edited by Jonathan Doyle

Cloverfield [BLU-RAY] (Paramount Home Entertainment, 6.3.2008) Disguised under deliberately goofy, yet deliciously edible-sounding, aliases such as Cheese and Slusho, Matt Reeves' Cloverfield was produced and rushed into theaters under an equally appetizing shroud of secrecy. From last year's incredibly elusive Super Bowl ad to the film's viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield had everybody scratching their heads and drooling in anticipation. Aside from the as-yet untitled title and the Blair Witch-ian visual style, the film's biggest appeal was the enigmatic creature who was last (un)seen hurling the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty onto the crowded streets of New York City. All we knew about the mysterious beast was that it was big and angry. Now that the highy-anticipated project has come and gone, one question has fortunately been answered: Cloverfield was a major success. (continued)

Upcoming

November 12

Slumdog Millionaire

November 14

A Christmas Tale

B.O.H.I.C.A.

Dostana

The Dukes

Eden

House of the Sleeping Beauties

How About You

Quantum of Solace

We are Wizards

November 21

The Betrayal

November 30

Contrarian

email this story
read comments (28)
post a comment

The currents flowing between Will Smith and Charlize Theron in Hancock "are reminiscent of the heat generated by Gable and Harlow, say, or Bogart and Bacall. It turns out that there's a bond between these two (which I won't reveal), and the rest of the movie, which includes some superb comic invention as well as scarily turbulent scenes, grows out of it. Hancock suggests new visual directions and emotional tonalities for pop. It's by far the most enjoyable big movie of the summer." -- from David Denby's New Yorker review, dated 7.7.08.

"But it's funny, Rob."<< previous | next >>Really

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 30, 2008 at 7:27 PM

comment #1

monsieur hire says ...

Agree wholeheartedly. I've seen Hancock, and am shocked at the "swiftboating" this interesting film is too quickly receiving, much due to its troubled production, tales of reshoots and edits, etc., and less to do with its quality.

There is a lot to like in this film -- it turns the genre on its head in tones and tropes (no villain, no big climax, etc.), and there are suprises you don't see coming.

There's also trio of great performances from Smith, Bateman and Theron, some dark and frightening mysteries in the climax, some very mean-spirited humor and the whole thing feels totally fresh.

Ignore the knee-jerking going on -- it is not a perfect movie, but it sure is interesting and it got me.

No doubt the masses (press as well) wish to sweep this under the rug and continue blathering about The Dark Knight, which about 3 people have seen by apparently revolutionizes cinema as we know it and which everyone seems to have forgotten is just a friggin' BATMAN movie.

Posted by monsieur hire at June 30, 2008 8:16 PM

comment #2

Joe Leydon says ...

This is a terrific movie. Seriously.

Posted by Joe Leydon at June 30, 2008 8:18 PM

comment #3

erniesouchak says ...

Let's not forget Vince Gilligan wrote some of the better (and lighter, but not always) episodes of "The X-Files." Too bad the third act of "Hancock" is a real mess. There's a radical shift in tone and it just gets bogged down.

Posted by erniesouchak at June 30, 2008 8:26 PM

comment #4

monsieur hire says ...

erniesouchak: "Let's not forget Vince Gilligan wrote some of the better (and lighter, but not always) episodes of "The X-Files." Too bad the third act of "Hancock" is a real mess. There's a radical shift in tone and it just gets bogged down."

Totally disagree. It goes to dark and creepy places, and re-invents itself in the process. The scenes in the hospital, particularly the bedside conversation, are resonant. Berg obviously felt deeply about this material, unlike 99% of his hack colleagues cranking out their action crap.

Posted by monsieur hire at June 30, 2008 8:29 PM

comment #5

berg says ...

No relation ... variety is off the mark on this one, dare I say I was hoping it would be longer

Posted by berg at June 30, 2008 8:32 PM

comment #6

Joe Leydon says ...

Monsiuer Hire: I have to agree. Why do people complain that every movie has to be neat? What I like about Hancock is that it is so spectacularly untidy. (And I realy, really like how the villain meets his fate.)

Posted by Joe Leydon at June 30, 2008 8:33 PM

comment #7

iamjoe says ...

I haven't seen it yet, and will this weekend. I have been reserving judgment on it all except for this: only an hour and twenty minutes long???? Why? A film with Bateman, Theron and Smith? All fun performers and someone can't put twenty more minute of word in there mouths?
THAT alone makes me nervous.

Posted by iamjoe at June 30, 2008 8:35 PM

comment #8

breadlymoore says ...

"What I like about Hancock is that it is so spectacularly untidy."

Time for retirement, Ben Franklin.

Posted by breadlymoore at June 30, 2008 8:43 PM

comment #9

monsieur hire says ...

Joe Leydon: "I have to agree. Why do people complain that every movie has to be neat? What I like about Hancock is that it is so spectacularly untidy. (And I realy, really like how the villain meets his fate.)"

Agree again. Untidy is indeed a better way to describe this film. How often today does a Hollywood movie leave you wanting more, particularly a commercial "action" picture like this one? It doesn't need to be perfect and have a carbon-copy, forumla screenplay where everything snaps into place, to be compelling.

Theron particularly surprised me. NOW I understand why she did not ( could not?) do press for the film. Enough said on that.

Posted by monsieur hire at June 30, 2008 8:48 PM

comment #10

Mumbleboy says ...

Is it true that this film was cut down from a R version to a teen friendly PG-13? If so, that is reason enough to skip the theatrical and wait for the eventual DVD.

