Quick Cloverfield Review

[Bob]

If you saw the trailer you've pretty much seen the whole movie. If you liked "The Blair Witch Story", or, are under 13 years old, maybe you will like it.
I was throughly bored.

[june]

hello all,

my wife & i enjoyed the film. we saw it in a digital theather in the philly area. the sound will make up for the story. i thought it should have been a little longer than 85 minutes. but it will "ROCK" your surrond system when it's released on dvd!!!

[P-Dub]

Hmm, that's too bad. I was looking forward to seeing this, but having read a review in the paper makes me think twice on spending money to see this. Now it will be a rental down the road.

[Azeke]

Hmm, that's too bad. I was looking forward to seeing this, but having read a review in the paper makes me think twice on spending money to see this. Now it will be a rental down the road.

Too bad indeed, I will rent this as well, it certainly had great potential though.

Peace and blessings,

Azeke

[RobP]

went and seen this one tonight....it was very hard to sit through, I get the idea of the camera work but it was really too much, many people walking about complained about having headaches after watching it. I think it was a great concept that was executed poorly.

[Hdale85]

So probably better to watch it on a not so big screen?

[George Bellefontaine]

I'm not too crazy about what I have read. It seems you either love it or hate it, but that camera stuff was definitely too much for many people. I'm not even sure I will bother to rent it.

[Ovation]

This movie's box office will undoubtedly get a boost from Trekkies as the first "teaser" for Abrams' Star Trek is showing with this movie. If it is even remotely anything like The Blair Witch Project, I will most assuredly NOT watch this. I'm still waiting to get the 81 minutes of my life back from Blair Witch (unquestionably the biggest waste of celluloid in the history of commercial motion pictures).

[H.Donald]

My 15 year old son went to see it last night...
He hated it,and said it jumpy camera gave him a headache.I can't wait to see it....on HBO.

[littlesaint]

I'm interested in the story. Sorta like a Godzilla movie told from the perspective of the no-name people getting stepped on by Godzilla.

I saw Blair Witch in the theaters, and I definitely will be watching this one on the small screen.

[Sithlord]

If you saw the trailer you've pretty much seen the whole movie

That couldn't be further from the truth imo sorry Bob no offense . The trailer hardly showed you anything the movie gave you everything. I knew this movie would be critised for being totally done on a cam but seriously that was it's biggest strength and what made it unique in a good way. It had tention,suspense,action and great acting and a scary threatening creature. Basic story of course but the delivery was great and I think it suceeded in what it set out to achieve. I was engrossed in it for the entire time. I would have to agree that to an extent the shaky cam will make people ill if they cannot handle motion. Was it overused possibly was it used effectivly...absolutely. I for one will buy it when it comes out on HD (hopefully BD at some point as it's Paramount so HD-DVD will get it).

I downloaded the 1080p trailer from the Playstation store and the picture from the hand held camera looked more clearer than what I saw at the movies. I will have to say also it's one of the best sounding movies I've experienced for awhile. The bass was incrediable.

[Hdale85]

A lot of people just don't understand the artistic aspect of film I don't think. The movie was meant to be seen through the eyes of a real person and not shot as a professional film. This is the same thing with The Blair Witch. I thought that movie was very interesting. I don't go to the movies much so I'll probably grab this when it comes out.

[George Bellefontaine]

A lot of people just don't understand the artistic aspect of film I don't think.

The average filmgoer perhaps, Dougie, but I am not average. I love film and appreciate artistic approaches, but this hand-held camera thing is just being over done by too many Hollywood directors, all with the same goal in mind: realism. On a big screen it can make some people nauseous. I just find it annoying.

[littlesaint]

The average filmgoer perhaps, Dougie, but I am not average. I love film and appreciate artistic approaches, but this hand-held camera thing is just being over done by too many Hollywood directors, all with the same goal in mind: realism. On a big screen it can make some people nauseous. I just find it annoying.

I think the "shaky cam" isn't necessarily a reason to dismiss a film, if its use is relevant, which for this film it certainly is. Sure any film using it will get the "Blair Witch" label, but really it's just a cinematic tool no different than rotoscope, CGI, blue/green screen, stop-motion, or slow-motion for that matter. It worked for Blair Witch, and I think it works here. Now the nausea problem can be a real issue (especially for me), but thats different from person to person.

[George Bellefontaine]

I think the "shaky cam" isn't necessarily a reason to dismiss a film

True, otherwise I wouldn't have watched the Bourne films. But I didn't like Blair Witch ( regardless of the camera thing ) and from what reviews I've read of Cloverfield, I won't like it either. And I'm not dismissing the film, I'm simply saying that directors are going overboard with this hand held camera thing. But, as with the Bourne films, if I like the material enough, I am willing to put up with it.

[will1066]

It's a man-on-the-street perspective designed to give you the "it's happening right now" feel and intensity. That is why it's done with a hand-held. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. It's not meant to be conventional; it's meant to put a new spin on the giant monster movie. It's meant to be an 80-minute rollercoaster ride and nothing more. Any other technique and we'd get another conventional Godzilla movie. If you enjoy flicks for what they are, then you'll like it. If you intend to look for meaning in a movie like this, then it's best to watch something else.

