Cloverfield (Matt Reeves, 2008)

[Faux Hulot]

I'd have enjoyed it more if the monster was the Stay Puft marshmallow man.

Mash-up, anyone?

[Cold Bishop]

I'd have enjoyed it more if the monster was the Stay Puft marshmallow man.

Mash-up, anyone?

I'd have enjoyed it more if the monster was a giant Robert Loggia... or rather, I would have bothered to go see it if it was.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Robert Loggia? Pfft - make it Christopher Walken! Or for an election year sequel, bring in Hillary Clinton and Ann Coulter!
I've been reading this thread for a few days now, but is this movie even so bad it's good? Or just as worthy of MST3K dressing down as it sounds?

[Magic Hate Ball]

It's certainly not a movie the wine-swillers among us will enjoy. I like these kinds of visceral movies, and thoroughly enjoy sitting in the front row, and I found it a thoroughly pleasing movie. Then again, I really liked Hud.

[Hai2u]

The actor who played Hud is supposedly a hilarious bro stereotype comedian.

[Orphic Lycidas]

... the monster's a giant NYC rat, isn't it?

[jbeall]

... the monster's a giant NYC rat, isn't it?

Or maybe one of those crocs that are supposedly swimming around in the sewers...

[the dancing kid]

I like monster movies and I’ve been looking forward to seeing this one since I first heard about it a few months ago. I did enjoy it for the most part, but I thought the final ten or so minutes were truly awful. It was like the filmmakers needed to rush through every boring cliché imaginable while simultaneously discarding the novelty of their original project.

Spoiler

1) The monster being bombed and then lashing out at the helicopter from the cloud of smoke. Given that this movie is presented as a “document” of the attack, to include such an obvious trope from the horror genre seems really out of place. The idea of the “unkillable monster” that comes back “one more time” is soooo old hat and it just feels really unnecessary in this kind of movie. I think this is where filmmakers turn away from their original conceit and resort to typical narrative convention.

2) The shot where the monster looks down at the camera man, pauses, and then attacks him. This is unsatisfying for a whole bunch of reasons. I actually don’t mind it that we see the monster in full, but to turn it into an exhibitionist effects shot doesn't work for this particular movie. I also found myself wondering how none of the three survivors noticed it standing around or heard it moving about. The “turn around and the monster is there” is another obvious cliché from traditional genre cinema, but this film doesn’t need those kinds of money shots to succeed. The suspension of diegetic logic (that somehow no one noticed it just handing out in the park) is also irritating given the “documentary” logic of the film. Actually, it’s not that they don’t notice that bothers me, since the trauma of the crash and everything else can probably explain that away, but the sound and image of the film also try to conceal its presence from the film audience until the big reveal.

3) The shot of the thing falling into the sea at Coney Island at the end. Oh you tease!

I have to say that I’m surprised that it was such a temptation for the filmmakers to resort to those kinds of generic tropes and to obey the same expectations of narrative and generic pleasure as any other film.

[colinr0380]

David Bordwell on the film

I like the comparison to 84 Charlie MoPic with its devastating end as the cameraman gets his camera to the helicopter but doesn't manage to escape himself.

[domino harvey]

David Bordwell on the film

What a fantastic article, no one writes about film better than Bordwell.

[Lino]

One of the many reasons why I love Cinebeats so much.

[Grand Illusion]

I'm really pissed I missed my showing of Michael Clayton by 20 minutes. I went to see this crap instead.

The first problem with the film is the disconnect. Not because of the camerawork, but because there are no humans in the film. Everything is so on the nose. Every bit of dialogue lacks subtext. Every choice made by the actors (or programmed into these robots) was on the nose. Nobody thinks, they just say what they feel.

And if you want spectacle, the movie is too damn clean. Look at Children of Men or War of the Worlds, there are bodies and destruction everywhere. Ignoring the human compassion that those films had, at least the art direction drew you viscerally into the pic. In this film (cynically trading 9/11 for PG-13), everything is clean unless dictated by the next plot point.

En route to rescue a friend trapped by the rubble, the group of protagonists run through New York, up one building, and down another. Yet there are no bodies, no survivors trapped, nobody in sight. Apparently, in major disasters nobody gets hurt or dies.

The style and faux verite style of the film work against it when it stretches so far away from realism, that I couldn't even enjoy it as spectacle like Independence Day. It feels like nobody was even having fun making this monster flick, which is apropos because I didn't have fun watching it.

All in all, it sucked, and I'd be offended if I thought I'd remember the film tomorrow.

EDIT: And I'd also like to add that the convenient shaky-cam that doesn't focus on anything too long made for an excellent excuse to periodically center on Aquifina or Mountain Dew product placement.

[CSM126]

Nobody thinks, they just say what they feel.

Well when you're running for your life the only thing you think tends to be "RUNRUNRUN!", which wouldn't make for very compelling dialogue.

I'm trying to think of what you want them to say other than what they feel. Perhaps you miss the Japanese scientist who explains everything in the Godzilla movies?

[noelbotevera]

Cloverfield (Matt Reeves, 2008)

[toiletduck!]

Eh, it was all right.

I was a little disappointed when it became adventure horror (i.e. when the thinly stretched realism burst completely). For the first 15-20 minutes after things start to go awry, I was terribly impressed -- that segment had me geared for the first successful post-9/11* (Land of the Dead perhaps withstanding) horror film. Had they kept it a simple survival/escape story, it might just have earned that standing as well

*Of course, I mean successfully incorporating a post-9/11 mindset in both characters and audience, not the first successful horror film since 2001.

-Toilet Dcuk

[chaddoli]

that segment had me geared for the first successful post-9/11* horror film.

I take it you haven't seen Land of the Dead?

[toiletduck!]

I take it you haven't seen Land of the Dead?

Dammit! A snippet from my inner monologue while writing that post: "Now hold on, buddy. That's a bold statement to make -- are you sure there aren't any major horror films made since 2001 you haven't seen that might lay claim to that title? Nah... what major horror film could I have possibly missed?"

Turns out it was Land of the Dead. And I don't even have a good reason. Okay, so maybe the second successful post-9/11 horror film, but now I have all the more reason to find out.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Cold Bishop]

Land of the Dead was successful?

[Mr Sausage]

Land of the Dead was successful?

I think he meant successful in artistic rather than financial terms. Or maybe you knew that.

[colinr0380]

An interesting theory over at the Mobius Forum is that Cloverfield seems very similar to Miracle Mile.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Specs

Paramount Home Entertainment has officially announced Cloverfield which stars Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, TJ Miller. The Matt Reeves directed monster flick will be available to own from the 22nd April, and should retail at around $27.95. The film itself will be presented in anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. Extras will include a commentary by Director Matt Reeves, 4 featurettes (The Making of Cloverfield, Cloverfield Visual Effects, I Saw It! It's Alive! It's Huge, and Clover Fun), 6 additional scenes (Congrats Rob, When You're in Japan, I Call That a Date, It's Going to Hurt, Alt Ending #1, Alt Ending #2), and multiple easter eggs.

[manicsounds]

Its quite strange that after all the hype caused by the original trailer, it's not included on the DVD

[CSM126]

Its quite strange that after all the hype caused by the original trailer, it's not included on the DVD

One can only pray Paramount pulls another Apocalypse Now and gives us a Circuit City-exclusive bonus disc of stunning extra material that turns out to amount to the trailer and five minutes bonus footage of another building falling over.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Its quite strange that after all the hype caused by the original trailer, it's not included on the DVD

It's probably one of the Easter Eggs.

[miless]

I came across this on Google maps (it's a step by step retracing of the events in the movie as recounted by an idiot)