It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
27 Dresses cracked the 3K theater count, but all signs are pointing to Cloverfield being a monster (ha!). $10 million seems high. The other question is… How much is Cloverfield biting out of 27 Dresses (I made another funny!)?
I am trying my best to get my friends to see one of the many great movies playing in Toronto this weekend (4 Months, Persepolis, There Will Be Blood, etc, etc), but I am fighting against an unstoppable tide of CLOVERFIELD. Boo. However, I will be seeing the 400+ minute cut of Sergei Bondarchuk’s War & Peace at the Cinematheque on Sunday, so I’ll get my movie fix then instead.
The only movie I’ll probably see this weekend is There Will Be Blood, though my wife has stated quite clearly that she has no interest in seeing it (nor the football game on Sunday for that matter, which is what I’m most looking forward to watching this weekend).
I’m sucker for romantic comedies, but 27 Dresses’ trailer was really bad (not funny is bad for a comedy).
DP,
Your hatred for CLOVER is coloring your better judgement. If those heading to theaters this weekend rely on reviews, they’ll see that it has a much better FRESH percentage on RT.
And as for the picture’s “short” legs, what are you basing that on? Name a title that could steal the 18-25 demo away next week? RAMBO? UNTRACEABLE? Unlikely.
CLOVER has the field until THE EYE, and even Alba might not make much of a dent in its armor (what did AWAKE open to?)
Kambei,
My memory of War and Peace was that it went on soooo loooong that it was split over TWO weekend sessions (Sat & Sun both times). And my Lordy was it boring. The scale is impressive, but it was the equivalent of the first two Harry Potter movies… put EVERYTHING up on screen.
The Cloverfield audience is probably not going to care about reviews and percentages. Also, I think Rambo is going to do better than anyone suspects.
Rambo will be an unmitigated piece of garbage, no question. But when I saw the R-rated trailer where he cuts the guy’s head off with one stroke…”I’m there.”
Name a title that could steal the 18-25 demo away next week
Meet the Spartans.
I wish it were not so. I hope to be wrong. But Epic Movie did ridiculously well this time last year.
I caught TWBB today as it expanded to Charlotte, N.C. Interestingly, it got a pretty big crowd for the first showing, starting around noon. It’s only playing at one theater in the city. I was looking for walkouts since I had read here something like “There will be walkouts.” Just two. It seemed to play well to this particular audience. Granted, the first showing was probably die-hard PTA fans, but still promising.
I saw Cloverfield.
Just as awful as i’d been told. I’m with Dave on this one.
It wasn’t so bad that it pissed me off, but it really is one of the most poorly written, terribly cast, and hilariously acted piece of nonsense i’d seen.
It’s a movie that revels in a concept and has nothing to offer. No drama. No scares. Not a character worth giving a damn about.
The way they did the monster shots was cool. But that accounts for about ten percent of the movie. This is the kind of film you could spend hours talking about with friends, dissecting the strange nuances Matt Reeves through in there. Like any cinematic experiment, there’s a pass/fail sort of feeling, so i think we’ll be seeing very different reviews.
Final two paragraphs of John Wells’s official reply to the DGA deal:
While the DGA richly deserves our thanks and appreciation for negotiating a terrific deal that will serve as a template for all three creative Guilds, none of this would have been possible without the blood, sweat and sacrifice of WGA members during this very effective strike. The Companies made a deal they didn’t want to make because of our resolve. They clearly understood how important these issues were for our members and stepped up to resolve them.
Our Negotiating Committee has numerous issues that are specific to writers that must still be resolved with the AMPTP: the term of our next contract, pension and health issues, separated rights on new media, and jurisdiction for material written for derivatives that will not be filmed (show blogs, web-only stories, etc). But this is a historic deal. We’ve won. The strike was necessary to win it and I can only assume our Negotiating Committee will be sitting down with the AMPTP by early next week to resolve these last, final issues.
It’s a very good day for all of us.
Sounds like the beginning of the end. Nice quotes from J. Wells.
i am weirded out by the perception of the DGA deal. Every industry guy i know has basically said “the WGA really took it up the ass on this one”
Well I don’t pretend to know whether it’s a good or bad deal, but here are some other tidbits from Wells:
“I think the DGA deal is good. Very good. For writers, for directors, for the future”.
“This is a huge, historic victory for everyone.” (re: DVD)
“Unbelievable.” (re: some % they got on something)
“This is another big win for all of us.” (re online rentals)
” This is another extraordinary aspect of this deal and a cause for celebration.” (re financial reporting of the studio books)
If people are hearing gripes, and Wells sounds this enthusiastic, wtf?
