Cloverfield

[Rabain]

Different..

 

still can't decide if it was good or bad.

[icelus]

I didn't like it. I mean, it wasn't horrible, but, while "innovative" (um, the same way Blair Witch was...), I'm not fond of the personal handi-cam cinematography. I despised the characters, so I was never really rooting for anyone. Some of the effects were nice, but when taken as a whole, I rather regretted buying my ticket (ok, ok, someone else bought it, but still...). Also, while I'm sure some of its "appeal" comes from the lack of knowledge concerning Why, I found it frustrating.

[theacefes]

I didn't like it. I mean, it wasn't horrible, but, while "innovative" (um, the same way Blair Witch was...), I'm not fond of the personal handi-cam cinematography. I despised the characters, so I was never really rooting for anyone. Some of the effects were nice, but when taken as a whole, I rather regretted buying my ticket (ok, ok, someone else bought it, but still...). Also, while I'm sure some of its "appeal" comes from the lack of knowledge concerning Why, I found it frustrating.

 

I thought as a monster movie, it did its job: it was entertaining. The characters seemed realistic, so I liked that about it. The handi cam thing wasn't too bad, but they could have used a crappier camera if they wanted to make it more realistic, unless Rob had a super nice camera (he had money didn't he?).

 

Unless you kept track of the websites and clues popping up after the first preview at the Transformers premiere, anyone seeing Cloverfield without knowing anything about it would be a little bit of "Huh?" if they heard everyone else around them talking about exactly what the movie would be about.

 

Truth is, it's really idiotic to put the story of a movie on its website. If there is a backstory and it needs to be told, put it in the movie. This "Donnie Darko" nonsense is stupid and got old real fast years ago.

 

So...as a monster movie, it was good. My only suggestions would be to 1) forget any intricate backstory: it's a monster movie or it's more than that, and if it is more than that, explain it IN the movie. Also, use a cruddier camera. And bring a battery charger.

[EiriktheScald]

Producer J. J. Abrams wanted to do an American "Godzilla" film. There are few films, like this one, that have had me on the edge of my seat. And I enjoy a film that doesn't reveal everything to you, but plays on your imagination. I preferred it over "I Am Legend."

[Rabain]

I thought I AM LEGEND was excellent...right up to the last 60 seconds of the movie...they sucked.

 

 

Spoiler (My ending): they all die in the city...then the camera zooms out of the city and pans across the countryside...with day turning to night and a large number of zombie/mutant/rabies thingies moving in on the last outpost in Virginia.

 

No voiceover telling me everything worked out in the end.

 

 

A friend pointed out to me recently that Hollywood seems to have moved wholesale to killing off their leads in recent movies. When I thought about it I realised by and large it is going that way.

[KIrving]

I enjoyed it. Except I did find myself needing to look sideways every now and again and managed to avoid camera shake headache. I suppose the feeling of nausea can cause you to feel like you are in the thick of the action. (Of course I might be retch....reaching there. )

 

And bring a battery charger.

Half way through the movie I couldn't get that idea out of my head. Also I've always been of the impression that delicate electronic instruments do not respond well to being dropped.

 

Producer J. J. Abrams wanted to do an American "Godzilla" film. There are few films, like this one, that have had me on the edge of my seat. And I enjoy a film that doesn't reveal everything to you, but plays on your imagination. I preferred it over "I Am Legend."

I didn't know that about J.J. Abrams but I definitely got the "Godzilla" feel. I also liked 'I Am Legend', especially because I love German Shepards.