Cloverfield (B+) (Fury Of The Film Fan)

[FuryoftheFilmFan]

My Rating: B+

[Sheridan Passell]

Nicely done.

Not sure scrapping the handheld and going for a more traditional cinematic approach is a good idea for the sequel. Remember Blair Witch 2??

[FuryoftheFilmFan]

ouch...yes I do ! good point.  thanks! 

[dalmatianjaws]

I agree and disagree. I think if the sequel looks like Michael Bay, it will fail. But honestly, I wouldn't buy another hand held reality version. Cause, honestly, how many complete, unedited video tapes would be lying around Manhattan with complete story archs? It would get a bit ridiculous.

I think if the next version was classically cinematic, but employed a gritty, indie feel, it could cross over quite well.

Of course, we need to assume that any and all sequels will suck, otherwise the pain we endured with Matrix and Pirates will have taught us nothing.

As for the shaky cam, I agree a lot. For example, I think Paul Greengrass is one of the worst directors working today. I think he's artistically shallow and trite. He employs the same techniques to every film and, like a shot gun, it's bound to hit the target occasionally (ala United 93) but most of the time fails completely (Bourne 2 and 3 which survived solely on the merit of their stories). That said, the dude directs action scene that stand at the very top of the quality ladder. But give the guy real character interaction and he should just roll over and die.

As for Cloverfield, it gets away with crappy cinematography because of the gimmick. And, much like the acting, it will go unappreciated by all film reviewers and critics and Academy Members come awards time in 2009.

Because, the techniqus employed, while brilliant and harder to achieve than many others, were designed to be "real." There are so many shots of running feet. So many "cliche" lines that folks say in real life, too many non-cinematic dramatic moments (when Rob calls his mom . . . very powerful, but not layered with sappy violins).

Basically, this film was meant to emulate reality while feeding the audience just enough cinematic rules to keep them from walking out. And that is nothing short of brilliant.

too bad no one will really care.

[FuryoftheFilmFan]

very well said. A lot of people I've spoken too regarding the next Cloverfield movie all pretty much agree that they don't want another Shakey-Cam tape movie. One guy said a faux documentary feel might work, sounds interesting enough. The Bourne series had the a ridiculous amount of unnecessary shakey cam. I remember one scene where they were just talking..JUST talking! and the camera is wiggling about.

I'm happy the year started off good, hopefully we will get some truly great movies this year.

[Mahmoud El-Azzeh]

Hey, good review! No spoilers. Thank God. Can't Wait to see it though. I don't mind shakey-cam as much, it kinds works in something like Friday Night Lights and other faux-documentary-fare but I suppose they weren't dodging explosions and flying monkeys in that film. Then again, I've never seen a shakey-cam film in the cinema so I would imagine that the nauseating effect is enhanced on a larger screen. Hmm... Buscopan/Buccastem M anyone???

[Sheridan Passell]

Flying monkeys - You've just ruined it for the rest of us.

[ad4m22]

I saw it last night and my *god* that was a fucking good film.

Even the sight of a slightly CGI monster didn't spoil it or remove the tension.

Bizarrely, only the camera angle is original in that film, but it added so much and made everything so goddamn immediate.

Brilliant.

[Sheridan Passell]

Yeah, it's a great movie. Really reminded me of the French brothers' pov documentary about 9/11. And I bet that's not a coincidence.

The cgi-ness of the monster was the almost fatal flaw. In a film that's camera style and dialogue is going for all out realism, to have a very clearly computer generated monster (especially the close up of the face at the end), was a big mistake. Why doesn't anyone do a mix of practical AND cg to create these things? The best moment of the movie, is the glimpse you get of the creature screaming down at them as they run into the subway. If only they had kept that up. Ending was weak, I wasn't feeling the emotion in the tunnel.

[stinkingbob]

Can someone tell me what kind of videocamera was used in the movie.
I would love to have one that can shoot with lights on for 4 hours!

[Mahmoud El-Azzeh]

Hey guys, just saw the film. AWESOME! That's all I can describe, the best bit was the Marlena death bit... that will haunt me forever! I left halfway into the credits, did I miss the Satellite bit or what?!? I hate it when they put stuff at the end of movies now! Hmm... I should do a Top 10 on that...

[DTPINLP]

The movie was good with style (what people normally see), but substance-wise it lacks.  The effects and camera-style are very good and it makes the film unique from all other monster movies.  The story was pretty solid, but it had a lot of minor flaws like the ending.  Personally, I need to see more gore to get the full feel of the movie, and it seemed like no one died.  The plot stood still when they were going to get his girl and no movement could be felt.  Overall worth watching, and if you can get through the minor mistakes, its a decent movie.