criterionforum.org

Jeff wrote:Turns out that Cloverfield is the actual title. Go figure. Trailer premieres in front of Beowulf tomorrow.

I'm gonna go see it at IMAX. I expect to be horribly motion sick. I can't wait!

New trailer.

Antoine Doinel wrote:New trailer.

This is exactly what would happen if the "Blair Witch" filmmakers attempted a feature film version of those old Astro Liner rides.

Zzzzz.

Looks better than any other disaster movie, not that there's like a lot of healthy competition out there but still

Dylan wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:New trailer.

This is exactly what would happen if the "Blair Witch" filmmakers...

And yet it took eight years for something like this to take place. I always thought Blair Witch was a success for what it was. I truly found it scary at the time, and ranked it right behind Exorcist. I was nineteen, but I still stand behind that. It's a shame that those original filmmakers weren't celebrated more. Instead, they were given their paychecks and told to get lost. To not even have involvement with the sequel is beyond me, just a real slap in the f ace, I think... It's the same to a certain degree with Sky Captain, and how Sin City gets all the rave reviews for how the technology effectively brought to life cgi and blue/green screens. Of course Sky Captain did it poorly, but it was the first to use it very extensively, if not for the entire picture. Anyway, 300 owes a lot to Captain, not just City... (Am I done here? Yeah.)

Gimmicky "reality" filmmaking hasn't done anything for me and I didn't care for "Blair Witch," where (among other things) the actors are so blatantly amateurs that are badly improvising each scene that it was a painful experience to watch. "Cloverfield" looks like the same thing except with "Godzilla" and CGI carnage in place of a curse hoax.

Meanwhile, anybody but me remember the old Astro Liner rides?

Dylan wrote:Gimmicky "reality" filmmaking hasn't done anything for me and I didn't care for "Blair Witch," where (among other things) the actors are so blatantly amateurs that are badly improvising each scene that it was a painful experience to watch. "Cloverfield" looks like the same thing except with "Godzilla" and CGI carnage in place of a curse hoax.

I feel the same way. Pass.

I would just like to add that if you click the trailer link above you can also choose to view Empire's deconstruction of the trailer, which is a laughable waste of time, and a further demonstration of the annoying tendencies of the AintItCool generation.

davebert wrote:I would just like to add that if you click the trailer link above you can also choose to view Empire's deconstruction of the trailer, which is a laughable waste of time, and a further demonstration of the annoying tendencies of the AintItCool generation.

Threadshitting?

exte wrote:

davebert wrote:I would just like to add that if you click the trailer link above you can also choose to view Empire's deconstruction of the trailer, which is a laughable waste of time, and a further demonstration of the annoying tendencies of the AintItCool generation.

Threadshitting?

I don't know if this qualifies as threadshitting. While I personally think this movie looks terrible, certainly even someone looking forward to this can see how laughable their trailer deconstruction is. And I thought AICN bashing was the norm over here.

I'm looking forward to the movie, but did you read the deconstruction? There's a difference between discussing trailers and... whatever the hell they did.

Sorry if I offended.

Did anyone else notice that the woman being manhandled by the big figures in the tent expands? I didn't notice it until someone pointed it out to me.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:Did anyone else notice that the woman being manhandled by the big figures in the tent expands? I didn't notice it until someone pointed it out to me.

It was the only memorable thing in the trailer. Either it was an unintentional optical illusion or these folks know how to do creepy well, at least in one instance. I doubt the film will be anything other than silly camp but who knows...

mogwai wrote:5 minute clip from Cloverfield.

I suppose this confirms it is just one monster. The horribly lame society joke/comment of everyone just taking pictures of the flying statue of liberty head with their cell phones just made me sigh.

Unsurprisingly, a Slant staff writer crashes the fanboys' party.

(And yet another mention of George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead's brilliance and superiority.)

Variety pretty much dismissed it as well. Newsflash to the AICN geeks: this is going to suck.

