Before I begin, let me say that I am not one who hyperbolizes my thoughts on movies that I like and dislike. I prefer to lurk and watch other people do that. For months, I have purposely avoided the viral marketing for Cloverfield because I didn’t want the campaign to interfere with the actual movie experience. Obviously, after I linked up with /Film this month I tuned in a little bit more, but until last week I had kept my exposure limited to the Transformers trailer.
Way back in July, I admired the trailer’s anonymity and decided to abide by the filmmakers’ rather effective less-you-know mantra…until today.
In short: Cloverfield is a modern classic. There is no doubt!
The rest of this review contains spoilers, continue after the jump.
As a 20something, I believe this film…scratch that, this friggin’ monster movie from J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves has defined the first decade of the Oughts in a way that no war movie or film like Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center will surpass. Our current times have been declared by much of the American press to be the Age of Anxiety, and Cloverfield nails that label to the wall. The subconscious fears we all have deep down are served up here with relentless, dizzying verve. Imagine if Jaws pulled you down not once, but countless times and your friends too. Anticipating the worst has never been so exhaustively captivating and Cloverfield depicts the worst nightmares of an entire generation perfectly.
This is a film for the people who went to college after years of hearing about how great it would be, filled with dreams of a peaceful pass-Go future, only to watch 9/11 occur soon after their arrival via dozens of televisions in a university center, surrounded by other stunned, young adults just like themselves. The sheer proportion of the attacks that day, the surreal way it interrupted another day of classes on live television, and the destruction of the impossible, was too much to comprehend, perhaps even now. It was like something inexplicably larger than us was saying not to get too comfortable, and it wasn’t religion. Cloverfield matches the vague source of uber-doom we witnessed that day with an equally massive physical manifestation, and not only does it work, it works like an exorcism.
Cloverfield’s first 20 minutes revel in setting up its five main human characters. And to counter a few criticisms arising online, I don’t think we’re supposed to identify with them before the monster rampages, so much as observe them with a little annoyance, a little jealously, and a dash of commonality. This is the cream of the crop as far as privileged, extremely attractive New York yuppie hipsters go. Matt Reeves has said in interviews that he purposely chose to focus on this demographic, and it’s easy to see why. Besides a little heart ache, what do these characters have to worry about? Only by shaking them, literally, from the loft party where they dance to Coconut Records, flirt and mope will they discover how volatile and messed up life can be. There’s no blame here, and the movie’s not a diatribe against such people in real life, but the filmmakers definitely have fun exploiting it from the start.
I’m sure a few of you have already read movie critics ripping the film’s handicam eye as a one-note novelty and other critics who have labeled the result a “mess.” But unlike its distant cousin The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield uses this creative decision to say something about how we absorb information today via our senses and new media, and the anxiety that this hodgepodge of 30-second clips, fuzzy footage and bad lighting is starting to bring out. The old horror genre staple of the unknown is present here, but what makes the film so intense is watching these little captivating slivers of monster and destruction data fill in like a downloading torrent file. Once you’re reassured that Cloverfield doesn’t skimp on the monster and destruction, the film’s deft fragmentation of sight and sound is a legitimately scary thing to experience.
Sure the film is quite meta-, but the filmmakers know exactly how to wind us up in this untraditional vision like a cocoon. Reeves and Abrams, these guys are like the ideal audience members. Maybe you knew that, but I wasn’t so sure heading in. One of my favorite scenes takes place inside a store that’s being looted. Our camera operator and affable navigator, Hud, focuses his video camera and attention on two television screens broadcasting news footage of the monster attacking. But he breaks away to look outside the store where the same thing is happening. We’re overloaded with experiencing this monster’s terror and the film makes us ask ourselves: would we rather watch panic-personified clearly, or experience it as reality? Why did we come to this movie, to study the monster or to have it make us feel impossibly small? When your brain already has one foot in the grave, you’re happy when Hud decides for you.
