LTTP: Cloverfield. . . why the hell were reviews mixed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought it was alright but also pretty boring.

I am actually more surprised that most people in this thread are talking about how exciting it was and all that. I mean, it isnt not exciting, but when everything is this exciting tense shit it gets boring. It is kind of like a Michael (FUCKIN') Bay movie.
 
Linkzg said:
I thought it was alright but also pretty boring.

I am actually more surprised that most people in this thread are talking about how exciting it was and all that. I mean, it isnt not exciting, but when everything is this exciting tense shit it gets boring. It is kind of like a Michael (FUCKIN') Bay movie.
Click to expand...

What? :lol
 
I can see where some people would be disappointed. But I consider it to be one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. Sure were great movies like There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, but this is just in a league of its own when it comes to creativity and overall excitement.

For the record, not saying Cloverfield is better than the Oscar winners.

Any idea when the DVD release is?
 
Darth Sonik said:
They one disappointment was that I heard there was a scene after the credits, which there wasn't. Was there a recent film I mixed it up with, or was it not in the European version?
Click to expand...

Nah, just one line of scrambled dialog
it's still alive, which feels like a really forced cliffhanger for a sequel
.
I too enjoyed it for what it was. In fact, I thought that the 9/11 allusions and the visual similarities, with the dust-choked air and disintegrating buildings, was a very effective hook.
While I thought that the subway scene was good,
I would have bet my manhood and half of my brain that, when Rob said "turn on the night vision", we were going to see the parasites immediately, then and there. I thought that was a pretty hokey little stunt.
Still, the whole scene worked well.
Actually,
Why didn't the soldiers ask/notice if Marlena had been bitten?
I think I'll stop there.
 
Great pacing, even the beginning. It sets up the chaos that follows just perfectly. It's a flawed film and the ending pissed me off, but it goes at a perfect pace.
 
Green Shinobi said:
Are you fucking kidding me?

There was more intelligence and creativity in one minute of Cloverfield than in Michael Bay's entire catalogue.
Click to expand...
Blader5489 said:
What? :lol
Click to expand...

You guys have no sense of humor.

but seriously, I did think it was alright but pretty boring.
 
Crusade said:
I thought it was fantastic. I would've liked a different ending
Hud dying was unnecessary and a little unrealistic. Plus if they were going to end it with everyone dead, I would've preferred to just see the city get nuked CoD4 style
Click to expand...
Lily is only one that escapes by being forced into a departing helicopter without her friends.

They have the monster for sale at:http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.htm?ID=21030&BR=863
 
Saw this and surprisingly liked it. (I say surprisingly because they hype was annoying from the usual sources).

It was exciting. The camera thing while contrived did lend it sort of an intimacy that would have been missing from traditional viewpoints. 20 minutes in I was sort of hating it but then it picks up and is like a little roller coaster ride. I didn't really care for the characters so much but that almost seems secondary in a way as it's sort of a spectacle movie that lends you to putting yourself in the situation rather than necessarily identifying with them. Well done.
 
Crusade said:
I thought it was fantastic. I would've liked a different ending
Hud dying was unnecessary and a little unrealistic. Plus if they were going to end it with everyone dead, I would've preferred to just see the city get nuked CoD4 style
Click to expand...


unrealistic?
You pick Huds death out of all that happened as being unrealistic?
 
mashoutposse said:
At the end of the showing I went to, some guy got up and screamed "WTF is this shit" just like the Picard photoshop.
Click to expand...
Afterwards, he went home and rented Epic Movie. He thoroughly enjoyed it since it was far more befitting of his sophisticated tastes.
 
The thing was way too omnipotent. It was everywhere the characters were seemingly at all times and the movie never took advantage of the city's geography and exploited the things' position for the sake of drama.
 
Warm Machine said:
The thing was way too omnipotent. It was everywhere the characters were seemingly at all times and the movie never took advantage of the city's geography and exploited the things' position for the sake of drama.
Click to expand...
I hear this argument all the time and it makes absolutely no sense to me.

