...Because who really wants to wade through 22 pages of pre-release rumors <a href="http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=505326&page=1&pp=25">in this thread</a> to find out what people think of the ACTUAL MOVIE? ;)
So, um, any reviews yet? :D
Joe Molotov
01-14-08, 11:38 PM
...Because who really wants to wade through 22 pages of pre-release rumors <a href="http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=505326&page=1&pp=25">in this thread</a> to find out what people think of the ACTUAL MOVIE? ;)
So, um, any reviews yet? :D
Harry Knowles was slobbing it's knob, but that's the only one I've seen.
joeee
01-14-08, 11:48 PM
what the hell is this movie even about? the commercials never mention a plot.
redrum
01-14-08, 11:53 PM
what the hell is this movie even about? the commercials never mention a plot.
Is the whole thing shot in the Blair Witch/Rob Zombie format?
cinta5
01-15-08, 12:45 AM
Is the whole thing shot in the Blair Witch/Rob Zombie format?
From what I've heard yes. I've also heard a lot of people have gotten sick from it. Sucks.
Jackskeleton
01-15-08, 01:10 AM
It was a good film. Very much keeps you on the edge of your seats once the action gets started.
I would relate it as if you're in the middle of a Half Life game. it makes you feel like you're in the middle of all this situation.
Backstory/ARG connection
The monster is not explained. No origin and no real big mention to the ARG. You get to see a lot of shots of a slusho shirt, but otherwise, the ARG is just side stuff you really didn't need to know.
About the monster
The monster is in the film a lot. It's big and the shots you do get of him go from small to having him right in your face at the very end. It's amazing and cool. The effects are well done.
The story
there's really no plot other than get from point A to B while staying alive. You don't get much character development other than Survive and run. It pits you to ground zero of this situation and lets you see it first hand and it really does a good job at it.
It's really a great film. You don't see half of the shit coming but then all of a sudden a rocket goes right over your head and heads straight forward this monster you didn't even realize was in the distance and you know, damn this is a good movie going experience.
I'm sure there will be folks complaining about the blair witch style, especially since when I saw it, one of the few things most mentioned was motion sickness at certain points with this whole hand held camera angle which is during the whole film.
Arpeggi
01-15-08, 01:56 AM
I would give this film 1 star or a grade of D.
FinkPish
01-15-08, 02:46 AM
I would give this film 1 star or a grade of D.
Any specific reasons for those of us who haven't seen it yet?
PopcornTreeCt
01-15-08, 04:08 AM
Is it Blair Witch shaky cam or Children of Men shaky cam?
Big difference.
BuddhaWake
01-15-08, 08:02 AM
i would say is more blair witch. and the movie is shot entirely like that. so bring your barf bag but like Jackskeleton it keeps you in the edge and the short running time helps. just don't sit too close to the screen. I thought the effects were awesome and although it takes a bit to get started it really does get started with a bang.
Rogue588
01-15-08, 09:26 AM
Damn, man. I didn't handle Blair Witch too well.
baracine
01-15-08, 09:28 AM
The story
there's really no plot other than get from point A to B while staying alive. You don't get much character development other than Survive and run. It pits you to ground zero of this situation and lets you see it first hand and it really does a good job at it.
Translation: It's a video game.:D
And you've just confirmed the validity of this early anonymous blow-by-blow review:
That blow by blow.. Blows. That person is full of it as that's not how any of it goes down.
Jaime and Teddy and the whole ARG in general is just not even worth noting as it doesn't show up much, if any at all in there. Slusho shirt is in there, yes. But we knew that from the teaser. The only connection to the ARG is you see a tagruato company only shows up in one symbol on a turned over tanker. nothing else.
So that blow by blow.. totally denied. It's fake.
baracine
01-15-08, 10:54 AM
That blow by blow.. Blows. That person is full of it as that's not how any of it goes down.
Jaime and Teddy and the whole ARG in general is just not even worth noting as it doesn't show up much, if any at all in there. Slusho shirt is in there, yes. But we knew that from the teaser. The only connection to the ARG is you see a tagruato company only shows up in one symbol on a turned over tanker. nothing else.
So that blow by blow.. totally denied. It's fake.
So I suppose there is no Tagruato/Slusho press conference at the beginning of the film and that we have been (gulp) lied to...
BuddhaWake
01-15-08, 10:59 AM
So I suppose there is no Tagruato/Slusho press conference at the beginning of the film and that we have been (gulp) lied to...
not at all. the film starts as it if were a government classified video. like maybe something they found in a crash site or something and someone is watching it without editing it or fast forwarding like in a cop show. is like archival footage to an extent. It gives the idea (at least to me) that the government might be reviewing any tapes found in NYC to see what the hell happened.
BuddhaWake
01-15-08, 11:05 AM
That blow by blow.. Blows. That person is full of it as that's not how any of it goes down.
Jaime and Teddy and the whole ARG in general is just not even worth noting as it doesn't show up much, if any at all in there. Slusho shirt is in there, yes. But we knew that from the teaser. The only connection to the ARG is you see a tagruato company only shows up in one symbol on a turned over tanker. nothing else.
So that blow by blow.. totally denied. It's fake.
it is fake. that dude must have all imagined it unless there are 2 totally different movies around. BTW. they are showing preview screenings in Philly for 3 straight days. I guess word of mouth is the thing that will make it buyable. I have another pass for today but I'm still a little dizzie from last night. I know someone couldn't handle it and threw up. damn.
baracine
01-15-08, 11:33 AM
it is fake. that dude must have all imagined it unless there are 2 totally different movies around. BTW. they are showing preview screenings in Philly for 3 straight days. I guess word of mouth is the thing that will make it buyable. I have another pass for today but I'm still a little dizzie from last night. I know someone couldn't handle it and threw up. damn.
But we saw all those previews and excerpts where the character (Robby?) is leaving for Japan (to work for Slusho) and that is why his friends are throwing him a party and (as Miss South Carolina would say) everywhere, like, such as...
Then again maybe they tinkered with the film a lot to shorten it and dumb it down as much as possible for the theatrical presentation and still have lots of stuff left for a 4-disc Ultimate DVD Edition, with possibly a 5th bonus disc: The Hype Campaign.:D
Alternate Reality Game. It used to be called "a tall tale", now it's an industry. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_reality_game
Mazje
01-15-08, 02:03 PM
So, (and this isn't meant to start a fight) but Baracine, why do you seem so down on this movie? Your posts just seem like you don't think real highly of this movie, but you keep on posting about it? If I'm wrong, sorry, and I apologize and will delete this post. Again, not arguing, just asking.
Having said that, I'm surprised more big reviews haven't surfaced. When do the advance/press screenings begin for this?
RichC2
01-15-08, 02:13 PM
Baracine is down on everything (especially if it has anything relating to the US/US Film Industry), it's nothing new, he's a pro at underhanded subtle (okay not really) threadcrapping.
baracine
01-15-08, 03:03 PM
So, (and this isn't meant to start a fight) but Baracine, why do you seem so down on this movie? Your posts just seem like you don't think real highly of this movie, but you keep on posting about it? If I'm wrong, sorry, and I apologize and will delete this post. Again, not arguing, just asking.
Having said that, I'm surprised more big reviews haven't surfaced. When do the advance/press screenings begin for this?
I don't have anything against this movie. I have been studying the hype campaign closely for a long time and am just now finding out that all the intricate clues that have been left for us to analyze turn out to be false. The finished film appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the suggested back story about ecology, the eco-rape of the world's oceans and big bad polluting international corporations.
It now appears to be (besides a rip-off of Godzilla and The Host) a simple 80-minutes nausea-inducing clip of a survival video game about Manhattan pedestrians trying to avoid falling objects. And that's pretty dumb. That's like the film industry deciding to do without writers altogether.
Mazje
01-15-08, 03:28 PM
I think most of these ARG's are just supposed to be fun ways to keep people interested/talking/hyped/whatever about the movie/tv show itself, not really spoil the plot of the film for people. If I remember, AI's game had almost nothing to do with the plot itself.
As for the movie itself, what's wrong with a movie about a big monster leveling a city? Is it Oscar-worthy? No. Will it be fun to watch for 90 minutes? Should be (unless it's like the terrible, terrible "Godzilla" remake).
Not every movie produced has to be "art." Sometimes, it's ok just to be "fun."
baracine
01-15-08, 03:35 PM
I think most of these ARG's are just supposed to be fun ways to keep people interested/talking/hyped/whatever about the movie/tv show itself, not really spoil the plot of the film for people.
And that would be especially true when there is no plot.
Giles
01-15-08, 03:35 PM
I would give this film 1 star or a grade of D.
Any specific reasons for those of us who haven't seen it yet?
noticed he hasn't responded ... yet... ;)
Mazje
01-15-08, 03:42 PM
Baracine is down on everything (especially if it has anything relating to the US/US Film Industry), it's nothing new, he's a pro at underhanded subtle (okay not really) threadcrapping.
I'm starting to see this.
Jackskeleton, what was the crowd reaction like when you saw it? While usually I prefer my movie-going experience quiet and civilized (an event which becomes fewer and far between with each visit), I can imagine this movie being fun with the "right" crowd.
You may have answered this in spoilers, but I've been staying away from spoilers.
baracine
01-15-08, 04:30 PM
Well , here's a five-day-old review, from Ain't it Cool News' reviewer (and uber-fanboy) Harry Knowles, who seems to have had several religious experiences during the film and definitely thinks it is "art" (see: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35236 ). But can we believe him?
Harry knows what CLOVERFIELD is!!!
Utterly Brilliant.
What is CLOVERFIELD?
For the past year or so, that’s been the question that everyone has been asking. Well… they also wanted to know: What was that trailer? What’s the name of this movie? Who are those actors? What is a SLUSHO? What does any of this mean?
Having seen the film, I can tell you – I have completely forgotten the marketing. I no longer care why the film is titled CLOVERFIELD, I don’t think it has a secret meaning – other than the fact that the movie that the marketing would lead you to, if it will… will knock your cinema-going mind into the floor of the theater.
CLOVERFIELD is a bold genre-reinvention unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.
The basic premise that we know is there. The film is found footage, not an assembled film. The footage is recovered in Central Park. From trailers and ads you know that it probably starts at a party, something happens, and we think there is a giant monster. You’re pretty sure there’s a giant monster attacking New York City… specifically Manhattan.
Well, I’ve just come home from watching CLOVERFIELD. The security on me and my wife for seeing this movie was un-frickin-believable. I suppose some would have the temptation to snap a pic of the monster and send it out online to end, forever, the “mystery” – but folks… there’s no mystery.
The movie is fucking brilliant. It’s what we were told it was going to be. An intimate perspective on an impossibly grand scale human disaster beyond most human levels of comprehension.
What is the monster? How do you describe something that doesn’t look like anything you’ve ever seen before? It’s not a fucking upright walking whale. It doesn’t look like any iteration of GODZILLA that we’ve ever seen. It is enormous. And even though I’ve seen it… I am hard-pressed to come up with a comparative creation. You know that big fucking thing in THE MIST? It isn’t that. Is the creature a biped? I’m not sure, I think it might’ve been a four-legged beastie… it has a tail, it has teeth and freaky eyes like that horse that died in ANIMAL HOUSE. It’s kinda of a grayish-yellowish-off-white looking thing. But more important than the creature is what this fucker does. He basically goes bug-nuts.
The creature isn’t the groundbreaking thing about the film. It is, but it isn’t.
You see, what has me so excited about this film is that this is the giant monster movie that isn’t at all like any giant monster movie we’ve seen before… but is exactly that movie.
I guarantee you that as this movie takes place… all the shit that you’ve seen in Giant monster movies is happening. Somewhere a general is screaming about nuking New York…. Somewhere is a politician screaming that you can’t nuke New York. Another General wants to know why our weapons are not affecting this thing. A PRESIDENT wants to know where it came from – and several thousand journalist are trying to figure all that out too.
But this film isn’t about the scientist, the generals, the Presidents, the mayors or any of the big people. This time, the film is from the perspective of those people that live in those buildings that the monster is breaking through. This is about the people running in the street that scream, “GODZILLA!!!” and run. This is about trying to survive that insanity. Not just that, but to try and save one life.
Like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but instead of Nazis it’s a giant monster.
This is a handheld camera movie – knowing this and knowing not to sit too close is probably a good thing… but having said that… you can’t sit far enough from the screen to feel safe. As many of you people know, I am in a wheelchair – and while watching movies, I have my brakes on. There was one moment, so unexpected and so intense that I went 3 ft back.
What about the characters?
You learn everything you need about them in the first 20 minutes. Rob is going to Japan to a new job. He has a brother Jason and a best friend Hud who gets strapped with filming testimonials at his surprise party – but Hud has the hots for Marlena and got talked into it by Jason – who was told to do it by Lily, who loves him. Oh – and they’re taping over a tape that Rob shot of the morning after he and Beth finally did it – after being friends forever. But now he has to go to Japan for his career and Beth shows up with some dick at his party because he didn’t know how to talk with her after they had sex.
It’s a fairly real situation that could happen to anyone. These are just regular good people in the rat race – and trying to have a good time. When the shit goes down.
I wasn’t expecting to like any of the characters. That changes… a lot.
My favorite character? Probably Hud… our cameraman. He’s not a professional photographer, though this “tape” tells an incredibly focused and direct story of epic sweep and filled with intimate reveals. But HUD is “the best friend”. But if I could compare him to any character actor, I’d say he’s like a reigned in Bill Paxton. He’s not going around screaming obscenities… but the shit that comes out of his mouth cracks me up.
The story of this film is actually beautiful though. When the world goes to fuck, you instantly think about the person you love that you don’t know is OK or not. That’s this story. Beth left Rob’s party before the shit went down. They had a fight. When it all goes to hell – Rob and his friends are just trying to get off the island, when a call comes… Beth is somewhere… she can’t move, she’s bleeding and she needs help. And oddly… 911 is busy.
This group of friends sets off through the biggest sort of hell you can imagine to save Beth. Characters die. Shit goes horribly horribly wrong – and it rules!
There’s no score, there’s no rules, there feels like there’s no script and no movie. It feels found, but it is so huge that you can’t ever really believe that… but handheld film just has never had a story of something this fantastical or huge happen. The movie is a landmark genre film. A true milestone in film.
It is all at once art, commercial and grotesquely gleefully gargantuan.
This frankly launches two giant film careers at once. As of this second, I will see and eagerly anticipate every film that J.J. Abrams produces. This sort of stepping back from a genre convention and reinvention is EXACTLY what needs to be done. It isn’t simply going, “Oh, I can make a better Godzilla movie,” but the audacity of saying I’m going to tell that story from one of the most loathed film approaches – the found footage – and simply make the most fucking amazing found tape ever. It won’t just be what it is, but the characters and the story and the emotion and the scope and the journey that the tape takes us on. I can’t wait to see what’s next.
Then there’s Matt Reeves, I don’t know this guy. But I’ll tell you what. You’re gonna mark his name after this. He just came out with a film about as SUNDANCE as you could imagine. This is like an INDIE film – that you’d dream Spielberg would make. Remember the beard’s WAR OF THE WORLDS? Now just imagine that, but with the disarming nature of handheld photography. Where if the camera got dropped and suddenly you’re looking the other way… you don’t see the seams. There’s no backlot, this isn’t two blocks at a time… it’s fucking Manhattan being torn to fuck and they’re just smack dab in midtown and midtown has giant lice monsters and some monstrously huge creature… and then there’s the fucking military… and they are on target, and buildings get hit, shit is going everywhere – and the man directing this apocalypse is Matt Reeves and the planning to just deliver what this spectacle is – is daunting. But sir, BRAVO!
Folks – CLOVERFIELD is worth the obsession, worth the months I’ve had to put up with fans wondering what the hell it was – worth having to deal with reporters asking me what it was – and I didn’t know either. This is a towering movie. A complete reinvention of the disaster movie, the giant monster movie and even the love story. I absolutely love this film and the only thought I had when it was over was how I wanted to watch it 5 more times today.
I want to see the details, I want to watch this film once I’m so familiar with it that I can appreciate the complexity of the frames and the shots. To try to pull the film apart – but I don’t think you’ll be able to. It is just that fucking good! And the flaming hobos... holy fuck man... flaming hobos, but not with shotguns!
Good Bad Robot, Good Bad Robot!!!
baracine
01-15-08, 06:04 PM
In all fairness, Ain't It Cool News had also published another expletive and spoiler-rich advance review of the film on December 3, 2007 ( see: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34941 ), which was generally considered bunk by everyone but now seems pretty much accurate in retrospect.
baracine
01-15-08, 06:33 PM
Jeff Wells' review: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2008/01/first_cloerfiel.php
First "Cloverfield" reaction
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 11, 2008 at 09:04 AM
I've just gotten clearance to post a Cloverfield review, but I'm at a Starbucks on West Pico and have to be back at my home in 25 minutes in order to let a plumber in, so I'm just going to post what I've written about it in a letter to a friend. I'll add to this later this morning:
Cloverfield is a monster film unlike any other -- a complete original, but no less of a rock' em-sock 'em for that.
It's amazing in that it's so short (by my watch about 74 minutes without credits), and yet so fierce. If Allen Ginsberg didn't already own the title I would suggest that they call it Howl. This is not your father's Ray Harryhausen rampaging- monster flick. Those movies, comparatively, were parlor dramas for the tame of heart. This movie is REM madness. It is Guillermo del Toro on a tab of brown acid with a little crack thrown in.
Cloverfield is a post-9.11 fever dream. As if a person who's been through 9.11 in lower Manhattan has gone to bed traumatized and shaking with dread, and this is the dream they have. Illogical, ferocious, madball, all-engulfing....but very much of our world. Not It Came From Beneath The Sea but It Came From Someplace Deep in the National Psyche.
I don't want to draw overly literal parallels here, but you can't tell me this thing isn't 9.11-inspired. You can say it isn't and that's fine, but I'm not buying it. Nobody will. The travelling dust cloud threatening to engulf everyone, the crowds walking across the Brooklyn Bridge, the earthquake-like impact that everyone feels at the very beginning, the molten explosion and the flying projectiles (like the scrap metal and wheels of the jets sailing down into the streets after the second plane hit)....gimme a break.
It has the illogic and surrealness of a Luis Bunuel nightmare because (and this is the genius of it) the beast doesn't make "sense" in the way that '50s monster films did. Explanations are entirely up to you, the viewer, because the Cloverfield victims don't have clue #1.
In the watching of monster movies, we've all been trained to expect permutations of prehistoric beasts or enlarged versions of real-life animals (like King Kong). This guy...I don't know what he is but he's winning. (Kidding.) He's a nightmare that "means" nothing but says everything. He's a vision out of a Grimm Brothers fable, but one written by a deranged Matt Damon or Heath Ledger while locked in a 19th Century mental ward. He's a fiend that a heroin addict might see in his sleep during his first night in rehab.
True_Story1011
01-15-08, 07:29 PM
you think one of the mods could throw a SPOILER warning on title of this thread.
While trying to cypher through all these post's I almost read a juicy one.
baracine
01-15-08, 07:32 PM
Kid Reviewer's review (with fan art): http://www.kidreviewer.com/2008/01/cloverfield-2008.html
Rating (4/5):
Reviewed by Nick
Official Movie Site
Film Details
Starring: Mr. Grumpy Pants and his band of biting buggers
Genre: Action, Horror
Summary: I saw the Cloverfield monster, and it's huge! A huge thrill ride, too.
Okay, I know most of you want to get to the review right away, so I'll do that first. However, the experience of the early screening, and talking with the fans, theater folks, and Paramount reps was cool, so I'll hit that after the Cloverfield movie review.
NOTE: HERE THERE BE CLOVERFIELD MOVIE SPOILERS
Overall, I thought there was lots of excitement. At times my heart was beating very fast. It's one thing to be in a dark tunnel full of rats, it's quite another when those rats are running from some sick creatures that will jump your face and sink their teeth in your chest. I thought the movie was awesome as a roller coaster ride, especially as a fan of the marketing campaign since the day the trailer hit last July. However it wasn't quite the whole theme park. The characters were realistic, but rather normal. No outstanding performances, and the movie just didn't have the full-story feel of a classic five star release. In some scenes people were giggling, when the director may have meant for it to be serious. One amusing twist, I think HUD was the fav character in the movie, supplying nerdy humor throughout. Since he is holding the camera he's the least seen but most heard.
The Monster
Of course, most 'pre-fans' won't give a w00t! about character performances, it's the action and monster they want to see, and they get plenty of looks before it's all over. The monster was def awesome. I think it will surprise many who were trying to guess its nature. It was big, maybe several blocks long when looking down from head to tale. It could rise up skyscraper high when it wanted, crawl around on weird arthropod legs, and even pull itself along like a slug with elbows. I'm glad producer JJ Abrams and/or director Matt Reeves chose this to be the 'American Monster'.
It wasn't Voltron, it wasn't a whale, it wasn't Cthulu, but it was one big ugly mess! It was as if they took parts of sea animals, threw in some extra arms and legs, and put them in a blender 400 hundred feet tall. I saw some definite similarities between the four creatures featured on the hack of the Tagruato site. (Tanner Crab, Irukandji Jellyfish, Dumbo Octopus, and Ogre fish) I'd be comfortable if they suggested it was a mutation involving all those deep sea creatures. Because there are no photos of the monster yet, below is my second attempt to draw the monster from memory.
MGP seemed to have the teeth of the ogre, definitely something around the ears akin to the Dumbo, as they swelled, ala the ear of Grendel in the recent Beowulf. It also had grey skin along the head which was similar in texture to an octopus, as opposed to scales, fins or ridges. The 'arms' are much like a crab or spider. It also might have had some long tentacles it could whip out and smack things, and I think that was the part it may have gotten from the jellyfish. That could have been the tail I saw, perhaps similar to a giant squid's tentacle, but I can't be sure on one viewing. As a refresher, below are the four deep sea creatures cut from the Tagruato hack page: (and for those unfamiliar with the rather involved story leading up to the movie, go to CloverfieldClues and start reading from the beginning of that excellent resource.)
Critters
There are smaller creatures, lots of them, and they fall off of Mr. Grumpy Pants (MGP). I think MGP can actually choose to shake them loose when he wants to really cause problems for those pesky military assaults. The critters are crablike, (remind me of Zergs from the Starcraft video game, or the bugs in Starship Troopers). They are fast, like to spring at you, and leave a nasty bite. I think most of the pre-fans know what happens to someone when they get bitten. I won't tell you what happens when Marlene grows 40 pant sizes in two seconds, but there will be blood.
First Person View
Watching the story through the first-person view was very realistic, and helped create a sense of panic and fear. There were also several 'gotcha' moments, which brought a reaction from the audience. BE WARNED, the camera is very shaky and downright dizzying at times. There were maybe half a dozen times when the characters were in a pinch, and had to take off running. HUD would forget looking through the lens and just book it with the camera running. It was the realistic thing to do, but jarring and spinning views of feet on passing pavement, blurred buildings, and taking corners, can make you dizzy. Three ladies I interviewed afterwards said they felt queasy, and I was told there was another woman in the restroom that was really nauseous/sick. Another blogger mentioned this in his Cloverfield Sick review. If you get motion sick easy, you might want to take some meds before going. I didn't feel anything, but do admit the camera was all over the place at times. There was no other view during the film. It started with the tape rolling, and ended that way. However, they used a really brilliant idea to show some back-story, without interferring with the hand-held camera idea. Also, as predicted, there were a few situations where the camera looked at a tv screen, to show a wider view of what was going on in the city.
Marketing vs Movie
Just wanted to add that I didn't see any part of the viral marketing back-story that played a significant role in the movie. Yes there's a tanker burning that looks like it's from Tagruato, but the company, the Chuai station, Slusho!, Myspace pages, jamielovesteddy.com, nor seabed nectar is not important in the movie. For that reason, I think the marketing campaign gives the 'pre-fans' a much more entertaining experience than those who haven't checked out the history or participated in the fun. I hold out hope for a dessert on this 7 course meal: I'm hoping that after the movie has launched for a few weeks, that the producers may continue some of the story elements to wrap up loose ends with Tagruato/Chaui, so we can extend our fun. BTW, there's no cause given for the monster's appearance in the city, and he seems to have no purpose other than to walk around tearing stuff up and killing folks.
The Ending -- well, you'll just have to see for yourself. I do plan to see the movie again, probably several times. It's the type of movie where I'll probably notice quite a number of things the more I see it, especially with my heart a little calmer, and my eyes knowing just where to look next.
you think one of the mods could throw a SPOILER warning on title of this thread.
While trying to cypher through all these post's I almost read a juicy one.
How could you possibly expect to read posts from a thread for reviews about a film and <i>not</i> see spoilers?
Big hint: Don't want spoilers? Don't read a review thread. Simple.
Suprmallet
01-15-08, 11:44 PM
I don't have anything against this movie. I have been studying the hype campaign closely for a long time and am just now finding out that all the intricate clues that have been left for us to analyze turn out to be false. The finished film appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the suggested back story about ecology, the eco-rape of the world's oceans and big bad polluting international corporations.
Generally, if an ARG is used to promote a product, the ARG is typically only tangentially connected to the product in question. Take, for example, the A.I. ARG. The events of that game took place about 30 years after the main section of A.I. I wouldn't knock the movie for not incorporating everything from the ARG.
It now appears to be (besides a rip-off of Godzilla and The Host) a simple 80-minutes nausea-inducing clip of a survival video game about Manhattan pedestrians trying to avoid falling objects. And that's pretty dumb. That's like the film industry deciding to do without writers altogether.
To be fair, all the footage we ever saw suggested this. I don't think it's out of line with expectations.
RForte1189
01-15-08, 11:54 PM
From what I heard from people that attended Comic Con way back when. JJ had mentioned something along the lines of "the human race is found to be a parasite and is thus in need of extermination" or so thats the monsters thoughts. Very "War of the Worlds" like concept if you ask me.
The Bus
01-16-08, 12:01 AM
it is fake. that dude must have all imagined it unless there are 2 totally different movies around. BTW. they are showing preview screenings in Philly for 3 straight days. I guess word of mouth is the thing that will make it buyable. I have another pass for today but I'm still a little dizzie from last night. I know someone couldn't handle it and threw up. damn.
Damn. Would've gone. How'd you hear about it?
I'm considering the midnight show at the theatre near me, which is considerably closer than Philadelphia.
Jackskeleton
01-16-08, 12:51 AM
From what I heard from people that attended Comic Con way back when. JJ had mentioned something along the lines of "the human race is found to be a parasite and is thus in need of extermination" or so thats the monsters thoughts. Very "War of the Worlds" like concept if you ask me.
In recent interviews he has suggested that it could very well be a baby who finds his time on the surface to be confusing, especially when little tiny creatures are hitting it with weapons and bombs.
baracine
01-16-08, 06:43 AM
Generally, if an ARG is used to promote a product, the ARG is typically only tangentially connected to the product in question. Take, for example, the A.I. ARG. The events of that game took place about 30 years after the main section of A.I. I wouldn't knock the movie for not incorporating everything from the ARG.
To be fair, all the footage we ever saw suggested this. I don't think it's out of line with expectations.
Blair Witch Project also had an elaborate back story which was simply jettisoned in the film, the film just being an added piece of the puzzle for the fanboys to mull over. This doesn't mean that you can't improve on an established (stupid) formula.
But from the reviews I also get that they found a way to include flashbacks in the film because the cameraman is taping over an old film explaining the past relationship between Robby and his girlfriend, which explains why he would care enough to try and save her. So the film may not be a total loss after all, narrative-wise.
I also get from Jeff Wells' first impressions that it gives the viewer a safe - albeit crassly commercial - way to relive the 9-11 experience, which makes it an important sociological artefact, whatever else that film might be called.
baracine
01-16-08, 09:17 AM
Here's another random but recent reaction from a "Mr. Davis" of a blog outfit called Cinematical (could be planted, I don't know): http://www.hoopla.ws/blog/2008/01/16/early-reactions-cloverfield/
I’m still trying to comprehend the film I just watched. It really is like no other monster movie you’ve ever seen. You know those warnings they give people before going on a rollercoaster (might not be safe for pregnant women, people who have motion sickness, etc …) — well, they should give the same warning before watching Cloverfield. It’s not a film; it’s sort of like an experience. And being able to watch this movie with a New York City crowd was pretty special. There was no random fanboy cheering at any point; frankly, I don’t think people had time to cheer because once the film goes … it goes … and it goes … and it will freak you the hell out.
My wife even liked this film, and she hates all things science fiction. She’s more of a hardcore drama gal; people killing themselves, killing each other — that sort of thing. So her liking this movie is huge. I won’t go on much longer because I refuse to spoil it for you, but trust me when I say Cloverfield is worth the hype. You’ll need to adjust to the shaky cam (won’t take longer than 15 minutes, at least for us it didn’t), it’s a tad melodramatic (but it works because you care about the characters more), New Yorkers will have to suck it up a bit (Spring to 59th in heels?) and you’ll need to realize that you won’t be spoon-fed the usual Hollywood bullsh*t along the way. Picture you and your friends hanging out one night. Someone has a movie camera. Something attacks the city … and you’re off. That’s it. That’s the setup. Now strap yourself in, hold on tight and enjoy the ride.
It’s wonderful, it’s frightening and it’s truly a breath of fresh air. Serious props go out to director Matt Reeves and producer J.J. Abrams. Cloverfield … you have finally won me over. Stay tuned to Cinematical for our official review later this week.
baracine
01-16-08, 09:34 AM
I like this IMDb comment (which sounds real): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/usercomments
Tremendous thrills!, 15 January 2008
Author: kanerazor from Yorba Linda, CA
Some people have derisively compared this film to The Blair Witch Project because it was all told from the point of view of someone's shaking camera. Unless you have motion sickness, I don't think that's a bad thing. What matters is who's in front of the camera. While The Blair Witch Project featured annoying people screaming at each other, this movie actually made me care about the characters. In fact if it had continued with the romantic drama tone established during the first half hour, I STILL think it would have been worth watching and that's the biggest compliment I can give it.
Of course people will be watching this movie for the visceral pleasure and Colverfield delivers. Many thrilling visual and sound effects wowed me (there were a few times I yelled out in shock at a sudden scare). Any horror film will also benefit from a sense of entrapment and this movie pulls off the seemingly impossible feat of making New York City seem claustrophobic because there was seemingly nowhere to hide from the monster.
What is the monster? Whatever it is clearly is meant to be an allegory for the carnage 9/11 inflicted on New York, much the same way Godzilla was meant to be an allegory for the damage inflicted on Japan by the atom bomb. There are moments seemingly recreating the documentary footage from 9/11, and they give the film verisimilitude. Touching upon real life horror, plus creating characters that we can relate to and care about, and assaulting our senses with incredible sights and sounds leads to entertainment worth watching many times over. Perhaps the 80 minute run time will bother some people, but on the other hand I think that's better than a film wearing out its welcome. Great job J.J. Abrams and company!
MrE
01-16-08, 09:45 AM
My very short review: CLOVERFIELD is Alien 3 ... at least what it should have been.
RichC2
01-16-08, 09:53 AM
James Berardinelli's Review ( www.reelviews.net | http://www.reelviews.net/movies/c/cloverfield.html ):
3 stars out of 4
Cloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. Some will experience motion sickness. Others will just be annoyed and disoriented by the experience. These are legitimate reactions, but Cloverfield isn't trying to present another run-of-the-mill rampaging monster movie. You can rent a bunch of those on DVD. Do we really need another one? Instead, producer J.J. Abrams and his creative team want to represent a catastrophic event from ground level. If 9/11 taught us one thing, it's that when disaster strikes, cameras are turned on. Cloverfield's gritty, in-your-face style is uncompromising. If you're looking for a nice, clean movie filmed with a steadycam, you'll have to look elsewhere.
Cloverfield owes a debt to The Blair Witch Project. The most obvious similarity is the decision to show the entire event through the lens of a camera. The structure is similar as well - a slow build-up as we get to know the characters. Here's where one of Blair Witch's flaws creeps into Cloverfield. The opening sequences last too long. They're supposed to be introducing us to the protagonists, but they're dull and a little tedious. We start itching for something to happen. For 20 minutes, experiencing Cloverfield is like watching the home movies of strangers. (But maybe you're into that sort of thing...) As with The Blair Witch Project, however, once things start happening, the intensity explodes off the screen. The inability to see exactly what is happening is part of the film's appeal. Some will find it frustrating. Others will find it exhilarating.
The film - which is essentially the content of one video tape - begins in April with a cute little scene between lovers Rob (Michael Stahl-David) and Beth (Odette Yustman), who have just spent their first night together and are filming each other in the morning. Things jump ahead to a night in May. Rob is leaving for Japan the next day and this is his going-away party. In attendance are his brother, Jason (Mike Vogel); Jason's girlfriend, Lily (Jessica Lucas); Rob's best friend (and the cameraman), Hud (T.J. Miller); and Hud's crush-from-afar, Marlena (Lizzy Caplan). Things are going well at the party until all hell breaks loose outside. There are explosions. Buildings topple. Projectiles hurtle through the air. In a matter of minutes, New York is in chaos. This time, however, the attacker isn't a terrorist - it's a giant monster. And it appears to be immune to everything the army throws at it.
First of all, don't expect linear storytelling with all of the holes plugged. Nothing concrete is revealed about the monster (although there is speculation). Is it from outer space? From deep in the ocean? Why is it in New York? What are its capabilities? What eventually happens to it? By confining the action in the film to what's on the videotape, Cloverfield eliminates the need to talk to these points. In fact, we never get a completely clear shot of the creature (at least not in the sense one would expect from a traditional motion picture), although there is a very nice close-up headshot late in the film. Still, the movie follows the Jaws rule that monsters are usually more intimidating when they are shown infrequently and only in brief glimpses. Even having seen the movie, I would be hard-pressed to give a coherent description of the thing. All I can say is that it's big and it's ugly.
The disaster wrought upon New York raises shadows of 9/11. How could it not? A scene in a street where a skyscraper collapses and the dust cloud rolls toward the characters is a carbon copy of one of the most horrific images from that real-life tragedy. Cloverfield also offers the destruction of icons: a decapitated Statue of Liberty and a devastated Brooklyn Bridge. There are plenty of landmarks to go after in New York without having to touch the Empire State Building. That place has already had enough attention over the years from King Kong. One has to wonder whether the filmmakers went too far in so forcefully evoking 9/11. Then again, to tell this story in this way, was there an alternative?
What does the handheld camera bring to Cloverfield? There's a sense of immediacy that couldn't be obtained in any other way. We're in the trenches with these characters, not looking at them from a safe distance. There's an intensity that couldn't be achieved in any other way. Consider, for example, the scene in the subway when Hud turns on the camera's night vision. No other approach could have yielded that result. In fact, today's viewers might be more willing to accept this perspective than those who booed The Blair Witch Project after it made the leap from art houses to multiplexes. It is, after all, the point-of-view presented by many video games - the so-called "first person shooters." And there's something else to consider: make Cloverfield conventional, and how is it different from the 1998 version of Godzilla?
Try as he might, director Matt Reeves (making his first feature in a dozen years) cannot develop his human cut-outs into three-dimensional people, and that's what keeps Cloverfield from being truly memorable. When the characters die - as some of them are bound to - there's no real remorse. Some times, there's a little shock but no sadness or sense of loss. However, the use of largely unfamiliar actors is an asset. As in The Blair Witch Project, we're not connecting these performers to their past roles (although Lizzy Caplan bears a striking resemblance to Zooey Deschanel).
It's necessary to cut through the hype to get to the real Cloverfield. I'm not sure the way it is being marketed does it justice. The movie is interesting because it's so damn different. It takes a worn concept and invigorates it by applying an innovative approach. The style will anger and offend some viewers but, if you're able to accommodate the camera, the movie delivers. There are moments of high tension and the sense of danger feels closer and more real than in any recent motion picture. The missteps - the greatest of which is the interminable introduction - are forgivable because the payoff is strong. In some ways, Cloverfield gives the impression of having been produced on a low budget, but the special effects are first rate. The monster and the devastation it causes look real. We believe. And, ultimately, that's the reason why Cloverfield works - because this film takes you into the heart of the maelstrom and leaves you there.
It's currently at -1% with 1 fresh and 3 rotten reviews at Rottentomatoes... Yeah, their new interface sucks and the upcoming movie tomatometer is fubar'd at the moment :) And theres no links to said reviews.
Brent L
01-16-08, 10:04 AM
http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/review/1789
In the end, I was disappointed - and not by the movie. CLOVERFIELD is one of those films you wish you could see for the very first time again because the impact will just never be the same on second viewing. I treasured the experience of getting to see this in the theater and it will forever leave a mark on me. "This is a story that needs to be told..." there are still good movies to be made – and people who have the heart to make them.
http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10917
Part of my skepticism coming into this film was that it was going to be one of those movies about the people, not the catastrophic action surrounding them. That’s not a bad concept but it’s been done a lot lately. Luckily, the film succeeds in both arenas and adds up to a monster of a ride (pun alert). Go see it now! In a theater with good sound!
RichC2
01-16-08, 10:07 AM
Filmforce.IGN.Com -- Aussie Review:
3.5 out of 5
Australia, January 16, 2008 - All is not well in the city of Manhattan. We know this because you can only have so many beautiful people in one opening scene without knowing that at least some of them are facing a horrible, gruesome, and more than likely, imminent end. Don't worry, I won't be elaborating on said end because this is strictly a non-spoiler review. Having said that, I don't think I will be rocking anyone's world by stating that this is unabashedly a monster movie. And it is a cracker.
Cloverfield is the boisterous brainchild of producer J. J. Abrams, creator of TV series Felicity, Alias, and that slowest revealer of secrets ever known to television, Lost. Abrams has taken the 'every-monster' that we have grown to love in b-grade cinematic classics and given that bad boy the old stars and stripes spin. We are not going to reveal what kind of monster it is, but it's true what they say - they truly do things bigger in the United States of America.
Cloverfield stands out in the genre as enabling its audience to suspend disbelief. The veiling of the threat is exceptional and one of the chief reasons the film is such a gripping feast. Glimpses are not met with laughter, which is an achievement when you're showing the tail-end of a monster that makes the Statue of Liberty look minute. In fact, all of the laughter happens in the 'right' places - during the moments of light-relief rest stops.
The obscured threat, combined with hand-held, first person point-of-view cinema-verite styling goes a long way in creating the claustrophobic tension that would have had me gripping the person next to me had I not been scribbling notes for this review. This film will make you experience life at the bottom of the food chain; a disconcerting and adrenelin-pumping place to be.
While the hand-held shooting style can be a little dizzying for the first few minutes, most audience members should soon adapt. But if you found the Blair Witch Project an exercise in nausea, be warned; Cloverfield ups the ante in the shaky-cam stakes. Yet the cinematography is artfully done. Long, jerking one shots draw the audience into the confusion, our gaze always a second too late to see the action. Of course, this construction of amateur documentation is hardly alien to current media consumers. We watch events unfold through a similar lens almost daily online. We are a society of documenters and Cloverfield never lets us forget it. There is one moment in the film when the audience's view of a destruction aftershock is somewhat obscured by members of the crowd capturing the moment on their cell phones. This is a sight that is strangely familiar which is alarming given the circumstances.
Cloverfield is an intelligent take on the genre. But the question must be asked - how clever do we want this genre to be? At times, Cloverfield almost feels a little bit too clever for its own good. All the devices that are used to draw the audience into the action, though pretty effective, are obvious. In fact, some of these devices are so apparent that they could prevent more discerning viewers from being totally absorbed into what is still a rollickingly fun destruction-fest.
Abrams has said that one of his motivations behind the film was to provide a safe fear. That is, the fear of something that cannot exist at a time when many of us are living in great fear. There will be countless parallels drawn between this film and the events of September 11. There are even eerily familiar scenes of the billowing clouds of dust that blew as the Towers crumbled. But rather than providing an allegory for a moment in history, Abrams has largely achieved his aim. Cloverfield gives its audience a way of relating to its nightmares behind the guise of a high-action genre flick. It is one thing to sit on the edge of your seat in a cinema and feel like a potential monster snack, but when you let your mind wander to who you would want to call when the first rumble hit your city, or how you would react on a street teeming with fear and dust clouds and frantic people, that is when a colder fear sinks in.
Cloverfield will grab you in its jaws, toss you around like a chew toy for a rollicking 80 minutes (yes, it's a short – but oh so sweet – flick) and still leave you panting for more. However, this is not some dumb action flick. Don't expect to forget this film the moment you walk out of the cinema. It's not that sort of movie.
RichC2
01-16-08, 10:21 AM
The 3 negative reviews from RottenTomates:
Think Blair Witch meets Godzilla, and since that isn't the first or last time you'll read that comparison, think of a movie that results in something less profound. [More]
Bronsonfive
Kyle Smith
A combination of unpleasantness and stupidity that would be difficult to match, unless you were stuck in bed with the flu while being forced to watch Lou Dobbs. [More]
KyleSmithOnline.com
Urban Cinefile Critics
Cloverfield has most things I deplore about movies and a couple of things I admire. [More]
Urban Cinefile
From the sounds of it, it's exactly what it's being sold as (and what it's been being sold as since the original 1-18-08 trailers). Works for me :up:.
steebo777
01-16-08, 10:36 AM
Saw this at a screening last night. My buddy and I were pretty excited to see it, but I've been staying away from any info (what little there is out there) on it. I easily give it 4 out of 4 stars just for the sheer impact of being slapped in the face with how quick and INTENSE things get. I could not imagine sitting within the first ten rows to see this as the camera is shaky, but we were smack dab in the middle of the theater and it was perfect. The sound was great and the shaky cam was never too much. That being said, when I was in the bathroom afterwards, I would say it was about 50-60% of the people in there NOT liking the movie. Personally, at the brisk pace it runs and the craziness that ensues, I don't see how you could not enjoy it. If this was D-Wars, then I would agree with them, but this was the most FUN I've had in a theater in a long time. I am definitely taking my g/f to see it this weekend.
The scene where the army is coming up the street firing at the monster as the four people are there is fucking crazy!!!
Also, both my buddy and I were saying that camera has to be the most durable camera ever built. Screw the Nokia ads in the movie, it should've been Panasonic, Sanyo or Sony putting their camcorder ads on the walls.
