No kidding dept: It’s been buzzed about in the blogosphere so it comes as no surprise that Cloverfield director Matt Reeves is in talks to direct a Cloverfield sequel. Since I mostly hated Cloverfield, this is definitely something I’m not rushing out to see – unless they ditch the stupid Blair Witch school of cinematography angle. (He has also been signed to direct “The Invisible Woman,” according to Variety, but it will likely come after the Cloverfield sequel.)

The real question is, since the Cloverfield/ Slusho monster – whose origin annoyingly isn’t even hinted at in the movie – has destroyed most of the portions of New York City near the Statue of Liberty, what else is there to destroy that isn’t more of the same? And if the military and air force couldn’t destroy the monster, who can? Where’s John Rambo when you need him? He’d know what to do. If he doesn’t, then the sequel could spawn yet another TV reality series. The Slusho monster destroys a different city each week, and the Extreme Home Makeover crew rebuilds the week after. (Sorry, didn’t take my meds this morning.)

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the theater. I went to see a movie and ended up at a thrill ride. But I paid for 85 minutes of Cloverfield and only got about 7 minutes of thrill. And what thrill that 7 minutes was.

Cloverfield, which topped the box office on its opening weekend but dropped to fourth this past weekend, is unlike any movie I’ve ever seen. But that’s neither a compliment nor an insult. Actually, it’s both. This is the third completely different review I’ve written for Cloverfield because I have had a hard time capturing it exactly.

On the one hand, I have a review full of “bitter critic” banter at not trusting my gut instinct about how crappy this movie would be. In my long experience of watching movies, I’ve learned not to go see any movie that’s been as hyped as Cloverfield has. And it really stinks. Sort of.

The Good

On the other hand, there’s something about the movie. The “experience” so many other idiot critics are raving about, calling it a new classic, is preceded by the longest set of trailers I’ve seen for any film – including a really boring trailer for J.J. Abrams Star Trek XI (see below). The film itself is mostly 75-80 minutes of pure, utter boring garbage about people you don’t know or care about, using the most annoying film work I’ve ever seen (which is a lot) – even worse than for The Blair Witch Project (which I avoided seeing for nearly ten years).

But there was a grand total of about seven minutes of pure and utter thrill unlike anything I’ve experienced – except at maybe an thrill-ride amusement park for $20 or more. Was it worth the $10? I’m undecided but leaning towards yes, no matter how much I hated the rest of the movie.

The thrill in Cloverfield came in only two blocks totalling maybe seven minutes at most. These were the times when the monster appeared or could be heard destroying New York City – a time when the bass speakers in the theater were cranked to maximum and shook our seats.

Besides the booming bass speakers, there’s one gripping segment where the main characters try to rescue a friend. The effects are so realistic that when they enter the girl’s apartment (which is on the top half of the building, and which is partially toppled), the skewed view out her window actually made my knees weak and I suffered vertigo. I felt like I was going to fall out the window, from my theater seat. And then the monster appeared again, along with maximum, booming speakers. Very scary, kids. Very scary.

The Bad

The question is, did you pay $10 (or whatever) to go to a thrill ride or to see a monster movie? I went because I had to, to review Cloverfield. If I had to do it again, knowing what I know, I would not have spent the money. Except for that 5-7 minutes, the movie was exactly as bad as I had expected it to be, and a total waste of time. I really would have been much happier watching 80 minutes of trailers and the 7 or so minutes of thrill.

It was as if some idiot watched Blair Witch Project and thought it was good, then wanted to do something similar. And what’s with the damn shaking camera? As Richard Roper said on Ebert and Roper recently, most new handheld videocams have some sort of image stabilization. “citizen footage” would never be as shaky and annoying as it was in Cloverfield.

The Ugly

The footage is also far too remniscent of the events of 9/11 events – a situation that I found extremely offensive despite not being a New Yorker. It was like watching camera phone coverage of a war zone. The people who suffered in 9/11 experienced real horror. It somehow seems wrong to replicate that the way Cloverfield did – but I can’t eloquently explain why.

So if you’re going to Cloverfield expecting to see a “normal” monster flick, don’t waste your money, don’t believe the hype. But if you want a physically-thrilling experience for a total of about 7 minutes for about $10, then do go. While the real monster was scary, the parasites were crap – neither was worth the $10 to see for the sake of seeing. On the other hand, if you do eventually want to watch this movie, see it while it’s still in the theater. Don’t wait to watch it at home, unless you have a really powerful home entertainment system with at least a 100-inch screen.

I originally wrote that this was the worst monster movie I’ve ever seen, but there are a few B-movies that are worse. It certainly isn’t the best – not by a long shot – but it isn’t the worst. I actually found myself yawning through most of it, or fidgeting. I do know, though, that the casting of mostly unknown actors and actresses is what allows the seven minutes of thrill to even work.

Some people have made the comment that this movie might appeal to a younger generation. Well, after the screening, when I made a pitstop in the men’s room, I heard a couple of young guys, maybe 18-20, very cynically saying how a friend had raved about Cloverfield. The implication was that they only came on his recommendation and that they were not impressed.

To be honest, there’s very little work under director Matt Reeve’s credits in writing, producing, and directing. I’ve watched a few early episodes of Felicity – when they first aired – which Reeves wrote and executive produced. I know that I’ll never rush out and watch another of his movies, if this is what he comes up with. Maybe Cloverfield screenwriter Drew Goddard is to blame? Why not. Let’s blame him too.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Oh, if you happened to like it, open your wallets for the Cloverfield monster toy. Coming soon for only $100.

The Star Trek XI Trailer

Even more disappointing was trailer for Star Trek XI, which J.J. Abrams (Lost) is producing and directing. It was the last trailer, after maybe 20 minutes of trailers (more than I’ve seen for any other movie, but not surprising considering how relatively short Cloverfield was). The Star Trek trailer, which has already appeared online for free, simply showed the first starship Enterprise being built, with blowtorches blazing. Boooorrrring. Couldn’t J.J. Abrams have come up with a bit more for those of us lamenting the 2-3 Star Trek movies that were promised but never made the last few years? Not even a few seconds to show us some of the cast? I’m really dreading how much he’s going to butcher Star Trek.

Hasbro no image on the product page, but Variety reports that it won’t ship until Sept. 30.

Oh, and for those keeping track, there are probably not only sequels coming for Cloverfield but an Internet campaign to keep the hype buzz going until then. If you haven’t seen the movie, you’ll just have to keep guessing at what the monster looks like.

[via: io9]

What do the Cloverfield monsters look like? Check out the drawings at Film School Rejects, supposedly produced by fans that have seen the special pre-screenings of the movie (source: Unfiction Forums). The one shown above is the closest in likeness, but it and the others are not actually the Cloverfield monsters. They are definitely nothing like Cthulhu, so H.P. Lovecraft fans will have to wait.

Maybe Hellboy 3, rumored to be in the planning stages as a followup to this year’s Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, could have a nod to Cthulhu. I always felt that some of the creatures in Hellboy 1 were vaguely reminiscent of Lovecraft. I say that without doing deep research about the creator of the Hellboy comics and that person’s influences. However, I’m hypothesizing that many horror writers/ comics creators are influenced either directly or indirectly by Lovecraft.

If I’m not mistaken, Berni Wrightson, a master of the macabre, was influenced by Lovecraft (and Edgar Allan Poe – but then who wasn’t?), and Wrightson in turn has influenced a new generation of horror artists and writers. Speaking of Wrightson, whyn’t anyone ask him to do a Hellboy poster. Or Cloverfield, once the movie is out?

By the looks of the Cloverfield movie poster, this is a ‘disaster’ movie. The head of the statue of liberty is missing, and the background shows buildings burning. But a Slashfilm post gives details that director Matt Reeves has revealed in various interviews. It’s a monster movie, though there have yet to be any visuals – either in stills or trailers – of the monster. That’s supposedly to build “dread and anticipation.”

J.J. Abrams is producing, so it’s not surprising the trailer for the next Star Trek – which he’s also producing – is attached to Cloverfield. The latter is out on Jan 18th. Note that depending on which Cloverfield trailers you watch, it either looks really boring or really exciting. A more exciting clip is below, but no monster appears. My bets are on a Gojira or Mothra monster.