As most of you know, I had a chance to see Cloverfield at a special screening earlier this week (you can read and see my review here), and I ended up liking it a lot. Last night, I went to see it again at a midnight showing at the Mann’s Chinese theater in Hollywood. I was expecting to have even more fun with it the second time around… but as it turns out, the opposite happened.
Viewing Cloverfield the second time, the flaws of the film jumped out at me much more than they did the first time around:
1) For some reason, the shaky handheld camera was a LOT more annoying this time… which is strange because it didn’t really bother me all that much the first time.
2) Some of the dialog is just atrocious. I think I let that slide by the first time because… really… most of us weren’t all that interested in the dialog anyway, we were all just waiting for the next peek at the monster. This time, I had already seen the movie and paid more attention to the dialog. Ouch… wish I hadn’t done that.
3) I said in my first review that the monster was nothing ground breaking… and this time it seemed even more bland to me
4) This time I really noticed how LITTLE the monster is actually in the movie. I figure the monster probably has about 5 minutes of screen time in total. This was highlighted by one of the guys walking out of the theater complaining to his friends “the poster and commercials made me think this was a fuckin monster movie. That wasn’t a monster movie, that was a fuckin love story”. And he was right.
Now here’s the thing. I still think everyone should see this ONCE. The novelty of the film glosses over most of these flaws on your first viewing… just don’t ruin it for yourself by seeing it twice, because I’m pretty sure you won’t like it as much the second time around.
No i wouldnt have put cloverfield on there
Paranoid Park
Caramel
A bunch of the smaller documentaries you always forget to put on your lists
Diary of the dead
be kind rewind
ALL BETTER THAN VANTAGE POINT AND RAMBO
ECT
Cloverfield kicked ass!
And I even got a little motion sickeness.
Great movie!
Screw all ya that think it sucks! Lol.
David – You are clearly missing the entire point of the movie, Brandon is trying to explain it to you but you are WAY WAY WAY to caught up in wanting the movie to be how YOU want it to be.. ITs not made for you or with you in mind, take a step back and consider that, the director was (and this was VERY obvious to me watching the movie) not trying to make the movie that you wanted to see, its not about the monster looking good whatsoever.. step outside yourself and try to see this movie for what it is…
So having a pedestrian chasing after a monster 10 stories high that’s killing everyone would be realistic? I don’t think that they did the shaky cam thing to save time or money- I think it was a conscious choice to do the movie that way. For example, I think it took a lot more time and effort to think of how the characters would act in real life, operate the camera, what they would focus on, when they would run, when the camera would get choppy, etc etc than it would be to create some cool CGI shots of a monster. CGI artists are a dime a dozen these days in Hollywood and I really don’t think they simply chose not to show the monster for budgeting reasons.
I point you to Abrams’ TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/205
Abrams is obsessed with the idea of mystery and letting the audience make up their owns stories rather than hit them over the head with his own. I think he chose to hide the monster for that reason- Because let’s be honest- If Abrams wanted more budget he could damn well get it.
Yes Brendan, and obviously you didn’t read my post closely enough. Did I say that there was no CGI animation….? Hmmmm? Uh…no. I said that he saved a ton by not having to show the monster very much. Creating a realistic looking CGI monster that moves through the real world takes a little more time and effort that shaky cam effects and explosions.
David- Obviously you didn’t see the movie because if you had you would have seen that there was tons of CGI and tons of other special effects (such as all the stuff to make it look like a camcorder.
To add to my post, people who were expecting Godzilla or something of the sort (and the ones who also saw the preview and thought this) are going to be disappointed (obviously, see above posts)..but this movie was never supposed to be Godzilla or anything like that, the previews did not even elude to that whatsoever.. it was more about people not knowing what the hell is going on , which is what the movie was about.. this movie was never advertised as a monster movie at all, why would you expect it to be one like Godzilla?? Go see godzilla if you want godzilla, this is not that and never intended to be.