And Hud’s instincts allow us to view what’s happening from the ground level, bird’s eye and countless other innovative angles that terrify in a way that Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds did not. We’re constantly comparing the mayhem we see done to Manhattan to what’s happened before it in reality, and the latter shockingly doesn’t compare. Moreover, not only does it feel like we’re in the pack with these people running around New York City, but the handicam effect creates a sense of loneliness and existential dread that cities are notorious for. This isn’t filmed like it’s the work of a makeshift TV news crew or like a low budget documentary. Cloverfield is filtered through the weird detachment that only a personal video cam can pick up. And my editor, Peter, mentioned the Oscar-worthy sound in his Cloverfield review; you haven’t been rocked this hard since a T. Rex roared in the summer of’93. Two girls sitting two rows in front of me got up to leave and as one blurted out, “This is too much.” I swear I think the sound alone caused them to exit, but maybe the helicopter scene finally did them in. To me, that only reaffirmed how cool and alarming this film is.
What about the arguments that go “where’s the humanity”? I love how the main characters go about dealing with their friends’ deaths, because at first these violent demises don’t sink in. That’s unusually realistic for an event movie like this. It bothered me at first, though, because I considered how I’d react if my brother or friend was killed after a monster pwnd the Brooklyn Bridge. Would I just give in and sob? Would I go crazy? But then, Rob is shown taking the call with his mom, and the emotions and loss all hit home, for the audience and the characters. These characters aren’t screaming B-movie proto dumbasses, their emotions creep up on them at odd times, and this that might or might not reflect a generation that’s a little desensitized to their surroundings and reality; that is, until the filmmakers decide to emotionally shatter all of the characters and thereby launch Cloverfield into the stratosphere as the best disaster movie of all time.
The oddest complaint I’ve seen about the film thus far takes issue with the characters’ logic when they go back for Beth. That’s strange, I don’t recall anyone arguing about this decision when it was made by Llewelyn Moss in No Country for Old Men. I’m not comparing the two films or the circumstances, even though both of the films’ antagonists are timely manifestations of the same unstoppable hell.
And besides, to me at least, Cloverfield should be seen as a sort of psychological Manhattan dream labyrinth with terror exploding around every corner. Those nightmares we all dream with the lavish dream budgets in which everything goes wrong? You know, the nightmares that have plagued minds during the last seven years especially, as our world sort of went wrong? Look no further for a movie to capture them and present them to you. If ever there was a movie to see in the theater and not on a smaller screen, it’s Cloverfield. And beware the critics who say this a mindless fluke that “signifies nothing”; that’s not what they’ll tell their psycho analysts.
Godzilla, you got punked.
10/10 – I’m both shocked and thrilled. What else could this movie do right?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
This review is 100% on the money!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Just got home from watching this movie after following the “viral experience” online since July. I avoided the internet for the last few days in order to prevent myself from reading any reviews or spoilers. Since I have now seen the movie, I read your review. Marvelously worded, you describe the thoughts I was experiencing during the movie perfectly. Great job on this review.
Although, from the comments in the theater, I do not think too many people “got it”. These days it seems that viewers just want the entire story handed to them (both on TV and in the movies); they do not wish to make any leaps of judgment or formation of thought for themselves.
Just my two cents. Again, love your review.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
YEAH haters!!! Take that! You have to understand that this film is trendy and new while going old school.
It’s simply a film that you enjoy and sit down to watch. Don’t expect any metaphors or peices of art here. Its a MONSTER MOVIE, not a god darned figurative peice of art!!!
And for the people who say that this movie has completly bad plots and character development, maybe a monster should attack your city- you’ll act extremely similar to what happened in the movie.
More things for haters:
1.Beth was impaled and is up and about running soon.
Well, of course that’s not reasonable. Neither is a huge monster trashing Manhattan.
2.The ending sucked.
Not at all. You just expected a happy cheesy ending with them in a hospital. Stop watching the trained-hollywood-movies that has “Happily ever after”. Go watch Youtube videos and see how its done real life.
Even IF they survived, the camera doesn’t need to show it- it would’ve been less realistic since the batteries would’ve ran out by then, and I wouldn’t go searching through rubble for a camera.
3.The monster sucked.
Wow. Just look at yourself. You expected a high end, Godzilla-like monster? This thing is insane and fast, and it doesn’t need you to tell it what it should look like- you have poor imagination!!!
4.Bad characters and acting.
Well, do you really expect a super-holy person to be the main star? Also, these actors are perfect. As I stated, maybe the monster should be unleashed in your town. Then you should see yourslef on camera.
