I didn't watch Cloverfield til recently and I honestly had no idea the entire movie was shot in first person. Let alone, the entire movie is filmed from the perspective of a camcorder! This was really interesting to me, though the first bit of the movie is a very slow burner that takes forever to really build up the intensity. But once Cloverfield starts, oh man it doesn't let go at all. A group of friends are celebrating a birthday for a guy named Rob because he received a new job in Japan. You're introduced to main characters TJ, Lizzy and Jessica during this introduction. However, during the birthday things go sour as his ex-girlfriend Beth brings over a new Romantic partner and it really puts him in a bad mood. But a massive tremor then rumbles over Manhattan and the start of the madness begins from there. Famous landmarks like The Statue of Liberty are destroyed instantly and skyscrapers fall crazy. Eventually, we learn that these are Monsters destroying Manhattan like its nothing. But anyway, Cloverfield's shakey camera perspective is incredibly well done. It keeps the frenetic pace of the movie going and you really feel like you're acting taking part in the film. The running scenes are incredibly intense and once the scares pick up. It doesn't stop at all. Especially when you see some of the famous NYC landmarks crumble and fall by you. If you want a movie that blends incredible Godzilla like intensity from a different perspective with some slick horror moments. Cloverfield is a movie you gotta see. Do not sleep on this movie at all.
2,481 Reviews
An Interesting and very intense ride for those who want scares and action!
KatamarisWrath25 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
sneak peek early screen
nightswatch10 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I attended an early screening 1/10/08 at Michigan State University. I've spoilerized in case anyone doesn't want to know anything about the film, but I will try to stay away from anything that'll be too overt.
Simply put, the film is an amazingly visceral experience. It's studio logo, production logo, film. No credits whatsoever, which just adds to the overall immediacy of it. If you've been following it to any degree whatsoever, you know that it's shot entirely with hand-held cameras. The characters also run. A lot. So immediately, I think this will be a love hate experience. My own reaction to it was that it again, added to the immersion, and I didn't find it to be really distracting at all. Many people I saw it with said they couldn't even watch the screen at times, so buyer beware. It also will anger those who need all the details, and need to have every loose end tied up (or even a majority of them). The entire film is the tape found after the events of the film are over. That's it. There is no set up, and no hold-your-hand-for-you resolution (or really, much of one at all). It's unconventional, and I enjoyed the ending TREMENDOUSLY. I definitely have to applaud the decision to not simply make a cookie cutter action film that is easy to watch. I think it will be interesting to watch how it does at the box office though.
After that...I feel like there isn't much that can be said about the acting, and that should be a credit to it. It absolutely feels like you are experiencing this with the characters, who feel more or less exactly like real people. After leaving the theater I was on edge for a good deal of time, as I tried to shake that level of immersion. The film is also surprisingly humorous, and I would say that our crowd laughed more than they screamed (although the screams were definitely there).
Cloverfield definitely will not be everybody's cup of tea, but if you're already excited about it, I have no doubt that you'll be satisfied. It was a relatively unique experience, and again I want to applaud the decision to make it in that manner.
Definitely recommended: 8/10
Simply put, the film is an amazingly visceral experience. It's studio logo, production logo, film. No credits whatsoever, which just adds to the overall immediacy of it. If you've been following it to any degree whatsoever, you know that it's shot entirely with hand-held cameras. The characters also run. A lot. So immediately, I think this will be a love hate experience. My own reaction to it was that it again, added to the immersion, and I didn't find it to be really distracting at all. Many people I saw it with said they couldn't even watch the screen at times, so buyer beware. It also will anger those who need all the details, and need to have every loose end tied up (or even a majority of them). The entire film is the tape found after the events of the film are over. That's it. There is no set up, and no hold-your-hand-for-you resolution (or really, much of one at all). It's unconventional, and I enjoyed the ending TREMENDOUSLY. I definitely have to applaud the decision to not simply make a cookie cutter action film that is easy to watch. I think it will be interesting to watch how it does at the box office though.
After that...I feel like there isn't much that can be said about the acting, and that should be a credit to it. It absolutely feels like you are experiencing this with the characters, who feel more or less exactly like real people. After leaving the theater I was on edge for a good deal of time, as I tried to shake that level of immersion. The film is also surprisingly humorous, and I would say that our crowd laughed more than they screamed (although the screams were definitely there).
Cloverfield definitely will not be everybody's cup of tea, but if you're already excited about it, I have no doubt that you'll be satisfied. It was a relatively unique experience, and again I want to applaud the decision to make it in that manner.
Definitely recommended: 8/10
Cloverfield delivers the thrills - but haters of the Blair Witch style should be wary!
jctundis18 January 2008
So, I went to a 5PM showing of Cloverfield today. It was pretty good. I found the characters to be very human and developed quite nicely over the course of the story. The special effects were excellent, with quite a few "oh $#!@" moments.
Be warned: If Blair Witch Project made you nauseous, then I don't recommend Cloverfield. The *entire* movie is filmed in the "handy-cam" style of the trailer - but in my opinion, it works better here than in Blair Witch. It helped draw you into the movie and make you feel like you were in it, and it made the CGI more convincing.
Very intense film.
Be warned: If Blair Witch Project made you nauseous, then I don't recommend Cloverfield. The *entire* movie is filmed in the "handy-cam" style of the trailer - but in my opinion, it works better here than in Blair Witch. It helped draw you into the movie and make you feel like you were in it, and it made the CGI more convincing.
Very intense film.
Tremendous thrills!
kanerazor15 January 2008
Some people have derisively compared this film to The Blair Witch Project because it was all told from the point of view of someone's shaking camera. Unless you have motion sickness, I don't think that's a bad thing. What matters is who's in front of the camera. While The Blair Witch Project featured annoying people screaming at each other, this movie actually made me care about the characters. In fact if it had continued with the romantic drama tone established during the first half hour, I STILL think it would have been worth watching and that's the biggest compliment I can give it.
Of course people will be watching this movie for the visceral pleasure and Colverfield delivers. Many thrilling visual and sound effects wowed me (there were a few times I yelled out in shock at a sudden scare). Any horror film will also benefit from a sense of entrapment and this movie pulls off the seemingly impossible feat of making New York City seem claustrophobic because there was seemingly nowhere to hide from the monster.
What is the monster? Whatever it is clearly is meant to be an allegory for the carnage 9/11 inflicted on New York, much the same way Godzilla was meant to be an allegory for the damage inflicted on Japan by the atom bomb. There are moments seemingly recreating the documentary footage from 9/11, and they give the film verisimilitude. Touching upon real life horror, plus creating characters that we can relate to and care about, and assaulting our senses with incredible sights and sounds leads to entertainment worth watching many times over. Perhaps the 80 minute run time will bother some people, but on the other hand I think that's better than a film wearing out its welcome. Great job J.J. Abrams and company!
Of course people will be watching this movie for the visceral pleasure and Colverfield delivers. Many thrilling visual and sound effects wowed me (there were a few times I yelled out in shock at a sudden scare). Any horror film will also benefit from a sense of entrapment and this movie pulls off the seemingly impossible feat of making New York City seem claustrophobic because there was seemingly nowhere to hide from the monster.
What is the monster? Whatever it is clearly is meant to be an allegory for the carnage 9/11 inflicted on New York, much the same way Godzilla was meant to be an allegory for the damage inflicted on Japan by the atom bomb. There are moments seemingly recreating the documentary footage from 9/11, and they give the film verisimilitude. Touching upon real life horror, plus creating characters that we can relate to and care about, and assaulting our senses with incredible sights and sounds leads to entertainment worth watching many times over. Perhaps the 80 minute run time will bother some people, but on the other hand I think that's better than a film wearing out its welcome. Great job J.J. Abrams and company!
Very Disappointing
idrow21 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a huge fan of monster, apocalyptic, and doomsday movies, so naturally I was very excited to see this one. To summarize in one word: Meh.
This movie with such a huge premise was exactly 1 hour and 13 minutes long. WTF? With such a short movie, the writers choose to spend the first 20 minutes on literally nothing of interest. You're taken to a going away party for someone with an irritating personality. A party I would have left after 10 minutes if I was actually there. So, after a quarter of the movie is wasted here, an alarm goes off and everyone starts running. The shaky camera work at the party is annoying, and it just gets worse...and worse...and worse, and my annoyance just kept growing.
