REVIEWS
First Reaction to Cloverfield - They Have Created a Classic
by Alex Billington
January 16, 2008
Finally after 6 months since the first discovery, it's here. J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves have created a new classic monster movie. It is everything you expect and it's also nothing you expect. This movie feels so real that it's not even a movie, it's an entire incredible experience. Cloverfield is less of an epic monster movie and more of a suspenseful dramatic small-scale flick that you experience, not just watch. It's one-of-a-kind, unforgettable and, like 300 last year, has all of those f**king awesome scenes you want, but also has a strong story. Why I love it so much is that it wasn't the same old epic monster movie that we've seen, but it was something incredible, awesome, fresh and different.
In Cloverfield we are first introduced to Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David), a young New Yorker who has just taken a new job in Japan. What we are being shown is footage from his own video camera, which jumps between the day after he first makes love to his longtime friend Beth McIntyre (Odette Yustman) and the day the monster arrives, which I'll henceforth dub D-Day. At his surprise going away party, which is thrown by Lily (Jessica Lucas), her fiancé Jason (Mike Vogel), who is also Rob's brother, and Rob's friend Hud (T.J. Miller), who is the cameraman, we are thrown into the thick of the action when "something" attacks New York and Rob and his friends must scramble to stay alive. At the party we also discover that Rob has had problems with Beth after "that night" and now sets off to find Beth, even though she left early from the party on a rough note and with another guy.
Like the Korean monster flick The Host, this isn't the kind of Hollywood movie that follows that pre-defined structure where the monster never gets revealed until that big "final" moment at the end. This is a movie that is following the group of friends who stumble upon this monster quite quickly, and the most I'll say is that you certainly do get some quality contact with it. However, Cloverfield really is not the epic, enormous monster blockbuster that the hype has made it into, and that is very important to remember. It's a very small film that is focused around this group and how they can get out of the city and survive. To some, this could turn out as a huge disappointment, and even for me, as a big summer blockbuster fanatic, I initially had a mild feeling of disappointment.
However, that feeling was overshadowed by that of the notion that why I loved this so much in the end is that it wasn't that epic kind of movie and that's what made it so unique and so memorable. The hand-held camera style shot by the character Hud, who for me becomes the tragic character in the story, is really what defines everything about Cloverfield. It was best described by someone else once before: in Godzilla movies there are those people who run and scream, and this is a movie about them and their story when the monster attacks.
One of my favorite scenes from Cloverfield was when they run into the monster and get caught up in the military gunfight after the bridge scene. Instead of this being the same old scene you'd fine in a Michael Bay movie, which, yes it has the guns and explosions and intensity, but it's from the viewpoint of an actual character - Hud - that you really care about. He's being pinned down next to a car and watches as all the soldiers run by and fire everything they've got at this monster, and he doesn't know what it is, and he doesn't care, because he's trying to stay alive and keep his friends alive. I love that the camera itself is in essence a character, because the character is carrying it. That adds a whole new "life" into the movie which is what helps turn it into more of an experience, like you're right there with him, rather than just watching it cinematically.
I won't say that Cloverfield is the perfect movie, because it really was nothing that the hype made it out to be and I am still having a problem accepting that. I really think that with some time and some consideration and possibly multiple viewings a little further down the road, I'll come to love Cloverfield even more. It'll take some time for me to get over the fact that this isn't an epic summer blockbuster monster flick, but rather a small movie about these people trying to survive and the relationship between them. And I'm already starting to get to that in my mind and starting to love it more and more as I type this out.
J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves have created a classic that I guarantee years from now will be remembered as the quintessential monster movie from this decade. The style is such a brave new step into a realm that no one has really touched upon or succeeded in (George Romero's Diary of the Dead was utter crap compared to Cloverfield), that this is a defining moment in both monster movie history and Hollywood history. Once you finally experience, not watch, Cloverfield, you'll understand how incredible it truly is and you'll never forget finally seeing this soon-to-be classic.
(There's so much more about this that I want to talk about: the incredible sound design and lack of any music, more on the character of Hud, the 9/11 comparison, the monster itself and the building of a monster franchise, and much more. I'll try and discuss more of this in another article later on this week.)
 |
129 Comments
1
2
I couldn't agree with you more. The viewpoint you speak of left me walking out of the theater thinking "wow... what if that happened here in Atlanta???" Nothing was overdone in the movie which is due to the unique viewpoint. The weaving of drama, humor, action and suspense was very realistic and no lame one-liners or explosions were thrown in to the mix just to have it in the movie. A great movie overall.
Peter on Jan 16, 2008
3
All ready apprehensive,,when people start talking themselves into liking a movie,like dinner at the in laws,well, we are headed for trouble!!!Will check back in tomorrow, with my real verdict after watching "cloverfield".
BUNTZ on Jan 16, 2008
4
Meh...
Dan on Jan 16, 2008
5
Great to hear this Alex! Can't wait until Friday.
Stephen on Jan 16, 2008
6
how could you give this steaming pile of crap 9 stars? There was no building of characters, the plot sucked and it was just a boring movie. I'm glad I got the sneak preview for free and didn't pay for this, I would've walked out and demanded a refund.
Justin on Jan 16, 2008
7
Do they at least show the monster in full effect? I don't want to watch it if it's another blair witch.
Bryan on Jan 16, 2008
8
9 out of 10 stars? You have got to be crazy my friend! It was a great ride, but did NOT live up to the hype. WORD OF ADVICE- Do not sit in the front of the theater, you will regret it! *BARF*
Dustin the wind on Jan 16, 2008
9
Ah, I can see that this one is going to split audiences down the middle. 🙂 I sat right next to Alex while watching this and despite the fact that I gave it the same rating (4.5/5), it wasn't due to "talking myself into it" or even thinking I was watching a future classic. I just thought it didn't disappoint at what it aimed to deliver: 90 minutes of excitement and even some unexpected humor. It didn't insult the audience's intelligence (like so many movies do these days) and from me it gets extra points just for that. And Peter is right on with his comments regarding superfluous effects and dialog - just look to AVP-R if you want a crapfest of a movie if you want to compare Cloverfield's satisfying ride with an utter disappointment. And I have to disagree with Alex when he says the movie didn't match the hype - I think it matched it PERFECTLY. The viral and hype was always very personal (at least the majority of it until very recently with the Japan videos) and the movie was right there in the style of what was shown during the last six months of buzz-building. Yes, if you HATE "shakey cam" this movie is NOT for you, although it did calm down for large segments of the movie. Vic
ScreenRant.com on Jan 16, 2008
10
The "hype" was cleverly done. There wasn't a need to bring in big names for a soundtrack like Godzilla did with Puff Daddy and the sacrilegious sampling of Kashmir. No name actors were perfect for the movie, too. I can better relate to some guy who I've never seen on-screen playing a normal guy thrown into a chaotic situation than I can to some A-List actor. There was no need for character development. This isn't Al Pacino going from military kid to Godfather. The characters were scared shitless, what else do you want to know about them?
