Coverfield was total trash

Because the whole idea of the shake-cam was to give the audience the impression that they were 'there', as a person involved in the drama. I found it very hard to maintain my willing suspension of disbelief when the Michael character (I forget his name in the film) decides to go and find Beth and the others then tag along. In that situation would you really go trotting off into the heat of battle, dodging missiles and bullets, elbow-to-elbow with the military and a massive creature, just because one person wants to find a girl who might not even be alive? I found that unbelievable and, for me, it undermined the believability of the film.

Oh well. I still enjoyed the film though. :)
 
I really enjoyed Cloverfield and the shaky cam didn't effect me one bit in fact it added to the whole ambiance of the film imo. I feel the first 15/20 minutes is necessary if you want to understand Rob's motivation for going back into Manhattann for Beth.

All in all it's not a bad way to spend 84 minutes of your life :)
 
I think Nlogax is refering to the audio at the end of the credits..
apparently if it is played backwarRAB you can hear the worRAB 'It's still alive'.
There are examples on YouTube.
 
I've not seen this "Coverfield" film that the topic creator speaks of, but if he has only seen a few minutes of it, I don't think we can take his opinion seriously.

I saw a film called Cloverfield once, and I must say I really enjoyed it, I liked the how the filming technique gave the film a sense of realism and fear.
 
Wow, what a depressing thread. Cloverfield was bone-fide genius filmmaking, probably one of the 10 best US movies of the decade. It's a crime that that the script was not oscar nominated (and no I'm not joking in case anyone thinks that...)

I've never seen a film play just as rushes (unedited tape) before. The device of recording over a previous tape was stunning, even using spooling back to watch something to believably create a gap for us to see what was there before. That's really imaginative storytelling. Also (like Blair Witch, incidentally) I had no problem with the characters - ordinary joes and joannas to be sure (which they needed to be for the premise to work), but perfectly believable and not annoying imho.

As to the handheld device, it's absurd to point to other classic movies which aren't handheld as if that invalidates a verite style. The camera style neeRAB to be a part of the whole - in this case there was no alternative. And, of course, plenty of classic movies have featured handheld camerwork either in part or fully.

Once could argue that its stolen 9/11 references were in bad taste, but personally I get the catharsis argument - facing your fears through pulp fiction.

I think Empire's original 5* review was spot on - they reinvented the monster movie and made it new again. I guess some people's expectations of what a monster movie should be precluded them experiencing this... what a shame.
 
Blair Witch was total trash, frankly. Cloverfield really worked as a cinematic experience, even if some of the acting wasn't world-class.
 
Back
Top