Last but not least, I liked how much the monster and little monsters were shown. It seemed like the bugs from Starship Troopers, but still were scary. When they were in the tunnels getting attacked by them, people were freaking out all around me. It was just sweet to see NYC getting demolished ala Godzilla but in a way cooler movie (compared to the US version).
berserker37
01-16-08, 11:29 AM
Couldn't find the original article on AICN, but here's my favorite review of Cloverfield so far. Spoilerized for language, I don't think there's any real major spoilers here:
I got to see Cloverfield Monster Goes Apeshit two weeks ago. We’ve been on double shifts at Wetzel’s Pretzels because we’re selling these goddamn frosting and cinnamon pretzels that are supposed to look like a snowman waving at you and guess what all our retarded customers like biting the heads off of?
Also, the “snowmen” don’t look like snowmen – they look like fat babies that can stand up and wave, and that someone has spooged on (the frosting).
But Cloverfield Monster Goes Apeshit was the perfect movie for me to get to see, because now every time one of our swamp-ass customers comes in and wants a Sal-Tee the Snowman I can imagine the Cloverfield monster biting their goddamn heads off.
And yes, in the movie, the Cloverfield monster bites off some fucking heads. Only you get to see it from a way you don’t normally get to see heads getting bitten off, so basically the movie – which I’m just going to call Cloverfield for the rest of this review because typing out that long-ass title is pee-hole – basically makes other head-biting-off-movies look like Georgia Rule with a peppermint cock in its ass.
The movie starts off really shitty though, with all this stuff about a young couple that’s in love, and she’s hot and he’s hot and I’m all like, “Who’s filming the Ambercrombie and Fitch catalogue?”
But then it’s like the movie heard you calling it a pussy so it puts on its dick-stomping boots and then surprises your dick with a punch from a fist wearing a cock-punch glove.
Things just don’t get scary – they get FUCKED UP. And I mean fucked up like the whole movie’s shot through a hand-held video camera, so you feel like this is happening to you (apparently, the video camera was recovered by the government, so at the beginning of the movie, when you’re told this, you think, “Man, something bad must’ve happened to whoever filmed this”, and you imagine a lot of shit, but then when you get to what ACTUALLY HAPPENS you’re like, “Fuck you, imagination, this was ten times worse than I thought” and then to get back at you your imagination makes you think about 2 Girls 1 Cup if Rhea Perlman and Edith Bunker were the girls)
So here’s the story: a monster attacks News York City.
But that’s not the fucked-up part.
The monster RIPS THE LIVING SHIT out of the city, and everyone in its path. It’s like the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina and Kathy Griffin’s vagina combined and turned into a giant murder-beast and it’s hungry for every hip person in Manhattan.
Which is another cool thing about the movie – everyone that’s getting eaten are like characters you see in those annoying movies that are always on IFC and Fagdance. Movies with titles like Thinkin’ ‘Bout Being Sad and Zoe Gets a Latte and 2 Bedrooms, 1 Bath and a Whole Bunch of Cock-fucks Running Their Mouths.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, the giant monster starts rubbing itself on buildings, and then stuff falls off it’s gross body and crawls the fuck away – only the crawling-away stuff doesn’t stay away for long, if you know what I mean.
And then – and THEN – and I mean, at this point, the movie’s like a speed freak yelling at you, as if the giant monster and the things crawling away weren’t bad enough, there’s a third, even more messed-up thing the monster can do to a person, which I won’t spoil ‘cuz it made me kind of sick and the people on this website are the kind of assholes who’d come in to the W.P. at two minutes before I have to clean the cinnamon nets and order ten Sal-Tees so fuck everyone, so maybe you’ll see it and get sick and not want a Sal-Tee and I can go the fuck home.
Also, I don’t know if the movie-makers are looking for poster quotes, but this movie is like a pussy that eats YOU out.
So, here’s my final thoughts:
The good: Monster fucking everything sideways, creepy-crawly things fucking everything that’s still not fucked, indie movie characters getting eaten and mutilated before they can talk about coffee or e-mails or their feelings.
The bad: Smarty-pants story-telling shit where the video you’re watching has un-recorded bits where you see the hero’s relationship a few weeks back, before the monster shows up. Except then there’s this final shot (from the flashback section) that’s actually kind of awesome ‘cuz it’s this very sweet, sunshine-y shot of something, except at that point you’re thinking some really bad thoughts about what the shot represents.
The shitty: I had a long dream about the male star of the movie two nights after I saw this, where we both had shirts off and he was helping me do sit-ups. So fuck this movie for that part.
wago70
01-16-08, 12:58 PM
I don't have anything against this movie. I have been studying the hype campaign closely for a long time and am just now finding out that all the intricate clues that have been left for us to analyze turn out to be false. The finished film appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the suggested back story about ecology, the eco-rape of the world's oceans and big bad polluting international corporations.
It now appears to be (besides a rip-off of Godzilla and The Host) a simple 80-minutes nausea-inducing clip of a survival video game about Manhattan pedestrians trying to avoid falling objects. And that's pretty dumb. That's like the film industry deciding to do without writers altogether.
Yes, that is how all the films are being marketed now. I hate it. I love monster movies and I cannot wait to see this one, but I absolutely hate the online trailers! I hate all that quick snip editing that all the films do nowadays. Oddly, it actually works best for this film because I suppose that is what the film will actually look like. Yes, most films are very video game-ish or look that way in adverts. I hope its a phase that will soon tire out.
slop101
01-16-08, 01:17 PM
Cloverfield monster revealed!
Here's a clear picture of the monster - click only if you don't mind being spoiled!
Couldn't find the original article on AICN, but here's my favorite review of Cloverfield so far. Spoilerized for language, I don't think there's any real major spoilers here:
I got to see Cloverfield Monster Goes Apeshit two weeks ago. We’ve been on double shifts at Wetzel’s Pretzels because we’re selling these goddamn frosting and cinnamon pretzels that are supposed to look like a snowman waving at you and guess what all our retarded customers like biting the heads off of?
Also, the “snowmen” don’t look like snowmen – they look like fat babies that can stand up and wave, and that someone has spooged on (the frosting).
But Cloverfield Monster Goes Apeshit was the perfect movie for me to get to see, because now every time one of our swamp-ass customers comes in and wants a Sal-Tee the Snowman I can imagine the Cloverfield monster biting their goddamn heads off.
And yes, in the movie, the Cloverfield monster bites off some fucking heads. Only you get to see it from a way you don’t normally get to see heads getting bitten off, so basically the movie – which I’m just going to call Cloverfield for the rest of this review because typing out that long-ass title is pee-hole – basically makes other head-biting-off-movies look like Georgia Rule with a peppermint cock in its ass.
The movie starts off really shitty though, with all this stuff about a young couple that’s in love, and she’s hot and he’s hot and I’m all like, “Who’s filming the Ambercrombie and Fitch catalogue?”
But then it’s like the movie heard you calling it a pussy so it puts on its dick-stomping boots and then surprises your dick with a punch from a fist wearing a cock-punch glove.
Things just don’t get scary – they get FUCKED UP. And I mean fucked up like the whole movie’s shot through a hand-held video camera, so you feel like this is happening to you (apparently, the video camera was recovered by the government, so at the beginning of the movie, when you’re told this, you think, “Man, something bad must’ve happened to whoever filmed this”, and you imagine a lot of shit, but then when you get to what ACTUALLY HAPPENS you’re like, “Fuck you, imagination, this was ten times worse than I thought” and then to get back at you your imagination makes you think about 2 Girls 1 Cup if Rhea Perlman and Edith Bunker were the girls)
So here’s the story: a monster attacks News York City.
But that’s not the fucked-up part.
The monster RIPS THE LIVING SHIT out of the city, and everyone in its path. It’s like the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina and Kathy Griffin’s vagina combined and turned into a giant murder-beast and it’s hungry for every hip person in Manhattan.
Which is another cool thing about the movie – everyone that’s getting eaten are like characters you see in those annoying movies that are always on IFC and Fagdance. Movies with titles like Thinkin’ ‘Bout Being Sad and Zoe Gets a Latte and 2 Bedrooms, 1 Bath and a Whole Bunch of Cock-fucks Running Their Mouths.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, the giant monster starts rubbing itself on buildings, and then stuff falls off it’s gross body and crawls the fuck away – only the crawling-away stuff doesn’t stay away for long, if you know what I mean.
And then – and THEN – and I mean, at this point, the movie’s like a speed freak yelling at you, as if the giant monster and the things crawling away weren’t bad enough, there’s a third, even more messed-up thing the monster can do to a person, which I won’t spoil ‘cuz it made me kind of sick and the people on this website are the kind of assholes who’d come in to the W.P. at two minutes before I have to clean the cinnamon nets and order ten Sal-Tees so fuck everyone, so maybe you’ll see it and get sick and not want a Sal-Tee and I can go the fuck home.
Also, I don’t know if the movie-makers are looking for poster quotes, but this movie is like a pussy that eats YOU out.
So, here’s my final thoughts:
The good: Monster fucking everything sideways, creepy-crawly things fucking everything that’s still not fucked, indie movie characters getting eaten and mutilated before they can talk about coffee or e-mails or their feelings.
The bad: Smarty-pants story-telling shit where the video you’re watching has un-recorded bits where you see the hero’s relationship a few weeks back, before the monster shows up. Except then there’s this final shot (from the flashback section) that’s actually kind of awesome ‘cuz it’s this very sweet, sunshine-y shot of something, except at that point you’re thinking some really bad thoughts about what the shot represents.
The shitty: I had a long dream about the male star of the movie two nights after I saw this, where we both had shirts off and he was helping me do sit-ups. So fuck this movie for that part.
Yes, it's hard to find. It was published on Dec. 17, 2007. Here's the link:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35100
Meanwhile, the TomatoMeter is up and working:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfield/
baracine
01-16-08, 02:05 PM
Yes, that is how all the films are being marketed now. I hate it. I love monster movies and I cannot wait to see this one, but I absolutely hate the online trailers! I hate all that quick snip editing that all the films do nowadays. Oddly, it actually works best for this film because I suppose that is what the film will actually look like. Yes, most films are very video game-ish or look that way in adverts. I hope its a phase that will soon tire out.
Hope springs eternal. First they got rid of the saturated colours. Then it was character development. Now it's the film score, decent photography, editing, writing and acting... This really is a disaster flick! :D
wago70
01-16-08, 04:32 PM
I don't mind this films' verite-style (does it deserve that description?) but when watching the trailers, they crank it up ten-fold with: rewinds, fastforwards, sound cues as each tiny scene changes ("foom, foooooom"!!) the shots end before the shouted dialogue complete the scenes...and they even snuck in a few glib lines of dialogue ("...whatever it is..it's winning"). I noticed the tv gossip show EXTRA! uses that same approach...as does just about everything else now in most forms of media.
The CLOVERFIELD title itself appears last as if it's missing a few frames of film (you've seen this technique a millions times on other films). For a film supposedly shot on video why...???? Eh, never mind.
Like I said, I want to see the movie and I can stand the shaky-cam approach without motion sickness.
In the 2001 movie GODZILLA, MOTHRA, KING GHIDRAH All Monsters Attack, the lead character is videotaping the destruction for internet broadcast. I wonder if it looked like this film to the chacters watching it.
Another Godzilla similarity are the creatures themselves. Some have noted similarities to the villians from GODZILLA VS. DESTROYER (not in appearance, mind you but habit and perhaps, partially, origin).
I didn't put spoiler tags here...I'm only speculating and also, most of this stuff has been seen in other movies. CLOVERFIELD looks to be fun nonetheless, but rather...late in appearing? This would have been truly amazing if this film premeired just before the USA Godzilla film came out, lol.
baracine
01-16-08, 04:45 PM
This would have been truly amazing if this film premeired just before the USA Godzilla film came out, lol.
It couldn't have been done. This film is clearly inspired by 9/11.
RichC2
01-16-08, 08:11 PM
Associated Press Review:
Go ahead and call it gimmicky, but "Cloverfield" is effective.
The trailer, with its image of the Statue of Liberty's severed head bouncing down a Manhattan street, created huge buzz online and at Comic-Con.
The title gave away nothing — it's just the name of a street near producer J.J. Abrams' Los Angeles office, a code word the filmmakers used to keep the project under wraps — but it stuck, adding even more mystery.
And the premise seems tailor-made for the YouTube generation: a monster attack on New York City as seen entirely from the perspective of a partygoer's hand-held video camera.
The "Blair Witch" technique does grow dizzying but, again, it's effective because it feels so authentic and gives the movie an interactive quality. Truly, if a creature several stories high came stomping and roaring through your town, wouldn't you document it, too, and wouldn't it look just like this? (Well, you would if you were 25 or younger.)
But this monster mash-up is a lot of fun, creating some intense gross-out moments and maintaining suspense throughout its speedy running time. Adding to the feeling that you're watching a real attack as it happens is the casting of mostly unknown actors. (Typical of the creator of "Lost," Abrams intentionally told them nothing about the material during auditions.)
Michael Stahl-David stars as Rob, who's about to move to Japan for work (in a nice little homage to "Godzilla") and whose going-away party is interrupted by the arrival of a very large, angry reptile. Mike Vogel plays his brother, Jason, and the two are obviously close. Odette Yustman is Rob's gorgeous would-be girlfriend, Beth, who lives in a high-rise overlooking Central Park; and T.J. Miller is Hud, the guy behind the video camera.
It's a responsibility Hud takes reluctantly. As established by director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard, both longtime Abrams friends and collaborators, Rob is about to leave town and all his friends have gathered at a downtown loft to surprise him. Goofy Hud, who has no internal censor, is given the task of recording their good-byes. (The structure is a handy way of letting us get to know the characters, and it lulls us in before all hell breaks loose.)
But he doesn't really know how to operate the thing, and he keeps hitting the play button instead of record, revealing snippets of the tape that was already in there: blissful footage Rob shot the morning after an unexpected hook-up with Beth. Now, a month later, they're clearly not together anymore — hence her awkward arrival at his party with another guy.
Also at the party are Jason's bossy girlfriend, Lily (Jessica Lucas), and smart-mouthed Marlena (Lizzy Caplan), a friend-of-a-friend for whom T.J. harbors a secret crush.
They're all flung out onto the streets, along with the rest of Manhattan, when the shaking and booming begin. Surely this will remind a lot of people of what the city was like on Sept. 11, with its falling buildings, walls of dust and smoke, and general pandemonium as people run around seeking safety and hunting frantically for their friends. It does send a chill but, now that it's been several years, the sensation doesn't feel exploitative.
A scene on the Brooklyn Bridge as hordes of evacuees struggle in vain to escape is unsettling, with the rumbling of feet and the snapping of cables, as is a sequence underground as several characters try to make their way uptown through the subway tunnels.
And then there is the creature itself, which we only see in brief, obscured glimpses for the longest time, and which drops spiderlike baby creatures all over the place.
Abrams, et al, have said that "Cloverfield" is a metaphor for the fearful times we live in, but it's doubtful most moviegoers will head into it with such a lofty thought in mind, or that that they'll consider that high concept as they walk away. They're mostly going for the ride. And they'll get it.
"Cloverfield," a Paramount Pictures release, is rated PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images. Running time: 84 minutes. Three stars out of four.
The Infidel
01-16-08, 08:27 PM
It couldn't have been done. This film is clearly inspired by 9/11.
I hope you're not being serious.
RichC2
01-16-08, 08:30 PM
You haven't read any of his previous posts.... have you? :)
The Infidel
01-16-08, 08:35 PM
Apparently not.
RayChuang
01-16-08, 09:33 PM
I think some reviewers are missing the point of Cloverfield.
If you think of the movie as the equivalent of a record of a person in the panicked crowd trying to get away from a monster rampage in a Japanese monster movie, then this movie makes a LOT of sense. Think in that framework and the frantic, cinéma vérité style works perfectly.
Ronnie Dobbs
01-16-08, 11:50 PM
I thought it was pretty intense personally. It would make a badass video game.
Suprmallet
01-17-08, 12:42 AM
Hope springs eternal. First they got rid of the saturated colours. Then it was character development. Now it's the film score, decent photography, editing, writing and acting... This really is a disaster flick! :D
Isn't there room in the world for movies like this, though? There will always be filmmakers who have gorgeous compositions, well thought out scripts, deep character development, etc. That stuff isn't going to go away. This movie is trying to basically put you in the middle of a disaster. And, from all accounts, it does it rather well.
Edit: I should note that I'm not advocating that all films simply drop any semblance of style or substance. Just that sometimes a filmmaker can do a movie that doesn't have the traditional notions of "well made" films and still make a movie that works.
RichC2
01-17-08, 01:07 AM
Isn't there room in the world for movies like this, though? There will always be filmmakers who have gorgeous compositions, well thought out scripts, deep character development, etc. That stuff isn't going to go away. This movie is trying to basically put you in the middle of a disaster. And, from all accounts, it does it rather well.
Edit: I should note that I'm not advocating that all films simply drop any semblance of style or substance. Just that sometimes a filmmaker can do a movie that doesn't have the traditional notions of "well made" films and still make a movie that works.
There is a world for movies like this, I don't think he's arguing that, he's arguing that it sucks they get the attention and hype that they do.
alfredog1976
01-17-08, 02:39 AM
Saw this tonight and hadn't read any of the reviews...but to me it was Blair Witch meets Godzilla...characters I did not care about, characters making stupid decisions and the shaky cam that gave me a headache (and I am one who did not mind "shaky" movies like the Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum). I did appreciate that they were trying to do something different with the monster genre and there was a realistic sense of despair. Also the monster scenes were cool but I still cannot recommend.
My grade: C.
baracine
01-17-08, 07:10 AM
Isn't there room in the world for movies like this, though? There will always be filmmakers who have gorgeous compositions, well thought out scripts, deep character development, etc. That stuff isn't going to go away. This movie is trying to basically put you in the middle of a disaster. And, from all accounts, it does it rather well.
Edit: I should note that I'm not advocating that all films simply drop any semblance of style or substance. Just that sometimes a filmmaker can do a movie that doesn't have the traditional notions of "well made" films and still make a movie that works.
I just see this as one more step towards "the ultimate movie experience" where movie attendants will place an electrode in the movie patron's sex organs and/or asshole, an HD feed in his brain stem cells to simulate his worst nightmare, turn on the juice and splash the patron in pig's blood.:D
Think of the profit margin!
(The dry cleaning would be extra, of course.)
baracine
01-17-08, 10:08 AM
Variety's reviewer Todd McCarthy is the only one among Rottentomatoes' seven "Top Critics" ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfield/?critic=creamcrop&name_order=asc ) who didn't like it. But he gives the most detailed and precise review so far, down to a description of the end titles: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935799.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
New U.S. Release
Cloverfield
By TODD MCCARTHY
Manhattan hipsters ditch a bon voyage party to save themselves when a creature starts tearing the city apart in 'Cloverfield.'
A Paramount release of a Bad Robot production. Produced by J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk. Executive producers, Guy Riedel, Sherryl Clark. Directed by Matt Reeves. Screenplay, Drew Goddard.
Marlena - Lizzy Caplan
Lily - Jessica Lucas
Hud - T.J. Miller
Rob Hawkins - Michael Stahl-David
Jason Hawkins - Mike Vogel
Beth Mcintyre - Odette Yustman
An old-fashioned monster movie dressed up in trendy new threads, "Cloverfield" plays like "The Blair Witch Project" meets "Godzilla," as it charts via camcorder the desperate efforts of some twentysomething Soho scenesters to steer clear of a gigantic beast laying waste to Manhattan. Despite its indie-flavored shooting style, first-rate visual effects, reasonable intensity factor, nihilistic attitude and post-9/11 anxiety overlay, this punchy sci-fier is, in the end, not much different from all the marauding creature features that have come before it. But the Paramount release will be lapped up by thrill-seeking young auds everywhere for monstrous initial biz, spurred by an Internet-driven campaign that's been stoking fan interest for months.
The initial teaser that triggered the Web-based anticipation for producer J.J. Abrams' latest creation showed a sexy downtown party being suddenly interrupted by thunderous sounds, and then by the sight of massive urban explosions. The specter of some colossal unknown force destroying life as everyone knows it seemed real and terrifying, especially as it all unfolded a subway stop or two away from the World Trade Center site.
But "Cloverfield" turns out to be less "24" and more "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms," becoming increasingly comfortable, even reassuring the more you see the actual perpetrator. Nasty as the critter is -- and it does seem to unleash eons' worth of hatred for humanity, although its origins are unspecified -- its very nature as a walking, stalking being suggests it can somehow be killed by conventional means.
So while the film is cleverly and resourcefully made (allegedly for a mere $25 million), as well as both tense and intense, it doesn't provoke sheer terror and never pushes things to the point where you want to look away. Pic aims for a level of emotional involvement, but the characters here have no more substance than they ever do in films constructed around a group of disposable nonentities meant to be methodically reduced in number by a bloodthirsty behemoth.
After some ominous deep rumblings and fleeting reference to an "area formerly known as Central Park," action begins in a high-rise condo overlooking the park, where a young man with a video camera (the date is recorded as April 27) captures the scene of the previous night's romantic fulfillment, as the young lady in question remains sleeping in the early morning light.
Then it's May 22, and preparations are under way for a farewell bash for Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who, in an undoubted nod to "Godzilla," is leaving for a job in Japan. Before he arrives, Rob's brother Jason (Mike Vogel) records video testimonials from assorted guests, including party babe Lily (Jessica Lucas) and guarded semi-acquaintance Marlena (Lizzy Caplan).
Snippets of conversation reveal Rob has never again contacted Beth (Odette Yustman), the girl from the opening scene, who summarily shows up with another guy -- much to Rob's distress. Just as the emotional steam from this conflict is ready to blow, all hell breaks loose outside and, after viewing the initial devastation from the roof, the vacuous hipsters put the party on hold in favor of saving their skins.
This early action, as the group joins the panicking, confused and injured hordes on the dark streets, where the head of the Statue of Liberty has been unceremoniously dumped, is the best stuff in the picture; something dreadful is out there, but neither we nor the characters have a clue what it is until one of the characters exclaims, "I saw it. It's alive!" Rob, Lily, Marlena and Hud (T.J. Miller), now manning the camera, head for the Brooklyn Bridge, which the beast upends in spectacular fashion while showing a bit of its lizardly monstrousness in the process.
Rob then insists they head uptown to try to save Beth, presumed to be in the high-rise building from the opening scene; Odysseus had an easy time of it compared to what these unprepossessing non-warrior types go through to reach their destination.
Scripter Drew Goddard wisely drops some ancillary beasties into the mix, vicious crab/spider hybrids that make a repellent clicky-clacky noise and are anxious for human snacks. Another effective element is the occasional footage of lovely-dovey Ron and Beth shot back in April, when life looked so promising, the dire events of May 22 being inadvertently recorded over it.
The sights revealed thereafter become increasingly familiar ones to genre fans: decimated cityscapes (pic could even be viewed as a theoretical prequel to "I Am Legend," prepping the city for the way it would look in that recent film), a heavy military presence, an overcrowded temporary hospital, zooming choppers and jets.
At long last, a lingering full-on shot of the monster is served up, and it's not a friendly sight. All the same, a strong argument could be made for not showing the creature at all. The film's initial hints at offering a new kind of horror eventually devolve into something essentially familiar, provoking idle thoughts that, in the vein of the '50s sci-fier "Forbidden Planet," it could have been more effective with an invisible but quite tangible threat.
Handheld style overseen by director Matt Reeves, whose first feature was "The Pallbearer" and who partnered with Abrams on "Felicity" for four years, produces mixed results; the frenzied, haphazard nature of the coverage accurately reflects the state of things, but also seems hackneyed from overuse. A major production benefit must have been that expenditures for visual effects (expertly handled by Double Negative and the Tippett Studio) could be minimized, as the camera could plausibly be pointed away from the action much of the time.
Picture proper only runs 73 minutes, while the end credits crawl up the screen in what seems like slow motion for 12 minutes to eke out a total running time of 85 minutes. Only source music is used in the film itself, but accompanying the credits is "Roar! (Cloverfield Overture)," which composer Michael Giacchino has cleverly fashioned to evoke the sort of bombastic, heavily dramatic score such a picture would have had in traditional times.
If "Cloverfield" proves massively successful, there's nothing preventing this beast from invading as many other cities as the public wants to see destroyed.
Camera (Deluxe color), Michael Bonvillain; editor, Kevin Stitt; production designer, Martin Whist; art directors, Douglas J. Meerdink, John Pollard (New York); set designers, George R. Lee, Jane Wuu, Chad S. Frey; set decorator, Robert Greenfield; costume designer, Ellen Mirojnick; sound (Dolby Digital/DTS/SDDS), Ed White; supervising sound editors/sound designers, Douglas Murray, William Files; re-recording mixers, Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer; visual effects supervisors, Kevin Blank, Michael Ellis, Eric Leven; visual effects, Double Negative, Tippett Studio; special effects coordinator, David Waine; creature designer, Neville Page; stunt coordinator, Rob King; associate producer, David Baronoff; assistant director, Rip Murray; casting, Alyssa Weisberg. Reviewed at Paramount studios, Los Angeles, Jan. 14, 2008. MPAA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 85 MIN.
Variety is striving to present the most thorough review database. To report inaccuracies in review credits, please click here. We do not currently list below-the-line credits, although we hope to include them in the future. Please note we may not respond to every suggestion. Your assistance is appreciated.
Date in print: Thurs., Jan. 17, 2008, Gotham
chris_sc77
01-17-08, 10:19 AM
"Picture proper only runs 73 minutes"
OH. MY. GOD.
This thing barely qualifies for being a feature-length film!
RichC2
01-17-08, 10:21 AM
"Picture proper only runs 73 minutes"
OH. MY. GOD.
This thing barely qualifies for being a feature-length film!
Oh noz...
Will be seeing this tonight most likely.
Yavin
01-17-08, 10:28 AM
I saw an advance screening of "Cloverfield" (also known as "Try Not To Throw Up During the Next 80 Minutes") last night in Toronto, and I can honestly say that it in no way lives up to the hype.
There's essentially no back-story to the film, no explanation of the monster(s), and no real resolution to the film at all (I say no real resolution to the film in the sense of the actual events taking place; there is some resolution with respect to some of the characters' relationships though).
The first 15 minutes are there to set up the characters, but it's pretty shallow and some of the actors' lines are cliched beyond being cliched (especially in the opening scene, and in the scene between the two brothers on the fire escape during the going-away party). The character establishment portion seems to drag on a bit too, as clearly everyone is just waiting to get to the monster rampage.
Once that happens, it's pretty much non-stop action (and by "action", I really mean "running"). And there's a lot of running. And it's shaky. Very, very shaky. Take the shakiest camera movements you've ever seen in any film, and multiply them by 25. I'm talking filmed by Michael J. Fox or Mohammed Ali shaky. This is one tough movie to watch, and if you have any tendency toward motion-sickness at all, I'd say stay far, far away from this one. There were probably only 5 minutes (and that's being generous) where things were actually in-focus.
The special effects were alright. The sfx artists did a really good job of matching the effects to the movement in the frame, since nothing is ever standing still. But I think in large part the effects worked precisely because nothing was ever in-focus or standing still. Once we get to the one scene in the film where the monster is actually in-focus and in full-view, the CGI isn't terribly convincing. And actually the monster isn't in that many scenes of the film, by my count.
I'll say one good thing about this film though. It does draw you into what is happening and does make you feel like you're right there (due to the POV aspect). The bad thing, though, is that what is happening is often hard to discern, due to the very frequent camera movements. My advice for if you do decide to go and see it: sit as far away from the screen as possible.
Yavin
01-17-08, 10:36 AM
"Picture proper only runs 73 minutes"
OH. MY. GOD.
This thing barely qualifies for being a feature-length film!
Once you see it you'll realize why, it's because that's how long the video tape in the camcorder is. And trust me, you'll be glad it's only 73 minutes. You'll probably actually wish it was closer to 50.
RichC2
01-17-08, 10:47 AM
... I can honestly say that it in no way lives up to the hype.
I'll say one good thing about this film though. It does draw you into what is happening and does make you feel like you're right there.
Mildly confused since I thought thats what the hype was about. But ah well... Hopefully it'll be worth my $5.75.
Yavin
01-17-08, 10:50 AM
Mildly confused since I thought thats what the hype was about. But ah well... Hopefully it'll be worth my $5.75.
I updated my post slightly to clarify a little bit. From the hype, I was sort of expecting something in terms of a revelation to a mystery, and a little more depth. But this was completely lacking. My biggest problem with the film was that I found it practically unwatchable due to all the shaky camera work. I definitely feel that this will fare a lot better on disc, if people are willing to give it a second chance.
DJLinus
01-17-08, 11:07 AM
Once that happens, it's pretty much non-stop action (and by "action", I really mean "running"). And there's a lot of running. And it's shaky. Very, very shaky. Take the shakiest camera movements you've ever seen in any film, and multiply them by 25. I'm talking filmed by Michael J. Fox or Mohammed Ali shaky. This is one tough movie to watch, and if you have any tendency toward motion-sickness at all, I'd say stay far, far away from this one. There were probably only 5 minutes (and that's being generous) where things were actually in-focus.
Although I am mildly curious about this movie, you've just convinced me not to see it in the theater. (The camera work in The Bourne Ultimatum made me a bit queasy.) At least, since this is supposed to be from the POV of a camcorder (or whatever), the extreme shakiness has a purpose to it.
Although it keeps me out of the pop culture loop for a few months, I'll just wait until this hits DVD.
Yavin
01-17-08, 11:11 AM
Although I am mildly curious about this movie, you've just convinced me not to see it in the theater. (The camera work in The Bourne Ultimatum made me a bit queasy.) At least, since this is supposed to be from the POV of a camcorder (or whatever), the extreme shakiness has a purpose to it.
Although it keeps me out of the pop culture loop for a few months, I'll just wait until this hits DVD.
The people to the left and right of me sounded like they weren't feeling too well during the screening. I myself had to close my eyes for a bit, to rest them. And I normally don't get motion sickness *at all*. When the screening was over, no one even clapped. Everyone just got up and left. I think that says a lot already.
This will definitely not fare well when it airs on the digital movie channels later on this year. There's always compression artifacts aplenty whenever there's fast movement within the frame, on the digital channels, so I imagine that any showings of this movie on those channels will be doubly unwatchable.
baracine
01-17-08, 11:28 AM
From the Variety review:
Picture proper only runs 73 minutes, while the end credits crawl up the screen in what seems like slow motion for 12 minutes to eke out a total running time of 85 minutes. Only source music is used in the film itself, but accompanying the credits is "Roar! (Cloverfield Overture)," which composer Michael Giacchino has cleverly fashioned to evoke the sort of bombastic, heavily dramatic score such a picture would have had in traditional times.
It's nice to see they still spoon-feed us a bit of the traditional charm of the conventional movie experience at the end of the film, as an afterthought after all the mayhem. Michael Giacchino (Ratatouille, The Incredibles) is a top-notch composer, by the way.
chris_sc77
01-17-08, 12:28 PM
Once you see it you'll realize why, it's because that's how long the video tape in the camcorder is. And trust me, you'll be glad it's only 73 minutes. You'll probably actually wish it was closer to 50.
There is no way I am going to see this. I might netflix it but i would never pay for something like this in theaters.
achau9598
01-17-08, 12:57 PM
There is no way I am going to see this. I might netflix it but i would never pay for something like this in theaters.
Thanks for the review :crap:
raven56706
01-17-08, 01:11 PM
just read the newspaper and it says " its a monster mess"
i wanted to go and see this movie but now i am very hesistant
achau9598
01-17-08, 01:17 PM
for those that have seen it .. is there anything after the credits?
RichC2
01-17-08, 01:20 PM
just read the newspaper and it says " its a monster mess"
i wanted to go and see this movie but now i am very hesistant
Good to know people still read their local critics :lol:
My mom does that a lot, always find it funny since our local critic was my high school humanities teacher. I stopped listening to our local critic here after they gave Kill Bill Vol. 1 a 1/2 star rating shunning all the things that made it memorable/enjoyable.
JPRaup
01-17-08, 01:20 PM
Up to 72 percent on RT! wow
baracine
01-17-08, 01:37 PM
Another reviewer of Ain't It Cool News (Quint) has second thoughts - and nice words about Michael Giacchino's Overture: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35294
Quint has his own opinion of CLOVERFIELD!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. Yes, I’ve seen the movie and yes it is good. But for the love of God I hope you guys lower your expectations.
It’s easy to get caught up in the hype of a movie, especially a film like CLOVERFIELD which has been marketed amazingly. The team at Bad Robot made this film an event and they’ll be rewarded with a huge box office tally, no doubt in my mind. The line at the theater was insane and that I’ve noticed that the movies that are that in-demand at the press/word of mouth screenings always do well that weekend.
And the movie is good, so it’s not like you’re being duped into seeing a sub-par flick.
But I’m here to tell you that talk of this being a landmark, first of its kind movie is a little wrong. You’ve seen movies about earth shattering events told from the perspective of a small group of people before. You’ve seen movies told through a video camera. You haven’t really seen them cobbled together so well, which is why I think people are jizzing all over the movie like it’s the second coming.
I’m not here to shit on the parade of those who love it. I’m actually close to being one of those people. I thought the flick was really damn fun and showed a lot of smarts in execution. It’s heaps better than Romero’s attempt at a similar style with DIARY OF THE DEAD and it’s CITIZEN KANE compared to POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES.
The real strength of this film lies in director Matt Reeve’s ability to really build suspense and a world of wonder. There’s an awe to the film, the events really do seem real-world and they do a good job of keeping the characters realistic enough that you buy the story.
But I think what’s being overlooked by a lot of people is the kind of shallow character work. Rob, the lead, is played well by Michael Stahl-David but his character is a hard one to relate to and sympathize with. I’m sure that’s the point of the character, that’s what gives him his arc when he decides to forgo safety in order to be the hero, putting someone else’s needs before his own. That’s fine, but I still found it hard to connect to him, which made it a little difficult to fully give myself over to the movie since he is the centerpiece.
The character of Hud, however, is great. The only problem is that funny, likable, smart Hud is the cameraman, so he can never be the center of attention. He’s commentator and even though Rob is the main character Hud is literally our eyes.
If you’re in it for the big creature action (like a good deal of our audience last night) you’ll get some really nice stuff, but know going in that you only get about 3 ½ minutes of the big creature and another 2 or 3 minutes of the smaller ones. The creature’s presence is felt throughout, but I know a lot of the audience last night voiced disapproval as the credits began and I bet my bottom dollar that they expected a bigger creature feature.
The creature itself is pretty badass. By keeping it hidden for most of the movie, or only half-glimpsed or seen in brief moments during heavy “oh shit!” moments, they keep it mysterious until you get your first really long, good look at the fucker. I won’t spoil the design, but I will say it’s lithe and it has not been leaked yet. The little creatures that come off the big one reminded me a whole lot of little spider versions of the bugs from STARSHIP TROOPERS or the aliens from PITCH BLACK.
One thing I must bring up is ROAR! the Michael Giacchino score that plays over the credits. I love that the film has no score, it really helps sell the gimmick of the premise, but goddamn… Once you hear Michael’s score you’ll wish to all the film score Gods you pray to that you could hear his entire score. It’s like Godzilla, but not quite, It’s huge, epic and instantly iconic.
I think I might be at a disadvantage with this movie because I recently saw [REC], the Spanish horror flick told from the perspective of a cameraman in a news crew. [REC] is the best possible way this “camera perspective” type of movie can be done. It’s incredibly smart and suspenseful. It’s not as flashy as CLOVERFIELD, but it’s certainly the better movie.
Like I said at the beginning of the review, CLOVERFIELD is good and you’ll probably dig the hell out of it. I know I dug it, but if I hadn’t been told immediately before by a few people that I’d hate the movie I think I might have been really disappointed in it. I’m hoping I can be that voice for you guys right now.
It’s a solid flick, but it doesn’t feel like a cinema revolution to me. It’s not the first time this kind of story has been told and it won’t be the last.
I'm posting this during my layover before Salt Lake City. I'll be in Sundance land shortly. Keep an eye out for my adventures in the snow and watch me OD on film.
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
baracine
01-17-08, 01:54 PM
TIME Magazine is also agin' it: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1704366,00.html
Corliss on Cloverfield: The Blair Witch Reject
An explosion shakes the earth. Flames spark through the night sky like fireworks. It's either July 4th or Sept. 11th. More like the latter, because devastation and hysteria have engulfed lower Manhattan. Then, in flash glimpses, we see the cause of the carnage. A scaly tail, long as a city block and wide as a boulevard. A furtive figure 25 stories big. Whatever the thing is, it's alien, it's odd-looking and it's royally pissed.
Most horror and monster stories follow a simple format: "What if [insert worst thing you can imagine]...?" In the junky, fitfully frightening, virally marketed new movie Cloverfield, the "if" is the worst thing you can remember. To wit: What if a previously unknown agent of evil were to destroy a world-famous New York City edifice? Not the World Trade Center, this time, but the Statue of Liberty — the Lady's head is tossed like a used beer can onto a lower Manhattan street. And the Statue decapitator is not a team of al-Qaeda operatives but a scaly, 300-ft. monster, an American Godzilla.
Instantly you have a million questions. By which I mean: three. 1) Where did the creature come from? (The Hudson River? Or the Arctic, thawed out by climate change and sent south on tidal currents? Possibly Hoboken?) 2) What event roused it from a snooze that may date back to the dinosaur era? (Godzilla's rampage across Japan, you'll recall, was the spawn of atomic bombs dropped there.) 3) What, exactly, the heck is it?
Can't say, since the movie — written by Drew Goddard, from an idea by producer J.J. Abrams, and directed by Matt Reeves — purports to be a video document "retrieved at an incident site formerly known as Central Park" (now known as Cloverfield), and is told exclusively from the point of view of a few twentysomethings. We know only what they know, see what the videocamera sees. I.e., not much.
They gather at a surprise going-away party for young Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David): his gal pal Lily (Jessica Lucas), his on-and-off girlfriend Beth (Odette Yustman), his best bud Hud (T.J. Miller) and a pretty stray named Lizzy (Marlene Diamond). Early on, Hud is given the job of documenting the event with a video camera. The movie spends its first 20 mins. introducing you to a bunch of people, most of whom will be dead by min. 30. All you have to know: Rob had a brief affair with Beth and wants to get back to her; Lily, although nobody hits on her, is a definite hottie; Lizzy is the disposable outsider; and Hud is the kind of guy who'll tag along to anything, including Armageddon. (Still, you have to give Hud credit. He may be running for his life for the 10 hrs. of the plot, but he never drops the camera or forgets to point it at the creatures that are ready to kill him. The guy's a trouper.)
They're all meant to be cool, attractive, upmarket young professionals — Rob has just been promoted to vice president of some company that's sending him off to be in charge of Japan — but their behavior is, tops, adolescent. The men in attendance clumsily hit on pretty girls they don't know; they mope about an old love (Beth) showing up with a new guy; they frantically pass along gossip about who's been sleeping with whom. A suspicion forms in viewers' minds that Cloverfield has been rated PG-13 "for the emotional age of the characters."
But their behavior is Noel Coward-sophisticate compared to what happens when the monster strikes. A horror/sf/disaster movie loses points every time you're forced to ask yourself, "Why are they doing something so stupid?", and the answer is, "Because they're in a horror/sf/disaster movie." And if you thought that Abrams — the creator of Felicity, Alias and Lost, and the writer-director of the spiffy if underperforming Mission: Impossible III — would produce a horror movie that was not just high-concept but high-IQ — you misjudge his faithfulness to a genre requiring that, in extremis, people act in a manner that's way below their intelligence levels.
Susan Sontag described horror and science fiction as "the imagination of disaster." The innovation is in thinking the unthinkable, not creating rounded or even plausible characters. In fact, human idiocy is a crucial aspect of a genre that trades in mortal threat. If the characters holed themselves away in some safe place, they'd never meet the monster. They have to be at risk in order to escape, or get trampled, and for us to get a cheap but essential movie thrill.
Once the monster surfaces in Cloverfield, mobs of Manhattanites run for their lives across a bridge out of the borough. They. Are. Stupid! They, and you the viewer, are supposed to believe that this huge creature — whose stride spans several city blocks, and who could get across the East River in about three steps — is some sort of snob who wouldn't be caught dead in Brooklyn. (But his victims would. That tail whips out of the water and snaps the Brooklyn Bridge in two.)
Of course, in movies like this, stupidity can also be read as movie heroism. In The Day After Tomorrow, with the northern half of the U.S. population dead from a sudden attack of Global Freezing, Dennis Quaid decides he has to go on an Iditarod race from Washington, D.C., to the 42nd Street Library in New York to save his stranded son, Jake Gyllenhaal. Tom Cruise went on a similar suicide mission to reconnect with his family in Spielberg's War of the Worlds. Here in Cloverfield Rob decides he absolutely must save Beth, trapped in her midtown highrise, even though she's a four-mile trudge away, the rest of the town is being smashed, trashed or eaten alive by crazy creatures, they have no access to food or water, and Lily's wearing high heels.
Apocalyptic pessimism may be the theme of these movies, but the hero is driven by a desperate optimism: the world's ending, so I have to go on an impossible journey to save someone dear to me. The idea is that you'll forget about the tens of millions who died elsewhere and concentrate on the people you've come to know and have a rooting interest for. This elitism applies to virtually any movie set in cataclysmic times, whether it's the Civil War of Gone With the Wind or New-York-under-siege fantasies like Cloverfield. The leading characters become emblems of survival, and the movie proceeds under the theory that, in such a crazy world, the problems of a few little people really do amount to a hill of beans.
So Rob and his posse head into the subway tunnels, hoping to elude Cloverzilla and get uptown alive. Here's where the movie's one inspiration kicks in. Earlier, we saw the monster shedding parasites that had attached themselves to its hide like barnacles. These dog-size, cricket-faced, crablike creatures can bound like kangaroos, stick to ceilings and attack people without so much as a "Boo!"
Just about every other plot and effects element in Cloverfield is familiar. The movie is basically the 1954 Godzilla (itself a gloss on Ray Harryhausen's 1953 The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, in which a prehistoric beast is roused by atomic tests to terrorize New York City) told in the style of, and with the characters from, The Blair Witch Project (but with a lot less internal cohesion; this could be called "The Blair Witch Reject"). The State of Liberty head comes from the poster for John Carpenter's Escape from New York (though that shot is not in the film). The little crab creatures are like the toy meanies in Gremlins. And when the main monster opens its mouth, you pretty much know there'll be a second, Alien-like set of teeth.