Man, I can’t belive that people dont just come out and saw that Cloverfield was fucking awesome and one hell of a ride , I only saw it once and don’t really intend to see it again but nearly EVERY horror movies in the last 5 years that is American made is eaither A)A piece of shit remake or B) just a plain piece of shit.. Face it , the original horror movie in america is DEAD (hats of to france and spain, doning some amazing stuff) but this was a whole new thing and blew my mind, anyone who bitches is just being to much of a critic..
Oh, I almost forgot, he also saved a load on cameramen.
So, basically ‘ol J.J. boy made a “monster” movie with no monster so he saved a bunch of money on CGI staff and cast of bunch of no-name actors who wouldn’t demand high salaries and is laughing all the way to the bank at all the people that rushed to go see this film, brilliant.
Usually when a trailer about a movie which claims to be a “monster” movie hides the actual monster, people go to see the movie thinking that they will actually see the monster for more than 5 minutes. For alfie to say that showing a tiny glimpse of the monster in a trailer will lead people to think that you would barely see the monster in the movie is idiotic at best. When the Godzilla trailers came out all you saw was his feet. Would you of felt satisfied of you went to see that movie in theaters and all you saw was Godzilla’s feet? I seriously doubt it. John pretty much summed it up with the simple facts of that the monster of which the movie is named is only seen for 5 minutes. To exagerate and say that giving the monster a few more minutes of screen time would be sterotypical wanton destruction that all “predictible Hollywood movies” have is also inaccurate. I really doubt letting the audience actually see the monster actually destroy a few things would really be the same as 90 minutes of destruction as you claim. That could of easily been done with someone who had died or something dropping their camera or something. So when I hear of a movie claiming to be a monster movie that is named after the monster I expect to actually see that monster for more than 5 minutes. So that alfie isn’t confused that doesn’t mean I want to see the monster at the start and throughout the entire movie, but I don’t want to see another “Signs”, which I thought this movie was.
well going by your julia roberts example john…
tell me again how much of the monster did they show us in the trailers?
we saw the monster in a tiny glimpse in one trailer…in fact the trailers and all the advertising for this film purposely never showed the monster apart from one quick flash. so again how did they mislead you into belieiving the monster was going to be in it all the time?
Please explain which part of the trailers lead you to believe we were going to see the monster over and over again in a continously boring loop or destruction with absolutely no storyline or characters to follow? please because the trailers and ads I saw were very secretive and made sure they didn’t show the monster….nor did they ever say “wait until you see the film…..the monster is in it all the time. every frame…monster monster monster”
I mean to hear doug say on the podcast he was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes….what did you guys expect..roll credits and boom “arrrghh theres a monster” followed by ninety minutes of a monster breaking stuff??? seriously?Look i know doug wnats his movies to be 90 minutes at all times but really….after ten minutes you were ready to leave? the mind boggles…..
the trailer showed the monster in a tiny glmpse. the monster doesn’t appear on the poster. i persoally thought that they made it quite clear this film was going in a different direction right from the first teaser…..
to claim they sold it as all monster all the time is bullshit.
but this will be my last post about it now…i promise….again we will have to agree to disagree.,.
Ooooo that was probably a mistake there guy….
This has been released here @
http://www.freefilmfactory.com
Watch it for free!!
Did I John… Did I?
Brendan,
You quoted me talking about going into films with HIGH expectations. Call me silly, but if a trailer shows a movie with Julia Roberts in it, you can expect or anticipate the movie will ahve Julia Roberts in it. That’s a different issue than you were talking about, so you took my quote completely out of context.
How am I ignoring you comment?? Are you drunk? I directly replied to you saying that there was 5 minutes of the monster, which at this point is hard to prove either way, and the only other thing you said is I ignored you comment which again isn’t even true!
And you’re right, you didn’t necessarily go into the flick with HIGH expectations but you obviously did go into it with certain expectations about how often you would see the monster, etc. And those expectations really did bite you in the ass didn’t they?
