Cloverfield

8

MercedesMJan 19, 2008

I have to say that the movie was something I had never before seen done so well. It was alot better than Blair Witch although all the shaking of the camera made me queasy but I survived. I would suggest that you sit in the very back, the I have to say that the movie was something I had never before seen done so well. It was alot better than Blair Witch although all the shaking of the camera made me queasy but I survived. I would suggest that you sit in the very back, the people back there said it wasn't that bad. Overall I was impressed and would recommend it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

AustinL.Jan 22, 2008

Never could figure out how theses woman walk around in high heels without crippling them selves

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

NickDJan 26, 2008

I hate jittery camerawork, but found this film less jarring than that found in the Greengrass Bourne films and Flight 93. At least Cloverfield actually has a reason. I loved that this movie nods to the monster genre--the post-9/11 footage I hate jittery camerawork, but found this film less jarring than that found in the Greengrass Bourne films and Flight 93. At least Cloverfield actually has a reason. I loved that this movie nods to the monster genre--the post-9/11 footage format is what makes it inventive. I don't think the dialogue was meant to be great--the opening 20 minutes seemed to be the writers poking fun at themselves: a send up of Felicity. There's a little thing 'sophisticated' reviewers don't seem to realize--movies, fiction have this little thing called "a suspension of disbelief." I find it disturbing that the negative reviewers like Manohla Dargis, so disdainful of these "stupid, shallow" (fictional) characters were proud to actually write in their reviews that they were rooting for their deaths. I may not be as intelligent as the New York Times, but I got the impression from some reviews that if a young New Yorker isn't portrayed as intelligent (in a genre movie of all places) then they deserve to die. Heartwarming.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

LouisM.Feb 19, 2008

I find it interesting to see that people give this movie a bad rating due to their own motion sickness. Ha-Ha! If camera shaking induces motion sickness, it does not make it a bad movie! I enjoyed it but it did not grip me. I never felt fear I find it interesting to see that people give this movie a bad rating due to their own motion sickness. Ha-Ha! If camera shaking induces motion sickness, it does not make it a bad movie! I enjoyed it but it did not grip me. I never felt fear for the characters well-being (which is different to realizing their lives are in danger). In Blair Witch I was sucked into the movie and became one of them. Not here though. Maybe I expected too much. Still very good and excellent special effects.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

RicoG.Feb 23, 2008

Well i liked the Movie, it was good and very original. To shacky of a Camera but it could have been better. I wasn't Disappointed. Not the greatest Movie in the world but i have seen worse Cough!!! Blare witch Project Cough!!!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JesseApr 21, 2008

This movie is all about fun and i had a good time watching it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JAApr 25, 2008

Ken W called the movie a "show". only people in the industry call movies "shows". I questions whether this guy is just a jaded ex pro or maybe got fired off the movie. Cloverfield is excellent entertainment.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

KameronM.Apr 27, 2008

I thought this movie was the most enjoyable so far in 2008. The monster was great-looking, the dialog wasn't great, but had its moments. The one complaint I do have is they killed off characters too soon and the film was a little too I thought this movie was the most enjoyable so far in 2008. The monster was great-looking, the dialog wasn't great, but had its moments. The one complaint I do have is they killed off characters too soon and the film was a little too short. Also Ken W. your a complete idiot, based on the fact your review states the movie was shot on a cell phone when actually its clearly a camera, its meant to be real dialog also so their trying to show the guy is stupid, but obviously idiots like you don't get that.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

AlbertD.Oct 18, 2009

Very good monster film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

KPJul 19, 2009

Enjoyable monster flick. Nice to see a different approach for the genre. My suggestion is to take some dramamine before you watch it and then you'll be all set. Good one though, definitely worth watching.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

mmmcogburnMay 10, 2011

Time and time again Iâ

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

itz_giologicalMay 23, 2011

My praise for CLOVERFIELD as stated by my RT friends... "a perfectly paced and very interesting film, fueled by its CLEVER SURPRISES" - iirodriguez "TRULY ORIGINAL AND EXHILIRATING." - hmnshmlk2 "Im The odd one out SHAKEY CAM DON'T BOTHER ME"My praise for CLOVERFIELD as stated by my RT friends... "a perfectly paced and very interesting film, fueled by its CLEVER SURPRISES" - iirodriguez "TRULY ORIGINAL AND EXHILIRATING." - hmnshmlk2 "Im The odd one out SHAKEY CAM DON'T BOTHER ME" - angelmarth "This is a movie one enters without expectations. Without having heard of it, it only HAD ITSELF TO LIVE UP TO." - brighteyesboy90 "Searingly intense! Once it gets going IT DOESN'T STOP." - jrogers902101 "While the acting was good, the SPECIAL EFFECTS WERE PRETTY AWESOME!" - joepaulelizondo Enough said.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

RoscoeYJun 25, 2011

I have said many times that I'm a sucker for monster movies. And that is absolutely true. In a rare and seemingly dying movie genre, Cloverfield stands out as an exemplary giant monster/horror film that satisfies where needed. The shakyI have said many times that I'm a sucker for monster movies. And that is absolutely true. In a rare and seemingly dying movie genre, Cloverfield stands out as an exemplary giant monster/horror film that satisfies where needed. The shaky camera style works in this movie, its not just a gimmick here and is put to good use. when the main characters are running down the streets of the big apple in terror you are right there with them pulse pounding, and heart beating. there is a certain level of immersion that comes with this filming style and it really works, especially in the claustrophobic subway scenes. The monster itself has garnered some criticism among many movie goers who were expecting some sort of Cthulhu monster-demon thing from the netherworlds or whatever. Personally I thought the creature did what it was supposed to do, it was scary and had me guessing the entire time until it's reveal at the end. I really recommend this movie to anyone who wants a decent monster movie. sure the characters are forgettable and the acting is sub-par, but the journey will leave you breathless.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

TAMPjackoonOct 6, 2011

OMG, how did they make this movie. Thrilling, funny, creative, it's all worth it. Though there are some major flaws, but still incredible, and totally worth your time.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