Peter on Jan 16, 2008
11
Yeah Alex I tolly agree... i saw it last night... it was fucking amazing...
CSpuppydog on Jan 16, 2008
13
I have read several places now where New Yorkers have seen this film and are struck (in a disturbing way) by its eerie similarities to the 9/11 tragedy. I have not yet seen this film, but I think unless you were in NY or DC (which I was) on 9/11 you can have no idea how terrifying that day was nor the days and weeks following. It is unfortunate that JJ Abrams felt the need to draw from that event in order to heighten the drama of his film. Perhaps I'm going overboard, but when I've read several places now of New Yorkers walking out of the film and discussing their experience on September 11th, it makes me pause for a moment and wonder if this was a good idea.
Movie Lover on Jan 16, 2008
14
well ... if all the reviews are this good ... cant be that bad a movie eh ... ? i'll give it a try ... saw the trailer and i think i'm gonna like it ... its a movie about monsters by JJ Abrams ... how bad can it be ... hehe ...
subcorpus on Jan 16, 2008
15
Movie Lover, I don't see how you can say this about 9/11. If it struck them as disturbingly similar to 9/11, then you gotta think JJ Abrams did a good job, since I assume he was trying to invoke a similar feeling that the people felt on 9/11...not as a superficial joke, but as an over-the-top doomsday type of movie (which I'm sure it felt like people were in a real life disaster movie on 9/11). I'm from New York too, though I wasn't in the city at the time, but I had family members in the city and plenty of people who were affected by it. It's been 6 years since 9/11, and there has been many movies that should have evoked MORE disturbing imagery than Cloverfield did. Films such as United 93 or World Trade Center.
Kevin on Jan 16, 2008
16
I've been looking forward to Cloverfield since I first saw the trailer early last year. After all the hype I figured the movie would be terrible. I'm so glad to here from a trusted reviewer that the movie indeed does not suck. Thanks for the great review!
BlogWTF on Jan 16, 2008
18
hmmm... 55% on rottentomatoes.com before the release? Maybe all the reviews aren't that good so far.
andrew on Jan 16, 2008
19
This review has definitely sparked my interest in the film, I just hope I don't blow chunks, my stomach doesn't agree with shaky cameras...
Slim on Jan 16, 2008
20
90% hype... 10% movie... i saw a sneek peak and it really was not very good.. the guy behind the camera was a asshat and by the end of it i just wanted to be done listening to him.. i was glad when he was killed.
david on Jan 16, 2008
21
you are correct this is a great movie if you like movies with big explosions, no story line, one dimensional characters, loud noises and gimmicky camera work.
mike on Jan 16, 2008
23
Right, now it just got a bit more hyped in my head... god I want to see this movie so bad!
Morghus on Jan 16, 2008
24
Movie Lover, I mention the 9/11 connection at the end of my review. I don't think it's a bad thing in the final analysis. Mike, you're missing the point of this movie completely. It's entertainment, pure and simple and as that it works (as opposed to say, AVP-R, which failed completely IMHO). Vic
ScreenRant.com on Jan 16, 2008
25
This has to be the weakest review I have ever read for a movie!!! Either Matt is trying to be clever by creating a lot of hype for this review by calling it a classic in the title, giving it 9 stars and then going on to say. Its not what you think it is. Its a good movie, not awesome!!! hahaha Or he simply sucks as a reviewer. I'll go with the latter
Farhan on Jan 16, 2008
26
Im so glad to hear that this movie lives up to the hype! I saw the preview ages ago and loved it. Can't wait to see it soon!
Sentp on Jan 16, 2008
27
@mike: Seriously please don't comment whether a movie is good or not before you've even seen it. Anyone who has seen the film knows that explosions and everything else you mentioned is secondary to the characters who are the real stars of the movie. And those expecting to see tons of explosions and stuff are going to be disappointed and lastly the camera work was not a gimmick there is no way this movie could have been made in the traditional way and still maintained its effect. Oh and about rotten tomatoes... only 12 reviews have been posted up and 3 of the 6 negative reviews have been from hacks who seemed to hate the movie due to its parallels with 9/11. Don't forget 300 only has a 60% on RT. All the movie sites that I follow and those prominent amongst the blogosphere have given it a positive review and that is more important than RT which consists of snobbish critics. Atleast wait till a decent number of reviews are up before judging from RT.
Kyle on Jan 16, 2008
28
How can Movie Lover say it only applies to nyc or washington, I'm from London, you think we have never had terrorists attacks, we have lived with terrorism for decades, just look around the world mate before you start thinking 9/11 was not the only terrorist attack in the world ever...
flubluflu on Jan 16, 2008
29
For all the complaining New Yorkers: Stop it! Cities all over the world have dealt with terrorist attacks just as horrific and have been subject to films that depict similar events on screen. To complain as if they are the only people to experience something like this is ludicrous. America, especially NY, needs to wake up and realize that 9/11 is not the first terrorist attack in recorded history. Just because it is the first to have an impact on you does not lessen the impact of the attacks that have occurred all over the world. And I'm American, so to whoever replies to me, I'm not some angry European.
MyNameisNobody on Jan 16, 2008
30
Jesus H Christ! Aint you people ever heard of Godzilla? You know why they made that movie? Cause we nuked them! It was a way for the nation of Japan to deal with the fact that thousands of their people died in a nuclear attack. If people from New York are disturbed by Cloverfield, its a testiment to the filmmakers. That said, Blair Witch meets Godzilla sounds super lame. If its half as lame as AvP:R, it stills sucks. Cinema verite has been done to death, and portable HD cams have made directors lazy. Thak god its only 90 mins.
H_Overman on Jan 16, 2008
31
GameraBlair-a-zilla: With unknown "ackters", no soundtrack, little cgg, not much advertising, shot on a consumer camera (or three or four...) with fan-boy blogs pushing it heavy (I can only guess what aint-I-cool had to say but I stopped reading him after he got busted for getting reach-a-rounds to push a movie (not to mention caps cuz the "...clothes don't fit me")/// Sounds like an old fashioned b-movie to me. Won't lose a dime on it. Sounds like a bunch of bloggers are having to rationalize their pre-reviews to keep their readers reading. With 90 years worth of good horror movies out there, if one thinks this is something new and different, they ain't seen enough flicks! Posers! (Poseurs)
spike Murdock, Poet-at-Large on Jan 16, 2008
32
Does the monster have a name or is it called Cloverfield or The Cloverfield Monster or something? Because I can see a sequel where it goes to battle with another beast and it defends us humans ;] Sound familiar? The original Godzilla was to the Japanese 50 years ago (not talking about Godzilla: King of the Monsters starring Raymond Burr, I'm talking about the movie that was based on, Gojira, which it used clips from) is basically what Cloverfield is to us. This could mean that Paramount might wanna make this movie corny and make silly sequels to it and later on a cartoon series by Hanna-Barbera (which is now just Warner Bros. animation). Cloverfield Raids Again anyone?
Kail on Jan 16, 2008
33
So am I right? Did I win the big arguement between IHateChildren and me on the coment board of " Cloverfeid monster attacks chui stain"!
