comment #1

Rothchild says ...

I really don't understand anyone that wasn't extremely impressed with the film. It's an exhausting and thrilling ride. I even cared about the characters. If I wasn't going to Sundance I'd see it again this weekend.

comment #2

actionman says ...

Granted, I have not yet seen the film. But, I wish that Abrams and Co. never let you see the beast. I think it would be cool to never see "monster" in a "monster movie." Regardless, I am still very excited to see this film.

comment #3

berkguru says ...

OK we get it - you dont want to see the stupid monster.

If you want a horror film without the monster, watch Kids

comment #4

Ray says ...

@ berkguru - LOL.

Jeff, I am truly shocked by your extensive and positive coverage of this film. This seems like the type of genre/film you would ordinarily despise and brush beneath the rug after railing on it mercilessly. Poor Peter Jackson is probably shaking his head and wondering why he can't get this kind of love from your withering keyboard.

www.therecshow.com

comment #5

actionman says ...

Cloverfield looks like Spielberg mixed with Greengrass

comment #6

Mikeb says ...

Just saw it Gruver. It's pretty damn good. Quite a ride. My kids loved it. They'll see it two or three more times.

Mike Binder

comment #7

Chris Willman says ...

I, personally, would be so enraged if they didn't show the monster that I would go on a destructive rampage through Los Angeles, possibly ripping the head off the statue of Griffith J. Griffith and rolling it down Los Feliz Boulevard.

comment #8

Walter Sobchak says ...

So let me get this straight.... what you're saying is, our imaginations can conjure something far more frightening than what any film could show us? So, in essence, if we never saw a monster the film itself would therefore be more scary.
And in regards to "Cloverfield", you hoped that they would not show the monster because that would have been scarier but they did show it a little bit and it's still scary, just not as frightening as it would've been if it had been left up to our imagination.

But....

Ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, okay. I think I get it.

comment #9

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Part of the whole "what you don't see is scarier than what you do" effect is the idea that you MIGHT see something scary, but don't know when or where.

Therefore, whenever I read a review of something like Blair Witch or Robert Wise's The Haunting that says "Oh, it's so great how you never actually see anything!" it kills the whole movie for me when I finally see it, because I know nothing horrific-looking is going to jump out and surprise me at any point.

One of the movies that scared me the most was the original Dark Water -- it avoids showing you anything for the longest time, then just as it's about to finally show you, the director milks every last moment of suspense before turning the camera on the ghost, and it's freaky as hell looking.

Cloverfield strikes a similarly good balance.

comment #10

Marty Melville says ...

"Part of the whole "what you don't see is scarier than what you do" effect is the idea that you MIGHT see something scary, but don't know when or where."

The Woman in Black, a really unnerving BBC production plays in somewhat the same vein... although we do glimpse her dreadful apparition near the beginning of the film, that appearance is a nightmarish tease: we spend the rest of the time waiting on pins and needles for her to show up again.

She finally does. Yikes.

comment #11

Mike Schaefer says ...

well, not everybody loves it:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01172008/entertainment/movies/gridschlock_alert_236031.htm

comment #12

George Prager says ...

You can't really take Kyle "My Mom still picks out my clothes" Smith's review seriously. The guy is a weenie with a large head.

And a monster movie is a monster movie is a monster movie. If you want to see a real horror movie see DANCING AT LUGHNASA.

comment #13

ChiefHDB says ...

Your ruined dark water for me. Dick.

comment #14

Cashman says ...

Just saw it. Absolutely fantastic.

I don't really see the film as a monster-horror flick. Fundamentally, its a movie about unmitigated and unexplainable violence. Not seeing the monster would have been creepy, but in showing the monster, this violence has a genuine source: the real world, a biological world. We don't know where it came from; it could be a some sort of man made mutant (like Godzilla and the atomic bomb) or some unknown creature that finally reared its head. The characters posit both as possibilities, but always the response is "Who cares." What matters is that its there, and its slaughtering everything, hinting that this world is one of some species on unknown violence and anger. It doesn't represent something purely ideological. When it's killed (though we don't even know if the army's final measures were successful, but I think it's safe to say the nuke did it in), we still don't know the cause, and never will, leaving the possibility that this sort of thing could happen again. Even worse, eliminating this source of violence is only possible with the absolute destruction of the hallmarks of American culture ("the area formerly known as central park").