hellsing watches a monster destroy new york and then a chubby jewish guy get it on

[Danny]

the best theatre film for me lately was superbad, theres nothing like a full theatere of people all laughing at the same jokes to brighten your day.

[Arcades057]

I'm a big fan of the TV series Lost, so when I found out that JJ Abrams was working on Cloverfield, I was psyched up about it. After finding a site on the web where you can see the movie for free, I checked it out on my laptop before seeing it in theaters. Normally (such as with Transformers and Resident Evil 3) doing so would make me list the movie as "seen," rather than "gotta see it." Cloverfield was a very big exception. After viewing the movie from the comfort of my home, I realized that I NEEDED to see it in theaters. So I did. The first 10-20 minutes of the movie is strictly character development. This is some of the best and most detailed development of characters in a horror/thriller/action flick I think I've ever seen. By the time the monster arrives, I actually cared about what happened to Rob and his friends. I spent the majority of the movie literally on the edge of my seat. When the monster first appears in the movie--I mean actually appears, so that you can see it--as they're running into the subway, I jumped. I remembered it from the laptop, but man, that is one scary, odd looking monster. Godzilla was never a scary looking monster, and I don't think it was designed to be scary; this monster was, and it shows. The entire design of the monster, seen here, seems geared toward inspiring fear and revulsion--of special note, the parasitic creatures clinging to its body--rather than anything out of Godzilla. The plot was secondary to the characters. While the plot was there, it was character-driven--they were searching for someone, playing out a human drama. The plot truly is "monster attacks city; video of attack is found; video shot by group looking for Rob's girlfriend." In that respect, the plot delivered. This movie was not meant to deliver anything new or groundbreaking to the film industry; unless you count the viral marketing which proved that you can make a mint by making people think. You don't have to give away your surprise ending on the previews; you don't even have to show your moneyshots on the preview. I personally think that it lived up to the hype. I went into the theater excited and I left excited. There's talk that a sequel has already been given the green light, so there's that to look forward to. As to the shooting style of the movie, I had to look away from the screen a few times to keep from throwing up; kept feeling like I was sliding in whatever direction the camera was jiggling in, so I kept shooting my foot out to stop myself. On a 1-10 scale, I give the movie a 10. It not only lived up to my expectations, but it surpassed them in many respects.

[Neil]

Interesting... I found the footage of the individuals just too 'acted' and didn't accept it as being real footage. Some of the dialog also came across too written as well. So basically the main premis of the film didn't really work for me - ie: This was amateur video footage of real people. And the head of the statue of liberty just happening to land outside their apartment? *groan* This is where IMHO something like The Blair Witch project on a tiny budget blows Cloverfield out of the water. From memory at least, the acting and production there seemed to hold far more water than Cloverfield did, so you had more belief and therefore care in the characters/events. That aside, I felt many of the 'set pieces' of the film worked very well! And some of the effects came off very well too! I enjoyed it and luckily didn't suffer from motion sickness like my friend did - who prompty rushed straight home after the flick. I'd score it 6.5 to 7/10...

[Danny]

Interesting... I found the footage of the individuals just too 'acted' and didn't accept it as being real footage. Some of the dialog also came across too written as well. So basically the main premis of the film didn't really work for me - ie: This was amateur video footage of real people. And the head of the statue of liberty just happening to land outside their apartment? *groan* This is where IMHO something like The Blair Witch project on a tiny budget blows Cloverfield out of the water. From memory at least, the acting and production there seemed to hold far more water than Cloverfield did, so you had more belief and therefore care in the characters/events. yeah i can pretty much agree with that. i mean people thought the blair witch project was real remember, now theres a testament to the actors ability right there.

[Arcades057]

I thought the acting was believable. Some of the lines spoken by Hud were things that I would say ("Beth is in Midtown. You know what else is in Midtown? Some SERIOUSLY horrifying ****, that's what else is in Midtown!") Also I'm prone to liking movies that have a ton of gratuitous violence; there was more than enough of that in this movie to sate me.

[Neil]

yeah i can pretty much agree with that. i mean people thought the blair witch project was real remember, now theres a testament to the actors ability right there. They - and their dialog - utterly made it!

[bassman]

I feel so sorry for Matt Reeves. Everyone says that this is Abrams' movie when he was just the producer. Just because he's made two boring TV shows and a lackluster Mission Impossible flick.