So much could have been done with this story, but the writers and director had it out for the audience and gave everyone a big F.U. There was about two minutes collectively where the movie was cool, but that's only if you're into special effects. If you're into extremely shaky film footage where you have to strain to see anything, then you'll love this one. This was ten times shakier than the Blair Witch Project.
I bet this movie was made for less than 100k, and most of that was spent on CGI, because the actors shouldn't have been paid more than 5k apiece. This movie jumped from totally boring to chaos without any explanations. Where did the monster come from? Why, after seeing it blown up, did it show up again unscathed? Where did it go at the end and what the hell happened? Why were buildings being blown up? Could the monster shoot fire balls out of it's ass or something? We never find out.
Apparently, the budget ran out because the movie just ended abruptly. No resolution or answers whatsoever. The characters were so weak that I didn't even care when they died. This may be a candidate for a Raspberry award. Very, very disappointing.
This movie with such a huge premise was exactly 1 hour and 13 minutes long. WTF? With such a short movie, the writers choose to spend the first 20 minutes on literally nothing of interest. You're taken to a going away party for someone with an irritating personality. A party I would have left after 10 minutes if I was actually there. So, after a quarter of the movie is wasted here, an alarm goes off and everyone starts running. The shaky camera work at the party is annoying, and it just gets worse...and worse...and worse, and my annoyance just kept growing.
So much could have been done with this story, but the writers and director had it out for the audience and gave everyone a big F.U. There was about two minutes collectively where the movie was cool, but that's only if you're into special effects. If you're into extremely shaky film footage where you have to strain to see anything, then you'll love this one. This was ten times shakier than the Blair Witch Project.
I bet this movie was made for less than 100k, and most of that was spent on CGI, because the actors shouldn't have been paid more than 5k apiece. This movie jumped from totally boring to chaos without any explanations. Where did the monster come from? Why, after seeing it blown up, did it show up again unscathed? Where did it go at the end and what the hell happened? Why were buildings being blown up? Could the monster shoot fire balls out of it's ass or something? We never find out.
Apparently, the budget ran out because the movie just ended abruptly. No resolution or answers whatsoever. The characters were so weak that I didn't even care when they died. This may be a candidate for a Raspberry award. Very, very disappointing.
Breath of fresh air
NormalViewCasting17 January 2008
It was nice to finally watch movie that didn't seem like anything I'd ever seen before. This, much like Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" and "Children of Men", completely immerses you in this incredible situation with absolutely no knowledge to comfort you. It's very disorienting, which adds to the experience; you never figure out what the hell is going on but you're so into survival that you put it past you. You're placed with a bunch of characters whom you get to know and eventually must join in their frenzied search for a friend while being subjected to some horrifying imagery and new threats.
The effects look great and realistic thanks to the hand-held camera, which isn't too bad-looking if you manage to get a seat further from the screen. The filmmakers came up with some really great creature designs that were menacing yet very much original. If you're bound to be upset over seeing a movie with a lack of music, then stay for the credits, during which a fantastic suite of music composed by Michael Giacchino titled "Roar! (Cloverfield Theme)" plays.
All in all, a fantastic time at the movies. A little more background on the monster would be nice, though the absence of this information is intentional. Everyone in the theater was rooting for a sequel; maybe a second set of footage is found elsewhere? Or perhaps there is more the the viral marketing -- what exactly were Slusho and Tagruato? Also be prepared to suspend some disbelief, but considering the movie is about a monster destroying New York City, that shouldn't be too difficult.
The effects look great and realistic thanks to the hand-held camera, which isn't too bad-looking if you manage to get a seat further from the screen. The filmmakers came up with some really great creature designs that were menacing yet very much original. If you're bound to be upset over seeing a movie with a lack of music, then stay for the credits, during which a fantastic suite of music composed by Michael Giacchino titled "Roar! (Cloverfield Theme)" plays.
All in all, a fantastic time at the movies. A little more background on the monster would be nice, though the absence of this information is intentional. Everyone in the theater was rooting for a sequel; maybe a second set of footage is found elsewhere? Or perhaps there is more the the viral marketing -- what exactly were Slusho and Tagruato? Also be prepared to suspend some disbelief, but considering the movie is about a monster destroying New York City, that shouldn't be too difficult.
Yes, it lives up to the hype
stryker112117 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The marketing buzz around the monster-takes-Manhattan movie "Cloverfield" has been compared to that of "The Blair Witch Project." The movies are similar in some ways, both on screen and off: In both flicks no-name actors run for their lives under the eye of a shaky hand-held camera. In each case the footage is supposed to be a tape "found" by authorities in the aftermath of some horrific event.
Off-screen both movies received tons of hype under the guise of a "media blackout." I remember some dopey "Blair Witch documentary" where locals in the town of Scaryville or wherever the fake footage was "found" were filmed drawling, "Ayuh, I heard tell of the Blair Witch" while eerie music played in the background. For "Cloverfield," the marketing blitz was of the viral variety, as film fans trying to find out about the movie ended up at a series of fake websites set up containing cryptic clues to other websites.
"Blair Witch" was an enormous box office smash. It was also a pile of dogcrap in this reviewer's humble opinion. I don't know if "Cloverfield" will find the same success as "Blair Witch." But I can tell you now that it's the better movie by leaps and bounds.
Of course, "Cloverfield," produced by "Lost" creator J.J. Abrams, is a much more ambitious undertaking, using all of Manhattan as a playground of destruction. It starts off in a posh loft where a going away party is being held for (I think his name is) Rob, who is leaving for Japan (the cinematic birthplace of the city-smashing giant monster) for a job. The party is being "documented" with a hand-held video camera by Rob's best friend, Hud. The shindig is disrupted by what partygoers think is an earthquake. (It ain't) Then the real fun starts.
And "Cloverfield is a good time. It's pretty intense, and at times quite comical. The film strives to be "a monster movie for the YouTube generation," as its director states. In that account "Cloverfield" mostly succeeds, but it does help to suspend your disbelief a bit. For example, why does our amateur documentarian continue to lug around that camera while the city crumbles? "People are gonna want to see this," he says by way of explanation. I can live with that. In this shrinking Web 2.0 world, where you can access public video sharing websites and watch Saddam Hussein get executed, it's no surprise someone wants to record the end of all things.
Believe the hype boys and girls. "Cloverfield" is an exciting ride all the way through.
Off-screen both movies received tons of hype under the guise of a "media blackout." I remember some dopey "Blair Witch documentary" where locals in the town of Scaryville or wherever the fake footage was "found" were filmed drawling, "Ayuh, I heard tell of the Blair Witch" while eerie music played in the background. For "Cloverfield," the marketing blitz was of the viral variety, as film fans trying to find out about the movie ended up at a series of fake websites set up containing cryptic clues to other websites.
"Blair Witch" was an enormous box office smash. It was also a pile of dogcrap in this reviewer's humble opinion. I don't know if "Cloverfield" will find the same success as "Blair Witch." But I can tell you now that it's the better movie by leaps and bounds.
Of course, "Cloverfield," produced by "Lost" creator J.J. Abrams, is a much more ambitious undertaking, using all of Manhattan as a playground of destruction. It starts off in a posh loft where a going away party is being held for (I think his name is) Rob, who is leaving for Japan (the cinematic birthplace of the city-smashing giant monster) for a job. The party is being "documented" with a hand-held video camera by Rob's best friend, Hud. The shindig is disrupted by what partygoers think is an earthquake. (It ain't) Then the real fun starts.
And "Cloverfield is a good time. It's pretty intense, and at times quite comical. The film strives to be "a monster movie for the YouTube generation," as its director states. In that account "Cloverfield" mostly succeeds, but it does help to suspend your disbelief a bit. For example, why does our amateur documentarian continue to lug around that camera while the city crumbles? "People are gonna want to see this," he says by way of explanation. I can live with that. In this shrinking Web 2.0 world, where you can access public video sharing websites and watch Saddam Hussein get executed, it's no surprise someone wants to record the end of all things.
Believe the hype boys and girls. "Cloverfield" is an exciting ride all the way through.
I really wanted to like this
cswellma2 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I should preface this by saying that I watch on average about 1 movie a month at the theater, and it takes a LOT for a movie to disappoint me. With that in mind I will proceed.
