Movies News
Cloverfield director talks sequel
By M&C Movie News Jan 21, 2008, 14:42 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Apollo 18 – Blu-ray Review
- Official trailer for J. J. Abrams secret project 'Super 8'
- ‘Cloverfield’ director Matt Reeves takes on vampires for Hammer Films
Latest Headlines in Movies
- 1. Nicolas Cage inspired by cobras for Ghost Rider
- 2. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles close to getting director
- 3. Kristen Stewart's confidence-building fights
- 4. Tom Hardy's 'massive' transformation
- 5. Another trailer and featurette for 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' hits
Older Talkback
page: 1
A lot of people were disappointed. The monster wasn't at all that exciting or original and there was no real 'secret.' You have no real connection to the characters. It was just ok.
I wish I could get my money back since I only watched the first five minutes of the movie. There should have been a warning about getting motion sickness. I basically only opened my eyes to see what the monster looked like.
The theater where I saw the film did post warnings about motion sickness--and offered refunds to those who had to leave because of it. Don't blame the movie, blame the theater.
This film was awesome. I love the thrill of monster movies but I hate the incredibly gory direction most action/horror movie directors seem to always take them. Cloverfield did a great job of delivering thrills, fun twists, mystery... and didn't have to slather the movie in globs of human entrails in order to do it. Yeah, there were a few icky moments, but they weren't bad.
Definitely a unique and fun twist on the old Godzilla trope. I'm not sure if a sequel would do it justice, but I definitely would go see Cloverfield in the theater again.
'After months of build-up and a huge viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield was said to live up to the hype and received solid reviews from Internet film critics and genre fans.'
Not so, not so and not so. The film is below mediocre and only 'genre fans' of bad work could like it. THe 'internet film critics' are the same ones who say everything is a 'must see' and probably are paid by the distribution companies.
I heard if you sat towards the back of the theater the motion sickness aspect wasn't as bad. Still, I am going to wait for DVD on this one.
And you know with that much money on its opening weekend, a sequel will happen.
I've seen it twice. No problems with motion sickness. It's a great movie, definitely worth seeing. I have no idea what people are talking about that call it 'below mediocre'... were we watching the same movie?
Luis-
In truth, a great number of print and internet critics of ALL types gave the movie generally good marks. Check RottenTomatoes.com to see a rollup of 123 reviewers (yes - 123!) on 'Cloverfield' including 'pro' print newspaper reviews like the Boston Globe, the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago-Sun Times (those reviewers all gave it good marks). By contrast the Time Magazine reviewer gave it low marks as did many of the 'indie' reviewers.
Overall 'Cloverfield' scored 76% among all 123 reviewers (comapre this to 37% for '27 Dresses' or 18% for 'Mad Money') and a still-respectable 69% among 'top' (read: professional) reviewers. It's tough to find any other source that gives you the bottom-line from so many, many reviewers (not counting reader comments like ours). Just so you know: sci-fi routinely scores lower than 'serious' or 'family' films on the RottenTomatoes roundup of reviews.
As far as personal preferences go: I liked the movie, my wife did not (she gets motion sick easily and would have liked a refund). I agree that there was no real character development, no intriguing 'plot' beyond the basic premise of the movie, etc. That said, I enjoyed the limited scope the viewer was given and can forgive the general lack of character development: if I were in the same situation I would not stop and take the time to get to know my cohorts (just show me the way out!)
I thought the movie delivered on the premise of 'what would such a situation be like from the common individual's point of view' and I was impressed by the integration of set pieces and special effects on what was a 'low' Hollywood budget of $25 to $30 million. I'd see the sequal but I would go in with somewhat lowered expectations than I did for this film.
My overall score: B+
Cheers!
What is anyone saying, 'not good'
QUE!?!
I though it drew you in, and being someone who doesn't get affected by this whole motion sickness thing, I was in shock for at least 20 minutes about how great it was. The last 40 or so minutes drew in genres like Half Life 2 Resistance Fall of Man and Gears of War all into a brooding reality.