7dogguyJul 14, 2012

This movie is very good why you ask because its believable and the special effects are beautiful perhaps one of the best things about this movie is that you never really catch a good glimpse of what the monster looks like this is more of aThis movie is very good why you ask because its believable and the special effects are beautiful perhaps one of the best things about this movie is that you never really catch a good glimpse of what the monster looks like this is more of a suspense then a horror movie so don't expect to be scared but feel terror for the characters that are in this situation… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

csw12Mar 30, 2012

This little film cam out in a big way. It is a haunting, thrilling and eye popping. I like the way the director hides the monster througout the film and the ending is something that will leave you speechless.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

benido326May 8, 2012

To begin with I think that this film tried to be a Blair Witch, Godzilla mash-up of sorts. That doesn't necessarily make it bad though, in fact I like some of the hand held way of storytelling, really makes you feel more involved I think. AndTo begin with I think that this film tried to be a Blair Witch, Godzilla mash-up of sorts. That doesn't necessarily make it bad though, in fact I like some of the hand held way of storytelling, really makes you feel more involved I think. And the Godzilla portion, that comes from the giant alien type creature that shows up and stomps around Manhattan. And with those two aspects, it turns out to be a pretty decent film. Made by the Bad Robot Company, the production company behind Star Trek and Lost, basically J.J. Abram's company, I don't know if he is the head or anything but all the projects he is involved in, this company is also. This being a Bad Robot film, I knew that it would be somewhat interesting and have some good special effects. And I was right. The film is about a guy's last night in New York before he moves to Japan, perhaps a nod to the Godzilla aspect? And in the middle of the party, about fifteen minutes into the film, there is a big bang as a tanker near the Statue of Liberty capsizes. And then all hell breaks loose. The head of the statue gets thrown down the street, buildings start falling down, and people start panicking to get off the island. And for the remaining 75 or so minutes, you follow three young people as they themselves try and get off the island and save themselves. This is a pretty short movie, less than 90 minutes, but it is a rush. There is not that much real down time once the action starts and I think that that is what the film does good. It almost constantly keeps the adrenaline up. And the closer you get to the end, the more you see the monster and the more you see the destruction that it is caused. So if you want to look for a fun ride of a film, wanna go on a little adventure, pop this one in, sit back, and watch some **** get blown up. 3/5 B… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

SpangleMay 14, 2016

A fantastic found footage science fiction horror film, Cloverfield essentially breathes life into a sub-genre that typically blows. Many call it heavily inspired by Blair Witch Project, but if it was, it would be devoid of scares and theA fantastic found footage science fiction horror film, Cloverfield essentially breathes life into a sub-genre that typically blows. Many call it heavily inspired by Blair Witch Project, but if it was, it would be devoid of scares and the worst experience of my life. Fortunately, it was not and instead of just being tolerable, it was enthralling. The film does a great job setting up the stakes and creating incredibly interesting human beings who feel so real that, ignoring the camera, feel like people you know. The found footage element only adds to this as it really puts you into the scenes and makes you feel as if you are experiencing these events first hand. Found footage can often be gimmicky, but here, it feels entirely fresh in both its usage and with its story. Together, the end result is a truly captivating and exhilarating thrill ride courtesy of director Matt Reeves.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

Compi24Nov 28, 2012

It's cinematography may be uneasy for some, but I had almost no quarrels with this very straightforward, yet remarkably astute creature feature.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

TrilobiteGJan 17, 2016

Found footage horror has had a bad reputation, but Cloverfield certainly does not fit into the same awful quality movie. In fairness, the shaky cam aspect, although impressively realistic, does give off a relatively annoying feel to theFound footage horror has had a bad reputation, but Cloverfield certainly does not fit into the same awful quality movie. In fairness, the shaky cam aspect, although impressively realistic, does give off a relatively annoying feel to the movie. That and the camera holder throughout this movie had no relevant commentary. Those are my only two major gripes with Cloverfield, the rest of this movie is a tragic, saddening thrill ride through the streets of New York whilst a monster tears building's (and people) to absolute shreds. There doesn't need to be any real exposition to this film, because the parallels to 9/11 and other tragic world events are scary. When a piece of violence is executed, you never get a full glimpse of a shower of organs, but just of a blur of blood, sound and consistent screaming. Shook me to my absolute core.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

mds03Mar 5, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie was scary, funny, depressing, and extremely unpredictable. It was a great movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I especially liked how good the execution of the story was and how good the character development was. The ending was good because you really don't know the fate of the last 3 characters. Which makes you way more excited for a Cloverfield 2. If there is one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

MarkMusicMar 25, 2013

Better then Avatar, Hunger Games, Twilight, etc. Probably the second best film of 2008 other then Marley and Me. Pretty good acting, visually amazing, plot (New York under attack, man goes to get his ex-girlfriend) simple, handheld cameraBetter then Avatar, Hunger Games, Twilight, etc. Probably the second best film of 2008 other then Marley and Me. Pretty good acting, visually amazing, plot (New York under attack, man goes to get his ex-girlfriend) simple, handheld camera made it more realistic I say definintly check out, great B+!… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

8

UtopianStuffMay 28, 2013

I'm going to be straight forward and honest, Cloverfield is not perfect, its flawed in some places but that does not mean that I didn't like the movie. When Cloverfield came out in 2008, the found footage genre was still considered unique,I'm going to be straight forward and honest, Cloverfield is not perfect, its flawed in some places but that does not mean that I didn't like the movie. When Cloverfield came out in 2008, the found footage genre was still considered unique, all we had was Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project, now they're like a dime a dozen. The move had its flaws such as the shakey camera work, which made me somewhat dizzy. But Cloverfield all in all was an enjoyable thrill ride with an abundance of suspense. I recommend it to those who like creepy movies, but if you're not a fan of found footage movies, don't watch this film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

artyshatNov 15, 2013

AWESOME MOVIE Finally something different in this attacks of aliens movies, the "fps" capture is very interesting and i hope one day they make a second movie because the end doesn't was very excellent, so i raise 2 points from the score...

