Cloverfield Party Mix
For your next fateful, monster-interrupted loft party, do it Cloverfield style; Hypeful has assembled fulll MP3s of all the "indie-tastic tunes playing in the background of Rob's farewell party" (starring Spoon, Architecture In Helsinki, and of Montreal, etc.). And for as many off-hand jokes we've made about Cloverfield, you'd think we'd all have seen this movie a million times by now. How many times has Stereogum actually combined to see this movie? None. None many times. So ... was it good?
» Link
Posted at 5:41 PM
Comments (31) latest by Britt
Good idea for a film but...terrible, TERRIBLE acting ruined it for me.
Posted by: Not a Critic... at January 25, 2008 6:01 PM | ReplyScore = 0
it's better than you'd think it would be.
Posted by: Liam at January 25, 2008 6:13 PM | ReplyScore = 0
It was surprisingly enjoyable. If you're not apt to motion sickness, that is.
Posted by: Niggy Tardust at January 25, 2008 6:37 PM | ReplyScore = 0
I saw it. It's huge. It's alive!
Posted by: Todd at January 25, 2008 6:38 PM | ReplyScore = 0
It was done well... didn't go into where it came from or where it's going. It was just a first hand 'documentary' from street level of a monster attacking NYC. As someone living in NYC in 2001, some scenes were 9-11 reminiscent. Good music--- how about Scissors for Lefty "Got Your Moments"--- that one got me stuck thinking the whole movie-- where was that riff from?? Thanks for the list Hypeful!
Posted by: Seattle Rick at January 25, 2008 7:26 PM | ReplyScore = 0
loved it, not terribly predictable, girls were HOT, and nice concept in their use of overdubbing (you'll get it if you see it)
i thought it was too short...
Posted by: warren at January 25, 2008 7:26 PM | ReplyScore = 0
I LOVED the idea of combining handicams (the ultimate in realism for me) with special effects, which if done properly could make the most believable film about something ridiculously unlikely or impossible.
Instead they brought on bad actors, a traditional hollywood plot formula, and the most convenient cuts in the world (which being so convenient drew complete attention to itself). So rather than creating a film that felt so real, they created a film that's unbelievably self-aware.
But if you like crazy good special effects, than this is the movie for you. Also, Hud's character is hilarious. He's like that guy that we allll know. Everyone's scared shitless and he's off talking about homeless people on fire.
Posted by: Elliot at January 25, 2008 9:18 PM | ReplyScore = 0
good movie with shitty actors.
Posted by: sonny at January 25, 2008 10:00 PM | ReplyScore = 0
meh, it'll probably be the only thing worth your $10 for a couple months, I'd recommend you check it out
Posted by: west at January 25, 2008 10:46 PM | ReplyScore = 0
more like blow-verfield!
Posted by: c at January 25, 2008 11:48 PM | ReplyScore = 0
Looks like those characters spent as much time reading music blogs as we did reading movie blogs in the last seven months
Posted by: barry at January 26, 2008 12:50 AM | ReplyScore = 0
I REALLY want them to release the film in mini-DV
So much so that I've actually considered making phone calls.
Posted by: Allan Steiner at January 26, 2008 3:00 AM | ReplyScore = 0
have to agree with warren, the girls in that movie were like 10's, but the movie itself...maybe 6.
Posted by: aaron at January 26, 2008 9:27 AM | ReplyScore = 0
i went to rififi last night for some standup, and it featured a set from guy who played hud platt (t.j. miller) in cloverfield (also in the ABC show 'carpool' apparently) ... in moments i thought "pretty funny," and at others i felt like i was watching the next dane cook. beware.
Posted by: amrit at January 26, 2008 10:51 AM | ReplyScore = 0
Because the entire thing is filmed with a handheld camera, it allows the director to set up some pretty good scares as well as some totally fucking insane moments where you feel like you are right there in middle of it all. I thought it was great.
Posted by: zach at January 26, 2008 1:16 PM | ReplyScore = 0
I thought it was fantastic.
Just don't over think it for what it is
Posted by: Mos Def at January 26, 2008 1:48 PM | ReplyScore = 0
I'm starting to realize it's okay to reject anything with the name JJ Abrams attached to it, hands down.
Posted by: Memememe at January 26, 2008 6:11 PM | ReplyScore = 0
The monster was unpredictably awesome.
Posted by: Finchmeister at January 26, 2008 7:28 PM | ReplyScore = 0
I went and saw it as a matinee today. My number one complaint was the fact that it made me incredibly motion sick for almost the entire movie. You KNOW what's coming because it's been all over the internet, but your annoyance with the guy holding the camera in one hand at an angle at even the moments where things are reasonably still will eventually make you want to scream at the screen.
The good bit:
The monster is pretty freakin awesome. Best since Alien. For those people that are nerdy enough to have read the William Gibson script for Alien 3 J.J. has one MAJOR steal from there.
All in all I was left thinking - they better use this as an intro to a cool series of movies and not use it as a way to put out a series of stupidly vomit inducing cam corder films. No one had ripped off Blair Witch Project yet and now they have. Leave it there and pick up on something different.
Posted by: Mo at January 26, 2008 10:16 PM | ReplyScore = 0
So, yeah. I really didn't like this movie for several reasons.
1.) Motion sickness.
Posted by: Amanda at January 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply2.) Unanswered questions.
3.) HORRIBLE ACTING.
4.) What would have been an awesome concept (handheld camera) just turned into a motion-sick inducing fest that did nothing for anyone.
5.) J.J. Abrams. Seriously.
Score = 0
A half-baked idea. There are definitely other movies I wish I had seen instead: There Will Be Blood, The Orphanage, Atonement, Sweeney Todd, Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Savages. Colverfield wasted my time.
Posted by: the.audio.phile at January 27, 2008 5:11 PM | ReplyScore = 0
it was such a great movie!! i love how it left you hanging!!
Posted by: GA at January 27, 2008 10:23 PM | ReplyScore = 0
It's far better than its rep, but remember that it has to be judged by monster movie standards. You know, stuff like Them!, 20 Million Miles to Earth, Mimic. But the genre's standards, Cloverfield is pretty clever.
Most monster movies are from the point-of-view of the authorities and you spend all of your time with the scientists and the military forces. You know where the monster came from and what's going on. In Cloverfield, you're with the helpless victims. They have no idea what the monster is or what's being done to combat it. They spend 7 hours fleeing in terror and then meet their fates.
Yes, the first 17 minutes is like a reality show version of a drama on The WB. Yes, the cast is young and pretty. Still, the acting was better than I expected.
It cost $25 million to produce and only runs 84 minutes. That's the way a monster movie ought to be. As for the music, there are the tunes during the party and an orchestral piece that runs over the closing credits. The rest of the movie has no music, but great sound design.
Posted by: The Pop View at January 27, 2008 11:25 PM | ReplyScore = 0
amanda's an idiot and I disagree with every point she made with no exceptions.
Posted by: hmm at January 27, 2008 11:25 PM | ReplyScore = 0
A movie unlike any before it. You're missing out if you don't see this on the big screen. I can't comprehend why any movie buff would not love this movie.
Posted by: brian at January 28, 2008 12:51 PM | ReplyScore = 0
LOVED Cloverfield. No one mentioned Coconut Records - West Coast being played! Love Jason Schwartzman.
So yeah...Cloverfield was one of the best movies of late, and i feel bad for people that don't get it.
Most movie viewers today NEED a f.cking scientist there to explain and spoon-feed them everything. In my opinion, its much scarier when we don't know everything
Posted by: Nick at January 28, 2008 1:32 PM | ReplyScore = 0
they've got a cloverfield mix up on itunes as well.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewMix?id=135619171&s=143441&wm=1
Posted by: matt at January 28, 2008 7:10 PM | ReplyScore = 0
don't see it over There WIll be Blood or No Cuntry for Old Men, but this film is the apotheosis of terror cinema.
Posted by: over-field at January 30, 2008 4:50 PM | ReplyScore = 0
Yeah i saw this movie when i was hungover, and it gave me the spins. and i totally agree with the above post.
Posted by: Kippy at January 31, 2008 9:44 AM | ReplyScore = 0
I loved it. I don't know why everybody is saying the acting is bad, I thought it was pretty good.
The monster is awesome. I actually felt pretty bad for it.
Posted by: Colin at February 1, 2008 7:33 PM | ReplyScore = 0
I LOVED Cloverfield!! I thought it was completely awesome and I dont understand people hating the acting, it was real. I thought they were all great. Particularly Michael Stahl David (Rob), I fell in love with him :) And Hud, he was great he got plenty of laughs out of me. I definitely recommend this movie.
Posted by: Britt at February 10, 2008 5:07 AM | ReplyScore = 0