5.Eww!!! Hand held camera?! Gay!!!
Seriously, if it were regular shooting, you might as well go see Godzilla 1998 with amped graphics- Cloverfield can pwn Zilla with a swipe, and hand-held makes it perfect- if it weren’t for that, any monster would get boring half-way the movie.
So, I rest my case.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Cloverfield was amazing,
It completely exceeded all of my expectations.
I still have not come down from seeing that movie, incredible.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I have one more thing to say:
Do Not Expect The Whole Plot In A Hand Held Camera…
That’s why there’s the ARG.
If you want to learn the back story, go to DespoilerWiki Cloverfield.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I don’t understand people saying “Don’t expect to get the whole story”. I’m pretty sure we all paid 100% of the ticket price, don’t know why any of you are satisfied with getting 40% of a story. (???)
The movie goer self esteem level here is a little scary. You do in fact deserve to get a whole movie if you paid for one.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Thye want to leave everything unanswered because they didn’t bother to write it. Fine. Should lower the price of a ticket accordingly then. They don’t do a complete job, we won’t pay for one.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
To Jerry- I saw an entire movie. If you didn’t like it, that’s your opinion. The online experience (not a true ARG, by the way) just gave those who followed along bonus information. You can watch the movie and enjoy it just fine without this “bonus” info.
You could say the same thing about AI, Batman- the Dark Knight, Mission Impossible III, National treasure, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lost, many concerts/music albums, and quite a few video games. it’s just that this online campaign caught the attention of people outside of the “typical” market. If you’d look around, most everything you “buy a ticket” for these days has some sort of further presence on the web. It helps the audience feel more connection with characters, the story, and even a bit of involvement.
So rest assured, you got your money’s worth. And it’s free to read the back story if you so choose.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Thanks for telling me that I got my money’s worth. if you don’t mind though, I’m going to still judge that for myself.
I think paramount should audit this sucker, be curious to know where all those tens of millions went,
January 18th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Well lump me right in with all the people that don’t “get it”. I came out of the theater thinking it was an average movie, but the inane gushing and shades of ostracism displayed by those that do “understand” make me wonder for my sanity.
10/10?
Best disaster movie of ALL TIME?
I understand the difference of opinion. But I found to truly enjoy the movie I had to turn off the part of my brain that was hoping for any sort of intelligence from the characters.
I’ve been truly torn over this film… honestly moreso than anything I’ve ever seen. This in itself has to count for something…
But still… the euphoria seriously troubles me.
Oh well. This idiot who needs his entertainment forced into his system with a feeding tube is going to bed.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
It’s the hype. they’ll come down tomorrow back to reality.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
@Jerry
While I’d like to reassure you that my expectations were not low going in, I will say that Cloverfield’s elaborate viral marketing created a bunch of indulgent puzzle pieces when there really was no puzzle. I wasn’t sure if the people who obsessed and still obsess over the viral marketing were aware that nothing was going to be spelled out in the film. I gathered that much based on interviews with Abrams and Reeves.
But as a giant monster movie and a comment/sci-fi mirror on the anxieties of the day, it fires on all cylinders and never falters.
As for the monster’s origins not being included in the film, that harks back to the old “It came from the ocean’s depths…” heyday. And civilians on the run would be the last ones to find out that information, having them do so would be unrealistic. I’m sure the monster will be further explained, possibly by the manga, but I for one am glad it wasn’t included in the film. The unknown quality made it far scarier and was by no means a cop out.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Fantastic review, a really amazing movie. As much as I can see people having problems with the ending and the shakey cam I really can’t see why everyone didn’t love this.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Comment of the year? Taken from the post above this…
“Alot of people left the theater,including me,but not because of intensity.Because of puke!I did not know my stomach would act tis way.”
January 18th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I seriously recommend sitting between halfway and 2/3rds in the rear of the theater; the Unsteadycam never stops. Fortunately, anticipating the blurry monster shots, I did exactly this, and immensely enjoyed the film.
This film also can be seen as an extended 9/11 metaphor, with the vapid twentysomethings representing a 9/10 America, and the fear that the military will kill us just as easily and uncaringly as the monster will.
