Cloverfield rant

Tuesday, Jan. 29 2008 | Author: Mel

I still haven’t seen Cloverfield but I’ve been anticipating the movie ever since I got wind of it. JJ Abrams take on the monster movie is just something this geek is not going to let pass.

I’ve been reading comments about the movie from those who have seen the movie though and although I am not easily swayed by other people’s opinions, I do wonder why a)they complain that they don’t see the monster so much, and b)why is the camera too jerky. I think these are the people who really do not bother to read. First, Abrams never said that it is going to be an out and out monster movie. This is JJ Abrams! The guy who gave us the slow-burn thriller that is Lost. They should’ve already expected something different from him. Second, the “shaky cam” was something that I was already expecting from this movie. After all, the initial description for Cloverfield is that it is a monster invasion seen from the perspective of those people who are affected by the catastrophe. There have been some comments that it kind of referenced 9-11, and I will have to agree with that take.

I guess what I am trying to point out is that people should stop looking for the same formula movies over and over again. Don’t always expect Godzilla part two everytime you hear the phrase “monster movie”.

Share and Enjoy

JJ Abrams’ monster movie is nigh!
Finally saw Cloverfield!
‘Cloverfield’ Call Sheet Leaked…
Rant about comments
UPDATED: ‘Cloverfield’/'1-18-08′ could have a title (nope) and a poster…

Hope you like that post!

Forever Geek is a resource for all things geek. You can stay tuned by having the latest FG news delivered to you for free via RSS.

Category: Uncategorized
Tags:

8 Responses for "Cloverfield rant"

Mr Butterscotch

January 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
1

I must confess that I was expecting Godzilla. Mind you, I never really enjoy monster movies anyway…
Mayhem

January 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
2

Just wait until you see the movie Mel. You’ll see what everyone is talking about. I was pretty disappointed.
Brian Dusablon

January 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
3

I too was disappointed. Not so much that I would say don’t go see it, but for all the hype, it was a little underwhelming. Also, as I mention in my review, Hud really gets annoying.
Michael

January 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
4

I thought the movie was a great idea, but when you have to look away from the movie screen for 10 minutes because the camera is so shaky and is causing you to get dizzy (I was sitting on the back row), that tends to produce bad feelings about the movie.
People said that if you play video games you should do fine with the shaking, but in video games I get to control the shake.
mahes

January 29th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
5

I was in a stadium theatre in the second row of the second section (the section that has the guad rail) I experienced a moment of disorientation during the first few seconds, but after that everything was fine. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I’m not much of a JJ Abrams fan (I don’t like “Lost” much and I haven’t seen anything else he’s done), but I think he did a really good job. I agreed with his assessment that America needed its own monster and that’s initially what drew my attention to it. I’m not trying to be insensitive, but every movie involving a city being destroyed in this decade is not necessarily a reference to 9-11. It was a horrible event, but applying it to every single disaster isn’t healthy. Sure if there was a plane being thrown into a building, I probably would’ve seen a similarity (and probably bashed the movie for attempting to evoke emotion using such an inappropriate reference), but all I saw was monster destruction from the point of view of the little people you’d pick up and eat in Rampage.
JB

January 30th, 2008 at 12:16 am
6

I’m going to buck the trend and say I liked it. I think they accomplished exactly what they set out to do. The problem is that most people don’t like what that is and don’t know how to articulate it.
ricky

January 30th, 2008 at 12:55 am
7

To your #2 point….it never had to be this jerky as a way to emphasize the that the point was to show a “monster invasion seen from the perspective of those people who are affected by the catastrophe”. Blair Witch did that, and you’d think Reeves would’ve anticipated that. Remember, this was produced by JJ but directed by Reeves. This doesn’t qualify it as a JJ Abrams piece in my opinion.
Jen

February 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
8

why does every monster/disaster movie always have a shot of the statue of liberty trashed? its the ultimate cliche