Comments on: Hunter Stephenson’s Movie Review: Cloverfield

By: scott miskovsky

scott miskovsky — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:37:56 +0000

I wish i knew the ages of everybody who was interested enough in this film to sit down and write a post. It should be noted that the person who wrote the original post that we all are responding to a very fine job.
I adored this movie. I am 30. Not quite to old to dismiss it as “garbage”, but not too young to be totally enamoured by it. However, I find myself ADORING this film. I have seen almost every movie that has been released through the MPAA and this is the first time that I want to see 10, 20, 30 sequels. The sky is the limit as long as their is a general, OVERALL concept. This first “Cloverfield” really could be the start of something that people talk about 100 years from now. Do I really believe that? Let’s just say that being a fan of motion pictures from 1931 to 2008, “Cloverfield” has the POTENTIAL to be something amazing. Keep in mind, that when this movie was originally written for the screen, nobody knew what the outcome would be. So far, it’s been review’s of love and hate. THIS IS A GOOD THING. It means it has SIGNIFICANCE. However, if JJ and Matt realize this, it means that they are, literally, thinking of the future of this project fare more than you or I, the viewer, may be.
Oh, and if you DID NOT like this movie, come up with a significant reason for your dissapproval. Saying it had “no story”…tell us what you may have done different. Seriously, If you have no other BETTER idea, than just be quiet.

By: AverySays

AverySays — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:51:40 +0000

It would have been nice if THERE WAS A STORY!!!!

By: Juan

Juan — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:13:31 +0000

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

By: big daddy

big daddy — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:27:08 +0000

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

By: big daddy

big daddy — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:20:05 +0000

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

By: Hugh Yeman

Hugh Yeman — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:15:55 +0000

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.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:34:23 +0000

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.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:02:34 +0000

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.

By: MovieOpinion

MovieOpinion — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:44:49 +0000

@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?

By: Kate Jones

Kate Jones — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:17:12 +0000

@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).

By: Yes

Yes — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:17:40 +0000

“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

By: MovieOpinion

MovieOpinion — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:42:36 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:39:50 +0000

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, clichÃ©d fashion.

By: John

John — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:27:34 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:24:39 +0000

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.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:34:32 +0000

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!

By: CB

CB — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:26:44 +0000

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?

By: Hunter Stephenson

Hunter Stephenson — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:21:31 +0000

@matt

You are correct. /FILM addresses that scene in the article below this review. Check it out.

By: matt

matt — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:18:56 +0000

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.

By: Rod Lisbon

Rod Lisbon — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:14:12 +0000

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.