Once again Brendan, you’re ignoring what I said in my previous comment.
Secondly… when did I EVER say I had “high expectations” of Cloverfield? Never. So I’m not sure what your point is.
And no Brendan, there is not more than 5 minutes of the monster in Cloverfield. I’ll wouldn’t be surprised if after timing it if it comes to under 3 minutes.
John there was more than 5 minutes of the monster- and what did you expect? A monster cam? A group of manhantan residents running after a monster filming it? Is that realistic?
I expected a movie with action and a monster and some cool special effects. That’s what I got- And what the heck? Aren’t you the guy that always says you shouldn’t go into movies with super high expectations? Else it leads to disappointment? I think I remember something like… oh here it is-
“Just goes to show you that “expectations” and “anticipation” can sometimes bite you in the ass.”
And I didn’t ignore your comment, I said the two things that you put there were true but you were saying that EVERYTHING you were saying was fact and cited those two as examples while there was lots of other stuff that wasn’t fact and was just mere opinion.
Hey Brendan,
No, once again my argument is not flawed. You’re not even talking about my argument, and you’re ignoring my last comment.
Regarding the marketing. If you’re HONESTLY saying that the marketing made you think there was only going to be 5 minutes of the monster in the movie… then that’s your perception and I can’t argue with you about that.
You see John, again your argument is inherently flawed. You say that EVERYTHING you are saying is true and then cite 2 things that while might be factual, are not the entirety of your argument.
Example: “Cloverfield’s marketing is deceptive”
This is not true, but is a matter of opinion. I for one found the marketing to be perfectly honest and didn’t feel deceived or swindled after seeing the film.
Hey Brendan,
Actually, everything I’m saying is true.
1) The monster is only in the film for 5 minutes or less. This isn’t subjective. It’s measurable.
2) The movie starts with the love story, ends with the love story and the middle is about the guy venturing back into the danger zone to rescue his love. That’s also objective.
Now, talking about things that are “good” or “bad” is totally subjective. But I’m not talking about that. I still liked the movie.
Actually John, everything you are saying is not true. Everything you are saying is your opinion which is just as subject to criticism as anyone else’s.
Truth implies objectivity.
You are not being objective.
Therefore you are not informing people on truth but merely stating your opinion and passing it off as a kind of truth.
For example: You say in your latest post that their marketing campaign was deceptive? Are you serious? What about it was deceptive? They showed THE CHARACTERS much more in the teasers and trailers than the monster and then you complain that the movie was about the characters.
Hey Amish Bill,
But everything I’m saying is true. That’s the bottom line.
I did like it (lots of people didn’t). But just because I liked it doesn’t change the fact that the marketing wasn’t all that great (the big opening was more to do with the fact that nothing but 27 dresses opened against it with no other “guy” movies in theaters at the moment).
TRUTH: I liked it
TRUTH: Film has some massive flaws
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
John, I feel like since you put up such a stink about the way the film was promoted (which we all know paid off huge), you are determined to nit pick. You said it was a good movie and worth seeing but you keep throwing in these negative comments.
I agree with you, it was a good but not great movie. I really enjoyed the perspective and shtick of the movie. But I really think you are doing this movie a disservice. Were people pissed there wasn’t more of the monster? Were they pissed with the ending? Sure, but they’re the same people that get pissed at every movie that isn’t Hollywood formulaic.
My answer is common sense Alfie. The movie is about the characters, not the monster. Screen time alone conveys that.
Buy hey… you’re allowed to be wrong.
my answer is forced??!!??
hahaha that is hilarious.
and your argument is not? even though its one of the most pedantic anal pieces of weird spin I have ever seen on this site???
Hey Alfie,
The answer to all your questions are the same as what I’ve said already. The MONSTER is the backdrop to the story. He sets the events in motion, but that’s it. The story of the film isn’t about him. No screen time is spent on him. No information is given on him. None of the plot is about him. It’s all about the other characters and their story set against the back drop of the story.