I went into this with high hopes with "my main dude" who was equally excited. We had seen the trailers and expected to be thrilled. We walked to the movie theater and ended up having a hot chocolate nearby because after all, it is February. Well, we walked into the large theater and took some seats about 1/3 distance away from the screen, not a big deal because it was a very large room. Suffice it to say I was nauseous near the end of the party scene. The camera work was incredibly jerky, and throughout the film I had to cradle my head and close my eyes. I didn't understand it, I'd never experienced anything like this before. I knew that this movie used this type of filming, and it didn't phase me beforehand because I had seen the Blair Witch Project in the theater and I was fine. Through the whole film I kept saying to myself, why? Why do I feel like crap. Eventually I had to leave the theater to go to the restroom and put my head between my legs, it took ten minutes before I could return to the movie. I'm only 30, but I can honestly say while watching this film I felt it aged me a good 20 years.
Within a couple minutes of returning to the theater the dizzying effects began to take it's toll again. I tried to cradle my head and close my eyes to shield from the whirlwind camera work. It didn't work, the emergency lights that went on when they were rescuing the girl were penetrating my eyelids and the high-pitched noise of the alarm were earsplitting and adding to my discomfort rather than alleviating it by closing my eyes. Why did I stay in the theater do you ask? Well, for one I had never experienced something like this before (well maybe at an amusement park after eating loads of food as a child) while being stationary. I also paid a hefty price for the ticket, and I was determined to see this "ride" through. There were some interesting parts, don't get me wrong. This film had some amazing effects, and of course realistic acting. With all that aside, the plot stunk and the motivations of some of the characters were inane. Before seeing this film I did read some posts here and sneered when I read someone trying to discredit this film because I had my heart on seeing it. To be fair my judgment is largely based on the fact that this movie made me sick, plain and simple, and that's a new one on me. It was almost as if the filmmakers were going for a chaotic effect. Almost as if this film was nothing but crazy filming with screaming mobs of hysterical people and bright flashing lights and continuous loud effects, to be fair it IS a monster movie. It's hard to imagine how this film got such a high rating. Although, I can say this throughout the film, when I caught glimpses that didn't cause me to nearly vomit, I was telling myself that maybe this film is too intense for me, that's why people like it. Then I came to a conclusion, this movie was not intense, it was a joke. I was mistaking the hand held camera work for intense realistic drama. However, at the end of the film no answers were given, nothing was learned, and I paid over ten dollars to get sick watching a movie that wasn't even a hour and a half long. In conclusion, I want to warn anyone who got sick watching the Blair Witch Project, you WILL get sick watching this. Even if you have a strong stomach, like I thought I did, do NOT have a huge cup of hot chocolate beforehand as I did, or food in general. Also, sit as far from the screen as possible! On the other hand, maybe I'm just a wimp, and I'm starting to get old, and no one else will be effected as I was, but my "main dude" got just as sick as I did, but that could be the hot chocolate talking. Yes I was disappointed, not in the actors (they did a good job), not the effects (they were spot on), but in the plot and the maniacal camera man, a.k.a. Hud. Most of all, I was disappointed in myself for falling for the hype that this film promised, and more so for allowing myself to get sick.
I went into this with high hopes with "my main dude" who was equally excited. We had seen the trailers and expected to be thrilled. We walked to the movie theater and ended up having a hot chocolate nearby because after all, it is February. Well, we walked into the large theater and took some seats about 1/3 distance away from the screen, not a big deal because it was a very large room. Suffice it to say I was nauseous near the end of the party scene. The camera work was incredibly jerky, and throughout the film I had to cradle my head and close my eyes. I didn't understand it, I'd never experienced anything like this before. I knew that this movie used this type of filming, and it didn't phase me beforehand because I had seen the Blair Witch Project in the theater and I was fine. Through the whole film I kept saying to myself, why? Why do I feel like crap. Eventually I had to leave the theater to go to the restroom and put my head between my legs, it took ten minutes before I could return to the movie. I'm only 30, but I can honestly say while watching this film I felt it aged me a good 20 years.
Within a couple minutes of returning to the theater the dizzying effects began to take it's toll again. I tried to cradle my head and close my eyes to shield from the whirlwind camera work. It didn't work, the emergency lights that went on when they were rescuing the girl were penetrating my eyelids and the high-pitched noise of the alarm were earsplitting and adding to my discomfort rather than alleviating it by closing my eyes. Why did I stay in the theater do you ask? Well, for one I had never experienced something like this before (well maybe at an amusement park after eating loads of food as a child) while being stationary. I also paid a hefty price for the ticket, and I was determined to see this "ride" through. There were some interesting parts, don't get me wrong. This film had some amazing effects, and of course realistic acting. With all that aside, the plot stunk and the motivations of some of the characters were inane. Before seeing this film I did read some posts here and sneered when I read someone trying to discredit this film because I had my heart on seeing it. To be fair my judgment is largely based on the fact that this movie made me sick, plain and simple, and that's a new one on me. It was almost as if the filmmakers were going for a chaotic effect. Almost as if this film was nothing but crazy filming with screaming mobs of hysterical people and bright flashing lights and continuous loud effects, to be fair it IS a monster movie. It's hard to imagine how this film got such a high rating. Although, I can say this throughout the film, when I caught glimpses that didn't cause me to nearly vomit, I was telling myself that maybe this film is too intense for me, that's why people like it. Then I came to a conclusion, this movie was not intense, it was a joke. I was mistaking the hand held camera work for intense realistic drama. However, at the end of the film no answers were given, nothing was learned, and I paid over ten dollars to get sick watching a movie that wasn't even a hour and a half long. In conclusion, I want to warn anyone who got sick watching the Blair Witch Project, you WILL get sick watching this. Even if you have a strong stomach, like I thought I did, do NOT have a huge cup of hot chocolate beforehand as I did, or food in general. Also, sit as far from the screen as possible! On the other hand, maybe I'm just a wimp, and I'm starting to get old, and no one else will be effected as I was, but my "main dude" got just as sick as I did, but that could be the hot chocolate talking. Yes I was disappointed, not in the actors (they did a good job), not the effects (they were spot on), but in the plot and the maniacal camera man, a.k.a. Hud. Most of all, I was disappointed in myself for falling for the hype that this film promised, and more so for allowing myself to get sick.
After all someone might say it's a love story....
ungerz17 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say that I haven't had so much fun in a movie theater in such a long time. Cloverfield brought back a sense of excitement and delight for me.
The movie draws you in, makes you a part of the experience. It succeeds primarily because of two things; what you see and what you hear.
The movie does not have a major actor stealing the screen. Everyone is treaded just about equal. As the viewer you feel you are with the group as you are seeing the movie from the first person view. You feel connected to the characters as you understand that because of their loss, they have to set something right and not escape from the city. The movie draws you in and you feel like you are a part of the action.
There is no music. Ambient sounds such as creeks and thumps don't distract you from looking at all the finer details. You stay focused on what's important and constantly entertained.
One thing you must remember going into this movie. Remember the first 10 seconds of the movie (the stuff that comes right after the Star Trek teaser). If you keep that in mind everything will make sense and make the movie more pleasurable.
The movie draws you in, makes you a part of the experience. It succeeds primarily because of two things; what you see and what you hear.
The movie does not have a major actor stealing the screen. Everyone is treaded just about equal. As the viewer you feel you are with the group as you are seeing the movie from the first person view. You feel connected to the characters as you understand that because of their loss, they have to set something right and not escape from the city. The movie draws you in and you feel like you are a part of the action.
There is no music. Ambient sounds such as creeks and thumps don't distract you from looking at all the finer details. You stay focused on what's important and constantly entertained.
One thing you must remember going into this movie. Remember the first 10 seconds of the movie (the stuff that comes right after the Star Trek teaser). If you keep that in mind everything will make sense and make the movie more pleasurable.
Overall not bad but I found it unsatisfying and annoying to watch
recklessron16 May 2008
I agree with most of the comments I read, in that this film is definitely worth watching, BUT thought I'd mention a few things that others didn't.
The lack of a steady camera shot, even though it fits well with the plot, began to wear on me. I found myself relieved whenever the camera fell to the ground and gave the same view for a few seconds. It felt like I had on the wrong glasses - I was constantly trying to bring the scenes into focus and the continual motion, coupled with the random focus and quick glimpses of things I wanted to see clearly, made me feel stressed, strained and then annoyed.
