rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 0:09:22 GMT -5
CLOVERFIELD (2008) - ***1/2Talking with someone who actually saw BLADE RUNNER in its original release in 1982, he told me that the biggest reason why he loved that movie was that unlike any other previous cinema look at the future city, it's not seen from outer space but from the streets. You're looking up, not down. If RUNNER was such the case for the sci-fi genre, then CLOVERFIELD is for monster movies. No more men in rubber suits stomping on cool miniatures, or equally cheesy cheap CGI models running amok. Well, we still get the later in CLOVERFIELD, but for once the star itself isn't the creature but the people trying to haul ass away from it. Now unlike (too many) people on the internet, I didn't get sucked up into the ridiculous as goofy hell hype where I was trying to analyze the value behind vague photographs or the title itself. It's just so incredibly boring and cyclical how everyone hype-urbates something, then trash it upon release like new video games. And really, how could I care if I'm not a fan of producer J.J. Abrams? His ALIAS was goofy, and LOST is more meandering than TWIN PEAKS in getting to the goddamn point. Trust me, I was ready to nuke CLOVERFIELD back to Monster Island, where Godzilla would bully him with a daily wedgie. Instead, by the wings of Mothra, I found myself pleasantly shocked with CLOVERFIELD. From the sterile-if-ominous bureaucratical classified screen to the supposedly "recovered" video tape cutting back and forth between a romantic tranquil day from the past to indeed the last party the Big Apple will ever enjoy, I figured this movie could go only two ways: Work or Fail. Just like Manhattan after the creature has its day, there won't literally be a middle ground. But the moment that CLOVERFIELD drove towards "Work" is that one moment when the film explains in a subtle if not incredibly subtle moment the significance of the tape recorded over. People complain about CLOVERFIELD and its lengthy set-up, but its like DIE HARD. It takes its time to carefully place the story elements and characters together, and when the other shoe indeed drops, its actually the severed head of the Statue of Liberty. Finally, I get what the poster for ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK promised. CLOVERFIELD is the movie that THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, another hyped-up "faux-documentary," so tried to be but failed to booger out. The chief reason perhaps is that unlike BLAIR, director Matt Reeves evokes a sincere organic atmosphere of dread, fear, and suspense. If you are aware of my displeasure of the failure that is recent Hollywood horror, it's nice to have a thrill-jump fest that actually works. While we concentrate on these survivors, we know that in the off-screen movie elsewhere, the mostly unseen terrible monster could be heard stomping, wrecking buildings, and the military's impotent war against it. Remember this point. Indeed, when the hero makes his march to save his girlfriend through the subway and the eerie-deserted streets of New York City, I must say I had deja vue memories of Walter Hill's masculine classic THE WARRIORS. While that one was a fantasy-action picture where we generally accept such a decision as the only choice for a man to make, we all know that the one made in CLOVERFIELD is a foolhardy one, much like the leader's choice to barricade against the zombies in Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. In fact, the only thing about CLOVERFIELD that bugs me is the climax. Like I wrote earlier, you felt the giant's presence either up-close or far away. But for it to come out of no where and sneak up on the heroes? It's almost as if Abrams/Reeves wanted to appease the nerds who want finally a full close-up shot of the star, and they caved in. It's just so silly. While one may wonder how a camera could have survived all of this, its perhaps a compliment that I never dramatically questioned why afterwards they pick the camera back up. With a reported $30 million budget, with more than 2/3rds going to the CGI, this CLOVERFIELD feels like many recent Hollywood productions that use the resources and media machine of the major studios, but with a creative indie cinema approach much like Doug Liman's THE BOURNE IDENTITY. Indeed CLOVERFIELD is a harrowing dark movie without answers, and a brave choice of a logical conclusion for a genre that's more satisfying and successful than BLAIR WITCH and the recent THE MIST were. But most of all, the filmmakers don't want to make any sequels. Yet even the monster menace and its parasites that couldn't be stopped will probably be made humbled by the Paramount mountain. NOTE: Apparently, I was wrong: The filmmakers are planning a sequel.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jan 27, 2008 0:11:04 GMT -5
Great review rra, Haven't seen this yet, but it's in my plans to see it soon.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 0:14:19 GMT -5
Great review rra, Haven't seen this yet, but it's in my plans to see it soon. Just ignore the hype nonsense. I actually was sorta impressed with it. Old-timer movie buffs whine about how the 1970s and its studio-sanctioned creativeness should never have ended.....and yet, its back. Its a different force than it was in that Auteur-obsessed epoch, but we all will only recognize this when its too late.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 27, 2008 0:25:13 GMT -5
