Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Cloverfield

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Cloverfield Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Cloverfield - 24/2/2008 10:21:06 PM   
Sgg2000

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 24/2/2008
I have to say that if you can't see the recreated 9/11 footage (or hear the 9/11 quotes) in Cloverfield then you must have been in another film. It's not that the film is slightly reminiscent of 9/11 footage, it's the fact that certain shots are blatantly lifted from camera footage of that day (most notably the 'escape from the dust cloud by running into the shop' scene) and that script is replaced with sound bites of the same footage. I had no preconceptions about the film when I went (I didn't even know it was a monster movie, I just turned up at the cinema and picked the film with the most interesting name), and I enjoyed myself despite the multitude of flaws it had. But the recreation of 9/11 footage couldn't have been more obvious and for a piece of fluff entertainment with no moral context, was offensive and exploitative.

I would be interested to hear what people think about other aspects of the film. For example the camera work. I found that I had to sit with my eyes closed several times until the nausea passed, and on the way out I wasn't the only person staggering dizilty from the cinema. For the sake of being able to watch a film without puking, couldn't the camera have been a tad steadier? I don't understand why it was so shakey. Once when I was little I strapped a camcorder onto my bike and went flying down a hill. The camera came off and went into the spokes of the front wheel and sent me over the handlebars. That footage was steadier than the majority of Cloverfield! And for someone who repeatedly told us he was "making a documentary" because "people are gonna want to know... how it all went down" (worst line of film, blatant trailer  fodder) there was a distinct lack of monster-documentation. WHY did he film his friends hiding in a doorway when the army burst in shooting at the monster? Personally, I'd be looking at the huge monster that was 50 feet away getting shot to death and/or running for my life. And considering that humanity's morbid fascination with tragedy was so carefully pointed out by everyone whipping their mobiles out to film the statue of liberty head, SURELY the camera (having not been dropped) would have been pointed in the general direction of the monster?

Also what was so top secret about the tape? We saw live news broadcasts of the spider things and big monster (which presumably was of superior quality), and survivors are implied from the fact that there is a 'last' escape helicopter suggesting that there are other escape helicopters - so it's not that no one knows what happened. Plus the air force have a habit of filming their air strikes, so it's not like it was showing any secret information about the effectiveness of bombing the thing. Maybe they were protecting us all from the banal lives of the 2D main characters. That must be what it was since 4 hours of listening to them twatting on made the only character with an once of personality explode.

It had it's atmospheric moments (the first time you get to see the monster is genuinely freaky), and it kept up an exciting pace. But Cloverfield has too many flaws to survive repeated viewings, and too little plot/character development to be anything above average. I think that most of the 5-star ratings must come from the same planet that the The Simpsons Movie 5 star reviews came from.

(in reply to Fletcher)
Post #: 511
RE: Cloverfield - 24/2/2008 10:33:03 PM   
kumar


Posts: 5227
Joined: 2/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lydia_H

No 


for the love of god


_____________________________

"Darth Silas - I love Craig as Bond too. Genius. "- Jackmansgirl 15/7/2008

Last films watched:

The Road - 4/5
Chronicle - 4/5
Twilight Breaking Dawn p1 - 1/5
Warrior - 5/5
Super 8 - 5/5
Paranormal Activity 3 - 3/5
MI 4 - 2/5

(in reply to Lydia_H)
Post #: 512
RE: Cloverfield - 24/2/2008 10:34:48 PM   
Wilbert


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Dublin: Ireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sgg2000

I have to say that if you can't see the recreated 9/11footage (or hear the 9/11 quotes) in Cloverfield then you must have been in another film. It's not that the film is slightly reminiscent of 9/11 footage, it's the fact that certain shots areblatantly lifted from camera footage of that day (most notably the 'escape from the dust cloud by running into the shop' scene) and that script is replaced with sound bites of the same footage. I had no preconceptions about the film when I went (I didn't even know it was a monster movie, I just turned up at the cinema and picked the film with the most interesting name), and I enjoyed myself despite the multitude of flaws it had. Butthe recreation of 9/11 footage couldn't have been more obvious andfor apiece of fluff entertainment with no moral context, wasoffensive and exploitative.


