Cloverfield ***SPOILERS!!!***

MacLeod

***SPOLERS***






Went and saw this tonight and it was pretty much what Id expected. Not bad but thats about it. When the first trailer came out I was so stoked and that was the coolest monster roar ever! I couldnt wait. Then I heard it was all handheld footage so I figured it just went from a 10 to a 8. Then all the shaky camera crap I heard about and we're down to a 7. Well I came out of it giving it a 6.

First off this ISNT a monster movie. Its a flick about a bunch of rather irritating characters and their drama and you follow them as they bond together to help each other survive an ordeal and grow as people......oh and in the background you occasionally see a glimpse of a gigantic monster destroying Manhattan. :rolleyes:

The shaky camera thing wasnt as bad as I thought it was going to be. It mainly did it during parts where nothing was happening so I could look away for those.

The beginning of the movie was painfully long and rather boring and seemed more like an episode of friends.

I missed the part where the brother dies. The bridge collapses, they all run then Hud says, "Im sorry about your brother." Maybe there wasnt anything to see.

The Marlena chick exploding was kinda cool and unexpected. When she gets bit by one of those baby monsters, I kinda figured she was history. The baby monsters were kinda weird tho. Like WTF were they. I know they were falling off the monster but it still didnt make a whole lot of sense. But then again neither did pulling Beth off of the 3' metal pole that had impaled her and 5 minutes later she's up and running around.

My biggest **** is very little monster footage in the biggest monster movie in a decade. Kind of ironic. You never really can tell what it looks like. Best I can make out is its a giant bat that pulls itself along with its huge front legs/arms but has no back legs. I also hate that they changed its roar. That wasnt the same one from the original trailer. Actually most of the sound effects sounded like Half Life 2.

The part with Hud getting killed was the high point of the movie. By then youre good and tired of him and you get to see a good close up of the monsters face at least. Hearing all the chewing and crackling was cool as well but the weird thing is when Hud gets thrown back to the ground he doesnt have a drop of blood on him. I thought if the camera had just dropped to the ground and you never saw Hud again, that wouldve been better.

The ending I thought was kinda cool tho. Rob and Beth hudled in Central Park right as the bomb explodes then the tape cuts to them at Cony Island. Normally I dont care for endings where everybody dies but it didnt bother me on this one.

Basically I think that if this had had real movie footage, if couldve been a great flick. I think how well it stacks up will have to wait to be seen when the sequels come out. The next one is rumored to be the same style but from the miliatrys perspective. That sounds like it has some promise.

Anyways, Im glad I saw it. I wasnt let down but that because Id already read all the negative reviews. Ill stick with my 6 out of 10 and say that its worth seeing, just make sure you sit far in the back and dont expect anything spectacular.

nodeuces

I got my money back after seeing this. JJ Abrams sucks. He needs to write a good story and stop using tricks and cliff hangers to make people watch his crappy work.

bobman1235

I'm sorry but if you think Cloverfield is just a "monster movie" you're missing the point. Not an insult, it's just a movie and you can love it or hate it, but I totally agree if you wanted a Godzilla-like monster movie you're going to be disappointed, cuz that's not what it was.

Considering the money it's made and the decent reviews it's gotten from both critics and 'regular' people I think JJ Abrams is doing just fine for himself, some of you just need to avoid him so you don't get so angry when you see his stuff. Just like when I see the name "Jerry Bruckheimer" attached to a movie I go in expecting the same silly plot and jokes and camera shots with no substance, if you see JJ Abrams attached to a movie you should expect to get no clear answers and probably get something different than what you anticipated.

dorokusai

He's mad because the monster turned out not to be Barney the Purple Dinosaur

nodeuces

J.J. Abrams uses tricks. Like Lost...he uses the run time of the show for ridiculous cliffhangers while telling a story out of order. Some want to compare this to movies like Pulp Fiction or Snatch, but the trick to those movies is - they are interesting stories even when told chronologically. Lost is not. Same with this movie...take the cam away and this story is not interesting.

Furthermore I have serious issues with the character's stupidity...they act unrealistic like in any generic horror movie, but the cam is supposed to give a realistic, immersive feel. This fails when you so easily and so often disconnect with the characters.

bobman1235

Not every movie is about the story. In fact, most aren't. A lot of times they're purely about characters (see something like Glengarry Glenn Ross as aperfect example of a movie with very little story that's still fantastic because of the characters). I feel like Cloverfield was more a movie about experience. It doesn't matter what specifically was happening; the monster was completely secondary to making you feel like you were in a horrible and scary experience. I felt that watching the movie, mostly because of the way it was shot. Which is why I can't undersatnd how some of you say this movie would be better if it was shot with traditional cameras, where I think it would have been horrible since the camera is really what drives home the realism of the experience (though I do agree those involved made some unrealistic choices, but those of you who are married or in love, tell me you wouldn't do something equally stupid if there was a chance that you could save your wife, kids, etc).

