| Ickalanda said: I have not seen it but everyone I know thats seen it have said it was terrible, but I don't know, I can't make my own judgement since I haven't seen it. They said a lot of it made no sense though and a lot of stuff wasn't explained and that the camera was more annoying than realistic shaky cam feeling. But according to my brother and the friends of mine that have seen it the characters all act pretty unrealistically to things but I guess thats typical of any horror/monster movie. I still have to see the movie though and would like to. |
The film makes more sense than your friends seem to think. The characters and their motivations are all laid out in the first 20 minutes of the film, but you do have to pay attention to what's going on rather than look at your watch waiting for monsters. In that regard, everything relevent is explained. The monster is not, just as Romero's zombies and Titanic's icebergs are not. The origin/explanation of the creature is irrelevant to the story, which is about the characters, not the creature.
The only truly unrealistic action I can think of in the film is Hud's decision to continue filming even in mundane situations like climbing stairs or stopping for a rest, but this is a necessary compromise in order to have a cohesive film. While the characters make one very... controversial decision midway through the film that dictates the action of the rest of the film, an action that a detatched observe may say is unrealistic, I can say that such decisions were not uncommon on 9/11 (which, obviously, strongly colors Cloverfield).
For those who need some answers on the monster click here (it doesn't spoil the film):
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/09/...etter-monster/
And if you are wondering, perhaps, what was JJA's frame of mind in making this film, why he chose to tell what he told and not tell what he didn't:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/205
