|
|
|
Cloverfield
|
|
|
Large Photo
|
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 4816
Average Customer Rating: 
|
|
|
Showing page 1 of 20
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
|
 What else would you expect?, January 1, 2009
|
|
|
For a catastrophic event movie, it is unique in that it restricts the perspective of events to the limited knowledge, perspective and insight of a (seemingly) randomly selected point of view. The sense of photo-realism is unique with the filming style (personal video unit perspective) but the behavior acting is not very realistic. The acting is subordinate to the suspense plot. Special effects inject a setting of compelling surrealism.
The compelling question in the acting drama is whether in extreme psychological situations the mind would choose irrational paths. For example, since the video perspective is supposed to be an amateur eyewitness video log, what would compel a person to forgo natural and instinctive tendencies to self preservation and film events of such horrific personal and familiar devastation. On the surface, it seems ridiculous. Perhaps an exercise to rationalize it is overreaching.
The characters are steered through a world destined to showcase their personal faults while snaring them in a constant life and death struggle. It is, however, difficult to read any larger point or purpose into the unfolding of the drama than the rescue plot points.
The gaps in story are provoking to the imagination. Information is withheld the viewer as to causes and reasons. If a person cares enough, it's a puzzle. If they don't, it's a joke.
The devastation theme is almost textbook catastrophe horror. The plot is action based and as an action movie it is "dizzily" intense. In such stories there is not as much need or cause for dramatic showcasing. Truly an action adventure. What else would you expect?
|
|
Did Not Suck, December 29, 2008
|
|
|
Good for a thrill. Not as original as it was made out to be, just the same concept as Godzilla on the loose in Tokyo with better SPFX. Creepiest scenes were those atop a tall, leaning residential building, and on a crowded bridge at night. How the actual story was told---via camcorder---was a nice touch. Has some good moments. Worth the rent, not worth owning unless you get it on the cheap. I hear by now Vinnie in the back alley on Seventh Street has a few good copies...
|
|
 GARBAGE, December 29, 2008
|
|
|
One of the worst films I've ever seen. Supposedly filmed with a handheld video recorder. I believe it, the worst camera that has ever been made. Picture quality is poor throughtout; very little of the 'monster' shown. Poor storyline, poor acting.
Deserves no stars.
Save your money, and your time.
|
|
 At least the monster looks cool!, December 28, 2008
|
|
|
This movie at least has a decent monster. I just wish it would have been less Blare Witch. I got tired of the camera always not showing stuff and jumping from one time stamp to another and always bouncing around like a home movie. This movie does not even end in a concluding way. You do not know who lives or dies. You do not know if the monster lives or dies. I give it a two star rating only because of the alien's quality monster. It is cool and the Blu Ray has a sharp picture. Rent his movie or borrow if from some sucker like myself who bought it thinking the director of Lost would not let a movie this bad passes his desk. Oh well, guess we all make mistakes. Buying this movie was one of mine!
|
|
I'm so startled! , December 27, 2008
|
|
|
I probably should have watched Cloverfield BEFORE watching the South Park parody of it. I think it might have enjoyed this 'queasy cam' flick more than I might of, because I kept busting out laughing at the most inappropriate moments (whenever another of the hapless party goers bit it) thinking of Stan's dad repeatedly saying "I'm so startled!" while shooting film of the 'monsters' destroying South Park.
Cloverfield has an interesting premise, and provides a unique take on the 'Godzilla' variant of monster movies. Many singing its praises reference its uniqueness as if unique things are inherently good because they are uncommon. I disagree completely. For a 'unique' film to also be a quality film, it needs to provide something VALUABLE that is lacking from more traditional presentations. While home video style hand cam footage does put the viewer right in the thick of things, I don't believe it actually does much to help tell the story more convincingly. A film (or any story for that matter) will always succeed or fail because of its characters, plot, and dialogue. A gimmicky shooting style may create a new "look" but it will not make a bad film into a good one.
Cloverfield suffers more from story telling problems than anything else. It is hard to really engage with the characters, even though the first third of the film is devoted to sorting out their love lives. In my opinion, it would have been much better to simply start the movie at the point where the monster begins to attack the city and leave the audience to feel the panic of the faceless masses, and then introduce the characters as the story develops.
Novelty can only take a film so far. To really be successful, it must do more than just provide an interesting gimmick. Cloverfield is just another hum-drum monster movie, shot with an admittedly unique(if sickening) shooting technique. 2.5/5 stars.
|
|
|
|
Reviews
