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

Can It Wait?

email this story
read comments (10)
post a comment

At last night's the Coen Bros./Burn After Reading party I asked a journo pal who's seen Spike Lee's Miracle at St. Anna if it really needed to be 166 minutes. (Some movies, like Steven Soderbergh's 260-minute Che or Sidney Lumet's 168-minute Prince of the City, really need long running times to achieve the goals they've set out to achieve.) And the guy said no, it doesn't. Spike's tendency to over-underline is in full force here, he said.

Then I spoke this morning to another journo who's seen it also, and he said the same thing: "It should have been two hours at most, and it's not that good to begin with." I'm still looking forward to this World War II/Tuscany/little kid movie -- all Spike Lee joints command my attention -- but these two comments were why I passed on today's showing and went off to write instead. You have to make calls like this all the time during a festival of this size and scope. The question isn't "is it any good or not?" but "does it absolutely have to be seen here?"

Woeness<< previous | next >>Invited to Wait

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 6, 2008 at 3:23 PM

comment #1

The InSneider says ...

Definitely didn't have to be 166 minutes. I think it's probably 25 minutes too long. 140 would've been nice. And you're friend is right, it's not that good but it IS worth seeing.

Posted by The InSneider at September 6, 2008 3:39 PM

comment #2

Chicago48 says ...

I want to see it, but not at over 2 hours.

Posted by Chicago48 at September 6, 2008 4:11 PM

comment #3

Chapman Carruthers says ...

I'll take my chances. Spike's joints over two hours in length are all pretty high quality. Now, if you said MSA was 116 minutes, I'd start to panic. Not sure I've ever gotten over the disappointment that was Girl 6.

Inside Man -- 2:09
She Hate Me -- 2:18
The 25th Hour -- 2:15
Bamboozled -- 2:15
Summer of Sam -- 2:22
He Got Game -- 2:16
Get on the Bus -- 2:00
Girl 6 -- 1:48
Clockers -- 2:08
Crooklyn -- 1:55
Malcolm X -- 3:22
Jungle Fever -- 2:12
Mo Better Blues -- 2:09
Do The Right Thing -- 2:00
School Daze -- 2:01
She's Got to Have It -- 1:24

Posted by Chapman Carruthers at September 6, 2008 5:24 PM

comment #4

alynch says ...

Too long is the laziest, least substantive complaint any critic can ever make.

Posted by alynch at September 6, 2008 5:35 PM

comment #5

MickTravis says ...

alynch: Yeah, and it's usually a complaint more appropriately made *after* the movie in question has actually been seen.

Already there have been two posts about the length of the film.

"Zodiac" was long. "There Will Be Blood" was long. I don't remember any advance anxiety about those long and perfectly amazing films.

In my opinion Lee is one of the most interesting major filmmakers working today. I occasionally question his structure and his narratives, but I usually find other elements make up for any shortcomings.

In any case, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and will wait until I've seen it to start critiquing it.

Posted by MickTravis at September 6, 2008 5:59 PM

comment #6

Devin Faraci says ...

It's too long as a movie, but watching it I couldn't help but think that, with some additions, it would have made a nice four hour miniseries on HBO or something.

Posted by Devin Faraci at September 6, 2008 6:27 PM

comment #7

corey3rd says ...

Perhaps Spike made this film so long so the folks in manhattan won't notice that the entire month of October has passed without any playoff games in Yankee Stadium

Posted by corey3rd at September 6, 2008 7:08 PM

comment #8

Richardson says ...

It's so weird when Jeff decides something. "I bet this movie is going to be too long because it's by Spike Lee." Then he asks everybody who sees it, "Is it too long?" and prints the two people who say it is.

Gee, I wonder what Jeff's review will say.

Posted by Richardson at September 6, 2008 8:23 PM

comment #9

Edward Havens says ...

Nobody complains about the length of a film if the content within is worth watching, so "too long" is a valid complaint, as long as the person who writes or says "too long" explains how and where the film could have benefitted from some extra judicial editing.

Posted by Edward Havens at September 7, 2008 9:48 AM

comment #10