It'd be like Monster Island, without the violence. Here's the comic (click to enlarge):

The problem with such a scientific refuge is that inevitably the monsters would fight, as has been proven by such fine documentaries as Frankenstein vs. the Wolfman, Godzilla vs. Mothra, and Alien vs. Predator.

Incidentally, Ridley Scott has been quoted as saying that he won't have an Alien 5 because Alien vs Predator reminds him too much of Jason vs. Freddy, which makes a certain kind of sense. Now that they are battling it out with each other, these alien monstrosities have lost a certain amount of the fear they used to generate from the silver screen. Of course, I played the AVP video game and kept getting killed easily despite playing as an alien so that really killed the "scare factor" of the franchise for me first. Plus, simply the fact of learning too much about how the aliens germinate and spread across space has removed the fear of the unknown that they represented. They're no longer this incomprehensible alien predator, they've become one more space monster to fight. Aliens (the second alien movie) realized this and made it much more of an action movie.

So our monsters, our werewolves, our Godzillas, our aliens need to stay out of the light and need to stay mysterious or they lose the power they represent to us and they cease to reflect our fears. In the light of overexposure, they become cheesy jokes.

http://thefigurehead.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/just-like-an-old-monster-movie/

Enjoy,

This last one is a test. To see if you are a pussy or not.

Este muñeco es pequeñito pero no le falta un detalle. A mediados de los noventa trataron de convertir al personaje estrella de la Troma en un icono infantil, y por eso produjeron también una serie de dibujos animados en la que las barbaridades de Toxie no aparecían por ningún lado.

Éstos son algunos de los cromos americanos que he podido conseguir
de Gremlins, una de las mejores películas de todos los tiempos.

La película ya la conocéis todos. Una horripilante historia
de terror disfrazada de cuento de navidad.

Para despistar a los padres, alguien decidió que tenían que
meter a este monísimo peluche que hacía todo tipo de mohínes y
carantoñas a los desgraciados protagonistas.

El sueño de cualquier adolescente ochentero era poseer un mogwai
con vida propia para ser el más molón del insti.

Una mascota que ni hace popó ni pipí,
pero que desgraciadamente tiene un inconveniente.
No lo voy a contar aquí porque sería un pedazo de spoliler
a algún despistado que todavía no haya visto la peli.

Pero vamos, que aunque parezca un producto
para todos los públicos, la cosa acaba fatal...

Fans have until the end of July to post a link to their Scud fan film on his site; entries can be cartoons, CG, live action or whatever. First prize gets a signed hardcover Scud omnibus and three original Scud pages; Second prize is a signed softcover omnibus and a sketch. You can find out more info at Schrab's site, and I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to pick up your own copy of the omnibus in order to fully 'get' the character.

¡¡Esta peli tiene muy buena pinta!!

Aquí está el trailer en alta definición.

Now that I've seen Cloverfield all I can say is, God am I glad I didn't see that on a big screen.  Even on our relatively small television (36" -- it seemed big when we bought it eight years ago ...), the shaky-cam style made me a little uncomfortable.  In a real theater with a screen the size of a barn wall, I would've been yakking all over the person in front of me.  (I'm extremely susceptible to motion sickness.)

Anyway, aside from the shaky-cam issues that made me watch a good part of the film sidelong, I liked Cloverfield a lot.  I'm a sucker for giant-monster movies and this one was about 100 times better than the sad-sack remake of Godzilla from several years back.  Watching Godzilla I just felt sorry for the monster; this one scared the crap out of me, and the weird little critters that fell off of it were pretty nasty pieces of work, too.  (Have I mentioned that I periodically dream about one or more giant monsters rampaging through the city where I live?  Is that weird?  Doesn't everybody have that dream ... ?)

Interestingly enough, in the special features for Cloverfield, we learn that the monster is just a frightened baby and when it roars it's calling for its mother.  So we were supposed to feel sorry for the monster this time.  Ummmm, okay, if you say so.  I thought it was just some badass trashing New York City for reasons unknown ...

