Cloverfield

[Fierce Critter]

The warning:

It's filmed with the same technique used to film Blair Witch. I had forgotten that though I'm not prone to motion sickness, Blair Witch did upset my stomach a bit.

I know part of it was the White Castle I unfortunately ate today. But this film REALLY made me feel very ill. I had to close my eyes, breathe deep and try to settle my stomach.

There is a warning sign at the ticket counter about this. Heed it! This will be the last film I see filmed with that technique.

The review:

LOVED IT. The monster does not look anything like the picture that was posted in the original thread anticipating the film.

Simple review. I liked it. Just not the sick feeling from the shaky camera effect.

Please - keep this thread spoiler free, k? Or post a warning with a lot of space below the warning...

...Like this. mmmkay?

[freydis]

There's actually a spoiler tag. It's under the "insert special item" tag. I have not seen the film, but -->

Here is what the Spoiler tag does!

[Azeuron]

short and sweet review...if you can stand the motion of the camera its a truely fun and exciting film

[SuZQZ]

The trailer looked great. I don't think I'll get out to see it this weekend, but I'm going to try and see it soon.

[predaking]

OMG, that movie was the shit! they set it up perfect for the sequal

this wont give any thing away to those who dont know about this

but if you have ever seen Patlabor: Wasted 13 then you have an idea of what the monster looks like

[hunhee]

I walked into the movie, and the first thing I said was.. Holy shit, I can't watch this. I had my eyes focused on something stationary (like the exit sign) most of the time still being able to see the movie, but I still got motion sickness. In fact, when I got home, I sat on the couch and took some headache pills, and hoped my stomach sickness would go away.

Troy said "you obviously didn't play enough video games when you were growing up" and I said, I couldn't play DOOM because it did the same thing to me.

I didn't like this flick at all, I think the thing that helped me with Blair Witch was the fact that I saw it on my small TV at home, so it didn't seem so all encompassing.

There really didn't seem to be a plot to this movie, I was actually very disappointed in it, although I knew nothing about it before I walked into it, so I really had no expectations for it.

This type of movie I don't think will sell very well in the after theatre/DVD sales, because it's definitely not going to be as good as the first time you see it. I felt the same way about Blair Witch, after I had seen it once, I had no ambition to ever see it again. I liked it, but the effects you get off it the first time, you'll never get off it again. I think what works for these types of films is the element of surprise, after that's gone, there's no surprise, and no desire to see it again.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, when you go out somewhere and you had a fantastic time, and then you go there a couple years later because you want that same great time, you get disappointed, because you don't get the same feelings off of it. (Never try to re-live a moment, it's gone, let it go)

[Fierce Critter]

There really didn't seem to be a plot to this movie

It's a MONSTER MOVIE. The plot is: Monster(s) invade New York suddenly, carnage ensues, people react.

Monster movies are NOT Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. They're all about spectacle & chills and thrills.

[predaking]

It's a MONSTER MOVIE. The plot is: Monster(s) invade New York suddenly, carnage ensues, people react.

Monster movies are NOT Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. They're all about spectacle & chills and thrills.

could you imagine a monster movie with a drawn out "plot", how boring that would be! sense when did a monster need a reason to go nuclear in a city?

I think they should do more monster flicks this way, it makes you feel like you are right in the movie not just watching it.

[saechalyn]

Ugh, I get motion sick on a playground swing, thanks for the warning.

[predaking]

Ugh, I get motion sick on a playground swing, thanks for the warning.

thats too bad, its a really good movie

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I liked it, but I've seen so many of these disaster movies that have no underlying ethical / social commentary at all, that I'm probably a bit jaded. I like the apocalypse/disaster type stuff, i just tend to nock off a star from my reviews if there's no real 'message/meaning' to it since we've all seen kick-ass action and special effects a million times by now. I like movies with a bit more "meat" on their bones. Don't get me wrong i think it was a pretty good movie.

I think if you like this one, you should defiantly check out The Mist was out just recently, it might still be in theaters not sure.

Very similar movie (minus the motion sickness) with a bit more detail about ... "it".

In terms of the motion-sickness prone... Cloverfield is even worse than Blair Witch in terms of the jerky-motion. Although the film quality is about 100X better than Blair witches sophomoric cinematography.

[Reaper]

I liked it although the ending made me feel like the time I saw the end of the first Lord of the Rings movies before I knew there was another 2 coming out lol. The theater was really quiet and not sure what to think is what I got from them. I enjoyed the whole movie until the end.