I haven’t seen a movie this good since The Prestige.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I personally loved the movie. I thought it lived up to all the expectations. And I followed the viral campaign quite a bit. Actually there about a half a dozen little easter eggs in the movie giving a nod to the campaign. So it was a nice treat for those who took the countless hours to play the latest ARG.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Okay, you are all on crack…and it has to be the good stuff. Was I the only one who left the theatre thinking “I want the last hour of my life back”???
So in order for me to consider that movie to be halfway decent, they needed to explain 4 things:
1. What is “cloverfield?” Is it the name of the monster? The cleanup? The alien species that took over Earth?
2. What was the monster, exactly? Reptile? Panda in disguise? Alien? Government experiment gone horribly wrong? Sea creature from the Laurentian Abyss?
3. What were the smaller spider looking things? Monster’s friends? Companions? Groupies? Snot? Babies?
4. What happened to the face-exploding girl? Marlene or something like that? Presumably she died, but what happened?
Until I have full and complete answers to these questions I just consider this (so called) movie to be a directionless mass void of any plot.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:34 am
OH MY GOD!!!! This movie was a complete waste of time. How in the world did the director come up with this, who goes to the movies to watch someone else hold a camcorder throughout the thing???Was the Writes Guild on strike or what?? There was no storyline, no actors, no writing crew, no background music, no camera men, just what 4 to 5 kids running through Manhattan. What does the name of the movie even mean??? What does cloverfield and Manhattan have to do with each other? Is that suppose to be the name of that thing that was going around destroying everything? What was it’s purpose anyway?
But really, the humor is in all of us who went to see this in he first place, we just made this director a whole lot of money if you ask me. And he’s laughing all the way to the bank!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 19th, 2008 at 12:44 am
@Tafnaj/stacy
1). Cloverfield is the case name the military assigned all events pertaining to the monster. The military has a record of assigning names to cases that are completely random, like Operation Red Bird et al.
2.) The monster is a monster. It came from beneath the sea, and you may have noticed some gill-like features. But it’s a monster. What’s a monster? What’s Cookie Monster? What’s My Pet Monster? What’s an alien? A creature not of this earth. A monster is like an alien but typically of the earth.
3.) The smaller monsters that attacked in the subways and streets were akin to fleas or parasites. They might have also fallen off the monster in “scale” form, so imagine I dog shedding or barnacles on a whale…that jumped off and killed at will.
4.) Marlena Diamond was infected after her confrontation with one of the parasites. She died a violent death due to this. Use your imagination. The curtain was there b/c it’s a PG-13 movie, but it’s also fun to imagine what the eff happened to her.
The monster’s origins are not explained and neither is its reason for attack b/c, well, there are a lot of horrible things that happen every day that defy common explanation. It’s called a “what if” scenario. Also, events are not fully explained, b/c the film is playing on the fears of terrorist attacks. When an attack of great magnitude occurs and you’re stuck in the middle of it, you have no idea who was behind it 99% of the time. You are trying to survive and get in touch with loved ones.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:06 am
My brother and I loved it. Sure, we left wondering what happened after Rob & Beth got blown up and what the exact origin of the monster was, but sometimes there are no answers.
The whole point of this (from my view) was to show a realistic giant monster movie as opposed to all the Godzilla films where most of the main characters live, destruction isn’t too terribly widespread, everybody knows exactly where Godzilla (and the other monsters from those films) came from, and somehow the “evil” monsters are defeated and or driven away to remote island or something.
In real life, it would be exactly like Cloverfield.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:11 am
(okay, maybe not “exactly”, but pretty damn close)
January 19th, 2008 at 2:40 am
It seems to me that those who complained that the movie was a terrible experience aren’t quite using their brains enough. What, movies need to explain everything to the audience now? And what happened to the unknown lending mystique to the plot?
Furthermore, I realize the movie left the audience with a lot of questions, but it DID TIE UP THE STORY IT WAS TRYING TO TELL. For those stating that the movie had no plot, consider this:
Boy loves girl. Girl loves boy. Neither acts on it, classic unrequited love scenario. Monster arrives, crap hits the fan, boy realizes he messed up, goes to rescue the girl.
If that’s not a plot, I don’t know what is!
