Theatrical Review of Cloverfield

As we all know taste is a very personal thing.

Jason Wrote in his review:

Quote:
Clocking in at a very lean 90 minutes, this is perhaps the most substance free film released to mainstream media in the last decade.

Empire Magazine (Very big UK Movie Magazine) wrote about Cloverfield:

Quote:
A dazzling experiment that paid off immensely, this is cinematic pleasure at its purest. One caveat: If they ever make a sequel, we’re taking two stars back.

I have yet to see it.

What did you readers think?

---

[Post edited by Henning on Jan 22, 2008]

I saw it, what you -barely- see is what you get, they dont tie any ends at all. loose or otherwise.

---

[Post edited by kucoloco on Jan 22, 2008]

We, as an audience, have gotten too used to "tying up loose ends". The film was left ambiguous on purpose. It was an artistic choice, and I think it was well done. It was scary without being gory, it was a fresh take on an old theme, and all in a "PG-13" package.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing it one more time to see what I missed. It was a VERY intense movie. There are a lot of quick cut-away shots in which the few skewed shots of the monster are blurred, which was intentional to build suspense, and I must say, worked WELL!

Well done, I say.



- Josh

---

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Jan 22, 2008]

Both of my sons had seen this movie on opening night, one said it stunk and the other said it was average... Of course the salesmen at the Moviestop went on the same night and they loved it.

I would say it's probably going to be one of those movies that divide people right down the middle.

I think it's going to be like Blair Witch Project with people either saying it's the best thing they saw or hating it outright.

Needless to say, I wasn't impressed. I never did buy into the fact Hud was going to run around New York with a camera stuck on his eye. Frankly, if a monster was coming after me, the camera's getting dropped and I'm hightailing it as fast as I can. Second, the video camera has an extraordinary battery to record testimonials at the party and they have juice to last from that night until at very least dawn. Third, the camera has a light on it...and infared? Are you kidding me?

Fourth, there are casual mentions of the camera recording, but it doesn't strike anyone-including the military-as odd? Fifth, the military commander is giving these civilians information to help them get to Beth...on camera? Sixth, and perhaps most damning, for a monster movie, there's remarkably little of the monster.

Seventh, Beth's shoulder is apparently impailed yet in the climax, she is raising the arm and using it. Hurt or not? Pick. Lastly, when characters have a very clear "out" and they don't take it, I don't care about them. Monster, eat them all. Please.

Jason

The movie is basically set up as first person view to give the audience the "feel" of being in this terrifying situation. In several places in the movie it works. The monster is pretty cool looking and the CGI of destruction is good. About half way through the movie I told myself I can never watch this movie again. The killer is the motion of the camera. All the running around , bouncing, trying to watch something interesting but the camera goes another way. Some people have complained of motion sickness, I can see why. Overall its an OK movie,

If you want to see the guy Hud, the one who primarelly was holding the camera in the movie, as an actor , watch the show "Carpoolers" hes pretty funny in that show too.

Jason,

First off, no one said you had to like the movie. Secondly, you do have a point about the battery life of the camera involved, but, every film has it's factual flaws, and if you're looking hard enough, you can pick ANY film apart. Thirdly, aparantly you don't know much about cam-corders/video cameras. Video cameras have had some type of light source available to them for filming, almost since their inception. Fourthly, a "night mode" (in which a camera can film in low light) has existed on video cameras for around 10 years now.

The point is, if you're going to pick movies apart to that extent, you're rarely going to find a movie you'll enjoy. You have to look past some of the flaws and try to see the (pardon the pun) bigger picture. Some of the greatest movies in film history have their flaws and inconsitancies. "Cloverfield" is an 85 minute "Monster Movie". What were you expecting, "Lord Of The Rings"? Not every movie can be an award winner, but that also doesn't mean that it's complete crap, either.

Just my two cents.



- Josh

Quote:
First off, no one said you had to like the movie.

Did I come off as argumentative? I don't think I did.

Quote:
Secondly, you do have a point about the battery life of the camera involved, but, every film has it's factual flaws, and if you're looking hard enough, you can pick ANY film apart. Thirdly, aparantly you don't know much about cam-corders/video cameras. Video cameras have had some type of light source available to them for filming, almost since their inception. Fourthly, a "night mode" (in which a camera can film in low light) has existed on video cameras for around 10 years now.

But when it is shown quite clearly near the beginning that "Cloverfield" takes place in some semblance of the real world (Rob's phone battery dying, for instance) and then we're supposed to just accept the camera battery is fine the entire time? Maybe other people can look past that, but I can't.

And you're right, I don't know much about video cameras. Never owned one. However, I was under the impression in the subway there was no light, not low light. But I misheard in the movie, but I also thought a reference to infared was made. Again, maybe I'm wrong.

Quote:
The point is, if you're going to pick movies apart to that extent, you're rarely going to find a movie you'll enjoy. You have to look past some of the flaws and try to see the (pardon the pun) bigger picture. Some of the greatest movies in film history have their flaws and inconsitancies. "Cloverfield" is an 85 minute "Monster Movie". What were you expecting, "Lord Of The Rings"? Not every movie can be an award winner, but that also doesn't mean that it's complete crap, either.

I agree I am far too critical some times. But other times, the small problems take me out of the story. This was one of those cases. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, right?

