Re: Theatrical Review of Cloverfield

Want to make a post? LOG ON » with your free my town account or SIGN UP NOW » (Takes less than 60 seconds)

This post refers to...

Theatrical Review of Cloverfield »

Published Jan 20, 2008 Clocking in at a very lean 90 minutes, this is perhaps the most substance free film released to mainstream media in the last decade.

Page 2 of 3

xavier311

Jan 23, 2008 - CST 12:35 PM

Member since:
November 2007

My links

View profile »

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 - CST 2:48 PM]

Movielover316

Jan 23, 2008 - CST 12:48 PM

Member since:
September 2006

My links

View profile »
View wish list »

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.

Tim Raynor

Jan 23, 2008 - CST 1:22 PM

says... It puts the lotion in the basket . . .

Member since:
March 2002

My links

View profile »
View collection »
View wish list »

kucoloco

Jan 23, 2008 - CST 1:40 PM

Member since:
September 2007

My links

View profile »

thanks Tim Parker. lol

skspence

Jan 23, 2008 - CST 2:21 PM

Member since:
January 2003

My links

View profile »
View collection »
View wish list »

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...)

waywardsage

Jan 25, 2008 - CST 3:53 PM

Member since:
November 2007

My links

View profile »

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.

JJ79

Jan 25, 2008 - CST 3:56 PM

says... Also known as The Movie Rambler

Member since:
January 2006

My links

View profile »
View collection »
View wish list »

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

Skyhawk

Jan 25, 2008 - CST 4:24 PM

Member since:
October 2007

My links

View profile »

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 - CST 4:25 PM]

Tim Raynor

Jan 25, 2008 - CST 4:56 PM

says... It puts the lotion in the basket . . .

Member since:
March 2002

My links

View profile »
View collection »
View wish list »

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."

JJ79

Jan 25, 2008 - CST 5:21 PM

says... Also known as The Movie Rambler

Member since:
January 2006

My links

View profile »
View collection »
View wish list »

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 - CST 5:39 PM]