As per usual with a "rescue" movie, we have our little band of heroes who are risking their own lives to save a friend.  (The lesson of Cloverfield might be "After you sleep with the girl, call her and tell her you love her; it'll make things a lot easier on you when a giant monster starts chewing up Manhattan.")  I'd heard bad things about the performances, but I thought they were quite good.  In particular, T.J. Miller as Hud, the "guy behind the camera", managed to make his character sympathetic with next to no screen time, just voice work.  Lizzy Caplan was terrific as Marlena, making me completely forget about her character from Mean Girls.  The other actors were fine and believable as well, but they were saddled with less interesting characters than these two.  In particular, I found the Robert Hawkins character, the putative hero, to be kinda one-note and boring.  Useless and uninteresting trivia:  In the late 80s I played a play-by-mail (PBM) game of space exploration called "Beyond the Quadra Zone".  (This was before we had online gaming.  Hard to believe, eh?)  Anyway, the name of my character was Robert Hawkins.  Mr. Abrams, I'll be expecting my royalty check in the mail.

The shaky-cam invites comparisons to The Blair Witch Project, but it's really the only similarity between the two.  (I hated The Blair Witch Project.  Blech!)

My wife more or less completely ignored Cloverfield the whole time it was on (all 84 minutes of it!), so I can't really give it my usual rating of how long it took to put her to sleep.  But she must've spent at least a little time paying attention to it, because she said she also thought the performances were good.  Draw your own conclusions ...

WARNING:  Comments on this review may contain spoilers.

Esta peli no es demasiado antigua ni tampoco una producción de esas directa a DVD que tanto se llevan últimamente. Sin embargo permanece olvidada por los aficionados al cine fantástico pese a que no es tan mala del todo.

IMPORTANTE: Como seguramente nunca te vas a molestar en conseguir esta peli aqui te la cuento casi al completo. Aunque quizás al ver las imágenes que he puesto te entren muchas ganas, en ese caso NO SIGAS LEYENDO!!

La cosa va de una empresa que, en el no tan lejano año 2056 se dedica a organizar viajes en el tiempo en plan turístico. Como es una tecnología cara y novedosa, los clientes de Time Safari son ricachones que, en la mayoría de los casos, viajan a la prehistoria para cazar un enorme dinosaurio.

Para controlar todo y que no falle ningún detalle hay un equipo de cientificos y médicos que tienen cuidado de que ningun turista del tiempo rompa las reglas, ya sabéis, eso de que si cuando viajas al pasado tocas o rompes algo afecta drásticamente a la corriente temporal y el futuro puede cambiar totalmente.

El caso es que en uno de estas excursiones algo pasa y de repente Chicago, la ciudad en la que se desarrolla la acción se ve infestada de plantas silvestres que crecen por doquier y un montón de monstruos salvajes que corren libremente por los parques. Y aquí es donde comienza la película. El rollito de los viajes en el tiempo es un MacGuffin, una excusa para meternos de sopetón en una peli de monstruos en toda regla bastante divertida.

El equipo humano de Time Safari recorre la ciudad en busca de pistas que les ayuden a entender qué fue lo que pasó en el último viaje temporal para que el futuro cambiase y se llenara de bichos raros. Son apenas seis personas que están bastante tranquilas pese a lo grave de la situación, más bien parece que están de merendola en el campo y de vez en cuando se topan con los monstruos que son de varias clases, a saber:

-Unos mandriles-dinosaurio enormes que devoran a sus víctimas.

-Murciélagos gigantes que persiguen coches y se llevan a la gente volando.

-Serpientes-pescadilla que se enroscan al cuerpo de sus víctimas y tienen la sangre de color azul.

-Cucarachas (no demasiado grandes, yo he visto por ahí algunas que dan más miedo que las que salen en la peli).

Esta película hace que de verdad echemos mano de nuestra capacidad de suspender nuestra incredulidad porque es muy fuerte ver cómo los protas se van salvando poco a poco de los animalejos mientras que los miembros del equipo más prescindibles van cayendo uno a uno. Todos ellos se sacrifican porque esperan que finalmente la corriente temporal se arregle y así puedan resucitar.