[George Bellefontaine]

It's a man-on-the-street perspective designed to give you the "it's happening right now" feel and intensity. If you intend to look for meaning in a movie like this, then it's best to watch something else.

I know what it's designed to do. And I certianly wouldn't watch this kind of movie looking for any kind of meaning. As I said before, this " happening right now " thing is just overdone. However, this is my opinion and everyone else is entitled to theirs. And let's do away with the sarcasm , but by all means let's keep this discussion going.

[will1066]

There isn't much discussion with these polarizing types of movies. Neither side will convince the other.

[George Bellefontaine]

There isn't much discussion with these polarizing types of movies. Neither side will convince the other.

You're probably correct, Will. :lol:

[Alloroc]

Don't most good cameras have image stabilization nowadays?!

That said, I like Paul Greengrass's work and Bourne 3 in particular. I'm looking forward to this movie and like it's underlying story. But, I'll wait till I see it before I can properly comment. It's not our here for another week :x .

[Hdale85]

I really can't recall many movies that use it in the same fashion that Cloverfield uses it. Either way I didn't mean to start an argument just stating that a lot of people look at something like that and go "wow how cheap" when its really about the producers artistic touch.

[Ovation]

I have no issues with "hand-held" cameras as a filming technique (that is not why I thoroughly loathed and despised Blair Witch--I don't want to derail the thread by going into detail about that film, but I'll just say that the cleverest thing the Blair Witch filmmakers did was convince people they had "an artistic vision" far more complex than was actually the case). When I stated if this film was like Blair Witch I would avoid it, I did not mean its technical presentation. As I've perused the critical press I respect, I've come to the conclusion that it may be worth watching, but it's not likely to motivate me to go the cinema to do it (and that happens with a lot of films, to be fair).

[Hdale85]

For me I'd much rather watch a movie at home anyways. The quality of the cinema experience has really dwindled I think so I almost always wait for them to release on video.

[RobP]

Looks like this film brought in $41 Million dollars this past weekend, it obviously created enough interest to get people out to see it. From what I understand there are a couple little details that I missed, like where did the beast come from, supposedly there is a spot in the film that shows that, I have been told where it is in the film, but I missed it,. The other is.......well, lets just say...if you see it......sit through the credits.. :W

[Sithlord]

hmm interesting Soundgrazy. Can you PM me with those details as I too missed it. Don't tell me that you have to sit through the credits for extra footage? Knew I should have watched them.

[RobP]

just wanted to add that if you view this at home, you may want to grab a towel, after its over you will have to wipe the sweat off of your subwoofer . :lol:

[Sithlord]

Yep one of the best sound designs I've heard in a theatre. The bass was a character and really made it's presence known and then some. Looking forward to owning this.

[George Bellefontaine]

Either way I didn't mean to start an argument just stating that a lot of people look at something like that and go "wow how cheap" when its really about the producers artistic touch.

You didn't do anything more than start us on a good discussion. No need to apologize. I like to see more discussions like this on various film releases. :T

[H.T.C]

I think the "shaky cam" isn't necessarily a reason to dismiss a film, if its use is relevant, which for this film it certainly is. Sure any film using it will get the "Blair Witch" label, but really it's just a cinematic tool no different than rotoscope, CGI, blue/green screen, stop-motion, or slow-motion for that matter. It worked for Blair Witch, and I think it works here. Now the nausea problem can be a real issue (especially for me), but thats different from person to person.

those old Rotoscope cartoons were cool and much
like parallex scrolling in 16-bit video games.

[RobP]

An article from CNN.com on Cloverfield


http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/24...ess/index.html

[Race Car Driver]

Blair Witch taught me never to watch anything like that ever again. If you have to close your eyes to "watch" a movie, the director has failed by default.

:x :x

[David Meek]

I haven't seen it yet (the curse of Orcas Island ) but Jen and our son saw it in Houston. They both enjoyed it a lot, and said the hand-held imagery added to the suspense. FWIW, our friends that saw it with them both hated it.

[Hdale85]

My friend saw it and absolutely loved it.

[Chris D]

Rented it last night on BD. WOW. Yes, the camera motion gave me some mild nausea. Yeah, it could have been better. But overall, I really appreciated the mystery and intruige that they put in the film, and that it's not a typical monster movie. While I don't think that hand-held camera moviemaking is the bomb or anything, and hope that movies that use it are very, very few and far between, I appreciated the uniqueness of it.

If you're going to rent it, you OWE it to yourself to do it on BD and listen to the TrueHD audio track. Amazing, and yes, there is some awesome deep bass.

Movies that have innovative thoughts on how it was made, or plot construction get a bit extra credit in my book. So I'll give it maybe 4 stars for the movie, and 3/4 of a star for the innovativeness. Round it off, and I'll give it :45: or a full :5: out of :5: