Hi Dylan.

Ok, I hear you. But, just to clarify, Cloverfield was 84 minutes including opening and closing credits, (see nytimes or roger ebert on suntimes) so they really got your attention for a lot less time than the casual oh it was 90 minutes long.

Of course, my feeling is that, were there more of a story there would have been a need for more time, or the time would have been better used. Or conversely, it needed to be really short or people would cop to the lack of substance in it.

I understand your view that there are "many" ways to qualify a movie as "good" but there are some basic parameters, or dimensions, or elements, that are found in all good movies. Most would say that a paramount element would be the presence of a compelling story.

What qualifies as a compelling story then would be the main theme you are suggesting to explore?

Cloverfield drew you in because there was a compelling story being played out on screen that caught your attention and held it.

If I have that right, correct me if I'm wrong, what "story" elements worked for you? And, if you can, tell me what didn't work for you, if at anytime you came out of the experience. Although, you didn't disagree with anything specific I'd said.

Perhaps Cloverfield will become a cult classic, I'm not sure, but as with all movies, even the ones "I" think sucked, there's always something to be learned.

K.

You don't have a girlfriend, do you?

But that's ok, neither does Dylan!
;-)

I though it had some really nice sound design. but my eyes were closed most of the time because i was getting motion sick.

The top listed video here is the prequel to Cloverfield.

Lol, actually yes I do :-)

But, I am a film major, and a filmmaker, so I pay close attention to what I screen...

You're killing me.

lol...

I'm going to raise what you said in class and see what happens...

I loved it because of many of the reasons you have for hating it. If you understand that the holes in the story and plot/no dynamics and poor character development were done intentionally, you might understand why I feel that Cloverfield is in some sense perfect. This isn't a "normal" narrative film in any sense, and I hate that people are criticising it as one. It was marketed perfectly for you to understand how the entire film would be, and people still went into it expecting to see some nice little fairy tail beginning, middle, and end. It breaks the rules and that's why it is beautiful.

Using artistic liscense as an excuse, sorry "reason", only goes so far when one examines the entire film, even casually.

To suggest that it can explain away everything flawed about the movie is not a view I share.

It cannot explain bad acting, poor development, unbelieavable actions/reactions by the characters, lack of dramamtic conflict, and the super stretched credibility of an uber consumer camera that captured everything, etc. as I mentioned before. In its attempt to portray a realistic situation, it falls far short and insteads becomes a parody of what it supposedly intends.

Movies are about extreme situations sure, but there is always a logic to how people, normal, sane, or otherwise, behave in those extreme situations. I didn't have any expectations other than to be entertained; I wasn't. I wasn't looking for anything like a nice little fairy tale, just a good movie; it wasn't that for me.

Sounds a little like Godzilla doesn't it? Just a little? And we all know how that idea absolutely bombed... You've got to take popularity into account when determining the "greatness" of a movie, otherwise frankly you'll be making movies no one will watch.

The Great Train Robbery was so popular in the 1900's because of its novelty. People had never seen film like that. Sure, cops n' robbers had been done many times before on the stage. But the medium was new. Thus is the popularity of Cloverfield. People wanted an apocalyptic thriller, and Abrams gave it to them with an inventive method and impressive creativity.

I don't go to the movies with a checklist. I walk in, I walk out, and if I had a good time, it goes on my recommendations.

If you want to feel something after watching a movie, well...that's what netflix is for. Don't be so stingy.

I too, by the way, am a student and filmmaker.

Godzilla sucked because it was a badly made movie, not because the traditional giant monster movie had become obsolete. In fact advances in fx technology dictate that they could do a killer giant monster spectacle with CG realism but it would mean good storytelling and studio support.

Biggest mistake with Godzilla was not having another monster show up for him to fight in the last act. Instead we see him running away from helicopters like a wimp. Its a no brainer.

Hollywood is becoming worse and worse at making fun movies with a knack for showmanship like you had with a Harryhausen movie.

They overthink the concept and hand wring about marketing and gimmicks.

Hi Ben.

I've mentioned the similarity to Godzilla previously...and it did suck. I also said I didn't have any expectations about this movie, other than to be entertained. I never said I had a checklist, but I do expect my money's worth.

I don't agree that Cloverfield is greatly popular; either you like it or you don't. But, it's a gimmicky one trick pony and it just doesn't appeal to me. As for your last statement, it seems antagonistic.

I gave my opinion, and it's just that: mine. Anyone can agree or disagree with it and that's ok. I gave it freely, because sharing opinions is what we do to learn others views on topics that interest us, especially when it comes to something as subjective as movies. I'm not saying my views are the only ones or that I'm "correct".

My 2c.

K.