Warning! Parts of my post may contain spoilers for those who haven't watched. Read at your own discretion.GAXwilliam said:
--
--
5. I actually thought the acting in Cloverfield was for the most part convincing, and for the best part compelling. I connected with Hud and Rob, but perhaps it was just me. I just don't understand what was so terrible about the acting. I've seen way, way worse, and the movie, quite frankly, isn't about acting. If you want good acting, I'd recommend There Will Be Blood- it's some of the best I've ever seen.
4. Vagueness and lack of showcased backstory can be interpreted in two ways. One is that there is actually a carefully worked-out backstory which is then shown to the audience in an unconventional or purposeful manner to induce a sense of mystery. The other is that there really isn't a backstory and that the writers, having run dry of inspiration, decided to instead give the audience an incomplete perspective of a potential backstory which has for aforementioned reasons been neglected. Either way I don't give a shit. I don't mind not getting answers, and when left to my own devices will make up my own as I see fit and satisfying. I do not need to be spoonfed. However, we haven't even thought of the plot in the context of the movie: Humanity has lost New York to a lethal alien giant which came out of perceivably nowhere. How sensible would it be to have an excuse for us to know?
3. I have no idea what you're talking about. I was right in there with the characters being hunted and awed. I loved the action. Getting chased by bug-rodent-like man-eaters and risking an internal explosion; getting crushed on a bridge; getting caught between a monster and military fire; climbing to the roofs of two ruined buildings; these pretty distressing situations, and if you'd let yourself out of an elitist shell and relate to the characters, you'd feel like running out of your seat as they are down the streets of a besieged city.
2. Again I blatantly disagree with you. The execution in my opinion was top-notch. The camera was held and accompanied by tensed-out humans that are scared for their lives, and I thought the movie really brought out the theme of doom through the characters and the camera-handling. I don't mind shaky cams unless there's no real point to it, such as the case of Transformers. In Cloverfield, however, the context of the plot justifies quite a bit of shakiness and amateurity. It didn't annoy me, as the parts that I wanted to see I ended up seeing very well.
1. I didn't see much of a problem with direction. The continuity good. The sound effects were fantastic. The way the characters' journey unfolded was seamless and thrilling. What was so bad about the directing? You didn't specify.
Verdict: I think you were basically barking up the wrong tree. I think you were looking for something that wasn't offered. You should always remember that whenever there's hype there's inevitably (in most cases) going to be disappointment hot on its heels. Cloverfield promised you nothing. The trailer showed you exactly what the movie was all about from start to finish. No backstory was revealed or word was given as to what to expect from the production, so I don't see why it's being criticized for lack of character development or backstory or professional camera-handling. Guys, the object of a movie is chiefly to amuse, and secondly to entertain. Cloverfield accomplished these objectives as far as I was concerned. I'm not going to argue with you over taste, so perhaps the acting, plot, character development, or any other aspect of a movie means something different to you than it does to me, which is just fine, but to me it seemed like you expected too much. Or, rather, too different. I came in expecting little other than a suspense picture, and I got just that.
