I rarely stake a claim to naming a worst movie, particularly so early in the movie season (it's January 21). But it just so happens that the first 2008 movie that I've seen this year, namely Cloverfield was so boring and dull for me that I had to force myself from walking out of it, something that doesn't happen too often. I really wasn't interested in seeing this movie from the time I first saw the trailer last month. But due to the number one box office results and the decent if not great critical reviews, I was curious if this Blair Witch Project (1999) wannabee could even approach that movie's realistic and almost claustrophobic intensity. Admittedly, I went into this movie knowing I wouldn't like it based on the deliberatively ambigious trailer, and I looked for stuff not to like and well...I found plenty of stuff to dislike. Briefly, the whole idea of a reality-show like hand-held video-cam wasn't convincing for me from the very start. The obvious attempt to make the picture being shot appear to be shot by an amateur was pretty lame to me, it was way overdone. [SPOILER ALERT] The very nature of the footage and knowing that it was (in the movie) salvaged by the U.S. government somehow actually distanced me from the action and significantly removed me from the emotions that appeared on the movie. I was never scared, I was never really part of the movie, it was like a disinterested member of the military looking for scientific clues as to what happened after the fact. There were a number of technical flaws that irritated me about the movie, again putting this movie even further from its reality-based presentation: (1) the almost immediate live-feed from the televised news report about the strange events of the night that was way too soon to be covered; (2) there was the use of the video-cam light to project light into a completely dark tunnel, except that the light wasn't used to light the way, it was used to light the backs of the people who likely couldn't see where they were going, (3) the improbability of the helicopter carrying our starring victims to be dropped fromt the sky and the only survivors as well (except there wouldn't be much of a story), (4) the pulling out of a metal rod that has been thrust into someone's body is against all medical advice as it likely would lead to quick death by loss of blood broken broken arteries, (5) the inexplicable poorly bandaged injured woman after an attack (one of only times I've seen such glaring injuries over-looked). The major problem of this movie was its very use and dependency on the one video-cam perspective because it became more about a family-home movie that wasn't edited, containing way too much trivial stuff and missing way too much more compelling and important scenes that would have made for a richer and more meaningful movie going experience. I really hope I don't come across a movie that worse than this one this year, because I will have to walk out of such a movie.

I loved it.

quote:

EricG75
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
Posted 21 January 2008 05:24 AM
I loved it.

-----
We want our film to be beautiful, not realistic.

What you experience as "beauty," I suppose in what I preceive the apparently and obviously "artificially" created chaotic and dizzlingly, shaking and almost incomprehensible confusion of the vidcam, I experienced only a script that attempts to pretend to be something its not. Unlike The Blair Witch Project which depends more on realism and simple straight-forward storytelling, Cloverfield depends more on special effects and overly trite camera angles that are passed off to be real and authentic to make the viewer believe the scene is real. The beauty of film is its ability to transport the audience into the world, not to distance it, to allow the viewer into the film not attempt to fake it into believing reality. Blair Witch was able to bring the fear and darkness into the blackened theater where every sound and shadow could be just inches from where you were sitting. We need to believe that what we are experiencing is something we can relate to, can feel, can associate with otherwise the beauty becomes only surface deep, a superficial experience that has no power nor ability to immerse the audience into the wonderful experience that is film.

I thought the technique was pretty effective in transporting the audience into the story. Comparing it to other "monster attack" movies, I was genuinely tense through most of the film, and at times actually scared. I think The Blair Witch Project was probably the last time I experienced that in a theater. I think it helped that the visual and storytelling style wasn't something we'd seen a million times before.

quote:

EricG75
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
Posted 21 January 2008 03:37 PM Hide Post
I thought the technique was pretty effective in transporting the audience into the story. Comparing it to other "monster attack" movies, I was genuinely tense through most of the film, and at times actually scared. I think The Blair Witch Project was probably the last time I experienced that in a theater. I think it helped that the visual and storytelling style wasn't something we'd seen a million times before.

I must be from the realism school of film (whatever that is) and the one movie that really pulled me in, in addition, to Blair Witch was the sharp, heavily polished movie that attempted to introduce the audience members to virtual reality (which by the way is the future of the medium) namely, Natalie Wood's very last movie, Brainstorm 1983 released a quarter of a century ago. In this movie the director's objective was to blur the distinction between film and reality and to eliminate the distinction. True story telling is edited and focused on the meaningful bits of experience. Unfortunately for me, Cloverfield was too scripted, predictable, and unreal for me to be scared or interested in what was going on. The best shot of the movie was the last shot and unfortunately, the poor build-up for me wasn't worth the ultimate but emotionally compelling surprised ending. For the record, the last shot of this movie was almost comparable to my experience when I was stunned by the last shot of the original Planet of the Apes that lit up the screen 40 years ago in 1968.

I'd add to other criticisms of Cloverfield that it was too obviously a 9/11 movie without any clearer indication of its political take on that topic--half the visual references in the film tritely cited 9/11 video footage. Was the not-too-scary monster supposed to be a very large Arab bomber? Do images now have such a hypnotic grip on us that we are expected to be scared by allusions to earlier media images without knowing what the point is? To other judgments, I'd add: Worst 9/11 film. It didn't even seem to have convincing remorse about wrecking New York.

I will have to agree that Cloverfield was a terrible movie in my opinion. I thought the movie was very short and I would not recommend in to anyone. I do not think the movie had enough in it. It seemed very boring to me. At first I did not like the idea of the camera the way it was, but after the movie I thought it was kind of humorous. I am not sure what other movies coming out later this year could be worse than the movie Cloverfield, but I would have to say none of them would come close.

This was one of the better movies that I have seen all year. Even though most people did not care for it, it was phenomenal. I especially liked the first person camera view because it was more lifelike. Most people did not like it because it was different, different than the average camera shot. There is so much creativity put behind this movie that it is unbelievable. Yes, the camera is shaky but that is what makes the movie much more believable. After watching through what appeared to me as the video camera I found myself more into the movie. As if I was really there and I had the tendency to flinch and jump once in a while. Overall it was a great movie. It was a little short but I am Legend and Rambo are too. This is like the Blair Witch project mixed with Godzilla. Only recommend seeing though if you enjoy sci-fi movies and movies like Godzilla.And the worst movie of 2008 was Meet the Spartans. That was a movie that should have never ever ever ever come out and should have been in the movie theaters.

quote:

RvFlores Slacker
Posted 22 February 2008 05:49 PM

This was one of the better movies that I have seen all year. Even though most people did not care for it, it was phenomenal. I especially liked the first person camera view because it was more lifelike. Most people did not like it because it was different, different than the average camera shot. There is so much creativity put behind this movie that it is unbelievable. Yes, the camera is shaky but that is what makes the movie much more believable. After watching through what appeared to me as the video camera I found myself more into the movie. As if I was really there and I had the tendency to flinch and jump once in a while. Overall it was a great movie. It was a little short but I am Legend and Rambo are too. This is like the Blair Witch project mixed with Godzilla. Only recommend seeing though if you enjoy sci-fi movies and movies like Godzilla.And the worst movie of 2008 was Meet the Spartans. That was a movie that should have never ever ever ever come out and should have been in the movie theaters.

From my first and original post on this thread, it's pretty obvious I would disagree that this is "one of the better movies" this year, but I wouldn't go so far that "most people did not care for it." It did very well on its first weekend and there were a number of positive comments about this movie (however bewildering to me). You just need to look at the rating on IMDb - a very high 7.9. I think you are in pretty good company.

I too enjoyed The Blair Witch Project (1999) and its pseudo-documentary, hand-held camera style. I would assume with both would agree that the authenticity and you are there experience was one of the amazing features of this movie. But I disagree with you on the compelling authenticity of the same use of the hand-held camera work in Cloverfield - for me it didn't work...it was so obviously and deliberately shot in a way as to simulate a real video experience as to make it a terrible experience for me. It wasn't the hand-held technique that was the problem, it was the deliberate use of the exaggeration of the hand-held shots that immediately threw me out of the reality of the movie experience. There were too many self-imposed decisions to make the camera angles and shots look authentic but were actually imposed that made me shrink back at this movie. Like in the old melodrama, everything was exaggerated, the facial features, the hand movements. In Cloverfield, the same exaggerated behavior occurred as in the old silent movies but instead the exaggerated behavior was with the camera itself, not the acting.

haven't seen it, but the previews looked god awful. i'd expect more from the lost dude

I thought it was mediocre. Cloverfield had some good special effects and was entertaining (at least I thought so). But the film lacked any real substance and was little more than a Godzilla movie with a camera gimmick. Hard to hate it though, unless it made you motion sick...

not bad at all. . there are some good scenes in the movie. .

Am I the only one who thinks that the monster in Cloverfield suffered from "CGI Gollum" syndrome? That's when a CGI character gives off the impression of being made of invulnerable rubber... you can knock them around, but you can't blemish them, and it ruins the reality of the film. Honestly, the thing was bombarded by a B2 and never suffered a wound. If I stomped around on a village of 4-inch people and they were tossing hundreds of cherry bombs at me, I'd probably get pretty hurt.

Then again, a movie based off of Japanese conventions perhaps should also suffer from stupid Japanese notions of metaphysics. On that note, go read the premise of the Japanese Manga for Cloverfield... makes the movie sound brilliant.

quote:

Terror Slacker
Posted 31 March 2008 12:22 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that the monster in Cloverfield suffered from "CGI Gollum" syndrome? That's when a CGI character gives off the impression of being made of invulnerable rubber... you can knock them around, but you can't blemish them, and it ruins the reality of the film. Honestly, the thing was bombarded by a B2 and never suffered a wound. If I stomped around on a village of 4-inch people and they were tossing hundreds of cherry bombs at me, I'd probably get pretty hurt.

Then again, a movie based off of Japanese conventions perhaps should also suffer from stupid Japanese notions of metaphysics. On that note, go read the premise of the Japanese Manga for Cloverfield... makes the movie sound brilliant.

Add my vote. It's amazing that I overlooked your point. I guess I was too caught up with all the other stuff that I had problems with with the movie.

I really enjoyed Cloverfield. The whole Godzilla crossed Blairwitch style immersed me into the film totally.

I will agree there are some things that were annoying, particularly the fact that the monster attacked the helicopter in mid air (the monster was frickin far away, and it had just been bombed, I mean come on!) let alone the fact that they survived the crash, and then the monster specifically focuses on the guy with the camera in Central Park, GEEZ! It’s like the damn monster had a personal grudge against the main characters.

If I was going to dub anything worst film of 08 it would have to be Jumper. GOD it was crap.

quote:

Originally posted by El J'Shed:
...and then the monster specifically focuses on the guy with the camera in Central Park, GEEZ! It’s like the damn monster had a personal grudge against the main characters.

I dunno. I think it'd end up being pretty boring if it was shot "for real" and the monster went after people waaaaaaay off in the distance and was completely outta focus.

I should add that I haven't seen it... yet, but I'm not really into "reality shows". I couldn't stand "The Blair Witch Project" and in spite of my love for monster/disaster films, I'm wary of this one.

I indeed enjoy it, as an entertainment movie.

Hi.

Of course it's not the worst of the year.

Spoilers

First it's got a great premise; unlike the traditional rampaging monster film were you're getting a nice overview of proceedings, in this your just one of the panicking citizens without a clue what's going on.

There was some humour & adequate CGI and a couple of genuinely memorable moments. The Statue of Liberty head bouncing down a street is instant movie icon imo.

It worked.

I think the biggest problem this film had was being hyped to within an inch of it's life.



I'm a great believer that if your going to play the technical inaccuracy card you should take care to be accurate yourself

1.If a news chopper got some footage of what was happening would they wait until Sex is in the City was finished before going to the news room?

2.It was night vision not a light.

3.Improbible??? it's a monster movie!

4.Only against medical advice when there's an alternative. Given the option was lift her up or leave her to get bombed, eaten, buried or hypothermia, they did the right thing And..It's a monster movie.

sure, it wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible. it was just a big, dumb, action movie trying to pass itself off as something artsier. i can't like it, but i can't hate it either. besides, have you seen semi-pro?

btw, EricG75's quote about the film being beautiful not realistic is quote from a band called Of Montreal. the song is called The Past Is A Grotesque Animal. he wasn't actually referring to the movie

Great flick! Hope the sequel is just as good.