Gripes are by gripers. I think Poland’s views on this are spot on.
I love that Rotten Tomatoes exists… but no one is seeing movies based on that site anymore than they are on the say so of individual critics.
There will be some Cloverfield lovers. A $30m or $35m weekend still leads to a highly profitable film for Paramount… even if the price tag is only 60% of what they really spent. You’re not going to see long legs… but you’re not going to see less than 2.5 times opening either.
As for the strike… Wells is taking the “WGA made it happen position.” I don’t disapprove. Not sure it is as clear as that sales pitch – especially that the strike was key – but hey, history is written by the victors… or in this case, the non-losers.
Caught up with “Cloverfield” this afternoon since I missed Tuesday’s promo due to a flight delay in Atlanta (long, boring story).
For such a buzzed about fanboy flick, there was a curiously small crowd in attendance–5; all guys. I’ll be curious to see how it performed nationally on opening day.
I liked it OK (the 73-minute-sans-end-credits-running-time felt just about perfect to me), but told my screening companion that mainstream audiences would probably hate it. From the email I’ve received from readers so far, that seems to be the case. (One wrote that she wanted to ask for her money back–and she saw it for free at the theater she works at. Ouch!)
I’m thinking Dave may be right about wobbly “Cloverfield” legs. “27 Dresses” on the other hand looks like it could do sustained biz thanks to positive w.o.m. from a slightly wider demographic.
Did anyone catch the trailer for Uwe Boll’s “Postal” attached to prints of Uwe’s “In the Name of the King”? Yowza!
I saw Cloverfield earlier as well. Didn’t hate it nearly as much as Poland did. I hated everything to do with the characters and their lousy story arc, but the monster half of the movie was fine, entertaining, nicely unresolved and chaotic, etc. Too bad the filmmakers felt it necessary to pander to that part of the audience that loves young, attractive people and their foibles. I’m assuming the sequel will be Mole Men Vs. the cast of The Hills.
Jeffmcm, perhaps you’d prefer the cast of The Hills in Hostel 3?
Maybe this is just ignornace/naivete on my part, but:
(1) Isn’t MAD MONEY more likely to cannibalize 27 DRESSES than CLOVERFIELD?
(2) CLOVERFIELD looked akin to a SNAKES ON A PLANE phenomenon, even with the pan-Viacom advertising; ultimately, I thought it looked like it wouldn’t have a lot of reach outside of the folks worked up by the months of viral marketing.
Granted, I’ve not seen the tracking, but this is just my observations. Moreover, I think the aforementioned suggestion of CLOVERFIELD having legs is mightily weak, if not downright laughable. 50-60% drop-off in weekend two, if not 70% …
Oh, and speaking of RAMBO, Paramount Vantage has supposedly attached the SON OF RAMBOW trailer to it. I mean, the connection is there (obviously), but really, how much of the RAMBO audience will crossover into a foreign, platform released family film audience?
Laz, the girl who survives Hostel 2 pretty much was one of them already.
Oh, SPOILER as if anyone cares.
So I’m hearing the best part of Cloverfield is basically the danger room sequence in Xmen3?
I liked TWBB… but was thrown out of 1911 right away during DDL’s first “ladies and gentlemen” closeup… I don’t think dudes back then had big ole earring holes in their right ears. Why go to so much trouble getting the period details right but leave something glaringly out of place on the leading man?
If the fact that he has earrings in real life (which you’ve seen in a few too many interviews, and are unable to NOT notice, especially in this film), actually “throws you off” — then you really have no business commenting on TWBB. Sorry dude.
Now, the larger question is the following: are Hal Holbrook and Tom Wilkinson going to earn best supporting noms, and if not someone tell me why.
I will never ever get why Cloverfield has such a REPUGNANT cast to the general public. Maybe Goddard figured that people would hope the yuppies would die? If not that, then I am at a lost for words as to why this movie is peppered with such a cast. Do not even get me started on the whole Peter Criss part of this movie. It’s goofy as freakin hell.
Great news: Turner Classic Movies is airing Killer of Sheep on Monday at 8pm EST as part of an MLK jr day festival.
Honestly, I loved the film. Certain things here and there that bugged me but never faultered my enjoyment of it.
For those that are saying their beef is that it’s “good looking Yuppies running around”… it says more about you than anything else.
It’s a MOVIE. Was “Star Wars” less affective because Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill were good looking? Was it so wrong that I wanted to have relations with Princess Leia?