Your argument is really forced. But if that’s how you see it, more power to you.
BIG HUGE SPOILERS HERE IN THIS POST
this argument feels incredibly pedantic john.
i mean was the film literally about the monster in that it begins with the monsters parents humping and then giving birth to him/her?
did we follow him through monster school? his first love….his first city rampage??? his training…his drug addiction..his rise ..his fall? i mean was this Rampage The Line: The Cloverfled Monster biopic?
no….but to complain it wasn;t about the monster is being very very picky and anal.
I mean what did you want? cutaways to scientists telling us what it is made of and where it came from…..a scene in the oval office where we get it everything spoonfed to us like we have seen a hundred times in other films…again I am not saying the stgory they tell is life changing and brilliant but for this genre it is a refreshing take on it.
its one of the things i like most about it. they don’t make the film literally about “the” monster…..they don’t explain its origins…they don’t give it a name. with no warning or explanation an unnamed monster attacks new york. I have not seen that before in a monster film.
your atonement comparison is not the same either.
ww2 is a big part of the story yes but the plot does not hinge on it. the main plot of atonement doesn’t rest entirely on WW2 taking place. the main crux of the story is not WW2.
every single thing that takes place in cloverfield rests on the monster attacking.everything. that is the entire point of the film much more so than WW2 is of atonement.
here is a little test for you john
HUGE SPOILERS
HUGE SPOILERS
HUGE SPOILERS
HUGE SPOILERS
HUGE SPOILERS
john please answer these questions without mentioning the word monster or mentioning the monster attacking.
what is it that happens about 20 minutes into the film that causes every single thing that happens for the rest of the film right up till the final frames?
the film begins with a farewell party. It gets interrupted and ends early. what causes this?
why does rob need to find and rescue beth? where is she and why is she there?
why is one sixth of the film set either on the streets on the run or hiding in tunnels and buildings?
why does the statue of libertys head come off?
the military arrive in the city at one point. Why are they there? What brings them into the film?
why does the bridge collapse blocking one of their main ways of escape?
the characters decide to take the subway track to get off the streets and make there way to beth. It goes well for a time but they have to flee that as well. How come? What happens to themon the tracks that makes them give up on that plan?
How do most of the main characters wind up? what is their fate and what causes them to reach that particular fate?
it just feels like an incredibly odd argument to make that the film wasn’t about the monster
Hey Grundy,
I think you’re confusing the genre, with what the story was about.
I’ve said before that yes, the GENRE of the film is a monster movie by definition. But the movie, although a monster movie, was NOT ABOUT the monster.
King Kong, was ABOUT Kong. Yes, there were other side stories going on, but the focal point of the film was Kong and his story.
Cloverfield was marketed about being about the monster, but the movie itself isn’t about the monster. It had very little to do with the monster. The monster was just the backdrop to the REAL story, just like WW2 was the backdrop to the REAL story in Atonement.
So, by GENRE was it a “monster movie”? Yes.
Was the movie ABOUT the monster? Not even close.
Of course the movie was about the characters, by the very concept of the film you should have known that, it’s a monster movie from the perspective of a schmuck with a camera. Just because the monster wasn’t the focal point of the film doesn’t mean it’s not a monster movie.
Yeah, it’s a story about a guy trying to find his girl during a monster attack. And The Host was a movie about a family trying to find one of there own during a monster attack. So does that mean The Host isn’t a monster movie?
Hey Amish Bill,
Nope, it’s not about the monster at all.
To say this movie was “about the monster” is like saying “Atonement” is about World War 2. Sure, WW2 was a part of the movie, it was even the backdrop to the story… but the story isn’t ABOUT WW2. It’s about the relationship between the 2 lovers, how they were separated and trying to reunite.
Cloverfield is NOT about the monster. IT’s about the characters at the party, and the lead character venturing back into a disaster zone in an attempt to save her. The monster is just the backdrop to the story.
But if you’re willing to say Atonement is about WW2, then I’ll be willing to say Cloverfield is about the monster (which clearly isn’t true).
