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.

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!!!

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.

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



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.

Recommend for: 12 years and above.

Dude.

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.

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!

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.


© 2008 James Berardinelli

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.

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!

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.