Contrary to Jon’s review earlier in the week of Cloverfield, I did not enjoy this film.
I had to go. I was not interested in the movie. Not the previews I’ve seen, nothing I’ve heard, and certainly not the name J.J Abrams. But I knew it would be a big hit, and would do so with the least amount of effort. I had to see it in order to talk shit. They already cheated you into the theatre with a trailer that leaves you asking questions. Sound familiar? From the creators of Lost comes Cloverfield.
I went to the midnight showing, thinking, I hope it’s not crowded. Could there be that many suckers going to a movie they know nothing about. Not one theatre, but 3 sold out theatres at midnight, filled with idiots eager to see this grainy, hand held, camcorder hunk of shit. It was the damn Blair Witch Project with special effects. It was just under 90 minutes and way too long. These two bit television people have created a truly pointless movie, unless you love popcorn.
***Spoilers***
The story written by Drew Goddard can hardly be called a story. Here it is: Friends separate, something attacks the city, friends try and find each other. There is an attempt to create meaningful characters, but it never happens. No arches, resolutions, or answers are given about these people that we care nothing about. Over a third of the film is dialogue heavy, all at a party with some really bad actors. No one you’ve heard of unless you watch bad television.
When the thing finally attacks the city, we run. I’d say about 20 minutes of running here and there with a shaky camera operator. It is annoying because it happens so often for so long. Nothing happens except for yelling and trying to escape this thing you can hardly see. No one knows what it is or why it’s here, and I don’t think anyone ever will. I don’t think people will care, but it would be nice if the writers were required to think, and not just use gimmicks to get the crowd through the door.
Abrams has assembled a band of nobodies and will make a killing: A crap T.V writer who’s best credit is Lost, a show that confuses itself, a no-name director who hasn’t directed a film in over 10 years, his last being the Pallbearer, a cast with no talent or screen presence, horrible photography, and minimal advertisement because if they would actually show clips of the film, no one would show. The movie relies on its own secrecy and does not work without the element of surprise.
I was tempted to write this review before I saw the movie, because it seemed so predictable and one dimensional. I should have done that. Everything you see in the preview, well that’s pretty much it. Anything not in the preview is not worth seeing. Unless you just have no know what it is. But it is not a traditional film. It’s footage. If you want to see footage of people running, confused, and never get answers, see Cloverfield. You can leave your brain on the car.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed And checkout our coffee competition to win a $30 gift voucher to your favourite coffee shop : click here
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
15 responses so far ↓
1 Jon // Jan 18, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Good thing I left my brain in the car, or else I would have been just as unhappy a person. It’s always good to review a movie that you know you won’t like prior to going in. I know I only see movies I know I will despise. It helps me hate the world a little more. Also, it is always a big plus when you call your fellow moviegoers (and most likely your readers) “idiots”. Can’t wait to see your film being projected on to the big screen. Cheers!
2 Karl // Jan 19, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“I had to see it in order to talk shit.”
Why? If its something you’re not prone to liking…skip it. Unless, of course, the marketing made you go hmmmm.
And as for that crap TV writer: his list of prior shows hardly says crap. Lost is hit or miss with fans, but remains one of televisions best shows. Goddard took what he knew and tweaked it for an unconventional format, giving us a pretty good film.
3 Emberly Modine // Jan 20, 2008 at 11:55 am
download.
4 Jose Sanchez // Jan 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I don’t mind not liking every movie I see in the theatre. I realize there are only a handful of good ones, and that the masses like a lot of crap.
I watch for the same reason I watch American Idol or the news, not because it’s good programming, because it’s what people are watching.
Goddard’s script is embarrasing. And Lost will remain a miss until it wrapps up what it started. And we can’t just stop the show when the cameraman dies. Thought will be required.
5 Harrison // Jan 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Everything about this review is terrible. Who wants to hear some whiney review by someone who hated a film before they entered. From what I gathered from this: You hate Lost, you hate the way they promoted this film, you hate the writer, you hate jj abrams… Sweet.
You went to an exciting midnight showing and all you can say is the theater was “filled with idiots eager to see this grainy, hand held, camcorder hunk of shit”? Perhaps its the fact you went to the movie by yourself and wasnt invited by the “idoits” who were clearly enjoying themselves and having a good time. The grumpy old guy who sits in the corner of a fun party generally thinks the party sucks.
6 Phallus Maximus // Jan 20, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“I had to see it in order to talk shit”
How thoughtful!
So you go to movies you know you will not like and watch television shows you know you will not like in order to gain the necessary knowledge to talk down to people and assert your dominance and elitist status. What a happy life you must lead…
“I watch for the same reason I watch American Idol or the news, not because it’s good programming, because it’s what people are watching. ”
…spending all of your time focusing on honing your pop culture expertise so you can cut others down…
You watch the news JUST because other people are watching it?! And you will voluntarily watch shows like American Idol, which I assume you despise, because it is what the masses watch? What a very thought-out way to spend your time. Sounds like you are part of the masses anyway but refuse to admit it.
…I still find your news reference puzzling. As far as I can tell the majority of the citizens of this country don’t watch the news anyway.
As an obvious “movie-buff” you surely must know that whenever a big action movie comes out the midnight show is sold out. If you live in LA and see movies you know this, it is a given. If they are playing the movie at midnight they are only doing it because they know that it will be full. Why else would they keep the theater open and in turn have to pay more to their employees? Any elitist knows that!
Also unless you lived under a rock for the past couple of months you know that they have been hyping this movie like crazy. Anyone recall the building long sign in Hollywood?
