Like it or not: Cloverfield? [Archive]

Redundancy Pool

Apr 18, 2008, 09:52 PM

Idk, I seemed like I really should have liked it... like it had some awesome stuff in it that I usually like, but it was just annoying, it made me want to throw a rock at the screen, I was getting really pissed off, I'm sitting there thinking WHY ISN'T THIS MOVIE PLEASING ME?! Lol, so I guess the answer to your question is No, it had an awesome skeleton, but it's skin was all burned and um "shaky" heh.

lostfan916

Apr 18, 2008, 09:54 PM

Camera work was no problem for me or my gf, it wasn't that bad. Shaky when they were running away and whatnot (obviously) but it really wasn't bad.

I really really liked this movie. I think when you go into this, you have to remember that this is from the POV of the people being attacked by the monster. This isn't your typical movie where you get all different POV's and information about everything here and there; we start with out camera folks and we end with them. And obviously they have no idea what the hell is going on and as a result neither do we.

So it kinda depends. If you're the type that likes the typical Hollywood movie than your probably not going to like this. But if you're open to it, then go see it.

MacDawg

Apr 18, 2008, 09:59 PM

It is more than just a different way of presenting a story
I liked the idea of the movie and the content was not the problem

But for some, quite a few actually, the motion IS a real problem, regardless of whether you like the characters, the concept or the special effects

Do you get motion sick in any way?
I can't get on rides that go round and round
Straight, up and down, those are fine, but round and round are a no-no

I got sick with a migraine
My daughter threw up

I've been told it is different on a TV as a rental because you have more perspective in the room

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

StealthRider

Apr 18, 2008, 10:10 PM

I didn't like it, but monster movies in general make me want to yell and throw things. The camera work didn't bother me so much as the plot.

erickkoch

Apr 18, 2008, 10:14 PM

I didn't get sick at all during the movie but there were signs posted outside the theatre warning people the may become nauseous from this film.

I felt the handheld camera style was a gimmick, I guess it was worth a try but next time they should just make it like a normal movie. A film is much more enjoyable to watch when you're not getting dizzy and throwing up.

ravenvii

Apr 18, 2008, 10:16 PM

... but monster movies in general make me want to yell and throw things.

... Watching movies like Godzilla makes you yell and throw things?

northernmunky

Apr 18, 2008, 10:22 PM

I watched it last night, I actually didn't mind the camera movement, it didnt bother me at all... I guess if you get sea sick or car sick it might be a problem or you.

I think its one of those films that have only 'really' been made just to show of some new special effects techniques... having huge explosions that appear to be captured on a shaky camcorder is no small feat. I wouldnt be surprised if the entire city of NY was in CG.. including the actors.

bbbensen

Apr 18, 2008, 10:23 PM

I liked it alot.

I didnt get sick, and neither did my friend. After a while, I got used to it, and it wasnt that bad. I wish that we knew more about the monster, after, etc.

I would recommend that you see it, unless you get motion sickness.

gkarris

Apr 18, 2008, 10:32 PM

A friend saw it and he like it. He did, though, sit in the last row in the back of the theater.

I sneaked a peek while waiting for another movie - looked nauseating.

I'll probably just rent it and watch it on an old 25" TV set in the living room... :)

chrisr

Apr 18, 2008, 10:37 PM

I felt nauseous especially for the first 20 minutes. that annoyed me quite a bit, not to mention I found every single main character incredibly annoying as well. I hoped that they'd all die in a vicious manner. and they did :)

LeahM

Apr 18, 2008, 11:07 PM

The movie definately made me sick that I couldn't finish the movie. Don't watch the movie if you get motion sickness.

obeygiant

Apr 18, 2008, 11:27 PM

I've only seen it at home of my tv so I liked it. If I would have seen it on a huge screen in the dark I can see where someone could get sick.

spoon man

Apr 19, 2008, 01:53 AM

I do like it and i dont i dont think ill see it again tho its one of thos films once you have seen it you dont need to watch it again.

Markleshark

Apr 19, 2008, 02:35 AM

I liked it, I really did.

The motion was hard to get used to at the beginning, but it certainly didn't make it feel sick.

Bern

Apr 19, 2008, 03:09 AM

You people have it all wrong! Our Lord Mayor's name is Clover Moore and I understood the movie to be about her and the destruction of Sydney, which has quickly gone to the dogs since she came to office...