En el minuto 80 del metraje la cosa está muy malita, el edificio donde está la máquina del tiempo está inundado de agua y habitado por los mandriles-saurios, así que la pareja superviviente simplemente cogen el disco duro del ordenador central y se van a una universidad cercana a enchufarlo allí para ver si pueden volver al pasado y arreglar el desaguisado. Al parecer todo el jaleo viene porque mientras estaban cazando dinosaurios allá por el año -65.000.000 alguién pisó una mariposa y se la trajo pegada en la suela del zapato.

Finalmente todo vuelve a la normalidad y aquí no ha pasado nada.

Esta película es grande por su absoluta falta de pretensiones. Apenas tuvo publicidad en el momento de su estreno en cines y todos hemos visto mierdas mayores en la gran pantalla. Y es que es reconfortante encontrar a gente como Peter Hyams, que se dejan de mierdas filosóficas y que nos recuerda que la ciencia ficción también puede ser divertida.

POR CIERTO! EN EL FUTURO SE VUELVEN A PONER DE MODA
LAS COPAS DE CHAMPÁN DE LOS OCHENTA!

]]> http://beastandbean.wordpress.com/?p=1070 Mon, 05 May 2008 01:52:35 +0000 yeti9000 http://beastandbean.wordpress.com/?p=1070 Rented the insanely over-hyped Godzilla-lite movie "Cloverfield" over the weekend and all I can say is...wow...what a disaster, literally. This movie sucks so bad that it might just be one of the worst movies we've ever seen. And that is really saying something as we see tons of movies.

If the annoying, herky-jerky camera work doesn't make you wanna hurl, than the acting and dialog surely will. I'm not kidding, the script is so bad you can't even laugh at it. And this cast of pretty WB/CW rejects is so terrible that Christine and I were actually rooting for them to die.

Not to give too much away, but let me tell ya, when the most annoying character, Marlena, met her end in a spectacularly gory fashion, I literally stood up and cheered. Of course, the way she died -- like so much of this crass marketing scheme of a movie -- was lifted directly out of another movie ("Alien") but hey, at least she died, so we were happy.

As for the camera work, yikes. I already have a hard time not throwing up during good movies with hand-held camera work -- "Husbands & Wives", "Breaking The Waves", etc. -- and when the movie is bad, wow, it kind of multiplies the nausea factor by a million.

Now, before you call me a film snob, let me say that bad acting and bad writing I can forgive -- we have enjoyed some really bad scary movies over the years -- but the biggest problem I have with this movie is that it's not a movie at all. Seriously, "Cloverfield" plays like an extended YouTube video, and in fact, would probably have been much better had it been confined to three minutes instead of a 84.

You can almost hear the "story and plot be damned" pitch: "It's BLAIR WITCH meets GODZILLA for the YouTube age". I kid you not, that's all it is. There is absolutely no explanation for anything that happens in this movie and the framing device (again clearly stolen from another movie) that this tape was found by the military is laughable.

Trust me, man, if the military found this talky, God-awful videotape, they would do some serious editing and skip to the good parts. Yes, I said good parts. Because this movie has two scenes that are pretty amazing. If you'd like to see the movie for yourself sometime, stop reading now while I discuss them.

SPOILER ALERT: The first scene that is worth checking out is when the monster attacks the Brooklyn Bridge. It's very cool and totally scary.

And the second (and only other!) scene worth seeing is near the end of the movie when we spy the monster being bombed by the military. Shot from a helicopter as our surviving heroes (if you can call them that) are whisked to safety, it is our only clear view of the monster and it looks pretty damn cool.

And then, just when it seems like he's beat, the monster jumps up and takes the helicopter down. Wow! This scene isn't just awesome, but it is probably the only truly original scare in the entire film. Too bad the rest of this boring, crapfest sucks so much ass...

At the end of the day, I guess the best thing I can say about "Cloverfield" is that, thankfully, we saved some money by NOT seeing it in the theater. So, yeah!

In the future, please make your characters more sympathetic. The characters are all pretty much selfish, arrogant, self-centered, former hipsters and future yuppies.