Actually, you are partially wrong, rra. The filmmakers have stated that the idea of a sequel has been floating around in their heads, and with the success of Cloverfield, I'm pretty sure we'll see a sequel in the near future.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 0:26:33 GMT -5
Actually, you are partially wrong, rra. The filmmakers have stated that the idea of a sequel has been floating around in their heads, and with the success of Cloverfield, I'm pretty sure we'll see a sequel in the near future. Well, then if thats the case, then I'm disapointed. I don't want a 2010....dammit.* *=cookie points to anyone who even gets that reference.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 27, 2008 0:29:06 GMT -5
However, they said if they DO do a sequel, it won't be a new monster attack, it will be the same monster attack that is in Cloverfield, but from a different handheld camera, another group of people running around during the attack.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 0:31:49 GMT -5
However, they said if they DO do a sequel, it won't be a new monster attack, it will be the same monster attack that is in Cloverfield, but from a different handheld camera, another group of people running around during the attack. No offense, but thats just as equally boring-sounding as simply doing another monster attack. Internet critic VERN had a great sequel idea, where it would be set afterwards in the recovery....he calls it HAMMER-DOWN, or whatever the name of that "final solution" was.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 27, 2008 0:35:05 GMT -5
You shouldn't fret about the sequel. All the "silly" hype really lent itself to crafting an intelligent, logical progression of the story, and a second chapter in this story could well be presented as something completely different than the original.
For example, the possibilities of a Tagruato conspiracy, the disturbing vibes behind the "Jamie loves Teddy" videos, etc. etc. The filmmakers clearly went into this with something even bigger in mind than what we got.
That said, part of what I REALLY appreciated about this movie is how it didn't try to answer any of the questions that the hype machine generated. In a film depicting a borderline apocalypse from a first hand view, it makes infinitely more sense to feel lost and confused than it would be to know more about what's going on than the characters do.
That said, I do agree: it's wonderful to see more films lately which are being done artfully, and figuring out that it's possible to create fine pieces of cinematic art while not only working within the studio system, but actually USING it to one's advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Jan 27, 2008 0:35:47 GMT -5
However, they said if they DO do a sequel, it won't be a new monster attack, it will be the same monster attack that is in Cloverfield, but from a different handheld camera, another group of people running around during the attack. No offense, but thats just as equally boring-sounding as simply doing another monster attack. Internet critic VERN had a great sequel idea, where it would be set afterwards in the recovery....he calls it HAMMER-DOWN, or whatever the name of that "final solution" was. Like every hollywood idea, the idea of faux documentaries will end up being overkilled.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 0:48:39 GMT -5
You shouldn't fret about the sequel. All the "silly" hype really lent itself to crafting an intelligent, logical progression of the story, and a second chapter in this story could well be presented as something completely different than the original. For example, the possibilities of a Tagruato conspiracy, the disturbing vibes behind the "Jamie loves Teddy" videos, etc. etc. The filmmakers clearly went into this with something even bigger in mind than what we got. And if the filmmakers can pull that off, then awesome. Hell, they pulled off alot more than I expected. Its just, you ever saw Peter Hyams' 2010? Its a nice movie, one I enjoyed and own on DVD....but its problem is that it, like the Arthur C. Clarke novel, tried to be a goddamn cheat sheet explanation for the events behind Kubrick's legendary 2001. That said, remember EVIL DEAD 2. "Back at the same cabin on the next night? What else could they do with that premise?" Well, Sam Raimi found a way.... That said, part of what I REALLY appreciated about this movie is how it didn't try to answer any of the questions that the hype machine generated. In a film depicting a borderline apocalypse from a first hand view, it makes infinitely more sense to feel lost and confused than it would be to know more about what's going on than the characters do. QFT, and really, the problem with any explanation for the monster is that.......unless someone comes up with a unique concept, its always the same cliches: Misbegotten scientific experiement, it came from outer space, from the ocean, etc. That said, I do agree: it's wonderful to see more films lately which are being done artfully, and figuring out that it's possible to create fine pieces of cinematic art while not only working within the studio system, but actually USING it to one's advantage. In that regard, it is the 1970s all over again. I mean, take Paul Thomas Anderson's THERE WILL BE BLOOD. No way in hell it could have gotten its size of a budget at a Hollywood studio in the 1980s or 90s, for that subject material. No...friggin...way...