2nyRiggz

Apr 19, 2008, 11:56 AM

Well its out on DVD now and I think I might be able to take the rocking camera now on my HDTV but in the cineplex it was too much...the overall movie wasn't that bad though.

Bless

BoyBach

Apr 19, 2008, 11:59 AM

I couldn't wait for the monster to arrive and start eating all of those bloody annoying twenty-something characters. :mad:

psychofreak

Apr 19, 2008, 12:00 PM

It was ok, but nothing special.

Samarium

Apr 19, 2008, 12:07 PM

When the movie ended AT LAST, everyone stepped up and starting clapping because they finally were dead.

119576

Apr 19, 2008, 12:08 PM

I absolutely loved it.
:D

GSMiller

Apr 19, 2008, 12:10 PM

It didn't bother me, and I really liked the movie. The camera shake does seem a bit more intense when watching it on DVD than it was at the theater though.

djellison

Apr 19, 2008, 12:11 PM

Telp

Apr 19, 2008, 12:14 PM

I for one enjoyed it. That kind of shaky camera doesnt really affect me, although it can be quite annoying. I say see it, watch as much as you can. It's really not that bad IMHO.

cleanup

Apr 19, 2008, 10:27 PM

i really liked it. i saw it in theatres with some friends. normally in a theatre there will be people who are bored and who will talk and whisper to one another and giggle and sometimes sleep. but during cloverfield, everyone simply sat there like this: O_O, oddly entranced by what was happening on film.

the movie begins a little slowly but it begins to progress. while the plot isn't very thick (it could be, but it really isn't revealed to you; for the most part you have no idea what the hell is going on, because it's told from the perspective of the characters, who also have no idea what the hell is going on), the action and suspense are good. the movie does an excellent job of keeping you on the edge of your seat for a while. you just want to keep watching to figure out what's going to happen next. it's kind of like lost. there's no annoying "EEENYAAAHHH" noise whenever something crazy happens, and it's not quite as fast-paced sometimes, but it's like that never-ending mystery/suspense sort of feeling that keeps you in your seat, compelled to finish the movie.

so there's not much of a story. there's a lot of viral backstory on the internet and on the upcoming DVD that you can check out if you want to figure out what the hell the movie is really about, but for the most part, it's just entertaining, not knowing what's going on, or what's going to happen next. it's not really frustrating; it's fun to watch.

4/5?

tangledweb16

Apr 20, 2008, 02:01 AM

I really loved it..... I think the people that didn't like it were just expecting something completely different.

djellison

Apr 20, 2008, 12:40 PM

the movie does an excellent job of keeping you on the edge of your seat for a while.

Really? At no point during the entire thing was I scared, anxious, edge of seated or in any way emotionally charged. The entire thing was just so bad - too bad to take even slightly seriously and thus 'buy in' to at any level.

What was I expecting? An exciting, engaging new take on the monster movie. What did I get? Bad acting, dreadful dialogue, zero character development and a plot line more feeble than most 12 year old's drama class.

I have an eclectic and broad taste in movies. The best movies I've seen in the last 12 months - Juno, Last King of Scotland, Sweeney Todd, In Bruges, Hot Fuzz. But Cloverfield was only the second movie in my life that I considered walking out of. The other being Star Wars Episode One which I did walk out on ( and ask for, and got, a refund ) . The only reason I didn't walk out was that I was with my other half. Turns out she would have been happy to walk out as well.

Sorry for banging on about it - but I really struggle to see what people enjoyed in it.

tangledweb16

Apr 20, 2008, 01:21 PM

Really? At no point during the entire thing was I scared, anxious, edge of seated or in any way emotionally charged. The entire thing was just so bad - too bad to take even slightly seriously and thus 'buy in' to at any level.

What was I expecting? An exciting, engaging new take on the monster movie. What did I get? Bad acting, dreadful dialogue, zero character development and a plot line more feeble than most 12 year old's drama class.

I have an eclectic and broad taste in movies. The best movies I've seen in the last 12 months - Juno, Last King of Scotland, Sweeney Todd, In Bruges, Hot Fuzz. But Cloverfield was only the second movie in my life that I considered walking out of. The other being Star Wars Episode One which I did walk out on ( and ask for, and got, a refund ) . The only reason I didn't walk out was that I was with my other half. Turns out she would have been happy to walk out as well.

Sorry for banging on about it - but I really struggle to see what people enjoyed in it.