Their looks or status didn’t matter– it was their plight.
The one brilliant thing I can say about the film is that everyone can identify with wanting to find the one person they realy care about during a tramatic event. That’s what makes us follow the Rob character and his friends along with him.
Star Wars didn’t have the pretense of realism that this film does.
Did anyone catch the trailer for Uwe Boll’s “Postal” attached to prints of Uwe’s “In the Name of the King”?
NO! Dammit, I got screwed!
Looks like it’s up at apple.com though.
I thought Cloverfield was a really intense, super-fun ride. I had a whole lot of fun with it. I’m not sure I would exactly recommend it highly as a “film”, but as a theater going experience it’s top notch in my eyes. The crowd I saw it with (geeks..it was a screening promoted by a local comic book shop on Thursday) ate it up, cheered and clapped and the buzz afterwards was palpable. The “geek 8” is secure at least.
Friday numbers from Fantasy Moguls:
CLOVERFIELD: $18.25 million
27 DRESSES: $8.65 million
So much for either movie having a huge adverse effect on the other’s performance.
Bart,
You beat me to it – amazing numbers for both movies. Wow, there must REALLY be an appettite for apocalyptic horror, right now. Does this mean that J.J. Abrams is really a brand name, now? Not sure about the one, but Paremount has to be very proud of how they marketed this one. It’s going to drop fast, I mean really fast, like 8 Mile or The Village – so we’re looking at like $115 million, which is still amazing for a January horror release.
27 Dresses – that is really impressive, romantic comedies starring Julia Roberts, Drew Barrymore, or Reese Witherspoon have not opened that big in years. Heigl has to get some credit – wonder if this really is a Gray’s Anatomy thing, I guess we’ll see how Patrick Dempsey’s romantic comedy opens in a few months.
I think this also means it is finally time to put James Marsden above the title – he’s on a hot streak, with Hairspray and Enchanted. After the big grosses of the X Men films, I think comparisons to Orlando Bloom could be quite apt – the guy just knows how to be a part of hits.
But if he plays his cards right, he could be the new….sigh…..Mathew McConnaghey, a male draw that does better with the ladies and as the romantic foil. I sigh sarcastically about this, because I think it’s been a kick to watch McConnaghey to have the kind of career that is typically geared to mediocre pretty young actresses named Jesssica or Katie – just the window dressing to match up with the real lead in romantic comedies. But hey, it’s the guy’s niche and he does well at it, so why fault him?
I think Marsden is actually a better actor, but I doubt he would complain with that kind of career.
One thing I forgot to mention – Cloverfield breaking that January record cannot be minimized, it was ten years old! And when you take in the context of what a singular phenomenon the Star Wars re-release was, it’s even more impressive. Really as impressive as any of the big openings from last year – though what I am Legend and 300 pulled off was pretty close, too.
I’m hoping the strong January opening is a sign to studios that there isn’t necessarily a bad time of the year to release a movie. I could really do with there being more movies released in January – March and September that I can get excited about.
Nicol’s Cloverfield review. Saw it last night.
See young pretty rich people talk.
See young pretty rich people run.
See young pretty rich people die.
All in all. Lame.
Bring some Dramamine.
“I love that Rotten Tomatoes exists… but no one is seeing movies based on that site anymore than they are on the say so of individual critics.”
I have at least two friends who check a movie’s RT rating before deciding to see it. One of them is adamant about not seeing a movie with a rating 50% or less. Just saying, they’re out there, for better or worse.
I use RT all the time. I’ll often disagree with an individual critic, but I rarely do when something is up around 80 or 90. It’s not a lock, but there is safety in numbers.
An aside: Who is this Jim that John Wells wrote his fictional email response to? Or who was it in John’s mind?
Nicol, I’m glad we essentially agree on Cloverfield. One question: years ago before you became a Conservative, were you a hardcore Marxist?
As a young pretty person, I could identify with the characters in Cloverfield.
Anyway, Cloverfield is the most intense movie experience I’ve had in a very, very long time. It met my expectations and then some. Really a remarkable piece of work. Never a boring moment.
Cloverfield sucked.
“…years ago before you became a Conservative, were you a hardcore Marxist?”
No. I always recognized the philosophy as essentially contradictory and flawed in execution. I thank Mr. McCabe’s economics class for that.
When I came out of Cloverfield I thought it was okay…not awful not great. The more I think about it the worse it sits with me.
This is a film that will play horribly on home video where most do not have the home theatre systems to at least have the audio portion that let’s the monster’s presence be known.