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 0:50:32 GMT -5
No offense, but thats just as equally boring-sounding as simply doing another monster attack. Internet critic VERN had a great sequel idea, where it would be set afterwards in the recovery....he calls it HAMMER-DOWN, or whatever the name of that "final solution" was. Like every hollywood idea, the idea of faux documentaries will end up being overkilled. Technically, you can argue its already been done. With Brian DePalma's REDACTED last year, George A. Romero's upcoming DIARY OF THE DEAD, and the HENRY-wannabe POUGHSKEEPIE TAPES..... Though CLOVERFIELD did better than REDACTED in trying to capture people acting like people............. I mean, when one does something better than DePalma at anything, I think that's amazing if you personally ask me.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 1:07:41 GMT -5
Just for kicks, here is Roger Ebert's review: --------------------------------------------------- Cloverfield - *** out of 4 /// January 17, 2008 By Roger Ebert Godzilla meets the Queasy-Cam in "Cloverfield," a movie that crosses the Monster Attacks Manhattan formula with "Blair Witch." No, Godzilla doesn't appear in person, but the movie's monster looks like a close relative on the evolutionary tree, especially in one closeup. The closeup ends with a POV shot of the guy with the video camera being eaten, but the camera survives. If he'd left the camera's light on, I might have been reminded of the excellent video of my colonoscopy. The movie, which has been in a vortex of rumors for months, is actually pretty scary at times. It's most frightening right after something Very Bad begins to happen in lower Manhattan, and before we get a good look at the monster, which is scarier as a vaguely glimpsed enormity than as a big reptile. At least I think it's a reptile, although it sheds babies by the dozens, and they look more like spiders crossed with crabs. At birth, they are already fully formed and functioning, able to scamper all over town, bite victims, grab them in subway tunnels, etc. I guess that makes the monster a female, although Godzilla, you will recall, had a baby, and the fanboys are still arguing over its gender. (Hold on! I just discovered online that those are not its babies at all, but giant parasitic lice that drop off and go looking for dinner.) The film, directed by Matt Reeves, is the baby of producer J.J. Abrams, creator of TV's "Lost." It begins with home-video-type footage and follows the fortunes of six twentysomething yuppies. The lead character is Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is about to leave town for a job in Japan. At a farewell surprise party, Hud (T.J.Miller) takes over the camera and tapes friends wishing Rob well, including Jason (Mike Vogel) and the beautiful Lily (Jessica Lucas). Hud is especially attentive toward Marlena (Lizzy Caplan), who says she's just on her way to meet some friends. She never gets there. The building is jolted, the lights flicker, and everyone runs up to the roof to see all hell breaking loose. The initial scenes of destruction are glimpsed at a distance. Then things heat up when the head of the Statue of Liberty rolls down the street. Several shots of billowing smoke clouds are unmistakable evocations of 9/11, and indeed one of the movie's working titles was "1/18/08." So the statute has run out on the theory that after 9/11 it would be in bad taste to show