John,
While I think you’re a great movie mind and I really love your website, I have to agree with some of your critics on this one. To say this wasn’t a monster movie is ridiculous. Just because you don’t SEE the monster all the time doesn’t mean he wasn’t in it. The best part of the movie for me was HEARING the monster throughout the whole movie. Hearing the monster’s footsteps was freaking awesome. Every rumble was a sign of impending doom… and that is a lot scarier than actually seeing the monster. It’s how you build tension. ***SPOLIER*** What would have been better: seeing the bugs in the subway the entire time they were coming down the tunnel OR seeing it as it was, last minute in the night vision?
It actually reminded me a lot of “Signs”. We only know as much as the characters. And how much of the aliens did we see in that movie. Less than 5 minutes. But what made that movie so great was the build up of tension from NOT seeing the aliens or knowing what the heck is going on.
Cloverfield wasn’t a GREAT movie for me, but you are doing it a disservice by not calling it a monster movie.
That didn’t bother me.
I thought the CGI was fantastic.
At least we didn’t get the things from I Am Legend.
That was some terrible CGI.
The monster was really fantastic in Cloverfield IMO.
I saw this last Tuesday at a press screening and I saw it tonight with my wife. I enjoyed it and it didn’t lose much luster with me. There’s nothing spectacular about the movie – it’s just fun and entertaining.
But I’m sticking to my guns. They never should have shown a full-on, crisp shot of the monster’s face. That was gaynus anus.
eh i dont see it as a spoiler…but edit buttons were a good thing…why are they gone again?
Rusty James is right (Alfie is spot on too), without the love interest to find and rescue, they just evacuate the city and watch the carnage on CNN. This movie is a “one time” theater experience. See the review over at Bloody-disgusting.com for some good motivation to not wait for this on dvd.
You probably warn of spoilers next time Bassturd-
I’m not going to answer the question on this thread, because it will ruin it for poeple who haven’t see it yet-
I think some people will be glad they showed the monster, some won’t. Either way it’s impossible to please everyone. Personally, I was happy with the percent they did show- And wasn’t all that worried about the relationship stuff. After all if you look at most movies, relationships are at the core. Just look at Sean of the Dead. It wasn’t ABOUT zombies. It was about a guy who was trying to reconcile all of his different relationships, his girlfriend, his best friends, and his family. If you watch the movie with that in mind you’ll see that those relationships were the driving force in the movie- not the fact that there were zombies. This is true with most movies (at least the ones that aren’t hack and slash gore fest type films)- Where the situation or the monster or whatever- is just a vehicle for telling the story of the characters involved. Cloverfield is no different-
oh ya, and my theater was practically empty. Only about 20 people in there mabey. But I’m in Georgia atm and it was snowing all day which isn’t the norm…so that might of made people not come out.
I just saw it. Good flick. Not worth watching on a small TV tho. Theater experience is the only way to go.
I agree with John tho. Too much love crap, not enough monster rampage. But then again, if you were in that situation you would probably do the same things the characters did (well except go TOWARDS the monster). I got bored when they kept running into buildings to hide for awhile and cry about their loved ones dying and/or thinking of ways to get to them. But that is realistic I suppose.
I could of done without the shot at the end of the monster full on tho. That looked cheesy and was kinda stupid. Other than that it felt very authentic and was a pretty kewl experience. I just didn’t quite understand what happened to one of the characters. Did he/she head explode or was she/he shot by the army? I couldn’t tell.
Does anyone know how I can get that hour and a half back that I just waisted watching Cloverfield? that movie sucked!!!!!!!!
The fact that this movies is one of the most talked about in recent history to me is pretty impressive. I have heard more talk on this film than I have about The Dark Knight, a veteran Hollywood franchise- The point of marketing is to get people talking, not always to get people excited, and in this I think Cloverfield not only suceeded, but even raised the bar.
