h1

Cloverfield Movie Review : Unbelievable, Not Great, but Good

January 23, 2008

Cloverfield Movie

So, I like everyone else had to see Cloverfield the movie after all of that buzz video they released. Well here is what I have to say: It was UNBELIEVABLE not great, but good. My girlfriend and I agree that those are the best words to describe this movie. I will break down exactly what I mean.

Cloverfield utilized the first person angle throughout the whole movie. This is not a new concept, Blair Witch did the same thing. The reason why it did not work with this movie is because it was too unbelievable. While Blair Witch did not have the budget or the effects, that movie made you shit yourself a little bit.

Cloverfield the movie was too unbelievable. First of all whoever has a digitacl  camcorder will tell you there is no Fin way it will last 7 hours. Furthermore, instead of making it realistic, everything was over the top. I expected a gridy movie that will make my heart pound. Instead it was a cheesy thriller, just from a first person perspective.

Therefore because this movie was unbelievable, it was good, not great.

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSo, I like everyone else had to see Cloverfield the movie after all of that buzz video they released. Well here is what I have to say: It was UNBELIEVABLE not great, but good. My girlfriend and I agree that those are the best words to … […]


  2. I found Cloverfield to be a lot of things, but “unbelievable” wasn’t one of them. Considering that it’s a science fiction film, there’s a certain freedom of license that goes with that. Almost all sci-fi thrillers have some sort of “hole” in it that exists and Cloverfield’s is the battery of the camcorder.

    But seriously, isn’t that being a bit too nitpicky? And what wasn’t realistic about the film, other than the battery? The monster is barely shown. The people react in a very real way to the problem they’re facing. The military is realistic and fights the problem about as effectively and realistically as you’d imagine they would. If you’re suggesting that the idea of a monster attacking New York City isn’t realistic, you’ve got me there.

    But still, I’d like to hear what you found unrealistic about the film.


  3. Thanks for your comment Cinephile. Granted it was a sci fi film, it could have still been a super gritty realistic sci-fi film that explores human nature rather than hockey effects. For example, the myst, is the best sci fi thriller I have seen this year. The reason it works is how it explores human nature rather than concentrating on the monster. In this film the first 20 minutes tried to make you give a crap about the characters with a very Jerry Springer style. I guess for me I like subtlety in my movies. The acting was also sub par and I did not buy any of the reactions to brothers and significant others being killed right in front of them.
    Here are somethings I questioned.
    1. Camcorder lasting 7 hours of battery life plus abuse (also with the flashlight on for almost 30 minutes into the movie)
    2. There is no way that a building would lean against the other one like that… simple physics
    3. There is no way you can go up one building and climb down the roof of the other.
    4. If you were impaled for I believe at that point 4 hours you would probably be dead
    5. The military guy would not ever let a civilian go up into the battle zone like that
    6. You cannot survive a helicopter crash from that altitude.
    7. I like how the monster only ate the camera man when his buddies were like 20ft away, why wouldn’t eat all three of them.
    8. If the final explosion was strong enough to wipe out the two love birds then it would have destroyed the camera.


  4. Well, I wouldn’t call a bunch of yuppies in their twenties at a trendy party “Jerry Springer style,” but I digress.

    The Mist and Cloverfield are two very different projects. Cloverfield wasn’t as much about the nature of human beings as The Mist was. Cloverfield was more or less an exercise in style and creativity, putting over the absence of the monster as an effect in and of itself. Also, the viral marketing was absurdly good leading up to it, which added to the mystique of the story. The Mist, on the other hand, was based on Stephen King’s story and had a very different slant. I don’t think the two films are comparable because they have different intentions.

    The acting consisted essentially of yelling, whimpering, etc. That was the idea, again. It was expressive of the chaos, not expressive of a finely tuned Hollywood epic monster movie.

    As to your questions:

    1. Agree.
    2. There is no way that a building would collapse like it did during 9/11 either if a plane hit it, but it did. Strange things happen.
    3. I don’t understand this one, so I’ll leave it alone.
    4. Yes, you would, but people in horror films have survived for longer. It’s Hollywood biology at its finest and, like most films, requires the suspension of belief.
    5. If the scene was that chaotic, he might not have a choice.
    6. Yes, you can. People have before.
    7. Because they ran away and because eating the cameraman was a cool effect?
    8. It MAY have. It’s possible that the camera was simply buried under rubble or something. To me, this was the strangest point in the film (Roger Ebert said the same thing) but I was able to get past it because I found the rest quite impressive.

    Again, I find these to be really minor points. I think almost all sci-fi has similar aspects of broken logic and years have been spent pouring over these points. Does it really create a valuable context in which to view a film, though, or is it better to learn to suspend belief for films of a certain context? With Cloverfield, these ideas you mentioned did not, for one minute, dampen my viewing experience.


  5. I guess well just have to agree to disagree. Like I said it was a good film, but it was not great. I have the capacity to suspend belief, but I think because it was not shot like any other movie, and tried to play it off as a found camera, it would be a better movie if it was more realistic. Maybe the marketing got me way over hyped up. Similar thing happened when I watched “I Am Legend”


  6. I’ve gathered all of the decent Cloverfield clips into my blog(s) if you want to check them out, there’s also some goof monster shots http://blog.motorphilia.com and http://motorphilia.wordpress.com



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: