Comments on: Cloverfield http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/ I'm a biologist not a... Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:50:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: 10,000 BC Review :: Dammit Jim! http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-35782 10,000 BC Review :: Dammit Jim! Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:30:01 +0000 http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-35782 [...] another adventure in early morning cinema, we decided to go see 10,000 BC. I can report that there are definitely not large crowds in the [...] [...] another adventure in early morning cinema, we decided to go see 10,000 BC. I can report that there are definitely not large crowds in the [...]

]]> By: Rambo Review :: Dammit Jim! http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-29596 Rambo Review :: Dammit Jim! Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:22:24 +0000 http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-29596 [...] still don’t have a TV so the $5 Saturday AM movies are pretty attractive for us. It’s a little weird to be heading to the movies at 10 in the [...] [...] still don’t have a TV so the $5 Saturday AM movies are pretty attractive for us. It’s a little weird to be heading to the movies at 10 in the [...]

]]> By: Interesting Links (08-01-23) :: Dammit Jim! http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-27759 Interesting Links (08-01-23) :: Dammit Jim! Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:58:49 +0000 http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-27759 [...] having a TV. Definitely a less than B grade monster movie but it does provide a good comparison to Cloverfield. The story of Kim Jong-Il kidnapping the director and his wife and forcing them to make the thing [...] [...] having a TV. Definitely a less than B grade monster movie but it does provide a good comparison to Cloverfield. The story of Kim Jong-Il kidnapping the director and his wife and forcing them to make the thing [...]

]]> By: ScottS-M http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-26875 ScottS-M Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:04:57 +0000 http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-26875 Oh and apparently something <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq#.2.1.35" rel="nofollow">falls in the water</a> in the final Coney Island shot. I totally missed it. Oh and apparently something falls in the water in the final Coney Island shot. I totally missed it.

]]> By: ScottS-M http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-26872 ScottS-M Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:58:59 +0000 http://scott.sherrillmix.com/blog/reviewer/cloverfield/#comment-26872 So I really liked the movie. The plot seemed pretty strong throughout. I like how I never really had any idea what was going on. I was rooting for them to get away but it would have been sort of a let down if they did so the ending was good although I did stay through the credits to see if they were going to add any extra. There's a bit of static at the very end that I couldn't get anything out of but apparently if you <a href="http://boomp3.com/m/bd034dfca370" rel="nofollow">reverse it</a>, it says "It's still alive". The filming technique was unique to me (I never saw Blair Witch) and I really liked how you never got to look at the monsters. I think that's the way to do a monster movie rather than the gratuitous CGI they've had recently. To me, it was a bit disappointing to see the monster in the end (but certainly not as much of a let down as in Signs). Speaking of monsters it seems like most people are talking about two kinds of monsters; the giant indestructible monster and the little ax-killable ones. But I had actually thought there were at least two more types. First, the thing that took out the bridge looked like a big tentacle (with suckers?) and I didn't see a tentacle on the big one. And I thought the final one in the park didn't look big enough to be the guy that was crashing through sky scrapers. So I'd vote for 4 or more monster species myself. The movie kept me too busy during it so I didn't really start analyzing until afterward. But I started thinking that the references to 9/11 were a bit cheap but I think <a href="http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2008/01/cloverfield.html#comment-97817200" rel="nofollow">Wil</a> makes a good point that the movie is sort of like what Godzilla was to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sort of exploring memories through film or the director/writer's way of dealing with it. Anyway the movie definitely kept me entertained throughout and kept me thinking quite a while after (I even had a couple twinges as I was driving across a bridge on the way home) so it seems like that's all you can ask for in a movie. A good flick. So I really liked the movie. The plot seemed pretty strong throughout. I like how I never really had any idea what was going on. I was rooting for them to get away but it would have been sort of a let down if they did so the ending was good although I did stay through the credits to see if they were going to add any extra. There’s a bit of static at the very end that I couldn’t get anything out of but apparently if you reverse it, it says “It’s still alive”.

The filming technique was unique to me (I never saw Blair Witch) and I really liked how you never got to look at the monsters. I think that’s the way to do a monster movie rather than the gratuitous CGI they’ve had recently. To me, it was a bit disappointing to see the monster in the end (but certainly not as much of a let down as in Signs).

Speaking of monsters it seems like most people are talking about two kinds of monsters; the giant indestructible monster and the little ax-killable ones. But I had actually thought there were at least two more types. First, the thing that took out the bridge looked like a big tentacle (with suckers?) and I didn’t see a tentacle on the big one. And I thought the final one in the park didn’t look big enough to be the guy that was crashing through sky scrapers. So I’d vote for 4 or more monster species myself.

The movie kept me too busy during it so I didn’t really start analyzing until afterward. But I started thinking that the references to 9/11 were a bit cheap but I think Wil makes a good point that the movie is sort of like what Godzilla was to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sort of exploring memories through film or the director/writer’s way of dealing with it.

Anyway the movie definitely kept me entertained throughout and kept me thinking quite a while after (I even had a couple twinges as I was driving across a bridge on the way home) so it seems like that’s all you can ask for in a movie. A good flick.

]]>