“Could there be that many suckers going to a movie they know nothing about (There should be a question mark here on account of it being a question)?” Yes! And you were one of them! Do you realize that your incessant viewing of things you do not like is actually funding the production of more of them? Don’t like this kind of movie? Then do your part in not seeing it. But then you will not be able to make fun of all of the people who saw it! There goes your credibility. It’s a vicious cycle, I know!
The mystery is what was so genius about the ad campaign. It was refreshing. Finally a film that did not expose the whole plot arch in the preview (Any essayist knows that when writing numbers under 100 you always write out the number with letters from the alphabet).
I also really enjoyed your other article on There Will Be Blood. A film review about a film you had not seen yet! A film that would not come out for another month! I think it was a bold move to actually see the movie before your Cloverfield review, although you almost didn’t. In this article you laud PT Anderson: if it’s Anderson it must be good! And while I did see Blood and it was amazing, I made my judgment after seeing the film.
To connect this back to Cloverfield, the Anderson review exhibits your unabashed obsession with who made what. Pedigree matters more than product. How very elitist of you. Have you forgotten Eyes Wide Shut? Another connection: did you know that Blood’s cinematographer, Robert Elswit, also DP’d Pallbearer! The plot thickens… (Gee-wiz! I can use IMDB too!)
Maybe if you had gone into the theatre without seething hate for everyone else in the theatre and the filmmakers, maybe then you would have enjoyed the film for what it is: an adrenaline trill ride. Not the brainy thing you desire. Here we come to the problem with most film elitists: every film is not 81/2! And every film does not want to be. When you listen to your beloved DJ/dance music does it make you sit down and pontificate intellectually about topics ephemeral and paradigm shifting? No you fucking dance. And that is what the DJs want you to do. That was their intention with their music. Whilst Radiohead’s intention is entirely different and may well include inducing pontification.
Bottom line: You demand a thoughtful movie. I demand a thoughtful review. Whether you thought the movie was thoughtful or not, the reviewer should lay out their views in a thoughtful manner. This is an effective strategy to:
1-Convince the public whether to see the film or not (this is a critic’s job, no?).
2-Not be a douche.
In closing here’s a little anecdote from my viewing of Cloverfield:
After the film’s abrupt ending a large gaggle of twelve-fourteen year old boys booed the movie and exclaimed, “That sucked!” “I wasted ten bucks on this?!” “What a piece of shit!” It seems you have some peers yet! You should be proud.
P.S.
I heard Daniel Plainview say this and thought of you!
“…I see the worst in people. I don’t need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I want to rule and never, ever explain myself….I can’t keep doing this on my own with these… people.”
7 Jose Sanchez // Jan 21, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I did not hate the film before i saw it, i suspected it would suck, and was right. i did not go by myself either.
i don’t hate lost.
i had a good time at the movie actually, it doesn’t make it a good one. it’s my opinion that a film should have more than just cool moments to make it “good”.
i couldn’t ask for better commentary though. i notice the responses are all about me and not the good things about cloverfield. of all the films to defend.
8 Jeff // Jan 21, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Hey, I love Jose and he is entitled to his opinion. This is my argument why Cloverfield is a sweet film. What a concept, I love a good idea, Cloverfield is a really terrific story, a very realistic and proper telling of a supernatural disaster. From the opening frame the director totally sells the believability of what we’re watching with the whole “Property of Defense Department” thing, I bought it. Then I liked the characters, the plot was a bit “Real World” but I still believed what was going on. I was totally entertained, and might just go see it again, it’s only an hour an 25 minutes long.
9 Karl // Jan 22, 2008 at 3:23 am
I saw it twice in less than 24 hours…had to take a few others to experience, as Jeff put, “a sweet film”
10 Jose Sanchez // Jan 22, 2008 at 3:06 pm
All in all, you assume too much about the writer. Too much to even begin to respond. But I’m glad you read my stuff.
11 Jeff // Jan 22, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Hey Phallus Maximus, what is with all the personal attacks. I’ve never seen such defense of a box office smasher like this, I didn’t see nearly as much hoopla about Transformers. It’s a shity, yet enjoyable flick, what else really needs to be said. These long diatribes written to try and impress people make you look silly and petty. Why can’t dance music be intellectual? The art of dance and the freedom of movement and expression is pretty deep, at least I think so. Why don’t we give Sanchez a break huh, and find and even dumber issue to rattle on about.
12 Karl // Jan 22, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“…find and even dumber issue to rattle on about.”
oooh, like politics?
13 Jeff Barrick // Jan 22, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“oooh, like politics?” oooh like diarrhea?
1. frequent and excessive discharging of the bowels producing abnormally thin watery feces, usually as a symptom of gastrointestinal upset or infection
2. abnormally thin watery feces
14 michelle // Jan 22, 2008 at 10:40 pm
wow to all the commentary. wow.
cloverfield= godzilla + blair witch project…otherwise known as nothing-new.
everyone I know who saw it said they liked it but don’t care to see it again. I think anyone who knows anything about films could see that its just a cool movie, not a great film. there is a difference. think about it before you attack using such nonsense to make your point. defend your opinion, don’t make fun of people. you idiots!…..(haha. get it?)
great films can change your life. PAY ATTENTION!
15 Daniela // Feb 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Although I do agree that Jose seems to have some prejudgments that might not seem fair to the review of the film, I do know Jose and can atest to the fact that he would like it if it were good. While Jose is not what I would classify as an elitest in film, I am. I refuse to see Cloverfield. I won’t bother wasting my time with a box office smash piece of shit. I would rather hang out with Phallus Maximus and his obviously cheery disposition about others opinions, just so I can see what a piece of human crap looks like. Hey I got an idea why don’t you just own up to the fact that you liked a shitty flick? There is nothing to get so defensive about unless you know he was right. I like crappy movies sometimes and I’m comfortable enough to admit it. It’s just a movie review, get a grip.
Leave a Comment