Cloverfield director talks sequel
Movies News
By M&C Movie News Jan 21, 2008, 14:42 GMT
And Also
Similar articles
- ‘Cloverfield’ director Matt Reeves takes on vampires for Hammer Films
- Blu-ray Review: Cloverfield
- M&C Interview: TJ Miller talks “Hud” and the Cloverfield monster
- DVD Review: Cloverfield
- Cloverfield hits DVD and M&C’s giving away five copies!
Latest Headlines in Movies
- 1. Vampire mayhem in second 'Daybreakers' trailer
- 2. Pearce feeling 'Hungry'
- 3. Donnelly and Oppenheimer go for 'Fortune'
- 4. Anthony Peckham to immerse in 'Deep Sea'
- 5. First clip from Peter Jackson's 'The Lovely Bones'
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
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.
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story