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

FelipePedro07Aug 26, 2022

Good !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

NotoriousFraudDec 10, 2014

One of my favorite giant monster movies, what i like about it is that it takes an original approach to the Giant Monster or 'Kaiju' genre that it's from the point of view from an everyday bystander just trying to survive the attack with thoseOne of my favorite giant monster movies, what i like about it is that it takes an original approach to the Giant Monster or 'Kaiju' genre that it's from the point of view from an everyday bystander just trying to survive the attack with those close to him. Sure the shaky camera can be annoying at times but there is a reason for that, in almost every other cut there is a secret or easter egg, or clue and it can go as far as the inspiration for the film (like the king kong image in the end that you can see if you watch it by frames) or clues for the film itself. The monster was my favorite part of the movie, 'Clover' is an original creature design that is sadly being knocked off in a lot of movies today like in the new 'Godzilla' the Female MUTO moves alot like the monster in this movie and even a few years back with 'Super 8' which was also done by JJ Abrams the monster was really just a smaller version of this one. The acting is not as shabby as a lot of reviewers would let you believe, sure there are scenes of the characters going "OH MY GOD, ARE YOU SEEING THIS, OH MY GOD!" but then again that would probably be my reaction if i saw the statue of liberty's head thrown in the street. It's a really fun monster romp grounded in reality that I recommend as feature for a night in with friends.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

descantAug 20, 2018

A milestone in horror, entertaining and a breath of fresh air. The best found footage horror movie by far. It has its flaws but only a few movies are able to achieve such a thrilling outcome.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

TadeorsrJan 17, 2016

This movie was amazing with a new way to film horror movies previously seen in the bleigh witch project, this movie was funny and terrifying at the same time, I am glad I watched it, it had an amazing storyline and actors, with suspenseThis movie was amazing with a new way to film horror movies previously seen in the bleigh witch project, this movie was funny and terrifying at the same time, I am glad I watched it, it had an amazing storyline and actors, with suspense creeping at every alley, not knowing what would happen next, this is a popcorn eating movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

EgeBerkAug 5, 2018

I first found that footage films generally do not go well, but to be honest the fact that the movie makes it very real is really happening and I feel like I'm watching it on YouTube. The events in this film are quite realistic except for aI first found that footage films generally do not go well, but to be honest the fact that the movie makes it very real is really happening and I feel like I'm watching it on YouTube. The events in this film are quite realistic except for a few scenes and the deaths of some of the characters seem to have passed very easily I did not react too much to say that I found artificially there but this film was a very different scenario had a really great scenario open mouth although obviously movie did not like whether I liked this movie at the end, but as I said it was absolutely realistic that I probably planned it, but I do not know a good movie, but I do not know whether I would have felt a great movie if I had more budget but I would like to say an average movie for shan.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

DiptanshuApr 11, 2020

Felt really experiencing that **** great first person camera yet felt little blurred around but as per taping it from camera it was amazing!No score yet impact-full amazing direction and screenplay felt too dark a different experience a good movie!

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

DaveY.Jan 19, 2008

This movie would have been perfect if A: NORMAL CAMERA WORK AND B: DON'T END SO ABRUPTLY!!!! GIVE ME A LIL MORE INFO

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MerylD.Jan 20, 2008

The obviousness is a detriment--if you're going to use our "new emotional context" for terror (which is now ~ 7 years ago and only resonates for people in New York City and/or airports), you should at least do so with artistic purpose, The obviousness is a detriment--if you're going to use our "new emotional context" for terror (which is now ~ 7 years ago and only resonates for people in New York City and/or airports), you should at least do so with artistic purpose, even if you are just making a "monster movie." Vacuous characterization helps me root for the monster, which I would've liked alot more if it wasn't the same old pallid goblinesque "Cave/I Am Legend/every other movie monster of late" creature. The interesting thing about the Blair Witch was what you didn't see. Cloverfield gets by on what you do see--computer explosions, somewhat menacing spider-crab babies and the Statue of Liberty's head bowled through Manhattan (Chuck Heston must've winced in his sleep). In other words, good fireworks I will forget in about a week.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

LuisG.Feb 20, 2008

HYPE !!! dang the HYPE i wanted to be blown away but there i was expecting something else .. guess its my fault ... cloverfield was and will be a monster movie that will just be shelved away intension are admirable but i was shortchanged i HYPE !!! dang the HYPE i wanted to be blown away but there i was expecting something else .. guess its my fault ... cloverfield was and will be a monster movie that will just be shelved away intension are admirable but i was shortchanged i will will do a follow-up and screen again...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

RobertI.May 4, 2008

Blair witch meets godzilla. Totally bogus premise, you won't believe a minute of it, but, having said that, it's so entertaining that you don't want to leave your seat for a minute. Who's going to get creamed? Eaten Blair witch meets godzilla. Totally bogus premise, you won't believe a minute of it, but, having said that, it's so entertaining that you don't want to leave your seat for a minute. Who's going to get creamed? Eaten alive? What's at the end of the subway tunnel? Who's shooting all those cannonballs of fire? Will Manhattan be nuked? Kids in peril are as old as pauline, but, man, what a trip!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

TimHJun 30, 2009

I understand that this movie isn't for everyone. Taking that into consideration, the grading criteria is as follows: If: you are looking for an artsy think flick where you come away knowing more about the human condition, then avoid I understand that this movie isn't for everyone. Taking that into consideration, the grading criteria is as follows: If: you are looking for an artsy think flick where you come away knowing more about the human condition, then avoid this. If, however: you are looking for a terrifying POV horror film ripoff where half a dozen trust fund kiddies die before your eyes, check this on your Netflix list.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

PaulKJan 19, 2008

My biggest complaint was the use of the handheld camera, which is central to the premise of the movie, but it gave me a massive headache about 2/3 of the way into the film. I was fearful of the portrayal of the monster(s), but it wasn't My biggest complaint was the use of the handheld camera, which is central to the premise of the movie, but it gave me a massive headache about 2/3 of the way into the film. I was fearful of the portrayal of the monster(s), but it wasn't cheesy or too in your face like war of the worlds, and signs, etc. The writers borrowed too much thematically from Aliens, and the ending was completely predictable given the premise, but if you're curious about this, it's worth seeing in the theater.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MysenS.Feb 12, 2008