Yeah, you're right!

They also had those spider-creatures running around eating people just like on 9/11! It was a bit much, wasn't it?

The dust cloud shot was pretty obviously inspired by the events of 9/11 but guess what? Buildings throw up big dust clouds when they collapse!

What should they have done? Had a cloud of magical fairy dust roll up the street? Not had a dust cloud at all? Not had a building collapse? Not set it in New York? Can there never be a film with so much as an explosion in New York ever again?

Look there is no getting away from 9/11 and New York. You can't separate them in your mind any more but you can stop mentioning 9/11 whenever there is so much as a car alarm going off in a New York movie.

I guarantee you if there was an animated movie set in New York and a pigeon flew into the window of a skyscraper complete with comedy noises, there would be some numbnuts somewhere who would say it was a nod to 9/11.

Just to be clear; you enjoyed this film even though it was offensive and exploitative?

_____________________________

You're killing Independent George!!!!

(in reply to Sgg2000)
Post #: 513
RE: Cloverfield - 24/2/2008 11:07:23 PM   
Caster


Posts: 5612
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

Spielberg in particular has made a selection of sloppy movies in the last decade, from Saving Private Ryan's hammer-home unsubtlety, Schindler's List's inability to keep the story away from sentimentality ( and the odd choice to tell the story not from the point of the Jewish communities, but from a German aristocrat's - akin to telling the story of apartheid from the point of view of a herioic white angel. Yes I know it's Shindler's List but why ? See the Pianist for a PROPER film about world war 2 from the point of the persecuted Jews ), to Minority Report's laughable attempts at darkness ( my son is dead, and I'm a drug addict ) to the horrific AI - forget the ending, lap up the techincally impossible "moon balloon," and the hugely entertaining use of a metal band to show "bad" people - to the disgrace that is War of the Worlds - Tom Cruise as an everyman ( where's Kurt Russell when you need him ? ), running around and becoming a good father while avoiding those pesky heat rays. Oh, had it not been for those aliens would he EVER have gotten back in touch with his humanity ? Don't get me started on Munich, a naive and clumsy "political thriller" that is so unsubtle it has to resort to that glaring-thumb image of the twin towers at the end, just in case we missed the point.



Quote of the week.  You sir are talking utter shite.  Dear lord.

< Message edited by Caster -- 24/2/2008 11:09:01 PM >

(in reply to kumar)
Post #: 514
RE: Cloverfield - 25/2/2008 4:54:13 AM   
Lydia_H


Posts: 3799
Joined: 26/11/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: kumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lydia_H

No 


for the love of god



Hehe


_____________________________

I'm hot like Pol Pot. Squeeze me.

(in reply to kumar)
Post #: 515
RE: Cloverfield - 25/2/2008 11:30:11 AM   
Kilo_T_Mortal


Posts: 13539
Joined: 30/9/2005
Good 4 star film, original take on a very old genre. Excellent acting and never insulted the watchers' intelligence. I don't need to be given a fake scientific explanation of why certain things happen, I don't need to know where the monster came from or why it's there. It's really not important.

It has flaws such as it's a bit too short, the ending lacks a certain something like the writer wasn't quite sure how to end it. Anyone criticising the dialog has no real idea about portraying reality, because this was done very well. From dropping the camera to leg level while running away, to giving tentative shots and clues about what's happening.

As people have said it's let down by a single 9/11 reference. They were taking past experience and trying to suggest that something similar might account for what was happening. It was totally absurd and the writers should have know better. As if anyone would think of 9/11 when they saw a large explosion on a skyscraper.

Definitely one to catch at the cinema, original if slightly flawed.

_____________________________

he's ruining my buestiful threat!

"She must have known about all this before she let that grinning loon put his space-cock anywhere near her?"
horribleives

(in reply to Lydia_H)
Post #: 516
RE: Cloverfield - 25/2/2008 11:30:51 AM   
Kilo_T_Mortal


Posts: 13539
Joined: 30/9/2005
What he said

< Message edited by Kilo_T_Mortal -- 29/2/2008 10:23:33 AM >


_____________________________

he's ruining my buestiful threat!