I understand people make irrational decisions in weird situations but all these characters did were irrational decisions. Of course they also fought with each other a lot and there was just the thinnest hints of justification for their actions. They got annoying and I couldn't wait to see their inevitable deaths. (See: Irrational decisions). By the time the movie got heavy as characters reflected on the situation, it was ridiculous to see them weep over their dead friends because I don't believe they really gave two shits about anybody else but themselves except for Rob and his "noble" act of trying to retrieve the-might-be-dead-might-be-alive Beth.

Next time you come up with a really good idea for a monster movie. Think about your perspective. When the monster is the focus it's okay to have paper thin characters. However, when you try to give us the perspectives of Joe and Jane Everyman, well we should at least sympathize with them a little.

I'll write some more about it when I catch up on the other billion things I need to write about here.

Jaws 3D es una película de 1983. Una secuela como Dios manda, con más muertes, más sangre y más de todo que sus predecesoras Jaws y Jaws 2. Y lo más importante, estaba rodada en 3-D.

Os muestro algunos cromos de esta peli que se vendieron en USA. Una colección impresionante, que además del chicle que suelen regalar, llevaba espectaculares imágenes en 3D en la parte posterior de cada cromo!

Ahí van unas muestras:

NOTA IMPORTANTE: ¡PONTE TUS GAFAS 3D
PORQUE ESTOS CROMOS SE VAN A SALIR DE TU PANTALLA!

La primera aparición del tiburón es tan previsible y divertida a la vez...

En esta peli, los tiburones eran usados como
atracción en un gigantesco parque submarino.

El parque está formado por cuatro túneles que están bajo el mar para que los
visitantes puedan ver la fauna marina desde su hábitat natural.

Como siempre, hay personas imprudentes que mueren...

Llegados a este punto la autoridad competente
trata de restar importancia al asunto,
y el dueño del parque de atracciones quiere
arreglarlo todo sin que nadie se entere.

Los que mueren a continuación se lo tienen bien merecido:
¿Es que no ven las noticias?

Y lo inevitable sucede: el tiburón invade el túnel.

¡Todos a correr!

Éstas son las gafas 3-D que se regalan con los cromos.
¿A que le quedan bien a mi Super Muscle Fighter?

Enjoy,

This last one is a test. To see if you are a pussy or not.

Ya es oficial: Alex AJa (Alta tensión y Las colinas tienen ojos) va a dirigir el remake de Piraña... ¡En tres dimensiones!

Alex ha prometido que esta versión será muy divertida y mucho más gore que el original. Esta vez la premisa será un poco diferente. Al parecer los peces devoradores de humanos surgen esta vez de una grieta que se abre por un terremoto y del que salen un montón de pirañas prehistóricas que vivian tan felices y tranquilas.

¡Qué ganas!!

NOTA PARA DESCONFIADOS: Esta noticia la he copiado de BloodyDisgusting.com
El cartel es falso, por supuesto, pero mola tanto...

Despite the endless hype and inevitable reality check of expectations, Matt Reeves' Cloverfield turns out to be an interesting take on the monster movie genre, residing somewhere between The Blair Witch Project and Godzilla. And if you've read about the film anywhere else, you probably knew that already. However, Cloverfield is worth talking about because it could have been great as a silent film. It's maybe the best example of a modern day film that's completely unhinged by exposition and dialogue. While the impressive, chaotic visuals and sound design speak for themselves, screenwriter Drew Goddard infects each scene with a sense of cliche and comedy that feels both idiotic and unwarranted. This kind of dumbed down attempt at character depth takes the viewer out of the impressive disaster premise, ultimately making Cloverfield a tepid example of a film riding the proverbial genre fence, trying to please everyone at once.

Esta coproducción USA -Japón se rodó en 1962. En realidad no es más que una peli japonesa a la que los yanquis le insertaron unos planos sin interés en los que, desde la ONU, un presentador de TV y un científico comentan lo que ocurre en Japón cuando Godzilla despierta por enésima vez y se lanza directo a realizar su pasatiempo favorito: destruir Tokyo.

