Cloverfield

H

Hogie23

< 25 Posts
Just finished it. Knew nothing about it before going to see the movie... Not bad. Watched much like The Blair Witch Project did. I'm not much for writing reviews, but if you're into action/horror flicks w/out too much gore then you'll like this one.
eek.gif
 
I liked it at first, but by the end I was so dizzy I could barely look at the screen. If first person shooters make you nauseous like they do me, take a dramamine or something to watch this.

I understand what they were trying to do, but it would've been much better without the handheld camera.
 
People always are dogging on the moving camera. They hated the Bourne movies because of it. If you don't like the motion camera sequences, don't go see a f movie that has it. Pretty simple logic huh.
 
Shaky cam didn't bother me all that much. I'd give the movie a 7/10 (I'm a favorable judge). Had potential to be a 9/10 or 10/10 on a popcorn movie scale, but a lot of the drama with the human main characters didn't do it for me. Still, if there was a follow up, I'd check it out.
 
After seeing the preview and reading my local multiplex’s movie description on their website, I can say this film was exactly what was advertised and what I expected.

Their website description said: “This action adventure revolves around a monster attack in New York City as told from the point of view of a small group of people.”

That description is well worded, succinct and accurate.

No false advertising and no hype, this movie is just what it was billed to be.

All I will add is it was realistically loud, but no more so than any other modern action adventure movie.

So I wasn’t disappointed or misled.

Imagine that most recent “Godzilla” flick from 1998, starring Matthew Broderick, for which I can remember having high, but misplaced, expectations, with less story explanation, less character development, less special special effects and much lower production values being filmed using only a handheld camera while under attack and on the move through Manhattan streets, subways and skyscrapers.

IMO, bottom line,“Cloverfield” just isn’t very good.

But I think it’s as "good" as it was meant to be.

And it was what I expected.

I just wasn't in the target audience for this flick.

IMHO. go see “The Mist” for a much better monster movie of comparable scope or go see the latest “Alien vs. Predator” flick, if you want to give the stability of your stomach or the focusing power of your eyes a strong, but doable, test.

However, if you choose to see “Cloverfield,“ then I advise you expect no more than a cheaply made, one dimensional, documentaryish rehash of that mediocre last Godzilla movie, jerkily filmed in the style of "The Blair Witch Project “ and you’ll have no reason to be surprised or disappointed.

Because that’s what it is, IMHO, no less and no more.

This cold, rainy afternoon was one best spent indoors, so in that regard I believe I made a very good choice.

However, I wouldn't recommend this movie to anybody unless I knew they too had nothing better to see or do.

But, I won't be surprised or disturbed if mainly younger, I bet, moviegoers than I with different entertainment values and preferences than mine think it's cool and memorable because of its intensity, "realism," and drama.


8^)
 
The difference between shaky cam in Bourne and this is night and day. Bourne was mostly stable cameras. Only the fight scenes and chases had shaky cameras. Even when Bourne was shaky, it was nothing on the level of Cloverfield, where the camera was rarely even level, and never steady.

I realize I am more susceptible to motion sickness than others. I can't play a first person shooter for more than 15-20 minutes without feeling somewhat nauseous, but in Cloverfield I came damn close to vomiting.
 
Read reviews?

Go to Hornfans?

General consensus on this movie is that the shaky cam is too much. I didn't think so, but I'm pretty sure I'm in a minority in that opinion.
 
Thought it was much better than most monster flicks in capturing what it would be like to be in type of situation (or at least than what I imagine how it would be.) You would be uninformed, lost and confused.

I appreciate a movie that goes in a different direction. Of course some people would have preferred to see Will Smith being with the group and then incredibly killing the monster to end the movie and finishing it with some clever movie line. but then again that would be what 90% of the audience wants to see.
 
The first 10 minutes when they start the whole camera thing are terrible, but you get used to it during the action of the movie.
 
Is it really in depth fkn research to find out that Cloverfield uses the Blair Witch camera motions. Geez, do you just pop your *** in a seat to go see a movie you don't read reviews on via here or any newspaper internet outlet. Give me a fkn break. Anyone who goes and sees this movie should know what to expect from the cameras.
 
ive learned only about 2% of posts on IMDB are coherent and present some type of valid argument. Most posts are by someone who doesnt speak english(seems the case here) or people that are 13 years old.
 
I just saw it and, like others, got nauseous about 20 minutes in and almost vomited. I actually had to get up and leave the theater for a couple of minutes or I would have. My stomach's still a little shaky.

As far as the shaky cam, I knew about it going in but I hadn't had problems with movies like Blair Witch and have never been motion sick so I didn't think it would come up here. The obvious difference is that Blair Witch was a low budget/low special effects movie that didn't have massive sound and visual effects constantly going on.

Other than the upset stomach, I'd say the movie was just OK (but of course, isn't that like asking Ms Lincoln - besides the shooting, how was the play?). I liked the idea they were trying but just wished they could have had made it a little more viewer friendly.
 
My problem with the B.W.P. cinematography was how they went overboard with the camera-shaking; in certain scenes the actors clearly went out of their way to shake the camera unnecessarily in an apparent attempt to make it "more real", almost like football players who carry out fakes with exaggerated, unrealistic movements (which, of course, ended up making those scenes--and the film overall--significantly LESS "real").

Any thoughts from those who have seen it on whether Cloverfield had the same problem? Or was the camera shaking realisic in the context of what was happening on screen?
 
At first the camera shaking is over the top, but they explain it by the people saying they don't have much experience with a camera. But also by going with a lot of shaking at the beginning, I think it gets you used to the shaking and then its not so noticeable.

In a movie like this or the Blair Witch, you have to also think that someone running down the street wouldn't have the camera focused on where they are running or whatever. of course, you could argue that if you were running away from a monster destroying NYC, would you still be holding onto a camera. But you have suspend disbelief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top