for five minutes. The monster just jumps on tanks and throws around statues and airplanes but a little guy on the ground with a camera is gonna make it stop and wonder. Then the camera lands in just the convenient spot to show his dead face. Rob, concerned more about the camera then his friend, picks up the camera so him and dumb bitch he knew a week ago can go say their goodbyes in a tunnel before blowing up gently caress this movie. Rating it a 0/5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 09:55
|
|
|
I didn't follow the ARGs or anything before going into Cloverfield. I just watched the trailer and actively avoided everything related to the movie, and I enjoyed it a lot. The handheld camera didn't bother me a bit, I just wish I knew the brand of the camera cause the battery life rocks. The shaky camera was also effective in adding to the confusion and giving the chaotic effect that such an event would have if it really happened. In other words, it worked for me. The action scenes were very exciting, the audience was just quiet and completely immersed in the movie. At the end of some particularly stressful parts someone would let out a big sigh or say "Dude!" and that served as comic relief for the entire theater. Even though you know they are all gonna die from the beginning, I was very bummed when Marlena and Hud died  4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 10:17
|
|
|
Movie is a fairly solid four - while the characters aren't particularly deep and there's lots of unanswered questions, the action is hot and the monster itself is pretty scary. All I can ask of a monster flick, really. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 10:27
|
|
|
Evil Chick posted:
Well, isn't the battery life at least 1 hr and 20 mins long? I don't think it was on throughout the whole night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 10:30
|
|
|
Cloverfield was an experiment... a failed experiment. The monster attack survival movie, through the eyes of a shaky handheld camera. Imagine every scene of the military attacking Godzilla in one of his many flicks, only narrated by a retard. While photographed by somebody in a paint shaker. That's the experience we get via our cameraman/narrator in Cloverfield. "Holy poo poo, they're shooting at the monster, holy poo poo!" Yikes. If you want a good survival horror/action film in the monster genre, check out The Host. Or hell, check out a film that did it better than Cloverfield back in 1954, Godzilla. If you want a camera spazzing out, and emo young people on the run, as narrated by their comedic friend with a retarded sense of levity, check out Cloverfield. 1/5 PsychoGoatee fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Jan 19, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 10:49
|
|
|
The positives: For me, the handheld camera effect was a success. I felt immersed for the majority the movie, and the shakiness never bothered me. They did an amazing job with the apocalyptic scenery and sounds of the monster-thrashed city. For me, those two things were the stars of the movie. The negatives: Cloverfield tells a broken story riddled with cliches and plot holes carried by barely likable characters whose reactions whiplash between realistic and completely unbelievable. The glimpses of the big monster are cool, but all of the monsters were disappointing once I got a complete view of them. You get to look at the bigun's face for a few seconds, and I thought he looked terrible. That one scene ruined the monster for me. If you can't turn your brain off during a movie like this, don't waste your money. But if you're ever going to watch this, I recommend you do so in a theater for the full effect. In a theater, it will be a bad movie but an entertaining experience. At home, it will just be a bad movie. 3/5 Barack HUSSEIN fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Jan 19, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 12:55
|
|
|
I liked it alot, but the cammera was annoying to keep up with and I would've love to know more about the monster. One thing I loved though is the awesome rear end kicking it does. However, the monster reminds me exactly of a Tyranid... did anyone else get this, or am I just going insane?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 13:02
|
|
|
This was an absolutely fantastic movie. It was incredibly suspenseful and thanks to the cinematography and direction. It actually gave a sense of realism to a fantasy film. At first the characters are quite annoying. I think the reason is the realism. In the beginning we are watching normal people with a handheld camera in an average setting. It was like watching someone's home movie. Not even George Carlin is entertaining in a home movie. I warmed up to them soon once I realize I wasn't watching a bunch of heros and fantasy characters. I have to admit, I still said to myself after the first 15 minutes, "I want everyone of these cocksuckers to die." Later the circumstances make it easier to sympathize for them. I don't consider the following paragraph a spoiler, read at your own risk... Once the poo poo hit the fan the movie became a nonstop hellride. I really liked that they showed parts of the monster quickly. The shots they chose to reveal had a great pace to it also. They would give you a little here or there and sometimes give you a crazy shot of the monster. They didn't save it up for the last few minutes of the movie. The views of the monster get better as the movie progresses. It satisfies your urge to see it and leaves you wanting more- sounds like a cheesy way to put it but, it's true. And the monster looked loving bad assed! The