XXX on Jan 16, 2008
34
God! Why? Why did you spoil the ending Post 20?
XXX on Jan 16, 2008
35
I never said no one else in the world has ever suffered horribly from terrorist attacks. What I am referring to are numerous movie viewers from New York who were there on Sept. 11th, who were disturbed by the eerie similarities. Caught themselves talking *again* and remembering *again* what happened to them on that day. Is that what JJ Abrams wanted to invoke with this film? I think the two scenes I have heard mentioned most was the collapse of a twin tower-like building in the same fashion and the dust cloud that chases people down the street. I have seen that particular part in a trailer or clip...where the people take refuge in a store and the dust cloud goes by. This is so disturbingly similar to experiences many people had in New York. I find it just sort of odd to think JJ Abrams chose these particular images to create a sense of dread or fear. That's all.
Movie Lover on Jan 16, 2008
36
Hey "spike": How about you actually go see the movie before making pronouncements and judgements about us "pre-review" bloggers, hmm? Vic
ScreenRant.com on Jan 16, 2008
37
S.Kings "War of the Worlds" + Godzilla (US version with Matt Boderick) + Blair Witch = Cloverfield nuff said. had high hopes but now reading all of these "reviews" i feel disappointed in the film. also with both monsters on screen time totaled about 7 minutes in a 90 minute movie...a freaking 90 minute movie....no studio is gonna have my $10.50
markAY on Jan 17, 2008
38
What's with all the troubling comparison to 9/11??? How about countless movies about Vietnam War, MiddleEast conflicts or any other massive scale tragic events? How do you think those who actually experienced the event would have felt? And some of those movies were honored, highly publicized for being such good films! This is a movie that has monsters in it. Sci-Fi monsters! Get real people.
Cantina on Jan 17, 2008
39
I don't like the movie,but I don't particularly hate it either-but I can honestly see how someone would like this movie. But going as far as to call it a classic? A CLASSIC? Mm,okay.
twispious on Jan 17, 2008
40
It has a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes with a 71%, amongst top reviewers it has 80% fresh rating. @marKay: Watch the fucking movie before making a comparison and you have you rscreentime and runtime wrong as well
Kyle on Jan 17, 2008
41
Have... laughable. Weak assumption on your part "Vic". Question, did you take the cap or the reach-a-round?
Spike Murdock, Poet-at-Large on Jan 17, 2008
42
Dude, whatever. If you'd visit my site and look up all my Cloverfield posts from the past 6 months (and there aren't that many) you'd see that I was not a slobbering fan desperate for clues from viral sites and whatnot. I just reported on updates with some speculation as things popped up. The funny thing is that from your comments I think that aside from this film, we're probably on the same page when it comes to our views on popular movies. Vic
ScreenRant.com on Jan 17, 2008
43
this review just reinforces the fact that i only come to this site for easily accessible flash trailers, and not the poor taste of it's so called reviewers. just because a movie tries to put a new spin on a old idea, doesn't mean it deserves glory or praise.
danny hahn on Jan 17, 2008
44
1 Day. Can't wait. Let's do this!
Sinner on Jan 17, 2008
45
We are all gonna have our opinions but well never know till we see it so dont bomb it he you havent seen it and ruin it for the other people who do want to see it!
Paul on Jan 17, 2008
46
Emotional during the watching and discussible after the ending - qualities of a good film. BUT DON"T BUY THAT BRAND OF CAMERA!! It attracts monsters like moths to a flame.
Camera Buff on Jan 17, 2008
47
I just saw the movie a few minutes ago and you're right its going to leave big question marks for all of the fans especially to those who were following the ARG. But if anyone was patient enough to wait till the very end after the end credits they'd hear a short walky-talky sounding voice that apparently says something important. If anyone caught that on audio and upload it that'd be awesome. Yes, stay till the VERY END
musicismygas on Jan 18, 2008
48
Just saw it. Really liked it... especially the ending - tho' one pivotal moment in the film was, for me, a little too far-fetched. Some movies just don't need everything tied up with a pretty pink bow... this movie's all about using your imagination. Post 46: LOL
Mattaboy on Jan 18, 2008
49
Just saw it. Possibly the most intense, entertaining, and exhilarating time I have ever had watching a movie in a theater. I wanted the ending to be a bit neater, but it will do. I stayed through the credits but did not see/hear any spoiler. I give it an 8.5/10
Keith on Jan 18, 2008
50
You didn't see the film. I could have written that review based on nothing but the preview. And I wouldn't have contradicted myself. You're full of it.
bs_detector on Jan 18, 2008
51
That was one of the most intense theatrical experiences I've ever had. I absolutely loved that movie. You naysayers just need to take some Drammamine and get over the fact that your stomach couldn't handle the handheld camera the whole time. For me it put me RIGHT there with the characters. I think the spoiler at the end wasn't really a spoiler at all, it just was a walkie talkie voice crackling through saying "help me". DID ANYONE ELSE SEE THE DHARMA LOGO BLIP AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FILM? Awesome.
Icarus on Jan 18, 2008
52
i think its funny that whenever someone says something good about the movie, everyone has a bitch fit, but when some idiot says its no good, no one says anything.. and the ones that say its no good are the ones that havent even seen it, they are just griping about 9/11 or the fact that its 90 min. or the camerawork.. but they havent even seen it. about 9/11... how come no one cried whenever the actual 9/11 movies came out, years ago, when it was a bit fresher in our minds? someone makes a monster movie, and you all get your panties in a wad? sounds like a bunch of hypocrite american bullshit.. Im an american in texas, and i am looked at by the rest of the world as a hypocrite, ignorant, arrogant piece of crap because of the rest of you. the movie is a movie. its a film. its entertaining. its not an attack, its not an insult, and no one forced those 9/11 victims to watch it. if they were really so disturbed, why did they go see it? they knew what it was about. and who pays 10.50 for a movie ticket? thats rape for any movie
big daddy on Jan 18, 2008
53
ive come across alot of people who refuse to watch the movie if they dont see the monster? give me a break. whatever hapened to creative film making??!??! people like that its why studios dont even bother doing anything creatvie anymore, it's so easy to please the masses now but slapping on a CGI'd monster for 90 min with zero story or character develpment and call it a day. that's pathetic. ill be pissed if this movie makes less mney than that god awful american godzilla movie, itllencourage the studios even more than now to not fund any projects that would be remotely different and intersting! thanks a**holes
@NgeL on Jan 18, 2008
54
It was a ok movie....... its like a monster version of the Blair Witch Project......... but if i was to compare them i would say that Cloverfield was the better one...... If i were to rate the movie i would give it a 5 out of 10. I really liked the uniqueness of the movie it was a brand new way to portray a monster flick. I just wish they whould have told you more about the monster. It could have been a much better movie. JR
josh r on Jan 18, 2008
55
1) I try not to read any reviews prior to watching a movie. I like to be open minded and make my own judgment. 2) Having seen the movie last night (prior to reading this review) I thought it did live up to the hype. You have to remember the hype never said it was gonna be some epic monster movie, at least I never got a sense it said that, it was just supposed to be a fresh take on the monster movie genre, and that it was. I loved every second of it. 3) I think a lot of times people forget what we're watching in front of us is just a MOVIE. It's entertainment. Unless it's blatantly taking jabs at the horrors of 9/11, stop with the whining already. Please separate fantasy from reality. Also, any tall skyscraper that collapses will look like the scene from 9/11. What did you expect J.J. Abrams and company to do? Make a building collapse with no loud rumble, dust or debris? Are we not allowed to blow up buildings in movies now because of 9/11? Give me a break.