And this is coming from someone who's seen all Peter Berg films in the theater and have always been happy with the results, but cutting the balls off any film means my $9.25 stays in my pocket. Netflix will send it to me before the election, I'm sure

Posted by Mumbleboy at June 30, 2008 9:20 PM

comment #11

Rothchild says ...

It was always meant to be PG-13. It was just a pain in the ass for them to get it there.

Posted by Rothchild at June 30, 2008 9:24 PM

comment #12

Michael Cavayero says ...

I think a lot of what makes this movie intriguing is the definitive sexual tension between the two leads. You can't tell me that everyone watching this movie is not going to be thinking, what would it be like to see Smith’s Big, Black @#$% inside Theron’s tan, shiny South-African pooch! Not to be crude, but I think there is a certain amount of carnal adrenalin-driven sexualness inside all of us, enough so that that visual image will hit us at least once during the screening.

P.S Did anyone read that John Waters interview a few months ago about Alvin and the Chipmunks, and being 'worked up' as he calls it, like when the dad gets so worked up that he screams, "Allllllllvinnn!" Well Waters equated it to sex, and he talked about Dawn Davenport having an insatiable orgasm. The part when she's with Gaiter in bed and he's feeding her a carrot.

Posted by Michael Cavayero at June 30, 2008 9:31 PM

comment #13

Josh Massey says ...

Ok, I'm done reading the comments - don't want spoilers. But I'm so thankful to be reading positive things about this film. I've been anticipating it ever since I saw The Kingdom and realized just how goddamned talented Peter Berg is.

Posted by Josh Massey at June 30, 2008 9:40 PM

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

So Indy 4 already dropped its second week in Japan. Tee-hee. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988325.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Posted by D.Z. at June 30, 2008 9:43 PM

comment #15

Jeremy Smith says ...

It's an interesting failure, but the Theron/Smith chemistry makes a serious case for a tightly-scripted romantic comedy somewhere down the line. Shit, just give 'em DESIGN FOR LIVING (with Will in the "George" role, of course) and see what happens.

Posted by Jeremy Smith at June 30, 2008 10:31 PM

comment #16

Legowombat says ...

Indy's done it's Pump 'n' Dump business with the crowd here, DZ. Nobody cares about you gloating over yesterday's meme, especially when there's fresh movies like 'Hancock' to bitch about.

Posted by Legowombat at June 30, 2008 11:42 PM

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Hancock will probably be forgotten even sooner, if even Wanted couldn't beat Wall-E.

Posted by D.Z. at July 1, 2008 12:52 AM

comment #18

soap-and-water says ...

speaking of swiftboating... what the fuck was anyone who wrote even one critical word against Speed Racer thinking?!

The thing's a fucking masterpiece... the structure's remarkable (flashbacks in flashbacks), those enormous racetracks are a design coup and the whole 'singularity of vision' ball isn't dropped once!

that 'speedgasm' when he crosses the finish line in the final race is major league too...

Posted by soap-and-water at July 1, 2008 12:55 AM

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

Yes, we've established that Speed Racer is "underrated", but it's still not entertaining or fun.

Posted by D.Z. at July 1, 2008 12:59 AM

comment #20

vansmith says ...

Hancock will leave us wanting more, and maybe they'll give it to us...

Posted by vansmith at July 1, 2008 1:13 AM

comment #21

rr3333 says ...

I agree with 'iamjoe'. The 90 minute length is a big red flag.

Not that I need to see 2 1/2 hours of crap like Sex & the City to feel satisfied, but it looks like they cut, cut, cut like crazy.

Posted by rr3333 at July 1, 2008 8:24 AM

comment #22

deadre says ...

Sooo over this movie and will smith.........

Posted by deadre at July 1, 2008 9:58 AM

comment #23

Richardson says ...

"if even Wanted couldn't beat Wall-E."

If you thought that an R-rated action movie had a shot in hell at beating a Pixar movie in opening weekend grosses, you're even dumber than you come across on a daily basis, DZ. Unfortunately as it is, 'Wanted' did extremely well.

But not nearly as well as 'Crystal Skull'.

Posted by Richardson at July 1, 2008 10:33 AM

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: The point I was making was that, if a film like Wanted, which normally wouldn't have a chance at knocking Pixar off its number 1 spot, couldn't beat Wall-E, even though it came close, then Hancock probably has a slim chance, too. Though I guess if a film like Wanted came that close, it means that people are getting bored with Pixar films-especially since the last time it was this close was with Ratatouille and Die Hard 4.

Posted by D.Z. at July 1, 2008 12:00 PM

comment #25

PerfectTommy says ...

This is the ninth consequative Pixar film to open at number 1. Wall-E made $13 million more than the last Pixar film.
This film is universally loved by critics, will probably win the Animated Picture Oscar and will continue to make a slew of money.
So D.Z., where do you get the idea that people are getting bored with Pixar?

Posted by PerfectTommy at July 1, 2008 3:36 PM

comment #26

Howlingman says ...

The title of this thread could almost be in honor of DZ, couldn't it?

Posted by Howlingman at July 1, 2008 3:43 PM

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Tommy: "So D.Z., where do you get the idea that people are getting bored with Pixar?"

Oh, the disappointing (by their standards) domestic box office for Cars and Ratatouille, the fact that people have been discussing that penguin movie and Kung Fu Panda more than Wall-E, and the fact that people are comparing them to certain low-budget 80s and early 90s movies..

Posted by D.Z. at July 1, 2008 5:36 PM

comment #28