In its broader contours, Cloverfield evokes real-life horror. The Wall Street area already had its monster mash, on 9/11. So there's no way you can watch downtown panic and crumbling towers without it seeming a bit... familiar. Naturally the director says, he didn't want to diminish or exploit the residue of grief from 9/11. And, as the press notes inform us, "The visual effects teams even took care that the collapsing buildings in the film were older-looking structures that did not evoke the style of the structures that were attacked six years earlier." You're right, visual effects team. It doesn't bother a New Yorker to see a gorgeous landmark like the Woolworth or Empire State Building destroyed. Those things are too old anyway.
Mind you, I don't begrudge the creators of even a junk-food movie like Cloverfield the fun they had demolishing New York one more time. The city is as irresistible to filmmakers as it is to terrorists, and for the same reason: it's an amazingly dense and compact symbol of power. Harryhausen, Carpenter, Abrams and the I Am Legend team, among many others, see a city ready to explode from its own ambitions and animosities, from all that compressed energy; they'll just give it a push into catastrophe. But I have to agree with my wife, who, when I told her about Cloverfield, sighed and said, "Couldn't somebody, just once, pick Chicago?"
DullandWitless
01-17-08, 02:01 PM
Netflix for me.
Suprmallet
01-17-08, 02:06 PM
Saw this last night. It's exactly what the trailers have led us to believe it is. Nothing more, nothing less. A fun experience, but not one with much replay value. There were some very well executed scenes, including one which made me think of Alien (in a good way). If you go in expecting a monster movie shown from the perspective of an innocent bystander, without anything in the way of explanation, then you'll get what you paid for.
By the way, as much as I adore Michael Giacchino, "Roar!" is the worst composition I've ever heard him put to tape.
RyoHazuki
01-17-08, 02:18 PM
Saw it. It sucks. Awful characters and dialouge without any flair whatsoever. Every line in the script is boring and delivered without any passion. The characters are constantly making stupid decisions and reality is stretched pretty thin many times. The monster goes from a few quick flashes to being overexposed by the end. The "funny" camera man only made the film more cringe worthy when we're supposed to be taking this seriously. Huge disappointment for me.
raven56706
01-17-08, 02:21 PM
Another reviewer of Ain't It Cool News (Quint) has second thoughts - and nice words about Michael Giacchino's Overture: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35294
i will never follow or believe an Aint It Cool news.... they were the ones that said that Matrix Revolutions was " a Sci-Fi lovers wet dream"
RichC2
01-17-08, 02:26 PM
i will never follow or believe an Aint It Cool news.... they were the ones that said that Matrix Revolutions was " a Sci-Fi lovers wet dream"
Well, maybe they pissed themselves when they saw how bad it was, then fell asleep half way through, woke up and thought something amazing happend.
Sierra Disc
01-17-08, 02:30 PM
The backlash begins...?
baracine
01-17-08, 02:31 PM
LA TIMES craps all over the clover field: http://www.laweekly.com/film+tv/film/cloverfield-is-a-horror/18158/
CLOVERFIELD IS A HORROR
Monster mash
By SCOTT FOUNDAS
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 6:00 pm
It took nine years (1945-54) for Godzilla to rise up out of the ashes of Hiroshima and wreak his destruction on the good people of Tokyo. Here in America, it's taken just over six years for the idea of an escapist disaster movie set on the streets of New York City to go from pop-culture anathema to a hotly anticipated commercial commodity. Back in 2001, movie companies were rushing to cut images of the World Trade Center from movies like Men in Black II and People I Know. In 2008, a decapitated Statue of Liberty has become the primary marketing iconography for the movie that is "tracking" to be the year's first bona fide blockbuster. (In other words, it'll likely be the most popular American movie since National Treasure 2 and Alvin and the Chipmunks.) Big Apple landmarks blown to smithereens and opaque clouds of debris swirling through the streets of lower Manhattan: How totally awesome is that!
The topicality of the top-secret Cloverfield (which first appeared on moviegoers' buzzometers when an untitled two-minute teaser played before screenings of Transformers last summer) is hardly lost on the film's producer and chief creative personality, J.J. Abrams, who got the idea for the movie while traveling in Japan and promptly brought two longtime collaborators, writer Drew Goddard (a veteran of Abrams' Lost and Alias TV series) and director Matt Reeves (with whom Abrams co-created the immortal Felicity), on board. "We live in a time of great fear," Abrams writes without a lick of irony in the intro to the Cloverfield press notes, adding that "having a movie that is about something as outlandish as a massive creature attacking your city allows people to process and experience that fear in a way that is incredibly entertaining and incredibly safe."
Well, while the entertainment value of Cloverfield is highly negotiable, it's clear that Abrams has consciously aligned himself with those filmmakers who have used the template of a grade-B monster/invasion movie — Don Siegel, George Romero, Steven Spielberg — as a stealth vessel for social commentary. And I'd bet good money that Abrams also saw — or at least read about — South Korean director Bong Joon-Ho's marvelous 2006 film The Host, in which a mutant sea-creature weaned on the American military's toxic dumping climbs on to dry land and spawns massive homeland insecurity. But where those filmmakers all had something meaningful to say about the state of the world and, moreover, about human nature, Abrams doesn't have much to say about anything, even though his characters do their fair share of blathering.
In fact, the cheap and opportunistic Cloverfield suggests nothing so much as an earlier Abrams-authored disasterpiece, Armageddon, if it were rewritten by Mumblecore doyen Andrew Bujalski and shot on The Blair Witch Project's steady-shot-deficient handycam. The movie begins with an interminable party sequence not unlike the one in Bujalski's Mutual Appreciation, minus the endearingly hapless characters and absurdist brio. It's a going-away fete for Rob (Michael Stahl-David), an upwardly mobile twentysomething about to leave New York for a VP job at the Tokyo office of some unnamed multinational, and it's the conceit of Cloverfield that we see the teary-eyed farewells — along with everything else that follows — through the lens of a video camera wielded by Rob's goofball friend Hud (T.J. Miller). Never did I think I would so pine for the more mildly assaulting aesthetics of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
Whiplash-inducing pans and tilts, herky-jerky zooms and random jump cuts are the order of the day here, goosed by the occasional "flashbacks"— supposedly the video footage Hud is inadvertently recording over — to Rob's month-old fling with the comely Beth (Odette Yustman). But unlike Brian De Palma's recent Redacted and Romero's forthcoming Diary of the Dead— both of which use subjective cameras as a way of questioning our YouTube-d universe and the trust we put in recorded images — Cloverfield's first-person *videography has little sense of purpose. It's just another salable gimmick in a movie whose closest kinship to Blair Witch may be the genius of its ad campaign.
Finally, somewhere around reel two — and bear in mind that Cloverfield runs all of 72 minutes, not counting its excruciatingly elongated end credits — il mostro makes his belated appearance, sending fireballs shooting over the skyline and downing the Brooklyn Bridge (again? So soon after I Am Legend?) with one swoop of his scaly tail. Beyond that, Abrams and Reeves forestall a full-body reveal until quite late — along with one wonderfully topsy-turvy effects shot of a sideways-leaning skyscraper, one of the film's only genuinely clever visual ideas. Alas, it's the Cloverfield screenplay that seems to be out on strike. The plot effectively reduces down to one long slog from Spring Street to Central Park South, as Rob, his brother Jason (Mike Vogel), Hud and two other friends defy all conventional wisdom (as in, get on the next military chopper the hell out of there) and attempt to rescue the trapped Beth from her Columbus Circle apartment. ("Forget about the world and hang on to those people you love the most," a sage Jason — evidently one of the alarming number of Americans who lack a passport — advises Rob just before disaster strikes.) That's the kind of juvenile hero fantasy that got the more gullible characters in Frank Darabont's measurably more intelligent man-versus-beast melodrama The Mist picked off early by some very unfriendly tentacles. The same thing, more or less, happens in Cloverfield, only not soon enough.
CLOVERFIELD | Directed by MATT REEVES | Written by DREW GODDARD | Produced by J.J. ABRAMS and BRYAN BURK | Released by Paramount Pictures | Citywide
Naughty!
01-17-08, 04:23 PM
Ok I don't get why everyone who saw the film complains that the monster was never explained. The whole point of the movie is that you are watching footage that some random person recorded during the attack on New York. How would these people know what it is or where it came from?
Granted I suppose they could have thrown in some "news" footage or something at the end of the movie and show the aftermath of the destruction and have comments/theories from scientists and the military, but that would be kind of cliche. They were trying to be somewhat original, and honestly I'm glad that they are trying something new. It could have just ended up being a remake of Godzilla 98'.
IMO I don't really think it needs explaining since they are trying to make it feel like you are watching an attack on New York from the first person perspective. It kinda goes back to those old horror films that don't spoonfeed the audience answers and let them come up with their own conclusion. Night of the Living Dead comes to mind, sure it's hinted at that the zombies are rising because of radiation, but it's still largly unexplained. I think that's what they were going for.
wago70
01-17-08, 06:34 PM
I don't want the creature explained. I want none of the who's, why's and what's Hollywood movies have to beat over our heads. An arbitrary event can be really scary. BUT there are those that need the "why is...?", "what is..." in American films. I'm glad this film, at least, refuses to be like that.
Shame about the shaky-cam, though.
Naughty!
01-17-08, 09:41 PM
I don't want the creature explained. I want none of the who's, why's and what's Hollywood movies have to beat over our heads. An arbitrary event can be really scary. BUT there are those that need the "why is...?", "what is..." in American films. I'm glad this film, at least, refuses to be like that.
Shame about the shaky-cam, though.
Yeah it's refreshing to me that it doesn't beat you over the head with answers.
I'm kinda iffy on the shaky-cam bit though. On the one hand, I honestly didn't mind it when I saw the Blair Witch Project in the theater. It didn't make me sick or anything like it did for most people. It adds to the atmosphere a lot in horror films, which is why I can't wait for Diary of the Dead either.
On the other hand, it looks like they amped it up in this movie. When I saw the trailer in theaters and they showed that part where they were in the helicopter that was going down, I had to shut my eyes for a second because that scene hurt them. I can tell this movie is going to make a lot of people sick.
Suprmallet
01-17-08, 10:10 PM
In the scene with the helicopter going down, the camera is not shaky. It's pretty much holding a stable shot on the window. It's the outside world that's spiraling around.
Naughty!
01-17-08, 10:17 PM
Yeah I know, the spinning was what hurt my eyes.
redrum
01-17-08, 11:29 PM
this is gonna be shown on the mega screen here. can not wait.
Giles
01-17-08, 11:35 PM
what's the aspect ratio? I don't know if I can handle shaky cam on the Uptown Theatre's huge screen, I might barf in my popcorn bag.
Matthew Chmiel
01-18-08, 12:05 AM
1.85:1
RichC2
01-18-08, 01:54 AM
Saw this tonight. Once I got past a few minor issues I thought it was a damn well done, tense little movie. It's exactly what I thought it was going to be, and well executed on top of that. :up: from me.
KingSmoth
01-18-08, 02:17 AM
I absolutely loved it. Lived up to all the expectations I had and then some. I certainly don't want to know what the monster is, where the hell it came from, or anything else. I will have to see it again before it leaves theaters, there's no way to experience the movie properly at home.
Sorraffy
01-18-08, 02:20 AM
If you go in expecting a monster movie shown from the perspective of an innocent bystander, without anything in the way of explanation, then you'll get what you paid for.
that will be me.
I'm trying to avoid reading most reviews so that I can make the judgment of this movie for myself instead of having other people make it for me (such as what I've been reading throughout this thread)
RichC2
01-18-08, 02:26 AM
I absolutely loved it. Lived up to all the expectations I had and then some. I certainly don't want to know what the monster is, where the hell it came from, or anything else. I will have to see it again before it leaves theaters, there's no way to experience the movie properly at home.
I do agree with a point there -- it is a flick that should be seen on the big screen. Even though it's shot shaky cam style, the effects work is top notch and should be seen on the big screen.
JPRaup
01-18-08, 02:43 AM
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD CLOVERFIELD IS INCREDIBLE
After seeing There Will Be Blood last night, then this tonight I feel like God has come down and handed me two perfect films, each completely different. Cloverfield is a relentless rollercoaster ride that never lets down. Realistic dialogue and intense hand-held camerawork put you directly into the character's shoes. Revealing the monster piece by piece with perfect pacing creates astounding suspense. I don't want to say too much more, because the less you know the better. I will say one thing; 2008 is off to a great start with films and Cloverfield will likely stay up with the best.
10/10
Li
01-18-08, 03:17 AM
I have to agree, it was amazing. I didn't mind the camera style. I really felt like I was there through much of the film. Unless you have an amazing home theater set-up I'd recommended not missing this one in theaters!
JPRaup
01-18-08, 03:27 AM
Looking back I get a really sad feeling that in a couple months I will never be able to see this film in a theater again. It is truly the perfect theater movie. Worth every penny.
Nausicaa
01-18-08, 04:00 AM
I just got back from a midnight showing. [SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT]
I must say that while I enjoyed this film immensely, I can't drop this feeling that it could and should have been much better. I thought the set-up was brilliant. The opening party scenes did a great job introducing us to the character. There was an impending sense of doom that you could feel, but the characters were completely oblivious.
When the carnage finally kicked in, I was in heaven. I thought the opening scenes of the monster attack were absolutely fantastic. The rooftop scene from the trailers was very, very creepy - with the explosion in Manhattan being one of the coolest shots in the film. Basically the next 20-30 minutes were exactly what I was expecting, and they were wonderful. The sense of immersion inside this hopelessly chaotic experience was unreal. The bridge scene was startlingly realistic and utterly intense in an awe-inspiring way. As were the brief shots of the military attacking the monster while the group was separated by the street. The camera would move back and forth from the military on the streets to shots of the monster in the distance - trailing rockets and gunfire the whole time. It induced an overbearing sense of scale that really defined the helpless situation these characters have been placed in.
And then...
I started to worry. Once they really set out on the search for Beth, I thought the film went downhill. Mostly, because this part of the movie didn't really exist. I thought the journey to Beth's apartment was far, far too short, and was an enormous missed opportunity that ultimately stood in the way of this film being amazing, rather than simply good. Sure, we have the tense subway scene, but one could argue the search for Beth doesn't really begin until they leave the medical facility. After that, we get a few random cuts of them walking through the streets, and then... POOF - we're at Beth's building.
This was the part of the film that I was expecting to really rock the audience. I was hoping that they would flesh out their journey through STREETS of New York, so that we could experience first hand the madness that was taking place. There could have been some great monster attack scenes, and some chances to really ride on the sense of chaos created by some of the opening attack scenes. Instead, we watch them climb some steps, rescue Beth without much difficulty, and arrive at the helicopters on time without too much trouble. From this point, the conclusion is rapid-fire.
Don't get me wrong, these were excellent scenes, but they seemed to lack the grandeur of the set-up. Even the ending I thought was done well. The final shots of the monster being bombed, as seen from the escape helicopter, were breathtaking - but this film definitely felt like it was missing a middle. I think it would have benefited from an extra 20 minutes or so. Mostly comprised of absolute carnage in the streets of New York - with hundreds of people running every which-way, ducking into shops and trying to find somewhere, anywhere safe to hide.
Overall though, I thought this was a good movie - but ultimately I left feeling like I was treated only to an appetizer and dessert, but missed out on the main course.
I hope to god this footage exists, but was cut on the order of some corporate studio monkey. I hope it will see the light of day and result in the film I was dreaming of. I feel like this film, but more importantly the concept and idea behind it, had the potential to be truly brilliant.
project86
01-18-08, 04:59 AM
It was good, not great. I avoided all spoilers before watching and I felt very little payoff.
Honestly, after watching The Mist a couple months back, this just felt like a first person version of it. Even the creatures looked similar, very jagged and rough. It was a neat rollercoaster to watch, but if you would like a more quality film I would suggestion The Mist.
johnnysd
01-18-08, 05:38 AM
I really liked the movie, but think it could have been a bit better with traditional movie "bookends" to the video portion in between. That said, it is kind of a movie I always wanted to see: as a kid watching a Godzilla movie I always wondered what exactly was happening to the people on the street and what it was like. This movie provides that. Nothing more, nothing less. A few solid jolts and a very fun film.
baracine
01-18-08, 06:50 AM
This guy liked it and liked Giacchino's music in the end titles: http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/37/
Monster Mash
Cloverfield is a must-see sci-fi thriller
No sleep for Cleveland science-fiction fans this week. Bad enough they have to endure the more than 24 hours of the CWRU Science Fiction Marathon in Strosacker Auditorium; there's also the wide release (followed by endless debate in online chat rooms) of Cloverfield, which will be a must-see for the genre. It uses the first-person, "two years later their footage was found" convention of The Blair Witch Project for the umpeenth rehash of that hoariest of fantastical notions, going right back to 1933's King Kong, a giant monster attacking New York-City.
The conceit is that you are watching a Department of Defense archival item, a camera SD memory card retrieved from a place "formerly known as Central Park" (bad portent right there) in the aftermath of an incident code-named "Cloverfield." The recording depicts young Manhattanites, all played fairly well by no-name actors, throwing a going-away party for their pal Rob (Michael Stahl-David), preparing to take a VP job in Japan (the monster-movie in-jokes here are never pushed too hard, which is smart). In the course of the revel, the camera gets handed to a rarely seen buddy named Hudson (T.J. Miller), who obsessively takes to the notion of documenting all for posterity, even when Rob learns that his girlfriend Beth (Odette Yustman) has been cheating on him.
Hudson keeps filming when Beth storms out of the party and, soon after, when all hell breaks loose. Explosions rip the Manhattan skyline and the severed head of the Statue of Liberty lands outside their high-rise door. A vast saurian creature - in brief glimpses a hybrid of Godzilla and H.P. Lovecraft's Great Cthulu - has just attacked the metropolis. It's also brought a horde of especially nasty arachnid friends (a la the recent Stephen King potboiler The Mist), and they all seem very hungry.
Rob's party is conclusively cancelled. En route to an ill-fated mass evacuation of the citizenry over the Brooklyn Bridge, he gets a cell-phone call for help from Beth, trapped in rubble at one of the monster's hunting grounds.
You'd have to go back 10 years to the overproduced Roland Emmerich-Dean Devlin Godzilla remake - its nauseating commercial tie-ins (remember the Taco Bell dog going "Here, lizard lizard lizard...") and casting of Matthew Broderick, of all people, as monster-buster - to appreciate how neatly Cloverfield handles much the same story, plainly and soberly through a viewfinder, and restores some sense of real horror and blind panic to a well-worn, much parodied premise. Of course, 9/11 angst is a major component here, echoed in Hudson's shaky images of stampeding crowds, victims in makeshift field hospitals, fires burning in the Ground Zero remains of trampled skyscrapers. (Not long ago the pop-pundits of the egocentric Baby Boomer generation bemoaned we'd never get over the trauma. The Twin Towers falling were a sacred motif, to be used only to rally troops against our enemies. How things have changed. I give it just a year or two before Broken Lizard or National Lampoon does a hit comedy about horny FDNY rookies in the Intensive Care Ward trying to score hot young WTC widows on Sept. 12.)
But meanwhile theres Cloverfield, which isn't designed to carry such heavy baggage. It is, above all, a basic creature-feature thrill ride of the old school, brilliantly dolled up in fashionable new high-tech clothing and the language of the YouTube generation. If you sit past the grim finale you'll hear wonderfully uplifting soundtrack fanfare (the only non-incidental music) called "Roar," by one Michael Giacchino; it's the movie's one capitulation to pure camp, a melodious mash-up of every overture to every rampaging-dino drama ever unleashed at the drive-in, from Beast From 20,000 Fathoms to Gamera, the Flying Turtle.
And that's where the heart of Cloverfield really is, even if your local drive-in got sold off for redevelopment as condos, even if the theater screen has dwindled to the size of your iPhone, even if you'd prefer ingenious narrative tricks like this be used on more substantial storylines and themes. Cloverfield is still one cool monster rally. Bet Spielberg is wondering right now if he couldn't somehow get Tom Cruise back and re-edit War of the Worlds from a camcorder-lens vantage and make it worthwhile.
film@freetimes.com
It seems more and more the Michael Giacchino end titles music ("Roar!: Cloverfield Overture") is one of the highlights of the film. I can't wait for someone to put it on YouTube...:D
RichC2
01-18-08, 09:48 AM
Roger Ebert's Review:
Cloverfield
(3 out of 4 Stars)
/ / / January 17, 2008
Cast & CreditsRob: Michael Stahl-David
Hud: T.J. Miller
Lily: Jessica Lucas
Marlena: Lizzy Caplan
Jason: Mike Vogel
Beth: Odette Yustman
Paramount Pictures presents a film directed by Matt Reeves. Written by Drew Goddard. Running time: 84 minutes. Rated PG-13 (violence, terror and disturbing
By Roger Ebert
Godzilla meets the Queasy-Cam in "Cloverfield," a movie that crosses the Monster-Attacks-Manhattan formula with "Blair Witch." No, Godzilla doesn't appear in person, but the movie's monster looks like a close relative on the evolutionary tree, especially in one closeup. The closeup ends with what appears to be a POV shot of the guy with the video camera being eaten, but later he's still around. Too bad. If he had been eaten, but left the camera's light on, I might have been reminded of the excellent video of my colonoscopy.
