Cloverfield

[Mig]

Possible spoilers? As if there was any story material to spoil.

Best. Movie. P/Review. Ever.

http://www.explosm.net/articles/20032/#evenmore

Originally Posted by Explosm's Matt

Reviews of Movies We Haven't Seen: Cloverfield
by Matt




One of the most talked about films coming out soon is the epic sci-fi thriller Cloverfield. What makes this film special is that it's being helmed by producer JJ Abrams. I think he's won some awards or something, but Abrams is probably best known for his work on the movie Taking Care of Business, a light-hearted comedy starring one of the greatest comedic actors of our time: Jim Belushi.


Douche.

What really makes Abrams such an amazing influence to this movie, though, is his work on a little TV show called Lost. Avid fans of the show already know what I'm getting at: the monster. As with Cloverfield, Lost had a mysterious monster that had fans guessing (and complaining!) just what this monster could be. A monster that disappeared into thin air, knocked down trees, made mechanical sounds and roared like a dragon; what else could it be than a floating black cloud of smoke that visually projects the thoughts and memories of the people it attacks! Obviously.


It's with this same flow of logic that we are able to narrow down the possibilities of just what the monster is. And no, it's not Godzilla. We know Abrams uses a lot of references to past movies and television in his work, but Godzilla? Please, I'll eat this review (mmm pixels) if the monster turns out to be even remotely giant-lizard-like. Some retards even thought it was a film adaptation of Voltron.

We have a couple really strong clues to go from, the first of which is the decapitating of the Statue of Liberty. Not only do we know that the monster is capable of doing it (strength to tear it off, ability to get high enough in the air to reach it, distaste for American iconography), but the Statue of Liberty has significant references to various pieces of popular media. We also have the movie title itself. It's pretty much a given that the movie ends with the main dude and some chick (all their other friends die) in a field of clovers, but that's not enough to name the movie after. The title has a hidden clue in there, too.

What really brings this all full circle and solidifies our hypothesis is a line from the trailer: "It's alive!" Alive? ALIVE!? Ahh, it's so simple! Obviously, the monster used to not be alive, but now is. At first, you may think it's a zombie, but remember the Statue of Liberty. Zombies aren't strong enough to rip the head off like that. Plus, they're proud to be Americans. So if not a zombie, what could the monster be?

The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man!


Of course! All the clues are there! If you're not familiar with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, he was the monster from the original Ghostbusters, a manifestation of evil personified as an image of one of Peter Venkman's thoughts. A monster based on thoughts, just like the black cloud from Lost. Also, the Marshmallow Man wasn't alive to begin with, hence the "it's alive!" line. And of course, what did the Marshmallow Man fight in the original Ghostbusters movie? The Statue of Liberty!

Now if that wasn't enough, here's an even more clear, direct connection. The Ghostbusters movie started out with three scientists fighting ghosts, but were later joined by a fourth Ghostbuster, Winston, played by Ernie Hudson. Now you may not know this, but Hudson is a black actor, just like Danny Glover! Glover recently joined the cast of Brothers & Sisters where he played the love interest of Sally Fields. Glover and Fields? Cloverfield? C'mon Abrams! You're making this a dead giveaway!



Despite the obviousness of what the monster is, the movie is exciting and inventive. In most movies like this, the military comes in and launches of bunch of missiles that have no effect on the monster. Then the president orders a nuclear attack. "But there's still people in the city!" He does it anyways 'cause presidents are total jerks.

The main character is left with only one other friend who has survived with him (who just happens to be the most attractive female in the whole movie and manages to still look hot even covered in dirt and blood). They befriend a military soldier who sacrifices his life so our protagonists can just barely escape the nuclear attack and live together happily ever after. But that's most other movies. In this one they all die.


Warning: The preceding review contained spoilers. That were totally true. Totally.

Bit late, since this film has been out a while now but whatever. Seen it? What do you think?

To be honest, it was just another generic 'zomg ohnoes monster =o!' movie. Except filmed on a camcorder, with a tediously long and boring opening. Oh and a pretty shite ending, not even having enough gore to back it up. Mind you, the fear was conveyed really damn well in the cinema theatre but it was just so horribly predictable and cliché.