At first glance of Cloverfield, I thought it would be an excellent, almost original film to see. The commercials and trailers really captured my attention about how good Cloverfield would be... but in my opinion that was as good as it would At first glance of Cloverfield, I thought it would be an excellent, almost original film to see. The commercials and trailers really captured my attention about how good Cloverfield would be... but in my opinion that was as good as it would get. When I stepped out of the theater there was only one thing on my mind: How bad the ending was. Believe me, the entire film is spectacular and eye-popping visuals and amazingly blended in with the shaky camera, but if you really loved the characters or were at least concerned about the main ones at the beginning of the movie, then prepare to be extremely disappointed. But if you try to accept the early hint that "This videotape known as Cloverfield was recovered at what was once Central Park" that should tell you right away that whatever happened to the filmmakers met a grizzly end. But the thing I hated was just he fact the entire movie was like this, there's 3 points, A, B, and C. A is the start, B is in the middle of the city, and C is escaping the city. We start at A obviously, and when we're going to C, we actually go back to B and almost A, THEN C again. That's pretty much the entire movie. So unless you like endings where the heroes meet an awful demise, or you can't take the shaky camera implemented from the "Blair Witch Project", then save $7.00 off by not going to see Cloverfield. But I would definately recommend renting it if you wanted to see it. It's just not worth the $7 it's been hailed for. You'll scream for your money back as soon as the credits roll.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

DonA.Feb 14, 2008

How many times does the monster get a whack at them before it finally gets them? It was like a nightmare where you get away only to find that it;s right there under the bed or in the closet. I liked it despite what some are saying about the How many times does the monster get a whack at them before it finally gets them? It was like a nightmare where you get away only to find that it;s right there under the bed or in the closet. I liked it despite what some are saying about the ending. The monster is like the boogey man you might get away now but he'll get you in the end. I liked the rubber meets the road premise where we are on the ground with him not looking at him from a faraway distance. And the effects like the explosions the monster rampaging several feet away worked for me. I guess it's all subjective so sue me.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

LiamJan 5, 2009

Good ideas but just had something missing. Only seen it on DVD though and I reckon the cinema would have made great use of it's tension. The elusive monster just isn't believable enough. It's a good movie, I just expected Good ideas but just had something missing. Only seen it on DVD though and I reckon the cinema would have made great use of it's tension. The elusive monster just isn't believable enough. It's a good movie, I just expected more. The characters do seem a bit flaky as well and the way the action just seems to follow them throughout Manhattan is a bit forced.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JohnH.Jan 18, 2008

The good: effects, sense of helplessness, one of the five actors and the world's toughest camcorder. The bad: four of the five actors.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

EricR.Jan 18, 2008

Some clunky dialogue aside I thought this was one of the better "monster movies" I have ever seen. Some people I was with complained of dizziness which I myself did not experience. A solid movie where blanks are left open for you to fill in, Some clunky dialogue aside I thought this was one of the better "monster movies" I have ever seen. Some people I was with complained of dizziness which I myself did not experience. A solid movie where blanks are left open for you to fill in, making it a better film IMHO.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

ThisGuyJan 19, 2008

This is a fairly decent movie. I think that Abrams did a fantastic job making people feel right in the center of an actual monster attack (despite it not being a 3D movie). However, there is still not enough clarification to go with this This is a fairly decent movie. I think that Abrams did a fantastic job making people feel right in the center of an actual monster attack (despite it not being a 3D movie). However, there is still not enough clarification to go with this (even after watching it, you still don't know what the hell this monster is...) and some parts were a little dull (the opening scene was horrendously boring....). This could have been a great film, but it needed so much more.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

halbJan 21, 2008

I find that if I go into a movie with modest expectations, I am rarely disappointed. That's probably true of most of us. So, not having got caught up in all the "viral" hype that preceded this, I have to give the film pretty high marks. I find that if I go into a movie with modest expectations, I am rarely disappointed. That's probably true of most of us. So, not having got caught up in all the "viral" hype that preceded this, I have to give the film pretty high marks. It kept my attention and had me rooting for at least one or two of the yuppies to survive. The herky-jerky camera wasn't as bad as I had heard. There are even scenes when it's held pretty still, allowing the viewers to catch their collective breath. Overall, a skillfully made film with decent performances, and a few effective moments of true tension and fear. Long live Godzilla :-)… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JoeR.Jan 22, 2008

Very compelling up until the last 15 minutes or so, with some of the most clever special effects I've ever seen. It's worth admission for the sequence that starts in the middle of a military shoot-'em-up, and ends in a subway tunnel.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

CoryGApr 25, 2008

Not as bad as I expected it to be, but still, there could have been ALOT more improvements. And it was really short.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

LemmorMay 11, 2008

Fantastic movie but I needed to see more angles.... Is there any other videocam picked up? So he's the only one filming it, how about security cameras or the army or from reporters from helicopters? right.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JakeH.May 24, 2008

This movie was a classic version of Godzilla, it was very supsenseful and very....shakey. The camera looked like it was a digital hand held camera I only saw the Cloverfield monster once just before the camera man got eaten, Yum. But over This movie was a classic version of Godzilla, it was very supsenseful and very....shakey. The camera looked like it was a digital hand held camera I only saw the Cloverfield monster once just before the camera man got eaten, Yum. But over all this movie was pretty short, like 1hour long and it ends with the cloverfield monster destroying the 2 main characters, but it was a good horror monster movie throughout.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

7

MarkoJ.Jun 7, 2008

I would have given this a 9, but I had to close my eyes during the last half of the movie because the extremely shaky camera made me ill so bad that I could not watch. Really liked the movie though.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JohnV.Jan 18, 2008

Worth the money....ending suked.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

R.SmithJan 18, 2008

I thought the movie was very well done. It had stunning visuals and compelling character portrayal. The vantage point of the characters was fun to be in, and made you feel as if you were really with them. I thought the army scenes were I thought the movie was very well done. It had stunning visuals and compelling character portrayal. The vantage point of the characters was fun to be in, and made you feel as if you were really with them. I thought the army scenes were amazing, and the acting was surprisingly realistic and natural. I however did not like the bouncing motion of the camera...it made me queasy and gave me a headache. This would be an easy 9 or 10 if the ending hadn't of left you wondering why you went to see the show in the first place. I think Hollywood tries to be too artistic sometimes...just give us what we want...a real ending.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