Manhattan being destroyed. So explicit are the 9/11 references in "Cloverfield" that the monster is seen knocking over skyscrapers, and one high-rise is seen leaning against another. The leaning high-rise contains Beth (Odette Yustman), who Rob feels duty-bound to rescue from her 49th-floor apartment near Central Park. The others all come along on this foolhardy mission (not explained: how after walking all the way to Columbus Circle they have the energy to climb 49 flights of stairs, Lily in her high heels). Part of their uptown journey is by subway, without the benefit of trains. They're informed by a helpful soldier that the last rescue helicopter leaving Central Park will have "wheels up at oh-six-hundred," begging the question of how many helicopters it would take to rescue the population of Manhattan. The origin of the monster goes unexplained, which is all right with me after the tiresome opening speeches in so many of the 30 or more "Godzilla" films. The characters speculate that it came from beneath the sea, or maybe from outer space, but incredibly, not one of them ever utters the word "Godzilla," no doubt for trademark reasons. The other incredible element is that the camcorder's battery apparently lasts, on the evidence of the footage we see, more than six hours, maybe 12. The entire film is shot in Queasy-Cam hand-held style, mostly by Hud, who couldn't hold it steady or frame a shot if his life depended on it. After the screening, I heard some fellow audience members complaining that they felt dizzy or had vertigo, but no one barfed, at least within my hearing. Mercifully, at 84 minutes the movie is even shorter than its originally alleged 90-minute running time; how much visual shakiness can we take? And yet, all in all, it is an effective film, deploying its special effects well and never breaking the illusion that it is all happening as we see it. One question, which you can answer for me after you see the film: Given the nature of the opening government announcement, how did the camera survive? rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/REVIEWS/801170302@ Copyright 2008, the Chicago Sun-Times.
|
|
|
Post by REDUNBECK~! on Jan 27, 2008 1:31:22 GMT -5
I mean, when one does something better than DePalma at anything, I think that's amazing if you personally ask me. Considering De Palma is responsible for as much crap (e.g. Snake Eyes, Bonfire of the Vanities, MISSION TO MARS!!!!) as good (e.g. Scarface, Untouchables, Femme Fatale), it's really a 50/50 chance to do better than the guy. And these days, after Black Dahlia and Redacted, it's becoming easier and easier to make something better than a De Palma film.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 1:33:09 GMT -5
I mean, when one does something better than DePalma at anything, I think that's amazing if you personally ask me. Considering De Palma is responsible for as much crap (e.g. Snake Eyes, Bonfire of the Vanities, MISSION TO MARS!!!!) as good (e.g. Scarface, Untouchables, Femme Fatale), it's really a 50/50 chance to do better than the guy. And these days, after Black Dahlia and Redacted, it's becoming easier and easier to make something better than a De Palma film. What I mean is, to do better at an approach than DePalma....not necessarily the movie itself..............that's impressive.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmoon103100 on Jan 27, 2008 1:50:31 GMT -5
Godzilla would still woop his ass.
