http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:11:52 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-697923 People! The movie has a good story but badly executed! Interestingly enough, we have the "smart/ intelligent" movie goers love and understand the movie and the rest of us "not so smart" hated the film. Cloverfield worst movie ever? Not quite, but it's bad. Good movie is good movie! This is a good movie but bad moving making. Some tend to forget that we want to be entertained at the movie. The director is the story teller who will tell his or her story images through lenses of cameras. This movie failed to tell the story in so many ways. Let's not forget that movie is moving visual graphics, when people are throwing up all over the world not because of the content but very bad graphic! Where's the entertainment value in throwing up? Some says, it's the price you pay for realism! Ok, let talk about realism. First it's a MONSTER movie! Yes, that's real! The scene where they encounter the military...if realism is what you want, the movie would be over at that point! Because the camera would have been taken away by the military! I don't mind the shaky cam effect but to say this movie employed the shaky effect is to say mount Saint Helen eruption a small puff! The camera was moving from 0 to 180 degrees per 3 second most of the time! Hey Mr. director! This is not creativity...it is inexperience! The critic gives this movie five stars, I wonder if the star represent each time he or she could throw up. This film is a love letter from the producer, director and editor to the "smart" people and "critics". Hey Paramount! Those people are few and far in between! Your movie can not survive financially if you depend only on them! We "the not so smart people" are the rest of the world! We paid to be entertained, some of us worked hard for the money! You need people like us for your paycheck! My two children and I walked out the theater after 30 sickening minutes. I'm insulted by this duping process. The film should have been a made for television movie special not big screen. Hollywood are you listening? Good movie is good story telling, you give us a glimpse of the future, transporting us back in time, take us to outer space, remind us of world histories, scared us with your ghostly tales and above all entertained us. Don't forget at one time there was a slogan " Hollywood...now, that's entertainment!" 697923@blogcritics.org Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:11:52 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-696073 ok well i loved it and i agree but when i was leaving the theatre everyone was cursing and saying they wanted there money back,anyways my friend agrees with them but i was trying to explain just this to him ty:p 696073@blogcritics.org Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:11:46 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-693674 Few movies sucked worse than Cloverfield, at least Travolta's worst movie award for Battlefield Earth is still save, although this movie almost took that award. I can't believe all the reviews of people fawning over a movie that looked like it was shot by an epileptic chimpazee tweaked on crystal meth, not to mention the story line! 693674@blogcritics.org Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:40:13 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-693607 It was an excellent story, excellently filmed (using a camera like that with those sorts of shots must have taken great skill to make as realistic as it was) and I loved the almost lack of answers and the realism of the chaotic atmosphere which would be felt if that were ever to happen in real life. It genuinely scared me and whilst I wanted to know more, I was content that my lack of knowledge actually increased the films entertainment value. The CGI effects where well used and extremely convincing. I think many of you are completly narrow minded morons who criticize anything that doesn't fit your perfect little picture of what a movie is and is not supposed to be. 693607@blogcritics.org Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:23:57 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-693191 one of the worst movies ever made. it made me want to vomit with disgust. the whole movie was recorded using a video camera in which a moron in the movie used. The camera was explosion proof with an unlimited amount of battery life. I cant believe this sickening disgusting movie made it to the cinema. It just shows how stupid most movies are becoming these days. 693191@blogcritics.org Tue, 5 Feb 2008 03:07:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-691161 the movie was good, left a lot of unanswered questions with me though 691161@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:56:33 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-689574 I guess, for me, I preferred not having all of my questions answered. It became more fun, being tossed in the middle and running for my life. As for the perspective, cysco, do you mean if it had been in an objective third person perspective? Because it is in first person, which is what I think you had the problem with ... It seems a lot of people were wishing for third person, but I think you would have liked it less. Then it would have been just another monster movie with subplots and more contrived motivations ... but, again, that's just my opinion. I think this film is more about the journey than the destination, and that's why I liked it. As for when you get bit? Well, it seems you explode ... I didn't need any more than that ... 