Cloverfield (No Spoiler Please) @@ NOW WITH SPOILERS @@

I have to say, I thought it wasn't very good. I was expecting something better. I think it's unique approach to a monster movie, but that's about it. There was few moments where it was really exciting, but at the end it leaves too many questions. So, to those who saw it, did you like it?

 

I am going to miss that $10.00.

 

I liked it. Was a little disappointed with the theater I was in. They didn't play it loud enough so it didn't have a big enough effect on me when things were getting thrown around. I thought it was worth my $9 ($1 student discount... kept my id after I graduated for that specific reason).

This monster would beat the hell out of Godzilla IMO.

 

I liked it.

It was intended to be docu-style putting you right in the middle of the experience...therfore you wouldnt have any clue as to what was going on other than what you saw on tv and/or heard from other people. And its unlikely if it really occured that anyone would quickly know whats going on (and if some high level govt person did they sure wouldnt be announcing it all over the news).

I felt it was handled very realistically.

 

This was apparently one of the most secretive movies ever made. When they did the auditions, they gave them lines from made up scenes or his past movies b/c they didn't want them to know what they were auditioning for. The official name also wasn't released until 3 months ago.

 

From what I've heard it is not very good. I'll wait for the DVD.

 

It was ok , but the camera angles got annoying at times .

 

glorified, high budget blair witch.

i'm all for casting no name actors... but they should've picked ones who could act.

i'm not sure if it was 100% scripted or if they allowed for ad libbing... either way the dialog was terrible.

 

I enjoyed it.

 

I thought that it was O.K., although the camera setup got annoying.

 

Liked it as well. Was a bit disappointed with the ending, but I think they couldn't have ended it in any other way.

 

Personally loved it, it's nice to see something new and original.

 

I want to see it but will probably wait to rent it. Question: Is it like one of those typical Stephen King/M. Knight Shymalan movies where once the tension of knowing what the threat is (ie. monster is revealed) it loses tension? That's the impression I get. The web trailers definitely play better than the TV ads.

 

Unlike those movies, this one has no plot, no character development, and basically no ending. Also those ones don't have bad camera work. I wouldn't waste money on it if I were you. Now if you have netflix and adding another DVD to your list won't add an additional cost, go for it. Don't waste money renting it individually.

 

Just say no I won't go

 

I enjoyed it, but wish I sat further back in the theater. It did make things a little dizzy at times. I will say this, after seeing the movie and driving down the road, I thought about how the film was shot. It is more believable in what you could see in the real world as opposed to seeing big machines transforming right in front of you.

 

It's a love/hate thing, there is no denying the movie is a huge success but you'll either love it or you'll hate it.

The people that hate it have motion sickness and the amateur handy camera makes you feel like you are there experiencing it and I think some people did not connect with this or did not find it appealing. Some people say the movie has no plot, well it's not supposed to. This is an attack, it is more or less a view of how a potential monster attack would really happen, it's realistic fiction. Some people complain that the actors are not big names, well that's also intentional, I would not find the experience the same if Tom Cruise was running around with the camera, seeing actors I have never seen before I got really into it.

Explaining this movie to people who hate it is like trying to explain a $200,000 Ferrari to a $60,000 Corvette with similair performance. Some people will just never understand it, they criticize the obvious "flaws" of the movie which are completely intentional and add to the entire experience.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to love this movie, I'm simply saying if you are going to criticize it don't complain about the camera work, plot, or characters as these were all set-up intentionally to give the movie a NEW and UNIQUE experience. Thousands of movies are released every year with professional camera work, big name actors, and great stories. Go watch one of them and leave the Cloverfield seats to people who understand the movie.

 

I shouldn't complain because it has no plot? Are you kidding me? What's the point of making a movie? I guess if you're 12 you would enjoy it. Big whoop, a cheesy monster comes to destroy NY. Haven't we seen this before? Instead of making it creative by elaborating on what it is or where it came from, they ignore everyone and show people running around trying to find a friend and then everything blowng up. That's pretty much it. Big deal.

I guess some people just think that if something is different, it automatically makes it a "huge success." So cool how they used so much CGI just to diminish it with a Sony Handycam. NOTHING about this movie was new or creative. Blair Witch + Godzilla - plot. That's it. They had all the opportunity and budget to be creative by USING A PLOT, but instead they only got opening box office sales because of months long viral marketing.

 

Nicely fought! Are you a lawyer ?

 

I refuse to answer that question.
Please direct your question to my attorney.

...hahahaa..LOL

 

I respect your opinion that you didnt like the film. To each his own.

But I will say, as someone that makes films for a living and has won a couple awards doing it, that you are 100% wrong in saying Cloverfield doesnt have a plot. It has a plot..a good plot and one of the most tried and true plots. Its a story about a man in love. It also has perfect story structure...re: begining,middle,end all occuring just where Joseph Campbell says they should.

Your problem is you are looking for a plot in regards to the 'monster movie'...its not a monster movie. Its again, a love story. It just so happens to be set during an attack by a monster.

 

Yes, I understand it has a plot, but it's not developed. Which is why I say there is none because it wasn't much and of the little of it they had, they went nowhere with it. As far as your last comment, one way to ruin a love story is to throw a wrench into it that happens to be a monster attacking NY. If they were truly trying to combine the two, I felt they really dropped the ball. It wasn't worth the $10 at all. Viral marketing, or marketing in general, wins the box office most of the time unfortunately...

 

From your previous posts you seemed to say it had 'no plot' not an underdeveloped plot as you just posted. Thats quite different.

The film happens basically in real time (once it gets going) so the plot is going to be simplistic. Simple plot doesnt automatically = bad movie. Fair enough that you didnt like it but a lot of people do and I for one am thrilled that someone tried something a little out of the norm.

I dont see any similarities to Blair Witch and Godzilla other than blair witch used a handheld cam (which had been done before blair witch) and godzilla has a giant monster attacking a city (which had been done before godzilla). Those are pretty superficial similarities.

 

I will continue to say it had no plot because it was so very, very simple. How many times do we need to see NYC destroyed? Didn't that essentially already happen this summer with I Am Legend? Deep Impact? Godzilla? Day After Tomorrow? It's getting worn out and was NOT new or creative imo.

The love story (not really even a story about their relationship) wasn't developed and was too simple as well imo. So she get pissed and runs back home and then the guy wants to find her. How many times have we seen someone going after a loved one in a movie? All they did was mix in Godzilla (monster attacking NY) with a guy trying to find his girl using Blair Witch cameramen.

I really am not impressed by it at all and don't find it creative, original, or unique. You should check out the wikipedia page on it. I read it after seeing the movie and they COMPLETELY summarized the movie, in detail, in just a few paragraphs. It was hilarious.

 

I believe we are at an impasse

I will agree that destroying NYC has gotten old but filmmakers keep using it because its recognizable.