The monster was only concentrated in the downtown district around central park. The characters, against better judgement, deliberately went towards where the monster was in order to rescue the girlfriend. Of course they were going to run into it periodically. The monster wasn't going out of its way to find the characters, it was the other way around (albeit not deliberately).
 
ckohler said:
I hear this argument all the time and it makes absolutely no sense to me.

The monster was only concentrated in the downtown district around central park. The characters, against better judgement, deliberately went towards where the monster was in order to rescue the girlfriend. Of course they were going to run into it periodically. The monster wasn't going out of its way to find the characters, it was the other way around (albeit not deliberately).
Click to expand...


Periodically? The monster was practically going in circles waiting for them.
 
thetrin said:
I can understand not liking it, but how can you possibly say you were bored? The movie could not have been MORE intense without knives coming out of the theater seats at random times.
Click to expand...

The entire front-end was boring. I mean a good chunk of the audience that was there when I saw it was busy text messaging.
 
I think it was a fun watch, but it really unsatisfying after the end.

The whole story turn out to be a love story, of how people deal with loss and all that shit.. basically like thousands other drama. The monster attacking the city became a background to that story.

In the end, you get a love/trying to survive story (which most of them died anyway, which kinda pointless) . You know almost nothing about the monster that you haven't already know even before sitting down in the cinema. (where did it came from, what's the aftermath, etc)

after all it's almost feel like a teaser to the actual monster film. In term of story, you get NOTHING.

All the hidden message/playing backward radio transmission shit at the end doesn't help either . It's feel like a trick to make you buy the dvd.
 
sedaku said:
I think it was a fun watch, but it really unsatisfying after the end.

The whole story turn out to be a love story, of how people deal with loss and all that shit.. basically like thousands other drama. The monster attacking the city became a background to that story.

In the end, you get a love/trying to survive story (which most of them died anyway, which kinda pointless) . You know almost nothing about the monster that you haven't already know even before sitting down in the cinema. (where did it came from, what's the aftermath, etc)

after all it's almost feel like a teaser to the actual monster film. In term of story, you get NOTHING.

All the hidden message/playing backward radio transmission shit at the end doesn't help either . It's feel like a trick to make you buy the dvd.
Click to expand...

Just speaking for me but I didn't want any of that stuff you mention. I take it for what it is. All the "hidden stuff" is meaningless to me. I watch Lost but I'm not the type of viewer who gets caught up in all the minutia. Same with this movie. How thin it was is for me appeal of the film.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Just speaking for me but I didn't want any of that stuff you mention. I take it for what it is. All the "hidden stuff" is meaningless to me. I watch Lost but I'm not the type of viewer who gets caught up in all the minutia. Same with this movie. How thin it was is for me appeal of the film.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly my point. The movie turn out to be just a thriller ride, and is not deep at all like some try to make it out to be.

It's fun but no one enjoy it because it was "deep".
 
Stoney Mason said:
Well at least he dies then. :D
Click to expand...

The best part about the movie is every main character dies (except for that one chick). Most annoying main cast I've ever seen in a movie.
 
sedaku said:
But that's exactly my point. The movie turn out to be just a thriller ride, and is not deep at all like some try to make it out to be.

It's fun but no one enjoy it because it was "deep".
Click to expand...

I missed out on all the threads purposely because I knew I wouldn't be able to see it, so I haven't had these debates before with people. "Deep" is the last thing I would call it, but then I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

It's definitely a roller-coaster ride as I mentioned before married to a high concept of how to shoot it. It's intelligently and cleverly scripted and filmed. If there is anything deep about it, it's solely in the concept. As far as the actual material itself, meaning the acting or the actual plot, it's clearly not deep. But then I wasn't expecting that going in.
 
sedaku said:
I think it was a fun watch, but it really unsatisfying after the end.

The whole story turn out to be a love story, of how people deal with loss and all that shit.. basically like thousands other drama. The monster attacking the city became a background to that story.

