One and Only CLOVERFIELD reviews thread!
01-18-08 | 01:20 AM
#101
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
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.
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)
01-18-08 | 01:26 AM
#102
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by KingSmoth
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.
01-18-08 | 01:43 AM
#103
Banned
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: NY
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
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
01-18-08 | 02:17 AM
#104
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Columbus, Ohio
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!
01-18-08 | 03:00 AM
#106
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
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.
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.
01-18-08 | 03:59 AM
#107
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Guntersville, AL
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.
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.
01-18-08 | 04:38 AM
#108
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.
01-18-08 | 05:50 AM
#109
Suspended
This guy liked it and liked Giacchino's music in the end titles: http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/37/
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...
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.
[email protected]
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.
[email protected]
Last edited by baracine; 01-18-08 at 10:27 AM.
01-18-08 | 08:48 AM
#110
DVD Talk Hero
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?
(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?
01-18-08 | 09:06 AM
#111
Suspended
Originally Posted by RichC2
Roger Ebert's Review:
I suppose he's grateful J.J. Abrams didn't pull that stunt again in Cloverfield...
Last edited by baracine; 01-18-08 at 09:16 AM.
01-18-08 | 09:13 AM
#112
Suspended
The Washington Post pukes all over the film: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...es=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
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
01-18-08 | 09:21 AM
#113
DVD Talk Hero
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
.
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
.
Last edited by RichC2; 01-18-08 at 09:50 AM.
01-18-08 | 10:09 AM
#115
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 baracine
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.
...
...
...
...
...
"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.
...
...
...
01-18-08 | 10:49 AM
#117
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
01-18-08 | 10:50 AM
#118
Suspended
Best of the web:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SE0_l5wK8XI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SE0_l5wK8XI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
This one has spoilers and an overview of reviews:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ae2mCGTAk9E&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ae2mCGTAk9E&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SE0_l5wK8XI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SE0_l5wK8XI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
This one has spoilers and an overview of reviews:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ae2mCGTAk9E&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ae2mCGTAk9E&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
01-18-08 | 11:27 AM
#119
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.
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.
01-18-08 | 11:58 AM
#120
Senior Member
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.
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.
01-18-08 | 01:19 PM
#122
DVD Talk Hero
I missed it but apparently
during the final shot. Thats cool. My buddy commented on it, but I missed it entirely.
Spoiler:
01-18-08 | 01:30 PM
#123
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by RichC2
I missed it but apparently
during the final shot. Thats cool. My buddy commented on it, but I missed it entirely.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
01-18-08 | 01:34 PM
#124
DVD Talk Hero
Yeaah... I avoid viral stuff as best I can.
01-18-08 | 01:47 PM
#125
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
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
Great Flick 9.5/10, not for everyone who gets motion sickness, but intense and scary and awesome flick
Last edited by maingon; 01-18-08 at 02:02 PM.