"She must have known about all this before she let that grinning loon put his space-cock anywhere near her?"
horribleives

(in reply to Lydia_H)
Post #: 517
RE: Cloverfield - 25/2/2008 11:31:28 AM   
Kilo_T_Mortal


Posts: 13539
Joined: 30/9/2005


< Message edited by Kilo_T_Mortal -- 29/2/2008 10:22:54 AM >


_____________________________

he's ruining my buestiful threat!

"She must have known about all this before she let that grinning loon put his space-cock anywhere near her?"
horribleives

(in reply to Lydia_H)
Post #: 518
RE: Cloverfield - 25/2/2008 1:46:03 PM   
Breakneck

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 21/2/2008
Hmm, the old "talking utter shite" line in reference to someone's opinion. Here's a thought, dear friends, instead of leaping through the air and high-fiving, nodding your heads in collective agreement or sitting on a couch with dry drool in your lap, try WATCHING THESE FILMS !!!!!!! And then, instead of collectively stating "talking utter shite," explain to me why it is so. Explain to me, argue with me, tell me what you so obviously know and I don't.

In other words, if you're not prepared to fight your corner with a salient, coherent or even loopy opinion, don't respond. Don't just quote me, and then tell me I'm talking shite. Tell me why you think so ! Is it because Spielberg is actually a good film maker ? Is it that you are so brainwashed and braindead that you cannot see the inherent flaws to each and every one of his movies because - en masse - he has been declared to be one of the greatest film makers out there and we cannot argue with the consensus ? WHY ? Why do you feel this ? Did Schindler's List - the film not the book on which it's based - move you because it is well conceived, well shot, well edited, well acted and well written ? Does the black and white actually add to the feeling of the film, or is it an excuse to use short hand ( ie the girl in the red coat ) to whittle an entire tragedy down to one user-friendly moment ? Was it right to turn Oskar Schindler into a snivelling wreck at the end, just to squeeze a few more tears out of the audience ? Or did Shindler's List move you because, as a human being, the holocaust simply moves us. Because we wouldn't be human not to have an emotion related to the horrors. I do not deny Spielberg's attachment to the issues and the story. I simply wonder why he would choose to tell this story, and tell it this way.

Again I direct you to Polanski's "The Pianist." It's not definitive, but it's a damn sight better.

Spielberg makes highly flawed, highly misjudged, rushed films, and utilises his power as one of the "greatest film-makers in the world" to do so. He has a bigger budget, and so he can colour his films with a sheen of polish. But polished turds is what they are dear friends. Polished shite.

And to keep this in the Cloverfield thread, to reiterate and respond to whoever the hell else actually responed to me - it is not original. The concept is old hat. Merging Blair Witch's naff camcorder concept with Godzilla is not original, it is a merging of Blair Witch's naff camcorder concept with Godzilla. It is - as I have said before - a compilation of scenes from other, better movies, as shot on a camcorder. Naffly.

< Message edited by Breakneck -- 25/2/2008 1:47:46 PM >

(in reply to Kilo_T_Mortal)
Post #: 519
RE: Cloverfield - 25/2/2008 2:24:32 PM   
Lydia_H


Posts: 3799
Joined: 26/11/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Breakneck

Hmm, the old "talking utter shite" line in reference to someone's opinion. Here's a thought, dear friends, instead of leaping through the air and high-fiving, nodding your heads in collective agreement or sitting on a couch with dry drool in your lap, try WATCHING THESE FILMS !!!!!!! And then, instead of collectively stating "talking utter shite," explain to me why it is so. Explain to me, argue with me, tell me what you so obviously know and I don't.

