Latest News
Latest Reviews
Subscribe to All Sections
Subscribe to Podcast
10 Reasons Why Cloverfield Lives Up To The Hype
If you listened to yesterday's podcast, you know that I was lucky enough to check out a preview screening of Cloverfield. Did it live up to the hype? Damn right it did. Here are ten reasons why...(VERY MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD) 
10. It's not another American version of Godzilla. (Thank God!) Let's get this out of the way first. This movie is not 1998's Hollywood version of Godzilla. Nor is it the movie that Godzilla should've been. Really, aside from the fact that both films feature a gigantic creature thrashing about New York, they're so different in style and intent that any comparisons beyond that should be immediately disregarded. In other words, forget Godzilla. That movie sucked. Cloverfield, meanwhile, is something different entirely, and warrants all the hype it's gotten thus far far.
9. The expected "problems" are not problems. Not unlike other hyped-up films that have been released in the past, Cloverfield has had plenty of naysayers to go along with all those that have remained hopeful and optimistic. Question is, how many of the potential problems being discussed (the runtime, PG-13 rating, shaky cam, etc.) are actual problems? Truth be told, none. First off, the relatively short 85-minute runtime works perfectly considering what type of film this is. Since the "movie" is basically the recovered footage off the tape found in Central Park, it wouldn't make sense for one of the characters to put in a new tape halfway through, which is basically the only way the filmmakers could've extended things. Secondly, the PG-13 rating never poses a problem. This is not an excessively gory movie, but some of the things that happen are certainly gruesome enough to make your mind feel like it is. The fact that you don't see every little detail in close-up actually makes it even more effective. And intense. Really goddamn intense. Saving the most prominent for last, there's the shaky cam. OK, I'm not gonna lie, it does take a little getting used to during the early sequences. But once you become invested in the film, the handheld style solidifies itself as a vital part of what the whole situation so powerful and realistic. Whereas some movies use shaky cam as a way to hide poor CGI or feign intensity, Cloverfield uses it because, without it, it wouldn't look believable. Without it, the movie would've failed.
8. Hud. Don't know Hud? Don't worry, you will. He's the guy holding the camera. He's also one of the best things about Cloverfield. In total, there are about 6 "main" characters in the film. A couple of them are worthless, and you won't really care about them living or dying, but the others are OK. And then there's Hud. Ah, Hud. I love Hud. He's kind of a doofus, but a likable, funny doofus. Any compassion you have for these characters can probably be attributed to him. Really, the only reason to dislike him is that he sometimes has a problem focusing the camera on what the audience wants to see. C'mon Hud, the monster's that way! Stop looking at your friends to make sure they're alive! What the hell are you, a decent human being!? 
7. The monster. I know a lot of this film's hype has been in response to the ambiguity of the monster and what it looks like, so the fact that I'm only ranking it at #7 may worry some people. Don't let it. The monster is as cool a monster as most people could've asked for. If you were to ask me to describe it, I wouldn't be able to. The best analogy I can think of is to say it's a mix between the creature from The Host, a sloth, and a praying mantis. Sound weird? Well, it should, because it is. But, how much of it do you get to see? The short answer: Enough. No, you don't get a dozen full-on wide shots of it. In order to obtain a sense of realism, the monster is seen exactly as you would see it were you to film it with a video camera at varying distances while it gets blasted with rockets and marches through the city. That said, you do see the thing a lot, partially obscured though it may be. And there's one shot in particular that should satisfy all those desperate for one perfectly angled look at the monster.
6. The parasites. Who would've thought these little bastards would be even cooler than the actual monster? Without spoiling anything, let me just say that the best sequence in the film is without a doubt a credit to these giant scampering bed bugs, dropping off the monster and wreaking havoc whenever the possibility of safety seems evident. Once again, I'm at a loss for words as how to describe them, so I'll leave it at this: they're thin, creepy, spider-like, and enjoy biting. 
5. It's something new. You could argue this film isn't new. Or unique. Or fresh. After all, The Blair Witch Project came out almost ten years ago. This is practically the same movie, but with a monster... right? No, it's not. I won't argue that they both share the same basic concept, nor will I argue that Cloverfield's existence probably owes a lot of The Blair Witch, but there are some huge differences between the two films. The main one being, this one has a much more massive scale, and a hefty budget to match. Does that necessarily make the movie good? Of course not. But it's awesome to finally see Hollywood producing a relatively big budget action film that's so immensely different than the onslaught of crap that normally ends up in theaters. In the same way I encouraged everybody to check out Grindhouse when it hit cinemas (which hardly anybody did), I recommend you all go support Cloverfield. If this movie does well, we're one step closer to convincing studios that not all moviegoers want to watch the same generic garbage everyone's become so accustomed to. And believe me when I say, Cloverfield is different than any monster movie you've ever seen before. It redefines the genre. In some ways, it redefines film itself.
