“Cloverfield”

I’m a little bit behind the band wagon for “Cloverfield” seeing as it has been out for over a week now, but went to see it last night with Bear, Evan, Mad, and Meg and I have to say I quite enjoyed it.  I have no intentions of calling it the greatest movie ever because it very obviously isn’t, but as far as taking a tried and tested genre and making it new “Cloverfield” exceeds with high marks.  Sure the dialog might have been a little lacking and in scrutinizing one has to ask some obvious questions (like how a hand held video camera managed to survive an event that destroyed most of Manhattan) but all around the fast pace of the movie keeps the audience pretty occupied and distracted throughout and so we can over look these minor details.  And hey, nobody is claiming that this was meant to be realistic right?  Still, the destruction and carnage as seen on the ground level can have a very powerful impact on one.  Currently I am reading Don DeLillo’s Falling Man (for February’s Literary Libations) which deals a lot with 9/11 and I couldn’t help but note comparison in the portrayal of destruction in “Cloverfield.”  So all around a fun movie with some good thrills, not too long or anything, and a really original perspective.  Props to you “Cloverfield” 

~ by Nathaniel on January 29, 2008.

6 Responses to ““Cloverfield””

  1. Caution: Spoilers ahead.

    It was a pretty cool thrill ride, and the point of view was very fresh. The fact that the creature factor constantly thrilled and surprised outshines the fact that the ending – once again – was completely botched.

    1. I miss the old days of Hollywood when the protagonists of a story were still around to enjoy the end credits. Writers: STOP KILLING THE HEROES OF THE STORY. IT ISN’T TRAGIC OR COOL, IT’S JUST ANNOYING! I don’t go to the movies to be bummed out by every damn movie. I go to the movies to be entertained, damn it.

    2. Adding implausible plot devices at the end of the movie to steer the narrative towards a quick conclusion is too transparent. We aren’t stupid. If we can see the strings you’re pulling, you’ve lost your audience.

    3. Case in point: How does a thirty-story tall monster manage to sneak up on you, exactly? (Yes, even on a wide open lawn in Central park?) See #2.

    4. The spider things rocked out. When they first showed them falling off the giant monster on CNN, I just about crapped my pants with surprise and excitement.

    5. The spider things inside the subway tunnel actually made me crap my pants. Awesome scene. better, even than the giant monster’s aimless rumble with tall buildings.

    6. The brother getting killed on the bridge was a stupid plot device that didn’t work. The protagonists were cracking jokes half an hour later. If you kill a character’s sibling, he’s going to be completely shattered. be consistent. If you feel the need to add drama to the plot, then own it. Don’t blow it off because it suddenly becomes inconvenient.

    7. There wasn’t nearly enough nudity in this movie. or at all, for that matter. – 5,000 points.

    8. No one who spent two hours with a three foot long piece of 3/4″ rebar through their ribcage and left lung would be able to do any of the following things: a) Run, b) talk, c) jump, d) not bleed to death, e) not suffocate (yes, to death) and f) not go into shock and die. Yes, even super pretty girls.

    9. Everyone in New York City looks like a supermodel. This is a fact.

    10. The creature’s skin was more bomb-proof than the Silver Surfer’s cosmic chrome plating. That’s pretty cool.

    11. (Bonus) A giant yeti would have been a lot cooler than a giant ear mite.

  2. Yeah I was pretty impressed by the utter impervious nature of the thing’s skin too. Assuming if and when the military finally managed to take the beast out they had better find a way to synthesize the skin and outfit all military vehicles and personel with it. Anything that can withstand hours of bombing is worth the cost to defend our soldiers.

    Oh yeah, everyone in NYC are definitely models. I’ve seen tons of movies set in the Big Apple and can’t ever remember seeing ugly people. If I ever do see ugly people in a movie set in NYC I will assume it wasn’t filmed on location, but instead somewhere in Canada to cut production costs, and some casting director was too lazy to portray the reality of the absolute beauty of New Yorkers (that one was for free New York, your welcome, don’t try and claim to be New Englander’s).

  3. […] I think I agree with everything written by both Lord and Olivier on Cloverfield. I will only add the motion sickness created by the movie almost brought me to hurl. You might want to take motion sickness medication before watching the movie. […]

  4. Lord, I will add the one exception that confirms our NYC casting rule. (There must always be an exception): Woody Allen.

    He did not appear in Cloverfield, however.

  5. New York = New England:

    From Wikipedia:

    “In 1686, King James II, concerned about the increasingly independent ways of the colonies, including their self-governing charters, open flouting of the Navigation Acts, and increasing military power, established the Dominion of New England, an administrative union comprising all of the New England colonies. Two years later, the provinces of New York and New Jersey, seized from the Dutch, were added. The union, imposed from the outside and contrary to the rooted democratic tradition of the region, was highly unpopular among the colonists.

    Nevertheless, those two present states are reckoned as “greater New England” in a social or cultural context, as that is where Yankee colonists expanded to, before 1776. Indeed, the identity in that era changed once one moved to Pennsylvania, as the Pennamite-Yankee War attests to. Colonists from New England proper in that era, were rather well received in the Mohawk Valley and on Long Island in New York. To this day, the cultural legacy of New England is easy to detect by the vast majority of other Americans. Although considered Middle Colonies, New York and New Jersey could not be mistaken to have a Pennsylvania or even Maryland flair stemming at all, from the colonial era.”

  6. Yeah, this is true, Woody Allen isn’t really all that much of a looker, but I’d say he is the exception that makes the rule.

    To Evan. Indeed I read the same on Wikipedia but if you look in text books and atlases and such you may see New York and New Jersey listed as North East but New England is almost exclusively listed as Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: