2008 Woodie Awards
'Cloverfield's' hyped-up monster is finally unleashed on moviegoers
Libby Segal
Issue date: 1/24/08 Section: Entertainment
01/24/08 - After months of hype for the release of J.J. Abrams' "Cloverfield," fans finally rushed to see it. I rarely go see a movie on the day it's released, but my work friends insisted that this was going to be "awesome." Up until two weeks ago, I actually had no idea that people were hyping the movie so much.
I attended an episode of "Total Request Live" where the workers asked several studio audience members to attend a private showing of the movie in New York. When I got home and explained to my mom that MTV was sending their audience to go see the movie, she wasn't nearly as surprised as I was. She explained to me that people have been researching the movie for months desperately trying to interpret codes and learn what the monster was going to look like.
Without spoiling anything I will say it looks like no other monster I have ever seen. Whether it was a disappointment or a thrill… well I guess you would have to ask someone who is really into art and graphics, because to me a monster is a monster.
I was most disappointed in the background information about the monster. With all the excitement over its appearance, one would think that some information about the monster would be released in the movie as well. But here Abrams provides us with none of the key "W"'s: Where did this monster come from? When did it arrive? Why is it here?
I guess Abrams was partially trying to go for this angle, seeing as the movie is from a citizen's point of view. But I would rather know the "W"'s than wonder. I understand that this was probably harder to detail into the movie because of the way the film was shot -with one hand-held camera- but I still think it was necessary.
At least in "Jurassic Park" we have a scientist to explain the ins and outs of the dinosaurs (which were probably more scary than the monster in this film, seeing as my friend laughed at the monster every time he saw it).
My next words on this movie are: If you are going to attend this movie preparing yourself for a horror flick, don't. Go into this movie planning to see a comic-sci-fi/ adventurous-action-romance.
Going through each scene is like stepping through a minefield- you never know what surprises await. With all the hype about the monster I thought I would be waiting until the last moment of the movie to see it, but you see it within the first 45 minutes, and a full-on close-up comes approximately 10 minutes before the movie's end.
The character holding the camera is actually the most interesting character as he drops comical lines here and there to keep the audience feeling light and relaxed.
Soon enough, however, that laugh will be broken up by something diving towards the screen sending the audience back into their seats.
Lastly, underneath all the action lies a romantic plotline that Abrams seemed to have added to help the emotional attachment between the audience and the characters in the movie. Without the romantic plot line, the movie would just have a big monster attacking a big city - and we really don't need another "Godzilla."
I attended an episode of "Total Request Live" where the workers asked several studio audience members to attend a private showing of the movie in New York. When I got home and explained to my mom that MTV was sending their audience to go see the movie, she wasn't nearly as surprised as I was. She explained to me that people have been researching the movie for months desperately trying to interpret codes and learn what the monster was going to look like.
Without spoiling anything I will say it looks like no other monster I have ever seen. Whether it was a disappointment or a thrill… well I guess you would have to ask someone who is really into art and graphics, because to me a monster is a monster.
I was most disappointed in the background information about the monster. With all the excitement over its appearance, one would think that some information about the monster would be released in the movie as well. But here Abrams provides us with none of the key "W"'s: Where did this monster come from? When did it arrive? Why is it here?
I guess Abrams was partially trying to go for this angle, seeing as the movie is from a citizen's point of view. But I would rather know the "W"'s than wonder. I understand that this was probably harder to detail into the movie because of the way the film was shot -with one hand-held camera- but I still think it was necessary.
At least in "Jurassic Park" we have a scientist to explain the ins and outs of the dinosaurs (which were probably more scary than the monster in this film, seeing as my friend laughed at the monster every time he saw it).
My next words on this movie are: If you are going to attend this movie preparing yourself for a horror flick, don't. Go into this movie planning to see a comic-sci-fi/ adventurous-action-romance.
Going through each scene is like stepping through a minefield- you never know what surprises await. With all the hype about the monster I thought I would be waiting until the last moment of the movie to see it, but you see it within the first 45 minutes, and a full-on close-up comes approximately 10 minutes before the movie's end.
The character holding the camera is actually the most interesting character as he drops comical lines here and there to keep the audience feeling light and relaxed.
Soon enough, however, that laugh will be broken up by something diving towards the screen sending the audience back into their seats.
Lastly, underneath all the action lies a romantic plotline that Abrams seemed to have added to help the emotional attachment between the audience and the characters in the movie. Without the romantic plot line, the movie would just have a big monster attacking a big city - and we really don't need another "Godzilla."