I was very disappointed.
I only ask because of how you mentioned the kids as being rich. To my mind, their being vapid and good-looking is more objectionable, they don’t seem particularly ‘rich’ to me (upper middle class, sure, with an apartment in the same building that the cast of Friends lived in).
No big deal.
I said they were young, pretty and rich.
I figured the vapid was just implied. The openning party looked like a Dewar’s Ad.
Why does it matter that the cast was attractive and had money? And they weren’t dull at all. They seemed like real enough people to me.
The first 15 minutes, before the attack happens, were torture for me. I disliked everyone.
Yeah, those young people are just terrible, being, you know, YOUNG!!!! OMGZZZ!!!
The mere fact of their age had nothing to do with it. It was that they were vapid and boring and interested in petty junior-high crap and self-absorbed.
That’s a nice elitist attitude you got there.
I didn’t see anything of the sort. So Rob didn’t want to see the girl he likes with another guy, and his friends and family are concerned. What self-absorbed pricks!
Brack; a lot of people are not fond of watching pretty young rich people doing anything. This is why the Hills and Laguna Beach are loved by some folks, and loathed by many more. Nevertheless, who doesnt love seeing the pretty young rich people hauling ass away from a monster than has no backstory? Yes… a big monster would go for Manhattan. Please. That motherfucker would go to Newfoundland and hump a big rock.
As usual, much ado about nothing. Zzzzzzz…
I don’t see what’s ‘elitist’ about being bored by boring people, especially when the half of the movie that was monsters and chasing was AOK with me, by and large.
I wasn’t convinced that the relationships in the movie were strong enough to motivate the actions that the characters take. If Rob and whateverhername was had been in a long relationship instead of just basically f%*&buddies, or if the movie hadn’t been forced to rely on exposition in the form of a bit part player saying ‘he’s liked her for a really long time!’ I could have been convinced.
“if the movie hadn’t been forced to rely on exposition in the form of a bit part player saying ‘he’s liked her for a really long time!’ I could have been convinced.”
given the format of the movie, what else could they have done?
Jeff; do you think the movie works with regular New Yorkers trying to avoid the big monster that wants to hump something? I am thinking that a sequel to this film would have to revolve around much more every day people to appease those who had a problem with the RICH VAPIDS in TROUBLE.
Have the fifteen minutes before the monster attacks showing a couple in love, and not a couple who are bickering for unknown petty reasons.
“I don’t see what’s ‘elitist’ about being bored by boring people.”
They were boring because, what, they were guests/throwing a party? It’ll be interesting for Rob who’s leaving for Japan, that was the whole point of the video, obviously. Did you not take that into consideration?
“Have the fifteen minutes before the monster attacks showing a couple in love, and not a couple who are bickering for unknown petty reasons.”
Um, Rob loved Beth. Rob and Beth slept together. Rob blew off Beth because he was leaving town and thought it was pointless to pursue. Rob sees Beth with another guy. Rob realizes he made a mistake. Rob and Beth fight about it/the past month. Why is it important that we know the nitty gritty when we get the gist?
So you’re arguing, the movie expected/intended me to be bored there, because I was an outsider to the party?
Re: your last point: The gist was dry and unconvincing. The movie told me all in terms of expositional information but didn’t make me care. It’s like saying that in Casablanca, Sam tells us that Rick and Ilsa were in love before, why bother with the flashbacks or the scenes between the two of them where we actually experience it?
“So you’re arguing, the movie expected/intended me to be bored there, because I was an outsider to the party?”
It’s no more boring than watching some else’s vacation video. But I argue that it wasn’t boring at all. Hud was pretty funny. I laughed quite a lot at the party scene. For example, Hud trying to approach Marlena, but then backs out was pretty funny; Marlena’s little going away speech; Hud saying he’s turning off the camera when he really didn’t Hud telling people that Rob and Beth had sex was funny.
It wasn’t boring to me because these people seemed pretty normal and nice, and it was acted well enough.
“Re: your last point: The gist was dry and unconvincing. The movie told me all in terms of expositional information but didn’t make me care. It’s like saying that in Casablanca, Sam tells us that Rick and Ilsa were in love before, why bother with the flashbacks or the scenes between the two of them where we actually experience it?”
How exactly were they going to do flashbacks. Wasn’t the bits of video that was taped over enough? Regardless, an all out love story would’ve been completely out of place in a movie like this. We get what we need to know and move along.
Maybe ‘boring’ is the wrong word. But I really hated being there and spending as much time as the filmmakers made me spend there because I had so little interest in the characters or their situation. I didn’t find the Hud or Marlena stuff very funny.
I haven’t seen Cloverfield yet (outside of America I’d be interested to know how it does. there’s been barely any advertising here and it was released a day before the US – we didn’t get the pre-Transformers trailer) but, Jeff, if they were sitting around discussing Godard and the new Pollack exhibition at the Guggenheim would it have been better? If they were ugly people talking about vapid mundane things would it have been better?
Fine to think of it as boring, but just because they’re good looking isn’t a reason to dislike it. Somehow you’ve gone through life and never seen a group of people who are all good looking.
It would have been better if they were real people talking about real things. It felt like the movie had made the assumption that their audience would be primarily interested in home-video people who are young, well-off, and attractive looking, which is of course nothing new: that’s how movies and TV operate every day. But when a movie is made that has a claim to a degree of realism greater than the usual Hollywood stuff, my expectations are raised higher that the storylines and characterization will be more realistic, accordingly. United 93 managed this, Abrams and co. didn’t.
it’s not that they’re just good looking. It’s that they look like catalog models, they run around the city in 4 inch heels, and even after a piece of rebar goes through the one girl’s chest, she still looks like a million bucks.
I think back to 28 Days Later, in those final scenes where Cillian Murphy looks like he’s gone through hell, covered in blood, a demonic look on his face. This is a guy who has seen hell.
The kids in cloverfield barely look like a single hair is out of place after the whole thing. Watch that scene with Rob and his girl doing the testimonial towards the end. They look like they’re doing an audition for America’s NExt Top Model.
That’s just poor filmmaking. Had they started the characters out looking good and slowly put them through the paces, showed the toll of it all on them, i would have been on board.
I don’t have a problem with good looking people in film. Cillian Murphy is a good looking guy, but look at what they did to him in 28 Days Later.
Hope that clears things up.
“It would have been better if they were real people talking about real things. It felt like the movie had made the assumption that their audience would be primarily interested in home-video people who are young, well-off, and attractive looking, which is of course nothing new: that’s how movies and TV operate every day. But when a movie is made that has a claim to a degree of realism greater than the usual Hollywood stuff, my expectations are raised higher that the storylines and characterization will be more realistic, accordingly. United 93 managed this, Abrams and co. didn’t.”
Hud wasn’t exactly a looker. Most of the people at the party looked “normal.” So most of the leads were attractive? Despite what you think, there are plenty of attractive people in the world. I see them every day when I’m out and about. The fact that there’s a giant monster in the movie should indicate that we’re not seeing something real. And it’s not like this cast talked about nonsense. Check out MTV’s “The Hills,” or “The Real World,” or something of that nature, and you tell me with a straight face that the characters in this movie are spoiled and self-absorbed. If these characters weren’t good looking, you wouldn’t have said a damn thing. Such a predictable criticism if I’ve ever heard one.
I really enjoyed most of this movie. As far as the “monster movie from a street level perspective” concept, it worked great. The characters are really where they blew it. I honestly could have done without getting to know anyone that well and let the rest of the story sweep us into it. That would be preferrable to telling me more than I want to know about people I just never cared about. Not necessarily because they were rich, pretty, or whatever. Just because they weren’t interesting people and I couldn’t have cared less.
That said, I really enjoyed it. Though I doubt it will be something I watch again, apart from some select sequences. It’s a decent monster movie. It’s not like we get a lot of these all the time.
I thought about the little lost-gem MIRACLE MILE a lot during this movie. Not the style, but the fact that-p as simplistic as they were- the characters were people I cared about and the ending had added punch because of it. It’s not hard to do, you just have to do it.
L.B.: Thanks for mentioning Miracle Mile, one of my favorite overlooked movies (almost 20 years old — yikes! — but still potent).
Anghus: exactly.
Brack: Yes, Hud’s an average looking guy and – surprise! – he stays off-camera for almost the entire movie.
It’s pandering. I don’t mind it when it’s, say, Halloween Resurrection, because like I said: that movie doesn’t have the pretense of realism, monster or no, that this movie has. They should have trusted that we’d follow people around just on the basis of being real people in a plausible crisis and leftit at that instead of panicking and needing to construct a lame reason to make us ‘care’ about the characters.
No studio is going to bankroll a (no)monster movie starring a bunch of normies. The casting dictates the targeted audience, and these are the guys behind Felicity, IIRC. Just look at the guy Abrams cast as McCoy in Trek. They part went from being the older wise man to a dude that looks tougher than Kirk.
