Welcome to Reviews from the Horror Chamber. I am your chamber keeper, Anthony Thurber.

Before I start with the reviews, your truly has his own plans for filmarcade.net. First, I want to make you involved with this column, so I decided to do a segment called Ask the Chamber-keeper. All you need to do is send me your questions at my new email address at HorrorChamber@FilmArcade.net, and then if I choose your question, I will respond to it in a future edition. It can be horror-related, it can also be a non-horror question or if you disagree with a particular review in which I’m totally wrong, I’ll explain why I came to that decision. Please leave me your name, city and state from where you live so I can let everyone know who send it.

Second, I’m starting a new column. Before I start don’t worry, this column is staying where it is but I want to focus more on films that go straight to DVD. I’ll give you more details in the first edition of Direct to DVD.

Finally, I’m looking for a co-host/ reviewer, in which you can review horror films here in my column as I’m looking for another perspective. All I need is a sample review. You have a couple of weeks as to send me your email. Please note this is not a paying job. The plan is for you to review one or two films a week. One review is a joint review if there is a major horror film that’s worth a debate and the other review can be a film of your choosing, as long it’s either a Sci-fi or horror film. If you’re interested you can send your sample review to HorrorChamber@FilmArcade.net. Now on to the reviews.


Cloverfield
Year: 2008
Directors: Matt Reeves
Stars: Lizzy Caplan Michael Stahl-David, Mike Vogel
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Studio: Paramount Pictures
Running Time: 84 Mins
Review Rating: 5 Stars

Yours truly has waited for all the hype to die down from this film. Since it’s died down, now I get to have my say on the biggest grossing horror film of the year, so far.

Cloverfield is about is told about a mysterious monster attacking New York City told from the perspective of a digital Video camera. The film follows five New Yorkers who at the party where one of them is planning to move to moving to Japan to start over his life after the break-up of his girlfriend. They were enjoying the party until a mysterious monster begins to knock building over including the head of the Stature of Liberty. Soon it starts to get out of control when the gigantic monster starts heading their way. Soon, they must to run away from this monster as it starts to get closer to the city, before it strikes them.

Cloverfield surprisingly lives up to the hype and then some. This film is Director Matt Reeves second feature film, as you might not know that he directed The Pallbearer back in 1996 which nobody including me (which I might take a look after seeing this film) saw that stared David Schwimmer and Gwyneth Paltrow. He has a future in this business, as a director. Producer J.J. Abrams made a very good choice in bringing Reeves aboard here. He brings out that intensity which was needed for this type of film. Reeves does a great job directing this film under these difficult circumstances. He does a great job making some of this film, as realistic as possible from the method of filmmaking he uses to the frightening apocalyptic imagery that used throughout the film. His direction of the actors was very good. The actors didn’t as they came off clichéd or unlikable, instead they came off as frighten and intense people who are going thought a major disaster.

With all of the credit of this film going to Reeves and Abams, I don’t know why screenwriter Drew Goddard isn’t getting as much run, as those two. His screenplay was great. He does a good job not rushing right into the action, as he spends time developing his characters in the first fifteen minutes in the film, which helps the viewer to get to know the characters before the eventual chaos. Goddard also intertwines bits and pieces of Rob and Beth happier moments of their relationship on that videotape. To me, that did two things, which was very good for the film. First, it helped show why Rob is obsessed with finding her, after they went their separate ways during the chaos. And second, it helps sell the gimmick that this film is a found footage film. Another thing that Goddard’s screenplay got right was that the fact that it focused on the people who are caught in the middle of the monster’s path. I liked how Goddard focuses on them and the crises at hand, instead of trying to find out where the monster from, or trying to give some ridiculous reason to why this is happening. The film works as a whole because it doesn’t try to cheesy because if he went in that direction then it would seem like more of a Godzilla rip-off because you’ll be focusing on the monster and not the people caught in this mess.

Cloverfield is truly surprisingly as it lives up to the hype. The film is definitely one of the years best films overall in my opinion so far, as it’s a frightening and intense film that will leave Goosebumps.

