J.J Abrams "Cloverfield" project.

An attack on the institution of cinema itself. I cannot imagine a more reprehensible "film" even if I taped Alicia Key's albums to my occipital lobes and insufflated a powdered form of The Da Vinci Code.

Yes, it's that bad. An insult.
 
Just saw this tonight.

The camera gimmick got pretty ludicrous. It was impossible to believe anyone would hold on a camera through everything they went through. The convention was carried on so long, it defeated itself.

Also I'd hoped for more out of the characters, but there was little or nothing there...

And that monster ain't no Cthulu...

The reveal of where the monster comes from is REALLY sweet though.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I have so much crap to talk about this movie. I'm upset because all the people I work with said this was a good movie and it was fuking horrible. I have not the energy now to talk **** though. Society is losing touch.

That is all for now.
 
I understand the movie is not for everybody, maybe a different genre would be better for you. But some of these reviews are just out right ignorant. There is no need to use profanity to describe your dislike for a movie, it only makes you seem less intelligent. I honestly mean no insult here but when one of you makes it big like JJ and makes a better movie, or even one that releases to an actual theater I will take your opinion more seriously.
 
Exactly. I don't know what people were expecting, but I thought Cloverfield was fun. It's "blair witch" done right, sort of a mix of Blair Witch meets Godzilla. No, it's not gonna win Oscars. But at least it was very different from most films (hey, Hollywood trying something different? About time.) and it was fun.
 
Barry_Green said:
Exactly. I don't know what people were expecting, but I thought Cloverfield was fun. It's "blair witch" done right, sort of a mix of Blair Witch meets Godzilla. No, it's not gonna win Oscars. But at least it was very different from most films (hey, Hollywood trying something different? About time.) and it was fun.
Click to expand...

I was expecting Cloverfield to be what it was, and still didn't like it.
 
I really don't understand all the harsh criticism. Different strokes for different folks I guess but I find it hard to believe that this movie could be perceived as that bad. I mean, 'not like it' is one thing but to come away from it literally angered because you felt it not up to some pre-conceived cinematic standard....please. I mean did ya SEE "Gigli"???

Bad is when a movie goes for something and it winds up being laughable because its executed so poorly. How can one say this movie was executed poorly? Its not. And it wasn't dull for a second. Try pulling that off. And like Barry said, hey at least Hollywood is trying something different.

This comment isn't directed at you Batutta or anyone in particular for that matter...I'm just confused by some of what I am reading and the hostility towards the flick.
 
Rick Meyer said:
when a movie goes for something and it winds up being laughable because its executed so poorly. How can one say this movie was executed poorly? Its not. And it wasn't dull for a second. Try pulling that off. And like Barry said, hey at least Hollywood is trying something different.
Click to expand...

***************************************************
*****THERE MIGHT BE SPOILERS IN HERE*****
***************************************************

I hear you, but I thought the movie was exactly what you're describing. I think it WAS executed poorly in that they strained the convention so much it became laughable, and they bent any sense of story to that convention. That IS poor execution. And I wasn't the only one. We weren't half way through the film before many in the audience were screaming: "Put the ****ing camera down and run you idiot!" and that quickly turned into catcalls of: "This movie is stupid."

It became for me another version of the bad horror trope: "Don't go back in the house *****!" And inevitably the character goes back in the house to their doom. This kind of thing is fun to watch in B-Movies, but I did not think they were going for that here. And when the guy with the camera got eaten, there were several yells of: "Finally!"

And the movie was dull at many moments; notably whenever the explosions died down enough to let the characters have their emotional moments. It got boring in a real hurry. Which to me is the sign that those characters were not all that well written.

I certainly am all for them trying stuff, and I think this technique would work really well in a more limited fashion, maybe with one subplot of a story told this way, for example. For me this didn't quite work. That's all.
 
Well personally, if a monster was attacking. I would totally have a camera out. I think all of us would. :)

But that aside, the one thing that pissed me off was I wish they showed the monster more rather than the sidewalk...
 
I didn't like it, but it wasn't absolutely horrible. To me, the worst part was that it had lots of potential to be good, but they threw most of it out the window.

It would have been much more realistic and believable if the "first person" camera was of a news crew that was trying to investigate the creature, than some stupid kids running around taping it for no reason. Even if it is reasonable that they'd stop and film the creature from a safe distance just because, they'd never do so at the risk of their own lives. A news crew might.

I can live with the disappointing plot, but the fact that this film has almost zero replay value ruins it for me. The experience of seeing it in the theatre was kinda fun, but if I'd have been at home watching it on TV, I would have changed the channel. Without the huge screen and big sound, the movie wouldn't keep my attention for more than a few minutes.
 
kyledroid said:
I just saw it...AND I DONT CARE WHO KNOWS IT.--This movie was such a let down!!! Such a great idea- a first person perspective of a monster attack- but damn it if it didn't deliver. My head hurts from all the panning and whipping going on and all that "shaky cam"!!! I've actually never been so disappointed. I do have one question, though: Was the monster leviathan?

I did love the monster though...i so wanted to love this movie!!! I hope im not the only one. Maybe im missing something...
Click to expand...


For everyone who feels like this, lets just take a second to remind ourselves exactly what it is we saw. This was not a "Hollywood" production, where the story overpowers the characters and were all in it to see the visual effects.

There was a review on rotten tomatoes that really sums it up, and it went along the lines of
"This film is great because the monster is used as a backdrop to the film, while the story is truly about how this group of friends sorts through the crisis."

This is what makes the film an EXPERIENCE, not a motion picture per say. And for this, i love it ,and challenge more people to investigate the relationships between human beings under different conditions, because this is how we connect to a film.
 
I loved this film.

Everything about it the handycam shaky style worked for me and wasnt distracting. The acting was good imo, the story was solid. Did it have some unrealistic moments and plot holes yea maybe but its a monster movie.

It was just nice to experience something different at the movies. A true breath of fresh air.
 
Unfortunately, I was one of those individuals who became ill with motion sickness, even though I'm normally fine with that sort of thing (perhaps it had to do with sitting in a theatre with a sixty feet tall screen; note to self: don't try to watch home videos on a huge screen).

Had I not been losing my lunch in the bathroom adjacent to the theatre, I would find it to be a fun film. The concept was good; the execution blew. When entertainment ceases to be entertaining and trades realism for comfort, one tends to find it a rather disorienting and juxtaposed experience, AKA the theatre smelling like a puke stained amusement ride at the end of the showing.

I think I'll just stick to Lost.
 
Robertson6 said:
I understand the movie is not for everybody, maybe a different genre would be better for you. But some of these reviews are just out right ignorant. There is no need to use profanity to describe your dislike for a movie, it only makes you seem less intelligent. I honestly mean no insult here but when one of you makes it big like JJ and makes a better movie, or even one that releases to an actual theater I will take your opinion more seriously.
Click to expand...

So you are saying you don't take yours, 99% of the people on this site, movie reviewers like Egbert & Roeper, actually 99.99999999% of the people on this planets opinions seriously? Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top