4. Blockbuster, or independent? It's not hard to find big scale action blockbusters. Hollywood spews out those by the truckload. And if you know where to look, it's just as easy to find intimate, character-driven indie films. But both of them together? That's rare. Not many filmmakers know how to combine the two. Matt Reeves, the director of Cloverfield, clearly does. And that's what makes this movie so interesting. It has all the intimacy you're used to seeing in non-studio productions, but there just happens to be a giant monster and his creepy-crawly minions in the background causing undue mayhem. 
3. It feels real. You know the concept behind Cloverfield by now. It's a faux-documentary(ish) look at a monster attack in New York. What I wasn't sure of though was just how far they were going to take the "realism" aspect of the film. To answer that, they take it all the way. From start to finish, the film is presented as a recovered, unaltered tape following the characters in question. With the exception of a "Government Property" tag at the beginning and some static-y credits at the end, that's all there is. We see footage of a couple of the characters before the party, during the party (when the initial attack happens), and all the shit that goes down afterwards. We also see some brief clips of a previous recording, since the tape is being reused. I say all this in an attempt to convey just how authentic the film is in presentation, or at least would be were it not relating to a monster attack. The characters talk like people talk, the choices they make are (for the most part) very believable, and there's no music or editing outside what the characters listen to at the party and when Hud presses "start" and "stop" on the camera. It's pretty damn awesome.
2. It's not just a movie, it's an experience. You can't help but think while watching Cloverfield that you're only witnessing one piece of the puzzle. It's not telling you everything there is to know about the attacks. It's strictly played from the perspective of the characters, filming what's happening as it goes down. The audience only knows as much as they do. There's an ambiguity present, and it makes you realize this thing is way bigger than just what these characters are experiencing. But because you're experiencing it right along with them, it makes the whole thing so much more compelling. You don't feel like you're watching a movie. You feel like you're watching a home movie of your friends... with them being attacked by monsters.
1. It delivers on everything it promised. I honestly can't imagine anybody being disappointed by this film. It delivers on exactly what the trailers promised. It's exactly the movie people were hoping for. And my God do I love it. See it this Friday, and you will too.
If you want to hear Adam, Devindra, and Dave argue about how good Cloverfield really is and discuss its mysterious ending, listen to our special Cloverfield episode here! You can also subscribe to our podcast in iTunes by clicking here (For direct mp3 downloads, go here for episode 1 and here for episode 2). [This post has been cross-posted at Adam Quigley's blog]
23 Comments
I think you were paid off
I dont see how anyone couldve liked this movie, in fact pretty much everything you say it doesnt do I think it does.
"everything you say it
"everything you say it doesnt do I think it does"....how articulate.
nothing about this movie is
nothing about this movie is novel or new:
big monsters - been there done that
restricted camera angles - yup
grotesque and uncontrollable spawning mechanism (see aliens)
out of control Emo gen Y-ers having no clue as to what to do because they don't have a disaster recovery plan - i guess this is novel? oh wait, every horror movie the last 20 years takes advantage of this.
a regular person with contingency plans would have been out of the city before the movie was over.
Umm...
Dude, I don't know about you, but I doubt that most people have contingency plans for monster attacks. Maybe I'm wrong, but, for some reason, I don't think so.
Crap movie
Monster = stolen freom godzilla
Camera = stolen from blairwitch
Spiders = like all zombie movies
Crap ending = stolen from dawn of the dead
spiders?
I dont remember being dog-sized man eating spiders in ANY zombie movies.
Perfect
That's exactly how I felt about the movie. It was everything I wanted, and left you waiting for more. The great thing about the movie is the fact that it doesn't give you more.
Some of the plot points that they left out upset me, because I wanted it explained. But, in keeping with the realistic aspect of the movie, you wouldn't have been explained to you in a situation like that.
Great review.
Fun Movie
I enjoyed it, because it was a ride, original, hmmm, what is. But fun and well constructed with a few moments that almost make you jump, the mega creepy building entry scene and a rewarding shot of the creature at the end. There are no original movies, but I do not let that affect my enjoyment. I watch movies to escape, and I sure did with this one.
may not be original...