Proxima
Year: 2008
Directors: Carlos Atanes
Stars: Oriol Aubets, Manuel Solas, Anthony Blake
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Language: Spanish with English Subtitles
Studio: Fort Knox Audiovisual
Running Time: 117 Mins
Review Rating: 5 Stars
Official Website: http://www.welcometoproxima.com/

Proxima is the latest film form Writer/Director Carlos Atanes, whose last film was the bizarre and entertaining anthology film, Codex Atanicus. The film is about a video-store owner (Oriol Aubets) whose going through a tough time in his life, as his business is failing and his relationship is falling apart. When at a sci-fi convention, he picks up a CD there that contains instructions on how to travel to other galaxies. Once he listens to it for the first time, he starts to become obsessed with traveling to another planet to get away from his miserable existence on earth. Soon, he begins to see things differently in this life, as he tries to find a way to reach the planet Proxima.

Proxima is very intelligent Sci-Fi film. Writer/Director Carlos Atanes does a great job in getting all of the science-fiction aspects of the film done right. Atanes is the most compelling visually styled directors out there in the underground film scene today. The film’s imagery was very good. I liked the fact the fact that Atanes didn’t heavily rely on the bizarre imagery, in which he used for his last film Codex Atanicus. Instead, most of the imagery in the film was used for the nicely set backgrounds, which helped the Sci-fi nature of the film and gives you a nice viewing experience. His direction of the actors was very good especially with the main star of the film, Oriol Aubets. His performance here was very good. His chemistry with the other actors was very good, as the character he played was interesting to watch.

The screenplay was very good here. Atanes makes this film, a nice and interesting psychological science fiction piece/character study. He does that by mainly focusing on his main character and the actions and events that happen to him. Atanes really lets you get to know him by spending time in the beginning to develop the character’s personal life like how his relationship and business is falling into pieces. He also makes his main character conflicted with the problems that going on with his life and his willingness to escape them all. It helps create a scenario where the character is having trouble with his mind.

Proxima is a very intelligent science fiction film with great directing and great landscape imagery.

By Appointment Only
Year: 2007
Director: John Faust
Stars: Matt Ryan, Belen Green, Nancy Sinclair
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Studio: The 3D Film Factory
Running Time: 20 Mins
Review Rating: 5 Stars
Official Website: http://www.byapptonlymovie.com/

By Appointment Only has been a major hit on the film festival circuit, as it played so far in thirty-three film festivals including the 2007 Rock and Shock Film Festival, Comic-Con, Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival, Terror Film Festival (where it won Best Director and Best Actress) Zompire Film Festival (where it won the Best of Festival award) and most recently at this year’s Dead By Dawn Film Festival over in England.

The short is about a woman who’s moving to the west coast who’s looking to start. On her way to her appointment with the realtor, her car breaks down. She then is stranded in a local dinner where she meets a guy who’s willing to give he a lift to the appointment. But things take a turn when a mysterious man tries to warn her to go back to where she came from. She still decides to ignore him and go to her appointment, as scheduled. Once there, she discovers that the quite little town that she wanted to live in has some dangerous secrets that might make this appointment, the last appointment, she will ever have.

By Appointment Only is a very twisted and shocking film. The first thing that I walked away, from this film was that I wish that this film were a feature length film because this was very good film. Writer/Director John Faust has the talent to develop a cult following. He does a very good job making this film feel like something that was done from a Hollywood studio for the budget he had to work with. Faust also delivers on the shocking violence, which was necessary for the character development. His direction of the actor was also good.

Faust’s screenplay was very frightening. I liked how Faust focused of the mysterious man perspective, as he’s conflicted throughout the film on whether to save the girl or not. He also makes the makes the villain very twisted. The screenplay also has a twist that felt like it came out of David Lynch film but also added to the story. The twist was very good, as it was mind-blowing. Faust also hit a high note with the film’s shocking scene, which I won’t go into details because I don’t want to spoil, as it felt creepy and very disturbing.

There is a proposed plan for 3D version for this film. Trust me, that shocking scene that I just mentioned, may be more shocking in 3D than in the version I saw. By Appointment Only is so shocking that it will make you think twice before buying a new home.

If you’re a filmmaker and interested in having your horror film reviewed in the horror chamber, you can reach the Chamber Keeper himself at my new email address at HorrorChamber@filmarcade.net or if you have any film in any genres that you want Film Arcade to review. Send us an email at screeners@filmarcade.net.

Also, don’t forget to add the official myspace home of Reviews From the Horror Chamber at http://www.myspace.com/reviewsfromthehorchamber.

Next week I will start previewing and reviewing some of the latest underground horror films that will be self-distributed on DVD and playing at your local film festivals this October. Until then, have a frightening day.

From ComingSoon.net


Matt Reeves is in early talks with Paramount to direct a "Cloverfield" sequel, and, as was previously announced, he has also made a deal with GreeneStreet Films to direct "The Invisible Woman."

Variety says the timing of the projects will depend on how quickly Paramount can complete discussions with Reeves, producer J.J. Abrams and writer Drew Goddard to come up with another monster story for the "Cloverfield" sequel. There's a good chance the sequel will be Reeves' next film, in which case he will direct The Invisible Woman afterward.

"Woman" is a Hitchcock-style thriller that probes the mind of a former beauty queen who turns to a life of crime to protect her family.

Reeves wrote the script and will produce with Abrams and GreeneStreet's John Penotti, Fisher Stevens and Tim Williams.

**** out of ****

Last time that I wrote about “Cloverfield,” it became something that I didn’t want it to be. It was me talking about the movie, instead of talking about what I liked about it. It was filled with enough spoilers to the point that you wouldn’t even have to see the movie. So, for the last time in the history of the month, I present to you, the final review of “Cloverfield” (well, at least my final review).

And tits on Bobby Lee, where do I begin?

First off, “Cloverfield” is one of the most extraordinary films that I’ve ever partaken in the theater. Each moment of the film kept me on the edge of my seat and begging for more. Rest assured it never let go of me. I was intrigued with the storyline right from the very beginning, and I’m sure you find it hard to believe when I say that a film that was hyped more than “Snakes on a Plane” can be that good. Since the unnamed teaser appeared in front of “Transformers,” I and many other online bloggers and film geeks paid attention to updates of a movie that was then titled “Untitled J.J. Abrams Project.” Our nickname for it was “Cloverfield.”

I learned earlier this weekend that they weren’t planning on releasing it as “Cloverfield,” but a different title that would have probably made no sense. We kept asking what the word meant. It was never repeated once in the movie, other than the beginning prologue. Even though that most people still consider the word to be the name of the monster of the film, they are seriously far off. My lucky ass went to go see “Cloverfield” opening night AND the next day, which made me one happy son of a bitch. I can assure each and every one of you that the film only gets better and much more frightening the second time around.

Now, I’m not going to be one of those people and say, “This is where I talk about the plot, because there isn’t any. All monster movies don’t have a plot.” Sorry to break it to you and your little dog too, but if you go into “Cloverfield” expecting a monster movie, you will be really disappointed. The “monster” isn’t on-screen for much, but there is a good enough reason for it, which I will explain later on in the review. But instead of telling you that there isn’t plot, I’ll let you know a few things about the movie.

First off, there is a plot, and for all of you people who are expecting a mindless movie where a big monster just destroys Manhattan, you’re out of luck. It’s more complex than your usual monster movie. But secondly, I won’t tell you the plot. I think there is a fine-line between letting the reader go into a film like this with an open mind and letting the reader knowing the entire plot of the movie. Basically, I’m telling you to go see it without knowing what the plot is. As much as I’d hate for you to think of it as a monster film before you see it, I’d hate you knowing that it has a plot that you shouldn’t know until you see it.

The reason that I say that “Cloverfield” is not a monster movie is because that the story isn’t told in the monster’s POV or the military’s POV. You shouldn’t be surprised by that while watching the commercials. But for all of you guys who don’t know about the film, it’s being shot through a camcorder in the POV of one of the cast members for most of the movie. We’re seeing it through the eyes of a guy who we know by Hud (T.J. Miller). It’s like that he is taking us through the city of Manhattan when we’re with him. Anyway, since it is in his POV, we don’t see the monster for a good percentage of the movie. It’s not until the end that we see it up-close and not from images on a television.

For most of the movie, the film being shot on a camcorder adds more emotion as to if it was shot on a studio video-camera. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see many people in Manhattan film themselves getting chased by a monster with a big Super 16mm camera. This camera is lighter, and let’s the cast run faster. When they’re running, the camera is supposed to shake for a reason. It’s not so the audience can get nauseated by the fact, but it’s to display how scared these characters are. Instead of the characters saying how scared they are, they imply it as the camera shakes back and forth.

The scariest moment of “Cloverfield” arrives halfway through the film, as four of our heroes walk through a dark tunnel. I don’t want to spoil it for everyone, but listen to the conversation these characters hold. The camera guy that we know as Hud talks about a completely different subject about old people burning in the subway. Most people can think of this as being a comedic relief, but I think this is more saying that they’re scared and they need to get their mind off of the entire idea of a monster attacking the city. Hud is a character that we stay by for the entire film, because he acts like us. He knows what to say in the situation like this, because he knows that we would be saying the same thing. He videotapes the incident because he wants to let people know what really went down. What he doesn’t know is that if Manhattan survived this attack, it would have been a miracle.

Most people will argue, though, that the most frightening moment of “Cloverfield” is when we first meet the monster. There are many moments that signal that producer J.J. Abrams wanted to show how we are still scared after the moments of 9/11. Taking place in New York doesn’t help either. The first moments of “Cloverfield” already signal something so ominous and frightening, as the tape is recovered at a place formally known as Central Park. Aside from the infamous headless Statue of Liberty, the monster destroys another important piece of New York – the Empire State Building. Smoke emerges through the streets and everyone runs away. They hide in a store where glass goes flying and everyone is begging for their lives.

The monster might be the most frightening monster since “Jaws.” While he’s still vicious, the film leaves us guessing what it is. We never get a clear shot of what it is, but it’s frightening enough. There is not only one big monster, but tons of little monsters that look like parasites and/or spiders. It’s tough, it’s mean, and it’s looking for something other than a place to call home.

During the second viewing, I was looking for at least one negative aspect of the film, and to tell you the truth, I couldn’t find one. It’s just a fun and basic watch. It’s a survival movie, something that Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, and Roland Emmerich (just because I like the remake of “Godzilla” as a guilty pleasure) couldn’t create. Remember Spielberg’s rendition of “War of the Worlds”? I’m one of those people that admit that it’s one of his best films, but compare the characters from both films and you will find Spielberg’s characters the weaker of the two.

“Cloverfield” is, without a doubt, an excellent way to begin January. This is usually the time of the year where studios dump out all of the shitty movies, but I think this may be the first year where January didn’t suck. I want to go on record, saying that when I list my favorite films of 2008, “Cloverfield” will definitely be up there, if not my favorite of 2008. And when there is a year of movies directed by Steven Spielberg, the Coen Brothers, and Bryan Singer being released, you know that means something.


Read Ben's take of "Cloverfield": http://www.filmarcade.net/2008/01/cloverfield.html

Read Tony's original review, filled with spoilers: http://www.filmarcade.net/2008/01/cloverfield-review-written-by-tonyd.html

The best way to describe “Cloverfield” is that it is “Godzilla” meets “The Blair Witch Project.” It takes the monster movie genre in a fresh new direction, and it makes it one of the more exciting movies made in that particular genre in what feels like years. This is what I hoped Roland Emmerich’s “Godzilla” would be like when it was originally released, but that movie turned out to be an enormous piece of shit.

The fact that “Cloverfield” is any good is something of a miracle. This was released in January, and that’s where Hollywood tends to dump all the crappy movies on us because they had no idea of where else to put them. Plus, this is a movie that could have easily collapsed under the height of anticipation and expectation that preceded it with the brilliant marketing campaign behind it. We all saw that brilliant teaser trailer that brought us the severed head of the Statue of Liberty which was throttled right down into the middle of Manhattan. We didn’t see the title for the film until months later, and we couldn’t stop thinking about it. That trailer was analyzed like it was the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. But it’s finally here, and it has gotten 2008 off to a good start.

“Cloverfield” takes place in the city of New York which has seen its fair share of destruction on and off the big screen. It starts off with some color bars on the screen and there is a message stating that this is footage from the area “formerly known as Central Park.” Those are ominous words indeed, and it leaves us in a state of suspended tension as we already know something very bad is going to go down. We first meet Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) as he is filming the apartment of the woman he just slept with, Beth McIntyre (Odette Yustman). We get to see them hanging out with each other in Coney Island throughout the film, but the movie then jumps ahead to a month or so later when Rob is about to leave New York for a new job in Japan. It turns out that Beth and Rob never really hung out with each other after that great day they had, and the time they had together is on both their minds. But just as they try to sort out their personal crap, the earth shakes beneath them, and (of course) all hell breaks loose.

“Cloverfield” does take its time getting started which is not really a bad thing. It takes the time to establish the main players and their backgrounds. The script doesn’t flesh them out completely, but they are fleshed out enough to where you do care about them. The big surprise party thrown for Rob is filled with people who look like they at the very least got a callback for one or more of the shows on the WB network (now the CW network). It would have been nice to see the filmmakers add some more ordinary people into this party that did not have the perfect body or such Noxzema clear faces, but anyway.

What makes this monster film particularly effective is that it is told from the ground view. We are there with the people as they experience this firsthand, and the characters are not just simple clichés that look and feel like they belong more in a sitcom. That’s what drove me nuts about “Godzilla.” Like Steven Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds,” it is not caught up with the military as they make decisions on how to beat this enormous beast. It is more concerned with people like you and me and how we might struggle to survive in this situation. The adrenaline keeps running high as Rob and a few others struggle to get to Beth who is trapped in her high rise apartment.

Another key factor in the movie is that it doesn’t show us the monster right away, which as a result makes the thought of the monster more terrifying than anything else. We do get to see the monster eventually, but not in it’s entirety until late into the movie. I would love to describe it to you, but I’d rather you discover it for yourself as I really don’t want to spoil the surprise. Nothing will compare to the first time you watch this movie. It certainly is a much scarier monster than what you saw in the 1990’s version of “Godzilla.”

The movie is also dominated by the shaky cam work that threatens to become an overused cliché in movie making today. For those of you who have serious motion sickness problems, I would advise you to not sit too close to the screen. As for myself, I actually dealt with it well. I was starting to think that I might have reached my limit with shaky camerawork after “The Kingdom,” and it fails in comparison to the brilliant camerawork that was accomplished in “The Bourne Ultimatum.” But here, it’s fine and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. It was for me anyway. I know of a bunch of friends of mine who have no patience for this type of camerawork, so I would be hard pressed to recommend this to them.

“Cloverfield” is not exactly brilliant filmmaking, but it does get the job done, and with no real music score might I add. We don’t get to hear a score until the end credits where Abrams favorite Michael Giaachiano who composed a piece that is a tribute of sorts to the monster movies of the past. Credit however should go to director Matt Reeves who directs his first movie here since “The Pallbearer” which was made back in 1996. He keeps the action grounded enough to where we have no problem following the characters even if their situation is not entirely probable. It was also a smart move to cast unknown actors in the movie as well, and all acquit themselves nicely. To cast a big name star in this movie would not have worked because the reality of the situation would have been diminished. It would have been more of a movie than an experience which is how it should be.

In case you haven’t been able to tell from this review, I really didn’t like “Godzilla” as it made “Independence Day” look like “Raging Bull.” So I guess I am just satisfied that we finally have a monster movie that actually gets the job done properly. “Cloverfield” lives up enough to the hype to be an exciting movie that leaves some hope for the rest of January. “Rambo” is coming out next week, so I hope that Sylvester Stallone will be able to pull off some of that “Rocky Balboa” magic. But “Cloverfield” is an intense ride that beats any Japanese horror movie remake that Hollywood is still foolish enough to inflict on us after all this time.

***1/2 out of ****

To read TonyD's opinion of the film, click the link: http://www.filmarcade.net/2008/01/cloverfield-review-written-by-tonyd.html

CAUTION! THERE WILL BE A LOT OF SPOILERS, INCLUDING THE ENDING WILL BE GIVEN AWAY. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED



“Cloverfield”
2007
**** out of ****
Director: Matt Reeves
Cast: Michael Stahl-David, Lizzy Caplan, T.J. Miller


The hardest part about reviewing a film, besides the actual review part, is where to begin a review. I’ll begin here by saying that “Cloverfield” is one of the best films of 2008, and the year just begun. It’s hard to describe this film. Ever since I first saw the then-unnamed trailer for the film in “Transformers,” which was nothing but a party then cut to the Statue of Liberty’s head lying in the streets, I’ve been a fanboy.

The key to success, according to producer J.J. Abrams, is to keep it a secret from your audience. Let them try and figure out what you are going to do with your film. He kept throwing us fake titles at us, such as “Monsterous,” “Slusho,” “1-18-08,” and my personal favorite, “Cheese,” but the one title just stuck by. J.J. Abrams threw us a nickname for the film that kept us asking what the hell it was. We now officially know the film as “Cloverfield.” And we’ve been calling it “Cloverfield” for the entire time. It was the one of those titles that everyone thought sounded so cool but didn’t know what it meant. Even just sitting here on the computer, I’m still trying to figure out what “Cloverfield” is, although the trailers kind of have been giving it away.

According to the second trailer and the film, “Cloverfield” is where Central Park once stood. We are brought to a post-9/11 landscape where New York City still isn’t straightened out. During the film, someone screams out “Is it a terrorist attack,” acting like that our country is being invaded again. Truth to be told, we still are being invaded. Terrorists don’t have anything against this monster. This thing is cold-blooded. The heart of the monster is smaller than the Grinch’s and darker than one of the film’s most shocking scenes. I’m still surprised that we actually consider that “Cloverfield” is a monster movie. It’s the farthest thing from it. It’s a love story set around a monster attack.

I must stop you here and say that throughout the rest of my review, everything will be a spoiler. This will include my theories of where the monster came from and what has happened to the monster.

Instead of Abrams and Matt Reeves telling you where the monster came from, they let you know where everyone else came from. Rob (Michael Stahl-David) just came out of a one-night stand with Beth (Odette Yustman) and finally decides that he loves her, but he decides this a few days before he leaves for Japan. This scene alone makes us wonder what Rob will be doing in Japan. This “monster movie” was based on one of the most famous tales of a monster attacking Japan, though Abrams himself claims that it is completely original and didn’t want to copy off of “Godzilla” in any way, shape or form.

Another character that we get to meet is Rob’s brother, Jason (Mike Vogal). He’s been going through a great relationship with a wonderful girl named Lily (Jessica Lucas). The two of them plan a going away party. Like the first few minutes of my personal favorite “The Blair Witch Project,” we follow Jason and Lily while they go threw a grocery store and buy things for the party. Jason documents the events on a small hand-held camera owned by Rob.

The tape that was kept in there was a tape of Beth and Rob going to Coney Island. Before that, though, we see Rob videotaping from his father’s apartment and we catch a glimpse of what was once Central Park. Jason later hands the camera to a guy that we know as Hud, (T.J Miller) Rob’s best friend. Hud shoots the camera throughout the rest of the movie as the unlikely camera guy who begins to get the hand of it. We later meet Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) as Hud tries to hit on her while taping.

But then the attacks begin, which is where many people will become frustrated with the film. I’m not a big fan of the whole shakey-cam effect, and if you know my opinion of “The Bourne Ultimatum,” then you know how much of a pain in the ass it will be trying to figure out what is going on. But that, my friends and enemies, is the greatest part about “Cloverfield.” Because the film is all in shakey-cam, we’re not here to watch this monster destroy New York City. We’re watching the emotions of the people who are going through this attack. While the cameras are shaken back and forth, it kind of points out to us how much these people are panicking. It’s also been quite clear to me that they’re scared shitless.

Throughout the entire movie, we are left asking who or what is the monster, where did the monster come from, and why is the monster here. We aren’t given an explanation as to why, but if you look very closely to the final moments of the film, you can see that while Rob and Beth are sitting through Coney Island, something crashes into the water. Look closely to it. Doesn’t it look like… yeah, that’s it. So we know where it arrived to, but where did it come from? Abrams says that it was lying in the water for thousands of years. The question that everyone is asking is just what is it. Theories have gone from Voltron, to Godzilla, and my theory of Reptar. But I can finally say that from the footage that we are shown… it’s a parasite. While it’s not so clear, a later scene in the film shows us tinier parasites chasing our heroes.

Does anyone want to know the actual history of the parasite though? Go to http://slusho.jp/. You will find out the real story here plus how you can buy a “Slusho” shirt.

People will hate the ending for three reasons. One, it is extremely negative ending. Nothing works out. Everything is surrounded by a four letter word that begins with an ‘f,’ and it is not my favorite word. These characters were given so many chances and decide to turn them all away. I guess that someone from Paramount got pissed off because the previous endings in “Dragon Wars” and “King Kong” were a little bit too happy. The second reason is because that we don’t receive an ending that clears all of our questions. Yes, we kind of figure out by now that the characters have died, but what about the monster? Did that nuclear bomb kill it? And I bet you’re still asking how the camera survived everything until its battery died. No problem here though. I kind of figured that while you’re watching it on a camcorder that it won’t show you everything, unlike people in the movie theater.

And at last, my goal was successful. I wanted to stay away from reviews until I saw it, and it worked. The film was one of the most fun that I’ve had in ages. After walking out of “Cloverfield,” all I heard was how much bullshit the ending was, how no one could understand it, and how it just sucked. The reason? They wanted more of the monster. All I kept saying to myself was that some people just don’t deserve to watch movies.