January 19th, 2008 at 3:24 am
I think Cloverfield was a genius movie. It is a movie that attempts to make the audience think. I also believe that Hud’s death was mostly caused by his obsession with the camera - He had been watching all of this through an objective lens the whole time. Genius. He was extremely disconnected with the entire ordeal until Marlena’s death. Talking about homeless people catching others on fire while in a dark tunnel? Hypothesizing about the monsters origins? He needed to be more concerned with his current situation - but, character flaws bring characters to life. Any good writer knows that. I identified with Hud heavily, honestly.
And really, objective disconnection was a persistent theme. EVEN THOUGH there was a monster /rampaging/ and /eating people/ as Marlena said, quite a few individuals stopped to take pictures of the statue of liberty’s head. Go figure.
The filmmakers knew how to evoke emotions. The scene where the party is stuck in military crossfire is absolutely riveting. The sound is /dead on/. I really felt like I was in a war zone. Perfection.
The only thing I felt was off (but necessary as a plot device, I suppose) was that military personnel took precedence over civilian life in the first evac helicopter. The second one they filled entirely with the civilian party, with only two soldiers as the pilots. Additionally, they flew very close to the monster, which is even stranger for an evacuation. But, really just small things that irk’d me.
I gave it five out of five, myself. I’m with you all the way, Hunter. Even if the majority of people hated it, that’s to be expected. Most real works of art were hated in their own time.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:59 am
I’m with you all the way on this one, Hunter!
January 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I think you’re spot on with the 10/10 review. However, that’s only because I followed the viral marketing. I knew a hell of a lot more than the average viewer did so I was able to enjoy it more. For frame of reverence, the girl I saw it with knew noting about the ARG. I then explained it the next day and showed her cloverfield clues. After looking around in there for a while she began to like the movie more than she did in her initial review.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
The movie sucked. Big Time. People walked out of the movie. The only thing I got was a migraine, nauseous and dizzy, thanks to the out of focus, moving camera. There was no scary moment, no tension. NOTHING but well earned money thrown down the drain.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Yeah, I gotta say once more….. the cgi was very poor. Wasn’t too hard to full the mass public apparently though, since the camera was always jerking around. Let’s see a cgi parasite monster with the camera sitting on a tripod and we’ll see if everyone is sold. Hhaha
If the camera was on a fixed platform, all you’d have is effects-equal shots from a Sci-fi channel movie. They Blair cam may have allowed them to get away with it and pull the wool, but it also had the side effect of making 80% of their audiences motion sick. lol
January 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Did it really payoff? HAhaah
January 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am
It was a good movie. And tothose who had questions about the monster, where it came from, or what the spider-like creatures were? You got to keep in mind this–It’s only the first film of what is sure to be(because of the clever marketing)a franchise. There needless to say will be a sequel which will probably not be on hand held camera, and will answer the questions many had about the first
one. But as stated by someone else, you have to look at this first one as a “What If” type movie. It was a loy of fun, and I can’t wait for the second story to it…I personally think the last two characters,
some how survived…but, we’ll see.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I went with my teenage daughter, and we both thought it was awesome.
Like the series LOST, it requires you to use your imagination.
Maybe it was my imagination, but think I saw a huge splash in the background of the last clip of their home movie, when they panned the beach /water. It was pretty clear, and I would suspect a it’s not like the shooting stars in the background of JAWS, this had something to do with the monster.
That’s my two cents.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
@matt
You are correct. /FILM addresses that scene in the article below this review. Check it out.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Those of you who demand every detail and every answer are the same people who look up cheat codes to a video game without exploring it and learning its secrets on your own. Think of it like this - what’s sexier; a naked woman walking into the room, or one dressed scantily making you wish you could see more?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I really don’t see the need, Jerry et al, to get so hostile about this. A lot of people really liked the movie, and a decent number didn’t. None of you are “wrong”.
Personally, I loved it, and remained ignorant to the viral marketing campaign. The only thing I knew going in was what I had seen from the teaser trailer. The movie did leave me wondering “what else” and wanting more, but I didn’t feel disappointed by this feeling, I was excited to get home and investigate further online. The story that was told was told in completion, based on the idea of an actual person documenting an event as it unfolded. There is no way that in the 7 hours the protagonists went through the perils of surviving, all their questions would be answered. As someone in DC during the 9/11 attacks, I know that I was completely in the dark for several hours, and what happened to me was very minor compared to the Cloverfield story.