cinematography is getting a lot of negative criticism. The only time that the camera movement was simply retarded was in the first 10 minutes. After that it's not nearly as shaky. When it does get shaky later it provides a lot of suspense. They purposely move it around so that you get a split second view of the action. It was enough to keep a viewer on edge in a very risky but, cool way. All of the CG was amazing. Every action scene and city destruction looked as real as can be.The interaction between GC and real sets are woven together incredibly well. It's difficult to tell when something CG becomes a tangible part of the set. As in the trailer when the Statue of Liberty's head comes flying down the street. Once it lands and rolls to a stop. They keep it in a few more shots and you can't tell if its CG or a real prop. The runtime is ~1:24. Which is short for an action movie. They paced it very well and it never seemed to long or too short. It would have been cool to see the movie from another perspective; maybe a shot from a fighter jet near the end. However, that would have basically destroyed the feel that they had established. Pros: an incredibly unique way to shoot a monster movie, great CG, very suspenseful, I want to see it again Cons: main characters are not interesting 4.5/5 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 16:41
|
|
|
For anyone who has watched King Kong or Godzilla in which the focus is on the main group of whomever trying to bring the big baddy down, "Cloverfield" is a movie based around the story of those people running the gently caress away from the monster. It is definitely a new and interesting take on the monster film, one that makes it refreshing and not a bore. The main issue for me was, as stated, the shakeycam. It's a great effect, but a little less of it would have been nice. Be warned: try to sit in the back of the theatre; too close might be too hard to watch without having your head spin. That said, the camera did add a layer of realism and a unique perspective to the genre, and I do appreciate its application -- I just wish a little more control will be used in the undoubtedly inevitable sequel. Cloverfield is a movie that shows little and tells even less. You will come out of the theater with a ton of questions, much more than you came in with, and if this is something that bothers you (as it did to a bunch of my friends), then you might not want to bother. Subtle clues will give away some information about what happens after, but don't expect a scrolling text at the end explaining what happened. Remember: this is NOT a movie about the monster, it's about the characters, and information of the monster has no place here. On that note, the characters were well-developed and pretty interesting, each with their own quirk and character. They were pretty well-acted too, although they only really display a range of fright throughout most of the movie. This gritty character development adds to the realism and it defintiely drives up interest in what's going to happen. If you think too hard about it, the overall narrative will seem a bit shallow and you'll probably be able to question some of the authority of the film. It is a bit too unbelievable at points, but it never stops being interesting. The main thing to remember about Cloverfield is that it's not about the monster; this seems to be a major point brought up by at least my friends over and over again: the movie doesn't explain anything about the monster, and it really is a big downer. But then again, this is not the monster's movie, and that has no place here; this is a story about four people as they deal with the effects of this monster. Go into the movie expecting that, and you'll have a much more satisfied experience. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 17:48
|
|
|
Well, I wasn't really all about this film but I knew I was going to see it because of the Star Trek trailer and I figured it would be decent enough. I then read some reviews claiming the movie rocked so by last night I was actually anticipating seeing the movie. I got there early and got a seat in the back of the theater (DO THIS!!!) Anyways, surprisingly the story kind of sucked me in right away, even before the city starts going to poo poo. As you more than likely know, there is a party, and the drama that is happening at the party is familiar. If you've been to enough parties, you've no doubt seen a situation just like this one. That alone makes you at least start caring about the characters a bit. THEN loving MANHATTAN GOES TO poo poo!!!!! I don't know what happened from that point on so I can't really spoil it for you, but I do know that it felt as close to real as any film I've seen. It does evoke that terrified helpless feeling I felt on 9/11, which I think is more terrifying than any feeling that lovely horror movies evoke nowadays. We know only what the characters we're following know, and we see pretty much only what they see. There are some moments in the film that make you care about these characters and actually do have a lot of emotion. But what really sticks out in my mind is one scene where HOLY poo poo THE loving MILITARY GOES loving NUTZ!!!! If you've seen the film you no doubt know the scene I'm talking about. It's like a Michael Bay military scene without the quick cuts and overall shittiness of Michael Bay. But if you're one of those people who want some M. Night Shayamalan twist ending or some War of the Worlds resolution, you won't get it. This tape was FOUND. We only get whats on this tape and the explanation that its found in Central Park which if we waited til the end of the film, we would know anyways. I think this film is pretty drat close to being perfect, but don't think its flaws (like the sometimes annoying MOVE THE loving CAMERA moments) hold it back from being a loving sweet, action packed, Monster-takes-Manhattan movie. 5/5 stars