ScottCJan 19, 2008

I was expecting a Blair Witch meets Godzilla movie - and that's what I got. Shaky handycam aside, the pacing and suspense were good. I was surprised at how real the character dialog felt. However, there were sequences where I clearly I was expecting a Blair Witch meets Godzilla movie - and that's what I got. Shaky handycam aside, the pacing and suspense were good. I was surprised at how real the character dialog felt. However, there were sequences where I clearly saw the "insert thrilling videogame sequence here" sign. Do not see this movie if you want the cliche happy ending - come on people, the previews clearly state that the camera was "found", not galdly handed over by happy survivors! All in all, I still think this is a well made addition to the "what if the worst suddenly happened" style of movies.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

jefframonejeffJan 21, 2008

This is not high art, to be sure. But I did have a good time -- despite the stomach-turning hand-held camera work. MOst people have complained that the characters are annoying and shallow. As this is essentially a monster movie, I expect This is not high art, to be sure. But I did have a good time -- despite the stomach-turning hand-held camera work. MOst people have complained that the characters are annoying and shallow. As this is essentially a monster movie, I expect people to be one thing: meat. If you like horror movies, monster movies specifically -- this is much better made and more realistic than shit like "One MIssed Call" or "The Eye". It's not "Citizen Cane", but it is fun.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

TylerS.Jan 22, 2008

It's sort of the blair with project on crack meets a superior godzilla/aliens-esque monster who's got nasty little babies eating up everything moving. One of those genuine LOVE / HATE movies. Either you love it or ya hate it. It's sort of the blair with project on crack meets a superior godzilla/aliens-esque monster who's got nasty little babies eating up everything moving. One of those genuine LOVE / HATE movies. Either you love it or ya hate it. Personally I found it to be rather entertaining, but only on the basis of reality. If a monster REALLY did attack New York, and you were at a party, what would YOU experience? How would YOU react? If you had a loved one in danger would you run away or would you go save them? Special effects were minimal as LIFE needs no special effects. This movie was about reality, not glitz and glamour and special effects. (minus the 100 foot tall beastie of course)... It's a glimpse into the future if indeed a sleeping monster did rise up from the depths of the earth and attack a major metropolitan city, such as New York. And for everyone saying to themselves I would act this way or that, having been a US Marine myself and staring down the barrel of the gun... you really don't know your true nature until god forbid, you're thrown into the fire and truly tested.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

ZackB.Apr 27, 2008

A refreshing spin on a graying genre. Many find the film lax in the plot department - and they'd be right. But it's not a film about "plot", it's about a moment - an increasingly hopeless moment involving bystanders of a A refreshing spin on a graying genre. Many find the film lax in the plot department - and they'd be right. But it's not a film about "plot", it's about a moment - an increasingly hopeless moment involving bystanders of a situation completely out of their understanding or control. The camera-work can be polarizing at first (or near impossible for some to cope with), but I found myself highly immersed in the movie thanks to it. I thought the film was an enjoyable experience, and recommend it for anyone in need of some giant-monster with their action.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

ChrisCAug 18, 2008

Be warned: If you thought you might see this movie and have it suspend your disbelief, be aware that the movie seriously jumps the shark a ways through. But if you're willing to accept that, it's an entertaining romp through a Be warned: If you thought you might see this movie and have it suspend your disbelief, be aware that the movie seriously jumps the shark a ways through. But if you're willing to accept that, it's an entertaining romp through a frightening apocalypse in Manhattan that captures the visceral chaos of a city half-destroyed. A monster-movie no doubt. But it's all in the eye of the beholder.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

7

ERG1008Sep 17, 2010

Certainly breathing life into an old format, I enjoyed the majority of it. The characters are believable & the "hand-held" feel adds to the tension & drama.
I would have given in an 8 but the last 10 minutes really let the film down badly for me.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

gm101Aug 26, 2011

The movie certainly has a good premise, but unanswered questions in the end and a camera that is way too shaky disrupt the experience.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

7

DirkXXVIOct 30, 2010

Great concept with amazing special effects with a nice story that helps the film escalate. The film also does a good job of providing a likable cast with one major exception, the camera man. The cameraman is basically a weird mix of aGreat concept with amazing special effects with a nice story that helps the film escalate. The film also does a good job of providing a likable cast with one major exception, the camera man. The cameraman is basically a weird mix of a stereotypical nerd and a frat boy. In watching the film it seems like he was selected as a possible source of comic relief however thats far from the case. The best way to describe him is nails on chalkboard. It's unfortunate too because he makes you want to turn down the volume, but that would take away from one of the films strong suits, is its great use of sound. Overall had this film used a cameraman similar to that of Pablo from [.REC] then the film would have gotten a 10 from me.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

tvbuffJan 12, 2011

Had this come out before Blair Witch think the ratings would have been better but it didn't so...It's really just an Alien version. Still pretty good. I think a sequel could have potential believe it or not.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

7

rotkuJul 4, 2011

Entertaining movie made entirely in a documentary style which adds to the feel of realism. Good pace and character build up and believable in so far as a monster movie can be. Well worth watching.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

7

CharlottePApr 13, 2011

Given that I watched this in less-than-perfect conditions on the plane through piss-poor headphones, the seat in front reclined right in my face, a tiny screen, screaming babies ago-go, and a fat American man snoring loudly next to me, it wasGiven that I watched this in less-than-perfect conditions on the plane through piss-poor headphones, the seat in front reclined right in my face, a tiny screen, screaming babies ago-go, and a fat American man snoring loudly next to me, it was surprisingly engaging. The word "steadi-cam" did pop into my head a few times - the street scenes particularly were suspiciously cleanly shot - there were a few unlikely escapes (but wait - I thought she was near death with a girder sticking out of her chest?), and of course the monster was ridiculous even in broad half-seen brushstrokes; but there was a sense of fear and panic in the film that must have been rather difficult to manufacture, and i thought it quite convincingly captured the sheer panic, helplessness and chaos of an uncontrollable disaster situation.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

7

moviegrabbagSep 15, 2011

At points the movie is kind of hard to believe in that the camera survived all the things these characters went through, or that at some point the characters just didn't ditch the camera. The monster is definitely different looking which isAt points the movie is kind of hard to believe in that the camera survived all the things these characters went through, or that at some point the characters just didn't ditch the camera. The monster is definitely different looking which is nice to see a new kind of monster. Overall the movie is worth checking out at least once just to see what it's all about, and it's also a pretty good movie for younger audiences with it's PG 13 rating.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

JAM123Oct 16, 2011

This right here is a very under-rated movie. It was a very cool and successful expeiriment that I thought did exceedingly well. It not only kept my attention and stayed interesting throughout the whole thing, it began a new era of film. ItThis right here is a very under-rated movie. It was a very cool and successful expeiriment that I thought did exceedingly well. It not only kept my attention and stayed interesting throughout the whole thing, it began a new era of film. It brought the idea of making the movie look like it was home videoed to the attention of the film industry. I also love the producer(J.J. Abrams) and the director did well with this movie too(Matt Reeves). So after all of that about how good it is your probably asking yourself, "why did he give it a 7/10?" Well the movie isn't completely perfect. I thought for one it could have been a bit longer. It only being like one hour and 10 minutes was kinda a let down. Also, I know it was like home videoed but there was a little too much zooming in and out and shaking of the camera. It didn't have the best angles either. It also was hard to see I feel like. The only time you can watch it is if your in a dark area because in a lot of the parts the glare makes it hard to see the screen and whats going on. One more thing is the actors. They didn't do the best job of acting in this. I guess most of them were just begginning actoras and actresses but they could have done a little better. The only one that did a professional job was Lizzy Caplin(Marlena). She was pretty good in it but then again she has been in a couple of movies before this one. She's not the best acteress though for sure. There is many others better than her, no defense Lizzy. I guess T.J. Miller(Hud) had done a prett y good job too. He had also been in a few movies before too. So those are a few things that this movie lacks and if they make a remake... add these please. So this movie is a pretty good movie with a good plotline and amazing special effects. I highly reccommend you see it.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

7

DukeJonMar 24, 2013

Quite an enjoyable film. Loved the documentary feel and don't agree that the monster's origins, motive, etc, needed explaining. It wasn't really about the monster, after all. The party section went on a bit too long and it didn't succeed inQuite an enjoyable film. Loved the documentary feel and don't agree that the monster's origins, motive, etc, needed explaining. It wasn't really about the monster, after all. The party section went on a bit too long and it didn't succeed in making me feel attached to the characters, the film really improved when we got to the part with the monster attacking. The only complaint I would make about this film is that to me it never seemed very believable that the characters would go to their certain deaths on the off-chance of saving someone's ex-girlfriend. If they had been a couple going back to save their baby (left with babysitters across town?) then it would have made a lot more sense.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

spadenxDec 9, 2011

Once you get past the whole shaky cam thing (which really made the movie) its just your generic monster movie plot. It was an enjoyable film but it was poorly executed.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

lasttimeisawMay 19, 2012

As the instigator of pseudo-documentary horror/sci-fi, four-years later, I finally got the chance to watch it, stripped down to the film per se, a 80 minutes running time has testified the audienceâ

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

7

imthenoobMar 7, 2012

I think this movie gets a lot of hate and it is almost needless. Yes, It uses shaky-cam but in a good way. It was interesting to see it from the perspective of a person trying to escape the city during a monster attack. It was unique, No oneI think this movie gets a lot of hate and it is almost needless. Yes, It uses shaky-cam but in a good way. It was interesting to see it from the perspective of a person trying to escape the city during a monster attack. It was unique, No one has repeated it since and rightfully so. Cloverfield is a very entertaining movie that stands above the vast majority of monster films.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

gregforeliDec 7, 2012

This was an effective film the first time around. It's still a gripping watch, although some may find elements of the film a bit annoying. Getting through the first 20 minutes or so really tested my patience as I was not sure what to expect,This was an effective film the first time around. It's still a gripping watch, although some may find elements of the film a bit annoying. Getting through the first 20 minutes or so really tested my patience as I was not sure what to expect, or when to expect it.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

7

JmsbppOct 1, 2013

Cloverfield es una pelicula, original, interesante y hasta inteligente me atraveria a decir un buen trabajo de Paramount pictures con una camara de video que hace ver mas real y sufrida la situacion, aclaro que en ciertos momentos es incomodo

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

morfilJun 26, 2013

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 andI 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!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Meth-dudeAug 13, 2014

The movie have some good characters but the actors are really bad so they look like some idiot and the monster is hiding until the end and even in the end we don't really see him.But, the movie have some good action/frightening scenes.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

vikesh2206Feb 15, 2015

With just enough scares to satisfy, summer blockbuster Cloverfield is mindless entertainment delivered through the inventive found footage technology.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

homer4presidentApr 18, 2016

Yes, it's light on story and sneaks in humor at inopportune times, but Cloverfield is meant to put the viewer in the middle of an intense, futile situation - and it does so with style, a nonstop sensory barrage, and smartly-placed handy-camYes, it's light on story and sneaks in humor at inopportune times, but Cloverfield is meant to put the viewer in the middle of an intense, futile situation - and it does so with style, a nonstop sensory barrage, and smartly-placed handy-cam camera angles. It isn't a traditional thriller, but as a cool experiment, its about as good as it could have possibly been.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015

Cloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. SomeCloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. Some will experience motion sickness. Others will just be annoyed and disoriented by the experience. These are legitimate reactions, but Cloverfield isn't trying to present another run-of-the-mill rampaging monster movie. You can rent a bunch of those on DVD. Do we really need another one? Instead, producer J.J. Abrams and his creative team want to represent a catastrophic event from ground level. If 9/11 taught us one thing, it's that when disaster strikes, cameras are turned on. Cloverfield's gritty, in-your-face style is uncompromising. If you're looking for a nice, clean movie filmed with a steadycam, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Cloverfield owes a debt to The Blair Witch Project. The most obvious similarity is the decision to show the entire event through the lens of a camera. The structure is similar as well - a slow build-up as we get to know the characters. Here's where one of Blair Witch's flaws creeps into Cloverfield. The opening sequences last too long. They're supposed to be introducing us to the protagonists, but they're dull and a little tedious. We start itching for something to happen. For 20 minutes, experiencing Cloverfield is like watching the home movies of strangers. (But maybe you're into that sort of thing...) As with The Blair Witch Project, however, once things start happening, the intensity explodes off the screen. The inability to see exactly what is happening is part of the film's appeal. Some will find it frustrating. Others will find it exhilarating.

First of all, don't expect linear storytelling with all of the holes plugged. Nothing concrete is revealed about the monster (although there is speculation). Is it from outer space? From deep in the ocean? Why is it in New York? What are its capabilities? What eventually happens to it? By confining the action in the film to what's on the videotape, Cloverfield eliminates the need to talk to these points. In fact, we never get a completely clear shot of the creature (at least not in the sense one would expect from a traditional motion picture), although there is a very nice close-up headshot late in the film. Still, the movie follows the Jaws rule that monsters are usually more intimidating when they are shown infrequently and only in brief glimpses. Even having seen the movie, I would be hard-pressed to give a coherent description of the thing. All I can say is that it's big and it's ugly.

Try as he might, director Matt Reeves (making his first feature in a dozen years) cannot develop his human cut-outs into three-dimensional people, and that's what keeps Cloverfield from being truly memorable. When the characters die - as some of them are bound to - there's no real remorse. Some times, there's a little shock but no sadness or sense of loss. However, the use of largely unfamiliar actors is an asset. As in The Blair Witch Project, we're not connecting these performers to their past roles (although Lizzy Caplan bears a striking resemblance to Zooey Deschanel).

The movie is interesting because it's so damn different. It takes a worn concept and invigorates it by applying an innovative approach. The style will anger and offend some viewers but, if you're able to accommodate the camera, the movie delivers. There are moments of high tension and the sense of danger feels closer and more real than in any recent motion picture. The missteps - the greatest of which is the interminable introduction - are forgivable because the payoff is strong. In some ways, Cloverfield gives the impression of having been produced on a low budget, but the special effects are first rate. The monster and the devastation it causes look real. We believe. And, ultimately, that's the reason why Cloverfield works - because this film takes you into the heart of the maelstrom and leaves you there.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

CinemaSinsMay 9, 2015

Cloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. SomeCloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. Some will experience motion sickness. Others will just be annoyed and disoriented by the experience. These are legitimate reactions, but Cloverfield isn't trying to present another run-of-the-mill rampaging monster movie. You can rent a bunch of those on DVD. Do we really need another one? Instead, producer J.J. Abrams and his creative team want to represent a catastrophic event from ground level. If 9/11 taught us one thing, it's that when disaster strikes, cameras are turned on. Cloverfield's gritty, in-your-face style is uncompromising. If you're looking for a nice, clean movie filmed with a steadycam, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Cloverfield owes a debt to The Blair Witch Project. The most obvious similarity is the decision to show the entire event through the lens of a camera. The structure is similar as well - a slow build-up as we get to know the characters. Here's where one of Blair Witch's flaws creeps into Cloverfield. The opening sequences last too long. They're supposed to be introducing us to the protagonists, but they're dull and a little tedious. We start itching for something to happen. For 20 minutes, experiencing Cloverfield is like watching the home movies of strangers. (But maybe you're into that sort of thing...) As with The Blair Witch Project, however, once things start happening, the intensity explodes off the screen. The inability to see exactly what is happening is part of the film's appeal. Some will find it frustrating. Others will find it exhilarating.

First of all, don't expect linear storytelling with all of the holes plugged. Nothing concrete is revealed about the monster (although there is speculation). Is it from outer space? From deep in the ocean? Why is it in New York? What are its capabilities? What eventually happens to it? By confining the action in the film to what's on the videotape, Cloverfield eliminates the need to talk to these points. In fact, we never get a completely clear shot of the creature (at least not in the sense one would expect from a traditional motion picture), although there is a very nice close-up headshot late in the film. Still, the movie follows the Jaws rule that monsters are usually more intimidating when they are shown infrequently and only in brief glimpses. Even having seen the movie, I would be hard-pressed to give a coherent description of the thing. All I can say is that it's big and it's ugly.

The disaster wrought upon New York raises shadows of 9/11. How could it not? A scene in a street where a skyscraper collapses and the dust cloud rolls toward the characters is a carbon copy of one of the most horrific images from that real-life tragedy. Cloverfield also offers the destruction of icons: a decapitated Statue of Liberty and a devastated Brooklyn Bridge. There are plenty of landmarks to go after in New York without having to touch the Empire State Building. That place has already had enough attention over the years from King Kong. One has to wonder whether the filmmakers went too far in so forcefully evoking 9/11. Then again, to tell this story in this way, was there an alternative?

Try as he might, director Matt Reeves (making his first feature in a dozen years) cannot develop his human cut-outs into three-dimensional people, and that's what keeps Cloverfield from being truly memorable. When the characters die - as some of them are bound to - there's no real remorse. Some times, there's a little shock but no sadness or sense of loss. However, the use of largely unfamiliar actors is an asset. As in The Blair Witch Project, we're not connecting these performers to their past roles (although Lizzy Caplan bears a striking resemblance to Zooey Deschanel).