689574@blogcritics.org Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:32:38 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-689455 this movie wasnt that great at all. If left you hanging at the end of the movie, also i want to know what happens when you freaking get bit. The movie would of been better if most of the movie was in first person. But anyways... everyone has different opinions and that how it will always be. 689455@blogcritics.org Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:37:40 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-689446 The worst movie ever. First time in my life I left the theatre after 15 mins. Really didn't care about the storyline coz my head was spinning and I felt sick due to the camera movement. Nobody shoots a cam that way not even amatuers... please gimme a break!! 689446@blogcritics.org Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:24:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-689254 Cloverfield was GREAT.. Its amazing how ppl think that a moive is not good because they are use to the same movie plots and once something is new then they dont like it. Oh and this move brought in $41 MILLION. Hummm!! The movie is different, non original, keeps you wondering, and makes you think that this is really happening . I loved the movie 689254@blogcritics.org Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:32:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-689161 I love it when people start off with, "What movie did you see?" Well, I saw the one that I described. I mentioned the love story and how clever I thought it was done. I mentioned the confusion ... but, gaging from your comment about also not liking "I Am Legend," It is clear that we don't watch movies the same way. I went into "Cloverfield" with low expectations, not believing that it could live up to the trailer, but it did. It sounds like your expectations were somewhere else. That's okay, but can't you dig deep and recognize the brilliance contained within, regardless of whether or not you liked it? This is where our world is going. New and information travels on the Web, people film themselves and put it on YouTube ... this is an envisioning of a monster attack that very much takes place in the world that we live in? It sounds to me, and this is by no means an insult, so I don't want it to be taken that way. Message boards always make simple comments seem confrontational ... but, you don't like subtlety, do you? Because both "I Am Legend" and "Cloverfield" were pretty subtle ... so, yes, it did have a beginning AND an end. I generally hate CGI because of how not subtle it is, so I conclude where I started. We don't watch movies the same way, and, well, that's okay ... 689161@blogcritics.org Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:26:10 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-689079 Dude what movie did you see? The movie did not live up to anything but taking my money from my pocket. It had no begining and no end, the movie starts off with confusion and ends with more confusion. I was ready to sit and watch a action packed movie and I was devistated with a love story tied into the middle. I'm a avid Godzilla fan and I love action packed movies. This movie was a major flop, the action was all in the streets, and everthing else was CGI! I love CGI films but this was a waste of time and money. The monster was "ok" and the story line sucked. This movie reminded me of the movie "I am Legend." Major hype and no delivery, heck I even stayed around to the end of the credits to see if there was something more that he had in store for us, but again disapointment. I'm sorry but I disliked this move alot. 689079@blogcritics.org Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:03:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-688987 I thought the movie had a good story behind it. But it took 15 or 20 minutes to get the real action part. Which the movie was only an hour or so long. It would have been better to put on tv. Also the camera moving all over place gave me a headache. They should have made more steady scenes. And if they are going to make an ending like that the movie should be at least an hour and a half or longer. I give it 3 out of 10. 688987@blogcritics.org Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:39:46 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-688778 Really, Johnny? Just a 4 out of 10? I did think that some of the shaky camera bits were a bit overdone, but it never really made me nauseous, although I have heard that said by a couple of friends. Didn't you think that the general cleverness of storytelling, merits a bit more of a favorable review? It sounds like there were things you liked about it ... for me, just the more that I think about it, the more I love it. 688778@blogcritics.org Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:57:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-688773 First off, the whole intent of the basic principle of a sci-fi horror flick with a mix of romance and comedy were definitely awesome. But honestly, the flim shots and the "Real life motion" feel were really horrible. I know that they were trying for a real field shot but they could have had steady cameras shooting the main portion of the film and then switch to character's shot of the action. All in all, story was great but the constant running scenes, strobes going off in the building that would give a headache a run for its money, that blinding light that aggravates the audience, how the recording went from steady picture to blurry was what bothered me the most. I give the movie a 4 out of 10. 688773@blogcritics.org Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:40:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/18/110456.php#comment-688731 Awesome .. I've been looking up reviews and info for this film, and it seems to be getting pretty solid ratings. And it's really interesting that they're promoting the film with the fallen Statue of Liberty..it definitely sets an undertone of the America being attacked..Maxim actually did a little bit on it. 688731@blogcritics.org Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:41:22 EST