PG on Jan 18, 2008
56
i hate trusting people reviews some of them talk about how great scenes are and what not but i really hope cloverfield is that good for the sake of jj abrams matt reeves and firstshowing.net
Darrin on Jan 18, 2008
57
Post 20: Who's the asshat now, dipshit? Thanks for giving away a detail of the movie. How old are you? 2? Have some manners or go back to sucking on your moms tit.
dyoder on Jan 18, 2008
58
Does anybody have a satisfying explanation of why the "real time" sequence of events happening in the viral marketing aren't AT ALL tied up with the time in the movie? I understand that the events that happened in the movie were from a past year. Could it be possible that all the ARG viral marketing stories lead up to the movie's SEQUEL? ideas, anyone?
musicismygas on Jan 18, 2008
59
This was the most overhyped piece of crap movie ever. The above mentions of Blair Witch meets Godzilla meets Aliens is right on. There is no explanation for anything in the movie, no plot, no story, no anything just a bunch of people running around. I am so dissapointed after going through fake websites and my spaces and trying to put clues together that I got my money back. In fact, JJ owes me more for losing 90 minutes out of my life. This movie had the potential to be the next best thing but instead I got a 90 minute home video that reminded me of the first season of Lost, but at least there I get a decent backstory. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME OR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. For those of you who think its gonna be a classic you are oviously under the age of 30 and have no idea what a classic movie is or will ever be.
Brian on Jan 18, 2008
60
Alex, I am from the HUGE Cloverfield board here "Cloverfield trailer finnaly hits". I am in complete agreance with you people might not see it all now be it IS a Classic and i was blown away by the film, Nothing like has or will ever be as unique or amazing. Clover-the monster as were calling it. Was the...ihave no words besides awe and amazing. No other monster would hold up to it. Saw it at the 1201 showing last night it was SOLD OUT in Kansas City. JJ at his best. -The Four Horsemen-
Ripper on Jan 18, 2008
61
Awesome .. I’ve been looking up reviews and info for this film, and it seems to be getting pretty solid ratings. And it’s really interesting that they’re promoting the film with the fallen Statue of Liberty..it definitely sets an undertone of the America being attacked..Maxim actually did a little bit on it. http://www.maxim.com/Entertainment/MoviesThatMangletheStatueofLiberty/slideshow/673.aspx?src=dx18:mtd
Hamburgler on Jan 18, 2008
62
Saw the movie this afternoon. The reaction in the theater was very mixed. Those with half a brain were transfixed....realizing this was a very cool ride and a quite unique way to shoot a "monster" movie. Then...there were the idiots. The ones saying "oh man...this movie blows" while picking out the underwear from their ass cracks. The ones that expected to see lots of cute professional camera angles...a happy ending and perhaps the president flying his own F18 to save the day. And such are the comments about the films. Quite amusing to say the least.
CobraKai on Jan 18, 2008
63
The movie was pretty good but FAR from a classic. The monster looked HORRIBLE, I am sorry but when you try and tell me that you're making a monster movie MAKE THE MONSTER FUCKING COOL. Not a lemur that looks like it's strung out on heroin, got it's face sanded, two blisters on the sides of it's head and a bad case of fleas. This monster is bad even among the WORST of the giant monster designs. The story however was good and the character interaction and plot development was decent. I enjoyed it alot but the monster let me down.
Possibleninja on Jan 18, 2008
64
Most of these posters haven't seen this movie. And the New Yorkers who are comparing this to 911, watched the events on TV. The comparisons between this movie and 9/11 doesn't do this movie justice. I was at ground zero, felt the heat from the explosion of the second plane hitting World Trade, ran as the first tower crumbled, and was engulfed in the debris, all that was about 2 minutes total (not including 10 minutes for the dust to settle before I could move). This movie is that times 40. This movie rocked!
Frankster on Jan 18, 2008
65
Hey guys, There are a lot of ?valid? complaints about the lack of character development and the lack of background information, but here is my take on the purpose of the movie. This is a movie that is aimed at giving the audience an accurate view of how humans deal with adverse situations. It's purpose is to show us what it would be like if we were there, this means; - Why the hell should we know the background to what is going on if our characters, the one's who are experiencing it, don't know? - Do we really need to know any more development of the characters to know how they would react if their city had the s*** kicked out of it??? The movie gives enough background story to know the motivations of the characters THEN and THERE!
Adrian on Jan 18, 2008
66
A "defining" moment in film history? Defining moments are "Wizard of Oz," "Star Wars," "Titanic," "Birth of a Nation," "Citizen Kane." Not "Cloverfield." Sure, I enjoyed the movie. No, it wasn't a unique and completely fresh way of making a movie, no more so than "Blair Witch Project," "Sex, Lies and Videotape," "War of the Worlds" (radio version) or that crappy 80's made for TV movie with the terrorist and the A-bomb. Anyhow, it was a fun good movie and I liked the hype and the follow through. It didn't disappoint. To understand what is really meant by "defining" moment, I think you need to watch more movies and broaden your horizons some more. A year from now "Cloverfield" will be just another cool monster movie.
Ike on Jan 18, 2008
67
POS!
woody on Jan 18, 2008
68
I loved this movie. So did my kids. So did my wife. So did my friends. 10/10 Please make a sequel. Oh and if I saw my best friend beind attacked by a huge monster, I think I'd have enough balls to try and get him out of the way, or kick at the creature before he lunged down far enough to eat him. Damn, don't you Americans know how to fight anymore? But that's coming from a native Mongolian who was raised to hunt for his own food. 🙂
Dragon on Jan 19, 2008
69
HORRIBLE MOVIE. I wanted to barf and couldn't stand the retarded movements. Bad acting, moronic characters. I had to fall asleep.
Mary on Jan 19, 2008
70
thought it was brilliantly done. not a classic, but a great addition to american films. not only was the content including in the movie itself great- but everything outside of the movie made it that much more intense. who found this video? how did they find it? who is watching it? what happened to the monster? and yes, i am one of the few that saw the DHARMA LOGO- the bottom right of the screen before the footage even began. i can't stop thinking about it!!
rex on Jan 19, 2008
71
This move sucked balls. Gross. a waste of money, gas, and time. I expected so much and got nothing out of it.
janesptomboart on Jan 19, 2008
72
This Movie was terrible. The Plot was a half baked pile of garbage and full of holes. i.e. Military lock down would never permit civilians to just go wander off to find their girlfriend. This movie was lame. Give me a camera, a few good friends that can act kinda decent and 2 weeks and i can give you a movie that is 10x better than this. And i'll let you see it for free! Save your hard earned money because this movie isn't even worth seeing for free if it was on tv. Terrible Plot+Lame Monster+One Dimensional Charters+Stupid un-needed shaky camera work+dumb totally predictable ending = a Nomination for the worst movie Ever.