Unos farmacéuticos japoneses que han viajado a una isla cercana para recolectar unos frutos con capacidades sedantes, se topan con que está habitada por unos salvajes que adoran a King Kong. En esta isla se viven algunos de los mejores momentos de la película, poblada por unos indígenas muy tikis que en son en realidad ¡¡japoneses pintados de negro!! Después de luchar con un pulpo gigante en una escena memorable (el pulpo es auténtico en la mayoría de los planos) Kong es capturado y llevado hasta la capital nipona, desde donde es transportado por el aire con unos globos gigantes hasta la zona catastrófica en la que el lagarto gigante está haciendo de las suyas.

La película se pasa en un suspiro y si merece la pena es porque está llena de aciertos visuales. Y no sólo nos referimos a la decoración de la isla tiki, sino también a lugares tan cotidianos como el piso donde viven los protagonistas, decorado con un gusto muy exquisito… Y este comentario no tiene ningún tipo de doblez o ironía. El vestuario también es brillante, y si quizás hay que poner pegas a algo, sería al propio King Kong, que es feo y tiene los pelos muy mal pegados a lo largo de su cuerpo.

Lo único que se hace insufrible el desarrollo de la cinta son las constantes intervenciones de los personajes occidentales, siempre ajenos a la acción.

1. I have this little patch of hair that grows on the left side of my belly that I shave. Not because it's disgusting but because I don't have the same little patch of hair growing on the right side of my belly.

2. I LOVE Zombie, Vampire, Werewolf, Monster movies...but most of all Zombie movies. Corny or horrific doesn't matter, they're the best.

3. I got asked not to come back from a college job I held for throwing Mayo and other random objects from the fridge from the 14th floor of our dorm room at the end of the semester.

4. I don't know the 1st thing about Pro Football. I just got into the actual game of College Football this season.

5. I "walked the aisle" and got saved in between 7th and 8th grade at Emmanuel Baptist Church. Although it wasn't until a few years later until I really understood what that meant so I "rededicated" my life and got baptized again. Now after having led services at a non-denominational and Episcopalian church and now on staff at a Presbyterian church, I think I'm covered :)

6. I'm my wife's High School Sweetheart. We're 2 years apart so I was already in college. We've been together for 11 years b/w dating and marriage.

7. I won 1st place in a national choir/singing competition held in Hawaii my Junior year but the only thing anyone remembers is me winning the Luau Dance Competition and shaking it with the hot girl in the grass skirt.

There it is. Not sure who else hasn't done this already so if you haven't then I tag YOU. Let us know 7 Random Things about YOU.

Now I could go on and on here about who the cast is but you would have no idea who I'm talking about. That's one of the things that really make this film work. There are no mega-stars on screen threatening to steal the spotlight from the story. I'm a huge fan of J.J. Abrams' work thanks to both Alias and Lost, so I was excited that he produced the movie. Everything he touches lately seems to turn to gold and this movie is certainly no exception.

The story is actually very simple. The entire film is shot from a hand-held camera giving us the point of view of a small group of friends who are trying to get out of New York. As the story unfolds we learn that a monster is destroying the city and the military is called in to stop the beast and evacuate the citizens. As these friends try to flee for safety, they unwillingly find themselves closer to danger.

This is not a film that offers answers and explanations, but rather we are only exposed to the minimal knowledge these friends have. They don't care where this monster came from or how it can be stopped. All they want to do is get out alive and help each other get there. I've read several reviews where people hated this aspect of the movie, but I have to admit it really worked for me. I love when filmmakers and writers think outside the box and Cloverfield is an excellent example.

The special effects and production value are top-notch and I found myself constantly wondering how they filmed certain scenes. This is one movie that will really immerse you into the experience and several times I had to remind myself to breathe because of the intensity. The subway scene in particular is breathtaking and wonderfully terrifying.

There are lots of reports out about the jerky camera shots causing people to feel nauseous. Unfortunately, I can testify that this is indeed true. Whatever the condition is called, I have it. Several times I found myself having to look away from the screen because of the motion sickness I felt. However, the movie was so good and so involving that I couldn't look away for long and was able to fight through it. This move made me sick and I loved every second of it!

