Cloverfield
I liked it more for the cinematography than the story. I agree with one of the previous comments—there’s not much character development nor explanation. However, considering the nature of the movie—footage found during the aftermath—I don’t think there’s much need for either. It begs a sequel or prequel explaining things, but I don’t know if such a thing would be appropriate. The special effects are fantastic, more because of how well they fit into the cinematography than how cool they look.
The merit of the movie is in the style, not the story, and for this I think critics will love it but the public will dislike it. Motion sickness is going to be a factor, too. I don’t get it, fortunately, but the friend who accompanied me yakked in the bathroom during and couldn’t watch the rest (he listened, though).
It’s also really short. It’s tops an hour and 20 minutes—approximately the length of single DV camera tape.
Eschew any rumors—it has nothing to do with the Slusho site or Jewish eschatology.
Leave a comment