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 19:24
|
|
|
Keeps you entertained but in the end it's just a big letdown. Nothing happens. The "tape" starts off saying it's property of the US government. Yet they don't edit out all the non-related footage, there's no government wrap-up in the end. So why does the tape have the US government info at the beginning? One other thing that bugged me. The goddamn helicopter pilot as they're being evacuated. "I'll get you guys out of here as soon as I fly really close to the combat zone to try and better view." 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 22:08
|
|
|
My roommate and I (hay squibble) liked this movie so much when we saw it Friday night that we hit a matinee today. On second viewing, we didn't notice much new except one little thing we'd missed happening in the final scene, but the movie kept all of its immediacy. We watched most of it with our jaws hanging open. I think the decision to go the "home movie" route was a bold one, and totally paid off. Comparisons to "Blair Witch" -- unless they're specifically dealing with threats of nausea -- are meaningless. "Blair Witch"'s filmmakers handed their actors the equipment and sent them out into the woods with note cards instead of a script, and staged events to see a more "realistic" reaction from those actors. Watching "Cloverfield", you can see immediately that every centimeter of the frame was planned down to the last detail. I can't wait for DVD extras with commentary and a making-of documentary. Can't. Wait. This film spoke an entirely new language and it was a learning experience just to watch it. As with any unedited home video, we're asked to weigh the importance of events and occurrences. Without any kind of editing or music cues, things can slip by us because we're not told how to feel. Was that a romantic moment? Two characters staring death in the face stealing a too-brief kiss? I don't know, mom! How do I know without the filmmakers beating me over the head with it?!1 Are these characters in shock, making stupid decisions on a very personal scale because the enormity of the situation is far beyond their grasp? I think so, but the movie didn't tell me in the language to which I've become accustomed, so I have to think for myself. I was flattered by the experience of this movie and by being asked to bring more of my own reactions to the party. I though the set-up scenes, the brief glimpses of the "good day" interspersed with the "bad day" were remarkably effective. The relationship between the two main characters was drawn with light but believable strokes. Yes, a guy trying to rescue the girl he loves is cliche if that's all the movie offers, but it's just a baseline. Their problems are drawn with such a light touch -- a little happiness, a misunderstanding because the guy's a tool, the girl's cruel attempt to spark a jealous reaction, and the guy's douche-y response -- all happens quickly and sets up the rest of the action extremely well. I was more moved on the second viewing than on the first, mostly because I could pay more attention once I knew what was coming. All in all, I echo the positive sentiments of former reviewers in that (a) yes for the love of god sit further back in the theater than you're used to, (b) accept that you won't find out the monster's secret any more than you'd be privy to it if a monster suddenly knocked down half your apartment building (and I, for one, was glad there weren't a bunch of contrivances designed to put the characters somewhere they could "just happen" to overhear a lot of classified military goings-on), and (c) enjoy the ride. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 22:47
|
|
|
A cool experiment but a failure. The only thing "realistic" about it is the hand held view - the rest was cookie cutter Hollywood acting from a paint by numbers script. I thought the monster had no charisma at all - not joyful to watch like the aliens franchise creatures or the camp and fun Godzilla. It was just a generic monster with very bad CGI. I mean in some sequences it just looked flat and colorless, like someone had turned the contrast up too far, in other parts it looked horribly clumsy. The end shot was horrible, showing a completely boring and nondescript creature. But I'm glad he killed everyone. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2008 00:51
|
|
|
i think I'm alone is actually thinking the camera guy was one of the better aspects of the movie. I'm not alone in thinking the movie was crap. I went in with low expectations as critics seemed to feel that the cast was poor, the story was generic, but it had a unique Blair Witch meets Godzilla thing to keep it afloat. While I think that the best aspect of the movie was a pretty cool monster (though the sound his little spider things made was just hilarious) and some pretty good blending of special effects without static shots, everything else fell flat. The story was survivable in the beginning, but as the movie progresses it takes a turn for completely sappy and stupid (They save the girl who was impaled for 6 hours, but still alive, pull her off the rebarb, tie a shirt around her and suddenly she can run down 40 stories and sprint out of the city? Come on). I found the movie stressful, yet boring, and falls completely apart in the last third. I was praying for it to end (and at 80 minutes, that's impressive). Bonus points for the couple of things I mentioned,but the movie sucks. Pros: Cool monster, cool effects, interesting idea. Cons: Everything else. Horrible story and acting that can go from decent to plain silly in a heartbeat. Anyone know what camera they are using? Because it is the most durable, battery friendly thing ever... 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2008 05:00