Check out the trailer:

I loved Cloverfield. Absolutely adored it. I had been following the project since the first teaser premiered before Transformers, and going into the theater I was incredibly nervous that my anticipation would inevitably lead to massive disappointment. But boy, oh boy, my fears were entirely unfounded. I had none of the motion sickness problems that others have mentioned, nor did I have trouble suspending disbelief and allowing that the film's 20-somethings were simply going to make awful decisions. Instead, I was entranced by the fulfilled promise of a truly post-modern monster movie. Cloverfield was a pitch-perfect homage and reinvention of an entire genre.

Which is why I'm so goddamn disappointed by the news that they're making another one. Director Matt Reeves recently commented that a sequel could be made by exploring a different perspective of the same event, an idea that I think is incredibly stupid. The shaky-cam style was pretty much done to perfection already, and any attempt to re-visit it would result in a watered-down rehash of the original. Now, if done correctly, it might be interesting to see the attack through the lens of a "traditional" monster movie, which would specifically address the goverment and military response to the monster(s). On the other hand, that would pretty much defeat the entire point of the first film. Sadly, there appears to be no way around this sequel business; any successful movie in this day and age will be mined for every possible dollar. How disappointing.

I didn't watch the show On the Lot but I did see part of one episode. During that episode they showed the contestant's short films and one of the short films was a two-hander at an outdoor cafe. I couldn't hear the dialogue but the scene consisted of a single and an over-the-shoulder shot and both were hand-held. It made no sense but I knew what the director was thinking, he was thinking that it would put us in the moment and make the scene work. Well, it didn't and the director's short cut to creating a tense dialogue failed.

Cloverfield, directed by Matt Reeves, is 84 minutes of hand-held camera work, some of it nausea inducing, about a group of friends who set out to save another of their friends during a giant monster attack on New York City.

What I liked: I did not hate that fact that the film was entirely hand-held. The concept of the film lent itself perfectly to a roaming, nervous camera. For those that don't know, the film is shot from a home video camera by one of the characters, Hud (T.J. Miller), as he follows his friends through the city. This in sometimes intercut with footage that was previously on the tape, of two characters, Beth (Odette Yustman) and Rob (Michael Stahl-David), on a trip to Coney Island. It works.

The performances are good especially for a monster movie. The action is well paced and leads to an interesting conclusion. Not typical Hollywood, the ending is foreshadowed in the opening text. I liked the story a lot, and I thought that the unexplained monster was perfect, and reflected what these type of experiences are like. You don't know what is going on.

I also must mention the early ad campaign. The teaser was great and drew me in and I'm not an action (or event) movie person. Maybe the trailer was better than the film.

What I didn't like: The film breaks the strands of plausibility too many times. It's difficult to believe that someone would continue to film everything during this crazy attack but there are some scenes where people aren't going to pick up the camera and film things. I can't go into detail without spoiling, but everyone knows the scenes I'm talking about. Also, there is a scene in the subway where one of the characters gets a phone call... in the subway station. For a New Yorker, which I am, it took me right out of the film because you can't get cell service in a subway station unless you're at 72nd street at the 1 or 9 station.

The camera work did get to me a few times. I had to look away to get my bearings and that is not good. I wasn't running for the aisles but I didn't sit as close as I normally like to sit, so I'm sure that has a lot to do with it. I think that this film could have been shot with a Steadicam and it wouldn't have taken away from the experience. The audience would have understood that it was still a guy walking around with his camera it wouldn't have been as difficult for people to watch.

4 stars

It seems that the more we get to know about Cloverfield, the less we know. The movie, once titled “The Untitled J. J. Abrams Project”, had a trailer which although was ambiguous, started a wildfire of speculation, hype and paranoia since it aired before the Transformers movie.

And what was the trailer about? A group of friends gathered to say goodbye to one of their own. We see the party getting started, through the eyes of a digital camera. Soon, the friend arrives and it is time for the toast and it is then that they hear the rumble. The lights go out. Someone screams. They panic and towards the roof where they see an enormous ball of fire on the horizon, near the Statue of Liberty. Hysteria erupts as the same digital camera, the eyes and ears of the audience, runs down onto the street, only to have its path blocked by the head of the Statue of Liberty which crash-lands through the streets. Here the trailer ends ominously with the numbers “01-18-08coming up on the screen.

In the following weeks and months, there was a deluge of speculation. Was it a monster movie? Was it a new take on Godzilla or King Kong? Was it a Voltron re-make? Did it have anything to do with the writings of H. P. Lovecraft and his stories about Cthulhu? It was then that the true marketing of the movie began, as websites started popping up, which although seemed to be completely unrelated to the movie at first, but careful investigation revealed that it was indeed the Cloverfield viral marketing machine at work. In truth however, the marketing of this movie began with the trailer. In an unprecedented move, the Motion Picture Association of America approved a trailer without any titles but only the release date of the movie. Last weekend, that date had arrived and cinemagoers finally saw what the hype and hysteria was all about.

J. J. Abrams is best known to his fans as the creator of diverse TV shows, such as Felicity, Alias and LOST. At the heart of his creations are character-driven stories: strong characters facing even stronger obstacles. He’s also known for establishing a modern-day mythos to each of his creations, where each and every single character plays a pivotal role in the story. It was such attention to detail and dedication to character, that attracted the attention of Tom Cruise. Abrams made his feature film directorial debut with Mission Impossible 3, and although it was a lukewarm box office hit, it is here that Cloverfield was born.

On his Japan tour of promoting MI3, Abrams went toy-shopping with his son. He was astounded to discover a plethora of toys depicting Godzilla-like monsters, he told the audience at 2007 Comic-Con, “I’ve always wanted to do a monster movie. I thought, we need our own (American) monster, and not King Kong, King Kong’s adorable. I wanted something that was just insane and intense.”

Abrams got in touch with director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard, both alumni of LOST, Felicity and Alias. They quickly got the essence of the movie down on paper and approached Paramount Studios, who although loved the script, assigned a budget of only 25 million dollars and agreed to launch it only during January, a potential box office dumping ground for movies that are considered risky.

Undaunted, Abrams’ production company, Bad Robot Productions began to cast actors for the film. They were given no script or indication of story, and the audition process was highly secretive and casting complete unknowns merely added to Cloverfield phenomenon of secrecy. Special Effects Supervisor, Phil Tippett was approached because of his ability to work with a minimal budget and yet create effects that are intensely real. Filming started in February2007, in and around Coney Island, New York and a soundstage in Downey, California.

With a minimal budget and an unknown cast, it would seem that things were set against Cloverfield from the start. But that is not the case; movies like Open Water and the infamous Blair Witch Project have proven that even things at their completely minimalistic level evoke the strongest reactions from the audience and the box office. But is that merely a reaction from audiences or is there more to that effect? “Cloverfield very much speaks to the fear and anxieties of our time, how we live our lives. Constantly documenting things and putting them up on YouTube, sending people videos through e-mail — we felt it was very applicable to the way people feel now,” says Director Matt Reeves in an interview to an internet website. This is why the entire movie is shot with a handheld digital camera. He went on to describe the presentation, “We wanted this to be as if someone found a Handicam, took out the tape and put it in the player to watch it. What you’re watching is a home movie that then turns into something else.”

Hence the look of the movie, a Cinéma vérité style, made famous in documentaries but used extensively in movies such as The Blair Witch Project and TV shows like The Office. Even the story aspect has a very natural, it-could-happen-to-you, element. Writer Drew Goddard heavily drew inspiration from real life, “The thing that was most helpful, the stuff that I watched that really informed the aesthetic, was a lot of YouTube videos. Then I looked at footage of terrifying events. I just wanted to see what happened when people were in the middle of these terrifying events and how they were filmed. There was this one clip in particular that I found absolutely terrifying where some troops were in a tent in Iraq and their camp was being mortar shelled. As the bombs were falling, they took the camera and put it on the ground. The shot itself was absolutely horrifying.”

