Cloverfield revisited.

Most moviegoers hate the Jan/Feb/Mar slump. Not David Borwell: "I have to admit I enjoy checking on those quickie action fests and romantic comedies that float up early in the year. They're today's equivalent of the old studios' program pictures, those routine releases that allowed theatres to change bills often. In their budgets, relative to blockbusters, today's program pix are often the modern equivalent of the studios' B films." And yes, "I enjoyed Cloverfield. It starts with a sharp premise, but as ever, execution is everything. I see it as a nifty digital update of some classic Hollywood conventions."

Updated through 1/28.

"In my heart of hearts," writes Tim Lucas, "I have a creeping suspicion that Cloverfield may be the most important horror movie (or horrifying movie) I've seen in a long time, maybe since The Exorcist or Taxi Driver or Cannibal Holocaust, because it gave me the same apocalyptic feeling those films did when I first saw them - a sense that movies, as I knew them, would never be the same again."

"At a time when remakes and sequels are the norm, and audiences have a library of classic films on DVD at their disposal, a good original horror or science fiction film should be celebrated and Cloverfield is well worth celebrating," writes Kimberly Lindbergs. "Instead of appreciating what the film does get right, many critics seem to enjoy pointing out what they consider to be the films three main flaws, so I thought I'd address them in three easy to follow steps."

"Hollywood uses the stunt to sell movies all right," writes Brooks Barnes in the New York Times. "If Americans go to see the Statue of Liberty's head ripped off, as they have in droves for Cloverfield, all the better. But the fans the studios are really trying to attract with such imagery are in Eastern Europe, South Korea and Latin America."

Updates: "[M]y second viewing of Cloverfield felt less like the apocalyptic arrival I described in my previous column and more like a bracingly tense, disconcerting, out-of-control entertainment - which, of course, is all it really needs to be," amends Tim Lucas.

Benji Wilson has "10 things you need to know about JJ Abrams" in the Observer.

Earlier: the 1/17 entry.

Updates, 1/28: "I hesitate to dismiss Cloverfield as a novelty," writes Michael Joshua Rowin in Stop Smiling. "The seamlessness of its effects and the blatant echoes of its imagery - whether vulgar or not - redefine the parameters of realism in an otherwise by-the-numbers apocalyptic nightmare."

"Cloverfield is a fantasy that wants you to buy into it, and thanks to bravura technical skill it works on its strictly limited terms, but the closer you are to its Ground Zero the more keenly you'll feel its evasions and compromises," writes Robert Cashill.

"The real disappointment, the one that makes the whole thing feel like a complete waste of time, is the monster: never mind where it's from or what it wants, it just has zero personality and visual interest." Phil Nugent.

Matt Reeves directed, but most people think of Cloverfield as a JJ Abrams movie. At the IFC Blog, Stephen Saito lists "10 Directors Overshadowed By Their Collaborators."

Structurally, Miracle Mile "bears a striking resemblance to Cloverfield," argues Phil Nugent at ScreenGrab.

Posted by dwhudson at January 27, 2008 7:29 AM