In other words, if you're not prepared to fight your corner with a salient, coherent or even loopy opinion, don't respond. Don't just quote me, and then tell me I'm talking shite. Tell me why you think so ! Is it because Spielberg is actually a good film maker ? Is it that you are so brainwashed and braindead that you cannot see the inherent flaws to each and every one of his movies because - en masse - he has been declared to be one of the greatest film makers out there and we cannot argue with the consensus ? WHY ? Why do you feel this ? Did Schindler's List - the film not the book on which it's based - move you because it is well conceived, well shot, well edited, well acted and well written ? Does the black and white actually add to the feeling of the film, or is it an excuse to use short hand ( ie the girl in the red coat ) to whittle an entire tragedy down to one user-friendly moment ? Was it right to turn Oskar Schindler into a snivelling wreck at the end, just to squeeze a few more tears out of the audience ? Or did Shindler's List move you because, as a human being, the holocaust simply moves us. Because we wouldn't be human not to have an emotion related to the horrors. I do not deny Spielberg's attachment to the issues and the story. I simply wonder why he would choose to tell this story, and tell it this way.

Again I direct you to Polanski's "The Pianist." It's not definitive, but it's a damn sight better.

Spielberg makes highly flawed, highly misjudged, rushed films, and utilises his power as one of the "greatest film-makers in the world" to do so. He has a bigger budget, and so he can colour his films with a sheen of polish. But polished turds is what they are dear friends. Polished shite.


I wouldn't bother trying to provoke a proper argument against this


_____________________________

I'm hot like Pol Pot. Squeeze me.

(in reply to Breakneck)
Post #: 520
RE: Cloverfield - 25/2/2008 2:43:08 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7927
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lydia_H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Breakneck

Hmm, the old "talking utter shite" line in reference to someone's opinion. Here's a thought, dear friends, instead of leaping through the air and high-fiving, nodding your heads in collective agreement or sitting on a couch with dry drool in your lap, try WATCHING THESE FILMS !!!!!!! And then, instead of collectively stating "talking utter shite," explain to me why it is so. Explain to me, argue with me, tell me what you so obviously know and I don't.

In other words, if you're not prepared to fight your corner with a salient, coherent or even loopy opinion, don't respond. Don't just quote me, and then tell me I'm talking shite. Tell me why you think so ! Is it because Spielberg is actually a good film maker ? Is it that you are so brainwashed and braindead that you cannot see the inherent flaws to each and every one of his movies because - en masse - he has been declared to be one of the greatest film makers out there and we cannot argue with the consensus ? WHY ? Why do you feel this ? Did Schindler's List - the film not the book on which it's based - move you because it is well conceived, well shot, well edited, well acted and well written ? Does the black and white actually add to the feeling of the film, or is it an excuse to use short hand ( ie the girl in the red coat ) to whittle an entire tragedy down to one user-friendly moment ? Was it right to turn Oskar Schindler into a snivelling wreck at the end, just to squeeze a few more tears out of the audience ? Or did Shindler's List move you because, as a human being, the holocaust simply moves us. Because we wouldn't be human not to have an emotion related to the horrors. I do not deny Spielberg's attachment to the issues and the story. I simply wonder why he would choose to tell this story, and tell it this way.

Again I direct you to Polanski's "The Pianist." It's not definitive, but it's a damn sight better.

Spielberg makes highly flawed, highly misjudged, rushed films, and utilises his power as one of the "greatest film-makers in the world" to do so. He has a bigger budget, and so he can colour his films with a sheen of polish. But polished turds is what they are dear friends. Polished shite.


I wouldn't bother trying to provoke a proper argument against this



Except it's in the wrong thread. This here is the Cloverfield review thread, right? Really, anyone would think you're trolling the thread and taking it deliberately off topic, Lydia, particularly as you haven't even seen the film yet. Let's stay on topic and move the Spielberg debate to a Spielberg is a hack thread of which I'm sure there are already a few kicking about, and leave this thread to discussing Cloverfield. Cheers! 

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Lydia_H)
Post #: 521
RE: Cloverfield - 27/2/2008 1:14:14 PM   
markie31

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/4/2007
I really enjoyed the film, the party section does suck though but it is effective becuase it multiplies the tension when the film does come to life.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 522
Cloverfield - 2/3/2008 2:57:24 PM   
Mark David

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/3/2008
Since the days of 50’s B-movie Director Ed Wood’s Plan 9 From Outer Space, or the first King Kong movie, the exhausted cliché of a monster attacking New York City seems now almost more destined to roll eyes than raise eyebrows. Until now.
With the likes of Speilberg and Ridley Scott having set their own distinctive benchmarks in the jumpy action-thriller ala alien invasion shockers on their own turf’s, no film-maker in cinematic history has managed to suspend an audience’s disbelief in the obvious absurd with as much ingenuity as JJ Abrams’ Cloverfield.
With not a single yard of 35mm celluloid footage, and with Will Smith nowhere to be seen, we follow our all non-star cast from the outset where we meet Rob (Michael Stahl-David) and his new squeeze Beth (Odette Yustman) setting out on their first proper date as viewed through the lens of a consumer DV camera. This outing, as we quickly learn, is old-to-recent video footage that we later see inter-cut into the hand- held city trauma that later follows.
The real journey starts with Rob’s leaving party, prior to his business departure to Japan, where the camera is placed in the hands of socially inept best friend Hudd (T J Miller). From hereon Hudd is our guide documenting our view point through all that unfolds: a strange explosion from downtown Manhattan, followed by the rolling head of the Statue of Liberty. Our unsightly beast is only glimpsed at sporadically; the enormity of its stature and depository parasites that brutally mame anyone with the misfortune of being in their immediate vicinity is made more compellingly terrifying through the amateur lens herein. With visual echo’s of 911, we are treated to a universally practised medium that we are automatically programmed to trust, feel and want to believe in over all Hollywoodized Panavision lenses. After sitting through this gargantuan turmoil, where CG art has perhaps surpassed its own peak in mastering seamless

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 523
RE: Cloverfield - 5/3/2008 8:46:47 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2180
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: Breakneck

Is it that you are so brainwashed and braindead that you cannot see the inherent flaws to each and every one of his movies because - en masse - he has been declared to be one of the greatest film makers out there and we cannot argue with the consensus ? WHY ? Why do you feel this ?


A presumptious shit to boot too. You've seemingly decided on behalf of many film goers (not movie) that they must be "brain dead" and "brainwashed" if they haven't picked out a flaw in every one of his films? I personally don't give a toss about any critical acclaim an auteur receives, that's not the reason why I choose to look at their body work. If I like it and it has a good plot, writing and characterisation then I will applaud whether it is made by a big name film maker or not. In addition who actually said that we couldn't argue with this so called "consensus"?

Personally I think Spielberg has made some classics, Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan. Now you're probably lambast my opinion and launch some diatribe, a tirade of ignorance and snobbery because it doesn't fit your ideal of is good film taste but why would I give a shite on an opinion that doesn't carry weight concerning my film taste? That's a rhetorical question so don't bother answering it. What always exacerbates matters for me is when some one deems themselves fit enough to dictate to others what is an acceptable film or how I should enjoy it. Why does it matter to you that others like Spielberg's films? I didn't like A.I, thought it was akin to an empty magic trick. The only bits of War of the Worlds I enjoyed (which he showed sparingly) were when the Armed Forces took on the Tripods. I still scratch my head at why the camera was focused on a father-son domestic when we had huge towering and lumbering Tripods regining down death and the best of Military proving ineffectual. Bearing that in mind I still think Spielberg is a great film maker, I haven't enjoyed some of his latest offerings but at least he's provided a great set of films which always pushed the cinematic frontier.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Breakneck

Spielberg makes highly flawed, highly misjudged, rushed films, and utilises his power as one of the "greatest film-makers in the world" to do so. He has a bigger budget, and so he can colour his films with a sheen of polish. But polished turds is what they are dear friends. Polished shite.


Well he may be an optimist at heart, which  I don't view as a crime, despite its awkward trudging I feel satisfied that Spielberg at least made an attempt at delivering a darker and not so 'comfortable' story when it came to War of the Worlds. Again with Saving Private Ryan he made an effort to tell the stories of WW2 veterans in a way no one had attempted before,  much more visceral and less glorifying than what the likes of John Wayne did.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Breakneck

And to keep this in the Cloverfield thread, to reiterate and respond to whoever the hell else actually responed to me - it is not original. The concept is old hat. Merging Blair Witch's naff camcorder concept with Godzilla is not original, it is a merging of Blair Witch's naff camcorder concept with Godzilla. It is - as I have said before - a compilation of scenes from other, better movies, as shot on a camcorder. Naffly.


Well the first film that used the camcorder schtik was 'Alien Abduction: The McPherson Tape'. Whilst not a masterpiece certainly gave me some scares when I first saw it, this film was made in 1997. Two years before the release of Blair Witch.


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Breakneck)
Post #: 524
RE: Cloverfield - 9/3/2008 5:10:25 PM   
Breakneck

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 21/2/2008
Re Emyr Thy King if you're still interested - why do we read Empire ? It's so their opinions can influence us - even just a little bit - as to whether or not a film is worth seeing. Are they presumptious, or are they using their own forum to air views based on both knowledge of what makes a film work, and what they PERSONALLY like based on a passion for films ? Here's the thing Emyr - when someone expresses a strong opinion against mutt like "War of the worlds" or "Minority Report" it's not just because they are bad films - which they are, no two ways about it - it's not just because they are bad films - there are far worse out there. It's because Spielberg get's universally lauded for what are - at their best- bloody average movies. Don't take it personally. I'm not trying to deny anyone's right to enjoy these pieces of shite, I'm just telling you that these are not well made, well acted, or well written films. I am saying that because of Spielberg's stature, he is allowed to get away with the sort of crap that no one else would. Spielberg's best movies tend to come when he has to rely - against the odds - on people around him. Jaws in particular works because he had to jettison his original intentions to show the shark right at the start, and instead had to rely on tension to drive the film. He surrounded himself with strong minded actors who ran riot on the set, fought with each other, caused all sorts of hell, and resulted in a classic, classic movie. Spielberg has not had to rely on set-tension or strong-willed actors ( and fuck off now, Tom Cruise fans - he's a scientology twat who knows the benefit of being in a Spielberg film and that's all he is ) or writers who'll stand up to him for a very long time. As a result his films are weak, over reliant on special effects to cover plot holes, and repetative. And that is why i express my opinion about these things emyr.

Why is it that you think I am not fit to discuss these things ? As someone who likes, no loves, films enough to keep coming back onto these forums to defend my corner, why do you think I am not allowed to express my opinion, and why is it that when i try to justify it it's a diatribe ? Why do you have any more right to your opinion than me ? In my humble opinion, Spielberg made some good early films - no doubt. Duel works, no question. Not sure how much of a hand he had in it, but let's say it's all down to the junior tv director's amazing genius. Jaws is excellent. Close Encounters is soppy, but still has great excitement factor. But then come things like Colour Purple, Empire of the Sun, ET, Shindler's List, AI, War of the Worlds and beyond. Forget Indiana Jones, the more power he has had in those films, the crapper they've got. Sorry.

That's all I'm saying.

And Cloverfield is still bollocks.

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 525
This film scared the **** out of me. - 13/3/2008 12:41:42 AM   
nc_jj


Posts: 664
Joined: 20/2/2008
An horrifying sci-fi/horror film. This and The Mist are the two only films that shocked me in, like, 7 years.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 526
This film scared the **** out of me. - 13/3/2008 12:42:23 AM   
nc_jj


Posts: 664
Joined: 20/2/2008
An horrifying sci-fi/horror film. This and The Mist are the two only films that shocked me in, like, 7 years.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 527
This film scared the **** out of me. - 13/3/2008 12:42:54 AM   
nc_jj


Posts: 664
Joined: 20/2/2008
An horrifying sci-fi/horror film. This and The Mist are the two only films that shocked me in, like, 7 years. I agree with you, Empire.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 528
I cant believe the positive response to this film! - 13/3/2008 2:12:22 PM   
jascott

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 13/3/2008
From: Edinburgh
Am I going mad? How come so many people thought this film was so good? And Scary!?! I get really freaked at horror films, but this film did not scare me in the slightest. The monster looked poor and was shown too much. and the film just had so many "aye right" moments that I was cringing by the end. And the cameraman was so annoying I thought I may explode. The films was based on a good idea that just lost its way completely.

overblown blockbuster crap that is trying to be clever and fails!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 529
I cant believe the positive response to this film! - 13/3/2008 2:12:56 PM   
jascott

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 13/3/2008
From: Edinburgh
Am I going mad? How come so many people thought this film was so good? And Scary!?! I get really freaked at horror films, but this film did not scare me in the slightest. The monster looked poor and was shown too much. and the film just had so many "aye right" moments that I was cringing by the end. And the cameraman was so annoying I thought I may explode. The films was based on a good idea that just lost its way completely.

overblown blockbuster crap that is trying to be clever and fails!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 530
Filmage - 16/3/2008 12:46:43 AM   
mickey820

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 8/10/2007
With all the mysterious hype surrounding the entity that is Cloverfield before the film came out, it's understandable for people to sit there for the first 20 minutes, blink twice and then ask them self what the hell is going on?
With a strange trailer, a complicated internet trail and the sort of name that could easily be the title of your average rom-com, you can't help wonder, why after those first 20 minutes, you still are still left without any solid answers.
First you are supplemented with a simple reference to "the area formerly known as central park" which is enough to grab your attention to the cinema screen.
But then with a, near aggravating, series of scenes which show no signs of a rampaging monster but only a 20 something year olds going away party, you might just want to scream.
And it's during this part of the film where your thirst for answers almost diverts you from paying attention to some of the key story lines; which, when the action starts, can to some irony leave you wandering what the hells going on.........again.
But amidst the screaming and explosions it hits you that by some miraculous feat of film engineering; its the confusion which makes you want to watch the film. You don't care that you can't remember any of the characters names or why everything's being recorded on a video camera because as soon as the statue of liberties head hits the pavement (a sentence i never thought Id say), you are taken away into the world of Cloverfield; where the thrills come big and the action comes aplenty!
In the end your brain is left in many different states. One is the realisation that amongst all the questions lays the simple story line of boy trying to save girl, which in some parts gets lost, but by the time the credits are rolling, hits you smack in the face. Another maybe anger. The experimental camera and the fact that many of the questions pondering at the beginning of Cloverfield have still not been answered are sure to spark a few fires.
But after thinking about the experience you've just had it hits you that it's the fact that there's a simple story line buried under all the mysteries and there are so many questions left to be answered; which makes Cloverfield such an exiting and more importantly, different, experience.
In short Cloverfield is a beautifully crafted experiment which makes you wonder about what you've just encountered for days after you watch it. And if there's one thing which makes the film so worth while is that you go expecting one thing; but come out having experienced something much better and something that has fulfilled and satisfied you in a whole different way.
And that is something very hard to pull off indeed.


< Message edited by mickey820 -- 16/3/2008 12:51:47 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 531
RE: Cloverfield - 19/3/2008 5:50:36 PM   
Arched

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 19/3/2008
I thought this film was crap

(in reply to Caster)
Post #: 532
RE: Cloverfield - 22/3/2008 7:08:01 PM   
R W

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 23/6/2006
Director: Matt Reeves
Screenwriter: Drew Goddard
Starring: Michael Stahl-David, T. J. Miller, Jessica Lucas, Odette Yustman, Lizzy Caplan, Mike Vogel

Synopsis
A farewell party for Rob Hawkins (Stahl-David) goes horribly wrong when a mysterious large monster is terrorizing Manhattan. So Rob and a couple of friends travel through the city to search for his girlfriend Beth (Yustman).

Review
For over seventy years, Hollywood has been making monster movies since 1933's King Kong. Ever since the fifty-foot ape, New York has been terrorised, while multiple mayors of the city have problems sorting out the destructible aftermath. But ever since September 11th, Hollywood has been taken serious subject matters (for once), though they find new ways of destruction.

J. J. Abrams, creator of Alias and Lost, decided to pitch the idea of Cloverfield, a post-9/11 monster movie that will be told through the lenses of a digital handheld camera. And this is what you will expect to see in the final film. This film gives the chance for television crews to show how cinematic they can be.