Better then 300, since that was the last amazing movie I saw that made me go 'Whoa'
Not a good movie, is just a soso movie
i enjoyed the movie thourally....they missed a golden oppitunity to release 5 or more different films about the same event at once, each from a different group catching the event as they try to survive. imagine a completely different cloverfield at a few theatres near you.
I went to this movie with my 70-year-old father. I absolutely loved it and he hated it. After the movie we discussed why he felt the way he did and it was apparent that he missed much of what was going on - probably because of the camera motion. I suspect many had the same experience. From my perspective, this movie was a masterpiece.
I felt the movie was too short (1 hour 15 minutes), and that some of the characters were just too fake. me and my friends all came to the conclusion that the origin of the monster should have been explained, and less motion from the camera would have been nice.
I hope that if there's a second one in the making, it should include more of character development into it, as well as explanation of the bites effects/cause of people exploding, better look at the monster, why the monster was not affect by tons of bombs being dropped on it (come on!!!!).
Overall I liked it until the ending.
This film was horrible. I truly wish there was a way for me to get my money back. The theatre was packed and at the end everyone could not help but laugh at the entire thing. What a waste of money.
Good god, every one who whines about motion sickness needs to shut up. 10/10 Movie.
I thought the movie was great. It wasn't the typical 'Hollywood' action flick; however I feel that's the reason why some didn't like the movie. Sorry it didn't have Russell Crowe or Bruce Willis in it! I was mad at first about the ending, but now it is driving me crazy thinking about a sequel. Yeah sure it probably won't be the same as this one, but you know there will be a sequel. They left way to much out for there not to be a sequel. It was awesome, and I would definately go back to see it again.
OK. I went and saw it this weekend. I, too, had been following the marketing on the internet. That was a lot of fun. The sites kept me interested, and the endless speculation from bloggers and such made for some fun reading.
Take it for what it was meant to be - a monster movie. Character development? I can't imagine who goes to see a movie about a monster and wishes for character development. Face it - we go see these things to see an alternate reality and someones nightmares brought to screen. If people/critics are hung up on character development, they need to go see some other shows. Not gonna happen in this genre...
I would go to the sequel, and would love to see the backstory of the monsters origin. But the lack of this just didn't really get to me. I feel that if a creature shows up, I am gonna be more interested in survival - just like the films stars. That is what appealed to me the most - taking part in someone elses reality as it were...
This movies was great due to the way it was filmed. Of course if you didnt like the video camera piont of view you wont like the movie. But dont say the movie was just okay. Its about time someone does something different. its refreshing to see trailers that arent Alvin and The Chipmunks or other movies that have such lame plots that are all so alike.
Much respect to all involved with Cloverfield
The movie was good. Not oscar winning performances, but the movie was good. I think its unfair people say it wasnt good based on the expectations they had going into the film. In no way was this film advertised as a story telling novel with character growth and all that other bs you fake critiques thought it would pertain to. It was a monster flick caught by common hand cam. So no there wouldnt be no 'gone with the wind' type sh!t, but did manage to intergrate some type of love story for those who wanna feel like there was more to it than big monster kils people. if you take the movie for what it was intended to be, it was good, and delivered on thrills and excitement. If you were lookin for god only knows, then thats your fault, and no one else. Then again, there is no accounting for taste these days!
A giant turtle, okay people, I am in the film
idustry and I know that we need to get back onto the horse.
I never thought I would see an 'American' Godzilla ripoff.
Even bad horror directors (not you Cronenberg, Carpenter, or Craven)
would be dissapointed. What ever happend to STAR WARS or TAXI DRIVER or
TITANIC or EASTERN PROMISES. I feel ashamed that I was even involved in
this film. When I was on set, it did not look that bad.
