Rosenberg Review: Cloverfield
By pmd on Jan 22, 2008 in Life, Random |
The following review is a response to the countless calls and emails I have received from people dissing the first movie that I have loved in 2008 (I haven’t seen Juno yet), Cloverfield. An asterisk in the review denotes that I am responding to specific criticism that I have heard of the movie.
I see a lot of bad movies. I really do. That is the price you pay for having an obsession with horror/thrillers. It’s the nature of the beast. Every blue moon, though, you stumble into something special. Cloverfield is not a horror/thriller really. It’s more of a sci-fi/giant scare a la Independence Day or Deep Impact. And yes–I loved Independence Day and really enjoyed Deep Impact (much more than its contemporary, Armageddon).
Cloverfield has the low budget feel of a great horror but with the concept of a sci-fi/giant scare like an Independence Day. It was shot entirely from the perspective of Hud, the pudgy annoying friend who you love but often want to kill (that sounds familiar). *So yes–seeing as the entire movie was supposed to feel like it was shot by an amateur on a handheld camera, the feel of the film was nauseating at times. And I saw it on a Friday night in New York City–and you know I run late so I saw it from the front row. That said, it was not THAT distracting.
The cast of the movie is relatively no-name from top to bottom with some slight exceptions. *However, they got the right actors and the dialog was perfect. The love story was sweet and realistic. The first 30 minutes of build up was as funny as it was increasingly tense.You know what? I am not going to break down every bit of what made this movie special. And if you live in New York in the post 9/11 world, it was also terrifying. Am I the only one who plans escape routes from Manhattan in my head from time to time? I didn’t think so.
If you go into movies expecting everything to be cut and dry and to appear like every formulaic movie you’ve ever seen than you may not dig this movie. There is NO explanation of anything. There is NO tidy ending. It is simply just the most realistic sci-fi disaster movie that I have ever seen. If you know of anything better, please let me know.
The problem with loving film in general is that most fans know nothing about it (myself included for the most part). I do know scary pretty well, though. Or I understand what the goals of scary movies are I think. Asking someone who loves romantic comedies for their opinion on a scary movie is like asking Souljah Boy to review Liquid Swords. If you want to be scared–see the flick. If you thought it was bad–you’re stupid. Yeah mom, I’m talking to you!Just kidding–my moms would never be dumb enough to hate on a classic.
** If you’re at all interested in this movie, I recommend you peep this. Good lookin out, Franchise (not Daryl Franchise). You can’t say this level of viral for a movie isn’t pretty dope.
And for kicks, here’s the original trailer that peeked my interest– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvNkGm8mxiM
I agree with you, PMD. I, too, feel like I had to defend the movie recently. What I would like to add is that this movie was really innovative in that the majority of the film’s story happened outside of the realms of the theaters’ storytelling (similar to the Matrix). Alot of the background, underlying themes, and relationships were storied on the web to investigative fans. Those of us that had been following Cloverfield since Transformers saw the movie with a different set of context and knowledge than those that came in thinking it was a monster movie. Here’s a link to tell you what I mean..
http://movies.ign.com/articles/845/845649p1.html
Thanks for the write up and holla at ya later. RIP Heath Ledger.
franchise | Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
i gotta say that this was one of the most entertaining movies i’ve experienced in a while. this film felt so real. this was a genius concept in my opinion & it lived up to the hype. i was sort of used to the shakey cam because i’m used to it from watching youtube videos constantly.
most people who are dissing this film are just people who hated the ending and the fact that they did NOT explain the monster’s origin. i thought that was a good move from the director because it lets you use your imagination. that mystery of where it came from would be a good thing to reveal in the rumored Cloverfield sequel people are talking about.
honestly, what did these critics want ?! some scientists in white coats randomly showing up & discussing every single detail about the monster ?! hahaha that would be so lame.
i thought characters were fun to watch, the monster looked crazy as hell, HUD was hilarious, & Beth was kind of hot ! overall, the film was great. i would pay to see it again.
QueRico | Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
I KNEW IT!! My listeners are both smart and insane! The shit was brilliant..period..
pmd | Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
Thanks, homie. And if you really want to get nerdy about Cloverfield, you should’ve paid attention to the end. Its rumored that the last shot of the film (the one w/ Rob & Beth in the ferris wheel), which seemed out of place, actually showed something crashing into the ocean in the far distance. That itself has caused several theories of the origins of the monster. Also, there was a cool whisper by Rob saying that “Its still alive” at the end of the credits.
Viva La Cloverfiends! - you can use it if you want (pause)
franchise | Jan 23, 2008 | Reply
Def going watch again. Shit was crack. Hope they don’t go crazy if they make sequels I like the viral marketing scheme and making me want to find out more information
JCASHDAKID | Jan 23, 2008 | Reply
I thought the film was excellent. Very well done. Must be seen in the movie theater. I heard bad reviews & I hated the camera shaking. But the acting was great, particularly Hud. The emotions were conveyed very realistically.
Dmax | Jan 23, 2008 | Reply
I dug the heck outta this movie. I thought I’d hate the handicam gimmick, but their was enough monster payoff to not leave me feeling shortchanged (I’m talking to you, Blair Witch Project!).
I tend to dig the big event movies too, but that’s cuz I don’t take movies that seriously. That being said: Deep Impact > Armageddon? Yeesh. For shame.
“Juno” was good, despite the lead actress’ playing yet another super-smart snarky teen who listens to music from 20 years before she was born. Honestly, those indy flicks are just as formulaic and cliche’d as the big budget summer movies.
Props on the post,
–Rey
www alumnah com
itaintthatserious wordpress com
Rey | Jan 25, 2008 | Reply