I find it hard to take you seriously when you say the best movie you've seen recently is Juno.....:eek:

lostfan916

Apr 20, 2008, 05:11 PM

I find it hard to take you seriously when you say the best movie you've seen recently is Juno.....:eek:
I was about to post the EXACT same thing... :D

Telp

Apr 20, 2008, 05:22 PM

I find it hard to take you seriously when you say the best movie you've seen recently is Juno.....:eek:

This is an opinion thread. I saw Juno and I thought it was one of the better movies that has been out recently. Disagree? Fine, but you need to cool it with other people's opinions. Its people like you that make a good forum site lilethis into a place where people no longer want to be.

c-Row

Apr 21, 2008, 01:56 AM

I really enjoyed Cloverfield, and neither the camera work nor the movie itself made me throw up at any point. ;)

I didn't got emotionally attached to any of the characters, to be honest, but that's a general problem of mine. For me, a movie is usually just that - a movie. Guess I am too much of a "head-person", rather than a "heart-person". :(

Dagless

Apr 21, 2008, 02:21 AM

I suffer from migraines and travel sickness but at no point did this film make me feel sick. I really liked it. A fresh way of telling a story, even though there are some things that I didn't piece together at first. A normal film is like "OHMYGOD THIS IS HAPPENING" and repeated for a million times, even for subtle events. Whereas a few of the subtle events slipped past me. But hey that's what happens in real life, there is no crappy actor repeating everything everything.

I found it quite tense all the way through. Acting wasn't perfect but I just imagined these people in a massive shock (who wouldn't be?) so they're behaving oddly.

cleanup

Apr 21, 2008, 12:04 PM

Really? At no point during the entire thing was I scared, anxious, edge of seated or in any way emotionally charged.

I didn't say the movie would do a good job of scaring you or revving you up. It just did a good job of keeping the mystery and suspense prominent and continuous. People wanted to keep watching, regardless of any bad camera work, bad dialogue, no plotline, whatever. It just did a good job of keeping our attention.

Antares

Apr 21, 2008, 01:17 PM

I loved Cloverfield. I thought it was a brilliant movie. A nice, unique change from your stereotypical monster film. I haven't felt so much tension and fear in a movie in a long time. I was completely sucked in and enthralled. The POV really made you feel like you were right there, along with the characters...which is probably why it had such a sense of tension. There was an almost tangible visceralness about it. The effects were also amazing and extremely realistic. I would probably rate Cloverfield as the best film of 2008 (so far). Highly recommend.

Now, if you do get motion sickness, I can see you having a problem with the movie. And if you do feel sick, it will most definitely affect your opinion of it, as well. People who feel sick because of something will naturally have a bias that skews their opinion. There were the same type of negative responses to the Blair Witch Project.

rhett7660

Apr 21, 2008, 01:54 PM

I loved this one.

From what I have been reading, a person will either love it or hate it. Usually the person(s) comment on the shaky camera as the main reason for not liking it. Not always but a good majority of the reading I have done on it.

Hell if I would of thrown up in the theater I would have given the movie an "A". Just based on the fact that has never happened to me before! :D

j/k

cuestakid

Apr 22, 2008, 08:25 PM

I would give it an F minus-and that is not for the camera work. The acting was lousy, the plot was stupid, you never really see whatever it is that is attacking NYC and quite simply, it was just a bad movie that made no sense

sushi

May 10, 2008, 06:20 AM

My wife and I watched it on DVD this evening.

I enjoyed the camera work. The acting was, well not good.

I think our experience was summed up when my wife asked me what kind of movie is it after we watched about 30 minutes. I told her it was a monster movie like Godzilla. She then asked, "Is it supposed to be scary?"

I think that sums up our experience as well.

duncyboy

May 10, 2008, 06:56 AM

After all the hype and kerfuffle with it's release I wasn't expecting to like this at all but I did. The whole "movie-within-a-movie" theme got boring after a while (likewise for Diary of the Dead, although I still loved that).

But I did enjoy this. It managed to dodge some major cliches and the little "hidden" surprise towards the end was a nice touch (HINT: at the end when the camera accidentally goes back to the Coney Island scene, watch the sea when the guy turns the camera ;))

Tom B.

May 10, 2008, 07:21 AM

sushi

May 10, 2008, 08:12 AM

I loved it. I did not get a headache or get sick at all. I even went to see it twice (once with friends, once with family). I don't understand why people hated the acting or the plot. How would you have changed it?
Glad to see some liked it.