In the end, you get a love/trying to survive story (which most of them died anyway, which kinda pointless) . You know almost nothing about the monster that you haven't already know even before sitting down in the cinema. (where did it came from, what's the aftermath, etc)

after all it's almost feel like a teaser to the actual monster film. In term of story, you get NOTHING.

All the hidden message/playing backward radio transmission shit at the end doesn't help either . It's feel like a trick to make you buy the dvd.
Click to expand...
So you'd rather it had just been a movie about a monster attack without any kind of real emotional weight and with shallow characterization?

There have been dozens and dozens of monster movies that fit that description. Cloverfield was so good because it focused on a limited number of characters and their reactions to the events. The characters are far, far deeper than in any other film in this genre that I can think of, and the film touched a broader emotional spectrum. That's what made it so good, IMO.

sedaku said:
But that's exactly my point. The movie turn out to be just a thriller ride, and is not deep at all like some try to make it out to be.

It's fun but no one enjoy it because it was "deep".
Click to expand...
Deep compared to what? Hamlet? Not so much. Independence Day, Godzilla or other films about a massive disaster/attack? It's like the Marianas Trench.

Coop said:
Most annoying main cast I've ever seen in a movie.
Click to expand...
The main guy (not the guy filming, but the guy who's going to Japan) was one of my favorite heroes ever. Not sure why, maybe it was because he was so damn real.
 
Coop said:
The best part about the movie is every main character dies (except for that one chick). Most annoying main cast I've ever seen in a movie.
Click to expand...

They were annoying, especially at the beginning but they also grew on me a bit.
(When they went to get that chick and she had that spike through her shoulder I was genuinely moved for example
) They weren't the deepest set of characters but the movie was smart enough to keep the pacing up and limit the characters. Unlike the Dawn of the Dead remake let's say where I was forced to watch a whole slew of characters with bad dialogue. At least this film knew where to put its money shots and keep it constrained.
 
Green Shinobi said:
Kenneth: Say something.

Ana: Please.

Bad dialogue my foot.
Click to expand...


It was bad. There was too many of them. And they were poorly characterized. Thank God Cloverfield fixed at least one of those issues.
 
The Wispy Scoundrel said:
my friends girlfriend walked out of the cinema when the girl blew up and refused to go back in and now she has nightmares about it

i'm not kidding
Click to expand...
Y-you have a girlfriend?
*faints*
 
It has the most annoying characters of all time... (Rob... rob... rob... hey rob... rob...rob...hey rob... rob...rob...rob..rob. come here.. rob rob rob rob rob)

This is why I thought it was largely the worst movie I'd seen in 20 years.
 
I loved the film. I even followed up the viewing by seeing the fantastic There Will Be Blood and still found it an enjoyable movie. I think some people let their own hype build this movie up far beyond what it was ever going to be. Which is pretty much why I always avoid internet hype.
 
Stoney Mason said:
It was bad. There was too many of them. And they were poorly characterized. Thank God Cloverfield fixed at least one of those issues.
Click to expand...
I'd agree it was a mixed bag. The black dude and his pregnant wife weren't written as well as they could have been, and Ving Rhames' character was pretty much a stereotype in every way. On the other hand, I thought Ana and Michael were awesome characters, written very well.

The dialogue was bad in parts, but come on. Out of all the horror movies with shitty dialogue out there you pick DOTD remake?

DOO13ER said:
Rowr!
Click to expand...
Fuck Deathnote's post, and if you're going to be down with that post then fuck you too.
 
Might as well say it again but Cloverfield is one of those movies where you yell at the screen, "what the fuck are you doing?" "WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT?" The movie had some very stupid moments. That parts where the girl was injured from that subway and they could give a fuck until she came up to them half dead and the part where they let the other girl that was not injured get on the chopper first made me want to choke myself. The B2 flying over was fucking awesome though.
 
The view on the movies are either of two:


Either the film was one of the best you've ever seen.

OR..