And with that we come to the movie itself. First and foremost, it is indeed a monster movie. A monster of the new age, Cloverfield primarily explores the human psyche’s reaction to fear and terror. The latter of course is more important as this movie indirectly deals with terrorism. Often while watching the movie, one can compare the monster to the terrorists of 9/11 crashing into the World Trade Center. As the story progresses, each scene is a stark resemblance of news footage from ground zero during that ill-fated September day. Abrams and co. basically give modern day terrorism a face, that of a vicious inhumane, inhuman-like, monster.

Secondly, even while being a monster movie, the focus and the main propagating factor in the story is the action. It can be best described as a claustrophobic intensity (thanks to the hand-held cameras) surrounded by a background that is continuously crumbling. The cinematography is such that we don’t get to see anything in its entirety, everything is rushed and views are blocked or incomplete.

Finally, the cast are fresh, energetic and sharp. Michael Stahl-David recently discussed the characters in an MTV interview, “(My character) is someone who’s not a big risk-taker or somebody who’s very spontaneous,” Stahl-David revealed. “And then there’s Hud, the man behind the camera (played by T.J. Miller), Then there’s Lizzy Caplan (as Marlena), who randomly gets stuck with us and she’s not in our close circle of friends — she’s the outsider in our midst. Then there’s Jessica Lucas (as Lily), who is the caretaker of my brother Jason (Mike Vogel), who is wild and reckless.”Cloverfield is a new kind of monster movie. Whereas Godzilla and King Kong both ravaged and destroyed cities, Cloverfield is all about terror. Believe the hype. Something is alive. Something has found us.

(This article was originally published on the January 27th edition of DAWN, Images.)

If you have not seen the movie yet and don't want to know what the monster looks like or know that the city gets flattened with bombs at the end...

Don't read or look at anything above this sentence.

CAPTION:  Lizzy Caplan and Jessica Lucas were ready for their close-ups until that pesky monster came along.

Pretty Close to Something Terrible..., 21 January 2008

Author: David H. Schleicher from New Jersey, USA

At one point during the mayhem of "Cloverfield" our jerky-jokey cameraman Hud (an annoying T. J. Miller) remarks that the monster ravaging New York City is "something terrible." Well, "Cloverfield" is pretty close to something terrible, but it's also laugh-out-loud funny and loads of fun.

Taking cues from "The Blair Witch Project", "Godzilla", and our current YouTube/MySpace crazed youth oriented culture that believes everyone's point of view deserves to be recorded, producer J. J. Abrams' opportunistic "Cloverfield" operates at a mercifully quick clip to maximize entertainment value with a minimum of effort (and budget) while showing us allegedly top-secret video footage recovered after a massive monster attack on NYC.

Though barely ninety minutes long, we still have to suffer through an excruciatingly banal opening twenty minutes of vapid, spoiled twenty-somethings partying the night away before the monster strikes. There was a moment somewhere during this that I actually zoned out completely and found myself staring at the dark theater wall. The cast of unknowns thankfully contains a few people who might be able to act if given the chance in a normal film. Standouts include the painfully lovely Jessica Lucas as the feisty Lily and Zooey Deschanel look-a-like Lizzy Caplan as the sarcastic Marlena. These two young actresses acquitted themselves nicely while a group of anonymous and interchangeable actors playing stupid characters making bad decision after bad decision whirled around them. It made for one of those odd movie-going experiences where you actually start routing for certain characters to die in horrible ways while you hope the pretty girls make it out alive because, well, they're cute.

As a gimmick film, "Cloverfield" is as shallow as they come. It's also too silly and too much fun to end up mad about it. At least the idiot hand-held cameraman/character wants to see the monster and the destruction as much as we do. This leads to some great money-shots of the creature and its tour of terror through midtown Manhattan. It would've been more thrilling had I not seen very similarly designed creature effects in last fall's "The Mist". Like that film, "Cloverfield" certainly has its moments of giddy monster oriented fun, but it ultimately implodes and leaves behind a wreck of a movie that is pretty close to something terrible.

Originally Published on the Internet Movie Database:

http://imdb.com/title/tt1060277/usercomments-779