"Cloverfield"

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: "Cloverfield"

    If anyone can share with me the title of another "giant-monster-eats-city" movie that evokes the level of genuine visceral tension that CLOVERFIELD does (on several occasions throughout its running time) I'd really like to hear it.

    You feel like you're in the middle of a genuine catastrophe in several moments in this film.
    But perhaps what you're impressed by is good Directing, not good Screenwriting.

    And by Directing I meant VISUALS, maybe not even "directing" per se. (I don't believe for a moment that the "amateur video" camera style wasn't carefully thought out and rehearsed and re-shot ... But I know they picked a camera style that easily disguises and forgives true mistakes and real amateurism, too)

    The dialogue isn't all that great (just "real" sounding) ...

    I haven't read CLOVERFIELD on the script page, but common sense suggests it may be full of sentences like "They look down, a huge monster is destroying the city" OR ELSE they would have had to describe scenes in such detail that ... well, that it would be BAD SCREENWRITING (if we agree that your screenplays shouldn't read like highly descriptive prose novels)

    CLOVERFIELD is a very cool DIRECTOR'S movie, and a fun AUDIENCE and FAN movie.

    But c'mon, it's not a Writer's movie, and I'm assuming (and admit it's IMO) this is a Writer's website.

    I enjoyed it, we can all enjoy it, but as Writers don't we have to understand the DIFFERENCE between what we need to write on the page and what the Directors and CGI geniuses do ???

    The longer this thread goes, the more people are coming around to the fact that it wasn't great screenwriting, but just a unique concept.
    I agree. Except that I wouldn't even call it a "unique concept" ... I'd call it "another giant-monster-eats-city movie"

    King Kong
    Godzilla (and probably bigger monster fans here could also name another ten Japanese movies from the 1950's and 1960's)
    All the giant spider movies
    All the giant woman movies
    All the giant (fill in the blank) movies
    The recent spate of giant dragon movies

    No, the ones above don't do the "You are there with a video camera" schtick (for that you can check out all the Viet Nam war footage, or the "documentary" thing Kubrick did in DR. STRANGELOVE, or The Blair Witch Project (and all the "video voyeur" horror movies) or turn on CNN, or ...)

    C'mon, man, credit where credit is due.

    Just because it's a FANTASY MOVIE, we don't have to praise it so much HERE that we lose all touch with reality!
    sigpic
    "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
    that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
    -Mahatma Gandhi.

    Comment


    • Clever?

      Originally posted by boski
      ...I've been watching "giant monster movies" for a long time, and I've never experienced anything close to several moments of gripping intensity that CLOVERFIELD delivered on what is a patently ridiculous premise.

      These guys pulled off a pretty nifty piece of cinema craftesmanship IMO with a shop-worn and entirely unbelievable premise.

      CLOVERFIELD makes the giant monster attack as real, believable, and immediately engrossing as I've ever seen it.
      KING KONG

      I've just returned a few hours ago from a double-viewing of CLOVERFIELD.

      It was entertaining, (like watching firemen responding to a false alarm is entertaining); but, my problem was trying not to laugh, which might have bothered the few other people, (no more than twenty), in each audience, (none appeared very impressed with it). The film might have done much better to have kept this monster hidden.

      After the introduction of the principal characters, (unappealing hors d'oeuvres), there was no real hint about the monster's origins nor its motivations in attacking New York City. (King Kong had a great backstory and a motivation.)

      One character is headed across the Brookyln Bridge to escape Manhattan, stops and turns back to go save the girl, (whom he didn't bother to see for weeks, due to a career move, and insulted her a short time before, when she left the party)? That, for me, was more incredible than the monster, itself.

      Are there no more dogs in New York City? Never saw one, here. And, let's find any woman who'd roam about toppling skyscrapers in a cocktail dress and high heels? I cannot blame the monster for hurling Liberty's head at them, knocking down the bridge they were crossing, chasing them into the subway, chasing them down the streets, attacking their helicopter, and ambushing them in "area 447." I, too, wanted them all to die, horribly!

      Only Gojira was more indestructible; and, I was amazed how Hud managed the steady-cam shot of an armoured vehicle getting squashed, (when, most of the time, he couldn't get a horizontal frame). After having been hit in the back with what was at least an Mk 82 bomb, the monster was still feisty and unscathed, (not like King Kong, who got knocked cold by gas grenades and bled when shot with bullets). Hopefully, more details of its magical powers will be revealed in special edition DVD sets.

