1/18/08 Cloverfield

[mikeszekely]

I saw it with a friend on Friday night. He actually threw up after the film. Though I can have motion sickness issues at times, I was perfectly fine during the movie.

As for my opinion about it, doing the whole movie from solely the perspective of the camcorder was definitely unique and in a way was kind of like 24 in that your witnessing things in real time (sort of). But beyond that, I didn't feel much of a connection to the characters, the monster should have been given more screen time (obviously very hard to do since the whole movie was done from just that one perspective), and the ending was very unfulfilling, in fact I heard a number of people in the theater voiced their disatisifcation at the ending of the movie and numerous others waited around through out the credits hoping some Easter Egg was at the end to help justify them sitting through this whole film.

Yeah, but if they would have made this like the standard Godzilla film, it would have flopped. Cloverfield leaves you unfulfilled on the story, and now your curiousity is piqued. They can make a sequel in the standard Godzilla mold now, and it's practically guaranteed to do moderately well when everyone that saw Cloverfield goes to see it to figure out where the monster came from and what happened to it.

[KingNor]

think of it less as a pillar of sci fi, and more as a topic of discussion. not EVERY movie needs to be a hand-held-walkthrough-validating-every-point-exposition about some fictional event.

Watch the movie, think about it, what you would do, and start a conversation. Thats what something like this is for. Talk with your friends about what wasn't shown, I guarentee it will be more entertaining than had they spelled it out for you.

[GobotFool]

they were well dressed because they went to a party. People tend to dress up for those things. And only Beth is shown to have come from any money. The apartment at the beginning of the movie doesn't seem upscale to me.. unless rundown stairs and walls covered with grafitti are common in the nicer apartment buildings in manhattan.

The apartment struck me as kind of large, but other than that I agree it did not seem like a very upscale place to live. I agree about them being dressed up for the party, I was just commenting that I have no idea what would someone the impression that they were all rich other than the fact that they dressed up for a party. A lot of people, who are not wealthy, have one or two dressier outfits for special occasions.

All things considered Rob struck me as a fairly normal guy who was on his way up in the world. I've heard a few critics call him a fool for trying to rescue Beth. If you were in that situation, and the person you loved was possibly still alive but hurt, could you just walk away?

think of it less as a pillar of sci fi, and more as a topic of discussion. not EVERY movie needs to be a hand-held-walkthrough-validating-every-point-exposition about some fictional event.

Watch the movie, think about it, what you would do, and start a conversation. Thats what something like this is for. Talk with your friends about what wasn't shown, I guarentee it will be more entertaining than had they spelled it out for you.

I found the lack of technobabble very refreshing. To many movies need to explain that the monster was created because of the evil gov't noodling in gods domain, or some evil corporation spilled toxic waste in the ocean. Here the monster just was, it was a big unexplained scary stompy thing, and I imagine the 1st night of any monster attack thats about all anyone would actually know.

Edited January 22, 2008 by GobotFool

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Hmm, it might take time to bring in tanks and ground troops but if you can get several F-18s and a B-2 overhead, you sure as heck can bring on 24 Hornets and 12 B-2s.

Its the only way to be sure.

[KingNor]

I think Robs actions made perfect sense, if i'd just told off a girl i was in love with, and then got that call on my cell, hell no could i leave her. the uh.. was she black? the non white girl going with them, also i think had a good reason to stay with Rob, her boyfriend just died, the guy was his brother, they were very emotionally bonded right then. the white chick.. she was kinda paling around but i think had she not.. you know.. she would have stayed with the military.

the only one i don't really understand is hud, why'd he want to go so bad? well i think thats why they established him as a kinda dumb ass who's whole world revolved around Rob. Hud was clearly a guy who didn't think much for himself and looked to rob for direction, and robs direction was wounded girl. thats the only reason i can justify their actions.

honestly if the white chick hadn't [verb removed for spoiler content], i think the black girl woulda stayed with her at the military medic station, but since things got so emotional i can totally see why she'd go with her friends rather than stay with strangers and wounded people.

just my take

Edited January 22, 2008 by KingNor

[GobotFool]

the only one i don't really understand is hud, why'd he want to go so bad? well i think thats why they established him as a kinda dumb ass who's whole world revolved around Rob. Hud was clearly a guy who didn't think much for himself and looked to rob for direction, and robs direction was wounded girl. thats the only reason i can justify their actions.

