Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Telp

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2007
3,075
25
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

macrumors 68030
Jun 26, 2005
2,643
10
Toronto
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

macrumors regular
Nov 29, 2007
217
0
I really loved it..... I think the people that didn't like it were just expecting something completely different.
 

djellison

macrumors 68020
Feb 2, 2007
2,229
4
Pasadena CA
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

macrumors regular
Nov 29, 2007
217
0
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:
 

Telp

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2007
3,075
25
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

macrumors 65816
Jan 10, 2006
1,193
1
Germany
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". :(
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,574
2,908
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

macrumors 68030
Jun 26, 2005
2,643
10
Toronto
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

macrumors 68000
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

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
14,219
4,295
Sunny, Southern California
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

macrumors 68000
Jun 14, 2006
1,775
44
San Fran
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

Moderator emeritus
Jul 19, 2002
15,639
3
キャンプスワ&#
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

macrumors 6502a
Feb 5, 2008
724
1
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.

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2006
1,459
0
London
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?
 

sushi

Moderator emeritus
Jul 19, 2002
15,639
3
キャンプスワ&#
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

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2007
1,091
4
FL
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

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,164
26
Chicago, Illinois
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

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2004
6,764
36,271
Catskill Mountains
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

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2007
1,091
4
FL
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

macrumors 68030
Jan 8, 2005
2,782
33
On the moon.
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

macrumors 68020
Feb 2, 2007
2,229
4
Pasadena CA
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

macrumors member
Aug 8, 2006
74
0
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.