[Blu-ray | DVD]

So I watched Cloverfield way back when, but wanted to see it on blu-ray so hit up the Netflix to watch it again in HD. I wasn’t particularly fond of this movie the first time I saw it. I mean to say, I didn’t particularly care about this movie the first time I saw it. I can’t say a second viewing, HD or not, has changed my mind on it.

I think Cloverfield is commendable in the same way M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs [Blu-ray | DVD] was commendable. But it also suffers the same major problem. Both of the movies were so scary dealing with the unknown. Signs was particularly effective with it. Cloverfield did as much as it could with the concept given that it was a godzilla flick. But the point is, and this has been much covered before me, the less I actually saw of the monsters in the respective movies, the scarier they were. I was unbelievably disappointed when I saw the alien in Signs. And I certainly was disappointed when I saw the full monster in Cloverfield, as well as the little bugs.

I know there is no way to go without showing either. If they hadn’t been shown there would’ve been huge outcry. “The largest macguffin ever!” “What kind of monster movies doesn’t show the monster?!” But I really feel seeing both really took away from the suspense and fear the movies built up. J.J. Abrams produced Cloverfield. And I really wish he had pushed Matt Reeves, the director, to take a pseudo-Mission: Impossible III [Blu-ray | DVD] tactic. In that movie, J.J. Abrams had Ethan Hunt chase down “The Rabbit’s Foot.” In the movie, it’s is the macguffin. But it is never explained. What it is, what it does, why we should be worried it’s in terrorists’ hands. Nothing. But who cares. That it is there is the reason for worry. Do we really need to know all the minute details?

I think this would’ve worked great in Signs or Cloverfield. We know NYC is being ravaged by some huge monster (by the way, I really disliked the seeming from nowhere insect monsters, there had to be a better way to introduce other scary things than that idea). Do we really want to see it? Do we really NEED to see it?

[DVD]

This movie might’ve been good. I have no idea. I had it on the full running time, but it didn’t interest me enough to watch carefully. I suppose that’s an indication of what I thought of the movie as well.

[Blu-ray | DVD]

Okay, so I wrote tangentially about this movie way back when in the context of race. So here’s my review after actually having finally seen the movie. It’s classic Rocky. It’s not a bad movie. Buy only in as much as it apes EVERY SINGLE good boxing movie ever made. That’s all there is to it. From Raging Bull [Blu-ray | DVD] to Ali [DVD] to all of the previous Rockys [DVD], it’s all in there. So it’s good because it takes all the best parts, but bad because it’s just derivative? It definitely made me nostalgic for my youth and watching the Rocky series. I can also say, after 6 movies, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, does a better training montage piece than the Rocky series.

[Blu-ray | DVD]

I can’t say I was a fan. This movie was certainly a visual spectacle. And that covers a WHOLE lot of ground for me. I can deal with a lot of bad just to watch a movie that looks good (see e.g. Michael Bay movies). But that said, I can’t say that this movie really accomplished that for me. I mean it is a visual movie. And colorful. And all of that. And most definitely had some amazing vistas and locations. But it was kind of mostly about costume and color. And I don’t think that those two things were used as artistically as they were in “Hero”.

I guess I was just bored by the dynamic of the two central characters. Even at the end, when it took a slightly more melodramatic turn, I just couldn’t buy into it. It’s not a terrible movie and it’s contains some beautiful imagery (looked amazing on blu-ray), just not something I’d really watch again.