Hud was Rob's best friend. Beth, Rob, Hud, and damn, I forget the black girls name... they all seemed pretty tight. The only one who made no sense to me was Marian? Did she say she was only there because she was a friend of Beth? Or was she a friend of Rob's brother's fiancee?

[jenius]

I saw it, I enjoyed it. It's the most vacuous and empty-handed movie I've ever seen though and that kinda scares me. Moral? No. Plot? Run from monster. Backstory? No. Writing more sophisticated than "Oh God run?" No. It really is possibly the worst movie ever made except it was done in a way to be a real fun ride... and it was a fun ride. Most movies of this genre tuck a moral in with the question of "where did this monster come from?" but Cloverfield almost fails entirely to even ask that question except for Hud's ponderings in the stairwell. I'm interested to see where they take it from here but in the meantime I'm definitely only recommending it to my adrenaline junky buddies.

[KingNor]

Jenus, are you serious?

Every time these kids desert a nearly sure escape to plunge back into the city to save a girl that is probably dead, it raises ALL KINDS of moral questions.

this is my problem with most peoples takes on more subtle movies. people WANT to be beat over the head with simplistic story lines and obvious exposition and plot recaps.

These kids could have escaped the city over and over, and each time they didn't, they're posing the question to you: "what would you do in that situation" there is even a moment when they all face the fact that beth almost certainly dead already. "would you go even if you knew your friend was dead?" "would you go WITH your friend if it was just to recover a loved ones body?"

Just because there's no jerry bruckheimer moments where the characters all sit down and say "look, theres a monster out there, we may all die, every one makeyour own choice, i for one am going to save beth because i love her and i'm willing to risk.." goddamn i cant even write it it's so cliche' this crap happens in EVERY big stupid blockbuster these days.

When the film got boo's at the end in my theater, all i could think was "god damn it.. these idiots actually wanted 'PirateSpider4: Sparow-iderman to the Rescue!'"

[mikeszekely]

I saw it, I enjoyed it. It's the most vacuous and empty-handed movie I've ever seen though and that kinda scares me. Moral? No. Plot? Run from monster. Backstory? No. Writing more sophisticated than "Oh God run?" No. It really is possibly the worst movie ever made except it was done in a way to be a real fun ride... and it was a fun ride. Most movies of this genre tuck a moral in with the question of "where did this monster come from?" but Cloverfield almost fails entirely to even ask that question except for Hud's ponderings in the stairwell. I'm interested to see where they take it from here but in the meantime I'm definitely only recommending it to my adrenaline junky buddies.

You could say the same thing about the Dawn of the Dead remake... no moral, no backstory, and plot was run from zombies. Cloverfield succeeded where DotD failed because the POV made it interesting. We've all seen monster movies; it didn't matter where the Cloverfield monster came from. Cloverfield gave us a new perspective, what it's like to be an average Joe when it hits the fan... DotD gave us zombie babies.

[GobotFool]

When the film got boo's at the end in my theater, all i could think was "god damn it.. these idiots actually wanted 'PirateSpider4: Sparow-iderman to the Rescue!'"

You left out transformers. In many ways I found this movie about how we face chaos and uncertainty. Hud's response "it's a terrible thing" sums up the nature of the beast rather nicely. It really doesn't matter if it was a scientific experiment gone wrong or the result of an environmental disaster. It's about how people face disaster. Our heros, despite being faced with overwealming odds choose to plung back into the chaos to save a friend while we watch most other people run the other direction. The movie lacks exposition and that was a good thing. I hate dialogue that pretty much in a nut shell is... "Look at me, I'm good, and noble, and moral." This is a movie where the characters actions speak alot louder than their words. I don't think it was a particularly complicated movie, but I don't think it was as empty headed as some people say it was.

Edited January 22, 2008 by GobotFool

[bsu legato]

Obviously the notion of cinema verite is completely alien to Jenius.

[KingNor]

Obviously the notion of cinema verite is completely alien to Jenius.

Now now, Jenus is an ok guy, i kind of unloaded on him because a lot of my friends have the same opinion and i needed to vent.

It's not really his fault either, i mean, hollywood has been feeding us garbage for so long it's hard to forget to *look* for depth when the movie isn't spelling it out.

I can easily see how someone might feel how jenus feels, i just hink they're undercutting the movie is all.

[promethuem5]

It'd didn't need morals anyways... there were people to squish!

Seriously... I'm pretty sure that distinct moral statements were the last thing this movie needed... and the lack of backstory was the point of the movie.

[jenius]

First of all, I just want to set the record straight that we're talking about movies which aren't terribly important in my world so please forgive me for doing a little bashing and know that I mean nothing personal by it.

Obviously the notion of cinema verite is completely alien to Jenius.

LOL, yes, Cloverfield is an excellent example of cenema verite. Truth in cinema = Cloverfield. Yes, I see it now!

It's not really his fault either, i mean, hollywood has been feeding us garbage for so long it's hard to forget to *look* for depth when the movie isn't spelling it out.

There is absolutely no depth to Cloverfield. This reminds me of when people were arguing that Mac7 had all these deep underlying meanings and issues. People standing above a puddle and seeing an abyss. There's nothing there folks, nothing. Christ you're using the cliched "i gotta save my girlfriend" as a means of granting this film depth?

It's okay to love a completely stupid film because it's filmed well and is really fun. This is that movie. It was a lot like porn in a lot of ways. I will say there were a few times it surprised me. The way they developed tension in the underground scene was done pretty darn well. You kept thinking something was going to happen and nothing did and then when you were starting to think things were slowing down it got all crazy fast again.

[chrono]

It's not really his fault either, i mean, hollywood has been feeding us garbage for so long it's hard to forget to *look* for depth when the movie isn't spelling it out.

That is sooo true that it's disgusting!

The audience has been literally trained by the vacuous nature of the last 10+ years of story telling that it's not surprising at all that some people don't think a movie doesn't have any "depth" because it's not flat-out explained to them from multiple viewpoints. Sadly this directly effects movies that are told from the old single viewpoint because not only do the writers not know how to write for it, but the audiences feel confused that they didn't get a "complete" story and few actors know how to act it out.

[bsu legato]

First of all, I just want to set the record straight that we're talking about movies which aren't terribly important in my world

And yet you really want to engage in some in-depth discussion? Which is it? This is usually a cop-out some people use when they want to slag something, but by removing themselves from the "fans" they want to sidestep any counter-arguemnts.

Truth in cinema

Bravo, you googled the translation. Why don't you look a little deeper next time.

There is absolutely no depth to Cloverfield.

a completely stupid film

You see, the gaping flaw in your arguemnt is that these two things are not necessarily related. In no way would I argue that Cloverfield is a "deep" movie, when in fact it has no real pretentions of depth. But that doesn't make it a "stupid" movie. But then you contradict yourself a sentence later and attribute the subway scenes with some genuine tension, something an ostensibly stupid movie should be incapable of having. Look, expecting any growth or character development in a 75 minute slice of 4 people's lives in the midst of an all out cluster*ck is pretty naive. It's a "documentary" of people trying not to get squished. Why can't people like you be this discriminating with the truly moronic films, like AvP:R?

Anyway, Comming Soon has a brief interview with director Matt Reeves:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41100

Apparently the Coney Island splash is legit. And he has some interesting notions about what he'd do with a possible sequel.

[jwinges]

Saw it yesterday with the usually motion sick wife....she was totally fine. both of us enjoyed the movie and highly recommend it. Best monster movie in a very long time.

[jenius]

And yet you really want to engage in some in-depth discussion? Which is it? This is usually a cop-out some people use when they want to slag something, but by removing themselves from the "fans" they want to sidestep any counter-arguemnts.

I just didn't want people to think I felt they were morons when I voiced my different opinion.

Bravo, you googled the translation. Why don't you look a little deeper next time.

Tell ya what, make an argument about how Cloverfield is cinema verite instead of just throwing out a phrase. When I think cinema verite, and admittedly it's been a long time since i had a class on film, I think about a movement that was almost obssessed with de-glossing life. In the simplest sense it would be like the camera following someone into the lieu during a movie instead of pretending like people never pooped. So, maybe I have some screwed up memory but I'm at work and don't have the time to Google up a refresher.

But then you contradict yourself a sentence later and attribute the subway scenes with some genuine tension, something an ostensibly stupid movie should be incapable of having.

I have always said the movie was fun. It succeeds in creating tension and keeping the action going. When I say it's "completely stupid" I simply mean that at no point will it ever make you think. Did it set out to make a person think? No. Is it a failure? No. I didn't say any of those things, I said:

It's the most vacuous and empty-handed movie I've ever seen though and that kinda scares me. Moral? No. Plot? Run from monster. Backstory? No. Writing more sophisticated than "Oh God run?" No. It really is possibly the worst movie ever made except it was done in a way to be a real fun ride... and it was a fun ride.

I think that argument allows plenty of wiggle room for me to talk about scenes I thought were really fun and obviously I had fun watching it. I give the movie creators credit where it was due. I'm just saying, on paper, there ain't a whole lot there.

Why can't people like you be this discriminating with the truly moronic films, like AvP:R?

Because we know better than to see those films?

[bsu legato]

In the simplest sense it would be like the camera following someone into the lieu during a movie instead of pretending like people never pooped. So, maybe I have some screwed up memory but I'm at work and don't have the time to Google up a refresher.

Well it's tough to give a hard, factual answer since even the mere definition of it seems to be open for debate (check the wiki article and the associated threads) but basically it's all about real, firsthand documentary of the subject (as opposed to something studio produced).

And that's what Cloverfield is. It's not just some movie filmed with a hand-held camera. It's pseudo-documentary. A pseudo documentary monster/horror film documenting the ultimate demise of the characters, which is apparently a trope that goes back as far as Edgar Allan Poe. Think of it as a modern day The Call of Cthulhu, and substitute an SD card for the manuscript.

[do not disturb]

think of it as the blair witch project, only this time its a monster in 2008.

BTW, the hand held camera filming has been played out already.

[JsARCLIGHT]

OK here is a retarded "JsARCLIGHT" question:

What kind of camera was used to "film" the movie, both the assumed prop and the actual camera? The reason I ask is that certain films like 28 Days Later and Blair Witch look good on a cinema screen even though they use sub-par equipment to record... and that sub par equipment is what primarily contributes to the "look" of the movie, but it ultimately "hurts" the film when it comes time to release it on home video.

My thrust is this: was this movie filmed using actual film resolution cameras and then "dirtied up" to get the look or was it filmed using actual low def hand helds in an effort to be more "original" to it's subject and context? My interest in this is whether or not this movie is going to be "worth it" on Blu Ray or HD DVD. 28 Days Later is NOT because it was originally shot in SD and it's master is SD to whit they upconvert it to put it on HD. Paying $30 for 28 Days Later on Blu Ray is retarded as you are in effect purchasing an upconverted rip of a DVD, which costs like $10. If Cloverfield is the same way (shot in SD, mastered in SD) then it does not behoove someone to purchase an HD release of it when the time comes.

Then again the overall picture quality of this movie, if it is indeed a film res source, is so low that having it in HD would be a waste of money anyway.

[KingNor]

Bsu you're getting pretty close to ad hominem attacks on jenus, which i dont' think is fair.

we're all argueing opinions here, so lets back them up with our own experience with the movie rather than attacking someone else's lack of knowledge.

I dont' think cloverfield is a "deep thoughtful movie" but i do think it's deeper than jenus gives it credit for, i've backed up my opinion with specific examples and he's free to agree or not.

The only thing that will change his mind is seeing the movie again, and maybe seeing something there he didn't notice the first time. Insulting each others intellegence wont' accomplish anything.

[bsu legato]

BTW, the hand held camera filming has been played out already.

Well there really should be a distinction made, here. There's works like Cloverfield (and the movie Redacted) which are intended to be hand-held mockumentaries, and there's the the handheld camerawork that get abused by the likes of Michael Bay. Handheld garbage like the action scenes in Transformers should go away and never be seen on the screen again. But look at handheld done right, like the few handheld shots in Saving Private Ryan (a film I consider having birthed the moden epoch of shaky-cam) or even 2007's The Kingdom before you do away with it entirely.

[KingNor]

OK here is a retarded "JsARCLIGHT" question:

What kind of camera was used to "film" the movie, both the assumed prop and the actual camera? The reason I ask is that certain films like 28 Days Later and Blair Witch look good on a cinema screen even though they use sub-par equipment to record... and that sub par equipment is what primarily contributes to the "look" of the movie, but it ultimately "hurts" the film when it comes time to release it on home video.

My thrust is this: was this movie filmed using actual film resolution cameras and then "dirtied up" to get the look or was it filmed using actual low def hand helds in an effort to be more "original" to it's subject and context? My interest in this is whether or not this movie is going to be "worth it" on Blu Ray or HD DVD. 28 Days Later is NOT because it was originally shot in SD and it's master is SD to whit they upconvert it to put it on HD. Paying $30 for 28 Days Later on Blu Ray is retarded as you are in effect purchasing an upconverted rip of a DVD, which costs like $10. If Cloverfield is the same way (shot in SD, mastered in SD) then it does not behoove someone to purchase an HD release of it when the time comes.

Then again the overall picture quality of this movie, if it is indeed a film res source, is so low that having it in HD would be a waste of money anyway.

the rumor is that it was actually filmed on some kind of retail small camera. that might be part of the hype though, i guess we may have to wait for some behind the scenes footage.

[eugimon]

In response to the posts questioning the motivations of the characters.

Rob and Beth were best friends for most of their lives and secretly in love with each other for a long time. I'd hate to be the friend of some of you people who are saying he should have abandoned her and just taken off.

Great pains were taken to show that Lily thought of Rob as family as her brother. She just saw her love die, it seems natural to me that in a situation like this, she would cling to the people she knew... rather than abandon them.

Hud was rob's best friend. Should be self explanatory why he stayed.

Marlena is a bit forced, but Rob and party are the only people she knew that were around. Everyone else around her was in the process of dying and she didn't seem like the strongest personality to begin with. So it kinda makes sense that she would rather stick with the few people she kinda knows and Lily whome she apparantly knew very well.

As for the moral of the story? That was also explicitly spelled out in the movie. Make sure the ones you love know it.

exchange between Rob and Lily (paraphrased):

lily: When I think of some of the things I said to Jason..

rob: that's different, he knew that you loved him.

And of course, at the end of the movie, we have Rob and Beth declaring their love for each other.

Sorry to all those people who needed to have a scene where a teary eyed scientist and his hot female assistant stand near the monster during its death throes and comment on how people have lost touch with their humanity and have consequently sinned against 'nature' and how 'nature' has unleased this poor monster in primeval retaliation.

Lack of backstory... what the hell, the first thrity minutes of the movie is nothing but backstory on the characters and their motivations. Backstory on the monster? What the hell, why would a party full of gen Y kids know something/anything about giant monster? Why would the military explain anything to these kids?

[KingNor]

Well there really should be a distinction made, here. There's works like Cloverfield (and the movie Redacted) which are intended to be hand-held mockumentaries, and there's the the handheld camerawork that get abused by the likes of Michael Bay. Handheld garbage like the action scenes in Transformers should go away and never be seen on the screen again. But look at handheld done right, like the few handheld shots in Saving Private Ryan (a film I consider having birthed the moden epoch of shaky-cam) or even 2007's The Kingdom before you do away with it entirely.

this is very true, i've been trying to explain the difference between this movie, where you can ffor the most part let the image blur and take in the shakey cam, and you'll be ok, for most of the shakey parts

and the gut wrenching shakey for no reason stuff in something like bourne supremacy, where you're expected to focus on things through the shakeys.

this movie uses it propperly.

[eugimon]

this is very true, i've been trying to explain the difference between this movie, where you can ffor the most part let the image blur and take in the shakey cam, and you'll be ok, for most of the shakey parts

and the gut wrenching shakey for no reason stuff in something like bourne supremacy, where you're expected to focus on things through the shakeys.

this movie uses it propperly.

are you kidding? bourne supremecy has a MUCH more stable camera than this movie... and like cloverfield, the camera work is directly tied in to the emotional beat of what's happening in the scene. I keep reading people complaining that the camera bounces around even when bourne is having a 'nice calm conversation', but this is simply not true, when Jason is calm, the camera is calm and scene with jason and marie will illustrate this. When bourne is confused or taken by surprise, the camera is also confused. And then there's the shooting stle introduced from the first bourne movie... the camera man doesn't know who is going to do what and has to react to the scene (as per the director in the commentary).

Anyways, the shaky cam is a necessary, it's the WHOLE CONCEIT of this movie. Where as michael bay uses shaky camera work like punctuation marks, this movie uses shaky camas part of the vocabulary.

[bsu legato]

and the gut wrenching shakey for no reason stuff in something like bourne supremacy, where you're expected to focus on things through the shakeys.

Yes, Bourne Supremecy is an excellent example of how not to do handheld. Even Greenglass seemed to realize this, and thus Ultimatum was much more restrained. Sure it was still largely handheld, but with some actual focus. It doesn't look like it was filmed by a cameraman suffering from cerebral palsy.

[EXO]

OK here is a retarded "JsARCLIGHT" question:

What kind of camera was used to "film" the movie, both the assumed prop and the actual camera? The reason I ask is that certain films like 28 Days Later and Blair Witch look good on a cinema screen even though they use sub-par equipment to record... and that sub par equipment is what primarily contributes to the "look" of the movie, but it ultimately "hurts" the film when it comes time to release it on home video.

My thrust is this: was this movie filmed using actual film resolution cameras and then "dirtied up" to get the look or was it filmed using actual low def hand helds in an effort to be more "original" to it's subject and context? My interest in this is whether or not this movie is going to be "worth it" on Blu Ray or HD DVD. 28 Days Later is NOT because it was originally shot in SD and it's master is SD to whit they upconvert it to put it on HD. Paying $30 for 28 Days Later on Blu Ray is retarded as you are in effect purchasing an upconverted rip of a DVD, which costs like $10. If Cloverfield is the same way (shot in SD, mastered in SD) then it does not behoove someone to purchase an HD release of it when the time comes.

Then again the overall picture quality of this movie, if it is indeed a film res source, is so low that having it in HD would be a waste of money anyway.

I read somewhere that it was actually shot with 35mm. Some shots such as Rob under the bridge was shot with a handheld, but I'm pretty sure it was hi quality HD digital.

[KingNor]

eugimon, i think the fact that cloverfield tends to have longer slower ups and downs, OR such fast motions that render you unable to focus on anything, helps it be less vomit inducing that bourns constantly moveing, yet focusable visuals.

cloverfield is, in truth, the shakeyest movie since blair witch during an earthquake, BUT it does it in a way that's truely intergrated to the film and at the same time less distracting than a "omnipresent" eyeball movie where you're supposed to be a phantom watching from your own vantage point.

in those cases a shake or two is ok, but too much is just annoying.

you make fine points about when and why the camera moves in bourne, i just think it does it poorly.

[bsu legato]

If there's a point to buying this movie in any Hi Def format, it'll probably be for the extra extras. I'm sure you've already noticed this phenomenon, where a Blu Ray release will get bonuses over even a 2-disc DVD release.

[do not disturb]

Well there really should be a distinction made, here. There's works like Cloverfield (and the movie Redacted) which are intended to be hand-held mockumentaries, and there's the the handheld camerawork that get abused by the likes of Michael Bay. Handheld garbage like the action scenes in Transformers should go away and never be seen on the screen again. But look at handheld done right, like the few handheld shots in Saving Private Ryan (a film I consider having birthed the moden epoch of shaky-cam) or even 2007's The Kingdom before you do away with it entirely.

i can't really disagree with that.

i just think a lot of movies are using/abusing the shakey cam thing as of late and in all the wrong ways. the reason for my disliking it is because i can never tell whats really happening? a lot of the time it leaves me sitting there like WTF just happened?, did anyone catch any of that?, what did i miss? i mean, its one thing when someone says that during a horror flick, it almost a given that people would ask those kind of questions; but its whole another thing when someone says it during an eye candy based action flick like the borne films.

[KingNor]

i think one reason shakey cam is used so much is it makes editing REALLY easy. Just film a bunch of non-descript actiony scenes of bourne driving a car, and shakey cam some cops driving a car. cut it together with a very few KEY scenes shot clearly and you can make the chase last 5 minutes or 20, mixing and matching what ever shot you want. easy peasy.

[eugimon]

eugimon, i think the fact that cloverfield tends to have longer slower ups and downs, OR such fast motions that render you unable to focus on anything, helps it be less vomit inducing that bourns constantly moveing, yet focusable visuals.

cloverfield is, in truth, the shakeyest movie since blair witch during an earthquake, BUT it does it in a way that's truely intergrated to the film and at the same time less distracting than a "omnipresent" eyeball movie where you're supposed to be a phantom watching from your own vantage point.

in those cases a shake or two is ok, but too much is just annoying.

you make fine points about when and why the camera moves in bourne, i just think it does it poorly.

Well, I think the problem people have with bourne is that the audience and the director have two different ideas on what the movies are. It seems a lot of the audience thinks that the Bourne movies are just action flicks, but greengrass looks at bourne as political commentary... as a sort of anti-james bond in chracter but also in movie style. So greengrass pays far more attention to the emotional state of Jason bourne and much less on the action sequences (the car chases are done with a second unit).. hence why bourne supremecy ends with a down beat with jason confessing to the daughter instead of with the big car chase.

Anyways, back to cloverfield... for me, the feeling of motion sickness was much greater in cloverfield than in bourne and the whole sequence where the camera is held diagonally for seemingly no reason annoyed me to no end.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Not to feed an already stray fire but "shaky cam" does one thing and one thing well: add or magnify action and intensity where there really is little to none. It's a cheap trick to liven up a sleepy shot or to add more "oomph" to a staid action piece. You could film yourself walking down the street normally with a nice smooth shot and it would be boring as hell... but film it in "shaky cam" and add some bombastic music and suddenly you are an action hero engaging in dynamic action filled with intrigue!

I feel in the case of the Bourne movies the "shaky cam" is a gimmick, a way to liven up a rather run of the mill spy movie. But the camera in Cloverfield is a character... it feels more "responsive" and "alive", because it is supposed to be. They want you know someone is holding that camera and experiencing what they are shooting. The usual approach in hollywood is to remove the cameraman, to make the audience feel they are observing without influence. I mean, you have many directors and cinematographers going out of their way to avoid lens effects because to them that takes the viewer out of the scene. To see a lens flare tells people they are seeing through a camera rather than looking through some magic window into these people's lives. The opposite is Cloverfield. They want you to know you are seeing pre recorded footage and not peering through some magical voyeuristic window into someone's adventure... you are watching what is in effect the remains, an afterimage or ghost of these people. Kind of like watching a video tombstone.