|
|
|
This movie was loving way cool. For a quick one sentence review, I'd say: If the previews looked interesting to you, go see it because you definitely will like it. The first-person style account is what turns this movie from good to great. The focus is less on special effects and more on the real-life human reactions. Movies whose main features are special effects are so rarely good anymore as we've done pretty much all we can do with those. It had a neat way of driving the plot along and enhancing the mood as things progressed. The camera-man ("Hud") does a nice job of capturing people's reactions after each crazy event, and you get a good view of everyone going from confusion to panic to desperation. It's definitely different from your typical disaster/apocalypse-themed movie. I know Blair Witch existed before but this is so much different. I didn't like Blair with and I loved this. Also the tape being used is actually taped over another recording that comes out every once in a while because of how the guy starts and stops the camcorder....another really cool element that effects the mood nicely (not a spoiler, that's revealed very early in the movie). As for downsides, I can think of only two: 1) The shaky camera. Didn't bother me at all but my wife said it gave her a headache. But that woman gets a drat headache from everything. People that can't adjust to that will not like this movie. 2) The driving force of the plot late in the movie. Hard to explain without spoilers but it doesn't ruin the movie at all, just a wtf moment and then everything keeps chugging along Come on...you're going to go BACK into the city to find the girl that's most certainly dead, and climb into that collapsed skyscraper? You're stupid All in all, cool movie and it's great to see something a little different 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2008 05:57
|
|
|
I think this movie sucked. It doesn't do anything. It gives nothing, it tells nothing, I left not wondering about anything, there was absolutely nothing to this movie. There was nothing new in this movie. Glaring stupid plot holes aside, this movie sucked on a meta scale. There just wasn't anything to it! The story was told in the trailer. The movie is "Monster attacks city, will they make it out alive? Nope!" THE END. It was cliche, it was gimmicky, it was six individual exciting minutes spread across 1.5 hours. There was no innovation in this movie. There was no depth. It felt like a giant wank. I hate you, Cloverfield. I hate you so much. Pros: Great sound effects, easy way to get rid of that pesky $8.50 sitting in your wallet. Cons: Begins with J.J. Abram's birth and ended at 7:10 p.m. this evening. 0/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2008 07:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
I really enjoyed the movie. It was a new take on a classic genre and I thought it did very well for being pretty much the first movie to ever do what it did. I hear calls of "Blair Witch" but "Blair Witch" is not an apocalyptic survival movie in a massive urban setting. Honestly, it did a very excellent job of keeping up the suspension of disbelief. I don't even think that Rob's actions were too unreasonable. I have a -list- of people I'd risk my life to save if there was even the slightest chance that I would be able to accomplish that and get out alive. Did they get out alive? No. But then again the the military also ended up destroying the entire city at the end via carpet bombing so I imagine they were just drops in a bucket. And that's what really sets this movie apart - the first person perspective is all that the viewer has to glean information from, just like the characters in the film. Do we know what's going on? Not at all. There's a giant monster attacking the city and killing everything in its path. Nothing is spared. Their decision making skills probably weren't that bad considering that very few people (comparatively) made it out alive. Their chances of surviving at all were so slim even with the best optimal conditions - why not go back and at least try to save the people you love? But the creators of the movie knew that a PURELY "realistic" movie wouldn't entertain audiences, and so we do notice certain plot devices shoehorned into what is supposed to be a "real" home movie. The soldier letting them go out (or even giving them so much personal attention at all when there's so much poo poo going on and so many wounded people showing up to the M*A*S*H), the "money shot" of the monster's face and individually targeting Hud as a snack. These things we know are clichéd Hollywood plot devices, but without them the movie wouldn't have been as entertaining as it was. You HAVE to throw the audience at least a few bones to make it work, and they did. They flirted the fine line that is Suspension of Disbelief with these scenes and devices, but they did a very good job of smoothing them out and making them not appear so jarring. Overall, it was an entertaining film despite its flaws (which were remarkably small, forgivable and numbered few considering the "revolutionary" storytelling method). Something you'd want to watch in theaters, and probably only once. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2008 08:26
|
|