Don't even get me started on the whole love story and attempt at integrating the back story of that Beth chick with the "o shiet i recorded over some old tape" lark. In fact, all the romance in that film was phail. >.>

Yet, strangely, I enjoyed it. Something satisfying about watching bad actors die and be eaten by a huge evil frog godzilla monster thing. The one guy I did like was the main camera guy.. Hud? That was some damn good comic relief right there. Shame his death freakin' sucked.

The film was differently sort of.. refreshing, though. The whole way in which it was done was at least new, since it wasn't as generic as the story was. I do like JJ Abrams' directing - he has real talent there - but I'm less a fan of his writing. I hope he gets the new Star Trek film right, or I might just implode.

Meh. Thoughts?

[Sioux]

I liked the movie personally.

Yes, the shakey camera caused thousands to become sick again, like with the Blair Witch, and yes it was somewhat cheesy and had a thin plot but, hey, I don't go the movies to think and judge and waste my money, I go to be entertained and escape from life for a couple hours.

The whole movie for me though was the monster. I loved the monster design and the little cockroach drones was a beautiful touch. The compositing in this movie with the digital models is insane.

Now I admit the love story angle was a bit...thin as was the whole idea that someone would actually hang on to the camera as all this went down and not run for their lives is also hard to believe. Also, the fact that emotions were not as fast or immediate as they should have been with how everything was going in the film.

However, I liked it and have always enjoed the first person view of the camera, I liked it in the Blair Witch, I liked it in Cloverfield and I know I'm going to like it Diary of the Dead.

[get_mik]

I LOVED this movie.

I'm sure if such a thing were to happen, someone would document it like they did in the movie. That is part of why it was so awesome, because it COULD be just like that.

And the little critter things... so much reminded me of a Zergling. It was beautiful.

Mik

[Vivi]

I thought it was awesome.

Did anyone else see the satellite fall from the sky in the final piece of footage from the camera?

I have to say though I enjoyed the film more when shit started kicking off in the first half of the film (bridge falling, etc) but then after that it just seemed like a series of events. But yeah I thought it was good. The deafening sound of shit getting flung around New York is awesome in the cinema, it's a real experience, and I doubt it'd be the same on a DVD at home. I'd give it an 8 out of 10.

[Lulu]

It was the first movie I had seen in a long while that actually made me very tense, and think "Holy Sh**, what's gonna happen?!" and "Ah balls, they're in Central Park, tape was found in Central Park. 2+2=4". I thought the plot was pretty thin alright, but its hardly the plot-driven type of movie.

One major hole that I had a bone of contention with:

The Brooklyn Bridge is destroyed from the sea, but by that stage, the monster was already wandering Manhattan, on dry land. It is also clearly destroyed by tentacles. When I saw the monster in all its glory, I saw no tentacles. Which begs the question : were there two monsters?

[Mig]

And the little critter things... so much reminded me of a Zergling.

Hah, all I could think of was Sinspawn. Right from the start I just thought 'FFX Sin', then little criter things started flying off. I think I was the only person in the entire theatre who was chuckling at it. =p

It is also clearly destroyed by tentacles.

Wasn't that the monster's tail? I can't remember if it actually had one, but that was my conclusion at the time. I mean it looked amphibious, plus I'm guessing it came in from the sea considering the Statue of Liberty was the first victim.

Also correcting myself - it was directed by Matt Reeves, not Abrams. JJ has yet to impress me, really.

I'm hoping that the "shit flying around new york" sounds just as good on my surround sound system at home, because in that way it'd be a damn fun film to watch with the added option of skipping that godamn intro.

[Lulu]

Originally Posted by Esp

Wasn't that the monster's tail? I can't remember if it actually had one, but that was my conclusion at the time. I mean it looked amphibious, plus I'm guessing it came in from the sea considering the Statue of Liberty was the first victim.

I thought it two was tentacles reaching up either side, but to be honest, I only saw the scene that one time. Its also kind of odd that it came from the sea, went on-land, then jumped into the sea again, and out again.

[peacemaker]

good movie

[ShimmyDylan7777]

It's a great movie with a great story plot with a shitty camera. I swear I was going to pass out... too shaky.