RetroitReg on Jan 19, 2008
73
totally predictable ending? really? i figured a predictable ending being a happy one with everything being solved...geez i need to watch more movies i guess. go cry to yourself man nobody needs to read your lil whiney rant. good movie by the way.
jordan on Jan 19, 2008
74
Okay, everything I expected. Great movie and to be honest, I dont really care if any of you liked or disliked it. The viewing pleasure is all in your own perspective. But, if you didnt like it you can seriously just go back to your traditional shitty movies like that new one coming out with Jason Statham which, if you had the slightest inkling of an interest for, probably shouldn't be posting your opinion online anyways. To you who think it's a masterpiece or a corner stone, I commend you for believing such ideas due to the fact that it is. Is it on the same symbolic par as citizen cain? no, because he didn't go back to save a sled, but a girl. To those of you who think it's not, you can go back and watch rocky horror picture show, dress and drag and suck a dick. Any comments arguing this fact can be posted below, I like to read stupidity. btw, at the very end, I mean VERY VERY end after the credits, there is a short radio blip, I believe it's a man saying "now what..." btw, how dare you compare this genius to blair witch project. I think I'm going to watch it again tomorrow. Might be fun stoned. heh
Andrew on Jan 20, 2008
75
Oh, before one of you flips a shit. Correction: Cain = Kane I've been reading too much genesis, you'll have to pardon my error
Andrew on Jan 20, 2008
76
Yeah the ending was totally predictable. it was obviously not going to end happy. so they tried to do the anti hollywood thing....but that made it predictable. Jordan this movie blows. you're just some 15 year old simpleton who's probably amused by a ball of yarn or keys shook above your head. I'm sure jackass is probably your favorite movie and you probably love the mtv cast of this and will love the same style cast in the upcoming JLA movie. this is a post i read somewhere and it pretty much sums up the whole movie: Not only is it a huge disappointment in terms of living up to the hype the filmmakers gave it, it goes against its concept, has weak characters and a very basic survival/rescue mission plot line. Then the monster. All this time everyone kept saying it’s not Godzilla. It’s totally different. I won’t give away too many details about it, but if you’ve seen Godzilla, you’ve basically seen his monster. But they add the little monsters. Why? It makes it more bad ass. No, it doesn’t. They pop up as a convenient mechanism to raise tension and horror. It fails for two reasons. The little monsters are easy to fight off and two we don’t give a crap about the characters anyways. Let’s do a role call. We got the brother who seems to always be arguing with his beautiful girlfriend, yet beautiful girlfriend doesn’t fail to drop hints that she wants to marry him. We got the “hero” who slept with the love of his life and never called her. How deep is your love buddy? Oh, right he is moving to Japan. Still, not even a phone call. Then the dream girl thinks it would be in everyone’s best interest to bring her latest boy toy to his going away party. Then of course the camera man. A simple guy. Always says the right funny things to break the tension. The camera guys love interest. Another beautiful girl that ignores him but through their experience she ends up flirting with him. All the cliché characters? Present and accounted for. Needless to say, the heartbreak kid gets a panic phone call from his dream girl. She is trapped. Oh no. (Just moments before this phone call, no one else’s phone worked. They kept saying something about no signal.) Hero says he will go to her, alone. But his friends won’t have any of that. So they head back into the lion’s den. Chase here, duck and cover, shake the camera, say something funny, repeat. Honest Abe So pretty much the only people who like this are gonna be kids under 20 or jj abrams mega fans who will continue to hang on his nutsack no matter how much terrible stuff he puts out. When the film ends you're thinking...wow so that was like every other monster movie...but shot shakily. Why should my mind be blown? hmmm......
RetroitReg on Jan 20, 2008
77
Cloverfield Ending Credits At the credits ending of Cloverfield, *Spoilers* the audio from the video cam says, "Help us!". But when played backwards, it says, "It's still alive!" This happens after the end credits of Cloverfield. Assuming the speaker was Rob, he suggests Cloverfield (the monster) is still alive. This also suggests a sequel for Cloverfield 2! *Spoilers* The Japanese oil company TAGRUATO drops a satellite (Chimpanz III) into the ocean as part of viral marketing (shown at the end of the movie when Rob and Beth were on the ferris wheel). TAGRUATO works with SLUSHO (a slush company), as the main ingredient for SLUSHO is found at the satellite dropzone (deep ocean). While searching for satellite and ingredients, they woke Cloverfield (the monster). The main ingredient of Slusho apparently turns a tiny fish into a HUGE whale, which explains the size of Cloverfield. Rob apparently was going to be the Vice President of TAGRUATO in Japan. Source from: http://www.cloverfieldendingcredits.com
Smith Alan on Jan 20, 2008
78
LOL funny thing is that i saw this movie on 1.18.08 in battery park theater which is like 10 blocks away from the Brooklyn bridge. i suddenly had a fear of tall buildings and lights O.O after i came out.
wheresmy on Jan 20, 2008
79
There's one thing I don't get. Why would someone with seemingly hardly any experience in running a company be stated such a high position. I mean, of course there are such things as VPHR (Human relations) but, still. Can anyone add some clarity?
Andrew on Jan 20, 2008
80
This movie is a great way to crap your pants. This is the firs movie that actually made me throw up, not because of gore but motion sickness. the camera was moving around the whole time and it made me dizzy. All in all it was a great movie and i will probably see it again.
Adam Ross on Jan 20, 2008
81
Here's another hidden gem, take a good look towards the end of the movie where the video carmera switches back to the coney island scene on the ferris wheel, when the camera's pointed out at the ocean, take a good look out toward the horizon by the cruise ship, judging from the giant splash down, the monster clearly comes from outer space.
benntm on Jan 21, 2008
82
that was actually the tagruato satellite from the viral marketing.
Andrew on Jan 21, 2008
83
Filled to the brim with rich, creamy hype? Damn skippy! Filled to the brim with one-dimensional characters that I could care less about? You bet! My father flies tourists around in helicopters... and the most vomit-inducing maneuvers he could create pale in comparison to the nauseating effects of the "Abrams Shaky-Cam", which was probably stolen from a pre- Spider Man Sam Raimi... It's not different. No matter how you slice it, you cannot tell me it is. There is nothing new under the sun. Shakespeare got it 400 years ago... why can't you people get it now?? Save your money. Make dinner for your significant other. Rent a movie you know and love. Eat, watch, kiss... go to bed. Those are the stupendous moments you really should worry about.
vinman on Jan 21, 2008
84
Oh... I forgot to add something. "Classic" films... most of us see them as films which withstand the test of time. Beautiful photography, excellent stories, superior direction, wonderful visual effects. Casablanca, Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now... ad infinitum. Cloverfield? Well, perhaps in some bizarre alternate universe where left is white, and right is up. Let me clarify... To say that this film is a classic, is to beg for someone to remove your reproductive organs with a rusty soup spoon, so that you cannot befoul the gene pool. Say what you will... but I'm going to go leave some silverware out in the rain... Why, you may ask? Because I'm going to bet cashy money that 50 muldoons of questionable parentage are going to rip me a new one for simply offering my opinion.
vinman on Jan 21, 2008
85
Rip you a new one? Nah... in fact, I will give you 20 cool points for making me spray coffee out of my nose after reading your entries. The one thing that frightens me about all this(and it certainly was not this mindless mess of a film), is what JJ Abrams is going to do to the Star Trek franchise. I just saw the new trailer for it on Yahoo, and while it is visually stunning, I find myself having grave doubts. Oh well... they revived the Batman franchise by going back to the beginning, so it might work here. But then again... this is the industry that still allows Uwe Boll to make movies.
patient zero on Jan 22, 2008
86
this film did what it set out to do. it was a movie about what it would look like if a monster destroys a city you're in. if you dont like it, bugger off. I dont like bridget jones movies, so i dont see them. that doesnt mean that the writers and directors are worthless, it just means its not my cup of tea. If you dont like Cloverfield for what it is, then get over it. It will have its fans, and i think it is refreshing to see something that doesnt spoon feed you the plot. Im glad that the film didnt insult my intelligence by giving me every clue, and then solving it for me before the creidits roll
Big Daddy on Jan 22, 2008
87
the movie was so good but the ending really sucked i wanted to know what happend did rob die or is he still alive? it was kinda hard to watch it because the carma was moving a lot and it was really hard to follow what was going on, but other then that it was amazing, awesome, good, cool i'll most likely go see it again and again i like the part when the girl got bitten and she wasn't feeling good and her eyes were bleeding out and then the yell we got a bite and she just explose up that part was so cool.
Amanda on Jan 22, 2008
88
If this was intended to be a documentary about what it would be like if a monster attacked New York through someones eyes, then it should have been on the Discovery Channel or National Geographic for free and not $20 to watch in a theater. This is not worth paying to see and once again is just a hype to rake in money from investors. GodZilla through a handy cam is what it should be called with a touch of days of our life or friends thrown in. Im glad I watched it for free first even though it was a bad cam copy because now I would not waste my money or time going to see such rubbish. People should be able to preview film's before they pay for them.
Jeff on Jan 22, 2008
89
For those that can handle & appreciate the shaky "real life" cam, it was very well made. Almost perfect CGI. Did it live up to the hype? No. How could it. Hype is exactly that; hype. It was refreshing to see a new & imaginitive giant monster film. Maybe 3.5 out of 5. Very good movie.
Sinner on Jan 22, 2008
90
Jeff, 20 dollars? please. It seems that to you, the price of a movie ticket is directly proportional to how little you like it. If you ever paid 20 dollars to see anything, yur an idiot. that aside, the movie is exactly that, a "handy cam" perspective of "godzilla." at least thats the way you would explain it to a 1st grader. Now, please tell me which movie in the history of movies, and what TV show in the history of TV shows wasnt a ploy to make money? are you telling me that because the movie makes money, that it was somehow any different, or any worse? If you dont like the movie, then say "i didnt like the movie" dont make BS excuses and justifications for why you cant afford to go to the movies.
Big Daddy on Jan 23, 2008
91
Just to let everyone know, this movie is NOT 90 minutes it is precisely 1 hour and 14 minutes long...very disappointing movie. I have been bragging about this movie to all my friends and family and now after watching it I probably will never fall for a trap like this again. All the hype it had for months,the idea was great,it was different. However,they failed on the project.
YAYA on Jan 23, 2008
92
This is perhaps the worst movie I've ever seen. At no point do you find out where the monster comes from. You don't even know what happens to the monster at the end of the movie, because he's still wandering around destroying buildings and eating people. There is no emotional attachment to the characters, so I didn't mind or even care when they died. And the shaky camera thing was just horrible -- not only does it make it harder to follow what is going on, it made my wife horribly motion sick and didn't contribute anything meaningful to the film. In summary: you won't care about the characters, there is no point to the movie, and there is no closure at all. All the characters are dead, and the monster is still getting shot at as the movie closes. I'd rather go to the dentist than watch this again.
mycal on Jan 23, 2008
93
For those that can handle & appreciate the shaky "real life" cam, it was very well made. Almost perfect CGI. Did it live up to the hype? No. How could it. Hype is exactly that; hype. It was refreshing to see a new & imaginitive giant monster film. Maybe 3.5 out of 5. Very good movie. I did see the monster fall in the ocean behind the ferris wheel scene @ the end. I can only think that it must be from space. Brings up some interesting ?'s. Did it have a ship or was that the monsters body that splashed down? I'd like to think it was the creatures ship. Were those smaller creatures parasites similar in the Alien films? Before I saw Cloverfield, I thought that chick behind the tarp was violently vomiting blood. The soldier on the gurney with the blown out stomach kinda changed my mind about that. Was that poor soldier bitten as well? I might be asking ?'s that have no answers yet, however movies that make you think about them 5 days after you've seen them are usually good ones in my opinion.
Sinner on Jan 23, 2008
94
http://imdb.com/title/tt1060277/f Joe S. advised to check out this site to answer my above ?'s. Very helpful & interesting. Thanks again Joe.
Sinner on Jan 24, 2008
96
this movie sucked! bad acting and no real story or anything to show who made the creature or its origin. nevertheless the camera shots felt as if it was taken shot by a 5yr old. this is definitly nnoootttt a classic nor should it ever be considered one.
decepticons4ever on Jan 25, 2008
97
This movie straight rocked. Did it make you dizzy Megatron? You'd also probably film like a 5 yr. old if a 30 story monster was going for a stroll through your hood. Sounds like you made the mistake of falling for the hype. Hype is just hype man. Can't wait for a seguel which would probably be even better. Most ?'s are answered in the hyperlink shown above. However it would be interesting to see how they adapt the rest of the story in a sequel.
Sinner on Jan 25, 2008
98
Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla....and they both SUCKED!!!
byzinski on Jan 26, 2008
99
I think everyone will agree that one man's point of view of a masterpiece is another man's view of crap. The BLAIR WITCH PROJECT had the same criticism which was lead by one thing- the filming technique. From my point of view, there are more people who LOVED this concept to those who didn't, and those who didn't all said it was the CAMCORDER effect that they had a problem with that made them hate the film (just wait until DIARY OF THE DEAD comes out). The 'human point-of-view' concept to a huge monster attack is brilliant, and the plot of this guy who has to get to the woman he loves isn't a bad touch, but what I loved about the film was that it didn't end with the traditional 'the good guys win and the happy couple kiss in the sunset' kind of crap. I'm left with these questions- Where did the creature really come from? Was it destroyed? Was there more than one? Will there be a sequel? I loved it. As far as a classic? If it was 100% original, then yes. But for now I will say it was excellent, a must-see film.