The movie, which has been in a vortex of rumors for months, is actually pretty scary at times. It's most frightening right after something Very Bad begins to happen in lower Manhattan, and before we get a good look at the monster, which is scarier as a vaguely glimpsed enormity than as a big reptile. At least I think it's a reptile, although it sheds babies by the dozens, and they look more like spiders crossed with crabs. At birth, they are already fully formed and functioning, able to scamper all over town, bite victims, grab them in subway tunnels, etc. I guess that makes the monster a female, although Godzilla, you will recall, had a baby, and the fanboys are still arguing over its gender. (Hold on! I just discovered online that those are not its babies at all, but giant parasitic lice that drop off and go looking for dinner.)
The film, directed by Matt Reeves, is the baby of producer J.J. Abrams, creator of TV's "Lost." It begins with home-video-type footage and follows the fortunes of six twentysomething yuppies. The lead character is Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is about to leave town for a job in Japan. At a farewell surprise party, Hud (T.J.Miller) takes over the camera and tapes friends wishing Rob well, including Jason (Mike Vogel) and the beautiful Lily (Jessica Lucas). Hud is especially attentive toward Marlena (Lizzy Caplan), who says she's just on her way to meet some friends. She never gets there. The building is jolted, the lights flicker, and everyone runs up to the roof to see all hell breaking loose.
The initial scenes of destruction are glimpsed at a distance. Then things heat up when the head of the Statue of Liberty rolls down the street. Several shots of billowing smoke clouds are unmistakable evocations of 9/11, and indeed one of the movie's working titles was "1/18/08." So the statute has run out on the theory that after 9/11 it would be in bad taste to show Manhattan being destroyed. So explicit are the 9/11 references in "Cloverfield" that the monster is seen knocking over skyscrapers, and one high-rise is seen leaning against another.
The leaning high-rise contains Beth (Odette Yustman), who Rob feels duty-bound to rescue from her 49th-floor apartment near Central Park. The others all come along on this foolhardy mission, even though they'd made it to Brooklyn just before the bridge came down (not explained: how they got back, and how after walking all the way to Columbus Circle, they have the energy to climb 49 flights of stairs, with Lily in her high heels). Part of their uptown journey is by subway, without the benefit of trains. They're informed by a helpful soldier that the last rescue helicopter leaving Central Park will have "wheels up at oh-six-hundred," begging the question of how many helicopters it would take to rescue the population of Manhattan.
The origin of the monster goes unexplained, which is all right with me after the tiresome opening speeches in so many of the 30 or more "Godzilla" films. The characters speculate that it came from beneath the sea, or maybe from outer space, but incredibly, not one of them ever utters the word "Godzilla," no doubt for trademark reasons. The other incredible element is that the camcorder's battery apparently lasts, on the evidence of the footage we see, more than six hours, maybe 12.
The entire film is shot in Queasy-Cam hand-held style, mostly by Hud, who couldn't hold it steady or frame a shot if his life depended on it. After the screening, I heard some fellow audience members complaining that they felt dizzy or had vertigo, but no one barfed, at least within my hearing.
Mercifully, at 84 minutes the movie is even shorter than its originally alleged 90-minute running time; how much visual shakiness can we take? And yet, all in all, it is an effective film, deploying its special effects well and never breaking the illusion that it is all happening as we see it. One question, which you can answer for me after you see the film: Given the nature of the opening government announcement, how did the camera survive?
baracine
01-18-08, 10:06 AM
Roger Ebert's Review:
I seem to remember that Roger Ebert took a dim view of Godzilla (1998) naming the overweight, ineffective and temperamental Mayor of New York City in that film "Mayor Ebert" (played by Michael Lerner).
I suppose he's grateful J.J. Abrams didn't pull that stunt again in Cloverfield... :)
baracine
01-18-08, 10:13 AM
The Washington Post pukes all over the film: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=cityguide/profile&id=1141742&categories=Movies&nm=1
Editorial Review
Every few years Hollywood feels a compulsive need to blow up New York. Blasting the head off the Statue of Liberty, reducing the Brooklyn Bridge to rubble and turning Midtown into a moonscape is all done, of course, in good fun.
Whether one finds "Cloverfield" fun, however, may depend on one's susceptibility to cerebral hemorrhage. The conceit in this Drew Goddard-scripted, Matt Reeves-directed and J.J. ("Lost") Abrams-produced thriller is that the entire attack on and destruction of the city is seen through the viewfinder of a Manhattan partygoer's video camera.
The lumbering-yet-slithering 90-foot tadpole stomping around America's most valuable real estate is a pretty great effect. Our hero, as such, is Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who's being given a going-away party before his new job in Japan starts. Apparently miffed about not having been invited to the soiree, the monster starts lobbing bombs around Lower Manhattan.
Having become, by default, the party's camera guy, the thick-witted Hud (T.J. Miller) ranks among the greatest war photographers in history. At no time -- not in the darkest subway tunnels of New York, not in an out-of-control helicopter -- does he fail to keep an image on the screen.
"Cloverfield" may be a product that can be most comfortably viewed on the smallest screen. If people are going to watch movies on an iPhone, the reasoning may go, give them movies that look as if they were shot on an iPhone. Projected on a building-size screen, "Cloverfield" is a relentless, I-thought-my-eyeballs-were-bleeding exercise in visual disorientation.
So what does "Cloverfield" offer?
Bad taste? Dialogue that consists largely of OH MY GOD!!? The anti-cinematic aesthetic that is coming to govern our visual lives? All of the above, plus another slimy monster, engaged in an extreme makeover of Manhattan.
-- John Anderson (Jan. 18, 2008)
Contains violence, terror and disturbing images.
Read Full Review
RichC2
01-18-08, 10:21 AM
Theres no denying the movie isn't for everbody.
It's currently at 76% on rottentomatoes with 67 critics chiming in. Which is actually higher than I anticipated just on the basis that it is what it is, an effects heavy monster movie. But I guess that happens when you make a monster movie that is actually suspenseful, a rare trait in the genre. Very solid flick :up:.
Kal-El
01-18-08, 10:41 AM
To those who haven't seen it, don't believe the hype folks. It's a bad, BAD movie. Nauseatingly bad. Stay away from this one.
Yavin
01-18-08, 11:09 AM
The Washington Post pukes all over the film:
...
...
...
"Cloverfield" may be a product that can be most comfortably viewed on the smallest screen. If people are going to watch movies on an iPhone, the reasoning may go, give them movies that look as if they were shot on an iPhone. Projected on a building-size screen, "Cloverfield" is a relentless, I-thought-my-eyeballs-were-bleeding exercise in visual disorientation.
...
...
...
After letting it sink in after a couple of days and seeing/hearing a couple more of the television/radio ads for the film, I think I'll give it a second shot when it hits DVD. The experience was an exercise in cruelty watching it on a large theater screen and I might find a little more enjoyment in the film if I didn't have to close my eyes every 15 minutes to give them a rest.
Brent L
01-18-08, 11:39 AM
I absolutely knew that Brian would give Cloverfield a negative review if he posted one for here as well, I just knew it. :lol:
KillerCannibal
01-18-08, 11:49 AM
I saw this in a midnight screening last night. It was about what I expected, but, being a lifelong kaiju fanatic, I wanted more of the monster. My own personal greed aside, I thought it was a really good film, my only real complaint would be the shaky cam shots should have lingered on the action a bit more. Part of my resistance could be that I saw this: at midnight, on an IMAX screen and we were al the way to the left and only about 1/4 up from the screen. That meant we were to close to sbsorb all of the visual info, plus on an IMAX screen if you're not center row then the color palette seems ot go all wrong. I'm going to see it again tonight in a regular theater now that I know what to expect.
The characters, I had no problem with them. Sure, they're 20something yuppies, but they act how I would expect them to. They helped make this not only a great monster flick, but also a great survivalist flick. I almost forgot about my yearning for more of the creature because I got so caught up in the characters just trying to avoid the chaos around them. The main camera guy, Hud, managed to get some really cool shots of the action. The CG may have been a little shoddy if this weren't filmed the way it was, since the budget was so low, but the monster really is the film's MacGuffin. He is only there to further the film, not really needing to be seen. The little parasites were creepy. I wish we had gotten more time with them, seeing them attack and infect more people. The ending was exactly what I expected. Anything else would have betrayed the entire tone of the film.
If they do a sequel I'd love to see it shot in a similar fashion, maybe by a news camera crew (so we could get some good, non-shaky shots) with the creature attacking another city around the same night it attacked NYC. That way we could get a new perspective on things and possibly some real info on what it, and it's little parasites, do. A news reporter would surely have access to that kind of info and could relay it without the exposition people yearned for in this film.
Overall, a very interesting take on the classic monster-run-amok films. 8/10.
I saw it last night, and I enjoyed it tremendously as well.
For all intents and purposes, it IS a video game brought to the screen though. Hell, the cameraman's name was Hud (most first person shooters give you a H.U.D. -head's up display- to guide yourself with). That's not to say it wasn't a well done movie by any means.
One gripe: Rave Motion Pictures had a promotion where the first 200 people to each theater got disposable cameras "to document their life." Handing out 200 objects that produce a bright flash to the chimps that a midnight show attracts in a relatively dark theater = bad idea. I nearly went into a damn seizure before the film with people popping photographs.
orderandlaw
01-18-08, 12:58 PM
Kiddies, this is a survival horror movie. It's all filmed in hand-held consumer camera style, so I hope you're not prone to motion sickness. As well, I hope you've got a little bit of stomach for some violence and gore. Only some of it is graphic... most is only alluded, not entirely seen, but it's equally - if not more - effective. There's a couple spots that are pretty gut wrenching. And it's not the happiest of endings either.
The crowd seemed to have a mixed reaction. Some seemed pissed off at the movie, others clapped. Then there were many who came out confused - What was the point of this movie?
Personally, I loved it - I love gritty, realistic, apocalyptic survival horror movies.
My friends who sat behind me did not. They got sick.
So fair warning, do not drink before watching this movie.
As I look into a crystal ball, I predict many people will have the Blair Witch Project response to this movie.
The attempt to present 'realistic horror'(as opposed to dramatic, cinematic style) seemed to make people respond with laughter and ridicule(DURING THE MOVIE EVEN) as some kinda weird compensation towards the fear it evokes.
Also, the picture has to strike a delicate balance between being realistic and evocative. That's a major problem with attempting to do it hand-held style while still attempting to tell a story and shoot a good movie. The viewer has to come in with the understanding that some concessions have to be made to show us what we want to see, taking away from the realism. If the viewer hasn't come to terms with this, it'll severely take away from the experience. Then again, some amount of this necessary suspension of disbelief is common in movies... This one feels like it requires a lot though.
These two aspects, in combination with the motion sickness, will get lots of people vocally hating the movie, even though it was both superbly made, entertaining, and a notable divergence from the 'norm. Just like Blair Witch.
wago70
01-18-08, 02:15 PM
Yikes...this must have been one scary sequence for Trump:
I missed it but apparently you see an asteroid-type thing hitting the water in the distant background during the final shot. Thats cool. My buddy commented on it, but I missed it entirely.
TheNightFlier
01-18-08, 02:30 PM
I missed it but apparently you see an asteroid-type thing hitting the water in the distant background during the final shot. Thats cool. My buddy commented on it, but I missed it entirely.
Some people think it's..
the Tagruato satellite from the viral
RichC2
01-18-08, 02:34 PM
Yeaah... I avoid viral stuff as best I can.
maingon
01-18-08, 02:47 PM
Just got back, went to a 1:00 showing and I Loved it. Didnt disappointed, Very intense. Camera work didnt bug me as much as I thought it might. the when the chaos first starts as you see in the teaser. Its freaking awesome and scary. Its done so well. seeing the wall of debrie coming at you was creepy. Reminds you of the 9/11 videos you seen. The when you got glimpes of the creature it was pretty awesome. I liked the design. I am suprised that the movie only cost 30 million.
Great Flick 9.5/10, not for everyone who gets motion sickness, but intense and scary and awesome flick
jabbermacy
01-18-08, 02:50 PM
Went to the 11am showing here - FREAKING AWESOME!!! I feared it couldn't live up to the hype - I have never been so wrong! 10/10
baracine
01-18-08, 03:13 PM
These two aspects, in combination with the motion sickness, will get lots of people vocally hating the movie, even though it was both superbly made, entertaining, and a notable divergence from the 'norm. Just like Blair Witch.
I actually fell asleep during Blair Witch: It was a combination of several factors, like not caring about the people on screen (the old "Who are those people?" syndrome, plus they were stupid whiny bastards with poor personal hygiene dripping snot in the camera), not liking the visuals (cold, lifeless woodsy lanscapes, handheld shots, drained of colour and badly lit at night, with really literally nothing to see most of the time), not liking the audio part (really terrible) and not giving a rat's patoot about the storyline after 20 minutes (what little there was that wasn't directly lifted from other more interesting media like the uncredited short story they took the stick figurines from).
baracine
01-18-08, 03:24 PM
James S. Ritchie (dvdtalk) hated it too: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=32049
redrum
01-18-08, 03:25 PM
is there a scene after the credits?
maingon
01-18-08, 03:28 PM
I actually fell asleep during Blair Witch: It was a combination of several factors, like not caring about the people on screen (the old "Who are those people?" syndrome, plus they were stupid whiny bastards with poor personal hygiene dripping snot in the camera), not liking the visuals (cold, lifeless woodsy lanscapes, handlheld shots, drained of colour and badly lit at night, with really literally nothing to see most of the time), not liking the audio part (really terrible) and not giving a rat's patoot about the storyline after 20 minutes (what little there was that wasn't directly lifted from other more interesting media like the short story they took the stick figurines from).
this isnt as much like Blair witch in the sense that here the visuals are actually really good, the color isnt muted or anything, and the sound is really good. Here I think you care about the characters, the first 20 minutes you get to know them pretty good I thought. I am so glad someone made a Giant monster movie though, I loved it. Visual effects were excellent. hard talking about the flick without giving anything away
Matthew Chmiel
01-18-08, 03:29 PM
is there a scene after the credits?
There's an audio clip played backwards that states "It's still alive."
david12
01-18-08, 03:31 PM
Just got back. Not great, not bad. Disappointed really, but not really disappointed. I wanted more of the monster...and almost hope this is a huge success so we get a sequel that tells us more. Could be from the exact same event, just from a different perspective (the media?) where we get more footages of the stuff we really want to see...i.e. the battle and MORE MONSTER.
baracine
01-18-08, 03:46 PM
There's an audio clip played backwards that states "It's still alive."
I was either that or
a sign warning patrons not to step in the puke.
maingon
01-18-08, 03:47 PM
Just got back. Not great, not bad. Disappointed really, but not really disappointed. I wanted more of the monster...and almost hope this is a huge success so we get a sequel that tells us more. Could be from the exact same event, just from a different perspective (the media?) where we get more footages of the stuff we really want to see...i.e. the battle and MORE MONSTER.
I would like to see a sequel too, I would even like seeing a standard Monster Movie using regular camera work to cause I thought the creatures looked awesome. I just hope this is a huge success so we can get some more Giant Monster movies made.
baracine
01-18-08, 03:58 PM
I am so glad someone made a Giant monster movie though, I loved it. Visual effects were excellent.
The more time passes, the more I like Godzilla (1998).
rotfl, I forgot what a terrible ad campaign Godzilla had.
And looking at the number of posts you have in this thread just semi-bashing it, you must be just as bored as I am (it's the down season at work so I have a ridiculous amount of free time).
baracine
01-18-08, 04:08 PM
rotfl, I forgot what a terrible ad campaign Godzilla had.
And looking at the number of posts you have in this thread just semi-bashing it, you must be just as bored as I am (it's the down season at work so I have a ridiculous amount of free time).
And I am actually hard at work supervising translation work for a large corporation but as part of the work is pitting people against each other so they can eventually agree on a final text before coming back to me, I have a few anxiety-ridden minutes here and there that are best employed on a subject like this one. I find it very productive and time-saving to study the many reasons why a film sucks BEFOREHAND so as not to be disappointed and simply skip the abomination in the worst case situations.
KillerCannibal
01-18-08, 04:10 PM
Quick question: Anyone else notice that the monster never roared during the film? Maybe I missed it in the melee, but I don't recall hearing that badass roar that got people so interested to begin with.
And, yes, GINO did have great teasers. I've found over the years that have passed that if I don't think of it as a Godzilla film, which it really isn't, I can enjoy it as a terrible-good monster movie, which it is.
RichC2
01-18-08, 04:12 PM
That ad isn't as bad. The "Guess Whose Coming to Town" line is terrible from the first one.
And while I understand the logic behind it, I just think it's the wrong movie... It's never too early to start attacking the horrendous looking 10,000 BC... but then that's like shooting fish in a barrel. Coincidentally, that masterpiece is from the people that brought us Godzilla.
Hell, just the scene where they recreate Ripley's encounter w/ the alien in Alien with a sabretooth tiger. Man, it's going to be a winner. (Actually come to think of it, most of the trailers before Cloverfield were pretty bad.)
baracine
01-18-08, 04:30 PM
That ad isn't as bad. The "Guess Whose Coming to Town" line is terrible from the first one.
And while I understand the logic behind it, I just think it's the wrong movie... It's never too early to start attacking the horrendous looking 10,000 BC... but then that's like shooting fish in a barrel. Coincidentally, that masterpiece is from the people that brought us Godzilla.
Hell, just the scene where they recreate Ripley's encounter w/ the alien in Alien with a sabretooth tiger. Man, it's going to be a winner. (Actually come to think of it, most of the trailers before Cloverfield were pretty bad.)
But I like the films of Roland Emmerich.:blush:
alfonsosoriano
01-18-08, 05:20 PM
Wait is that really what was said after the credits? I stayed and heard that, but couldn't make it out.
Anyways, fantastic theatrical experience and film. I thought it would disappoint but it didn't for one second. Awesome!
Elpresidentepez
01-18-08, 05:33 PM
There's a big hug in your future if you can locate a mp3 of the end credit theme! Sadly iTunes doesn't have it.
cartman
01-18-08, 05:40 PM
I enjoyed it for what it was, but the majority of the people in the theater didn't seem to understand that it was supposed to be a viewing of the tape and nothing more. Some people would go "huh?" when there would be a snippet of what was on the tape previously (Beth and Rob's life that was being taped over), not getting that they stopped filming, rewound to watch a bit of what had just been filmed, then fast forwarded to start filming again. There was also an almost unanimous "what the hell?" when the end came :lol:. I guess people wanted more of an explanation.
Also, I kept thinking while watching that a quick recap of the movie would look something like:
20 minutes of a party.
Something goes boom.
ROB?! ROOOOOB!!! ROB ROB ROB!?!? ROB?!
Oh my God.
ROOOOOB ROB ROB ROB ROB!??!
You see a monsters leg
ROB ROB!!?! ROB? ROOOOOOOB!!!
some military folks show up
ROB ROB ROB ROB ROB ROB ROB!!!?
etc
baracine
01-18-08, 06:06 PM
There's a big hug in your future if you can locate a mp3 of the end credit theme! Sadly iTunes doesn't have it.
I second that motion.:thumbsup:
mikelowry
01-18-08, 06:09 PM
Checked Yahoo movies and Cloverfield garnered a B average from critics. Not bad at all!
dsa_shea
01-18-08, 06:18 PM
Quick question: Anyone else notice that the monster never roared during the film? Maybe I missed it in the melee, but I don't recall hearing that badass roar that got people so interested to begin with.
And, yes, GINO did have great teasers. I've found over the years that have passed that if I don't think of it as a Godzilla film, which it really isn't, I can enjoy it as a terrible-good monster movie, which it is.
Well, on the "clip" that I have seen on the net he sure did make a loud noise (possible roar). I tell you that looking up at that thing was rather creepy for the short time that I saw it. My only complaint is my disbelief of how the body is structured and if its' legs could really support his body.
wago70
01-18-08, 06:48 PM
It'd be even cooler if the film had internet Tie-Ins (a la BLAIR WITCH PROJECT) to go to and read/watch in addition to the film. It would be nice to continue the "government file" theme and make viewers do more research on its subject.
Derrich
01-18-08, 07:02 PM
F*ck Rob.
D
Perkinsun Dzees
01-18-08, 07:36 PM
Just got back from seeing it.
My initial thoughts:
First off, the camerawork was terrible. Probably the worst I've seen in a major Hollywood production. I'm surprised the cameramen didn't get fired after the director saw all the bad angles and shaky footage. I could have done a better job if I had shot this with my camera phone.
Second, the cinematography was terrible. It looked washed out with lots of blurred shots. Once again, I'm a surprised the cinematographer didn't get canned immediately for this train wreck.
Third, the editor was either drunk or totally incompetent, but the film is filled with obvious jump cuts. Did this guy go to film school or what? Absolutely atrocious.
The storyline wasn't too bad, the actors were decent and the effects were quite good (when we could actually see them :grumble:), but the poor quality camerawork, editing and cinematography really detracted from the entire film.
geicos27
01-18-08, 07:41 PM
Just got back from seeing it.
My initial thoughts:
First off, the camerawork was terrible. Probably the worst I've seen in a major Hollywood production. I'm surprised the cameramen didn't get fired after the director saw all the bad angles and shaky footage. I could have done a better job if I had shot this with my camera phone.
Second, the cinematography was terrible. It looked washed out with lots of blurred shots. Once again, I'm a surprised the cinematographer didn't get canned immediately for this train wreck.
Third, the editor was either drunk or totally incompetent, but the film is filled with obvious jump cuts. Did this guy go to film school or what? Absolutely atrocious.
