Cloverfield

I can remember back months before this movie came out, watching the teaser trailer for this film for the first time. The sense of foreboding and mystery I felt watching the trailer was the same as when I watched the film in the theater. It is an excellently-made movie.

Although it starts off a little slow (with introducing the characters and their relationships), when the action kicks in, it doesn't stop. There are maybe 6-7 minutes where there is not some kind of thrilling event happening. The relationship between the characters Rob and Beth is palpable, as is the chemistry between all the actors.

Pros: -Many thrills -Surprisingly good acting for a 'no-name' cast -Great story -Convincing special effects

Cons: -The shaky camera may be nauseating to some people -The acting in some scenes could be a little better -If you are someone who likes for all the loose ends to be tied up at the end, this is not for you

Overall, I give this movie 8 out of 10 stars. I love it, and it is in my top 10 favorite movies. It always will be. I highly recommend watching this on a large screen, with the sound turned up loud for maximum enjoyment.

When some New Yorkers are celebrating a leaving party the ground starts to shake , with blowing up happening anywhere . They decide to abandon the flat when a monster terrorizes the Great Apple , breaking buildings , and every to get in its ways. Various characters cross paths with the giant beast, and they attempt to escape along with a young carrying a hand-held video camera.

This eerie tale is plenty of thrills, chills, restless horror and suspense . Film itself takes place from point of sight of a cameraman , with camera over shoulders , displaying a documentary style filmed by photographer Michael Bonvilliam . In fact , during the first weekend of the release, many theaters posted signs warning guests that the hand held camera movements may cause motion sickness . The title "Cloverfield"; initially just a codename for the movie, is named for the boulevard in Santa Monica where the Bad Robot offices were located during the making of the film . Good but unknown cast as Michael Sthal , Jessica Lucas, Odette Yusman , Michael Vogel, among others . Well worth watching if you appeal shaky cameras , such as : ¨Blair witch project¨, ¨28 days/ Weeks after¨ or the classic Italian ¨Holocaust cannibal¨; and recently ¨Rec (2007)¨ by Paco Plaza and Jaume Balaguero and its American remake ¨Quarintine (2008)¨ by John Erik . The flick is a crossover between Gozilla picture , catastrophe genre and documentary with Steadicam camera . Lavishly produced by J.J.Abrams (Lost, Star Trek) and Bryan Burk with excellent special effects and monsters made by Phill Tippet studio . The motion picture picture was professionally directed by Matt Reeves . He's a writer, producer (Yards) and director for television (Felicity) and eventually for cinema ; furthermore , usual collaborator of J.J. Abrams . Rating : Interesing and spectacular , above average.

So, I went to a 5PM showing of Cloverfield today. It was pretty good. I found the characters to be very human and developed quite nicely over the course of the story. The special effects were excellent, with quite a few "oh $#!@" moments.

Be warned: If Blair Witch Project made you nauseous, then I don't recommend Cloverfield. The *entire* movie is filmed in the "handy-cam" style of the trailer - but in my opinion, it works better here than in Blair Witch. It helped draw you into the movie and make you feel like you were in it, and it made the CGI more convincing.

Very intense film.

It was nice to finally watch movie that didn't seem like anything I'd ever seen before. This, much like Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" and "Children of Men", completely immerses you in this incredible situation with absolutely no knowledge to comfort you. It's very disorienting, which adds to the experience; you never figure out what the hell is going on but you're so into survival that you put it past you. You're placed with a bunch of characters whom you get to know and eventually must join in their frenzied search for a friend while being subjected to some horrifying imagery and new threats.

The effects look great and realistic thanks to the hand-held camera, which isn't too bad-looking if you manage to get a seat further from the screen. The filmmakers came up with some really great creature designs that were menacing yet very much original. If you're bound to be upset over seeing a movie with a lack of music, then stay for the credits, during which a fantastic suite of music composed by Michael Giacchino titled "Roar! (Cloverfield Theme)" plays.

All in all, a fantastic time at the movies. A little more background on the monster would be nice, though the absence of this information is intentional. Everyone in the theater was rooting for a sequel; maybe a second set of footage is found elsewhere? Or perhaps there is more the the viral marketing -- what exactly were Slusho and Tagruato? Also be prepared to suspend some disbelief, but considering the movie is about a monster destroying New York City, that shouldn't be too difficult.

Sometimes the idea of a movie can transform the experience of watching it, and sometimes only on remembering it. The challenge is to have ideas that are not only clever and appear so, but which actually make good, effective films that matter.

I went into this thinking that it would be an evolution of "Transformers." That film worked for me, and worked in ways that were beyond anything I had seen. Sure the story was dumb and the very idea of the robots was childish. But the way the film was put together was a bit astonishing. In old movies, if there was a monster destroying a building, well then you saw the building being destroyed as if you were a placid god in the sky somewhere. With Transformers, you never really saw things this way. You saw them as if you were an observer threatened by and involved in the action. You were running, avoiding, occasionally glancing and sometimes accidentally seeing part of what was happening.

It was new, marvelous. But we always knew the cameras were not associated with humans, at least not the ones on screen. The idea was to trick us into adopting the disembodied cameras we always accepted and allowed us, the audience to be threatened, to be there.

Now this. Some of the effects are the same. At least in the beginning of the disaster, we only partially see what is happening. And there are many times when the camera is unsteady. But I got the impression that although the camera was handled by a panicked character, we always saw more than he would have. The camera was always where we would have wanted it, arranged to increase the dramatic effect.

Transformers was silly and we could assault it. Cloverfield was supposedly real and it assaulted us. That makes the deliberation of camera a whole different thing. Its control is external to what's happening. We do realize this without thinking about it, and it diffuses the terror and changes it to spectacle. This folding technique only works when you have the commitment of the audience. They thought they would get it with the teen soap opera at the beginning. Didn't work for me.

It would have worked better if she hadn't ASKED to be rescued.

Nice bridge though.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.