... but who gives a fuck? it was a good movie, and i agree with darksin about escaping. this movie made me forget about everything but the movie while watching it. for those who say this was crap for not being origonal can sit on a bent fork cuz that doesnt mean it was bad. it was up to date, logically created, looked realistic, and the monsters were sadistically good looking. so if you didnt like it: stop bashing it with crappy reasons, pop in your limited edition grease 2 dvd, and shut the fuck up.
pffft!
I fucking loved this movie. I'm horrid at explaining why I ever like movies, so I'm leaving it at that. I just loved it.
God awful excuse for a "movie".
I want my $7 back. I could have made a better movie with that $7.
for all you !@#$ers, I THINK MY HEART MIGHT EXPLODE !! !! !! !
FOR EVERYONE WHO DIDN'T LIKE THIS MOVIE I CAN PRETTY MUCH SEE WHY...... YOU WERE CHEAP FUCK AND DIDNT GO SEE IT IN THEATERS, WATCHED THE DOUBLE CAMED VERSION AND WERE PIST CAUSE YOU DIDNT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK WAS GOING ON. HMMMM, WONDER WHY YOU DIDNT ENJOY IT?
Can't disagree more with #3
#3 is way off, this movie in no way feels real. And of course I am not referencing the giant monster destroying the city; but more so the unbreakable camera with the 8hr battery and tape life span. Or the fact that
SPOILERS!
Someone could be impaled on a spike for quite some hours, then get up and run around without needing anything for blood loss. This movie was not real and can be summed up like so: "Oh my God, oh my God!!!! That giant monster just killed my (insert brother, friend or misc. person), I gotta go find Beth."
good review and spot on on
good review and spot on on each point. Naysayers complain all you want but cloverfield did shine out from the muck. people list of all the parts it was generic and standard cinema movie but notice they're from a million different genres. Cloverfield meshed them all together beautifully and you don't have a movie out there nowadays that doesn't have it's influenes but you can't honestly say that the fusing of them wasn't orignal. i thought the camera would make me quey but was pleasantly surprised. the monster looks fantastic and the story focuses it from the peopls' view something we hvane't seen before.
godzilla smacks his tail into a building and we're left to belive that 1,500 people on the ground level aren't hurt from falling debri. i like the idea of finally seeing these little peole struggling against this monster. Godzilla was miserable. this was innovative and doesn't deserve the slating it's getting from nitpicking fanboys.
JJ abrams said that no one is ever surprised at the theatres nowadays and that that's all he wanted to do. well he did just that and i think fair deuce to him cause it was an exciting movie with a original twist on a dated genre and that's rare in hollywood nowadays.
this was a bad movie
the only people who enjoyed this movie are thoes who don't understand and have no concept of cenima. did this movie 'entertain' you for an hour and a half? ok. sure. you have a simple mind. i can buy that. but for those of you who can sit here and defend this movie and claim that it was in any way more than a sub par attempt at a film... well, to you i say... you are an idiot.
I bet you hate it when people call you pretentious
I have no qualms with you not liking the movie, and I’m sure you have plenty of sound, logical, thoughtful reasons why. But just because you don’t like a movie, it doesn’t mean everyone who does like it is “simple” or without a concept of real cinema. I liked the movie for what it was, and I had fun watching it in the theatre. It will never make the list of my favorite movies of all time, and I don’t think that it should win any awards outside of the academy award for “Best use of a shaky cam in a non Bourne fight scene“. Just because someone like the finer things in life, and can appreciate complex or abstract concepts, it doesn’t mean you can’t also like the simple things.
“for those of you who can sit here and defend this movie and claim that it was in any way more than a sub par attempt at a film... well, to you i say... you are an idiot.”
Oh, I also think that if you do have a concept of “real cinema“, you should know that there are many types or genres of “film”, and that you would be doing a disservice to the industry/art to try and hold them all to the same standards which your above quote indicates you are trying to do. In terms of a giant monster action/suspense movie I’d have to say that the attempt that was made was WAAYYYY more than par.
This Movie Was Simply Amazing
I COMPLETELY agree with everything said here.
Now, I'd just like to clear up (in a reasonable fashion) why people don't like this movie.
There are 2 categories you can split movies up into
-Realistic
-Unrealistic
99.9999% of Hollywood movies are unrealistic. When they are unrealistic, it makes way for interesting character traits, plot twists, etc. The things that make a standard good (or bad) movie.
Cloverfield, aside from the creature(s), was designed to be as realistic as possible.
If you didn't like the characters, or lack of overarching plot, its because you don't go for these "realistic" movies, which is perfectly fine, but some of us do happen to enjoy something that is far different in style.
In order for this movie to succeed in the way it wanted to, it needed to cut out things that would make it more like a movie, so it could instead be more like...a home video.
Make sense?