[hunhee]

It's a MONSTER MOVIE. The plot is: Monster(s) invade New York suddenly, carnage ensues, people react.

Monster movies are NOT Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. They're all about spectacle & chills and thrills.

Umm.. this was a bit condescending.. I was NOT looking for Citizen Kane, I wanted to know where said monster came from, origins, interdimensional, scientific mix up/experiment. I wanted something in return for the sickness it gave me.

They talked a bit about it, theroizing where it may have come from, the deep sea, etc.

They could have gone a bit more into it when they had a chance. .

The Mist (although not that great of a movie either) told you how those things came about.. You know where Godzilla comes from, I do like some monster movies, but I guess I'm just merely curious, and when movies fail to answer some of the simplest of questions, I often get disappointed. Especially when I'm paying 9.50 per ticket.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

this movie was supposed to be from the point of view of the average "man on the street" during an absolutely huge event... and he spoke to Joe Sargent in the army along the way... and you expect them to know whats going on?

The people on the street and the foot soldiers would't know the answers to the questions your asking.

and could leave the details out please? Some of us have not seen it yet.

[Fierce Critter]

Hunhee - didn't mean to sound condescending, I apologize.

But I agree with what Gaf said.

If they'd taken the time to get into all the discussions/theorizations, etc that you mention, it would have watered down the intensity of the suspense quotient. This was the most suspenseful "monster" movie I've seen in a very long time.

The thing is, I think a lot of people fail to let themselves accept the FICTION of movies sometime - just take it at face value. Sometimes I wish "cinefiles" or the types of filmgoers who critique films mercilessly would just learn to relax and be entertained, and not worry so much about the backstory that DOESN'T EXIST with fictional characters. Just accept that "It's in the script."

Please - maybe edit your post a bit to save spoilers for others, k?

As for The Mist, I'm not interested in seeing that because I read the Stephen King story it's based on. And it was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY scary - until you learned what the monsters really were and where they came from. Once he exposed what the monsters are (avoiding spoilers here), my reaction was, "oh, give me a fucking break. Is that the best you could come up with? I'd have preferred not to know what they are and where they came from."

[hunhee]

Well, when I see movies like this, I WANT to believe that there's a high probability of something like this happening for real. The reason why the camera was IN first person was to make it more believable, someone with a camcorder recording as shit is happening, like it's REAL. I personally believe they failed at this attempt. They may as well have had giant rubber monster attacking some small model build of manhatten island. That would have been more believable.

I keep going back to the Blair Witch project, I thought that was a frightening movie, extremely suspenseful, because I was lead to believe that it may have truly happened.

OH and the character development, (what little time they spent on it) didn't even help for me to even LIKE the characters involved, in fact, I thought they were so stupid that they deserved whatever idiotic thing that came at them. I don't know if it was poor directing, (it doesn't even look like anyone even directed it) and or the actors just didn't do a good enough job of selling me on their fears. I wasn't convinced.

[Fierce Critter]

The reason why the camera was IN first person was to make it more believable, someone with a camcorder recording as shit is happening, like it's REAL. I personally believe they failed at this attempt.

Wow. I so couldn't disagree with you more. I feel like they did such a good job with that, they could have released the movie without the shaky effect and I would have felt just as involved.

OH and the character development, (what little time they spent on it) didn't even help for me to even LIKE the characters involved, in fact, I thought they were so stupid that they deserved whatever idiotic thing that came at them. I don't know if it was poor directing, (it doesn't even look like anyone even directed it) and or the actors just didn't do a good enough job of selling me on their fears. I wasn't convinced.

I will agree with the unlikeability of the characters. But if you go back to how the film starts - it's basically as if someone in the government is re-viewing the camcorder footage - it does put you in the guise of that government whomever, and they're not emotionally involved, are they?

Does one need to like the characters in a film to be entertained by what happens to them?

I think, overall, this is a very different type of film. Needs to be viewed with that in mind. I know others in the theater didn't like what they saw. But Jon and I did, and apparently others did, too.

[jadnifer]

.

In terms of the motion-sickness prone... Cloverfield is even worse than Blair Witch in terms of the jerky-motion. Although the film quality is about 100X better than Blair witches sophomoric cinematography.

Could someone explain what sophomoric cinematography means? I feel dumb today.

Im not sure if I can handle watching this movie. If its more jerky than the Blair Witch, I would probably end up puking all over the person's head in front of me.