Markus K. on Jan 27, 2008
100
Great film. A classic though? Nah...too shallow. Good, but not that good. I just got through watching it and I'm still a little jittery. I wasn't expecting (or wanting) to have a cookie-cutter storyline, so the unanswered questions add to the appeal for me. The mystery added to the creepiness of the monster so I'm glad the film didn't spoon-feed details to me. The big monster by far stole the show. Every time it was on screen I was actually straining to try to catch a better glimpse. I kept thinking "What the heck is that thing?" The human characters and the little buggers...eh. I lost interest in the human characters about 5 min into the party scene. They could have done a lot more with character development using the periodic cut-ins of the camcorder tape. The only character with an actual personality was "Hud", and not in a good way. There were several times when I wanted to duct-tape his mouth shut. The little monsters were way too close to Starship Troopers to be interesting. Overall a great sci-fi/thriller flick, but not for everyone for sure.
flippy on Jan 27, 2008
101
Ok i saw the movie today. -camerawork got me a little dizzy, it was creative but should have been a little smoother -no good shot of the monsters, you only see the full monster for fractions of seconds and its always moving, i just got the sense of it being a mix between a spider, monkey, and crocodile on drugs -ending was horrible, i wanted to know more it just stopped... -possibly a sequel - pay attention to the backgrounds when you see the taped over portions that show through pay atention to the background - everybody dies wtf?!?!?!?... now that i got that out of the way i liked the story, it was kindof dizzy but it was good, all the 9/11 paralleling, it is a movie... you people would watch stuff like saw where people get mangled for fun... it never had any direct parallels to 9/11, the smoke coming through would happen whenever a big building would fall and all the fire, the statue of liberty head was kinda in mal taste but thats what would happen if it was real so get over it... i give it a 8/10 not 9/10 or 10/10 because the ending was so abrupt. i would definatly reccomend it
nick on Jan 27, 2008
102
I couln't agree more. Great movie, but i didn't get dizzy. I think grown ups do that more than teenagers. I'm 15 and didn't get dizzy or sick once. I was glad too, i didnt want to miss nething, because there was something going on the whole movie. 8.5/10 Definently recommended
Ray on Jan 28, 2008
103
I sort of thought it looked liike it had a bat resemblence
Ray on Jan 28, 2008
104
Classic? Puh - leeze! You are seriously going to do an article on the Hud charcter? Are you serious? He is the most one dimensional cardboard cut-out of a charcacter in the history of cinema. And he is not alone, each character is one dimensional. This one is the obnoxious "never gets it guy". That one is "Miss perfect" waiting for her emotionally distant paramour to step up to the plate. Over there we have hyper sarcastic girl. And finally, rounding things out the redundant "I know what I want but I can't do it" main character. Add to tha tthe ehadache inducing style that film was shot and yeah, it's a classic all right. A classic waste of time.
Dan on Jan 28, 2008
105
guess what dan, yur a classic poop face! hows that for cliches?
BIg Daddy on Jan 28, 2008
106
The movie is a classic. But my question is this: The government normally classifies things with the term "Designate" when their are multiple items... So what where the A and B items? Think Alpha, Beta, Charlie, Delta... And did anyone see the meteor or "alien" crash in the ocean at the end of the movie? Watch the movie again and you will see it hit the water behind the cruise ship one month before it attacks...
1-18-08pedia.com on Jan 28, 2008
107
Big Daddy You make a very convincing well though out argument.
Dan on Jan 28, 2008
108
Saw it...was really excited...I was disappointed and felt sick for the rest of the day afterwards. I thought this movie was soooooo overrated. My daughter threw up and was shaking (not from fear, from sickness!). Not a pleasant experience.
Georgia on Jan 28, 2008
109
Thank you, Dan. You are very good at debating as well.. I look forward to another point-counterpoint with you in the future... It's sad that we, as americans, can overcome great adversity in the face of terrorism and war, but we cant stop vomitting and having seizures over some shaky cam effects. I guess we have found our one true weakness. In all seriousness, the shaky cam wasnt that bad, you really need to toughen up.
Big Daddy on Jan 29, 2008
110
I "experienced" Cloverfield 4 days ago and can't stop thinking about it. I'm a huge film fan and it's been quite sometime since I've been actually terrified from a movie experience. Maybe it's the film version of the first Ramones gig in the seventies.Some viewed "them" as either the dawning of the next age or complete moronic noise.The fact that there is this much debate makes me boldly profess the "classic' banner upon this incredible monster movie. Hmmmm...."There Will Be Blood", "No Country for Old Men", "Cloverfield"?? Three classic films within two months?? Is Hollywood "punking" out.Hahah. I fucking hope so!!!
Chris Haines on Jan 29, 2008
111
I don't know how it is among circles of people who are outside my age demo (twentysomethings), but everyone I know and their mother saw "Cloverfield," and I've only met one person who didn't hate it. The word that kept coming to my mind while watching this film was "unremarkable." My prediction is the exact opposite of Alex's: "Cloverfield" is the most heavily hyped movie ever made that will not be remembered 18 months after its initial release.
Andrew on Feb 3, 2008
112
C'mon people... it's an entertaining movie... enjoy it, don't suffer it. Just because someone like it doesn't mean you are going to like it... just because someone didn't like it means that you won't like it. Now, what's the deal whit all of you?? Didn't like the camera?? would be better to have a static camera showing the hole monster since the start?? little CGI??? Aren't all people around the world blamming because every action-horror-scifi movie has too much CGI??? Just 7 minutes of monster in a 85 minutes movie?? would any of you rather a movie based on showing "how cool looks the monster"??? People (me included, don't start with that "are you separated from mankind?" sh*t) doesn't know what they (we) want, and filmmakers are no gods, they can't do perfect things... you can?? You are going to say "they are paid for, it's their job"... if they do amazing things or at least different things as Cloverfield is, and we are still saying it's all shit... why should they make and effort?? just give us another AVP movie, we are going to say it is trash anyway... movies are art, yes, but entertainment too... enjoy. Cloverfield may not be the super perfect movie, may not be the all Oscars winner, but it's a good entertaining movie... it is not based on CGI overexploited scenes... it's not based in showing the monster clearly in every chance and create chances to show it... it's ment to entertaint you. And obviusly, not everyone is going to like it, what thing, not just talking about movies, likes to everyone?? Respect others' opinions, you don't like it, fine, you like it, fine... have not seen it yet? It's your decition, don't listen to others to make it. I listened many opinions, pro and against, I saw it and enjoyed it. It's not marvelous, it's not a pice of crap, it's just a different kind of movie, talkin on what do Hollywood does today.
Joker on Feb 3, 2008
113
Re: Multi-monster hoopla... Carpenter's re-do: "The Thing" Re: Another monster kicking this monster's ass... That would be Hannah Montana fanboys... And she's doing quite well at it, thank you very much!
Spike-the-Poet on Feb 5, 2008
114
Good god...I fancied reading through these comments having seen the film last night. I am over 30 and was raised in an era when people had to use their imagination to view films. This film. although difficult to watch at times, was an incredible ride. The presentation was very effective and traumatizing. Problem is that in this day and age, young people expect so damn much and are extremely desensitized. Why can't people just enjoy a film without analyzing the hell out of it?