In a perfect world, someone independently would have access to the VFX needed to pull a Cloverfield off and then take it to The ‘Dance. That’s the only way you would have your everyday Blair Witchesque cast, and the hype would have been genuine simply because they were able to do this away from the studios. But anyone who can do the the type of VFX needed is either tits-deep in studio work or building a VFX house off of commercial contracts. The VFX community, more than any other I’ve encountered, hate the idea of working outside the system.
“Yes, Hud’s an average looking guy and – surprise! – he stays off-camera for almost the entire movie.
It’s pandering. I don’t mind it when it’s, say, Halloween Resurrection, because like I said: that movie doesn’t have the pretense of realism, monster or no, that this movie has. They should have trusted that we’d follow people around just on the basis of being real people in a plausible crisis and leftit at that instead of panicking and needing to construct a lame reason to make us ‘care’ about the characters.”
Newsflash Jeff: THESE WERE REAL PEOPLE, just not your kind of real people (I’m guessing, since you apparently know what’s real and what isn’t). They played their roles as pretty normal people. I laugh when people say characters are “too good looking.” It says more about them than it does about the material. It’d be one thing if these were bad actors, but they’re not.
As far as Hud is concerned, it’s real that pretty people have “average” looking friends. I see it every day. Plus wasn’t he the most important character in the movie? He had plenty of lines, and we didn’t need to see him to validate his role in the film.
Plus, in my experience pretty people seem to be friends a lot of other pretty people.
As a person who really thought Cloverfield was a waste of time, I HATED that the emotional crux of the movie was about getting to this apartment building with this guy who’s already been established as a douche bag trying to get this girl he kinda’ likes because they, you know, slept together and stuff. Do I buy there are people like this who would act this way? Sure. Do I want to follow them around an entire movie? Not especially.
And the 15-minute party at the beginning drained any bit of good will I had for this movie. With parties of this sort, unless you’re there and you’re drinking with your friends, it’s boring and vapid. Tell me, if this movie was about a group of Marines who are sent in to investigate odd happenings in Manhatten, could you really argue that it’d be a worse movie? Maybe less original, but hell, originality is nothing if I’m not enjoying what’s on screen. You could still have the chaos, the unanswered questions, and rescuing people in crippled buildings. But this thing of J.J. Abrams’ with focusing on uninteresting, upper-middle class bros as protagonists just doesn’t interest me at all. Hell, he made Ethan Hunt one at the beginning of Mission:Impossible III and if you listened close enough, you could hear my excitement deflating when I was watching it in the theater.
“As a person who really thought Cloverfield was a waste of time, I HATED that the emotional crux of the movie was about getting to this apartment building with this guy who’s already been established as a douche bag trying to get this girl he kinda’ likes because they, you know, slept together and stuff. Do I buy there are people like this who would act this way? Sure. Do I want to follow them around an entire movie? Not especially.”
Rob obviously loved Beth. You couldn’t even pick that up? Regardless, it was all a set up for some genuinely intense movie. These characters weren’t here to impress or entertain you, but they did anyway because they reacted to everything going around them as probably most people would. That’s the point, and if you don’t get that or appreciate that, then yeah, I’d say it’s a waste of your time.
Spoilers
So I finally caught up with Cloverfield and I thought it was entertaining enough, but I had a problem with the fact that the monster keeps changing in size. Are there supposed to be more than one monster? Also, how would that monster appear at the end, standing over Hud without making a sound? I mean, one second the coast is entirely clear and then BAM the creature is standing right on top of him.
I didn’t really have a problem with the characters. They’re all archetypes and the love story angle is familiar enough and used enough in disaster movies like Day After Tomorrow that it gives us one less thing to be confused about. We already have a million questions about the monster, I think the use of stereotypical sitcom-types was more so that we the audience could get a grasp on at least one aspect of the storyline.
It’s not a great movie, but it’s not a terrible one. It works well for what it is and it has about a million logistical problems (I imagine they would be vomiting after running sixty blocks underground and then going up sixty flights of stairs) especially for a New Yorker – i.e. the subway tunnels are way more narrow – but if you can manage to turn your brain off, like I’m used to doing for most sci-fi films, then it’s sort of enjoyable.
“Rob obviously loved Beth. You couldn’t even pick that up?”
No. His interactions with her in the first fifteen minutes are puppy love and high-school bickering.
Movies have been made on a thinner basis, but the filmmakers never even raised the possibility that what these people were doing was kind of idiotic – and since it was incredibly idiotic, that disconnect never left my mind.
And yes, I know that I was ‘supposed’ to know that he obviously loved her because it was in the script. But that’s not the same as being convinced by characters that were thin/contrived/unrealistic/take your pick.
Joe, that’s the perfect description.
I’m missing the point of the Cloverfield kids being overly attractive. I thought Hud was kind of a big, dumb doofus. Rob’s a good looking catalogue kid, but Lily and Marlena are average looking girls (at best). Granted, Beth is hot. But she has to be. How else would be believe that Rob would risk going back into the city for one last tap on that impaled a$$? Am I right? Who’s with me? Huh? Huh?
Hello?
Is this thing on?
“Hud telling people that Rob and Beth had sex was funny.”
As funny as a reality show.
One thing is that New Yorkers don’t act like LA teens. These kids were not New Yorkers.
And the incessant need to make jokes just like a tv show i.e., Hud telling Rob that they shouldn’t be shopping when a 200 foot monster is tearing up new york half a mile away. It’s bad writing and it pulls yoo out of the realism frame the movie is trying to construct.
Scaling the roof of a building in high fucking heels? She should have fallen like Stella Stevens.
If the movie wanted to present these trifle teens as self-absorbed and put them through hell, then their youth and beauty would make sense. But the lack of irony was manifest unlike BLAIR WITCH which has a definite poit of view. And feels real.
I also really disliked the insect things that you’ve seen a dozen times since STARSHIP TROOPERS. And nobody bothers picking up any kind of weapon?
And the monster sure did shape-shift with its sizes…unless there was more than one.
I liked many things in it, but the writing is the weakest link in the film.
It’s early, but i’d like to nominate Strange Wilderness for “Worst Marketing of the Year”
I’ll agree with that. How many times do they loop that video of the shark with stupid noises underneath it?
christian: I couldn’t possibly disagree more.
As far as it being unrealistic that Lily was running around in her high heels:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ERj43anMs1Y
You will also notice that few of those women are being chased by giant hungry monsters.
Just because someone _can_ do something doesn’t mean that it makes sense that they should do something.
“You will also notice that few of those women are being chased by giant hungry monsters.
Just because someone _can_ do something doesn’t mean that it makes sense that they should do something.”
What does being chased by a giant hungry monster have to do with athletic ability?
I doubt she wanted to run around in high heels, but what else could she do?
The bitch is tough as nails, deal with it.
Brack, I appreciate your apparent passion for this movie, but it’s not an argument you’re going to win (neither will I, for that matter). It worked for you, it didn’t work for me, and that’s pretty much the bedrock level of film criticism that no arguments on either side are going to change.
Although: she doesn’t look tough at all, in performance or dialogue, and she could have easily taken her shoes off when she noticed they were an impediment, like during her hour-long walk through the subways, and looted some useful shoes along the way.
“Brack, I appreciate your apparent passion for this movie, but it’s not an argument you’re going to win (neither will I, for that matter). It worked for you, it didn’t work for me, and that’s pretty much the bedrock level of film criticism that no arguments on either side are going to change.”
This was just fun, as your criticisms make me smile. They’re things that don’t make a difference at all, and if you’re thinking about them as you’re watching the movie, what fun could you possibly have at a movie like this. The answer: none, and I that’s your lose, not mine.
“Although: she doesn’t look tough at all, in performance or dialogue, and she could have easily taken her shoes off when she noticed they were an impediment, like during her hour-long walk through the subways, and looted some useful shoes along the way.”
Yeah, I liked that there wasn’t the stereotypical “tough girl” i.e. Michelle Rodriguez. Looks can be deceiving.
“that’s your lose, not mine.”
From my perspective that’s kind of like holding up a big bag of nacho cheese Doritos and saying ‘don’t you wish you were eating these right now’? Like I said before, I got a certain degree of enjoyment out of the monster half of the movie but my enjoyment out of the movie as a whole was marred by poor filmmaking choices and a lack of commitment/integrity.
Agree to disagree is what it comes down to.
Actually, I just changed my mind:
“They’re things that don’t make a difference at all”
I can’t agree with that. If you think of the movie’s intention was being solely to provide a disposable good time at the movies and judging it against Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster, then sure, I can’t say that it matters what kind of shoes the characters are wearing or even if they need to look at a cue card or if there’s a lightstand in a shot.
But since I was coming from a place where the characters and themes of the film actually matter and comparing it against a film like United 93 or The Host, which maintain the integrity of their own premises without lapsing into obvious and lazy choices, I can’t give the movie such an easy pass.