[Reaper]

That is the thing with me and movies. I am not too picky when it comes to seeing them. Everyone is always telling me how bad they thought the movie was and when I go, I thought it was at the least, decent. The ONLY movie I have hated and walked out of was that one called BUG. One of those schizo movies that has basically one area it stays in...a house. But I enjoy watching most movies on a very big screen, having a large soda, and eating a bucket of popcorn to sit back and relax to. Daevion likes to wait for them to come to dvd, but by then I have heard enough about the movie that the surprise is gone out of it. I get out and see them while its fresh Just my two cents.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

this movie was supposed to be from the point of view of the average "man on the street" during an absolutely huge event... and he spoke to Joe Sargent in the army along the way... and you expect them to know whats going on?

The people on the street and the foot soldiers wouldn't know the answers to the questions your asking.

and could leave the details out please? Some of us have not seen it yet.

Many of these types of movies are told from the "man on the street" perspective. Often that is exactly what drives the interest in a story "Whats going on? Why is this happening?" Some people expect at least some minor story "payoff". Often the whole story revolves around the clueless "Joe Sargents" and the viewer not finding out whats going on until later in the story.

Not that i need the wrapped-up details to enjoy something, I don't. But some do, its just its a common thing, there's nothing unusual about expecting some detail about the big picture. Some of us don't necessarily need a "wrapped up" story that explains things fully. I'm good with the kind of movies that drive my dad insane. (Mulholland Drive and 12 Monkeys comes to mind) The ones that end.. without really explaining wtf happened. Some people want a more traditional structure, that's fine by me. To each their own. (within certain limits)

I tend to be a bit of an art snob so less traditional structures (like this one) tend to appeal to me. This one didn't all that much. It was pretty good and i like the "idea" of it. But in actual execution i just really didn't care about the characters and pretty much didn't care all that much what happened to them. Traditional plot and character development is expected from "good writing" , in this case it was lacking. But, theres a school of thought that says some stories SHOULD go against that mold.

I think i would have enjoyed it more if i wasn't such a hardcore sci-fi buff in general, and "apocalyptic stories" (pre or post) in particular. Just seen so many of them now that my view is probably a bit jaded / skewed.

Not to beat a dead horse but yeah, please try not to give away any "secrets" of movies when you review them unless theres a clear spoiler alert and you can skip it due to the formatting of the post. But to have any discussion without at least some minor sketchy details, i don't think is possible. When you read a movie review there are some details.

[jadnifer]

I saw a preview for it on television last night. I really would puke if I saw this on the big screen

[hunhee]

Im not sure if I can handle watching this movie. If its more jerky than the Blair Witch, I would probably end up puking all over the person's head in front of me.

Hehe.. just for THIS alone would have made the movie a tad more tolerable.. *giggles*

Not that i need the wrapped-up details to enjoy something, I don't. But some do, its just its a common thing, there's nothing unusual about expecting some detail about the big picture. Some of us don't necessarily need a "wrapped up" story that explains things fully. I'm good with the kind of movies that drive my dad insane. (Mulholland Drive and 12 Monkeys comes to mind) The ones that end.. without really explaining wtf happened. Some people want a more traditional structure, that's fine by me. To each their own. (within certain limits)

WHAT?!?!?! Mr. Detail Man who ALWAYS wants to know MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE, and seems to never be satisfied with less than WAY more explanation than should be?!?!?!? YOU!??!!

Wow..

*giggles some more*

[saechalyn]

Does one need to like the characters in a film to be entertained by what happens to them?

I do. If I don't like at least one character I can't like a movie. But I'm pretty picky about movies, if I'm not engrossed in the first 20-ish minutes I'll turn it off.

[Shade Everdark]

I saw it this weekend. I had heard just enough about the film to have piqued my interest, and decided to go see it. As far as mindless monster movie goes, it was probably the most effective I've seen, and the intentionally shaky camera-work was a big part of that, post-film headache aside.

To those asking for some larger perspective, i.e. finding out about what 'it' is and where it came from, consider; the movie almost exclusively spans about seven hours. How many people at Ground Zero knew seven hours later who had effected the destruction of the WTC?

Basically, I say that if you can stand the camerawork, and enjoy at all the Godzilla kind of movie, go see it.

[LuluVox]

I wasn't too crazy about the movie (it was okay), but I got a kick out of one of the characters being named Hud (short for Hudson); that's my brother's name!