      Despite the better judgments of Tabby, JayKid, and Bobmartin66, (in this matter), I do think that this film requires a sequel, (or, rather, a stake thru its heart, before it becomes another Hollywood franchise).

      I'm thinking, if Yanks cannot stop this critter, Canucks may have to do the job?

      "What is now CFB Kingston was originally known as Camp Barriefield after an adjacent village." ~ Wikipedia

      Barriefield, eh?
      JEKYLL & CANADA (free .mp4 download @ Vimeo.com)

      Comment


      • Re: "Cloverfield"

        Originally posted by maralyn View Post
        Monster has to be believable. To have impact. For me, anyway.
        Originally posted by boski
        Whether the monster was adequately explained or not. That's a separate consideration IMO, and doesn't really affect the movie's emotional punch during its running time.
        I'm with Boski on this one. To be frustrated with the lack of exposition is one thing, but to say the monster was unbelievable?? I just don't understand that.

        Before anyone jumps on me, let me be clear that of course, all of these monsters are technically unbelievable. Aliens with acid for blood? Re-booted dinosaurs from frog DNA? Giant city-thrashing monsters? They're all implausible. Some are given tons of explanation, some less, Cloverfield next to none, but. . .

        The point of Cloverfield was that "we don't fvcking know anything about it - it's a fvcking surprise, and we haven't had any time to adjust!!" (see quotes such as "Whatever it is; it's winning" and "that's a terrible thing"). In this context, I think the filmmakers gave a very believable presentation of what it would actually be like to be in a city where a monster attacked. Real time. No time to adjust, figure out, have your curiosity satisfied, etc.

        When people talk about "believability" they're often talking about having their intellectual curiosity satisfied about the reasons behind what they're seeing. They're not always talking about a believable portrayal of what is happening in this moment.

        I think Cloverfield did a great job of creating a believable sequence of events. Not once did I groan at the actions of the characters when they were in the sh!t. Not once did I say to myself "awww, people would never do that!" It was believable.

        And the monster itself was believable (at least as much as something otherworldy can be) because we didn't know jack sh!t about it! (And you wouldn't in that situation.) The monster's actions were totally plausible. At the end of the day, it merely acted like a frightened animal stuck in a strange environment, and being attacked by a bunch of small, annoying humans. Totally believable that a monster might do such things, and since nothing was known about its origin, how can one say that it was unbelievable??

        As a matter of fact, I'd like to issue a challenge to all the "writers" around here (seeing as how there are starting to be digs against the writing, saying the film's only merit is its gimmick)... Here's the challenge:

        What would you have done differently within the restraints of the form (i.e. tape retrieved from a single camera during the attack) to make it better??

        To make it more believable? More marketable? More compelling? More curiosity-raising? More emotionally authentic?

        Personally, I was awed by the mastery of the writing, so I will opt out of the challenge, except one thing I noticed during the film that rang false - that was that new cell phone batteries need to be charged for a few hours before you can use them. That's it. That's all I could come up with that didn't feel authentic within the framework.

        There was another poster (a New Yorker) who called foul on some of the subway distances, but I've never been to NYC, so I didn't catch it.

        So instead of vague jabs at it being crappy writing, can anyone do better? (Remember folks, you have to make it look like it believably came from one camcorder tape)

        Let the games begin.
        "I've got vision up the butt, so just go with it!" - Dewey Finn, School of Rock

        Comment


        • Re: "Cloverfield"

          Well, I'd start off with a shower scene with Marlena...

          ... oh, nevermind. I like it as it is.
          "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

          My YouTube channel.

          Comment


          • Re: "Cloverfield"

            Originally posted by tabula rasa View Post
            But perhaps what you're impressed by is good Directing, not good Screenwriting.
            I think I was impressed by both. And I think both are inextricably linked in all movies. Good directing is storytelling. Good screenwriting is storytelling.

            I thought this was a well told (and shown) story, with authentic actions by the characters under the circumstances they were presented with. And consistent rules to the world. No groaner moments as far as character motivations for me. That's good storytelling (filmmaking) in my book.