Also, as a 25 year-old who was in college during the 9/11 attacks, the characters rang true to me. Hud was stupid and didn’t go through a transformation, and I’m fine with that because people like him exist in real life. We did, however, see Rob evolve in the film, and it was a much more subtle evolution that many of the characters Hollywood expects us to eat up.
I went into the movie expecting choppy, shaky, mixed-up camera work, and that’s what I got. I wasn’t disappointed by it. The glimpses of the monster were enough to satiate my curiousity while refraining from being too blatant and silly. So many movies are ruined for me because of the over-use of CGI, and I thought Cloverfield hit a perfect balance.
When I ame out of the movie, I had perfect clarity in terms of what “Cloverfield” meant, what the parasites were and what they did to Marlena, and the ultimate outcome - defeat of the monster by sacrificing Manhattan. As for what the monster was, I had a reasonable assumption that it came from the ocean depths, but being that it was a monster, I’m okay with that ambiguity.
One question - I read online that in the last scene - in Coney Island - a mass is seen in the distance falling form the sky into the ocean. Did anyone see this? I missed it. I know the viral campaign purports that this was a satellite, but for those of us who want the movie to stand alone, Is this the monster falling from space? Thoughts?
Great review, Hunter!
January 20th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
It is obvious that seeing all these angry comments about no story and loss of money and time that people have lost their imagination. I agree with every reviewer/commenter that says the people who didn’t like it are the same people who love to be spoon-fed all their information. If you were in that situation, you would not know EVERYTHING about what was going on, no one would; not even the military. There are things in this world that can’t be explained right away, deal with it. This is what makes the movie amazing because it is realistic in the sense that crap is happening and no one knows what is going on. Same thing happened with 9/11 and every other disaster in history. “Cloverfield” is the name of the exit JJ Abrahms takes to get to work everyday, and I personally like the fact that he used it with no HUGE bearing to the movie. What would you people who disliked it want it to be called? “Monster” “Attack”? I like it because it is unique and realistic enough to be believable. Take it for what it is: a good, outside-of-the-box movie.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Oh, and to Amanda. Thank you because you verbalized some of sentiments exactly. I too looked forward to “investigating further online when I got home.”
Thank you for looking at these arguments with a reasonable and sound attitude.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
And also, Abrahms said that the thing that fell into the water has no bearing on the plot, but if they really wanted to they could of course develop the plot with it. The biggest thing I noticed was the end of the credits where a garbled voice message said: “It’s still alive.” I am all excited about a sequel or a revamp of the attack from a different angle. I also hope they don’t listen to any of the nay-sayers and reveal the whole story in a cheesy, clichéd fashion.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
After reading many reviews and watching the film itself, my opinion is this movie fits well with reality tv. Cast some wannabe stars, grab a cheap handy cam, ask one of the cast who never held a camera to shoot the whole thing, make them run through nyc at night screaming and crying, throw in a rubberlooking cg monster, some guys in army fatigue, create a simple trailer of watching a crashing cg head of the statue of liberty fall onto new york city streets, and all you get is a director laughing all the way to the bank and a consumer who feels duped, confused, satisfied by convincing themselves its reinventing a dying genre when really you have to comprehend why it is a dying genre in the first place. Do not call this movie a film after you read the dictionary meaning of the word “film”. I call this movie “handycam” and the sad truth is the growing of reality tv and reality into the film industry. Hence, the writers strike. The art of filmmaking has become a perverse playground for the average joe to gain fame and fortune as a jackass, borat, blairwitch, and now monster disaster. Welcome to reality.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“nd also, Abrahms said that the thing that fell into the water has no bearing on the plot, but if they really wanted to they could of course develop the plot with it.”
Matt Reeves, the director, says differently.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41100
January 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
@MovieOpinion- Interestingly enough it was *not* shot by the actor with a handycam. If you had done your research and looked at the production photos (available on YouTube in video format) you would know that the actors would followed by actual camera crewmen. Professionals. Just because you did not like the style does not make it “stupid” or duped. And again, this is NOT a new idea. Films, movies, TV shows, CD albums, concerts, etc have ALL used viral marketing for the past 7 plus years. I cannot even begin to count the amount of viral marketing. Even car manufacturers (BMW and Volvo to name two) have used this method.