I thought the subway scene was good. My wife said that it was boring. :(

benmrii

May 10, 2008, 08:42 AM

Good timing that this got bumped. I promised a friend I would watch it when I could do so for free and got to last night.

I had a lot of fun reading the previous descriptions so I'm going to steal some for most of my response. :D

I couldn't wait for the monster to arrive and start eating all of those bloody annoying twenty-something characters. :mad:

When the movie ended AT LAST, everyone stepped up and starting clapping because they finally were dead.

Really? At no point during the entire thing was I scared, anxious, edge of seated or in any way emotionally charged. The entire thing was just so bad - too bad to take even slightly seriously and thus 'buy in' to at any level. ... Bad acting, dreadful dialogue, zero character development and a plot line more feeble than most 12 year old's drama class.

...The acting was, well not good.

... my wife asked me what kind of movie is it after we watched about 30 minutes. I told her it was a monster movie like Godzilla. She then asked, "Is it supposed to be scary?"

I think that sums up our experience as well.

So... all of that quoting to get to:

Would anyone recommend this movie to watch? Is the camera work really that bad that it makes you uncomfortable or what? The preview made it look pretty cool but I don't know if the story is that great.

I was not personally affected negatively by the camerawork but I certainly can see how others would be. Going into it I thought the 'unique' style would be overly cheesy, but I ended up finding it clever most times... the angle being shot given the situation did draw me into certain scenes more than I would have otherwise. Unfortunately, "clever camerawork" is about the only positive comment I can think of to make.

So, to your first question: no. I would not recommend this movie to watch. The story is far from great, far from good... it aspires to be bad. It's predictable, cliché beyond belief and poorly acted.

leekohler

May 10, 2008, 09:34 AM

My review of Cloverfield that I posted at bautforum.com forum..

"It was pure, unadulterated arse gravy of the sloppiest kind from start to finish. Sorry. The acting was dreadful, the dialogue hideously predictable, the direction was self indulgent and the plot line obvious after the first 30 seconds with what is on screen with the opening credits. The hand-held camera was a gimmick, and a nausea inducing one at that ( I had to look away for a minute or so, on several occasions, to subdue the genuine nausea I was feeling ). This brat's got an amazing HD camera that can survive a virtual apocalypse...and it doesn't have image stabilization?

It was too bad to be any good, and it wasn't set up to be tongue-in-cheek like an episode of Dr Who.

On the upside - it was quite short.

Doug
"

I liked the film a lot. It's not genius, but it was a lot better than most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. Your critcism of the acting is way off-base. Take it from an actor- they did a great job. If you didn't like the characters, that's one thing- but don't confuse bad acting with characters you don't like.

BTW- image stabilization only does so much. And you didn't catch that the guy with the camera didn't really know how to use it? It was mentioned a few times.

LizKat

May 10, 2008, 06:43 PM

Wow. It's hard to believe these remarks are all made about the same movie.

The Cloverfield filmmakers should get an Oscar just for touching so many different types of nerve endings in a representative sample of human beings.

On the other hand, maybe we're not a representative sample.

benmrii

May 10, 2008, 11:07 PM

I liked the film a lot. It's not genius, but it was a lot better than most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. Your critcism of the acting is way off-base. Take it from an actor- they did a great job. If you didn't like the characters, that's one thing- but don't confuse bad acting with characters you don't like.

*spoilers in white*

Okay, I'll give you that the problem with the characters was more the writing and poorly developed plot/characters than their acting, but to call the acting a "great job" is quite a bit off.

Michael Stahl-David was very dissapointing as a lead. Aside from looking scared and confused at the same time - which thankfully was for most of the film - he just looked constipated. I don't think it was an accident that, for instance, they had to hide his face and half mute his voice when he told his parents his brother was dead. Beth (Odette Yustman) had all the acting prowess and personality of a refrigerator.

ReanimationLP

May 11, 2008, 12:28 AM

I went and saw it in theaters with my friend and my other friend, who is my first friends fiancee.

Oy. Me and her were bored silly. The acting was terrible, and the camera was annoying. I was glad that it was short, and no one survived. I was personally hoping the "monster" would have eaten them.

djellison

May 11, 2008, 09:36 AM

How would you have changed it?

At pre-production I would have read the script, and put it in the bin.