            CLOVERFIELD is a very cool DIRECTOR'S movie, and a fun AUDIENCE and FAN movie.

            But c'mon, it's not a Writer's movie, and I'm assuming (and admit it's IMO) this is a Writer's website.
            Being a writer/director who has written several scripts over a decade, but has directed only one short film, I definitely have more experience as a writer. And the writer in me was impressed. (as was the director)

            For what it's worth, I think this movie's writing was very good in that its pacing, character development, emotional authenticity, character motivations, and emotional moments were all compelling (to me anyway). Also, the obstacles that the characters encountered, and the curiosity and tension that were created by the situations and timing rang true and compelling. (They weren't just startle moments or sensational effects like many of these types of flicks).

            I enjoyed it, we can all enjoy it, but as Writers don't we have to understand the DIFFERENCE between what we need to write on the page and what the Directors and CGI geniuses do ???
            And what are those differences? As a person who's written things on a page and then been the director on-set executing those words, I can tell you that filmmaking is an amorphous process. Where "writing" ends and "directing and acting" begins is a gray area. Perhaps it would be an interesting experiment for you to read Cloverfield and see what the writing is actually like.

            I agree. Except that I wouldn't even call it a "unique concept" ... I'd call it "another giant-monster-eats-city movie"
            But that's not the concept. The concept is that what the audience is watching is a "property-of-D.O.D. tape that was recovered from what used to be Central Park". It poses the central dramatic question - "What the fvck happened??"

            All those other monster movies you listed didn't have that concept. All those POV videos you listed didn't have that concept. The concept is unique.

            Anyway. There it is. My more-than-two cents.

            As you were.
            "I've got vision up the butt, so just go with it!" - Dewey Finn, School of Rock

            Comment


            • Re: "Cloverfield"

              Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
              Seriously, I'm not sure why this flick is being called on lack of character development when something like Knocked Off (where the only development was whichever way the improv went) gets a pass.

              There apparently was a good deal of improvisation going on here (I think that is fairly obvious without knowing that, anyway) so to me "Knocked Up" and "Cloverfield" are to a degree in that same category and the criticisms are valid (although I actually somewhat like "Cloverfield" versus not liking "Knocked Up", needless to say).


              Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
              Maybe I had an easier go with that aspect because I used to hang out in a scene like the characters did (before gianster attack), and they served as perfectly functional archetypes of that scene.

              So, you used to hang out on set of "The O.C.?"

              Comment


              • Re: "Cloverfield"

                Originally posted by j over View Post
                There apparently was a good deal of improvisation going on here (I think that is fairly obvious without knowing that, anyway) so to me "Knocked Up" and "Cloverfield" are to a degree in that same category and the criticisms are valid (although I actually somewhat like "Cloverfield" versus not liking "Knocked Up", needless to say).
                Well, actually I wasn't thinking of it that way, but that's a good point.

                Too bad a giant leathery foot didn't slam down and pulp Seth Rogen to jelly... might have made Knocked Up interesting.
                "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

                My YouTube channel.

                Comment


                • Re: "Cloverfield"

                  Originally posted by CutteRug View Post
                  ...
                  As a matter of fact, I'd like to issue a challenge to all the "writers" around here (seeing as how there are starting to be digs against the writing, saying the film's only merit is its gimmick)... Here's the challenge:

                  What would you have done differently within the restraints of the form (i.e. tape retrieved from a single camera during the attack) to make it better??

                  To make it more believable? More marketable? More compelling? More curiosity-raising? More emotionally authentic?
                  Since I posed that question/challenge myself, back on page 7 (post #66) and mentioned a few ideas in #55 too ... I'll repeat my passing thoughts I suggested there:

                  #66 ... Because ... okay, that's cool, that's just a difference I'd have, as a Writer, even if we all enjoyed it watching it as fans.

                  Can I ask (and maybe no one's interesting in answering, that's okay too; or maybe it's interesting to hear the Writer versus the Audience perspective?) how you WOULD change it, if you were each writing it?

                  Obviously, I'd feel the need to have someone "explain" the monster's origins (via TV exposition, or have Hud and the gang run into someone who can expound upon the monster somehow).

                  I'd cut out a good chunk of the "running scared" before they rescue Beth, and have more running scared AFTER they've rescued Beth (because I agree with you who say that the characters have a nice set up, that rescuing Beth is a nice romantic goal ... but when they get to her, it's late and she's too banged up.)

                  I'd have the chick who explodes explode sooner because I didn't like her at all -- and she wouldn't just explode behind a curtain, she'd be transforming into some sort of alien spawn they could talk to about why the alien's here. Which yes, everyone can say "Well, that's stoopid, and that's not how the Cloverfield writers wanted to do it, so go write yer own stoopid script and leave theirs alone etc --

                  I'd have Beth and the protagonist go out in an erotic blaze of glory, all star-crossed lovers grabbing at their last moments finally together ... instead of goin' out like punks under a bridge all whining about "Oh, why is this happening, we don't know?" because that was the exact frustrated and annoyed question the movie left ME asking too ...

                  Ah well. So, you're saying if you all had written CLOVERFIELD as a spec, you wouldn't have thought "I think this is too thin, on the page; I better flesh this out in the writing rather than trust that people will be satisfied with the cool CGI monsters." ???
                  Now, I gave those ideas about ten minutes' thought, when I wrote them before. So I'm not saying they're the final version I'd end up with, or that they're great ideas. But that was in about TEN MINUTES. And I think they dealt with YOUR questions:

                  To make it more believable?
                  I'd give the monster a clear origin: It's inter-dimensional and have some soldier comment that we ripped a hole in the Universe testing a new "war on terror" technology or something. Three or four throw-away lines: Boy, did WE frak it up now! etc.
                  More marketable?
                  I added PG-13 sex between the lovers.
                  More compelling?
                  I expanded the core "character" piece of the story by having them rescue Beth SOONER. More time between the lovers deepens the whole dilemma. If you praise it as a love story, I put more lovers in it.
                  More curiosity-raising?
                  Having the bit girl metamorphosing into an Alien they could TALK to? That's cool, imo. There's MUCH curiousity thrills there.
                  More emotionally authentic?
                  Again, expand the time the lovers have together. Maybe have them EACH confess their deeper emotions to the camera, knowing they're doomed, wanting to tell the world of their doomed love ... in the fragile time the world may have left.
                  Again, I'm not saying those are GREAT ideas, but they are a starting point. Took me a few minutes, and only really add 10 minutes to a SHORT feature movie, if you cut out some pointless scenes they used.

                  Anyone else? Maybe the jokers who scribble the sequel(s) need some help from ol' DD'ers!
                  sigpic
                  "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
                  that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
                  -Mahatma Gandhi.

                  Comment


                  • Re: "Cloverfield"

                    But we're ALLOWED to see films differently to the way the audiences see them.

                    For goodness sakes.

                    But don't forget where monsters really come from.

                    The nightmares of children.

                    Extracted by the storyteller, for the purpose of teaching them something.

                    Like Turramulli, the giant, who wakes in the wet season, and walks around calling WONK WONK WONK and eating every child who crosses his path. Of course, the lesson is, to stay close to your parents during the wet season.

                    For the purpose of survival.

                    But I think it's great that the film was enjoyed. It's encouraging for those who like to play with the medium. That audiences are open to it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: "Cloverfield"

                      To make it more believable?
                      I'd give the monster a clear origin: It's inter-dimensional and have some soldier comment that we ripped a hole in the Universe testing a new "war on terror" technology or something. Three or four throw-away lines: Boy, did WE frak it up now! etc.
                      More marketable?
                      I added PG-13 sex between the lovers.
                      More compelling?
                      I expanded the core "character" piece of the story by having them rescue Beth SOONER. More time between the lovers deepens the whole dilemma. If you praise it as a love story, I put more lovers in it.
                      More curiosity-raising?
                      Having the bit girl metamorphosing into an Alien they could TALK to? That's cool, imo. There's MUCH curiousity thrills there.
                      More emotionally authentic?
                      Again, expand the time the lovers have together. Maybe have them EACH confess their deeper emotions to the camera, knowing they're doomed, wanting to tell the world of their doomed love ... in the fragile time the world may have left.
                      Um... yeah. I'll take it like it is, thanks.
                      "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

                      My YouTube channel.

                      Comment


                      • Re: "Cloverfield"

                        Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                        Um... yeah. I'll take it like it is, thanks.
                        Um ... yeah ... and somehow I didn't exactly expect you'd have the WGAw minimum jingling in your pocket ready to buy it up anyway, Sig.

                        And of course, [makes extravagant public pantomime of rejection] there's a steeee-riiiike on too, comrade! I wasn't pitchin' Ol Debil! Don't be offerin' me money, Satan!

                        'We Write, They Wrong! We Write, They Wrong!'
                        sigpic
                        "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
                        that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
                        -Mahatma Gandhi.

                        Comment


                        • Totally Plausible?

                          Originally posted by CutteRug View Post
                          ...to say the monster was unbelievable?? I just don't understand that.

                          Before anyone jumps on me, let me be clear that of course, all of these monsters are technically unbelievable. Aliens with acid for blood? Re-booted dinosaurs from frog DNA? Giant city-thrashing monsters? They're all implausible. Some are given tons of explanation, some less, Cloverfield next to none, but. . .

                          The point of Cloverfield was that "we don't fvcking know anything about it - it's a fvcking surprise, and we haven't had any time to adjust!!" (see quotes such as "Whatever it is; it's winning" and "that's a terrible thing"). In this context, I think the filmmakers gave a very believable presentation of what it would actually be like to be in a city where a monster attacked. Real time. No time to adjust, figure out, have your curiosity satisfied, etc.

                          When people talk about "believability" they're often talking about having their intellectual curiosity satisfied about the reasons behind what they're seeing. They're not always talking about a believable portrayal of what is happening in this moment.

                          I think Cloverfield did a great job of creating a believable sequence of events. Not once did I groan at the actions of the characters when they were in the sh!t. Not once did I say to myself "awww, people would never do that!" It was believable.

                          And the monster itself was believable (at least as much as something otherworldy can be) because we didn't know jack sh!t about it! (And you wouldn't in that situation.) The monster's actions were totally plausible. At the end of the day, it merely acted like a frightened animal stuck in a strange environment, and being attacked by a bunch of small, annoying humans. Totally believable that a monster might do such things, and since nothing was known about its origin, how can one say that it was unbelievable??

                          As a matter of fact, I'd like to issue a challenge to all the "writers" around here (seeing as how there are starting to be digs against the writing, saying the film's only merit is its gimmick)... Here's the challenge:

                          What would you have done differently within the restraints of the form (i.e. tape retrieved from a single camera during the attack) to make it better??

                          To make it more believable? More marketable? More compelling? More curiosity-raising? More emotionally authentic?

                          Personally, I was awed by the mastery of the writing, so I will opt out of the challenge, except one thing I noticed during the film that rang false - that was that new cell phone batteries need to be charged for a few hours before you can use them. That's it....
                          Out of nowhere, something the size of a skyscraper pops up in New York Harbor! What is the natural depth of New York Harbor, (away from the ship channels, maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)? How large was the head of the Cloverfield monster?

                          How many Empire State Buildings are there left standing in that city, if one of them falls down?

                          A bomb dropped from an aircraft, (at least 500 pounds of explosive), detonates upon the monster's back; and, moments later, it leaps above the skyscrapers to attack a helicopter. And, no signs of any injuries, a short time later, in Central Park?

                          The Cloverfield monster is a biological fantasy with magical properties. It's Superman, ("...you know about Superman?"), without kryptonite. "It's still alive," after a nuclear explosion! Even the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man had his weaknesses.

                          And, CutteRug points out that cellphone batteries from the store rack need charging?

                          As I didn't see Lovecraft's name among the credits, I think that we might discount this monster as anything from the Cthulhu mythos, which I'd think would have offered some interesting speculations:

                          "These Great Old Ones, Castro continued, were not composed altogether of flesh and blood. They had shape -- for did not this star-fashioned image prove it? -- but that shape was not made of matter. When the stars were right, they could plunge from world to world through the sky; but when the stars were wrong, they could not live."
                          Frightened animal? I think that if the monster had shown some more intelligence, (instead of senseless rampage), such as did PREDATOR, the effect would have been more chilling than its indestructible nature.

                          The diminishing group from the party appeared jinxed for the number of times the monster appeared and went after them, (even if they were too stupid to leave the city). I'd expect these people to rush, past firemen, into a burning building to rescue their pet cat. Did you miss Rob Hawkins' rant to the military commander?

                          The Cloverfield monster, (an American shadow of Godzilla), struts and frets upon downtown Manhattan, as told on a camcorder by a bunch of idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
                          JEKYLL & CANADA (free .mp4 download @ Vimeo.com)

                          Comment


                          • Re: "Cloverfield"

                            Originally posted by tabula rasa View Post
                            Since I posed that question/challenge myself, back on page 7 (post #66) and mentioned a few ideas in #55 too ... I'll repeat my passing thoughts I suggested there:



                            Now, I gave those ideas about ten minutes' thought, when I wrote them before. So I'm not saying they're the final version I'd end up with, or that they're great ideas. But that was in about TEN MINUTES. And I think they dealt with YOUR questions:



                            Again, I'm not saying those are GREAT ideas, but they are a starting point. Took me a few minutes, and only really add 10 minutes to a SHORT feature movie, if you cut out some pointless scenes they used.

                            Anyone else? Maybe the jokers who scribble the sequel(s) need some help from ol' DD'ers!
                            Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                            Um... yeah. I'll take it like it is, thanks.
                            Tab: I disagree with every one of your proposals, even as starting points. Here's why:

                            The first idea, giving the monster a backstory, is about as bad an idea as giving the Grinch a backstory -- as Cutte or someone pointed out, doing that would destroy the immediate tension created by not knowing what it is or why it is here. The whole point was to tell a story from the POV of character(s) who don't know anything about what is attacking them save what they can see with their own eyes as it wreaks havoc. To provide info on the monster's origins would be irrelevant and destroy the central premise of the film.

                            Adding more sex might be titillating but does nothing to advance the plot or characters. I personally thought having Jessica Lucas run around in a skimpy sun dress and heels was titillating enough.

                            Having them rescue Beth sooner is a terrible idea -- the protag's external goal is to rescue her, having it occur too soon would derail the entire dramatic structure, reducing the remainder of the movie to a B-movie, people-running-away-from-monster plot -- unbearable. It is far more interesting to have a positive goal than a negative one. So having them rescue her at the climax of the movie was perfect because the protag had fulfilled his external goal.

                            The alien idea ... I don't see what purpose this would serve within the context of the film's creative goals (telling a story from a camera's POV). Again, we don't need to know more about the monster than what they see. And having one of the characters transform into an alien seems like a bad Star Trek episode. I wasn't even thrilled with having her "infected" as she was -- why can't it just be a big monster that eats people? The infected-by-the-monster bit has been done and redone, from dracula to invasion of the body snatchers to I Am Legend.

                            And your last point -- they did that at the end, just as they were about to die, making it more poignant, as Ele (or someone else) pointed out above (way above).

                            Comment


                            • Re: "Cloverfield"

                              Cloverfield represents "LAZY" writing to the fullest.
                              It seems everything JJ Abrams attaches himself too it must be full of lazy writing with no back story or any idea "why things happen".

                              Forget about the fact that a huge monster invades NY, forget about the fact that the greatest military force the world has ever known can't even slow it down. Just throw out a bunch of things when you do not have to quantify it at all....

                              This move was nothing more than an interesting idea that as poorly executed.

                              At least Blair Witch had an excuse..they had a budget of about $25,000. You should expect more for a major motion picture.

                              Sparks

                              Comment


                              • Re: "Cloverfield"

                                A few more points:

                                I'm convinced that this movie was envisioned as the first of several "Cloverfield" films -- a feature film "Lost". In that context, this movie can be seen as akin to a teaser trailer, in which the audience is given a tantalizing glimpse at the story -- but only a glimpse. It's just one piece of evidence that the authorities are sifting through to try and determine what they are dealing with -- a story that will be told in subsequent films, I'm sure. This, by its very nature, will disappoint moviegoers who expect to have all or most of the movie explained by its end.

                                And within the contraints of this idea -- a film told from the POV of what a camera recorded during the course of an attack on NYC -- Cloverfield was brilliant. The more I think about it, the more I appreciate what they did. The story was tight - the protagonist's dilemma becomes the external goal driving the main characters for the length of the movie. But the film also benefitted from this constrained POV, as it undoubtedly increased the intensity of the viewing experience.

                                I'm amazed that a film this daring could even be made. It has to be due to the clout of JJ Abrams, though having the success of Blair Witch Project as a precedent also probably helped to convince the studio to proceed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X