The storyline wasn't too bad, the actors were decent and the effects were quite good (when we could actually see them :grumble:), but the poor quality camerawork, editing and cinematography really detracted from the entire film.
I assume this is a joke?
covenant
01-18-08, 07:43 PM
Yeah, he's trying too hard....less is more.
Patman
01-18-08, 08:13 PM
It's definitely the Blair Witch of Godzilla-monster movies, but that's not a bad thing. The shaky-cam is used when the situation dictates it (when the gang is running for their lives) with gripping action and chaos, but you get some time to compose yourself within the film as the gang gets a few spots to catch their collective breaths, so it won't make you totally saddled with motion sickness if that's a concern. The realism in seeing and feeling the devastation brought upon by the monster in NYC was well-done and looked pretty believable, given the "tape" source for the footage. I did have a hard time not thinking of Hud (the main videographer for the footage we are shown) as "Marmaduke" from the TV show "Carpoolers", but that's my quibble.
All in all, it delivers what the trailer hinted to for the most part, but just remember you are getting a single point of view for the entire length of the film.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Jackskeleton
01-18-08, 08:31 PM
There's a big hug in your future if you can locate a mp3 of the end credit theme! Sadly iTunes doesn't have it.
Well, here's the whisper at the very end at the very least.
http://boomp3.com/m/bd034dfca370
BravesMG
01-18-08, 08:44 PM
Just got back from a pretty full 3:00 show. I thought it was absolutely great, but the crowd pooped on it at the end. A pretty loud boooooo broke out, but maybe it was because the assholes were on their cell phones the whole time. I swear, there must have been 20 cell phones popping on and off during the movie, there were so many that it was futile to even complain.
I moved over to an empty row on the side and pulled up my hoodie. I think some people thought I was the Unibomber.
abrg923
01-18-08, 08:49 PM
Just got back from seeing it.
My initial thoughts:
First off, the camerawork was terrible. Probably the worst I've seen in a major Hollywood production. I'm surprised the cameramen didn't get fired after the director saw all the bad angles and shaky footage. I could have done a better job if I had shot this with my camera phone.
Second, the cinematography was terrible. It looked washed out with lots of blurred shots. Once again, I'm a surprised the cinematographer didn't get canned immediately for this train wreck.
Third, the editor was either drunk or totally incompetent, but the film is filled with obvious jump cuts. Did this guy go to film school or what? Absolutely atrocious.
The storyline wasn't too bad, the actors were decent and the effects were quite good (when we could actually see them :grumble:), but the poor quality camerawork, editing and cinematography really detracted from the entire film.
Seriously?
You do realize the camera is SUPPOSED to be like that, right?
Unbelievable.
Derrich
01-18-08, 09:00 PM
Whoosh...
D
Shannon Nutt
01-18-08, 09:05 PM
You know what CLOVERFIELD is?
It's the sequel to ALIEN and ALIENS fans have been waiting over 20 years for.
It's also the GODZILLA we should have gotten back in 1998.
I don't think it's a GREAT film, but it's a fun and intense one...and that's more than most movies in this genre have been giving us in recent years. Definitely worth checking out.
Matthew Chmiel
01-18-08, 09:15 PM
You know what CLOVERFIELD is?
It's the sequel to ALIEN and ALIENS fans have been waiting over 20 years for.
It's also the GODZILLA we should have gotten back in 1998.
I don't think it's a GREAT film, but it's a fun and intense one...and that's more than most movies in this genre have been giving us in recent years. Definitely worth checking out.
These films would like to have a word with you:
It's funny that all three are monster movies, yet completely different in tone, nature, and execution -- but they were all were fucking awesome.
And all three have depressing as hell endings!
mdc3000
01-18-08, 09:36 PM
i just saw it with a packed house...of TEENAGERS. I don't usually like to generalize, but literally everyone talked the whole time and every moment of silence or 'taped over' footage elicited boos and random 'I banged your mom!' 'I can shit better movies' etc. WORST. AUDIENCE. EVER. They also had no idea that the movie had started and kept asking 'is it all this home movie thing?' 'What is this?'.
For the most part I thought it was great. The shaky cam and short glimpses of the monster get frustrating but work to the movies advantage...my only real complaint was the non stop use of DUTCH ANGLES... EVERY shot was angled and really pulled me out of the movie...Especially because it made a few scenes tough to make out what was happening When they are at the toppled building, climb the stairs and climb from one building to the other, I didn't notice the steep angle they were climbing up (or down on the way back) because of the way the shots were angled
If they had leveled the camera out even just for a few scenes it would have made me like it a lot more...but it was still an intense, fun and pretty original flick. 3 of my friends didn't realize what this was going to be and declared it 'worst movie of all time' and then snickered when they realized I liked it...but fuck them, it was damn good.
Elpresidentepez
01-18-08, 10:14 PM
Well, here's the whisper at the very end at the very least.
http://boomp3.com/m/bd034dfca370
That gets you a pat on the back! :)
lopper
01-18-08, 10:36 PM
We just saw this tonight. It was much better than I thought it would be. Some parts were remarkably intense, although I did fall out of the immersion at a few points.
I'm incredibly bummed that they didn't play the Star Trek teaser in front of it, though. I saw it on youtube, but it's not the same...
dsa_shea
01-18-08, 11:27 PM
We saw it tonight and I thought it was really good. Once the ending happened I think at least 10 different people said that it sucked or that it was the worst movie they had ever seen. I guess certain people didn't really understand what they were seeing because if they did they wouldn't have been expecting a different ending. My only complaint is that I felt that you never really get a full on shot of the monster. I know you get that one closeup towards the end but even then it was hard to make out exactly what the thing was. I would have liked to get a clean shot of its head and face. Overall I felt it was really good and portrayed how our world can be shaken at any given time by things that we don't really understand.
dsa_shea
01-18-08, 11:30 PM
We just saw this tonight. It was much better than I thought it would be. Some parts were remarkably intense, although I did fall out of the immersion at a few points.
I'm incredibly bummed that they didn't play the Star Trek teaser in front of it, though. I saw it on youtube, but it's not the same...
They showed the Star Trek teaser at the theater I saw the movie at.
RForte1189
01-18-08, 11:40 PM
I loved the movie, I just wish the party was around 10 minutes instead of 20. I also wished the movie was longer.
And I wanted to see more action with the "Zerglings" and people blowing up.
OVerall, 8/10
bunkaroo
01-19-08, 12:14 AM
Just got back from another packed house, This is going to do very well I think.
Really enjoyed this. I thought it successfully captured the feeling of being there and how people would really react in total chaos.
Almost had to sit really close - glad I didn't. This was much worse than Blair Witch in terms of how nauseous it could potentially make you. Unlike Blair Witch, I would actually see this again (even though I enjoyed BW in the theater).
8.5/10.
dgc
01-19-08, 12:35 AM
Just got back from the 7:40 showing at the Regal E-Walk on 42nd St. NYC. I really enjoyed the film. At the end of the movie some guy stood up and asked if we enjoyed it. He then proceeded to introduce each and every cast member seated at our showing. At first I thought it was some A-hole just goofing off, it was Hud. Very cool. :)
MasterofDVD
01-19-08, 12:35 AM
I saw the film before work at the 1pm show. The guy behind me was "dragged" along by his buddy and spent the time before the previews making numerous snide comments about the poor crowd and the "lame" concept behind the movie. Assholes like this are the reason I only see maybe 4 movies in the theaters these days. Luckily after the show I heard him admitted he enjoyed it.
When the first scene was at the crack of dawn I was worried they were going to drag things out but I thought they got to the party pretty fast. The party scene needed thinned down a bit because with an already short running time I wanted the backstory and character info out of the way fast. Once the action kicked in I had very few issues with the rest of the film. It was just as much fun as I hoped it would be. So many other monster movies have a scene where a scientist is explaining where the creature comes from and it was great that this style of film didn't allow for something like that.
The monster was cool but each time they showed it in a wider/better view I keep thinking it looked a bit like Pumpkinhead.
redrum
01-19-08, 12:50 AM
saw it on the mega screen here (80 foot wide 60 foot high).
pretty incredible theatre experience. go see it now.
can't really think of anything i didn't like about it.
RichC2
01-19-08, 01:43 AM
The reviews on Yahoo's movie site are pretty hilarious.
CKMorpheus
01-19-08, 01:50 AM
I really really liked it. Lots of destruction. I hope there is some spin-off material like a graphic novel or something. I'd love to know more about what happens to
the people who get bitten.
I drove a half hour away to the theater with the best sound in town (a THX certified Mann's theater). What really ruined the experience for me were an entire row of kids, maybe 15 or 16 and they just wouldn't stop talking at all throughout the entire movie. After the entire theater telling them to shut up and them flat out ignoring and mocking people who were hushing them.
Right after
the statue of liberty head goes flying
I ran to get two ushers chatting outside. They followed me to the row of kids behind me that were chatting up a storm, and the usher said "Shh, it's almost over anyway." and left. The kids just laughed it up and kept on talking. I have never had such a horrible experience at a theater in my life. I got a manager afterwards and he gave us a refund, as well as asked which ushers 'helped us.' I've never had to do that before. But driving out of my way (there are 4 movie theaters within a five minute drive of me I could've went to), spending nearly 11 bucks a ticket, and dealing with asshole ushers... I needed my money back.
I'll definitely be buying this on DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray when it comes out.
stingermck
01-19-08, 03:16 AM
Saw it. Loved it. Lots of haters in my audience though.
superdeluxe
01-19-08, 03:53 AM
Saw it and really liked it.
Many people were disappointed in the ending. Trying to figure out how else it could have ended based on the type of movie we were watching.
superdeluxe
01-19-08, 03:55 AM
To those who haven't seen it, don't believe the hype folks. It's a bad, BAD movie. Nauseatingly bad. Stay away from this one.
You didn't like, so no one will like it! :thumbsup:
redrum
01-19-08, 04:14 AM
i really need a gif or video of the very last scene on the ferris wheel.
Giggles
01-19-08, 05:09 AM
Just watched it in theater. Think it was great although not a masterpiece. It was interesting to look at other people watching. Seemed pretty nice audience, nobody was talking or distracting others - everybody was watching carefully, and it was quiet in the room. But when credits started to roll a general 'boo' could be heard. I was satisfied with the ending, guess they couldn't think of something better, but obviously everyone was hoping for something else.
Jackskeleton
01-19-08, 06:04 AM
A lot of folks will not like it because it's not a tightly wrapped up film. oh well, there loss. it was grand.
Anubis2005X
01-19-08, 09:53 AM
Saw it at the Hoffman. When the movie ended, the only way to describe the audience's reaction was kind of an overall laugh, followed by a very energetic cheering (I think they digged the bleak ending), combined with some groans from the people who felt sick...
Goldberg74
01-19-08, 10:56 AM
A lot of folks will not like it because it's not a tightly wrapped up film. oh well, there loss. it was grand.
That is so true.
I'm still processing the idea of whether or not I liked the film, but I did enjoy it. Right now I'm leaning toward "I liked it"... but that could change. I did this same thing with The Fifth Element. After seeing that three times in the theater I loved it (an it's my favorite film to date).
As to the crowds reaction to the end of the film... silence. There has only been one other film that I have seen in the theater where they audience walked away in silence: Fire in the Sky.
KillerCannibal
01-19-08, 11:33 AM
Ok, I just saw this again last night. Twice in 24 hours. The first time was on an IMAX screen, sitting a bit too close, so I didn't get the experience I wanted/needed.
Seeing this on a regular screen in the last row up top did it for me. I now see the film as a complete work of genius. The camera work didn't bother me at all since I had a good vantage point. This really is a film that needs to be seen twice to fully absorb all that is going on. I picked up on lots of little bits here and there that went unnoticed the first time. The party scene maybe could have been trimmed by about 5 minutes, but that's inconsequential compared to the thing as a whole. I like the set up of everyone having a good time, enjoying the evening while we, the viewer, know something is out there in the sea waiting to breach land. And once it does everything goes apeshit. NYC is my favorite city in the world, so just seeing any film that takes place there is already awesome to me. Having it attacked by a massive, unstoppable beast is even cooler.
Even though I'm such a fan of monster movies, I didn't NEED to see this monster the entire time. When we do see it, it's handing our army it's ass. When we don't, we know exactly what it's doing. Lumbering around, eating people and laying waste to a beloved city. People in my theater freaked when the little parasites dropped off the host, and they really hit the ceiling during the subway tunnel scene. The makeshift ER was a great sequence. We don't need to know exactly why what happened to Marlena after the bite happened, we can piece it together in our own heads. The ending was perfect. How could anyone possibly have expected it to end any other way?
After the movie ended a few people clapped, but most said it sucked and it was the dumbest thing they've ever seen. The only possible explanation I can have for that reaction is simply these people are FAR too stupid to get this film. These people wanted explanations from scientists and news crews shoving every bit of info they could up their ass so they didn't have to think about what they just saw. This is a vastly rewarding film for the thinking filmgoer. I, personally, want to go see this again for the 3rd time. It's utterly fantastic. 10/10.
juanmgonzalez
01-19-08, 11:36 AM
Ok, I just saw this again last night. Twice in 24 hours. The first time was on an IMAX screen, sitting a bit too close, so I didn't get the experience I wanted/needed.
Which Imax did you see it at?
I watched this yesterday and besides sitting a little too close and needing some fresh air afterwards because of the camera work, I enjoyed it.
Next time i'm sitting in the back row!
My 6 year old son LOVED it. He's been wanting to see this since the trailer before Transformers.
RichC2
01-19-08, 11:42 AM
People aren't stupid, they just go to movies with certain expectations.
Generally speaking, most of the people who are into the movie know it's the story of a group of survivors of the initial attack and their story of trying to escape. Most people expect it to be your standard movie where you see not only a group of people, but what the government is doing, what the scientists are doing, and how everybody else is reacting. This movie was far too focused to satisfy them in that manner. The oddest reviews for me were "Tense! Scary! But the ending sucked, D-, I feel ripped!"
I suppose a better way to put it, it's a love/survival movie in the midst of a monster attack, not a movie about a monster attack. People wanted a movie about a monster attack, you know, the one we've seen a hundred times before. It happens. I never quite understood why people "must know" where something came from -- it's there, it's killing shit, thats all that really matters. But I guess you can get into your neo-political stances with that, I dunno, always saw it as a drag on the movies.
Whatever, I've always enjoyed speculation. And agree with the person who compared The Host, The Mist, and Cloverfield. Similar to an extent, yet totally different movies, all with their own highlights.
This is definitely a movie that will divide audiences.
Edit: I may have to take that back, I saw this review over at rottentomatoes:
from a 15 year old girl, and I see this being a primary group posting their comments:
I was really disappointed with Cloverfield, it showed so much potential.
I didn't like how the whole thing was a hand held camera.
I didn't want it too seem real dammit!
I wanted to see a movie about a monster.
And i wanted it to be like other monster movies, people actually live!
And they kill the monster in the end.
But everyone died except lily, and thats just gay, and the monster is
still alive.
Pfft, it might be just me, everyone else seemed to like it ,
meh.
xxx.
rotfl
Giggles
01-19-08, 12:13 PM
Just wanted to add that I absolutely loved NYC in Cloverfield. The city is portrayed beautifully and somehow different from what I saw in million other films. BTW it was also magnificent in I Am Legend :)
dsa_shea
01-19-08, 01:02 PM
I want to see it again. I may just have to go today to watch it for a second time.
KillerCannibal
01-19-08, 01:06 PM
Which Imax did you see it at?
I watched this yesterday and besides sitting a little too close and needing some fresh air afterwards because of the camera work, I enjoyed it.
I went to the one at the Irvine Spectrum. I sat in about the 7th row all the way to the right, so my viewing was very skewed. The colors were way off, which happens of you're not in the center for IMAX films, and we were so close it was hard to make things out sometimes. Last night at a regular stadium theater made things much easier to see.
Finisher
01-19-08, 01:36 PM
I had a problem with a guy risking the lives of three people to save one person.
Otherwise, I enjoyed it. It's an atypical monster/disaster/pure survival story. There's a real sense of immediacy and dread and feeling like you're there due to the camerawork.
xage
01-19-08, 01:55 PM
The different timeline seems to coincide with its DVD/High Def release?
Do you guys agree or not?... Looks like the viral marketing campaign will continue until its home viewing release around April-May this year?
abrg923
01-19-08, 02:14 PM
I had a problem with a guy risking the lives of three people to save one person.
Otherwise, I enjoyed it. It's an atypical monster/disaster/pure survival story. There's a real sense of immediacy and dread and feeling like you're there due to the camerawork.
He told them multiple times that they didn't have to come.
Artman
01-19-08, 02:19 PM
Really liked it, I'd say it met my reasonable to high expectations. Does anything happen after the credits? I didn't stay for all of it.
Anyone really wanting a sequel? Something like 28 Weeks Later would be really cool imo - different set of characters, drop the camera idea, but keep it loose and in the same style...and bigger of course...with the music theme... yeah it could be cool.
Rant on the audience.... man I'm only 28 but I felt old... a lot of teens at this one... pretty rowdy audience, the gal next to me yelled "shut up!"... the heckling was almost non stop. And I'm from Seattle...but the amount of times I heard friends calling each other "f*g" and "gay" just really bothered me.
There were some big fans there though...guys in their 30's, geeking out over the anticipation...I think the guy in front of me had some kind of nerd orgasm when the Star Trek preview was shown. I'd have rather had a theater full of those guys.
Edit: Sounds like a lot of people had the same type of audience... i guess the young cast brought out the rugrats for this one or something...
abrg923
01-19-08, 02:28 PM
I'd like to see the ending again, where something supposedly falls into the water. I do remember seeing a big splash, but couldn't tell.
mndtrp
01-19-08, 02:41 PM
I would have given this movie a pretty high rating, except every time the characters talked, I started laughing. While I've never been stuck on an island with a monster tearing shit up, trying to save a friend I had no problem leaving 20 min prior, I have a hard time believing I would say half the stupid crap these guys were. "I feel I should say something, but I don't know what. I just feel I should say something." Repeat, say something equally as lame.
I grasp the concept that this was supposed to be filmed by an amateur, and most of the movie got that across well. However, even a 10 year old can do a better job of filming a party, especially when the whole point was to film people one on one simply talking.
Other than those two problems, I thought the movie was pretty good. I liked not knowing anything about the monster, I liked the general chaos of everything, and the movie sounded awesome.
I am recommending this as a rental to anyone who asks me. It wasn't worth $9, even though this was one of the better theater going experiences I've had. Of the comments I heard, most people coming out of the theater didn't like it. My girlfriend and I "got it", we just didn't like it.
Goldberg74
01-19-08, 02:50 PM
Really liked it, I'd say it met my reasonable to high expectations. Does anything happen after the credits? I didn't stay for all of it.
It's already been posted (in page 3 somewhere), but there is a bit of audio at the end of the credits that says...
It's still alive.
Brack
01-19-08, 03:22 PM
Wowy wow wow. What an incredible movie. So intense (the most intense movie that I've seen in probably the last 10 years or so) and I loved all the little details. You feel like you're really there. The camera work was brilliant, and the monster didn't disappoint. This far exceeded my expectations. I also thought the integrated segments of the footage that was taped over was a nice touch.
Rating: 10/10
bunkaroo
01-19-08, 03:23 PM
Just wanted to add that I absolutely loved NYC in Cloverfield. The city is portrayed beautifully and somehow different from what I saw in million other films.
Agreed 100%.
It's been almost 10 years since I moved back to IL from NYC, but Cloverfield really reminded me of what it was like to be on the street in NYC at night.
On a related note:
Seemed like they covered the ground between Spring St. and 59th St. pretty fast. I would think in the dark in a tunnel, it would take a few hours to go that far. Isn't that the equivalent of about 4 miles?
zombiezilla
01-19-08, 03:39 PM
Having been a Godzilla (and lotsa other giant monsters) movie fan my whole life, I really was looking forward to this, but expected very little (the American G-film taught me that lesson only too well). But I liked this one quite well; in fact, if this one makes enough money, I'll bet you see a "sequel/non-sequel". "Sequel" being more story, more monster, etc., "non-sequel" being that it is just another viewpoint of the same exact timeframe of this movie. I'd go to see it. They definitely leave you wanting more of the creature(s).
kantonburg
01-19-08, 04:19 PM
My wife and I caught this at the 2:10 showing. From reading most of the responses I'm glad we were 2 of only 8 people in the theatre.
Overall we enjoyed it. I was worried my wife would get sick with the shaky camerawork, but she didnt.
hapgilmore
01-19-08, 04:39 PM
I just saw this...sorry to disagree with everyone, but I thought it was pretty bad. The main issue, which I realize the movie is based on, the shaky cam was a terrible choice. It was annoying and made me feel sick after a while. Any replay value this movie may have had disappears by going with that style.
Aside from this:
-the acting was uniformly bad (there were many unintentionally funny moments)
-the whole story seemed ripped off from "The Mist" (a far, far superior film), especially the spider creatures
-the ending was disappointing and predictable
1 1/2 stars out of 4 for me.
JTH182
01-19-08, 04:51 PM
Just got back from seeing it. I guess I can't say much new that hasn't already been said, but here are my thoughts:
- First, I really enjoyed the film. I did. It was an exciting ride. The mix of hand-held video meets big budget movie worked very well.