Say what you will about Abrams, but Bad Robot been part of an instrumental change in the way Hollywood markets movies and TV shows. Viral marketing is the future- And even big movies like The Dark Knight, Juno, and I Am Legend (some recent examples) have started to become part of this trend.
You may not have been excited about the film, John. But the ammount of times you simply posted on the marketing (or even the film itself) shows that the marketing campaign was a success.
I can think of very few movies that wouldn’t suffer from a repeat viewing 48 hours after the first.
but thats what i mean…the hype began almost immediately after that first teaser. it took on a life of its own…..we were not subjected to access hollywood on set reports….burger king tie ins months of it being everywhere on all types of media etc etc
it was pretty much all net based and therefore when compared to the normal kind of publicity machine for ilms like this it would have been ridiculously cheap.
i mean all that slusho nonsense…..
i mena there was even a site that had nothing to do with the film at all and that got them publicity….remember that? some guys name….”ethan hass was right” or something like that? i mean that wasn;t even connected at all to the film and was being treated as if it was part of the viral marketing.
I agree with you…I think the marketing was brilliant…..
I haven’t seen the film yet.
But (to Alfie) regaring the hype “the studio did bigger all…”.. I beg to differ.. Although technically correct (I don’t think hype can ever be created by a studio.. just fostered) I believe Cloverfield’s marketing was genius and worked a treat… these days less IS more !!!
well first reports say it made 16 million dollars on friday alone. so i would say the marketing worked a treat for everyone else…..
and a 16 million dollar opening day is huge for this film.
HUGE. regardless of what you say john..it is on track to have a huge opening weekend.
You should give Alfie a job blogging for the site to offset your own views John.
Also, I agree with Alfie on this one.
I loved it! Both times i saw it.
Its definitely going to be in my top 5 movies of 2008!!
Hey Brendan,
I don’t think you were paying attention. The posts about the MARKETING of the film had nothing to do with the film. Even if I thought the MOVIE was the greatest film ever made, I would still tell you the MARKETING failed to get me excited about the film at all. They are two different things.
As far as the film goes, I still think it’s a very enjoyable experience THE FIRST TIME you see it, but upon repeat viewings the flaws of the film stand out more and more.
OK. So let me get this straight- You post 2 things saying Cloverfield is overhyped and nothing to be excited about, then you see and post a review and say it’s pretty good, then you post another topic about how now that you’ve thought about it some more it really wasn’t all that good?
Cloverfield; I think you broke John Campea.
John, the thing you’re missing about the love story is that it mostly serves as motivation for the main character to trek through the disaster area. The love story is an essential part of the monster story. A lot of films stop in their tracks to make room for the love angle. This film never does that. (except when it does… but those scenes are a few seconds long each).
And while the monster may not be visible very often he’s a constant presence in the film. I suppose you could replace the zombies in Night of The Living Dead with a disease outbreak or a natural disaster and tell essentially the same story. But the presence of the zombies is an indespensible part of what makes that film what it is. The same principal applies to Cloverfield.
I can understand why the film wouldn’t play so well the second time around.
What do you think about a sequel where the same night is told from a different perspective? Could be a limitless franchise. Or would that annoy you?
I was really excited about seeing this movie…I mean super excited. All the hype swirling around it…made it seem like it was going to be a block buster….but when I left the theater I left with a feeling of remorse…like “Why the hell did I just go watch that move?” The whole reason I went to see the movie was just to see what the monster looked like…I thought it kind of resembled a fly at the very end…with those red things popping out of its face. All in all its a decent movie but one that I dont really care if I ever see again!!!
POST CONTAINS WHAT MAY BE CONSIDERED SPOILERS
ronsalon you nailed it…..we can complain about the storyline all we want but i personally am not interested in watching an hour and a half effects showreel of a monster destroying shit with nothing else going on.