You just couldn't handle the camera and got angry at the fact that you missed such an incredible film.
 
RumFore said:
The movie had some very stupid moments. That parts where the girl was injured from that subway and they could give a fuck until she came up to them half dead and the part where they let the other girl that was not injured get on the chopper first made me want to choke myself.
Click to expand...
If this shit ever happens for real, I really hope you're on my team, since you'll know exactly what to do in every situation.
 
Green Shinobi said:
So you'd rather it had just been a movie about a monster attack without any kind of real emotional weight and with shallow characterization?

There have been dozens and dozens of monster movies that fit that description. Cloverfield was so good because it focused on a limited number of characters and their reactions to the events. The characters are far, far deeper than in any other film in this genre that I can think of, and the film touched a broader emotional spectrum. That's what made it so good, IMO.


Deep compared to what? Hamlet? Not so much. Independence Day, Godzilla or other films about a massive disaster/attack? It's like the Marianas Trench.


The main guy (not the guy filming, but the guy who's going to Japan) was one of my favorite heroes ever. Not sure why, maybe it was because he was so damn real.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have a movie (advertised to be a monster movie) have a story surrounding the monster.

I told you, it's a fun ride, but it's turn out to be a drama about this group of people, with the monster becoming the background.

Now if you compare this movie with other movie also featuring a group of people and their drama dealing with chaos and lost, the character is nothing "deep".

I can go as far and say this is not a monster movie at all. You can replace the monster with the event of war (or some type of natural disaster, zombie, w/e) and everything still make perfect sense. The story is that swallow.

The only thing cool is the handheld camera concept.
 
By the length of the threads that were up before the movie came out I can certainly imagine there were some annoying levels of hype. So I'm glad I missed out on all of it and was able to see it with fresh eyes.

They basically had one of the more clever and fresh takes on a disaster/monster movie in years. And better realized I would argue than Blair Witch by a longshot although budget helps out on that.
 
Maybe because there's basically no story? Not only that, but the movie explains absolutely nothing about itself, which left a whole lot of people that I knew who watched it confused as hell. It's like the the movie just ends all of a sudden, there's almost no sense of closure.
 
Absolutely loved the movie. Few things which could of been a little better like the ending, but i just enjoyed the experience and that's what matters.

Have to disagree with you about Rob though. I really didn't like his character at all. Yeah he was well developed but there were quite a few times in the movie where i felt like punching him in the face for being such an idiot.

Green Shinobi said:
I'd agree it was a mixed bag. The black dude and his pregnant wife weren't written as well as they could have been, and Ving Rhames' character was pretty much a stereotype in every way. On the other hand, I thought Ana and Michael were awesome characters, written very well.
Click to expand...

I liked the DOTD remake because the zombies actually felt threatening. I'm sick of seeing zombies that walk along like a cripple and basically wouldn't be a threat to anyone in real life. Yeah it's dialogue wasn't great but then again i didn't really watch it for the dialogue.
 
onemic said:
Maybe because there's basically no story? Not only that, but the movie explains absolutely nothing about itself, which left a whole lot of people that I knew who watched it confused as hell. It's like the the movie just ends all of a sudden, there's almost no sense of closure.
Click to expand...

Go to the Mist thread where people complain about closure in the movie versus the book that was open ended. You can't please everyone.
 
onemic said:
Maybe because there's basically no story? Not only that, but the movie explains absolutely nothing about itself, which left a whole lot of people that I knew who watched it confused as hell. It's like the the movie just ends all of a sudden, there's almost no sense of closure.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I feel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F1: The Movie | Reviews are out
2
70
1K
Gp1 replied
  • Locked
What the hell is going on with the ads here?
13
326
EviLore replied
28 Years Later | Reviews
2 3 4
176
2K
Ulysses 31 replied
Why the f is Reddit so rigid?
2 3
111
795
Paasei replied
What is the first cartoon or tv series you can remember when you were young
2 3
107
213
dispensergoinup replied
Top Bottom