“But since I was coming from a place where the characters and themes of the film actually matter and comparing it against a film like United 93 or The Host, which maintain the integrity of their own premises without lapsing into obvious and lazy choices, I can’t give the movie such an easy pass.”
If you’re going to nitpick about things in the movies, you could do that with United 93, like when there’s a Chicken Little (2005) billboard in the background in one scene. That’s not lazy?
Actually jeff, you’re wrong about Lily wearing her high heels going up the stairs of the building. She took them off.
But Brack, the only way one can enjoy any film is if that film adheres to the world it has set up for itself. Cloverfield bends its own rules a lot. In order for us to buy this particular story (especially since it is an allegory for a serious issue, 9/11), it has to take place in the real world. Otherwise, why set it in NYC just a few years after the WTC attacks? I don’t remember seeing a Chicken Little poster in the background of United 93, but it’s also a film that chooses to focus on the foreground of these characters, whereas Cloverfield is all about what’s going on in the background. Which is where I sort of agree with you about the cliche main thrust of the story not mattering.
Yes, this is a monster movie, but shouldn’t the monster stay one size for the length of the picture? Shouldn’t the cameraman not be cracking jokes every two seconds? Since they were looting electronic stores to get Rob a cell phone, couldn’t Lily have run into one of the thousands of shoe stores and bought some sneakers? There is a lack of verisimilitude in this film that I think would be extremely bothersome had I had any expectations for the film.
I actually liked Cloverfield for the most part, but I can see a thousand different instances where the film strains credulity and since it is a movie about a monster attacking NYC, my disbelief was already suspended to its utmost capability.
Come on Noah. A monster attacking New York has happened about 15 seperate times. Of course the monsters were about 18 inches tall, had barely audible voices, and were quickly dispatched by the city’s angriest chimpmunks. This does not change the fact that monsters exist. So… really… suspended to the utmost capability? HA. I think not.
“Cloverfield is all about what’s going on in the background. Which is where I sort of agree with you about the cliche main thrust of the story not mattering.”
Let me add to this: it’s a movie that _should_ be about what’s going on in the background, but the filmmakers keep insisting that what they have going on in the foreground, which is vastly less interesting, is more worthy of their audience’s attention.
Brack, I never noticed the Chicken Little thing either. You got me there. But you can’t call that ‘lazy’, just careless at the very worst. It wasn’t a conceptual failure on the part of the filmmakers to execute a well-realized world, it was the equivalent of a typo (I assume, not knowing where it is in the movie).
If you think about it. The Chicken Little poster could be a small little clue about the origin of the freakin monster. This is a BAD ROBOT movie. They put stuff in their shows and now flicks for a reason. Do not be so click to call it a typo. When it could be a sign post pointing to the monster (SOON TO BE A TOY FROM HASBRO… NO FOOLIN) being something other-worldly. Sure. This could be bullshit, but it’s a better to me than a typo.
IOI, wrong movie.
saw this movie over the weekend. fun popcorn movie. has a few shocks, a few jumps. characters underdeveloped? i’m shocked! horror movies usually have such highly intricate characters.
best unintentional comedy in post goes to noah who posts a spoiler notice when people have been spoiling the movie for two days. i appreciate the effort, but that made me laugh.
i’m surprised no one’s mentioned feeling sick after leaving film. i had a huge headache. coulda done without that.
and jeff, if you’re comparing this movie to “united 93” your expectations were waaaaay too high.
“Yes, this is a monster movie, but shouldn’t the monster stay one size for the length of the picture?”
Noah, you’re assuming there was only one monster.
i’m pretty sure there’s only one monster. but i didn’t notice the size changing noah did.
Well, I suppose it’s possible that there’s more than one monster. Although, that’s never really mentioned. And if it is a single monster, then how could a monster with a tail so big that it could destroy the Brooklyn Bridge sneak up on Hud at the end of the film without making a noise?
“Well, I suppose it’s possible that there’s more than one monster. Although, that’s never really mentioned.”
Nothing was really mentioned.
If there had been more than one monster, the military would have noticed it and made reference to it somewhere in the movie. There’s no reason to think there’s more than one.
“And if it is a single monster, then how could a monster with a tail so big that it could destroy the Brooklyn Bridge sneak up on Hud at the end of the film without making a noise?”
The impact of the helicopter crash probably fucked up Hud’s hearing. There were also a bunch of fighter jets flying by, and you can hear the footsteps of the monster for about 20 seconds before it actually appeared. Very similar to the bridge. And as quickly as the monster showed up, it just as quickly disappeared.