Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

One and Only CLOVERFIELD reviews thread!

Community
Search
Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

One and Only CLOVERFIELD reviews thread!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-16-08 | 12:17 PM
  #51  
slop101's Avatar
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 44,034
Received 472 Likes on 327 Posts
From: So. Cal.
Cloverfield monster revealed!
Here's a clear picture of the monster - click only if you don't mind being spoiled!

Spoiler:
Old 01-16-08 | 12:39 PM
  #52  
Suspended
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by berserker37
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:

Spoiler:
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/
Old 01-16-08 | 01:05 PM
  #53  
Suspended
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by wago70
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!
Old 01-16-08 | 03:32 PM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 01-16-08 | 03:45 PM
  #55  
Suspended
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by wago70
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.
Old 01-16-08 | 07:11 PM
  #56  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 46,695
Received 1,392 Likes on 1,094 Posts
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.

Last edited by RichC2; 01-16-08 at 07:16 PM.
Old 01-16-08 | 07:27 PM
  #57  
The Infidel's Avatar
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,720
Received 114 Likes on 66 Posts
From: the kingdom of the evil Voratians, ruled by the wicked Ak-Oga
Originally Posted by baracine
It couldn't have been done. This film is clearly inspired by 9/11.
I hope you're not being serious.
Old 01-16-08 | 07:30 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 46,695
Received 1,392 Likes on 1,094 Posts
You haven't read any of his previous posts.... have you?
Old 01-16-08 | 07:35 PM
  #59  
The Infidel's Avatar
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,720
Received 114 Likes on 66 Posts
From: the kingdom of the evil Voratians, ruled by the wicked Ak-Oga
Apparently not.
Old 01-16-08 | 08:33 PM
  #60  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,067
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
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.

Last edited by RayChuang; 01-16-08 at 08:35 PM. Reason: correct wording
Old 01-16-08 | 10:50 PM
  #61  
Suspended
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought it was pretty intense personally. It would make a badass video game.
Old 01-16-08 | 11:42 PM
  #62  
Supermallet's Avatar
Banned by request
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
From: Termite Terrace
Originally Posted by baracine
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!
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.

Last edited by Supermallet; 01-16-08 at 11:47 PM.
Old 01-17-08 | 12:07 AM
  #63  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 46,695
Received 1,392 Likes on 1,094 Posts
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
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.
Old 01-17-08 | 01:39 AM
  #64  
alfredog1976's Avatar
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,761
Received 125 Likes on 94 Posts
From: Orange County, CA
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.
Old 01-17-08 | 06:10 AM
  #65  
Suspended
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
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.

Think of the profit margin!

(The dry cleaning would be extra, of course.)

Last edited by baracine; 01-17-08 at 07:12 AM.
Old 01-17-08 | 09:08 AM
  #66  
Suspended
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Toronto
Variety's reviewer Todd McCarthy is the only one among Rottentomatoes' seven "Top Critics" ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clov...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/VE1117...goryid=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

Last edited by baracine; 01-17-08 at 09:12 AM.
Old 01-17-08 | 09:19 AM
  #67  
Banned
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Bellefontaine, Ohio
"Picture proper only runs 73 minutes"

OH. MY. GOD.
This thing barely qualifies for being a feature-length film!
Old 01-17-08 | 09:21 AM
  #68  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 46,695
Received 1,392 Likes on 1,094 Posts
Originally Posted by chris_sc77
"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.
Old 01-17-08 | 09:28 AM
  #69  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: The Phantom Zone
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.

Last edited by Yavin; 01-17-08 at 09:48 AM.
Old 01-17-08 | 09:36 AM
  #70  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: The Phantom Zone
Originally Posted by chris_sc77
"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.
Old 01-17-08 | 09:47 AM
  #71  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 46,695
Received 1,392 Likes on 1,094 Posts
Originally Posted by Yavin
... I can honestly say that it in no way lives up to the hype.
Originally Posted by Yavin
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.
Old 01-17-08 | 09:50 AM
  #72  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: The Phantom Zone
Originally Posted by RichC2
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.

Last edited by Yavin; 01-17-08 at 09:53 AM.
Old 01-17-08 | 10:07 AM
  #73  
DJLinus's Avatar
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 8,996
Received 44 Likes on 39 Posts
From: Richmond, VA
Originally Posted by Yavin
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.
Old 01-17-08 | 10:11 AM
  #74  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: The Phantom Zone
Originally Posted by DJLinus
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.
Old 01-17-08 | 10:28 AM
  #75  
Suspended
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Toronto
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.

Last edited by baracine; 01-17-08 at 11:17 AM.


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.