ROTTEN TOMATOES: Exclusive: Matt Reeves Clarifies Cloverfield Sequel Status

Exclusive: Matt Reeves Clarifies Cloverfield Sequel Status

It won't be another handheld story.

by Orlando Parfitt | February 01, 2008

Since Cloverfield's stunning opening weekend at the US box office last week, talk has inevitably turned to a sequel, with several rumours already beginning to circulate the 'net about a Cloverfield 2.

In an attempt to learn the truth, RT sat down with the film's director Matt Reeves, currently in talks with Paramount to set up a sequel, who set us straight on plans for the follow-up.

First of all, here's what he had to say about those rumours about another handheld camera movie from the point of view of the guy on the other side of the bridge:

"It's more the concept of that which intrigues me. There's a guy on the Brooklyn Bridge who's filming the experience and he's looking out and then we look out to see what he's looking at and there's a second where the two lenses cross."

He continues: "Just in my head I thought what was cool was that there was two movies crossing right there. It doesn't mean we'd ever actually make that movie, I don't think we'd make that parallel universe. I just loved the idea of that Rashômon point-of-view."

It seems that as yet, there are no definite plans as to the direction of the sequel, but it's clear that we probably won't be seeing a rehash of the handheld style of the first as has been reported. "The experience of making the movie was so challenging and fun in a different way," he told RT about the production of Cloverfield, "The idea of doing something so differently is exhilarating. We hope that it created a movie experience that is different.

"The thing about doing a sequel is that I think we all really feel protective of that experience. The key here will be if we can find something that is compelling enough and that is different enough for us to do, then it will probably be worth doing.

"Obviously it also depends on how [Cloverfield] does worldwide and all of those things too, but really, for us creatively, we just want to find something that would be another challenge."

To read the rest of our exclusive interview with Reeves, click here.

Related Items

Celeb:

Matt Reeves

(1-20 of 36 posts) | Reply

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 08:38 AM

I thought CLOVERFEILD was pretty good. I think this could work.

(Reply to this)

yesandno writes:
on Feb 01 2008 08:54 AM

to be honest, i thought this was a great movie, and reeeallly awesome 'home' movie. i agree with jokerboy... its doable

(Reply to this)

Warheart1188 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 08:58 AM

Cloverfield was great but I do hope they DON'T use the POV-style again if they do a sequel. I don't get motion sickness but this movie made me want to puke in the first half-hour. It would be very interesting if they do a traditional cinematic feel for the sequel. We've seen the event through the eyes of the people, how about a sequel continuing the event from the governments point of view in a traditional 3rd person POV? The sequel could open up with the secretary of defense or somebody just finishing watching the tape and now he's gotta decide what to do next because the monster is moving to a new area or something. That'd be awesome.

(Reply to this)

Travis27 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 09:01 AM

Just the mention of "Cloverfield" makes me nauseous. I hope they do away with the videocam.

(Reply to this)

Scarborough Fair writes:
on Feb 01 2008 09:03 AM

Oh hey, I'm a troll.
Here's something Roger Ebert wrote recently.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/ANSWERMAN/801310306/1023

(Reply to this)

hardworkinggaypeoples writes:
on Feb 01 2008 09:25 AM

Can the sequel be from the point-of-view of the monster?

Why is Rashomon invoked every time someone brings up characters simply crossing paths? Rashomon doesn't address parallel universes. Rashomon's about different readings of the same interactions or experiences. And I guarantee the dude on the bridge and the dude off the bridge are having the exact same reading, "Why is a monster eating NY?"

(Reply to this)

krycek77 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 10:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#1545910)
Good point hardworkinggaypeoples. Rashomon was more than just giving the audience several perspectives; it was significant for protraying multiple unreliable narrators. As you said, I don't think the two guys holding cameras looking at a huge ****ing monster are going to have noticeably different perspectives/thoughts on the matter or intentions.

(Reply to this)

The Iron Invader writes:
on Feb 01 2008 10:18 AM

With a healthy sequel attitude like that, I suppose they could make it work. I'll be waiting....

(Reply to this)

Ikeandmike writes:
on Feb 01 2008 10:35 AM

Im not sure about this. Heres why. Cloverfield was unique in so many ways. Especially with the character dialogue. It seems that all "haters" of the movie are only finding things wrong with it because they have to. That being said, I am very skeptical of a sequel just because of all movies like this that went to far (saw, freddy, jason, etc.) This movie is so different than those and I wouldnt want it to join them. However, if the really put time into it, I mean sit down with coffee and think up a good story, I'll be in the theater.

(Reply to this)

Zenrick writes:
on Feb 01 2008 11:35 AM

If they do another POV film, they had better choose a cameraman with not such an annoying voice. Other than that I'm game.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 11:44 AM

I'd rather they do another POV film, its what its known for. When Blair Witch switched from POV to 3rd person in its sequel, it was financially and critically panned. Instead I suggested before, and do again now, that they mix the two together in the sequel. Follow the guy on the bridge and the government, thereby linking up with prior film, giving audiences a little of what they saw in the first film and broadening the scope and giving us resolution in the second film.

Don't be so quick to blow off your initial idea, director guy, and do what the studio wants you to do. Be risky and do what you want to do.

(Reply to this)

Renaisauce writes:
on Feb 01 2008 12:32 PM

I loved Cloverfield, and I can't wait for a re-visit. I think it would be cool to have the camera be a better-quality piece of equipment, used for shooting a bad horror flick in New York. The monster interrupts, and suddenly it's not fake anymore. That way, the camera guy is steadier, is trained in taking better shots, and is, perhaps, interested in getting the best monster shots possible. Actually, maybe having him be a wildlife documentarian would be fun. But it definitely should not be from a 3rd-person camera. The whole point of the film was to try something different. Why go back to standard stuff?

(Reply to this)

zgberg writes:
on Feb 01 2008 12:36 PM

I loved Cloverfield as well. I think it could be cool if they decide to forgo the POV cam and go more traditional. It would satisfy the thirst for knowledge that I left the theater with. Although it destroys the original concept, it would be nice to understand where this creature came from and what ultimately happens.

Then again, if they decide to POV and have some other angle they decide to take, I'm all for it as long as there are big explosions, giant monsters and....CRABOSAURS!!!! WE lOVE YOU CRABOSAURS....maybe they are related to the "crab people" from South Park?

(Reply to this)

Circe Prankster writes:
on Feb 01 2008 12:41 PM

I certainly appreciate the director's desire to create "a movie experience that is different," but I hope he understands that he immediately loses audience members when he uses a hand-held camera. Anyone who has any problems with motion sickness is simply excluded from watching. I really wanted to see this movie, but there is simply no way. When I went to see the Blair Witch Project in a theater, after 20 minutes I was so nauseous that I had to race to the bathroom and lie down on the tile floor, lying totally still with my eyes squeezed shut for half an hour, before I could even stand upright to go home. (Never did see the end of that film - I assumed they all die - of persistent vomiting, perhaps?)

So anyway, I certainly hope if they make a sequel to Cloverfield they skip the hand-held cam - it may be more conventional but at least I could watch it.

(Reply to this)

ManofStee1 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:09 PM

How will they go about making a movie anything remotely like Cloverfield without the handheld camera? I can't imagine that moving being even a fraction as good as it was without it, take away the POV and the camera and all you have left is another monster movie.

(Reply to this)

rt_hire_me writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#1546137)
"It seems that all "haters" of the movie are only finding things wrong with it because they have to."

This is not true. I wanted to like this movie. I tried hard to like it. The shaky-cam didn't bother me. The whiney, bland characters did. I don't think it's fair to say 'the haters hate it because they have to' any more than it is to say that those who liked the movie felt obligated because it was a monster movie with a high novelty factor.

(Reply to this)

quietus28 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#1546185)
Um, from what I recall of the Blair Witch sequel, it did mix POV and third-person perspectives. The reason it was panned is because, at that point, people finally realized how stupid and boring the first Blair Witch was and the sequel was no better.

(Reply to this)

jpotter writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:40 PM

just like blair witch 2. great.

(Reply to this)

MaxFisher14 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:43 PM

CLOVERFIELD was pretty freaking amazing so I am excited.

(Reply to this)

a_sad_un-sorry_hashbrown writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:46 PM

I loved Cloverfield, and it had one of the most ingenious endings in a movie. But a sequel? Well, I don't know about that, but as Mr. Reeves said, if they do find a compelling enough reason to make a sequel then I'm all up for it.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com