Change is feared by many, and brilliance is under appreciated by those who do not comprehend (or by those who have no imagination).
January 21st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
@kate jones- thanks for the tip. makes me laugh even more to know it was done by “professionals”. Viral marketing is about making money. period. Great filmmaking has been around before you were born. Do your research. As for change, this movie does not change there is nothing to fear except the status of a bank account. As for brilliance, it would not win an academy award let alone a nomination. Although it will be recognized as the so called godzilla-type-movie-shot-like-blairwitch. If you don’t believe me, see how many forums, reviews, and comments have the word “godzilla”. lol. Some imagination huh?
January 21st, 2008 at 10:02 pm
i must say this movie was intense, very intense. the graphics were awesome, as was cinema. storyline had more realism than any film i have seen in a while. many people delve into meanings and so forth i will comment on movie with no meanings. to many questions left unanswered in a (1) hour long movie. you will say what the heck?! is there a sequel? if so then this movie is brilliant, if not, it is aflop that made hollywood alot of money. hopefully the sequel is already done?, otherwise do not waste your money.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I know I am behind the curve here but my primary beef was this. Hud should have been portrayed as a videofile from the get-go rather than reluctant to film the party scene. This would go a long way to explaining why in the hell he kept filming. He didn’t want to be distracted from the party by filming, but then won’t stop when he could really stand to use his real eyes for freakin’ survival. Like while running. And his line, “people need to see this” didn’t add up to an adequate explanation. Why not just make him the dude who films everything? There are plenty of guys like that in Brooklyn. I enjoyed it though. But it could have been better.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
I thought the movie was brilliant, and more effective in producing a sense of terror and of full immersion in the onscreen reality than anything else I’ve seen. I don’t know anything about film technique; I just know that it worked for me. I can certainly see how people might dislike it, especially since I know most folks have a lower tolerance for shaky handheld camerawork than I. What I don’t understand, though, is why so many people seem to think they were cheated. It seems to me that, if you saw the trailers, you should have expected precisely what the movie delivered. The first trailer promised a story, told via shaky handheld camera work, about a confused group of people running frantically for their lives as a giant monster unexpectedly trashes New York. The caption at the very beginning of the second trailer, repeated at the beginning of the movie, all but promised that the protagonists would be dead at the end; after all, the camera was *found* at the site formerly known as Central Park. Far from expecting answers, I *hoped* that the movie would give me what the trailer clearly implied: a story that’s horrifying *because* the characters are exactly as confused as one would expect them to be in this fantastical situation. I felt like I was right there with those characters, and my heart was pounding the whole time. As far as I’m concerned, the movie was refreshingly clear and honest: it made simple promises, and delivered on every one of them. Seldom have I gotten my money’s worth so well from a movie.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:20 am
this movie was incredible. it was done well, and a lot of the stuff said on this board is right on the money. To be fair, some of the things in the movie will not be understood at first. of course the movie itself is a giant question, it is footage that is obviously being studied by the government, either to learn about the monster, or to strategize against it. The questions are obviously meant to stimulate the imagination, which not many people are used to, and not many people want that stimulation. most want the answers on a silver plate before the credits roll. I loved the film, from the start, back in july. dont mind jerry butler. he has been totally against it since way before it ever came out, and even though i bet he liked it deep down, he will never admit it. one thing that i believe we do deserve an answer to is the fact that the viral marketing led to 1/18/08, but the move actually takes place in may.. not sure what that was about
January 24th, 2008 at 10:27 am
to “movieopinion”
was there ever a movie that wasnt made to make money? you speak as though this movie is wrong for making money. thats the point, thats what their job is. they took a low budget, and turned it into a big profit. regardless of what you think of the movie, they still made a shitload. so that in itself is genius. even if the movie sucked pure ass, it made a shitload of money, and thats what it was meant for in the first place. besides of course entertaining, which it happened to do very well. i think it was very well done, and i hope more is on the way
January 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Excellent movie! I believe that we, the audience are the sixth main character. After all, the sixth character is watching a multiple generation copy of a government file at some later date. Gee Rob’s party happens in May(?) and the file is leaked out some time after whatever afteraction reports have been entered to file
January 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
It would have been nice if THERE WAS A STORY!!!!