My Cloverfield review

[ctc]

>Two things that bug me about some criticism I have heard.

I read this and I knew what was coming... 'cos I've heard the same from a lot of folks. A lot of the negative critique troubles me 'cos it seems to imply that the people unhappy with it were so because it didn't meet their expectations. Expectations that seem rooted firmly in the usual handling of a monster movie.

>1) I didn't care about the characters.

It always surprises me when folks say this because MOST characters in movies are two dimensional. Especially monster movies. It makes me wonder what folks require from a character to empathise with them. Is there some set of traits inherent to the character, or are they searching for the archetypes we've been TOLD represent likable characters? And is it the characters people are ACTUALLY empathising with; or is it situational? (They don't actually care about little Billy, but it is sad when his folks get eaten.)

>And, for me, I do need to care about the characters, at least a little, to invest my emotions in the movie.

THIS is a fair explanation, but what do you mean by "invest your emotions?":

>Rob just seemed selfish, dragging his friends along on his Quixotic quest to save Beth, and the others seemed stupid for following him, especially Marlena, who barely seemed to know any of them.

That sounds like you invested some emotion. Sure; you didn't LIKE these people... but you don't always HAVE to. I see this sort of thing a lot in action films nowadays: the tendency to shy away from stuff the audience won't like, even if it's important to the story. When I was a kid the bad guy would kill the heroe's friend, kick his mom and rape his dog. They DID things, bad things, that MADE you hate them. Nowadays the bad guy usually THREATENS to do things. Actually DOING things might result in a negative reaction from the viewers.

And I think folks have grown climatized to that. Because we get so few disconcerting events in film we no longer know how to react. Yeah; the characters are stupid for following Rob, but it's okay to think they're stupid. Maybe that's the point. In real life MOST people do really stupid things in times of disaster. They might follow Rob 'cos they're looking for stability; he's the dominant personality and people naturally follow the dominant personality when scared. They might not have any other clue what to do, and at least Rob's doing SOMETHING. They might want to track down their friend because of a subconcious "safety in numbers" thing.

Hell; characters in monster movies usually do a LOT of stupid stuff.....

And as an aside: I'm not hackin' on Joe.... he's done a good job articulating what seems to be a popular opinion. So he ends up being the defacto spokesperson for the opposition.

>2) It's all a gimmick.

Most entertainment is. They don't keep making buddy cop films because they have a brilliant new idea for one. I think here the question is WHY does it bother folks that this is a gimmick?

>that's my point - that it wasn't a movie,

Well.... it WAS; but it wasn't a normal kind of movie. And the more I hear about it, the more I want to see it. I CRAVE things that are even a bit different.

Don C.

[megoscott]

Rob and the gang going after Beth was quixotic, as Joe says. But it wasn't completely stupid. He loved her, she was in trouble, help wasn't going to come, so he went. The sister in law just lost her husband to be and had made a speech about how she felt like family, so she's going. Hud is the best friend with the heart of gold, so he's going. Why Marlena went I can't say, but she got to die a truly horrible death for our benefit, so, ya know...that worked out. My only complaint is when they found the army guys in the department store they didn't change their shoes. That was some heavy urban trekking they were doing in party shoes. Loot some boots, kids.

[mitchedwards]

Thanks for the review. I'll maker it a DVD rental

[YoungOnce]

Bunch of us went and saw it. Have to say, I really liked it.

It's fair to say that it is an "experiment" in film story-telling. But I think that it is one that works. I believe that they got the most out of the first-person, home-video type perspective.

If you're looking for a movie with grand overhead views like any King Kong or Godzilla movie, well, at least you've got dozens and dozens of movies like that to go watch. But this one was fun to me because it is the kind of movie that I would have loved to have seen as a teenager. It really is meant to put you there in the action. Pure escapism...

It's "Blair Witch" in mentality, but the effects shots are top notch. If a giant creature really showed up in NY, what you'd see couldn't be very far off from what this movie does. If you like the movie or not, nobody else has treated the premise with more reality in my opinion.