- I had been following the hype of this movie for quite some time now, so I don't think there was any way I wouldn't feel a bit let down.
- The monster was decent. It wasn't really what I was expecting which is actually kind of good. I like to think of it as being confused and feeling trapped rather than it actually "attacking." I don't think this thing was attacking at all, but rather defending itself in an unfamiliar surrounding.
- The little creatures that fell off the monster were completely wasted and only in there to add an extra level of threat in the underground scenes IMO. This is one area I felt cheated in. We only see one person explode and are left with little else of bite victims. Didn't Hud get bit? Why was it taking him longer to explode? Why were the creatures "dragging him somewhere else?" The whole "infection" aspect really had me intrigued from the pre-movie hype and then was totally glossed over in the film.
- All in all this movie left me wanting "more." I felt the infirmary scenes could have used more time. The party felt like it could have had some parts trimmed or been better fleshed out in others. I'm glad Slusho played no part at all though. Seemed to make some of the ARG content kind of pointless and misleading though, which is frustrating.
My very first thought upon seeing the closing credits roll was "I can't believe the most believable part of the movie was the giant otherworldly sea creature" lol.
These people come face to face with the creature multiple times and survive. They climb up buildings and over roofs into crumbling structures after being beaten up and tired. After miraculously making it to Beth's room they find her impaled by an iron rod only to pull her off... and somehow she starts feeling BETTER? They then lug this girl down a building and she's able to actually get around.
I won't even mention the indestructible camcorder.
There are many parts that require suspension of disbelief in this film, none of which are believing the possibility of a giant creature from the deep coming ashore.
All that said, I definitely liked the movie. I just think it could have been better.
Maybe that's just the side effect of a months-long hype machine having sucked me in.
EDIT to add: I'll be buying it on Blu-ray when it comes out :)
scott1598
01-19-08, 05:34 PM
i didn't hate it, but i didn't love it. the people at the party must have been the prettiest people at any party anywhere ever. i really didn't get into the characters at all and the rob/beth relationship was unneccesary. also, how the hell could Lily go through the whole movie, running as she did, climbing, etc... in high heels????
i didn't mind the camera work and it worked pretty well. the monster and its' off shoots were pretty cool. as i said i didn't hate it, but it could have been a lot better. really no desire to see this one again anytime soon.
baracine
01-19-08, 05:36 PM
It's hard to believe the greedy eejits who put this film together didn't think of the merchandising possibilities. Anyway, there is no soundtrack album, needless to say, and Michael Giacchino's website hasn't been updated since September 2007.
I left a message on www.michaelgiacchino.com about the huge interest generated by "Roar! (Cloverfield Overture)" - obviously the best part of the movie - and urging Giacchino to put out a CD pronto before it is bootlegged to death. We'll see what happens.
scott1598
01-19-08, 05:36 PM
My very first thought upon seeing the closing credits roll was "I can't believe the most believable part of the movie was the giant otherworldly sea creature" lol.
very well put!
JTH182
01-19-08, 05:49 PM
Seeing a movie like this is like Christmas. You wait so long for it, and then as soon as it begins it's over and you're left feeling like "well, that was that."
I fear the same thing will happen for me with The Dark Knight.
The anticipation almost prevents me from liking a movie as much as I should. I should be going apeshit for Cloverfield, and I almost feel bad that I'm not.
Brack
01-19-08, 05:55 PM
How old are you people on this board? Seriously, the last time I was "excited" about a movie was when I was in high school, maybe. I guess I'm just immune to hype.
FantasticVSDoom
01-19-08, 06:01 PM
Liked this much more than I thought... Sure you need to let a lot of things go, but a movie with a big monster, thats to be expected. Really the worst part was the audience. High school girls and boys and senior citizens shouldnt really be allowed anywhere near a theatre these days, but I guess I should have been ready for it. Anyways, pretty good action and intense scenes at times. If you can forgive a lot and you're not a new yorker who is going to get upset by the rapid pace at which these people seem to be able to traverse the city in (plus great cell reception in the subway station) pretty enjoyable Saturday matinee movie.
E. Honda
01-19-08, 06:07 PM
i just saw it. This movie is going to sweep the Razzies, for a monster with less than one minute of screen time in a 90 minute movie. This movie is a BOMB of Battlefield Earth proportions.
JTH182
01-19-08, 06:22 PM
How old are you people on this board? Seriously, the last time I was "excited" about a movie was when I was in high school, maybe. I guess I'm just immune to hype.
Why would you see a movie if you're not excited to see it? I can't understand why someone would spend their precious time and hard earned money on something that doesn't excite them. Maybe there are better entertainment options for you than movies?
27, btw.
CloverClover
01-19-08, 06:43 PM
Some of it was very cool and game like, but overall the characters sucked and acted dumb, they wore too much make-up for DV and were too 'pretty', the insects were contrived, all three of them stepped out of a helecopter crash pretty easily, and the ending was a cliche. I'd probably go 2 out of 5 for its modern attempt at the genre, but it is still very much in the genre.
On another note, I was initially impressed at the willingness of the filmmakers to make it so ambiguous, such as the monster's origins... But then I read some interviews and they explained in detail everything that should've been left to the imagination. Dumb hollywood.
And the title is a new marketing low as well, a title about how the title has nothing to do with the film... except to have people asking what it means, and creating more hype. This whole thing is a very shallow way of mixing business and art, but in the end as I said it's just a genre pic.
covenant
01-19-08, 06:48 PM
i just saw it. This movie is going to sweep the Razzies, for a monster with less than one minute of screen time in a 90 minute movie. This movie is a BOMB of Battlefield Earth proportions.
let's see....
Battlefield Earth 3%
Cloverfield 76%
whoopdido
01-19-08, 06:53 PM
I liked it. At first the "Blair Witch" style kinda bugged me, but by the end I had gotten used to it and thought it was a pretty neat way of showing the chaos and confusion going on. It was pretty neat that the characters and the audience had the exact same level of knowledge...which was zero. Nobody in the movie had any idea what was going on and neither did the audience.
I've heard a couple people complain about the ending and how it was predictable and cliche. Well, first of all you should have been able to figure out how the movie was going to end 30 seconds after the movie started simply by reading the screen.
Secondly, I think if they had gone the "happy ending route" then the same people that are complaining about the movie being cliche would still be complaining about the movie being cliche because practically every monster movie ends with the hero surviving and the monster dying. Name one monster movie (other than Cloverfield) where all the main characters die and the monster lives.
Maxflier
01-19-08, 06:54 PM
LOVED it!
This is definately one of those movies I'll always wish I could experience again for the first time.
I've heard a couple people complain about the ending and how it was predictable and cliche. Well, first of all you should have been able to figure out how the movie was going to end 30 seconds after the movie started simply by reading the screen.
Exactly.
mndtrp
01-19-08, 07:19 PM
I've heard a couple people complain about the ending and how it was predictable and cliche. Well, first of all you should have been able to figure out how the movie was going to end 30 seconds after the movie started simply by reading the screen.
True, it was relatively obvious how it was going to end. I laughed out loud at the "I love you" crap.
I would also be a little pissed at the liquor store they bought their booze from. That was the most sober I've seen anyone at a party with a free bar.
Anubis2005X
01-19-08, 07:21 PM
I enjoyed it, but felt like it was channeling Blair Witch way too much. I almost expected them to say "F***!!!, we're lost. F***!!!, where are we? F***!!!, where are we going?"
And the ending...being like exactly the same...
scott1598
01-19-08, 07:28 PM
i just saw it. This movie is going to sweep the Razzies, for a monster with less than one minute of screen time in a 90 minute movie. This movie is a BOMB of Battlefield Earth proportions.
wow! such amazing insight from someone who seems to know...oh, so little.
considering this was made for around $30 mil and will make almost double that this weekend alone, i would hazard a guess and say it will be anything but a "BOMB of Battlefield Earth proportions".
whoopdido
01-19-08, 07:29 PM
i didn't hate it, but i didn't love it. the people at the party must have been the prettiest people at any party anywhere ever. i really didn't get into the characters at all and the rob/beth relationship was unneccesary. also, how the hell could Lily go through the whole movie, running as she did, climbing, etc... in high heels????
i didn't mind the camera work and it worked pretty well. the monster and its' off shoots were pretty cool. as i said i didn't hate it, but it could have been a lot better. really no desire to see this one again anytime soon.
I remember numerous shot of Lily holding her shoes in her hands while they were going up the stairs. I also saw her running in bare feet, so I believe she just took her shoes off eventually. Of course it would still be pretty difficult to run through rubble in only bare feet.
whoopdido
01-19-08, 07:31 PM
wow! such amazing insight from someone who seems to know...oh, so little.
considering this was made for around $30 mil and will make almost double that this weekend alone, i would hazard a guess and say it will be anything but a "BOMB of Battlefield Earth proportions".
Is that true? It only cost $30 million? That seems hard to believe. I know it was short and had no stars so they didn't have to pay the actors anything, but there was A LOT of CGI and it was good CGI to boot. That stuff's expensive.
Brack
01-19-08, 07:45 PM
Why would you see a movie if you're not excited to see it? I can't understand why someone would spend their precious time and hard earned money on something that doesn't excite them. Maybe there are better entertainment options for you than movies?
27, btw.
Don't get me wrong, movies excite me, but I don't get excited to see them. I look forward to them if I see a decent trailer and knowing who's involved, and/or see there are positive reviews, but until the actual date I end up seeing it I really don't think about them that much.
josepotato
01-19-08, 07:49 PM
I liked it but it could have been better, I wouldn't rank it higher than The Host but it was better than Godzilla Final Wars and some of the other recent Godzilla movies. My biggest gripe was the lice creatures, it just seems like I've seen that so many times before...and then the five seconds where we learn they infect you too and when that happens you blow up.I would have rather seen more of them dealing with getting through the destruction and the city crumbling around them than fighting off those little beasties with crowbars and axes.
JTH182
01-19-08, 07:49 PM
Don't get me wrong, movies excite me, but I don't get excited to see them. I look forward to them if I see a decent trailer and knowing who's involved, and/or see there are positive reviews, but until the actual date I end up seeing it I really don't think about them that much.
Well fair enough, but I guess you'd have to expect on a movie-lover's website you'd find a lot of people who actually get excited for movies :p
lopper
01-19-08, 07:53 PM
A lot of mentions have been made about this movie seeming to attract rowdy teenagers. I'm a little curious as to who you had expected to be at a movie like this? Shit, what mainstream movie nowadays doesn't attract said teenagers?
We had some rowdies in the audience last night, mohawks, piercings and all. Before the movie began, they were loud and extremely rude, letting the gay slurs and expletives flow from their mouths with absolutely no regard. However, I guess we were lucky, because once the movie started they shut right the fuck up and didn't make a peep until the end credits.
Brack
01-19-08, 07:56 PM
Yeah, well, that's why I almost NEVER go to a movie at night. It costs more and there's more stupid people.
MasterofDVD
01-19-08, 08:30 PM
How old are you people on this board? Seriously, the last time I was "excited" about a movie was when I was in high school, maybe. I guess I'm just immune to hype.
I wanted to chime in on this gem of a comment. I'm 30 and for some of the bigger movies I see each year I get so excited that I will actually be sick to my stomach the night before the movie. It's a weird quirk and far from normal but my friends always know how excited I am about a movie by how truly awful I feel the night before the film opens. I think in a time where the world is just falling to hell around us it's nice to get excited about things. I kinda wish I didn't get sick but it's great to look forward to stuff. I know folks complained about the new Star Trek teaser but it gave me chills and even after that simple teaser I have to say I'm excited.
Rubix
01-19-08, 08:44 PM
saw it today and really enjoyed it.
if they make a sequel i think it would be cool to just show someone else's tape and be able to watch the exact same events unfold from someone else's perspective and location.
a lot of different things were going on all at once throughout the city and we only saw a small part of it.
basically a parallel story. kinda like half-life 1 and half-life: opposing force and half-life: blue shift.
dadaluholla
01-19-08, 08:45 PM
LOVED IT. I've been dying to see this since I first saw the teaser trailer last summer, and it lived up to my expectations 100%. I'd really like to go see it once again at a theater, since I'm not sure DVD is going to be able to capture the same atmosphere that the giant screen and huge thumping sound of the theater had (unless you have a seriously kick ass home theater that is). The chaos was magic. Wow.
A!
FantasticVSDoom
01-19-08, 09:13 PM
A lot of mentions have been made about this movie seeming to attract rowdy teenagers. I'm a little curious as to who you had expected to be at a movie like this? Shit, what mainstream movie nowadays doesn't attract said teenagers?
We had some rowdies in the audience last night, mohawks, piercings and all. Before the movie began, they were loud and extremely rude, letting the gay slurs and expletives flow from their mouths with absolutely no regard. However, I guess we were lucky, because once the movie started they shut right the fuck up and didn't make a peep until the end credits.
I agree, thats why I said I should have been ready for it... But usually with movies like this its ok. There is enough explosions and music and what not to drown it all out. But with this during the "quiet" moments, the teeny girls decided to screem and giggle and the rest thought it was time to crack wise ass jokes. Just frustrating, but you're right, I should have expected it.
juanmgonzalez
01-19-08, 09:43 PM
And the title is a new marketing low as well, a title about how the title has nothing to do with the film...
Are you upset that they used your DT name as part of the title? :shrug:
dsa_shea
01-19-08, 09:44 PM
A lot of mentions have been made about this movie seeming to attract rowdy teenagers. I'm a little curious as to who you had expected to be at a movie like this? Shit, what mainstream movie nowadays doesn't attract said teenagers?
We had some rowdies in the audience last night, mohawks, piercings and all. Before the movie began, they were loud and extremely rude, letting the gay slurs and expletives flow from their mouths with absolutely no regard. However, I guess we were lucky, because once the movie started they shut right the fuck up and didn't make a peep until the end credits.
And then all the boos and gay talked flowed once again from their lips.
tommy28
01-19-08, 09:51 PM
Godzilla + whale whatever, it blew!!
dsa_shea
01-19-08, 10:12 PM
I actually felt like this monster was quite a bit scarier than any incarnation of Godzilla I have ever seen. The way he could move his arms was quite freaky. Plus, he didn't have huge eyes but for the eyes he had were scary.
clemente
01-19-08, 10:19 PM
A lot of folks will not like it because it's not a tightly wrapped up film. oh well, there loss. it was grand.
Count among that can accept laud the fact that its not a tightly wrapped film, but still don't care for it.
I didn't care about the leads a single bit. If the main thrust of movie is interpersonal relationships against the backdrop of a disaster, you either have to make the relationships resonate strongly with the audience so that they accept the occasionally nonsensical decisions of the characters - or make the disaster so epic that the characters take backseat.
Obviously, the monster invasion is merely backdrop in the movie - so I'm left with Rob and Beth, who I thought were the 5th and 7th most interesting human characters in the movie.
That's just how I saw it, I'm know I'm in the minority on this one.
It wasn't the lack of monster action (which was very well done) or the shaky cam (I like the idea and the execution) that made the movie fail - just the usual culprit, story and acting.
gmerreighnjr
01-19-08, 10:26 PM
A lot of mentions have been made about this movie seeming to attract rowdy teenagers. I'm a little curious as to who you had expected to be at a movie like this? Shit, what mainstream movie nowadays doesn't attract said teenagers?
We had some rowdies in the audience last night, mohawks, piercings and all. Before the movie began, they were loud and extremely rude, letting the gay slurs and expletives flow from their mouths with absolutely no regard. However, I guess we were lucky, because once the movie started they shut right the fuck up and didn't make a peep until the end credits.
i had a similar experience yesterday at the 4:45pm showing i went to...thru the previews and into the beginning of the movie there were some kids cracking jokes and just being stupid but once that first BOOM happened everyone shut up and there wasn't another word from anyone...even after the movie ended everyone quietly got up and left w/o any talking until we got out into the lobby
as for the movie i thought it was really effective in the storytelling if you realize it isn't about the monster but about the people trying to survive the chaos going on around them--really great stuff
tucker
01-19-08, 10:28 PM
i loved the movie!
but damn that camera has long battery life!!!!!!!
Brack
01-19-08, 10:36 PM
i loved the movie!
but damn that camera has long battery life!!!!!!!
74 minutes is a long battery life?
JTH182
01-19-08, 10:38 PM
Try about 8 hours...
Ronnie Dobbs
01-19-08, 10:40 PM
I wonder why the never just stole a car. There were plenty of them lying around. Maybe a cab or something that was abandoned.
StephenX
01-19-08, 10:44 PM
Try about 8 hours...
No, not 8 hours. It was turned off a lot. Everything we saw was what they recorded. We assume it was turned on and off as Hudd saw fit, with no edits made to make 'a movie.' So, in short, the battery life had to be at least 74 minutes.
JTH182
01-19-08, 10:48 PM
I would have to assume the cuts are just him pushing the button to turn it from STBY to REC and back again, not turning the entire thing off.
Brack
01-19-08, 11:05 PM
I would have to assume the cuts are just him pushing the button to turn it from STBY to REC and back again, not turning the entire thing off.
that way you have something to complain about. it all makes sense now.
Howiefan
01-19-08, 11:17 PM
Question about the ending:
So did anyone else notice something fall from the sky into the water in the background when Rob and Beth are on the Ferris Wheel at the very end of the movie?
Brack
01-19-08, 11:27 PM
Question about the ending:
So did anyone else notice something fall from the sky into the water in the background when Rob and Beth are on the Ferris Wheel at the very end of the movie?
no, but plenty of people have noticed it, they think it's the monster or whatever falling into the ocean
whoopdido
01-19-08, 11:44 PM
no, but plenty of people have noticed it, they think it's the monster or whatever falling into the ocean
I heard something about a satelite. During all the viral advertising before the movie came out they always talked about this Japanese company called Slusho. I guess that's the company Rob was going to work for. Anyway, supposedly Slusho had something to do with the monster's origin and possibly the thing that fell into the ocean was a Slusho satelite and that had something to do with the monster. I have no clue though and I didn't even notice anything falling into the water.
Brack
01-19-08, 11:48 PM
I heard something about a satelite. During all the viral advertising before the movie came out they always talked about this Japanese company called Slusho. I guess that's the company Rob was going to work for. Anyway, supposedly Slusho had something to do with the monster's origin and possibly the thing that fell into the ocean was a Slusho satelite and that had something to do with the monster. I have no clue though and I didn't even notice anything falling into the water.
Oh, I wondered what Slusho was all about in this thread. Now I know.
RichC2
01-19-08, 11:49 PM
I wonder why the never just stole a car. There were plenty of them lying around. Maybe a cab or something that was abandoned.
Driving around NYC in a panic generally doesn't work so hot.
Trelach24
01-20-08, 12:57 AM
I'm pretty sure I loved this movie (I need to sleep on it). The ending was pretty much exactly what I expected and I would have been extremely disappointed with some hollywoodized cliched ending.
Hud was amazing comic relief and I'm seriously so gay that my biggest concern the last half of the movie was that he would tell Beth that he loved her. So gay.
Howiefan
01-20-08, 12:58 AM
...
Giantrobo
01-20-08, 05:18 AM
I haven't seen it yet but a guy I work with saw it and he said a woman vomited in the back row of his screening. :lol: He said it was during a particularly bloody scene but he wasn't sure if it was the camera work, the scene, or a combo of both that caused her reaction.
:yack:
Trigger
01-20-08, 05:40 AM
I was warned about motion sickness when I bought the tickets... I didn't get motion sick though - I was too busy being blown away. I loved this movie. Seriously loved it. Brilliant.
...and I hate everything...
Trigger
01-20-08, 06:01 AM
haha - just read through a page of comments... very entertaining.
Hollywood releases giant monster-destroys-city movie...
Internet boards explode with attempts to logically dissect and intellectually dismantle said movie as though it's Citizen Kane...
Priceless.
woofman
01-20-08, 08:38 AM
Good stuff Trigger. :lol:
I saw this yesterday, and like many others, I had to sleep on it before really drawing a conclusion on how much I enjoyed it. Looking back I think what impressed me the most is how real it looked. Granted I'm a fairly easy to please movie goer, but that in itself made the film for me. Sure the characters weren't all that strong, but I thought the action was great. I'll be intrigued to see if they follow up with another movie, as it could go in so many directions. The same movie from someone else's perspective, the events and origin of the monster(s), the events that pick up where this movie left off. They could really milk this if they want to. Should be interesting to see how well this does at the box office.
CKMorpheus
01-20-08, 12:10 PM
Okay so can someone answer the question once and for all:
Did something actually fall from the sky to the ocean in the last scene? I didn't see anything, and most others didn't. But a few said they saw something.
Seantn
01-20-08, 12:14 PM
It's in the upper right hand corner of the screen, falling into the ocean.
Draven
01-20-08, 12:16 PM
100% awesome.
I loved this movie from start to finish. The handheld camera was remarkably effective and gave the movie a sense of scale that few monster movies can achieve. The scene where the army is shooting at the monster from the street was one of the most intense things I've ever seen on screen, ranking right up there with the opening of Saving Private Ryan as far as "Holy fuck! This is insane!" goes.
I enjoyed the characters a lot - they were extremely genuine. I actually felt sad when he was telling his mother what happened to his brother. I loved not knowing exactly what happened and that the monster wasn't easily dispatched.
It was a thrilling, gripping and extremely effective movie with a unique perspective on a tired genre and I cannot wait to pick it up on DVD.
Buy: