Harry Knowles of AICN has seen Cloverfield, and has posted a raving review. Here are a couple snippets:
“CLOVERFIELD is a bold genre-reinvention unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.”
“The movie is f**king brilliant. It’s what we were told it was going to be. An intimate perspective on an impossibly grand scale human disaster beyond most human levels of comprehension.
“Like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but instead of Nazis it’s a giant monster.”
“Characters die. Shit goes horribly horribly wrong – and it rules!”
“There’s no score, there’s no rules, there feels like there’s no script and no movie. It feels found, but it is so huge that you can’t ever really believe that… but handheld film just has never had a story of something this fantastical or huge happen. The movie is a landmark genre film. A true milestone in film.”
“[Matt Reeves] just came out with a film about as SUNDANCE as you could imagine. This is like an INDIE film – that you’d dream Spielberg would make.”
“CLOVERFIELD is worth the obsession, worth the months I’ve had to put up with fans wondering what the hell it was”
Disclaimer: But before you drink the kool aid, please remember that Harry Knowles has never been known as a good barometer of taste. This is the same guy who once gave the American remake of Godzilla a glowing review, right? This is not a knock against Knowles or his site, as I’m sure even Harry would agree that he gets way over-excited in his movie reviews. I’m also not saying that Cloverfield won’t be awesome. Everyone I’ve talked to who has seen it has had nothing but good things to say about the movie. Just something to consider.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Spoilers!!
January 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I think Harry can be paid to rate anything. I should give him $10 so he’ll post my awesome saved by the bell satanic backmask video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWs5vWks3h0
January 10th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I gave up on AICN a long time ago…
TBH, this is the only film site I read daily now.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I don’t care what anyone says…..since I saw the teaser trailer front of transfer….. I was sold on that spot…..because its from jj….he’s the new speilberg. bet on it!
January 10th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I don’t buy all the JJ love.
I mean. He’s done some seemingly great tv, but what does he have to really show for himself in movies besides an enjoyably competent Mission: Impossible III?
January 10th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I agree. I’ve had payola suspicions about that site for a long time. He also loved Armageddon and the character of Jar Jar Binks.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
There are other reviewers there I like. Harry does have his own “section” on there. So its easy to ignore his banter when it comes to reviews.
I still think this Cloverfield is going to suck. But im willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
aicn is still online?
January 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Hey Pete, do I detect a hint of jealousy in that “disclaimer” of yours?
January 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I agree with the disclaimer. When was the last time Harry himself gave a negative review? His “negative” reviews are at worst luke warm. Or, usually, there’s one element that “makes him cum in his pants” enough (in Harry’s eloquent prose) that the rest of the crappy film is outweighed. Just because Harry has been around so long doesn’t inspire my trust - I remember a time before the studios used to kiss his ass and invite him and his friends on to sets for meet and greet sessions with the stars and free gift bags, that he used to give scathing reviews.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
What I’ve got to say is that it’s hopefully not as long winded and confusing as lost was. I mean, if you missed an eps you didn’t know who was doing what and where. I can see the “windswept” speed of the film, and, if this is designed as a short, then it’s going to be a tiring film.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
i just cant stand the layout of aicn and the annoying post titles they write up. other then that, i do enjoy the reviews and writeups from people like capone and massawyrm. personally, i stick to /film, filmdrunk and cinematical as well as the movie blog. those four will have you covered.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Tim, by jealous as in Harry got to see the movie first? Well yes, but who isn’t? Thats not why I wrote the disclaimer at all - /Film is actually bigger than AICN now-a-days (visitor/pageview number-wise).
Besides, I read the site daily myself. But Harry’s reviews are always suspect. Quint and Moriarty offer more reliable opinion.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Kari Sinkko Says: “What I’ve got to say is that it’s hopefully not as long winded and confusing as lost was. I mean, if you missed an eps you didn’t know who was doing what and where”
This is the weirdest post I’ve read. So it’s Lost’s fault that you don’t watch each and every episode and then feel confused after missing the info given in those episodes? That’s like saying that you missed the second matrix movie and then complain when you don’t get what’s happening in the 3rd one. Lost is a serialized show and the point is that you’re supposed to watch each and every episode in order to understand what is going.
Anyways, on the topic of Cloverfield, I understand Harry may not be an unbiased source but there was also a hilarious Cloverfield review by Neil Cumpston (sp?) on AICN a while ago which was very positive too and shared similar sentiments with Harry.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
You have to remember that as AICN expanded toward 01′, everyone visited that site daily. And I mean “daily”. I can vouch for that assessment as I’ve clicked on AICN about twenty five times today. Not because I’m an addict, but because there’s exclusives, some wonderful reviewing, and excellent and current updating.
Beside that, Harry isn’t anyone to blame, really. His site is so large and huge that if he reviews “Iron Man”, Marvel takes that into consideration. He also has friends, and to be honest, I’d lighten up on a few things for em’.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:10 am
He gave Godzilla a “glowing review” because it’s a masterpiece… and now JJ Abrams is remaking it.
ZING.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:43 am
“Tim, by jealous as in Harry got to see the movie first? Well yes, but who isn’t? Thats not why I wrote the disclaimer at all - /Film is actually bigger than AICN now-a-days (visitor/pageview number-wise).”
Please back this up. Because I don’t believe you, and also, I don’t believe you. Did I mention that I don’t believe you? AICN probably gets more hits daily just through the talkbackers.
I love this site just as much, but I really find that hard to believe. I need some proof.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:33 am
yeah right, here is proof from two independent traffic analytic websites:
compete.com
Alexa.com
Guys, let’s please bring the discussion back to Cloverfield or Harry’s review of Cloverfield. Thanks!
January 11th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Nuff said Pete, way to back it up. Now, back to Cloverfield…
January 11th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I think Harry just wants to seal the deal that he’ll get into Star Trek early by buffing Abrams booty here.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I’ve never trusted Alexa for traffic numbers because I know for a fact they are way way off, at least in terms of our traffic and definitely Moviefone’s traffic.
Aside from that though, I completely agree with Peter on Knowles. I mean, that review was just oozing with quotes for Paramount to use in their upcoming marketing materials (ie: commercials the week of or week after release). But that’s his thing. And he’s not the only one out there who does it.
Regardless, I still think the film will be cool — if anything, it’s taken a played-out concept and found a way to make it fresh again. This should be fun to watch.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
How could you watch the short cam job promos and not get excited?
I’m not feeling the love on Star Trek though, maybe once a trailer hits but from the info I read it’s just another episode. Time Travel? Haven’t they been there, done that in at least a 100 times now? Okay, just my perception, I’m not a big Trekkie by any stretch.
Everyone’s jumping on the reboot bandwagon more and more, now we get something a bit more original like Cloverfield and people are griping? I don’t know about the rest but I’d rather give something new a chance than to keep seeing the same o’ crap attack on the screen.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I don’t mind AICN. But there talk backs, yesh. It’s what I would imagine being in the stocks in medieval times would feel like.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
This is going to bother me.. but THEIR instead of THERE.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
So… have we all come to the conclusion that the monster’s eyes are going to be helluva distracting?
January 11th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Here’s a review from a kid who says he saw the flick and drew pictures of the monster.
http://www.kidreviewer.com/
January 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Well, i’m certainly looking forward to finding out if indeed this movie lives up to all the hype before it. One of my friends is going to the early premiere on the 15th so i’ll be getting a more detailed and accurate description of the beast. He won’t be giving any plot info, however. I’ve got no problem waiting to see it. After the premiere, there’s going to be so much media info that will come out, there might not be any reason to see it. Here’s hoping it DOES live up to the hype.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:27 am
A very good thrill movie with full suspense and a good idea of a 1st person video shooting view BUT a very bad way to shoot the whole film with the viewcam from the start to the end where it makes a lot of people sick by trying to focus a view where the CAMERAMAN shakes in sense of realistic movement thru out the whole film..
It would be a perfect movie if a certain view where the action is runnning when the camera is pointing most of the time to the ground while running away from the scene of terror or sky view on the creature looking down the whole city.
It’s very hard to stay focus as the CAMERA man shakes all the time till 20 percent of the movie audience have to walk away to take breathe outside the cinema just to control back the emotion from a motion of the movie thanks to the CAMERAMAN view. Some even left the movie and vomitted and some even left after 15-20minutes of the movie.
To me i would personally vote 8 out of 10 for the movie creativity but 0 of of 10 for the CAMERAMAN though out the whole movie. It just make people feel sick by trying to stay focus towards the whole movie.
ps: To Director : pls try to use 2nd and 3rd angle of view instead of 1 angle view for the next movie production.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:41 am
it totally SUCK:I
January 20th, 2008 at 12:42 am
not worth watching. a WASTE of money.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
You’re right it does suck! Anyone who thinks this is great needs their head examined. I couldn’t bear that awful camera work and it made me feel so psyically sick that I nearly had to leave the theater. Why the director of photography thought that this was the way to go is beyond me. Had it been shot ‘properly’ then this could’ve been marginally viewable. And everyone I’ve spoken to hasn’t had a good word to say about it. A totaly and utter waste of £7 of my ard earned cash. Suckers.