The screenplay by Drew Goddard does follow a familiar formula from previous monster flicks, which is the journey of the lead characters. They are young adults we can relate to, such as they are party animals and they have relationship problems. This is the premise for the first twenty minutes, which is a little too long and you just want to see the monster. The originality within the script is the concept of the creature, which has no back story, though we learn some horrifying things about it.

What made Spielberg's adaptation of War of the Worlds so gripping is that even though it was a one-man story, the journey told you that the world was under attack. Since this film is told through a video camera, the reality of the attack is much more intense. Director Matt Reeves, co-creator of the TV series Felicity, manages to reference 9/11 in a hyper-realistic way through the creature's path of destruction. The shaky-cam may become a problem for people who might suffer from motion sickness, but it helps creating the horror.

Goddard's dialogue might be tongue-in-cheek, but the performances have enough sympathy to get use to. Michael Stahl-David is a perfectly fine leading man who manages to pull himself into the most dramatic scenes in the film. T. J. Miller's Hud, a.k.a. the cameraman is your usual one-liner and Odette Yustman is your damsel-in-distress. Lizzy Capaln who plays the lovable drunken broad has a strange similarity to Ally Sheedy in The Breakfast Club.

The true star of the film is the monster himself (or herself). I won't tell you much about it, because that's the big secret. Through out the film, the characters talk about it and it is a big concern, in which you want to know where it came from. There are plans of making a sequel, but what's the point? The true nature of this creature should be left a mystery.

Verdict
Cloverfield may attract groups of Youtube viewers, but it is too original to continue on as a franchise. 

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 533
Not a film. An actual experience! - 28/3/2008 7:40:35 PM   
alsybroth

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 5/1/2007
Tight, gripping, injects mild humour at appropiate moments, but above all else, the film is just absolutely intense beyond belief. The whole Blair Witch style home-video cam really did give it that authentic feel that the audience itself was in danger of the attacks, and invoking a sense of vertigo in the scene with the two collided buildings or claustrophobia in the subway tunnel scene. Not to mention the monster itself is a work of sick genius. Brilliant, truly brillaint.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 534
????????????? - 8/4/2008 5:44:53 PM   
Hedgehog Nolan


Posts: 18
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Ireland
This was amazing its like your with the characters . After some time you started to feel sick but in the end it is worth it . Im still a bit confused WHAT WAS IT?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 535
????????????? - 8/4/2008 5:45:26 PM   
Hedgehog Nolan


Posts: 18
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Ireland
This was amazing its like your with the characters . After some time you started to feel sick but in the end it is worth it . Im still a bit confused WHAT WAS IT?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 536
A Great Experience - 8/4/2008 7:02:33 PM   
Dave25

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 1/4/2006
Just watched this film and I was dissapointed I didn't catch it at the cinema. I found the whole film to be an exciting and fresh experience, the people on this page that didn't like this must either be twats or just don't like films. There were some truly standout parts of this film, the view from the helicopter while the beast is cluster bombed by a B-2 is a particular favourite, gripping stuff!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 537
A Great Experience - 8/4/2008 7:03:06 PM   
Dave25

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 1/4/2006
Just watched this film and I was dissapointed I didn't catch it at the cinema. I found the whole film to be an exciting and fresh experience, the people on this page that didn't like this must either be twats or just don't like films. There were some truly standout parts of this film, the view from the helicopter while the beast is cluster bombed by a B-2 is a particular favourite, gripping stuff!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 538
Good! - 12/4/2008 2:10:10 PM   
jimibadboi7

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/12/2006
Cloverfield is a fun experience...but still overrated. It is a more enjoyable watch than Blair Witch... but there isn't much replayability value in it! ... one of those things u see...enjoy....then forget.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 539
No War of the Worlds - 12/4/2008 2:12:01 PM   
jimibadboi7

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/12/2006
p.s. Spielberg's War of the Worlds is still the finest peice of work in the disaster/horror/thriller department!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Cloverfield Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156