Add to that the ending, which leaves so many issues dangling, and, overall, I found it very unsatisfactory.
Despite that I still gave it a 6. If you can handle triple rides on a roller-coaster then you'll probably really enjoy this film. If you get motion sickness easily then you may want to pause it every 10 minutes and focus on the wall!
The lack of a steady camera shot, even though it fits well with the plot, began to wear on me. I found myself relieved whenever the camera fell to the ground and gave the same view for a few seconds. It felt like I had on the wrong glasses - I was constantly trying to bring the scenes into focus and the continual motion, coupled with the random focus and quick glimpses of things I wanted to see clearly, made me feel stressed, strained and then annoyed.
Add to that the ending, which leaves so many issues dangling, and, overall, I found it very unsatisfactory.
Despite that I still gave it a 6. If you can handle triple rides on a roller-coaster then you'll probably really enjoy this film. If you get motion sickness easily then you may want to pause it every 10 minutes and focus on the wall!
Sturdiest Hand-held Camera Ever!
CSBurningDestiny30 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
... I do not believe that digital camera survived a nuke. I'm sorry, there you go. That was the final nail in the coffin for this movie, it just heaps one immersion-breaking sequence of events after another.
So, let's count off:
Cloverfield stops just short of carving 'all the characters in this movie die!' into your forehead in the first 40 seconds of the movie, making it impossible to feel any sort of emotional attachment to them? Check.
Magically-appearing army which arrives roughly TEN MINUTES into the monster attack despite the fact that one of the main bridges into Manhattan was destroyed not thirty-seconds earlier? Check.
Monster can't be hurt by weapons? Check. This is forgivable, it's a trope of all giant monster movies. Most make some attempt to explain it... in Cloverfield, they just assume you'll go: "Oh, of course that doesn't work. It IS a giant monster, after all."
Monster drops off little baby monsters (in this case, parasites) that only serve to pad the movie and give the filmmakers an excuse to film someone (literally) exploding off-camera with no explanation as to WHY said character exploded because of the bite of a little monster? Check.
Exiting the subway into a conveniently-placed Army hospital? Check.
Baby monster bite that, while severe, doesn't slow down any of the caste UNTIL the poorly telegraphed "I feel a little dizzy" followed by the above-referenced character explosion? Check.
Skyscraper improbably leaning against another skyscraper without either of them collapsing? Check.
Girl survives roughly six hours with a rebar spike through her shoulder without bleeding to death... OK, this one's plausible. People have survived weirder, and the rebar MIGHT have kept her from bleeding to death.
Girl is capable of running not once, but twice, roughly ten minutes after being REMOVED from said rebar? Without being slowed down because of blood-loss, pain, nausea, or any other reason? Check.
Monster pulls a 'Dragonball Z' and gets back up despite lots of bombs and a huge cloud of smoke? Check.
Helicopter crashes in central park, and only the three main characters survive? Check.
Guy and his girl fiend wind up together at the end, complete with useless and weepy Blair Witch "I'm scared, why is this happening to me?!" dialog? Check.
Camera Footage survives a NUCLEAR ATTACK, despite the fact that a nuke's EMP will still erase digital footage even if it IS protected by a flimsy central park bridge? Check.
... and that's the whole movie. Seriously. Every scene contained something needlessly immersion-breaking which, coupled with the nausea-inducing camera-work made for a decidedly poor movie.
If given the choice of being bitten by one of the little monster-lice from Cloverfield or watching the actual movie, I'd take being bitten. At least then, you'll only feel sick for about half an hour.
So, let's count off:
Cloverfield stops just short of carving 'all the characters in this movie die!' into your forehead in the first 40 seconds of the movie, making it impossible to feel any sort of emotional attachment to them? Check.
Magically-appearing army which arrives roughly TEN MINUTES into the monster attack despite the fact that one of the main bridges into Manhattan was destroyed not thirty-seconds earlier? Check.
Monster can't be hurt by weapons? Check. This is forgivable, it's a trope of all giant monster movies. Most make some attempt to explain it... in Cloverfield, they just assume you'll go: "Oh, of course that doesn't work. It IS a giant monster, after all."
Monster drops off little baby monsters (in this case, parasites) that only serve to pad the movie and give the filmmakers an excuse to film someone (literally) exploding off-camera with no explanation as to WHY said character exploded because of the bite of a little monster? Check.
Exiting the subway into a conveniently-placed Army hospital? Check.
Baby monster bite that, while severe, doesn't slow down any of the caste UNTIL the poorly telegraphed "I feel a little dizzy" followed by the above-referenced character explosion? Check.
Skyscraper improbably leaning against another skyscraper without either of them collapsing? Check.
Girl survives roughly six hours with a rebar spike through her shoulder without bleeding to death... OK, this one's plausible. People have survived weirder, and the rebar MIGHT have kept her from bleeding to death.
Girl is capable of running not once, but twice, roughly ten minutes after being REMOVED from said rebar? Without being slowed down because of blood-loss, pain, nausea, or any other reason? Check.
Monster pulls a 'Dragonball Z' and gets back up despite lots of bombs and a huge cloud of smoke? Check.
Helicopter crashes in central park, and only the three main characters survive? Check.
Guy and his girl fiend wind up together at the end, complete with useless and weepy Blair Witch "I'm scared, why is this happening to me?!" dialog? Check.
Camera Footage survives a NUCLEAR ATTACK, despite the fact that a nuke's EMP will still erase digital footage even if it IS protected by a flimsy central park bridge? Check.
... and that's the whole movie. Seriously. Every scene contained something needlessly immersion-breaking which, coupled with the nausea-inducing camera-work made for a decidedly poor movie.
If given the choice of being bitten by one of the little monster-lice from Cloverfield or watching the actual movie, I'd take being bitten. At least then, you'll only feel sick for about half an hour.
The First Great Monster Film of the Century
Midgarmerc18 January 2008
If you haven't heard by now Cloverfield is a film about a giant monster attacking Manhattan all seen through the perspective of a 20-something's hand-held camera. The film has been hyped for months via viral marketing, JJ Abrams fan boys, and media coverage/ monster speculation. Did it live up to the hype? The answer is OH GOD YES Cloverfield is by far the most intense monster film I have ever seen in my lifetime, after the initial 15 minutes of character introduction and whatnot the film does not go 5 minutes without a HOLY CRAP moment. Constantly driving you to the edge of your seat at every turn and it really pulls no punches, I was surprised to learn it was rated PG13. Now the film is entirely filmed in shaky cam since you cant really survive a monster attack pushing a trolley around and it just works, you may get motion sickness though so be warned. The camera itself becomes a character of the film as it IS the viewer making everything happening on-screen more and more realistic. Now the acting is amateur but thats for the best considering that the film would have made no sense if they had used big name actors/actresses, the characters are not that deep either and mostly serve as fodder, comic relief, moral guidance, panic, commentary, puzzlement, a little bit of annoyance, in other words they're people surviving a monster attack. The presentation is brilliant, the only music heard is in the party and at the ending credits and the special effects are some of the most seamless stuff you'll ever see in a film. The monster itself is actually not seen in its entirety only being viewed from different angles for the audience to piece it together as the survivors themselves are, you pretty much know as much as they do about everything going on making you actually feel like you're there. Critics compare the film to Blair Witch meets Godzilla but it is so much more than that, Cloverfield is the definitive American Monster Film, best if seen on the opening weekend just to hear the audience's reactions not to mention the presentation is far greater on the big screen, watch it again to see the things you missed or just to enjoy the ride again, admittedly the shock value will wane with multiple viewings but for what it's worth Cloverfield is an excellent piece of film and special effect engineering and is the first great monster film of the millennium. Its also downright scary at parts. 8/10
Cloverfield was Cool!
jkhata11 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
A few caveats. I'm not a monster-movie person. I didn't even know what Cloverfield was. I didn't know that they had played an advance trailer at Transformer screenings (didn't see Transformers). I didn't know that all the secrecy combined with the street credibility of J. J. Abrams had turned the whole thing into an "event". And I really, really hate movies that make me nauseous with their shaky hand-held camera action (How 'bout a tripod, Paul Greengrass?). That said, my husband told me to show up at 7pm and I did since I'm always up for a free movie and especially for something that is an advance screening (I feel like I am in the cool-kids-club!).