Ditto for Lost, which isn't really about "the story", but about the curiosity and suspense of it all. That's why there are hundreds of message boards out there with people talking about Lost. It makes you think and it's an experience that lives past the 42 minutes of runtime of the show, whereas a typical formulaic show is over and it's over and that's all.

nodeuces

Slow down and using lost as an example...it's not over. So far it sucks. Perhaps you will be right in time...but it looks like this show over stayed it's welcome and JJ had to stretch his story out a bit.

bobman1235

nodeuces wrote: »

Slow down and using lost as an example...it's not over. So far it sucks. Perhaps you will be right in time...but it looks like this show over stayed it's welcome and JJ had to stretch his story out a bit.

(edited) I like Lost. Lots of people like Lost. I don't think it sucks at all (with a few episodes of notable exception). It's one of my favorite shows on television. Many people I talk to agree. We also all tended to love Cloverfield, which I'm sure isn't an accident.

If you know you hate Lost, why waste your time watching it or even mentioning it? And why spend 10 bucks to go see a movie made by a guy whose style you hate?

I don't like Grey's Anatomy, so I don't watch it, and certainly don't comment on it. And if they made a movie that used a similar style I'd probably avoid that too, or at least wouldn't be surprised when I thought it sucked. I wouldn't feel cheated because I'm the idiot who ponied up the cash when I should have known I'd hate it.

MacLeod

I agree with ya Bob about this not being a monster movie but my problem is that it was marketed as a monster movie. If its going to be a drama about a bunch of kids struggles in life, why have the trailers showing the Statue of Liberty's head being thrown down a street with a horrific roar in the background or have posters stating "Something Has Found Us"

Thats like marketing The Terminator as a timeless love story or The English Patient as an action packed war movie. Technically those elements were in those movies but they were in the background. When I see "Something Has Found Us" I figure that the movie would spend a little more than 2 minutes dedicated to that "something".

Im not alone either because in 25 years of movie going Ive never heard an audience boo a film, but at the end of this one half the audience was booing and there were several calls of "what ****!"

Like I said, I dont think it sucked. It was ok and worth seeing so long as you know what youre going to see - and I am looking forward to the sequel. Although I do hope he deals more with the monster this time than some human drama.

But since it only cost $30 million to make and its already made nearly $50 million in only 2 weeks - Im sure JJ Abrams is sleeping pretty well with his decision.

bobman1235

Mm, well, unfortunately the people who make the movie are rarely involved in the mainstream marketing. Studios will tell people anything to get them through the door

Jstas

Wow, usually I can dig deep into a movie and find something of value but I honestly think that you guys are over-analyzing it. The character development was good and set up the underlying "love story" but overall, it was Godzilla, plain and simple. I think The Blair Witch Project had much more impact in the same style because it was somewhat believable. However, giant monsters eating a city is far fetched at best and just makes the whole movie a joke from the start.

Beyond all that, I enjoyed the movie. It was a fun movie to watch, the girls were gorgeous and nice eye candy for your average guy and it had enough parts that most girls would find scary enough to grab on to a date for dear life and want to be close to said date over fear instigated by the movie the rest of the night. That can be a very pleasant thing! But the whole time I watched it, I was longing for the broken English subtitles and hokey "bad Kung Fu" lip syncing of the "Godzirra" movies. Bottom line, that's what it was, Godzilla. The sub plots were a little more interesting because they were based on American culture and societal ideals and not Japan's which are totally foreign and unreasonable to most Americans.

Was it Oscar worthy? No, not really. Maybe for some technical or cinematography stuff but that's it. Will it make bank? Yeah, already did. Gonna make more when it hits the DVD shelf. I know I enjoyed it for it's pure, unadulterated entertainment value but most of that was held in the suspense of what the hell was gonna happen next and will we see the monster? Watch it a second time? Not likely. The "good" part of the movie is gone for me. Already experienced it. Watching it a second time would be like sitting at home on a rainy summer afternoon bored out of your skull and watching bad Kung Fu on one of the local TV stations. Gives me a headache just thinking about it.