Random_Taffer on 19/1/2008 at 20:07
Saw it last night. I thought it was great. Definitely a movie for the theater. If you're going to see it, don't wait for the DVD.
I like how it takes the youtube, myspace generation and rips them to shreds. My only complaint with the movie was the rating. They should have thrown a few 'fucks' in there so they could rate it R.
PG-13 on opening night means that you're going to be watching the movie with a bunch of immature, silence ruining, text messaging 14 year olds who think that people actually want to hear what they have to say.
I hope that the back of the douche's head in the front row is still sore from my box of Bunch-a-Crunch.
Other than that, a thoroughly entertaining film. I enjoyed it very much.
fett on 20/1/2008 at 03:45
Quote Posted by Random_Taffer
I hope that the back of the douche's head in the front row is still sore from my box of Bunch-a-Crunch.
:laff:
But yeah, a few extra 'fucks' thrown in for rating purposes always raises the quality of a film. Always.
godismygoldfish on 21/1/2008 at 00:27
Just saw it yesterday. The film was tepid at best. It was entertaining, but only in the visuals. If it had been shot any other way it would've been worse than the stories in most Sci-Fi channel original movies. Every single character was some 2 dimensional yuppie that we don't give a damn about when they die. In fact, I was hoping for the douchy annoying camera guy to get stomped on throughout the entire film. At the end [SPOILER]he does. Yay![/SPOILER]
Oh and the monster is a giant [SPOILER]spider/crab[/SPOILER]. That's it. Nothing special.
Martek on 21/1/2008 at 02:03
Just saw it, and I thought it was a really good movie.
Lots of intense parts. The characaters weren't really loathsome "yuppies". They were yuppies, but came across as decent individuals.
I don't care much for shakey-cam either, but for this film it is a natural (like Blair Witch). In Bourne and other films the shakey cam is some 3rd-person "look I'm the camera man up in the face of the action, and I am SHAKEY!".
But in Cloverfield it's all from the point of view of the character that is actually filiming the action while being involved in it. So it comes across as "normal" and "expected".
Even though it's not a long film, it's just long enough. Actually, I could have shaved off the final ending and left it at a scene before that.
It isn't perfect, but was really immersive and enjoyable. I may go see it again tomorrow because it's on the huge "Galaxy" screen with excellent sound; and later on DVD (or smaller theatre screen) it won't have the same impact as that kind of showing.
Martek
Hidden_7 on 21/1/2008 at 02:30
Yeah I saw it and liked it. It had some problems but overall an enjoyable ride. I agree that if you plan to see this movie at all see it in the theatres. Waiting for it on dvd is just going to generate a "aha, I was right to wait, this isn't much of anything" response. It's an experience as much as anything.
Yeah people are right that without the method of filming this would have just been Godzilla. So? Don't go into this movie if you can't get some enjoyment from Godzilla. Further, it WASN'T filmed any other way. Think about the fact that someone made a major motion picture entirely from the First Person Perspective. That's pretty ballsy. I've grown up on FP games, I like this perspective for having stories told to me, and it works REALLY well in some scenes. Less so in others, I probably would have preferred it to simply be first person without the framing device of there actually being a camera involved, that would have helped some of the logic holes.
Also the characters weren't that unlikeable (except, unfortunately, the character that we end up being) in so far as they weren't especially unlikable examples of their type. They were young rich hipsters, so if that's an automatic fail in your books, yeah, they will be unlikable, but they weren't like, especially bad young rich hipsters, you could definitely form some human attachment to them, if you don't have it out for these people as a matter of course.
Overall, if you like monster movies, and a good time out at the movies go see this. There were some truly awesome, edge of my seat scenes, and the short running time works because it keeps you moving forward not giving you time to stop and think about the logic holes while the movie is running. I've definitely spent $10 on worse things.
Fafhrd on 21/1/2008 at 03:35
Well said, Hidden. Probably the best American giant monster movie since the original King Kong. Tense throughout, with a couple of scenes that I actually had to look away from the screen during. And I really don't understand the "unlikeable characters" criticism.
I recommend staying through the credits, just to hear the entirety of "Roar!" (The Cloverfield Overture) which only serves to enlargen my Michael Giacchino man-crush, and gives me the teensiest hope that if a sequel is made, it will involve the Cloverfield monster fighting some other giant monster in another American city.
godismygoldfish on 21/1/2008 at 06:50
My problem with it is that the story is very weak. The main character (rob I think), is the only character with any sort of goal, and it's the old cliche of 'I'm going to rescue my woman in distress,' but the motivation he has is so very weak (he banged her once. Whoopee.) so much so that I don't care, mostly because she, the central point of the entire plot, is only on screen for a grand total of about 3 minutes (when she's being helplessly dragged along, it doesn't count, we don't even see her face and she doesn't talk, she just gets dragged along) And every other character felt like they were pulled from a horror movie 101 textbook.
Changing the POV isn't enough to make me go gaga over a bad story. Did it look good, yes, but I didn't find myself giving a damn when none of the characters feel real or even interesting.
Mind you, I came in expecting a straight up monster movie, but if your advertising the entire movie to be about this monster, then let it be about that, not some rich new york kids. Hell, I'd friggin love if this film had it just been snippets of the [SPOILER]monster(s)[/SPOILER] from different people with camcorders while all the shit went down.
Stitch on 26/1/2008 at 05:27
My review of godismygoldfish: decent chap but film school has apparently destroyed his perspective.
My review of Cloverfield: :cool:
That was a fucking ride.
jimjack on 26/1/2008 at 21:34
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Nobody really cares about this movie. As soon as someone posts a decent pic of this monster on the internet, that's it for the box office. Seriously, it's all been about the exquisitely well-managed hype. Both for the movie as well as the inexplicably-revered J J Abrams. Alias and Lost. And then?
lol star traks ahahahaha that's what killed him officer
okay ps plus he apparently wrote the stunningly cliché armageddons ahahaha that nearly killed bruce willis officer
Debbie Downer..again. One of the few that will not see the brilliance of this epic and I for one will not defend a movie to anyone over thirty nyah! No but, the film wasn't too bad, it just didn't match the hype. BUT IT WAS STILL GOOD.
The shakey cam is making people nauseated, to the point they leave the theater to retch out in the lobby over garbage bins or spend most of the movie staring at a wall. It could induce seizures.That wobbly shit makes me pissed off like the camerman has the DTs.
Martek on 27/1/2008 at 02:40
Cloverfield is now one of the few movies I've gone back to see more than once in the theater; and I liked it as much this time around as the first time.
Only this time I managed to catch a few things I overlooked then. Nothing major; just some details of the sort I'd not catch until I had the DVD later.
Like the Slusho t-shirt; and the falling-from-sky thing.
Great flick.
(and I'm well over 30 :p)
Martek
p.s. Yay the new Spoil button!