Turns out that I really liked this movie! Uncomfortable chair, small screen and bad audio aside (it was a university lecture hall), I was on the edge of my seat the entire time and didn't relax even after getting home. So what makes this film different? The home/hand held video taping made me feel like I was running around New York City in the dark with the characters (and oddly, I wasn't nauseous!). The characters, mostly unknown actors, seemed like real people I might know or meet at a party and were truly genuine in their fear and their decision-making (i.e., not Drew Barrymore answering the phone). Going down into the subway was a little suspect, but given the action on the streets, I may have made the same decision. I came to like the characters - mostly Hud - and could even stomach the romantic back story. I really wanted them to make it out alive(though not sure where they'd go, Maplewood, New Jersey?). I didn't get a clear view of the monster until late in the movie which kept my attention. The human-sized spider/crab monsters that seemingly rolled off the mama-monster (must be a "she", was pretty angry) were totally creepy and also mysterious. All good stuff.
Just a few things that I question but all are minor. First, how could Lily run around escaping a monster in high heels? Second, how is it that only Marlena was bitten by the mini-monster in the subway (and what happened to her, by the way?) And third, did Hud have a super-duper camera battery? With all the night focusing, that thing should have died long before all the characters did.
After Jason died on the bridge pretty early on, I knew it was a different kind of movie (the anti-Lost, things actually are happening!) and as the characters were killed off one by one, I started to ponder how it was all going to end. And then it did just that, it abruptly ended! I'm usually a guy-gets-girl-happy-ending-closure-type gal and this was definitely not that. So we'll never know what the monster was or what ended up happening to it or New York City or why Cloverfied is formerly Central Park. But I remain one non-monster-movie fan who liked this one. I'm even contemplating taking in a matinée 2nd viewing! Go check it out!
Turns out that I really liked this movie! Uncomfortable chair, small screen and bad audio aside (it was a university lecture hall), I was on the edge of my seat the entire time and didn't relax even after getting home. So what makes this film different? The home/hand held video taping made me feel like I was running around New York City in the dark with the characters (and oddly, I wasn't nauseous!). The characters, mostly unknown actors, seemed like real people I might know or meet at a party and were truly genuine in their fear and their decision-making (i.e., not Drew Barrymore answering the phone). Going down into the subway was a little suspect, but given the action on the streets, I may have made the same decision. I came to like the characters - mostly Hud - and could even stomach the romantic back story. I really wanted them to make it out alive(though not sure where they'd go, Maplewood, New Jersey?). I didn't get a clear view of the monster until late in the movie which kept my attention. The human-sized spider/crab monsters that seemingly rolled off the mama-monster (must be a "she", was pretty angry) were totally creepy and also mysterious. All good stuff.
Just a few things that I question but all are minor. First, how could Lily run around escaping a monster in high heels? Second, how is it that only Marlena was bitten by the mini-monster in the subway (and what happened to her, by the way?) And third, did Hud have a super-duper camera battery? With all the night focusing, that thing should have died long before all the characters did.
After Jason died on the bridge pretty early on, I knew it was a different kind of movie (the anti-Lost, things actually are happening!) and as the characters were killed off one by one, I started to ponder how it was all going to end. And then it did just that, it abruptly ended! I'm usually a guy-gets-girl-happy-ending-closure-type gal and this was definitely not that. So we'll never know what the monster was or what ended up happening to it or New York City or why Cloverfied is formerly Central Park. But I remain one non-monster-movie fan who liked this one. I'm even contemplating taking in a matinée 2nd viewing! Go check it out!
overrated
jlira21 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
i went in expecting a scary monster movie.
what i got was 15 minutes of bad TV dialog, and 45 minutes of shaky-cam running through the streets. the acting was OK but the characters were really unpleasant. not only did i not care if they died, by the end of the movie i was rooting for the monster.
there were a lot of plot holes and the decisions everyone made were totally unrealistic. it was hard to stay in the movie because of the constant lapses of common sense and logical flaws. those kinds of things really annoy me when they could have been fixed with a line or two of dialog.
finally at the end of the movie there were a couple minutes of cool special effects. the rest of the movie was a waste of time.
what i got was 15 minutes of bad TV dialog, and 45 minutes of shaky-cam running through the streets. the acting was OK but the characters were really unpleasant. not only did i not care if they died, by the end of the movie i was rooting for the monster.
there were a lot of plot holes and the decisions everyone made were totally unrealistic. it was hard to stay in the movie because of the constant lapses of common sense and logical flaws. those kinds of things really annoy me when they could have been fixed with a line or two of dialog.
finally at the end of the movie there were a couple minutes of cool special effects. the rest of the movie was a waste of time.
I liked it... believe it or not, I did.
IamtheRegalTreatment17 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
There was so much hype for this movie that you didn't need to know what it was about to see it. I'm sure many viewers this weekend are going to not know anything about the movie, just know that it's called Cloverfield and it was produced by JJ Abrams. I would think the movie wouldn't be as enthralling for someone who doesn't know much about it compared to someone who has been following message board posts for months, but I don't think it should matter.
So, let's begin. Cloverfield. The general plot of the movie is a home-made movie about a mans going away party that turns into a first person action thriller about a "monster" terrorizing the city. Well, I'm intrigued. I have been waiting for this movie for awhile since nothing exciting has come out recently. Everyone talking about the movie only made it more anticipated, so going into it I had high expectations. To be completely honest, I am satisfied. Shocked? Cloverfield is a movie like nothing I've seen before. I am sure this movie is based upon a few other films, but I haven't seen them. First of all, no it is not Godzilla. Second, I didn't get a chance to see Blair Witch Project so the first person thing was new to me. I know, I know. This however is what Made this movie what it is. It made you feel like you were in the action, on the streets running in fear alongside the citizens. It was freakin' sweet.
The action was intense, I expected nothing less from JJ. Once the movie got into motion with the city "earthquake" everything from then on was thrilling. I sat in the seat shaking in anticipation like I was sitting outside in the 20 degree weather; butterflies in my stomach for more than half the film. Awesome. The other part that was great was the sound and sights. It really felt like you were standing next to the soldiers shooting at the monster. And last but not least, the comedy... no seriously. There were many funny parts thanks to the cameraman. "Oh My God, you know Superman too? Geez I'm feeling a connection... have you heard of Garfield?". Classic.
Overall a solid, solid 9. Maybe a little high, but I thought the movie was amazing whether or not the ending was satisfying. No, I'm not telling you how it ends! To me, it was good though because it ended the film on a good note... yet kept the suspense and questions flowing. Also, no monster tips from me... I want you to be awaiting "its" face. Very good work, except on the title... what does Cloverfield have to do with it?
90 minute flick, so why not. Action/Thriller fans will love it; so go see it!
So, let's begin. Cloverfield. The general plot of the movie is a home-made movie about a mans going away party that turns into a first person action thriller about a "monster" terrorizing the city. Well, I'm intrigued. I have been waiting for this movie for awhile since nothing exciting has come out recently. Everyone talking about the movie only made it more anticipated, so going into it I had high expectations. To be completely honest, I am satisfied. Shocked? Cloverfield is a movie like nothing I've seen before. I am sure this movie is based upon a few other films, but I haven't seen them. First of all, no it is not Godzilla. Second, I didn't get a chance to see Blair Witch Project so the first person thing was new to me. I know, I know. This however is what Made this movie what it is. It made you feel like you were in the action, on the streets running in fear alongside the citizens. It was freakin' sweet.
The action was intense, I expected nothing less from JJ. Once the movie got into motion with the city "earthquake" everything from then on was thrilling. I sat in the seat shaking in anticipation like I was sitting outside in the 20 degree weather; butterflies in my stomach for more than half the film. Awesome. The other part that was great was the sound and sights. It really felt like you were standing next to the soldiers shooting at the monster. And last but not least, the comedy... no seriously. There were many funny parts thanks to the cameraman. "Oh My God, you know Superman too? Geez I'm feeling a connection... have you heard of Garfield?". Classic.
Overall a solid, solid 9. Maybe a little high, but I thought the movie was amazing whether or not the ending was satisfying. No, I'm not telling you how it ends! To me, it was good though because it ended the film on a good note... yet kept the suspense and questions flowing. Also, no monster tips from me... I want you to be awaiting "its" face. Very good work, except on the title... what does Cloverfield have to do with it?
90 minute flick, so why not. Action/Thriller fans will love it; so go see it!