That said, it should help to explain both sides for everyone. Plus, I think that Cloverfield DID manage to include as many "unrealistic" aspects as it could. They certainly stretched the level of pain many of these characters could endure, they had a character that was certainly comedic, (Hud), and let's face it, if we were in the same situation as them, NO WAY we would have captured all the cool footage that Hud got. I mean come on, he saw the head of the statue of liberty fly in front of him, the brooklyn bridge collapse, and without spoiling the rest...a bunch of other stuff.
Really?
"the only people who enjoyed this movie are thoes who don't understand and have no concept of cenima. did this movie 'entertain' you for an hour and a half? ok. sure. you have a simple mind. i can buy that. but for those of you who can sit here and defend this movie and claim that it was in any way more than a sub par attempt at a film... well, to you i say... you are an idiot."
Trust me, in no way am I defending this movie. It is what it is. Some like it, some don't. I don't see why people are taking such a hard stance either way.
But for someone to call out the people defending it and use grammar and spelling that a third grader could pick apart...well, that's just sad.
Awesome
I agree, I loved this movie. It was so much fun to watch and it had heart. I hate people that criticize a movie cause it isn't believable. Hello? It's a movie! You're supposed to put all that stuff on hold and enjoy yourself.
It was a cool film
I enjoyed it. Some people won't. The shaky cam will bother some.
The monster was cool. The parasites were creepy. I'm from NY and appreciated that the way the characters moved through the city made sense.
It's not citizen cane, but it was fun and had the feel of confusion that one would experience in a NY disaster.
The person who complained that they would have had a contingency plan that would have them out of the city in a few hours, has never tried to get to Long Island on a Friday afternoon in the summer.
Loved it
Whilst it is true that big monsters and shaky camera footage has been used before i think it is the way in which all these different aspects where used in the film together that makes Cloverfield so great.
10/10 ;)
seriously? Seriously?
Okay, the first 20 minutes before the monster attacks (and no, I did not time it, so if it is actually 14.32 minutes feel free to grill me mercilessly, and congratulations, you have no life, and yes, I know by writing this I am illustrating that I too have too much time on my hands. so touché) is the most annoyingly self-indulgent mess of film I have ever watched. Personally I don't enjoy going to strangers' houses and watching their home videos, and I sure don't want to have to put up with the whiny ramblings of a bunch of 20 year olds when I'm paying to watch it. After that lame, annoying, overly long intro, I just wanted the monster to kill everyone. But no, I’ve got to wait through an hour of their insipid decision making and pathetic camera work.
What was that, you could leave the city that is being ravaged by a monstrous horror unknown to man but some girl you hooked up with who is now so over you she is bringing other guys to your parties might be injured somewhere, possibly, because she isn't answering her phone? So yes, go back into the city, I hope the monster sits on your head, moron. Oh, you got infected by a spider monster and are going to explosively hemorrhage blood from every orifice? Try to spew some on your friends and infect them too on your way out please.
I was so hoping when they met up with the soldiers that they would all die and the story would continue on with the soldiers, you know, some characters that you might actually care if they die and who might provide more insight into what was going on then "oh look, that building fell down, neat!"
And another thing, why does a monster the size of a 747, that has spent the entire movie knocking down 50 story buildings and nonchalantly destroying tanks, all of a sudden take an interest in three annoying individuals in central park? Especially when they aren't shooting rockets at it, unlike everyone else left on the island at that point. It's like a rampaging elephant stopping to track down and kill three roaches. I do hate to complain about it, because I was so happy that they finally died and that debacle was over, but it was some seriously lazy writing.
And for all of you who protest that it was so creative in remaking the monster movie and I just don’t “get” it, send me $9 and I’ll send you an even more astounding monster movie. It may look like a home video from a high school party in 1983 but it is actually the most inventive and incredible monster movie ever, for you never SEE the monster! Or any hint of a monster. Or anything other than a bunch of teenagers complaining about their lives. It is a monster movie with no monster. It’s so creative, it’s so zen, it’s so amazing! Yes, they tried something mildly different, but that doesn’t mean it was any good. Remember Crystal Pepsi? I rest my case.
If you like the movie, then
If you like the movie, then you like it...if you don't, then you don't. I can't ever remember seeing a movie that I hated, and then being talked into liking it after the fact. Personally, I loved Cloverfield....does that make me simple minded? No. Because I went into it knowing it wasn't going to be Citizen Kane. Just the fact that this movie was about a monster attacking NY should make the lightbulb go off in your head that you need to suspend reality for a little while. I think those who are bashing it so much are just over-analyzing it.
Post new comment