Bad story

bad cammera work

bad script

bad acting

bad monster

I wanted my money back

dasmuggler dasmuggler
36-40, M
16 Responses May 2, 2009

Cloverfield is one of the best films I've ever seen and the camera is meant to be like that x

Wasn't that bad?????<br />
<br />
Lets see the big bad monster that is CRUSHING the city some how tippy toed up behind the actors in Central Park...<br />
<br />
One word: Bad

Blair witch had a 30k budget and the actors were dropped into a field and left to the elements and improvisation of a very generalized sc<x>ript. It was a huge experiment that was pulled off very well. Sorry if you didn't enjoy what the people behind it were trying to do and it did not have the backing of any Hollywood studio until one noticed it's potential after the fact, it was an independent film companies idea and creation that had little or no money to begin with.<br />
<br />
I don't think Cloverfirld was all that bad, it definitely wasn't the greatest movie. The P.O.V. of the camera was the focus of the sc<x>ript from the beginning, so yeah you are going to get the shakiness just like Blair Witch and the beginning of Saving Private Ryan or if you have someone running or walking carrying a camera. It was to give it a documentary feel from someone who was actually there. <br />
<br />
That's the point so why bash it for what it was meant to be and Cloverfield was not a cheap movie the visual affects were great, nothing cheesy at all, not even the creature. Much better than any of the Godzilla movies and the shots were in no way cheaper than a steady cam motion picture. It would have been more expensive because during editing you have to stableize the images to ad the visual effects to the shot and that takes more time and you guessed it, money...<br />
<br />
I will say the acting had it's good, bad to mediocre...<br />
<br />
Thanks for sharing, hope you can see some of it my way...

It is the fault of the Blair Witch movie. the camera work can appear cheap and the shots can be done cheaper<br />
The budget for Blair Witch was 200k I think?<br />
<br />
the less the producers and studios have to spend then puts more in their pocket after release. Keep in mind that when this was filmed JJ Abrams was a hot ticket (Lost was still fresh instead of a waist) so they throw together a crappy story slap a hot name to the project and boom you get a lot of people waiting to see this crap. As long as Hollywood can get away with trolling out this kind of sludge it will never stop

I'm so happy that there are others who hate Cloverfield as much as I do. I don't understand why it was so popular. I almost threw up from dizziness. Ugh.

I did the same with my friend. She had dragged me to see "The Guardian". And then freaking "Wild Hogs". Ugh. She has HORRIBLE taste in movies.

we called the guy who told us we had to see it and threatened him with bodily harm

haha<br />
<br />
you so silly :P

I went with a friend and there was NOTHING playing. I didn't even know what this movie was about. But, we went and almost left half way through.

that's why I skipped it

10,000 BC was ******* HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!! Even if Cliff Curtis was in it.

10,000 BC is one I avoided all together<br />
<br />
I don't know who the voice of the monster was Lionel Richie perhaps

I hated Cloverfield before I even saw it. Tried to explain to my friend that no matter how "exciting" the previews look, sometimes those seconds are the sum of everything good within the whole movie. <br />
He even bought it on when it came out on DVD & admitted to watching it 4x. We do not hang out very often anymore (he went & loved 10,000 B.C., as well = case closed).<br />
<br />
And wasn't Rev Run the voice of the "monster"? Oh, how the ground shook.

Was there a script?

Yes, but Odette Yustman is hot.

nope I never did... it was just like the South Park episode... I traveled all the way to Matt Reeves place but he was still giving a BJ to JJ Abrams for letting him still work in Hollywood