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT and the other thing i love about this film is ther eis not cut away to the pentagon or the presidents office…there is no scientist explaing everything….there is exposition in the character set up and john is right some of the dialouge is bad but nor worse than the average hollywood blockbuster…..the monster arrives and we knwo nothing about it and when its over we still know little about it.
whther the storyline they use is successful is beside the point because that is objective….the fact remains that once the monster arrives eveyrthing that happens from that point is because of and about the monster. everything.
and rescuing the love interest is pretty much a classic staple of monster films..always has been always will be whether its ann darrow in king kong or the girl in the creature from the black lagoon this has all the hall marks of a classic monster movie.
the fact that john is moaning that the monster isn’t on screen enough is rather silly as well. i actually was surprised how much the showed it but it is another point about the film i liked…they don;t show the monster but once it arrives whther its in frame or not it shadows every scene.
i remember john complained about in 300 that you had to wait 20 minutes for the first spear to fly or something silly like that and to hear him complain about there not being enough monster now reminds me of that so for john if its called a monster movie you roll the opening credits and BOOM huge close up of the monster and you follow it for 90 minutes as it breaks things over and over again. never cut away…and no ambigutiy either…..don’t hide anythging just wides and close up of the monster in every single scene. leave nothing to the imagination….and no girls cos girls are yucky
this is a modern take on the4 classic monster movie and its a great 90 minutes at the movies. but to call it a love story….well if this film has too much love story for you you need to get your head out of the 11 year old “girls smell” mode that it is obviously stuck.
I for one have not yet seen the movie yet, but alot of the discussion seems to be concerned about the love/monster part, and which one is stronger or more relevant.
What if we said this was a story about a big huge monster and romatic love — that way everyone is right.
It would be really boring for me to see a monster movie with no human emotion — love… And by golly, it would make a lot more sense for a character to *head back to the action* because of it. Love is pretty motivational.
I would rather know if the film was succesful, meaning were you ensnared by the story, glued to your seat and if so *or* no, why?
NEC that was freakin funny thanks for the link
Hilarious Cloverfield review http://www.spill.com/movie-review/CLOVERFIELD/413038
Hey Nec,
A powerful aura of correctness surrounds me and hushes me to sweet slumber.
Campea how do you sleep at night?
Well the thing is, John, at first you said it was good – and I was kind of pumped to see it. Then you said, “eh…second time, not that great” and listed reasons WHY it wasn’t that great.
Now (and I’m not blaming you, it just happened)after reading your list of reasons why it wasn’t that great — I know what to expect/look for, and I’m wondering if my FIRST TIME seeing this will be like your SECOND TIME seeing it…
I’m not saying I’m not gonna see it, I’m just saying maybe I should hold off until the DVD if it’s not gonna be thaaaat great (I can think of a lot of things to spend 6.50 or 6.75 on than a movie that I expect to suck in parts)…
Or is it really worth seeing in the theater? Is it a “theater” movie or is it just a “movie” is basically my question.
it’s pretty much a godzilla ripoff, whereas that had more action with actually seeing a monster and 2 ppl fall in love again blah blah blah, this is the same without as much monster porn.
Hey Alfie,
How can you say the movie is ABOUT: “A monster destroying the city” when next to none of the time on screen has that?
Correct me where I’m wrong here:
1) The movie begins with the love story
2) The movie ends with the love story
3) The VAST majority of the screen time is dedicated to the love story, his quest to venture into the city and save his love interest.
Tell me again how this movie is ABOUT a monster destroying a city? Yes, the movie has a monster destroying a city in it… but that only serves as the catalyst for the actual story of the movie, which is the guy trying to save his love.
well john thats ridiculous..so basically just want a showreel of a monster destroying stuff?
i am not saying the love story was one for the ages or a great piece of writing but this film is about a monster destroying the city……it is simple, short and too the point. that is what the film is about.
yes a love story takes place but to say that the film isn’t about the monster is batshit insane.
And yes NBA kid… the movie is MUCH more about the love story than the monster. MUCH MUCH MUCH more.
THe movie starts with the love story. It ends with the love story. And everything that happens in between is about him going into the danger zone because he loves her and needs to rescue her.
