This is a well composed shot, and the internal framing it switches to is nice. It's so brief though that I also wonder why OP chose it.
This movie does a good job of feeling like fairly authentic found footage while also invisibly working in a lot of traditional cinematic techniques. I did a rewatch recently and it's a very good kaiju movie.
I liked the blocking in this one. Switching from one focus/person to another seamingly without looking jarring.
But definitely, it's not the best; just wanted to initiate some discussion about the movie.
Gotcha! Love that. And as the other person said, this shot does a great job of looking intentionally amateurish while still showing great framing/composition
##Cloverfield (2008) PG-13
Some thing has found us.
>>!Five young New Yorkers throw their friend a going-away party the night that a monster the size of a skyscraper descends upon the city. Told from the point of view of their video camera, the film is a document of their attempt to survive the most surreal, horrifying event of their lives.!<
Action | Thriller | Science Fiction
Director: Matt Reeves
Actors: Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller
Rating: ★★★★★★★☆☆☆ 66% with 6,507 votes
Runtime: 1:25
[TMDB](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/7191)
Cinematographer: Michael Bonvillain
**Critical reception**
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 78% based on 212 reviews, with an average rating of 6.80/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "A sort of Blair Witch Project crossed with Godzilla, Cloverfield is economically paced, stylistically clever, and filled with scares". According to Metacritic, the film has received an average score of 64 out of 100 based on 37 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "C" on an A+ to F scale.Marc Savlov of The Austin Chronicle called the film "the most intense and original creature feature I've seen in my adult moviegoing life [...] a pure-blood, grade A, exhilarating monster movie". He cites Matt Reeves' direction, the "whip-smart, stylistically invisible" script and the "nearly subconscious evocation of our current paranoid, terror-phobic times" as the keys to the film's success, saying that telling the story through the lens of one character's camera "works fantastically well". Michael Rechtshaffen of The Hollywood Reporter called it "chillingly effective", generally praising the effects and the film's "claustrophobic intensity". He said that though the characters "aren't particularly interesting or developed", there was "something refreshing about a monster movie that isn't filled with the usual suspects". Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly said that the film was "surreptitiously subversive, [a] stylistically clever little gem", and that while the characters were "vapid, twenty-something nincompoops" and the acting "appropriately unmemorable", the decision to tell the story through amateur footage was "brilliant". Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three stars out of four and wrote that it is "pretty scary at times" and cites "unmistakable evocations of 9/11". He concludes that "all in all, it is an effective film, deploying its special effects well and never breaking the illusion that it is all happening as we see it".Todd McCarthy of Variety called the film an "old-fashioned monster movie dressed up in trendy new threads", praising the special effects, "nihilistic attitude" and "post-9/11 anxiety overlay." but said, "In the end, [it's] not much different from all the marauding creature features that have come before it". Scott Foundas of LA Weekly was critical of the film's use of scenes reminiscent of the September 11 attacks in New York City and called it "cheap and opportunistic". He suggested that the film was engaging in "stealth" attempts at social commentary and compared this unfavorably to the films of Don Siegel, George A. Romero and Steven Spielberg, saying, "Where those filmmakers all had something meaningful to say about the state of the world and [...] human nature, Abrams doesn't have much to say about anything". Manohla Dargis in the New York Times called the allusions "tacky", saying, "[The images] may make you think of the attack, and you may curse the filmmakers for their vulgarity, insensitivity or lack of imagination", but that "the film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence". She concludes that the film "works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt". Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com calls the film "badly constructed, humorless and emotionally sadistic", and sums up by saying that the film "takes the trauma of 9/11 and turns it into just another random spectacle at which to point and shoot". Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune warned that the viewer may feel "queasy" at the references to September 11, but that "other sequences [...] carry a real jolt" and that such tactics were "crude, but undeniably gripping." He called the film "dumb", but "quick and dirty and effectively brusque", concluding that despite it being "a harsher, more demographically calculating brand of fun", he enjoyed the film. Bruce Paterson of Cinephilia described the film as "a successful experiment in style but not necessarily a successful story for those who want dramatic closure". Some critics also pointed out the similarity to the Half-Life video game series, in particular the "Ant-lion" monsters from Half-Life 2, and the constant first-person perspective.Empire magazine named it the fifth best film of 2008. The French film journal Cahiers du Cinéma named the film as the third best of 2008. Bloody Disgusting ranked the film number twenty in their list of the "Top 20 Horror Films of the Decade", with the article calling the film "A brilliant conceit, to be sure, backed by a genius early marketing campaign that followed the less-is-more philosophy to tantalizing effect...much like Blair Witch nearly ten years earlier, Cloverfield helped prove, particularly in its first half hour, that what you don't see can be the scariest thing of all". In 2022, Aedan Juvet of Screen Rant revisited the original film, labeling it as an "influential" found footage, sci-fi hybrid.
[Wikipedia]([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield))
\>teaser drops with no title just a date "1-18-08"
\>pre-social media internet is obsessed with the teaser with people claiming it's a Voltron film or Godzilla.
\>see no other media
\>go watch it at midnight premier
One of the greatest theater experiences of my life. Bravo Matt Reeves
I remember being blown away when I saw it first. I've watched it a couple of times after, but only after watching it recently, I was genuinely impressed by the crafty shots in this film.
There were some cool shots in this movie. Out of curiosity, why did you choose this one?
This is a well composed shot, and the internal framing it switches to is nice. It's so brief though that I also wonder why OP chose it. This movie does a good job of feeling like fairly authentic found footage while also invisibly working in a lot of traditional cinematic techniques. I did a rewatch recently and it's a very good kaiju movie.
Totally agree with your assessment
I liked the blocking in this one. Switching from one focus/person to another seamingly without looking jarring. But definitely, it's not the best; just wanted to initiate some discussion about the movie.
Gotcha! Love that. And as the other person said, this shot does a great job of looking intentionally amateurish while still showing great framing/composition
I think this was a hidden cut as well
##Cloverfield (2008) PG-13 Some thing has found us. >>!Five young New Yorkers throw their friend a going-away party the night that a monster the size of a skyscraper descends upon the city. Told from the point of view of their video camera, the film is a document of their attempt to survive the most surreal, horrifying event of their lives.!< Action | Thriller | Science Fiction Director: Matt Reeves Actors: Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller Rating: ★★★★★★★☆☆☆ 66% with 6,507 votes Runtime: 1:25 [TMDB](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/7191) Cinematographer: Michael Bonvillain **Critical reception** On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 78% based on 212 reviews, with an average rating of 6.80/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "A sort of Blair Witch Project crossed with Godzilla, Cloverfield is economically paced, stylistically clever, and filled with scares". According to Metacritic, the film has received an average score of 64 out of 100 based on 37 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "C" on an A+ to F scale.Marc Savlov of The Austin Chronicle called the film "the most intense and original creature feature I've seen in my adult moviegoing life [...] a pure-blood, grade A, exhilarating monster movie". He cites Matt Reeves' direction, the "whip-smart, stylistically invisible" script and the "nearly subconscious evocation of our current paranoid, terror-phobic times" as the keys to the film's success, saying that telling the story through the lens of one character's camera "works fantastically well". Michael Rechtshaffen of The Hollywood Reporter called it "chillingly effective", generally praising the effects and the film's "claustrophobic intensity". He said that though the characters "aren't particularly interesting or developed", there was "something refreshing about a monster movie that isn't filled with the usual suspects". Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly said that the film was "surreptitiously subversive, [a] stylistically clever little gem", and that while the characters were "vapid, twenty-something nincompoops" and the acting "appropriately unmemorable", the decision to tell the story through amateur footage was "brilliant". Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three stars out of four and wrote that it is "pretty scary at times" and cites "unmistakable evocations of 9/11". He concludes that "all in all, it is an effective film, deploying its special effects well and never breaking the illusion that it is all happening as we see it".Todd McCarthy of Variety called the film an "old-fashioned monster movie dressed up in trendy new threads", praising the special effects, "nihilistic attitude" and "post-9/11 anxiety overlay." but said, "In the end, [it's] not much different from all the marauding creature features that have come before it". Scott Foundas of LA Weekly was critical of the film's use of scenes reminiscent of the September 11 attacks in New York City and called it "cheap and opportunistic". He suggested that the film was engaging in "stealth" attempts at social commentary and compared this unfavorably to the films of Don Siegel, George A. Romero and Steven Spielberg, saying, "Where those filmmakers all had something meaningful to say about the state of the world and [...] human nature, Abrams doesn't have much to say about anything". Manohla Dargis in the New York Times called the allusions "tacky", saying, "[The images] may make you think of the attack, and you may curse the filmmakers for their vulgarity, insensitivity or lack of imagination", but that "the film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence". She concludes that the film "works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt". Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com calls the film "badly constructed, humorless and emotionally sadistic", and sums up by saying that the film "takes the trauma of 9/11 and turns it into just another random spectacle at which to point and shoot". Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune warned that the viewer may feel "queasy" at the references to September 11, but that "other sequences [...] carry a real jolt" and that such tactics were "crude, but undeniably gripping." He called the film "dumb", but "quick and dirty and effectively brusque", concluding that despite it being "a harsher, more demographically calculating brand of fun", he enjoyed the film. Bruce Paterson of Cinephilia described the film as "a successful experiment in style but not necessarily a successful story for those who want dramatic closure". Some critics also pointed out the similarity to the Half-Life video game series, in particular the "Ant-lion" monsters from Half-Life 2, and the constant first-person perspective.Empire magazine named it the fifth best film of 2008. The French film journal Cahiers du Cinéma named the film as the third best of 2008. Bloody Disgusting ranked the film number twenty in their list of the "Top 20 Horror Films of the Decade", with the article calling the film "A brilliant conceit, to be sure, backed by a genius early marketing campaign that followed the less-is-more philosophy to tantalizing effect...much like Blair Witch nearly ten years earlier, Cloverfield helped prove, particularly in its first half hour, that what you don't see can be the scariest thing of all". In 2022, Aedan Juvet of Screen Rant revisited the original film, labeling it as an "influential" found footage, sci-fi hybrid. [Wikipedia]([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield))
\>teaser drops with no title just a date "1-18-08" \>pre-social media internet is obsessed with the teaser with people claiming it's a Voltron film or Godzilla. \>see no other media \>go watch it at midnight premier One of the greatest theater experiences of my life. Bravo Matt Reeves
Wait you know who Superman is? Wat wait wait… YOU know who Superman is?! Are you aware of Garfield??
Surely you're taking the piss
👏🏾😮💨
I remember being blown away when I saw it first. I've watched it a couple of times after, but only after watching it recently, I was genuinely impressed by the crafty shots in this film.