The actors did not do a good job. At no point were they believable, at no point did I gauge any level of reality or emotion from them. It was like watching a bad school play. Utterly utterly dreadful acting. Is the blame theirs, or the production teams - probably both. I am am well aware of and understand the difference between character and actor. The acting failed to successfully portray characters that in turn, failed to be written as anything other than bland, uninteresting and were, in every way, just obnoxious.

I know what would be very interesting. A simple poll of 'Cloverfield was a good film' vs 'Cloverfield was a bad film' - results shown geographically. I would wager that in the US, it would rate 80%+ as enjoyed, but much closer to 50/50 elsewhere. I don't think it was made with non-US viewers in mind (and I'm not saying 'Americans like crap movies' - I'm generalising massively, but I think that there are some movies that the US audience will like that others will not )

Doug

cossie

May 12, 2008, 10:33 AM

I think if I hadn't felt so motion sick by about 2/3 into the movie I would've enjoyed it more - it was entertaining but I didn't really find it that amazing.

Phillyzero

May 12, 2008, 10:35 AM

Viral marketing aside, it was pretty disappointing.

rpaloalto

May 13, 2008, 12:09 AM

Total crap, I hate this movie with a passion. If I was like, bill gates rich. I would buy every copy, I could and burn them all. just kidding, but I did dislike this movie very much. Just glad I did not pay to see it in the theater.

mgacam2

May 13, 2008, 01:35 AM

It is one of the top movies I have seen. I saw the movie in theaters and I have never been so pumped with adrenaline from a movie in my entire life. I didn't find the camera work to cause any trouble either. WATCH THIS MOVIE!

consumedsoul

May 13, 2008, 01:41 AM

Liked it - good concept.

Would anyone recommend this movie to watch? Is the camera work really that bad that it makes you uncomfortable or what? The preview made it look pretty cool but I don't know if the story is that great.

Queso

Jun 15, 2008, 10:33 AM

Finally saw this yesterday. I really liked it. The whole being part of events and not having a clue what's going on angle worked for me. Very much like real life :)

c073186

Jun 15, 2008, 11:33 AM

I finally saw this a few weekends ago. Going into the movie I thought it was going to be a "love it" or "hate it" type of thing. But I felt neither. I thought it was alright, pretty entertaining for the most part, but not great. I'm glad I watched it but do not have a strong desire to see it a second time. The camera work did not bother me for the most part. The special effects were the main attraction for me. The story was weak. My favorite part of the whole thing was probably their brief helicopter ride and the stealth bombing scene. I'm glad it was only like 85 minutes though.

Andrew Henry

Jun 15, 2008, 12:10 PM

The first 10 minutes I thought I was going to have a seizure from all the camera movement, but I eventually settled into it.

I think a lot of people didn't like it because it's different than the norm, but I enjoyed it after I got into it.

Elven

Jun 15, 2008, 12:12 PM

Given how many movies are all special effects, this was a welcome change in the way a movie is produced, we all know the idea was stolen from the Blair Witch series, but I feel it was done with taste.

A excellent movie, and one I did enjoy even if I did feel a little cheated at the ending.

andiwm2003

Jun 15, 2008, 12:15 PM

Finally saw this yesterday. I really liked it. The whole being part of events and not having a clue what's going on angle worked for me. Very much like real life :)

that's what i liked about the movie as well. finally we see the event with normal eyes, not through the eyes of the hero who saves the world.

however they botched it up: everybody was beautiful, the soldiers were neat, designer cloth, they looked nice even when they were about to die, they were heroes because they would run on their high heels to be with their friends (would have been smarter to let the guys do that alone because they had proper shoes:rolleyes:, even the rats in the tunnel were cuddly).

but all in all i liked the idea and the movie. could have been a great movie if they had done less hollywood and more like the intense scenes when his battery runs out and he goes into the electronics store that gets looted for a new battery or when he calls his mom and he has to tell her about his brother.

eRondeau

Jun 15, 2008, 12:21 PM

"Thumbs Up" here. I watched it on my 24" iMac and the camera movement never bothered me. Although, to be honest, I thought the first 15-minutes (at the party) were only added to make the movie run close to 90-minutes. They could have done better "character relationship development" in two minutes, but then the movie only would have been an hour long! But the rest is just a thrill ride with some awesome monster effects. It's clear somebody put their heart and soul into the visual effects. And -- without giving away any spoilers -- the very last scene, from the ferris wheel, was absolutely inspired and changed my whole perception of the movie. Overall, I think, if the film makers had more money it would have been longer but probably no better. :apple: