Comments on: AICN Reviews Cloverfield

By: Alice Keymer

Alice Keymer — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:59:00 +0000

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 Â£7 of my ard earned cash. Suckers.

By: fasfafafaf

fasfafafaf — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:42:03 +0000

not worth watching. a WASTE of money.

By: fasfafafaf

fasfafafaf — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:41:13 +0000

it totally SUCK:I

By: Calvin Soo

Calvin Soo — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:27:31 +0000

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.

By: Nmancer’s TekLog » Blog Archive » Tracking The Early ‘Cloverfield’ Buzz: Giant F*****g Monsters Are Definitely Coming

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:52:39 +0000

[...] Tracking The Early ‘Cloverfield’ Buzz: Giant F*****g Monsters Are Definitely Coming Jan14 14 January 2008, nmancer @ 7:52 pm (Soucre: Defamer.com) At long last, Cloverfield, Slusho Beverage Corp.’s bold foray into the sci-fi disaster genre, had its first screenings last night. Hours later, members of the fanboy journalist elite lucky enough to have had first, unfettered access to the mysterious creature at the center of all the monument-decapitating mayhem, took to the internets. Below, a round-up of the buzz. [Ed. note: We’ll try to avoid spoilers, but promise nothing. You’ve been warned.] Â· If we are to believe the Kingdom of the Fanboys’ semi-merciful Lord and Ruler Harry Knowles, it was a watershed moment in giant-fucking- monster-stomping- through-Manhattan cinematic history: “The movie is fucking 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.” Slashfilm reminds us, however, that this was a guy who thought the Godzilla remake was peaches. [AICN, Slashfilm] [...]

By: Captain Caveman

Captain Caveman — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:33:56 +0000

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.

By: Darius

Darius — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:36:10 +0000

Here’s a review from a kid who says he saw the flick and drew pictures of the monster.

http://www.kidreviewer.com/

By: Jerry Butler

Jerry Butler — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:26:02 +0000

So… have we all come to the conclusion that the monster’s eyes are going to be helluva distracting?

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:21:17 +0000

This is going to bother me.. but THEIR instead of THERE.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:20:54 +0000

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.

By: HostBarracks.com

HostBarracks.com — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:33:00 +0000

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.

By: Erik Davis

Erik Davis — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:49:06 +0000

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.

By: Jerry Butler

Jerry Butler — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:39:16 +0000

I think Harry just wants to seal the deal that he’ll get into Star Trek early by buffing Abrams booty here.

By: A.J.

A.J. — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:30:38 +0000

Nuff said Pete, way to back it up. Now, back to Cloverfield…

By: Peter Sciretta

Peter Sciretta — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:33:38 +0000

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!

By: yeah right

yeah right — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:43:03 +0000

“Tim, by jealous as in Harry got to see the movie first? Well yes, but who isnâ€™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.

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:10:06 +0000

He gave Godzilla a “glowing review” because it’s a masterpiece… and now JJ Abrams is remaking it.

ZING.

By: Michael R.

Michael R. — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:13:03 +0000

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’.

By: James

James — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:21:10 +0000

Kari Sinkko Says: “What Iâ€™ve got to say is that itâ€™s hopefully not as long winded and confusing as lost was. I mean, if you missed an eps you didnâ€™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.

By: Peter Sciretta

Peter Sciretta — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:54:47 +0000

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.