Manohla Dargis trashes Cloverfield:

Manohla Dargis wrote:Like too many big-studio productions, “Cloverfield” works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt.

Rarely have I rooted for a monster with such enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, Stephanie Zacharek completely misses the point. (The film may get cheap kicks out of a 9/11 scenario, and maybe that is tasteless, but such a complaint says nothing about the film's aesthetic quality.)

And finally, in a review that probably belongs elsewhere in this forum, Keith Phipps gives it an 'A-'.

Well, I thought this movie was just great. Good use of shakycam (never thought I'd say that!), good acting, great special effects (and I don't mean just the monster - the vast CGI fields of wreckage and fires are integrated perfectly), and the monster itself is used perfectly - hidden in darkness for all but two of it's appearances (the last two), and there ain't no fucking scientist in his lab telling Raymond Burr exactly where the fucker came from or what it is or how to stop it. Cloverfield's monster is just a mindless, origin-less, unstoppable force of destruction and it's fucking scary. I can't remember the last time a horror film actually worked for me like Cloverfield does.

It's just a lot of fun to watch, and that's all I really need sometimes.

Just got back from it. I love it. I love movies that rattle me around, and I haven't been so rattled since I first saw INLAND EMPIRE. If I wasn't smushed back into my seat while clutching the armrests in terror I was clamping my eyes shut while feeling my stomach churn (also in terror). I don't think I've ever been so physically affected by a film; when the rats came in the subway I jammed my feet into the back of the seat in front of me and tried not to cry in anticipation; later, something went "REEEEE" and I bit my hat.

Hoping to see it again soon.

So silly and dull it's practically avant-garde.

The first 60 (oh wait, 20) minutes, where we are introduced to the characters we are supposed to care about when they are squished by the scawy lizard, are utterly devoid of wit or flair. Just contemptible 20-something non-actors from Oregon (I'm just guessing) impersonating their concept of "successful" "hip" young Manhattanites. Including an "of color" so white she makes Hillary! look like Kathleen Cleaver. EW argues that the banality is intentional, as if a scary movie with banal characters is somehow original, edgy or remotely interesting.

As with B. Witch, it's obvious that no one would keep filming when all this "oh my god there's some heavy shit going down bro" was going down. Worse, camera dude wisecracks throughout--both unrealistic and unfunny.

The monster is just a post-pilates Godzilla.

There are maybe 5 minutes of monster/destruction. Most of these scenes last no more than a few seconds and there are no sustained action/suspense sequences involving Liz.

I just wish they could have afforded a larger cast so more of them could die.

Agree with Barmy here for the most part, but I'd like to add that this movie really looked like SHIT.

That was the intention and so on but I don't want to sit for 90 minutes watching shaky, poorly lit, faux-amature camerawork. This might be nit-picky but I think it is vital; The Blair Witch Project and (presumably) Diary of the Dead work because they characters they are "shot by" are filmmakers. The look here is intentional but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. One of the first lines of Cloverfield is something like "I have no idea how to use this thing." Obviously. I wonder if that line was ADR'd by Matt Reaves.

It's fun for what it is--a clever idea that plays on metatext and how images are filtered through different media. That's the interesting part. The actual humans in it are Gojira fodder--Brett Easton Ellis meets The Host.

I agree - "it's fun for what it is." Found the experience of watching the film gripping and entertaining, and now will completely forget it. Save for perhaps the question of whether it's obscene to make/consume a film that riffs on 9/11 so trivially, and/or what it means that this film is a huge hit.

Oh, I forgot to mention: apparently, if you watch the background closely during the final shots, the origins of the monster are explained. My friend saw this - I missed it. But I'll trust him.

P.

pemmican wrote:Oh, I forgot to mention: apparently, if you watch the background closely during the final shots, the origins of the monster are explained. My friend saw this - I missed it. But I'll trust him.

Hardly - you just see some thing plop into the ocean, unnoticed. What it is isn't explained.