A tense, thrilling movie
ametaphysicalshark25 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I went in expecting a fun, silly monster flick, and though I got some of that value for my money, "Cloverfield" was a wonderfully entertaining, occasionally terrifying, very creepy, and quite disturbing movie, the latter part I did not expect at all.
I disagree with any comments on the characters being weak. These are carbon copies of people I know, and we talk EXACTLY like the characters in "Cloverfield", which contains some of the most naturally flowing dialogue I've ever seen in a movie, no overstatement.
Rob, the lead character, was very identifiable for me. The direction was spot on all the way through keeping the tension at unbearably high levels for most of the time.
For me, some of the monster attack sequences, particularly one in a subway tunnel, were among the best edge of the seat moments I've witnessed in a theater since "Alien"'s re-release a few years ago.
I thought the movie had more substance than you'd expect it to, even beyond the obvious 9/11 overtones. I heard someone call this the "United 93" of monster movies and I agree with the assessment as this is a movie with of course a lighter tone but the same sense of relative realism and utter uneasiness which prevails throughout.
I disagree with those who say the love story was tacked on or shoe-horned into the script. Besides serving a crucial plot point, it was simply the emotional underpinning of the movie.
I thought the hand-held camera perspective was used far better here than uh... a certain movie released in 1999. "Cloverfield" is as creepy, scary, and relatively realistic as any 'giant monster attacks city' movie can be. It's also very well-written in comparison to many of those. I've read up on some alleged plot-holes and decided that it is unreasonable to expect us to get more closure and a deeper understanding of what was going on than the characters. This is a point of view movie with the leads being a bunch of twenty-somethings. What, did you expect a guy in a labcoat to pop up and explain everything? Perhaps an orangutan in an armchair would've been nice, right? Really, "Cloverfield" makes you feel like you're there. It's a formidable relatively low-budget sci-fi flick which delivers the goods. Frankly, the arguments against it are mostly due to unrealistic and silly expectations. It's thrilling, tense, and runs for just as long as it needs to. Plus, it's got a great ending.
8.75/10
I disagree with any comments on the characters being weak. These are carbon copies of people I know, and we talk EXACTLY like the characters in "Cloverfield", which contains some of the most naturally flowing dialogue I've ever seen in a movie, no overstatement.
Rob, the lead character, was very identifiable for me. The direction was spot on all the way through keeping the tension at unbearably high levels for most of the time.
For me, some of the monster attack sequences, particularly one in a subway tunnel, were among the best edge of the seat moments I've witnessed in a theater since "Alien"'s re-release a few years ago.
I thought the movie had more substance than you'd expect it to, even beyond the obvious 9/11 overtones. I heard someone call this the "United 93" of monster movies and I agree with the assessment as this is a movie with of course a lighter tone but the same sense of relative realism and utter uneasiness which prevails throughout.
I disagree with those who say the love story was tacked on or shoe-horned into the script. Besides serving a crucial plot point, it was simply the emotional underpinning of the movie.
I thought the hand-held camera perspective was used far better here than uh... a certain movie released in 1999. "Cloverfield" is as creepy, scary, and relatively realistic as any 'giant monster attacks city' movie can be. It's also very well-written in comparison to many of those. I've read up on some alleged plot-holes and decided that it is unreasonable to expect us to get more closure and a deeper understanding of what was going on than the characters. This is a point of view movie with the leads being a bunch of twenty-somethings. What, did you expect a guy in a labcoat to pop up and explain everything? Perhaps an orangutan in an armchair would've been nice, right? Really, "Cloverfield" makes you feel like you're there. It's a formidable relatively low-budget sci-fi flick which delivers the goods. Frankly, the arguments against it are mostly due to unrealistic and silly expectations. It's thrilling, tense, and runs for just as long as it needs to. Plus, it's got a great ending.
8.75/10
Monsters movie in which a camera manages to shoot the frightening events that spontaneously happen
ma-cortes3 August 2009
When some New Yorkers are celebrating a leaving party the ground starts to shake , with blowing up happening anywhere . They decide to abandon the flat when a monster terrorizes the Great Apple , breaking buildings , and every to get in its ways. Various characters cross paths with the giant beast, and they attempt to escape along with a young carrying a hand-held video camera.
This eerie tale is plenty of thrills, chills, restless horror and suspense . Film itself takes place from point of sight of a cameraman , with camera over shoulders , displaying a documentary style filmed by photographer Michael Bonvilliam . In fact , during the first weekend of the release, many theaters posted signs warning guests that the hand held camera movements may cause motion sickness . The title "Cloverfield"; initially just a codename for the movie, is named for the boulevard in Santa Monica where the Bad Robot offices were located during the making of the film . Good but unknown cast as Michael Sthal , Jessica Lucas, Odette Yusman , Michael Vogel, among others . Well worth watching if you appeal shaky cameras , such as : ¨Blair witch project¨, ¨28 days/ Weeks after¨ or the classic Italian ¨Holocaust cannibal¨; and recently ¨Rec (2007)¨ by Paco Plaza and Jaume Balaguero and its American remake ¨Quarintine (2008)¨ by John Erik . The flick is a crossover between Gozilla picture , catastrophe genre and documentary with Steadicam camera . Lavishly produced by J.J.Abrams (Lost, Star Trek) and Bryan Burk with excellent special effects and monsters made by Phill Tippet studio . The motion picture picture was professionally directed by Matt Reeves . He's a writer, producer (Yards) and director for television (Felicity) and eventually for cinema ; furthermore , usual collaborator of J.J. Abrams . Rating : Interesing and spectacular , above average.
This eerie tale is plenty of thrills, chills, restless horror and suspense . Film itself takes place from point of sight of a cameraman , with camera over shoulders , displaying a documentary style filmed by photographer Michael Bonvilliam . In fact , during the first weekend of the release, many theaters posted signs warning guests that the hand held camera movements may cause motion sickness . The title "Cloverfield"; initially just a codename for the movie, is named for the boulevard in Santa Monica where the Bad Robot offices were located during the making of the film . Good but unknown cast as Michael Sthal , Jessica Lucas, Odette Yusman , Michael Vogel, among others . Well worth watching if you appeal shaky cameras , such as : ¨Blair witch project¨, ¨28 days/ Weeks after¨ or the classic Italian ¨Holocaust cannibal¨; and recently ¨Rec (2007)¨ by Paco Plaza and Jaume Balaguero and its American remake ¨Quarintine (2008)¨ by John Erik . The flick is a crossover between Gozilla picture , catastrophe genre and documentary with Steadicam camera . Lavishly produced by J.J.Abrams (Lost, Star Trek) and Bryan Burk with excellent special effects and monsters made by Phill Tippet studio . The motion picture picture was professionally directed by Matt Reeves . He's a writer, producer (Yards) and director for television (Felicity) and eventually for cinema ; furthermore , usual collaborator of J.J. Abrams . Rating : Interesing and spectacular , above average.
Don't believe the hype - They didn't hype it up enough...
megacito9929 February 2008
Right, Let it be known, this film is f****n quality! Genuinely, i watched it with no expectations- the cheeky marketing of it revealing very little worked perfectly in my instance. The opening 5/10mins meets characters, and almost tricks you into a false sense of calm and normality.
When 'events proceed', the camcorder style filming instills a genuine realism to events, and the films definitely feeds off the mass concern and shock at global events/terrorist attacks/disasters, and the disjointed way news feeds through.
I will say no more but this- watch this film. Don't go finding too much out, just watch, and get taken to a place most fiction movies aren't able to transport viewers to. Intense has been said a lot in other peeps reviews its exactly that. Proper Rocks.
Out
When 'events proceed', the camcorder style filming instills a genuine realism to events, and the films definitely feeds off the mass concern and shock at global events/terrorist attacks/disasters, and the disjointed way news feeds through.
I will say no more but this- watch this film. Don't go finding too much out, just watch, and get taken to a place most fiction movies aren't able to transport viewers to. Intense has been said a lot in other peeps reviews its exactly that. Proper Rocks.
Out
Not the film that I remember upon my revisit!
SoumikBanerjee19964 September 2023
They needed Godzilla to fight that thing, not tanks or missiles!
Jokes apart, it's a well-acted and well-made found footage feature, no doubt whatsoever. However, I remember liking the movie much more when I first saw it in my teenage years. I vividly recall caring for the whole ensemble and the devastating tragedy that struck them out of nowhere.
More than a decade later, I cannot state the same, though. Perhaps it's the overexposure of the found footage genre in general or the fact I've now gotten habituated to such filmmaking and have seen much better works in the process. Whatever the reason, it did not resonate with me on the same level this time; I wish it did.
Jokes apart, it's a well-acted and well-made found footage feature, no doubt whatsoever. However, I remember liking the movie much more when I first saw it in my teenage years. I vividly recall caring for the whole ensemble and the devastating tragedy that struck them out of nowhere.
More than a decade later, I cannot state the same, though. Perhaps it's the overexposure of the found footage genre in general or the fact I've now gotten habituated to such filmmaking and have seen much better works in the process. Whatever the reason, it did not resonate with me on the same level this time; I wish it did.
Intense!
ven2s18 January 2008
I thought that this movie would have its best scenes in the trailers, so when I went in I did not expect too much. But I did expect that it would be different given JJ Abram's influence on Alias. Well, if you're not much for jumpy cameras and are prone to motion sickness, you probably will not stay too long in the theater. But if you can focus wide and not get caught up too much in the details, you are in for an intense and unique take on the monster hits a major city (New York) genre. Where does it come from? What is it? One can speculate, but the movie is really dealing with the trauma of a small group of party goers and their encounter with the extraordinary! The effects are amazing, the acting by relative unknowns, hits on all marks; making the movie all the more convincing to the very end. Not for the faint of heart or the under-aged; under 17s might be up nights with the shakes, definitely don't take preteens! Way better than, "The Mist," a must see for giant monster fans everywhere!
Motion Sickness Warning
jakens-403218 January 2022
Saving the world from Aliens and Monsters: No. Saving Betty: Yes
pawanpunjabithewriter28 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Can anyone please explain to me what happened? The world is dying. The monsters have taken over on the planet Earth. Everyone is running for their lives. Monsters are winning. Millitary has almost failed. Military tanks have been burst. However, their purpose, instead of saving everyone from dying, is saving Rob's Girlfriend, because she broke up with him? The concept was incredible. The idea was amazing. The best you could do with that was this? Cool then, you go save Betty, we'll go watch some ither movie.
PS Spoiler: Saving Betty killed more people than Betty could have ever given birth to.
PS Spoiler: Saving Betty killed more people than Betty could have ever given birth to.
Much better than anticipated
Klaus Silberbauer8 June 2009
I didn't have high hopes for this one, having read the reviews. Monster movie meets Blair Witch. But it's absolutely an OK flick.
Great effects and an extremely cool apocalyptic atmosphere. Definitely worth a watch.
Hand-held camera can be tiring, yes - but in this case, and combined with the great effects, it works.
The plot itself isn't exactly news, but as it's all seen from the antagonists point of view and with no further explanation, you really get that "what would I have done"-feeling.
Yes, we need explanations, but I really like that Abrams hasn't tried to tag on an ending explaining what happened.
Great effects and an extremely cool apocalyptic atmosphere. Definitely worth a watch.
Hand-held camera can be tiring, yes - but in this case, and combined with the great effects, it works.
The plot itself isn't exactly news, but as it's all seen from the antagonists point of view and with no further explanation, you really get that "what would I have done"-feeling.
Yes, we need explanations, but I really like that Abrams hasn't tried to tag on an ending explaining what happened.
Fun for a while, then you might get sick.
dr_brendan16 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Here's how to make the best advertising campaign ever. All you do, is just show the most exciting and disturbing parts of the film and nothing to do with characters and then put the title at the end and people are like "SO GOING!"
At least half of the people in the theater found Cloverfield hard to watch because it's all hand-held. At first I was really excited for the film and then one of my friends said "Oh, so it's like Blair Witch Project meets The Host. (I can assure you that, that's what you're gonna get but with a little something extra) I was also really sick throughout the entire movie. However, it's probably the best survival/horror/science fiction all year but what am I really comparing it to? Hmm? First Sunday?
I was worried about Cloverfield because not only did I see it for free, but it was supposed to come out in January (to film geeks, it's known as dump month.) However, rest assured that the film isn't half bad. The characters are somewhat minimal but there is actually a reason for what they are doing. Most of the stuff seems plausible kinda, and they didn't "find a scientist" and he didn't give the "we don't know what it is!" or "Human's played god!" speech that was found in the other horror/adventure movies of last year. When the characters die, you feel for them somewhat, but, to be honest you didn't get to know them that well. It was kinda like seeing a really cool person on the street and then 10 minuets he gets hit by a car. You're kinda sad cause that character was funny, or pretty, or kinda important. Also, you feel beaten up from all the shaky-cam if you're affected by motion sickness. So when a person dies it's like you're drunk and someone told you that a relative died. You're disappointed but you can't really control your emotions at this point so you're already crying. It's kinda like, the film beats you up, and makes you feel sorry for someone else cause you can kinda sympathize with there pain since you're experiencing something similar to a seizure.
NOW FOR THE IMPORTANT PART: The monster. Cloverfield's monster is interesting and will make your mouth drop to the floor, because it's always changing. It's also surprising. You think you have a full understanding of the monster, and then you see a newscast and it totally changes everything think you thought you knew.
I also like how the movie was also like a metaphor for a love. Hold on to people and never let them go kinda thing. It really made you think. And by the end if you saw it with anyone you'll kinda have a group hug at the end.
Still, like I said before, the characters are minimal because the movie is only an hour and 24 min. Which is a fantastic length, because if your the one half who can't stand shaky-cam you'll be like "oh wow, that was over soon." and for the people who aren't affected, they'll like how it got right to the point.
But, because it's so short, you might want your money back if you payed $10. So I heavily recommend a matinée . No one really feels cheated out of $6. Still, an overall fun movie to see with friends if you aren't affected by motion sickness. Also it's a great movie to see Downtown cause when you get out you'll be paranoid for like 20 min cause you don't know if a monster will get you when you're on the way to your car. Overall, I would say, worth seeing if you have a strong stomach, if you don't wait for it on DVD.
At least half of the people in the theater found Cloverfield hard to watch because it's all hand-held. At first I was really excited for the film and then one of my friends said "Oh, so it's like Blair Witch Project meets The Host. (I can assure you that, that's what you're gonna get but with a little something extra) I was also really sick throughout the entire movie. However, it's probably the best survival/horror/science fiction all year but what am I really comparing it to? Hmm? First Sunday?
I was worried about Cloverfield because not only did I see it for free, but it was supposed to come out in January (to film geeks, it's known as dump month.) However, rest assured that the film isn't half bad. The characters are somewhat minimal but there is actually a reason for what they are doing. Most of the stuff seems plausible kinda, and they didn't "find a scientist" and he didn't give the "we don't know what it is!" or "Human's played god!" speech that was found in the other horror/adventure movies of last year. When the characters die, you feel for them somewhat, but, to be honest you didn't get to know them that well. It was kinda like seeing a really cool person on the street and then 10 minuets he gets hit by a car. You're kinda sad cause that character was funny, or pretty, or kinda important. Also, you feel beaten up from all the shaky-cam if you're affected by motion sickness. So when a person dies it's like you're drunk and someone told you that a relative died. You're disappointed but you can't really control your emotions at this point so you're already crying. It's kinda like, the film beats you up, and makes you feel sorry for someone else cause you can kinda sympathize with there pain since you're experiencing something similar to a seizure.
NOW FOR THE IMPORTANT PART: The monster. Cloverfield's monster is interesting and will make your mouth drop to the floor, because it's always changing. It's also surprising. You think you have a full understanding of the monster, and then you see a newscast and it totally changes everything think you thought you knew.
I also like how the movie was also like a metaphor for a love. Hold on to people and never let them go kinda thing. It really made you think. And by the end if you saw it with anyone you'll kinda have a group hug at the end.
Still, like I said before, the characters are minimal because the movie is only an hour and 24 min. Which is a fantastic length, because if your the one half who can't stand shaky-cam you'll be like "oh wow, that was over soon." and for the people who aren't affected, they'll like how it got right to the point.
But, because it's so short, you might want your money back if you payed $10. So I heavily recommend a matinée . No one really feels cheated out of $6. Still, an overall fun movie to see with friends if you aren't affected by motion sickness. Also it's a great movie to see Downtown cause when you get out you'll be paranoid for like 20 min cause you don't know if a monster will get you when you're on the way to your car. Overall, I would say, worth seeing if you have a strong stomach, if you don't wait for it on DVD.
Clover-Woven-From-Other-Films
Rumsfield19 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I will admit, the marketing scheme behind this awfulness was clever. I mean, I like a good thrill ride monster movie. The Creature From the Black Lagoon piqued my curiosity as a youngster as I marveled at the brilliance of trying to understand something that has no explanation. However, it's hard to have this curiosity, no matter how intriguing the monster is, when the script is so tired its in a coma.
Yes, the monster is cool. No, the stupid hand-held camera gimmick didn't bother me. Yes, the special effects are great and at times I did find myself in awe of the spectacle on the screen as it does seem real, but the movie itself is so, so, so dumb. At any moment I felt comfortable to leave to use the restroom as I knew exactly what I was going to miss. The plot was a paint by numbers and I would have loved even a touch of Bob Ross to fill the blanks, but no originality whatsoever.
First they steal the overdone Hollywood bit about love. "Dude, if you love her, tell her." Response: "I can't tell her, unless a mutant alien/ocean creature tries to expunge the city, only then will I try and make my move." Why have this? Why not make the story the monster? Really, who cares about these characters? Who cares about Rob's job in Japan? It's flimsy? Why have it? The beginning clearly leads on that the camera is found, which means they all die. Standard operation of introducing characters that we shouldn't care about.
Second, they decide to steal a scene from a much better monster movie The Descent. "Let's try night vision on the camera." And this is in no way as scary as the movie that did it better. The Descent works better in every faction of story telling. It forces claustrophobia as it whispers the insanity and the entire film works as a metaphor for diving deep into the darkness of one's existence and summoning demons, ones we can't see coming (which is why I think those monsters were blind). Cloverfield does none of this. It's a, where can we run to next? saga. A 'B' movie. A well shot 'B' movie.
Third we have the comic relief one liner guy holding the camera. But in true fashion of a bad movie, he's not funny, just annoying. A few people in my viewing clapped when he was eaten. I love LOST. I think it's the best show on TV, but the writer here has proved that being a great psychological writer for the little screen does not translate to comedy. Bad Robot productions should hire one guy with a sense of humor. They may need him at some point. Hud's pinnacle of wit was "That's terrible" when he gets a good shot of the monster. Followed closely by, "That's terrible too" when we see when of its young-lings a few seconds later. Brilliant... improv? I can only guess the script consisted of locations and not so much dialogue since this boner had most of the words in the movie, words that seemed spontaneously driven from someone wait listed at community college. Horrible. I'm surprised he didn't utter, "That's terrible cubed" before he was engorged upon. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Fourth, we have the killer/villain/monster has one last leap. Yes, we knew the helicopter was going down since they find the camera in Central Park. "We killed him" Hud proclaims, just before the monster elevates and slaps the helicopter to the ground. This is scary, why? Oh, it's not scary, and I find the idea of a thing like this really existing more logical than any of those bozos surviving the crash in the park.
Fifth, they've stolen from every Stephen King novel ever, because King should always have chapters taken out, and this movie should have been an hour long. Do we really need to see them walk up 57 flights of stairs and then back down and then bank up and then and then and then and then.... yes we do. Otherwise they don't have enough for a feature length movie. So trite and boring and not fascinating. Which is why the gimmick of a hand held camera was needed. Otherwise, they may actually need to give the characters some arc, have some purposeful shots of the monster, maybe create a reason for what it is and why it's there and, uh-oh, give it some originality. For anyone who thinks this movie is original it is probably because you are under 24 and either naive to creativity or just haven't seen any worthwhile movies. I wanted to like this I did, I really did. It just wasn't good. I can respect it, as I respect all movies that are made. It was well crafted and edited and the effects were amazing, but so what? All movies now have great effects. The Fantastic Four movies are not good, but their effects rock. War of the Worlds was awful, but I thought those things really came out of the ground. Effects and production don't make a movie. Not anymore. T-2, Jurassic Park, Men in Black, those movies were pioneers to FX being a character along with brilliant film-making. Now it is expected. Since it is expected there, I expect more from the story. This isn't it. If I were trapped in hell and I had a choice to watch either Cloverfiled or One Miss Call over and over, I'd pick One Miss Call. At least its badness is funny, which gives it some merit. Cloverfield is just bad. Textook, trite, clichéd, not smart, overdone, not scary, bad. Not as bad as Mission Impossible 2, but pretty darn close.
Yes, the monster is cool. No, the stupid hand-held camera gimmick didn't bother me. Yes, the special effects are great and at times I did find myself in awe of the spectacle on the screen as it does seem real, but the movie itself is so, so, so dumb. At any moment I felt comfortable to leave to use the restroom as I knew exactly what I was going to miss. The plot was a paint by numbers and I would have loved even a touch of Bob Ross to fill the blanks, but no originality whatsoever.
First they steal the overdone Hollywood bit about love. "Dude, if you love her, tell her." Response: "I can't tell her, unless a mutant alien/ocean creature tries to expunge the city, only then will I try and make my move." Why have this? Why not make the story the monster? Really, who cares about these characters? Who cares about Rob's job in Japan? It's flimsy? Why have it? The beginning clearly leads on that the camera is found, which means they all die. Standard operation of introducing characters that we shouldn't care about.
Second, they decide to steal a scene from a much better monster movie The Descent. "Let's try night vision on the camera." And this is in no way as scary as the movie that did it better. The Descent works better in every faction of story telling. It forces claustrophobia as it whispers the insanity and the entire film works as a metaphor for diving deep into the darkness of one's existence and summoning demons, ones we can't see coming (which is why I think those monsters were blind). Cloverfield does none of this. It's a, where can we run to next? saga. A 'B' movie. A well shot 'B' movie.
Third we have the comic relief one liner guy holding the camera. But in true fashion of a bad movie, he's not funny, just annoying. A few people in my viewing clapped when he was eaten. I love LOST. I think it's the best show on TV, but the writer here has proved that being a great psychological writer for the little screen does not translate to comedy. Bad Robot productions should hire one guy with a sense of humor. They may need him at some point. Hud's pinnacle of wit was "That's terrible" when he gets a good shot of the monster. Followed closely by, "That's terrible too" when we see when of its young-lings a few seconds later. Brilliant... improv? I can only guess the script consisted of locations and not so much dialogue since this boner had most of the words in the movie, words that seemed spontaneously driven from someone wait listed at community college. Horrible. I'm surprised he didn't utter, "That's terrible cubed" before he was engorged upon. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Fourth, we have the killer/villain/monster has one last leap. Yes, we knew the helicopter was going down since they find the camera in Central Park. "We killed him" Hud proclaims, just before the monster elevates and slaps the helicopter to the ground. This is scary, why? Oh, it's not scary, and I find the idea of a thing like this really existing more logical than any of those bozos surviving the crash in the park.
Fifth, they've stolen from every Stephen King novel ever, because King should always have chapters taken out, and this movie should have been an hour long. Do we really need to see them walk up 57 flights of stairs and then back down and then bank up and then and then and then and then.... yes we do. Otherwise they don't have enough for a feature length movie. So trite and boring and not fascinating. Which is why the gimmick of a hand held camera was needed. Otherwise, they may actually need to give the characters some arc, have some purposeful shots of the monster, maybe create a reason for what it is and why it's there and, uh-oh, give it some originality. For anyone who thinks this movie is original it is probably because you are under 24 and either naive to creativity or just haven't seen any worthwhile movies. I wanted to like this I did, I really did. It just wasn't good. I can respect it, as I respect all movies that are made. It was well crafted and edited and the effects were amazing, but so what? All movies now have great effects. The Fantastic Four movies are not good, but their effects rock. War of the Worlds was awful, but I thought those things really came out of the ground. Effects and production don't make a movie. Not anymore. T-2, Jurassic Park, Men in Black, those movies were pioneers to FX being a character along with brilliant film-making. Now it is expected. Since it is expected there, I expect more from the story. This isn't it. If I were trapped in hell and I had a choice to watch either Cloverfiled or One Miss Call over and over, I'd pick One Miss Call. At least its badness is funny, which gives it some merit. Cloverfield is just bad. Textook, trite, clichéd, not smart, overdone, not scary, bad. Not as bad as Mission Impossible 2, but pretty darn close.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