[Vortigern99]

I just came from a showing, so all this stuff is fresh in my mind. I really liked the film, and found it an exhilerating rush throughout. Unlike some, I really cared about the characters; I wanted Rob and Beth to make a clean getaway, though I anticipated that they were probably doomed. The first-person POV was far better accomplished here than in Blair Witch Project, largely because CF was professionally designed and filmed, unlike BWP which was incredibly amateurish and underwhelming in terms of shocks and scares. In this film you actually get to see what is going on, you get to see the monsters in all their hideous glory, rather than forcing you to guess at what might be lurking in the dark -- and that quality alone makes CF a vastly superior film to BWP.

As to the characters, the entire first act -- Beth and Rob's 'morning-after' bliss, and later, the party -- clearly establishes who these people are and why we should care about them. They're young professionals; Rob is going overseas but he and Beth love each other; they have friends who care about them and behave like normal, average twenty-somethings. What more do we need to know? We see their characters expressed more fully through specific action; though there may be some question early-on as to Rob's feelings for Beth, his decision to go and rescue her reveals in unequivocal terms that he cares deeply for her. Before you know it, we're caught in the rush of terror, panic, and flight, and the only thing that matters is that the characters survive so we, the audience, can see the whole story.

I for one was wholly invested in it ,and though I might have done one or two things differently (like showing more vertigo on the leaning building, for example), overall the movie is excellent and unique, and I highly recommend it.

[Hector]

Thanks for the review. I'll maker it a DVD rental

This is the type of film that works best in a large movie theater screen.

[kingdom warrior]

This is the type of film that works best in a large movie theater screen.

I feel the same seeing it on a smaller screen will just take away from it...This worked perfect on the large Movie screen....I sat close and got the full effect........

[Vortigern99]

The hugeness of the monster must be seen on the big screen, IMO! The monster is absolutely awesome and will seem less impressive on a TV screen, even an HD widescreen.

[Daremo]

My wife and I saw it and...

WE LOVED IT

It was fast paced, and the video effects were not as jittery as Blair Witch. It did a great job of telling the story fairly completely while still maintaining the first person perspective. It gave you the impression of what it might have been like to be in NY during a Godzilla movie without having the safe third person movie goer perspective, which of course was the entire premise of the movie. Imagine the unimaginable happening during the course of your normal day without any warning. It was a completely intense thriller that moved quickly due to incredibly well placed and paced action.

Oscar nomination for Best Movie, no way. Best Monster movie ever, no way. Great summertime movie in the middle of January. Definitely.

Same with myself and my wife. We had a great time seeing this film, and thought it was really well done. I liked Blair Witch when it came out, and this was a step up from that. It took that idea, and made it better. This should have been a summer movie for sure.

[boss]

I just saw it with 15 co-workers (we took a work fieldtrip). I liked it.

[txteach]

I know I'm a bit late but I just saw the movie. FANTASTIC! I loved it. It did leave me with a few questions though.

1. Were the 2 bodies recovered next to the camcorder.

2. Is the creature that killed the camera b baby monster?

3. What is Cloverfield? Why that name for the movie?

4. What finally happened to the monster?

5. Where did the monster come from? Did we create it?

Overall a great movie though.

[ctc]

>2. Is the creature that killed the camera b baby monster?

Supposedly the Cloverfield beastie IS a baby. The little creepy-crawlies are parasites that lived on the big one.

>3. What is Cloverfield? Why that name for the movie?

I just read an article that explained this; even though I don't think it's mentioned in the film. "Cloverfield" is the military codename for the anti-monster operation.

>5. Where did the monster come from? Did we create it?

I guess it's got something to do with a Japanese tanker that blows up at the beginning, and an oil drilling expedition in a place there isn't any oil; but I haven't seen anything more detailed.

Don C.

[Hector]

As to the origins of the monster?

Well, here's my take, and it's also a strong rumor from many fans out there.

*****SPOILER!!!******

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This scene is at the END of the film:

Apparently in the background of the footage that HUD had taped over, when Rob and Beth were at Coney Island, “something suspicious” drops into the water.

Here was an example, but the clip was removed for obvious reasons:

Cloverfield Monster Origin | Refried Screens


*
*
*
*
*
******END OF SPOILER!!!******