Jason

---

[Post edited by JJ79 on Jan 23, 2008]

Jason,

No no, you're definitely entitled to your opinion. I may have misinterpreted your post. Your last post was well reasoned, and I'm not sure about the "IR" on some video cameras. I was in the Army, and we had that technology a LOOOOONG time ago, and a lot of the "hi-tech" cool stuff does start in the military and trickle down to the civilian market.

I guess I can be too forgiving with films sometimes, but, I don't exactly see that as a problem, I think it just allows me to enjoy more films. Not everybody shares my views or opinions, which is to be expected, but, my perspective is one of someone that has taken a "film studies" class in college. I'm not saying that makes me an expert on film, but, as such it gives me a better and broader perspective on the aspects and elements of movies, how they're made, and what goes on behind the scenes in directing, shot setups, scene setups, and the whys and hows of it all. If you've never taken a College level "Intro to Film" class, I HIGHLY recommend it! You'll have a whole new appreciation for films, and especially the "classics" and why they are classics.

Back on topic, I guess the reason why the whole "battery" issue (which I commented to my friends about in the film) is that, because, at times, the film had a lot of cut-aways, where suddenly we're minutes (or longer) later from the cut-away. I guess I assumed that he "Hud", COULD HAVE put a new battery in the camera durring those cut-aways, of which, there were MANY.

At any rate, I guess, when it comes to movies, (to re-use an X-Files phrase) "I want to believe". I want to follow the story and escape into the film as if I'm actually there experiencing what's going on. Some times (about half the time with today's movies) even I get taken out of the film by BLATANT inconsistancies, or flaws, or incorrect physics on CG characters or objects, or incorrect science or facts. But, I do tend to give the "benefit of the doubt".



- Josh

I have yet to see this movie but,
If in any movie we have to buy into the fact that huge monsters are real
then we can buy into a battery lasting more then it should.

IMO

---

[Post edited by xavier311 on Jan 23, 2008]

I always find it funny when people find one thing in a movie that "ruins" the realism. I remember when I watched Finding Nemo my friend said it was clear that the tank in the dentist office was for fresh water fish even though they are salt water fish. He said this took him out of the movie. In the movie about talking fish he found this to be the most unrealistic element.

Quote:
But when it is shown quite clearly near the beginning that "Cloverfield" takes place in some semblance of the real world (Rob's phone battery dying, for instance) and then we're supposed to just accept the camera battery is fine the entire time? Maybe other people can look past that, but I can't.

The film is basically someone filmming from a camcorder and the movie is 85-minutes long, correct? Well, the video camera I purchased for my daughter has a batterylife of up to 3-hours, so apparently there have been some major improvements in battery technology, as well.

thanks Tim Parker. lol

Have to agree that this movie was average at best. There are "artistic choices" and there are gimmicks. I couldn't help but to feel that this movie was just a gimmick.

Nothing surprising storywise. The acting is serviceable, but overall, not much to really write home about.

I admire a film like Blair Witch that took on a similar experiment out of necessity due to a low budget, but this was an event movie that shorted itself by making the focus of the narrative too narrow. It's like a big-budget Blair Witch, and we all know how the bigger-budgeted sequel to that film ended up.

In any case, an interesting idea of an experiment that just didn't quite pay off for me. But isn't that what experiments are for?

sean (that, and mutating the human genome, of course...)

Quote:
But when it is shown quite clearly near the beginning that "Cloverfield" takes place in some semblance of the real world (Rob's phone battery dying, for instance) and then we're supposed to just accept the camera battery is fine the entire time? Maybe other people can look past that, but I can't.

Quote:
The film is basically someone filmming from a camcorder and the movie is 85-minutes long, correct? Well, the video camera I purchased for my daughter has a batterylife of up to 3-hours, so apparently there have been some major improvements in battery technology, as well.

I'm a camera operator with extensive camera experience. The movie is 85 minutes long. Camera batteries can last hours. So, if given that the character only had the camera on while he was recording. (which is true) because there are spans when the camera is shut off during the course of the night. It is pretty easy to believe it. Also, night vision and camera lights come standard on most consumer camcorders. Even thought the light would kill the battery much quicker. He only has the light on for a short time in the tunnels.

Pretty funny that people find this sort of stuff "unbelieveable". Do people even pay attention to consumer electronics out there? It's pretty common knowledge.

As I've already stated, I do not own a video camera nor do I follow the technology. From a layman's point of view (me), it seemed and still seems odd.

Jason

I'm hoping the wife buys me one of these next Christmas:
http://www.red.com/cameras

---

[Post edited by Skyhawk on Jan 25, 2008]

Quote:
From a layman's point of view (me), it seemed and still seems odd.

But we just explained that it is believable. The answer we're looking for is "oh, I was unaware of that. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I'll go back to my review and give it a better rating, based on the new info."

Nevermind. It's not worth the fight with you guys.

Some people like the movie. Some people don't. The camera battery was not the sole reason I did not like the movie. But I won't let you goad me into a protracted and useless argument.

Jason

---

[Post edited by JJ79 on Jan 25, 2008]

Quote:
Some people like the movie. Some people don't. The camera battery was not the sole reason I did not like the movie. But I won't let you goad me into a protracted and useless argument.

Jason,

I tease, you should know that about me by now.