cloverfield.
- Started
- Last post
- 89 Responses
- Jaline0
Here's another review from IMDB:
"Simply put, the film is an amazingly visceral experience. It's studio logo, production logo, film. No credits whatsoever, which just adds to the overall immediacy of it. If you've been following it to any degree whatsoever, you know that it's shot entirely with hand-held cameras. The characters also run. A lot. So immediately, I think this will be a love hate experience. My own reaction to it was that it again, added to the immersion, and I didn't find it to be really distracting at all. Many people I saw it with said they couldn't even watch the screen at times, so buyer beware. It also will anger those who need all the details, and need to have every loose end tied up (or even a majority of them). The entire film is the tape found after the events of the film are over. That's it. There is no set up, and no hold-your-hand-for-you resolution (or really, much of one at all). It's unconventional, and I enjoyed the ending TREMENDOUSLY. I definitely have to applaud the decision to not simply make a cookie cutter action film that is easy to watch. I think it will be interesting to watch how it does at the box office though.
After that...I feel like there isn't much that can be said about the acting, and that should be a credit to it. It absolutely feels like you are experiencing this with the characters, who feel more or less exactly like real people. After leaving the theater I was on edge for a good deal of time, as I tried to shake that level of immersion. The film is also surprisingly humorous, and I would say that our crowd laughed more than they screamed (although the screams were definitely there).
Cloverfield definitely will not be everybody's cup of tea, but if you're already excited about it, I have no doubt that you'll be satisfied. It was a relatively unique experience, and again I want to applaud the decision to make it in that manner.
Definitely recommended: 8/10"
- colin_s0
little crittery things scared the piss out of me. fuuuuuuck them.
but this movie was awesome. great popcorn flick.
- grafiktees0
Best movie I have seen in while, the creature(s) are absolutely terrifying. I am sleeping with the lights on night... If you enjoyed
"War of the Worlds" you will dig this flick, 8 of 10 stars.
- Jaline0
I want to see this movie now...
Not sure who to go with though.
- cuke4260
just got back from it. so good. SO SHAKY. I'm still nauseous.
- ukit0
Yep, it was good.
- mg330
Just got home from seeing it. That was a damn good movie. The suspense of slowly revealing the full appearance of the monster was excellent. Really kept things on edge not instantly knowing what size it would be.
I already want to see it again!
- mg330
- colin_s0
if you've seen the movie
http://io9.com/346159/watch-the-…
that's the monster doing the funky chicken. hot shit.
- nothing disappoints more than fakeass night visionpeteski
- ephix0
just saw it. loved it.
- TheBlueOne0
Just saw it. Pretty cool. Well done conceptually. Sound editing was awesome. Not alot of emotional connection and with no backstory narrative it's not that engaging. But quite good for what it is.
On a side note, it was really weird walking out of the movie theater in Union Square going "Hey, didn't the monster just stomp this?" My wife I then started a conversation about getting an emergency kit together in case of monster attack.
- Jaline0
Sounds like there isn't much character development. Or, actually, the film could just be about that, for all I know. I'm imagining that we follow various people through their experiences. I could be wrong.
Anyway, I was just thinking about how I like character development. I'm still seeing this film soon either way.
- epigraph0
movie was really good, but no one in the theater I was in seemed to think so. Did everyone notice that jj abrams is doing a star trek movie? I bet that was how he got to make cloverfield in such and indie fashion, with a big budget and release it on a huge scale. Someone prob wanted him to make sure star trek was gonna be up to par...
- woodyBatts0
* SPOILER ALERT *
Sorry for breaking the rules of a long post, I just spoke to some friends who were intrigued on my take, so here's to sharing...I saw it this morning, I was left feeling a little weird b/c I am a total film buff. Those who know me know I watch an average of a movie a day, so when I saw Cloverfield I was really excited to see a New York Monster movie, but I left a little disappointed and a bit intrigued at the same time.
Now a few years ago I went to the Japan Society...I think with Tara from here. The society had a show called "Little Boy" about the ramifications of art in post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki Japan. One of the items they talked about was that Godzilla was the incarnation / metaphor of nuclear & incendiary weapons destroying Japan, so I pretty much walked in knowing that Cloverfield was going to be an allusion to 9/11.
So as soon as we start we see the explosion, which is the old WTC site, then we get the Statue of Liberty head, which is a pretty direct reference to Escape from New York
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082…Then we are bombarded with shots of smoke via 9/11. The they flee into a bodega which is exactly what happens in this 9/11 documentary
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312…When I say the shots are similar, I really mean they are exact! Through the movie there are constant references to various films that all deal with monsters, destruction and rage. In the final scene, under the bridge is almost exactly like the end of Miracle Mile http://www.imdb.com/name/nm02089…
including the helicopter and everything!So after all was said and done, I thought to myself that Reeves / Goddard are incredibly stupid, or ridiculously brilliant. Stupid in that he ripped off other movies, brilliant in the fact that he figured some people may pick up on this and peel away the facade of the monster movie. I vote for the latter, what do you think?
BTW, it was worth my $10
- Little boy show
http://www.asianart.…
woodyBatts - +1 on the whole 9/11 allegoryTheBlueOne
- Little boy show
- TheBlueOne0
I agree. After a night to digest it, I think it is quite the artistic film in many ways - in conception, execution and meaning, things that stick in your craw that you can go back and analyze for deeper meaning.
I did like it alot, but it's an intellectual/artsy kinda like and not a visceral/emotional "like".
- welded0
I liked it a lot, too. My biggest problem was with the shakey cam. Not conceptually (I think it worked quite well) but mostly because I think we sat a little too close to the screen and I found it really tough to keep focused. There's are no steady or sustained shots so my eyes were constantly moving from point to point and it gave me a bit of a headache.
For a short time I was kind of annoyed that there was no real resolution, but I recognize that it worked out better that way.
I agree with the 8/10s.
- DeviceUnseen0
Saw it last night and thought it was great. It was less about a monster attacking and New York and more about a group of people dealing with the fact that a monster is attacking New York. 83 minutes was perfect - anything more would have been pushing it. After the movie you feel like you have gone through something. Definitely the best movie I have seen in awhile. You need to see it in the theaters.