Cloverfield vs Asylum Pictures mockbuster Monster by K-Fleet


Humor: 2
Blood: 3
Nudity: none
Minutes FF’ed thru: none, I was in a theatre with no control
Overall rating: 3

So, I went to see Cloverfield and left as confused as I was before seeing it. I knew it was donned as “Godzilla meets The Blair Witch,” which for me, meant nothing, because I was never a big fan of either. I’ve never been a sci-fi geek, outside of Star Wars, and I wasn’t a fanatic, and horror only started consuming me about seven years ago, although I've had a looming interest for Jason Voorhees since grade school. Plus, I liked Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows better than the first. So, I went in with little expectation, as it was the most promising movie out of the eight to choose from, and it couldn’t be nearly as horrible as The Grudge 2, my worst theatrical outing to date.

In a nutshell, it was okay. Nothing really award winning in my eyes, but very watchable. A lot of things will have you saying, What the F-? What is that thing? Where did it come from? What are those? and I wish this was filmed better. But really, that’s what I believe J.J. Abrams wanted. He wanted you to watch it multiple times and still walk away saying, I really don’t understand a damn thing, but that creature was badass. Granted, the stop and start camera action gets old quick, but by mid-movie you're used to it.

Cloverfield isn't a must-see theatrical release, but it is one that all horror and sci-fi fans need to watch, if for nothing else than to pick it apart, point out it's faults, and see how it stacks up against the classic monster movies. I'm sure I’ll pick it up when it reaches DVD, probably won’t be the first in line, or pay full price, but it will hold a spot in my collection. And maybe, just maybe, I’ll get a little more insight on the special features as to what IT really is.



Humor: 1
Blood: 2
Nudity: none
Minutes FF’ed thru: probably about 15 minutes
Overall rating: 2

In the same weekend, I also had a chance to watch Asylum Pictures mockbuster version of Cloverfield called Monster. Familiar faces from some of their other films, like Sarah Lieving, who has talent, but it's not enough to save this crappy movie. The Cloverfield monster is now an octopus or squid looking thing, but I don’t recall ever seeing the actual creature, just it’s tentacles. We have the Blair Witch-esque style of shooting, with even more stops/starts and blackouts. Then, the picture continually goes fuzzy or distorts, which helps dig it an even deeper hole (to throw in). It’s almost like, oh, we really need to drag this story out longer, so let’s throw in some more camera/picture fragmentation.

When picking up an Asylum title, it’s usually a gamble, so try viewing the trailer before laying down your money. Yes, they’re made on a much lesser budget, but sadly, they're usually much lesser creatively too. But, something always seems to draw me back, and I end up renting the next one. They've definitely grown as a studio, and are really gaining a loyal fan-base. Some of their better ones include Intermedio, Beast of Bray Road, Rachel’s Attic, and Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers. Their next title is 2012: Doomsday slated for February 12th, so we'll see how it pans out.

2 comments:

Smokeskrene said...

at the end of the credits there is something jumbled. its saying "it isn't dead"

K-Fleet said...

Oh, I'm sure they'll try to make it a legacy like Godzilla, since the U.S. doesn't have a claim to fame on any non-human/non-conventional monsters.