Cloverfield

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.

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.

I agree with most of the comments I read, in that this film is definitely worth watching, BUT thought I'd mention a few things that others didn't.

The lack of a steady camera shot, even though it fits well with the plot, began to wear on me. I found myself relieved whenever the camera fell to the ground and gave the same view for a few seconds. It felt like I had on the wrong glasses - I was constantly trying to bring the scenes into focus and the continual motion, coupled with the random focus and quick glimpses of things I wanted to see clearly, made me feel stressed, strained and then annoyed.

Add to that the ending, which leaves so many issues dangling, and, overall, I found it very unsatisfactory.

Despite that I still gave it a 6. If you can handle triple rides on a roller-coaster then you'll probably really enjoy this film. If you get motion sickness easily then you may want to pause it every 10 minutes and focus on the wall!

I didn't have high hopes for this one, having read the reviews. Monster movie meets Blair Witch. But it's absolutely an OK flick.

Great effects and an extremely cool apocalyptic atmosphere. Definitely worth a watch.

Hand-held camera can be tiring, yes - but in this case, and combined with the great effects, it works.

The plot itself isn't exactly news, but as it's all seen from the antagonists point of view and with no further explanation, you really get that "what would I have done"-feeling.

Yes, we need explanations, but I really like that Abrams hasn't tried to tag on an ending explaining what happened.

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.