Weak delivery, under developed plot, too much 'blair witch' crap going on, made me want to take a shot of Patron and forget I ever payed $10 to watch it.Why would you start a movie with 20 minutes of talking and BS after hyping it up like that? Surely they could have made it suspenseful some other way. I will say one thing positive though. The image from the helicopter of the statue of Libertys head missing was intense and almost made up for the fact that I wasted 2 hours of my life.
the movie was original to say the least, kindof wish they had cleared up a few more things, though www.kogmedia.com
i saw the movie a couple days ago and am still freakin out about how insanely awesome it was. the monster was super cool and not the typical things you see in the theaters. i dont no wat peple talk about motion sickness. i thought the movin camra thing was one of the things that made movie awesome. good acting by people ive never really heard of, some funny jokes, and an ending that i actually liked a lot. 10 out of 10
People who say that this movie is below par obviously think of themselves as critics. Those who say it was a good entertaining film are obviously film lovers!
What's not to like...really?
OK, so the story of 'something' attacking a big city is not origional, but what is in this day? It takes something special to be origional and even then people have comparisons with other films or stories. It was a good effort and very enjoyable! I don't think anyone left the full cinema dissapointed.
The people who don't like this film must explain why it was only mediocre or worse. That may be your opinion but you have to have something to back it up and something the majority of people can agree on. Not just because you didn't like it! why didn't you like it?
As for these so called indie mags who like to review films, well they most often try to find every little thing wrong with a film(just like some might point out bad spelling or gramma in a review!).
This is why most of these mags/papers are still indie and not mainstream! - It's cool to be indie? Nope, it just means you don't sell as much because most people don't want to read how bad a film is before they see it, they want to make up their own mind. And if it means writting about how many good points a bad film has, then so be it. If I read about how may bad things are in a film, or how bad it is in general then I'm less likely to see it. I will probably wait until it's on cable or something. Other people will just download it illegally, why pay for something that might be a waste of money?
So to stop this type of thing you get a lot of mags and papers who are very pro-film, but what's wrong with that in the end?
This film was good.
I don't think I could watch it twice, but same goes for a few films.
Cloverfield thrives on impact and terror. This is all but lost on the second go round because you know what's going to happen.
The effects where decent, the sound was really effective and the whole concept was good.
I enjoyed it and the only reason I can see why other people might not like it is because they don't like monster-thriller-sci-fi type films. If that's the case then why see it in the first place?
You should watch this in the cinema for the full effect.
I dont think it will be the same on DVD at all.
good film though.
Don't rag on the people who got motion sickness. That can't be helped and had nothing to do with whether they liked the movie or not. I got nauseous and came home with a headache, and I still think Cloverfield was one of the most original and awesome films I've ever seen. I had a great time in spite of my sickness and am looking forward to seeing it again. (This time I wont see it on an empty stomach.) Motion Sickness is not something you choose to happen. It's something your mind does, when your eyes think your body should be moving and it isn't.
Also, just because you didn't like the movie, doesn't mean 2 hours of your life were wasted. I doubt you were going to make any great contributions to science in those 2 hours otherwise. What you should be willing to realize is that this was an innovative film, that isn't necessarily everyone's cup of tea. That doesn't mean it isn't a good movie, any more then me not liking Gone with Wind or Casablanca makes them bad movies. It's a matter of what you like, and what your tastes are. Just because you hate Italian food, doesn't mean Lasagna sucks.
You also can't go to a film with the wrong expectations. I don't' care what you think, character development in a monster movie would just be moronic. This wasn't any different then the footage we saw of documentary crew who just happened to be riding with some Firemen when 9/11 hit. You didn't see any character development, what you saw was frightened people trying to deal with extraordinary circumstances. Not people sitting around espousing the whys and wheres of their personality. It would make absolutely no sense in the context of this kind of film, any more then it would to have a giant lizard come rampaging through an episode of the Hills. (However pleasant that might be.)
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story