When I was walking out of the theater the family in front of me was talking about how much they hated the movie and how they felt “dumber for having seen it.” I completely and totally disagreed with their assessment of Cloverfield, but to each his own. Neo-Godzilla versus post-9/11 New York is a lot of fun and manages not to get overwhelmed by the found footage gimmick. Superior thrill-ride style filmmaking without any moralizing or pretense.
I don’t think it could stand up to multiple viewings (for me at least) but I enjoyed the experience. Save your money if you’re concerned about details like camera battery life-spans and how people in peril manage to come up with witty banter.
by David Carter | Source: Theatrical Print
27 Jan 2008 9:09 PM | Comments (2)
The complaints I hear about this movie just make my head spin. The camera battery didn’t last seven hours. The camera was only turned on for the length of the movie; about 75 minutes. The dozens upon dozens of jump cuts in the movie indicate that the camera was either turned off or put into sleep mode each time. The complaint about people coming up with wisecracks during a disaster just baffles me; don’t most people praise Die Hard for the realistic way that Bruce Willis uses humor in his tense situation? That happens in real life, folks. I also hear a lot of BS about how the characters are all rich yuppies, but that was the point. They have vapid lives and petty little insignificant problems, and then this very real problem turns their lives upside down and they realize what’s really important. The dumbest complaint is probably “nobody would keep filming through a disaster like that.” Has anyone who lives in America not seen the hours of amateur video from 9/11 with people who keep filming as they run away from the collapsing towers? What about the countless “World’s Most Shocking Video” shows?
No worries, I guess. The whiny internet geeks who complain about everything are in the minority, and 20 years from now, their crying will be forgotten and this movie will be recognized for what it is — the best American monster movie since Jaws.
Good points in your 2008 in Review feature about Cloverfield terrifying (and winning) audiences with its intimate view of 9/11-style horrors. I’d like to counter the essay with my own take on the root of the film’s success.
Most people I know who saw the film in theaters did so solely based on the mix of mysterious teasers and more importantly the involvement of J.J. Abrams. They are all jaded by typical media but were lured back to primetime TV by Lost and expected Abrams to work similar magic on the big screen. After months of breathless pondering of what could be in store, many punctuated their overinflated hopes with variations on “at the very least we’ll get a cool Godzilla remake.” Even so, most friends left theaters disappointed after all the self-perpetuated hype.
Craig D.
20 December 2008
1:38 PM