Jue T on Feb 6, 2008
115
77 (Smith Alan)....Damn...I knew I should have stayed until the VERY end. Coming from JJ, I should have known that there would be clues and fun bits to discover. I love that! Thanks!
Marie A on Feb 6, 2008
116
Is teddy hanssen the whistle blower?
j2rev on Feb 11, 2008
117
Hi. I know it's kind of late in the game, but I wanted to let you know that I cited your article in my own review of the movie. Thanks!
Laura on May 11, 2008
118
Five months later... still think it's a classic?
Ike on May 12, 2008
119
Great post on Cloverfield! I too believe it is a seminal classic. I'd like to offer two observations. First, one of the things I find fascinating about the zeitgeist surrounding this film is that it is partially based on the idea that the monster wasn't shown that much and was kept in the shadows. Actually, I believe they may have shown the monster too much, unlike the Blair Witch, which showed the title charcter not at all. In fact, the only time we should have seen the monster was near the end during the carpet-bombing scene. Please play this thought experiment out in your mind: Imagine if the only time you saw the monster in whole was when it was screaming and shaking its disturbing-looking head at the bombs falling on it. That would have created more of an impact in my opinion. That scene that you liked so much -- the one where the soldiers are rushing after the monster -- would have been improved had we not seen the monster roaring over them as Hud et al. ran for the underground station. And I am coming to think that we should not have seen the strange beast as Hud was looking up at it before it killed him. To be honest, the CGI at that point actually was awful, and the beast didn't look right -- i.e., it was no longer scary for some reason. Second, I think the scene where Hawkins et al. went after injured-Beth in the leaning building offered a great opportunity to have been really realistic, and perhaps an opportunity to streamline this project to an uber-efficient piece of cinematic verite. Remember how Hud was debating whether to put the camera down (or Hawkins asked him to do this, I can't remember)? I prayed for him to put the camera down, and then for the scene to cut to them taking Beth out. They could have related what happened by voice, and this would have made for a perfect deleted scene in the DVD-extras section (I say it would have been perfect for the extras because I like the marketing aspect of it; I obviously realize that I am contradicting myself to some degree by even saying that Beth's rescue should exist in any form). It even would have been cool had one of the members lost their lives during this theoretical unseen scene, and perhaps if they told of meeting "someone" in the building who may have offered mysterious, cryptic clues to the monster's origin. Anyway, I loved Cloverfield; thanks for your article...
Steve on May 17, 2008
120
Once this movie got going, it had some action. However, the characters were all NYC urbanites and there was no character development. I couldn't care for anyone. Young, self-absorbed oversexed urbanites. I was cheering for the monster. Was anybody else thinking how shallow the characters were? Kinda a waste on DVD. I had to fast forward x2 and x4 to keep it moving.
Tom on Jun 28, 2008
121
For every one saying they could make a better movie, I am sure that you think you could put a camera on a tripod and use some classic cinematography to make a technically perfect film. And you are probably right. But you wouldn't make a better movie. I hope you realise that this film is deliberately ignoring hundreds of basic cinematic rules. The Definition of "classic": clas·sic (klsk) adj. 1. a. Belonging to the highest rank or class. b. Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture. c. Having lasting significance or worth; enduring. Many people today feel that fantasy is far better the reality, people prefer to play games where there power is unlimited than be a normal person, people prefer to hear stories of magical and mystical things rather than every day life. The film industry has picked up on this; they have made literally thousands of completely un-realistic films that show life the way people wish it was. I for one love this. I very much enjoy losing myself in a story that can't possibly be true but some how seems so real. Matt Reeves, however, has deliberately made an experimental film that differentiates greatly to the common blockbuster, granted it still retains aspects of fantasy for example the science fiction plot. He has made a film not to satisfy peoples need to just watch a fantasy story but to literally make you part of the story and to show how 'real' people see, feel and react to a terrifying experience, and what better way to portray this than solely from these peoples perspective. Now filming the movie in the eyes of the character/s does not seem "real" enough, seeing as the whole point of this movie is to be as completely "real" as possible, so the team making 'Cloverfield' decided to use a camcorder. This is genius, it works on so many different levels, for example: many people do have cameras in our modern day and you only get to see exactly what the character is seeing (rather than "magically" jumping all over the planet in the blink of an eye). The abrupt ending makes complete sense in reality, the whole angle of the film is that the camcorder is found and played by the military to try and figure out what the creatures are. If the film continued from a different perspective after the characters that filmed everything were dead the movie would make no sense. In a way you are not supposed to feel like you are watching a movie, you are supposed to feel as if you are in fact watching recovered footage from the fields of clover formerly know as central park (clovers are commonly found growing in areas that have been bombed). Matt Reeves has created one of the first truly experimental blockbusters for years. He has created a new genre in his own right. So, looking back to the definition of classic, 'Cloverfield' will I'm sure serve as an established model or standard to many film makers, it is also one of the best in it's class and with out a doubt 'Clovefield' will have ever lasting significance to the both the history and future of film making.
John on Aug 23, 2008
122
Sounds like an old fashioned b-movie to me. Won't lose a dime on it. Sounds like a bunch of bloggers are having to rationalize their pre-reviews to keep their readers reading.
Bob punching bag on Apr 20, 2010
123
Over the past two weeks, our focus has been on performance enhancements and fixing bugs, some of which you alerted us to.
Glass bottle cutter on Apr 29, 2010
124
I very much enjoy losing myself in a story that can't possibly be true but some how seems so real. Matt Reeves, however, has deliberately made an experimental film that differentiates greatly to the common blockbuster, granted it still retains aspects of fantasy for example the science fiction plot.
Crown molding ideas on May 8, 2010
125
I have a look at your article and learn from some useful information. This is my first time to be here and i really like to post a recommend here, thank you for this useful information.
Sweet sixteen favors on May 11, 2010
126
Post #20: Who's the asshat now, dipshit? Thanks for giving away a detail of the movie. How old are you? 2? Have some manners or go back to sucking on your moms tit. I enjoyed reading about this.
Sugar gliders for sale on May 19, 2010
127
Nothing was overdone in the movie which is due to the unique viewpoint. Thank you for this information.
Outdoor throw pillows on May 28, 2010
128
"...I guarantee years from now will be remembered as the quintessential monster movie from this decade." Yea... two years later and this movie is nothing short of forgotten?
Evilive on Jun 29, 2010
129
And if I wasn't clear, let me be: This movie was bad. Very , very bad. Enough to be put on a timeout for 30 minutes. It was touted as a suspense filled monster movie, but delivered cheesy graphics and patched together storylines. Just, a big disappointment...
Evilive on Jun 30, 2010
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.
FEATURED POSTS
FOLLOW FS HERE
Follow Alex's new account on Bluesky:
Get the latest posts sent via Telegram 
Add our posts to your Feedly: click here
LATEST TO WATCH