like I don’t understand what a movie has to be to be considered good or at least decent, but I guess they wouldn’t be critics if they didn’t pick things apart. Cloverfield may not have been a breakthrough movie, but why re-invent the wheel?
I went to see it this weekend because I appreciated the way it was marketed, and the idea of it. I didn’t know what to expect as far as quality. All I knew was it wasn’t a horror movie and there was a monster, Ok. What I got was a decent little movie about what would happen for ‘real’ not for ‘play-play’.
I liked this movie because the events were just beliveable enough to where they weren’t incredibly cheesy. You know what’s gonna happen but you go anyway to see how the people are gonna deal with it. Are they gonna make it out? How are they going to cope with the obstacles you know are coming? It was ‘real’ people reacting to an unexpected horrible thing. And there is a very funny line in the movie that reflects this sentiment.
Cloverfield did what King-kong, Blair Witch, and Independance day couldn’t it added necessary variety. The random things that happen in life. I am writing this after I just got an email from a pretty important person, RANDOM. The monster happened to throw the Head of the Statue of Liberty on their block, RANDOM.
There are no …’and the band played on’ scenes…. and no ‘the US defense sytem is stumped, and then nerd boy/girl has the answer’ scenes either. THAT IS A PLUS.
This is almost like when critics panned Citizen Kane and then had to come back later and retract.
So Matt Reeves, I’m ready for the sequel. Where did the monster come from?