First "Cloverfield" Review

You know I don't go to the movies anymore, but more and more I think I will be making an exception pretty soon.

 

The guy who did the review said something along the lines of it's a giant monster movie unlike any other. When he described the film, it sounds a lot like every bad monster movie I've seen. The only real difference seems to be that it's all filmed on a handheld camera. Maybe the acting is good, I don't know. I'm just sick of getting overly excited for a movie and then utterly dissapointed when I finally see it. The Mist was my most recent let down. Still i'm sure i'll check it out although i'll probably wait for the DVD.

 

im pumped to see this movie...

 

I already wanted to see this, this just puts my hype meter through the roof.

 

J.J Abrams, enough said. He's a genius.

 

As long as you're willing to forget Alia

I am very excited to see this move

 

The original Godzilla movie with Raymond Burr(B+W version) was first person for the majority of the film, it was and is a pretty good flick even today.

 

Was that review written by the producer or the director?

What a load of BS.

 

I mean I'm still gunna see it but not b/c some guy loves the movie. Hell the thread we had here with your worst movies of all time, some of those were my favorite!

 

what is the movie about? I saw the coming attractions and I'm still not so sure what's going on.
It looks like something big is attacking everyone. I'm interested.

 

Actually, I feel the opposite. Abrams association concerns me as he seems to create great beginnings with lots of details on his various projects, but blows at tying up the loose ends, and seems incapable of bringing it all home conclusively.

 

Well I think LOST is pretty much the best TV show ever so I'm biased. Granted most of the writing for it is done by Cuse and Lindelof.

 

Yeah, but even LOST has so many open story lines I dont think he brings them to conclusion, Same with Alias, started off great then collapsed under its own weight with unanswered questions, etc.

I think he must have A.D.D. or something since each new project takes him away from focusing on open projects, etc. Just my view.

Maybe this Movie will be different, but not holding my breath.

 

I've heard alot of negative responses about this movie from the media.....

 

Link?

 

I said "I think".

And you don't even watch it anyway.

 

I know. I keed, I keed.

 

Too much hype = not usually a good thing

 

Don't know if anyone has seen this yet, it is a preview for the movie.

http://www.wotzon.com/movie.html?movie_id=2361

 

Not to take this off topic, but did you know who will be playing Get Smart in the summer of 08?

Steve Correl.

Now that should be one funny movie.

 

and how can you forget such geniality as felicity?

 

Previews looked good

 

FYI I did a search under " Cloverfield Bad Reviews " and found this.

http://www.brainsnap.com/film_revie...ad_cinematography_an_early_cloverfield_review

We were lucky enough to score tickets to the preview of this month's long-awaited winter blockbuster: Cloverfield. Brought to us by J.J. Abrams, the story centers around a giant wingless, de-horned pterodactyl wreaking havoc in a fictionalized New York city - a city in which giant, wingless, de-horned pterodactyls wreak havoc and New Yorkers run about screaming and dying.

Although the cinematic delights offered by a premise in which New York is destroyed by aliens or natural disasters is something of which we, as audiences, never seem to tire, Cloverfield sorely lets us down in several departments.

Cinematography is, unfortunately, terrible in this film. Most of it seems to have been shot on hand held video camera or something - the perspective wobbles and shakes around, robbing audiences of the true horrors they experienced in their livingrooms on 9/11. On that day, tourists and camera crews at least had the presence of mind to hold the cameras still. If you enjoyed 9/11 as much as MSNBC, Fox News, CNN and Rupert Murdoch did, then this film is still going to be a treat.


For most of us - the 96% of humans who aren't sociopaths - you should be able to suspend your disbelief. And if you've been watching a lot of cable news channels over the past couple of years, you should be numb enough to accept any implausibility as fact. Evolution is just a theory, people, and the French are behind everything.

Meanwhile, the film's editing is a little random and haphazard; indeed, most of Cloverfield is stitched together by an epileptic with a bad case of the shakes. What's with the continuity? There are more missing bits than a videotape of a Cheney family quail hunt.

And the dialogue! Talk about lackluster! Notable lines include: "Oh my God! Oh my God!" and "Run! Run!" In short, much of the dialog reminds one the last half hour of Twister, a film we reviewed in the 1990s on the mistaken belief that it was a film adaption of the famous board game.

Boy was I sorry.

Anyway, when the Statue of Liberty is decapitated in Cloverfield, I am sure savvy Republicans will be asking themselves: what, is J.J. Abrams some kind of naive Liberal who hates it when liberty is decapitated? Or something. And many of us will be asking ourselves what it is, after all, that is so monstrous about losing liberty for the sake of security? In this case, security approximates to the experience of running around in fear of your life while soldiers race desperately through the streets in a gigantic, futile effort to kill something much bigger than them, something that can't be killed. New Yorkers in fear of their lives - there is something so curiously familiar about that. Perhaps it's one of those an analogy-thingies they talked about in the 'How to be a bad film critic' class at the local night school.

But, seeing how nobody seems to have said it yet, and seeing how hundreds of critics will, we might as well get it out of the way: Cloverield? Iraq. Katrina. Cloverfield? Iraq. Of course, film critics said the same thing with 300, which wasn't about Iraq and it's a crying shame that people have to turn to us for accuracy in reporting. (See Why Film Critics Don't Understand 300 for example.)

Also, we think it's entirely unrealistic for a giant wingless, de-horned pterodactyl to be walking around New York anyway. We know who the enemy is and it seems absurd to get us afraid of giant monsters when billions have already been spent on making us afraid of other things.

In final analysis - J.J.Abrams should hire some camera crew who know how to hold a camera still. You'll find analogy in this film if you're looking for it. But most of us will support demands for more money from Congress to fund measures by which America may be protected from giant wingless de-horned pterodactyls.

We give this flick 10/10.

 

the problem with the review you just posted is that it is ignoring the thing the movie is attempting to do. Which is to create sort of a home video feel of a huge monster flick as an attempt to make it feel real. Now if the review had focused on that and said that it fails to do so and that the camera itself becomes a distraction, then i would buy it as a review.

Problem is that it focuses on trying to be edgy and funny and make light of the style by simply refusing to aknowledge it as a style. I dont doubt that the movie is probably bad (a lot of times attempts at originality in these kinds of genres tend to end up being bad) but the review itself is just not helpfull.

 

even the 'bad' review gives it a 10/10

 

lmao
Easy to forget something I refused to watch

 

Yes, I know that the review was BOGUS the moment that I read it, but I forgot to post my comments along with it. I just posted this review so people can read it. I'm goona look at the movie anyway because it does look pretty good ! When I was young, I just loved watching the "Creature Feature" programs on Saturday afternoon. They used to give the old monster flicks from 40's-60's and I CAN'T WAIT to see this one.

 

JJ Abrams, the executive producer, was on the Bob & Tom radio show this morning. Nothing really interesting, other than his thought on casting the movie.

He went for unknown actors to make the movie feel more "real" in conjuction with the handheld camera. He felt if you saw a bunch of famous actors, it just wouldn't draw you in as much if it were a bunch of actors you've never seen before, or at least very little of. This guy is very smart. He's one of my favorite people in Hollywood right now. He does a lot of original stuff.

I'm looking forward to this one...