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,874
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on Jan 27, 2008 2:10:24 GMT -5
I mean, when one does something better than DePalma at anything, I think that's amazing if you personally ask me. Considering De Palma is responsible for as much crap (e.g. Snake Eyes, Bonfire of the Vanities, MISSION TO MARS!!!!) as good (e.g. Scarface, Untouchables, Femme Fatale), it's really a 50/50 chance to do better than the guy. And these days, after Black Dahlia and Redacted, it's becoming easier and easier to make something better than a De Palma film. Heyyy...Mission to Mars was good. I thought so anyway.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 27, 2008 3:49:08 GMT -5
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Jan 27, 2008 8:13:35 GMT -5
I really enjoyed this movie. It was an intense thrill ride that I havent really experienced in a while. Its a monster movie where I actually like the characters. I was one that followed all of the hype and what not as it unfolded leading up to the movie, and personally, it added to the whole thing for me. Im still convinced there more than one monster though My personal grade for it would be **** out of *****
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 28, 2008 15:19:05 GMT -5
Scary movie making viewers sick By Danielle Dellorto CNN ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- "Cloverfield" is the first adrenaline-pumping monster hit of the year, bringing in more than $40 million dollars on its opening weekend. The thriller is told from the point of view of five young New Yorkers using their handheld camera. But for some viewers, being "part" of the movie is making them sick -- literally. One blogger on the popular movie database IMDB.com said, "I had to get up and leave the theater for nearly 20 minutes just to keep from hurling." Other moviegoers have reported being nauseated and dizzy. Most viewers are unaffected by the film, but for those who are, experts say the problem is in their heads. "This is a classic case of vertigo," said Dr. Michael G. Stewart, chairman of otorhinolaryngology (ear, nose and throat medicine) at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weil Cornell Medical Center. "You can look around and feel like things are moving, when they aren't." Vertigo is caused when a person's balance system gets confused. Your body feels a strong visual sensation of movement but in reality, you aren't moving at all. The disconnect confuses your brain sensors and can cause dizziness and nausea, Stewart said. AMC theaters across the country have posted signs warning moviegoers of potential "side effects associated with motion sickness similar to riding a roller-coaster." So why does the film style affect some viewers and not others? "People have different levels of susceptibility, similar to how some people cannot ride on a small boat without getting sick," Stewart said. "It's just a natural variation." The good news is, experiencing vertigo is rare for most people. So if you are itching to see "Cloverfield" but are worried you might get sick, experts recommend taking a dose of over-the-counter anti-vertigo medicine, sold under such brand names as Bonine and Dramamine II. "It might not protect you from all the symptoms, but it could, and it certainly can't hurt," Stewart said. Another tip is to briefly close your eyes during the movie. It may be enough to recalibrate your sensors and soothe your symptoms long enough to finish the movie. And if you're really concerned, just wait to rent the movie. "A person would be fine watching from home," Stewart said. "When you are on your couch, you have perspective around the screen so your mind knows the movie is moving and the room isn't." www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/24/movie.sickness/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Tull-eus S. Venture on Jan 28, 2008 15:47:18 GMT -5
Scary movie making viewers sick By Danielle Dellorto CNN ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- "Cloverfield" is the first adrenaline-pumping monster hit of the year, bringing in more than $40 million dollars on its opening weekend. The thriller is told from the point of view of five young New Yorkers using their handheld camera. But for some viewers, being "part" of the movie is making them sick -- literally. One blogger on the popular movie database IMDB.com said, "I had to get up and leave the theater for nearly 20 minutes just to keep from hurling." Other moviegoers have reported being nauseated and dizzy. Most viewers are unaffected by the film, but for those who are, experts say the problem is in their heads. "This is a classic case of vertigo," said Dr. Michael G. Stewart, chairman of otorhinolaryngology (ear, nose and throat medicine) at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weil Cornell Medical Center. "You can look around and feel like things are moving, when they aren't." Vertigo is caused when a person's balance system gets confused. Your body feels a strong visual sensation of movement but in reality, you aren't moving at all. The disconnect confuses your brain sensors and can cause dizziness and nausea, Stewart said. AMC theaters across the country have posted signs warning moviegoers of potential "side effects associated with motion sickness similar to riding a roller-coaster." So why does the film style affect some viewers and not others? "People have different levels of susceptibility, similar to how some people cannot ride on a small boat without getting sick," Stewart said. "It's just a natural variation." The good news is, experiencing vertigo is rare for most people. So if you are itching to see "Cloverfield" but are worried you might get sick, experts recommend taking a dose of over-the-counter anti-vertigo medicine, sold under such brand names as Bonine and Dramamine II. "It might not protect you from all the symptoms, but it could, and it certainly can't hurt," Stewart said. Another tip is to briefly close your eyes during the movie. It may be enough to recalibrate your sensors and soothe your symptoms long enough to finish the movie. And if you're really concerned, just wait to rent the movie. "A person would be fine watching from home," Stewart said. "When you are on your couch, you have perspective around the screen so your mind knows the movie is moving and the room isn't." www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/24/movie.sickness/index.html\ Wish I had thought of taking some of that. I was dizzy for the entire weekend after seeing it. Still, great flick.
|
|