Hey NBAKid,
No, don’t misunderstand me. I think on first viewing the film is a lot of fun. You should see it.
ALFIE,
Sorry man, the monster is on screen for 5 minutes (if that). Like I said. It could have been an earquake, or a terrorist attack or any other natural disaster, and the core story (boyfriend leading people into the danger zone to bravely try to rescue his love interest who is trapped there) would have been exactly the same. That’s what the movie is about… not the monster… like it should have been.
Yes, I define a 5 minute screen appearance that could have been replaced with something else as an afterthought. Not to the marketing though.
If a “character” who is only given 5 minutes of screen time isn’t an afterthought… then what is?
no it doesn’t nbakid….it really doesn’t…..
Well if it’s that bad, I probably won’t see this in theaters like I originally planned on doing…does the love story part over-take the action or not?
you have to be kidding right john? are you serious…the monster was an afterthought??
to say the monster was an afterthought is one of the absolute silliest things I have ever heard…..
i think you must see different prints of films then the ones i see john as we could not possibly see things more differently.
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck, you know what I’m sick of? Movies coming out and UK and Ireland not getting them til a later date.
Cloverfield 1st feb here, wtf???
We didn’t get Grindhouse, got Death Proof and Planet Terror was released for 1 day here.
PISSES ME OFF!!!
Hey Alfie,
As someone who did enjoy Cloverfield, I’ve got to disagree with you. I don’t know how you can say “it was a monster movie” when the monster is MAYBE on screen for 5 minutes.
You could have replaced the monster in the movie with any natural disaster and it fundamentally still would have been the same movie. (City is in chaos, being destroyed, boyfriend decides to harken back into the danger zone to save his love… yadda yadda yadda).
The movie was about Rob and his girlfriend. The monster, was an after thought. Which is a shame.
people complaining that this wasn’t enough of a monster story for them staggers me…what more do you want??
is there a love story? yes does the love story take up more time then carnage and running and total destruction??
no.it doesn’t at all.
and sean…..I wish i was as cool as you to be able to be the only one to see beyond the hype. man oh man are you hip.
the hype by the way was only created by internet folks…the studio did bigger all…it took on a life of its own. so don’t blame the studio or the film itself…blame the people who over analysed all the slusho nonsense.
its a great monster film. if the love story is too much for you and there is not enough mayhem then i don’t know what more they could give you.
it is not a love story with monsters attached. its a fucking monster movie through and through.
and surprisingly bleak.
I actually think they showed the monster a little too much.
I checked it out this morning and after it ended I knew this was one of those films that isnt gonna be great on DVD. Unless you have a projector and good surround sound at home then this wont be as great. Definently a theaters only film.
I guess this is going to be another one of those films (like Beowulf and I Am Legend) that really loses it’s spark on DVD and demands to be seen with a crowd.
So i’ll just pray for no teenagers or small children at my showing and hope i’ll like the film.
Sorry man. I hated this movie the fist time I saw it. That was stupid as hell. What the fuck? Everything was nonsense. What’s with the girl *spoiler* getting over her boyfriend dying in like 10 minutes? Blah. Anyone who likes this movie is just a slave to the hype machine. Utter nonsense.
love story eh…disappointing. When will Hollywood fucking understand that when we go see a monster movie/blockbuster action movie…WE DONT WANT A LOVE STORY. While I didn’t like Transformers, the whole love story part made it a lot worse than it had to be. Also I saw AvPR over Christmas….wtf…another generic love story that takes up half the screen time.
Are they trying to get females to come out and see the movies? It isn’t gonna make a difference!!!!…unless the girl likes monster movies to begin with.
saw it again yesterday and liked it just as much as i did the first time.
You’re right about the monster not being anything special! I saw it last night too…and was blown away, butI know this movie is not meant for repeated multiple viewings.
It’s just like the Blair Witch…TERRIFIED me the first time….then disappointed me the second, because the novelty had worn off.