It's necessary to cut through the hype to get to the real Cloverfield. I'm not sure the way it is being marketed does it justice. The movie is interesting because it's so damn different. It takes a worn concept and invigorates it by applying an innovative approach. The style will anger and offend some viewers but, if you're able to accommodate the camera, the movie delivers. There are moments of high tension and the sense of danger feels closer and more real than in any recent motion picture. The missteps - the greatest of which is the interminable introduction - are forgivable because the payoff is strong. In some ways, Cloverfield gives the impression of having been produced on a low budget, but the special effects are first rate. The monster and the devastation it causes look real. We believe. And, ultimately, that's the reason why Cloverfield works - because this film takes you into the heart of the maelstrom and leaves you there.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

CineAutoctonoAug 1, 2015

Great movie , as though bothered by the video camera recordings coon this if I definitely pleased , and managed to capture the emotion that is the suspense.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

DanBurritoJul 19, 2016

Cloverfield is a suspenseful, engaging found-footage monster movie with solid performances and lots of tension. There is plenty of suspense and surprisingly, even emotion in the film, with enough monster action to keep you on the edge of yourCloverfield is a suspenseful, engaging found-footage monster movie with solid performances and lots of tension. There is plenty of suspense and surprisingly, even emotion in the film, with enough monster action to keep you on the edge of your seat. Obviously, if shaky camera work makes you nauseous, you may want to avoid this. But if you're looking for a fresh, entertaining creature feature, I'd reccomend this. Overall, a good movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

aadityamudharApr 17, 2016

The movie certainly has a good premise, but unanswered questions in the end and a camera that is way too shaky disrupt the experience. Overall I would give this film a 7/10/

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

PanchogulJul 23, 2019

Siempre me gusto mucho esta película, pero el agitado y excesivo movimiento de cámara hace difícil disfrutarla en su totalidad ya que hasta provoca dolor de cabeza, sólo eso.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

EpicLadySpongeFeb 19, 2016

Cloverfield does have its moments especially from a J. J. Abrams production. I'm only here because of its sequel.... 10 Cloverfield Lane. That title looks like it's a spiritual sequel but I may be wrong.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

ReelViews94Mar 23, 2016

Cloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. SomeCloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. Some will experience motion sickness. Others will just be annoyed and disoriented by the experience. These are legitimate reactions, but Cloverfield isn't trying to present another run-of-the-mill rampaging monster movie. You can rent a bunch of those on DVD. Do we really need another one? Instead, producer J.J. Abrams and his creative team want to represent a catastrophic event from ground level. If 9/11 taught us one thing, it's that when disaster strikes, cameras are turned on. Cloverfield's gritty, in-your-face style is uncompromising. If you're looking for a nice, clean movie filmed with a steadycam, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Cloverfield owes a debt to The Blair Witch Project. The most obvious similarity is the decision to show the entire event through the lens of a camera. The structure is similar as well - a slow build-up as we get to know the characters. Here's where one of Blair Witch's flaws creeps into Cloverfield. The opening sequences last too long. They're supposed to be introducing us to the protagonists, but they're dull and a little tedious. We start itching for something to happen. For 20 minutes, experiencing Cloverfield is like watching the home movies of strangers. (But maybe you're into that sort of thing...) As with The Blair Witch Project, however, once things start happening, the intensity explodes off the screen. The inability to see exactly what is happening is part of the film's appeal. Some will find it frustrating. Others will find it exhilarating.

First of all, don't expect linear storytelling with all of the holes plugged. Nothing concrete is revealed about the monster (although there is speculation). Is it from outer space? From deep in the ocean? Why is it in New York? What are its capabilities? What eventually happens to it? By confining the action in the film to what's on the videotape, Cloverfield eliminates the need to talk to these points. In fact, we never get a completely clear shot of the creature (at least not in the sense one would expect from a traditional motion picture), although there is a very nice close-up headshot late in the film. Still, the movie follows the Jaws rule that monsters are usually more intimidating when they are shown infrequently and only in brief glimpses. Even having seen the movie, I would be hard-pressed to give a coherent description of the thing. All I can say is that it's big and it's ugly.

The disaster wrought upon New York raises shadows of 9/11. How could it not? A scene in a street where a skyscraper collapses and the dust cloud rolls toward the characters is a carbon copy of one of the most horrific images from that real-life tragedy. Cloverfield also offers the destruction of icons: a decapitated Statue of Liberty and a devastated Brooklyn Bridge. There are plenty of landmarks to go after in New York without having to touch the Empire State Building. That place has already had enough attention over the years from King Kong. One has to wonder whether the filmmakers went too far in so forcefully evoking 9/11. Then again, to tell this story in this way, was there an alternative?

What does the handheld camera bring to Cloverfield? There's a sense of immediacy that couldn't be obtained in any other way. We're in the trenches with these characters, not looking at them from a safe distance. There's an intensity that couldn't be achieved in any other way. Consider, for example, the scene in the subway when Hud turns on the camera's night vision. No other approach could have yielded that result. In fact, today's viewers might be more willing to accept this perspective than those who booed The Blair Witch Project after it made the leap from art houses to multiplexes. It is, after all, the point-of-view presented by many video games - the so-called "first person shooters." And there's something else to consider: make Cloverfield conventional, and how is it different from the 1998 version of Godzilla?

The movie is interesting because it's so damn different. But try as he might, director Matt Reeves (making his first feature in a dozen years) cannot develop his human cut-outs into three-dimensional people, and that's what keeps Cloverfield from being truly memorable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

MovieMasterEddyApr 7, 2016

Cloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. SomeCloverfield is to the monster movie as The Blair Witch Project was to the ghost story. This movie is going to divide audiences. There are those who will be unable to endure nearly 90 minutes of constantly moving hand-held camerawork. Some will experience motion sickness. Others will just be annoyed and disoriented by the experience. These are legitimate reactions, but Cloverfield isn't trying to present another run-of-the-mill rampaging monster movie. You can rent a bunch of those on DVD. Do we really need another one? Instead, producer J.J. Abrams and his creative team want to represent a catastrophic event from ground level. If 9/11 taught us one thing, it's that when disaster strikes, cameras are turned on. Cloverfield's gritty, in-your-face style is uncompromising. If you're looking for a nice, clean movie filmed with a steadycam, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Cloverfield owes a debt to The Blair Witch Project. The most obvious similarity is the decision to show the entire event through the lens of a camera. The structure is similar as well - a slow build-up as we get to know the characters. Here's where one of Blair Witch's flaws creeps into Cloverfield. The opening sequences last too long. They're supposed to be introducing us to the protagonists, but they're dull and a little tedious. We start itching for something to happen. For 20 minutes, experiencing Cloverfield is like watching the home movies of strangers. (But maybe you're into that sort of thing...) As with The Blair Witch Project, however, once things start happening, the intensity explodes off the screen. The inability to see exactly what is happening is part of the film's appeal. Some will find it frustrating. Others will find it exhilarating.

First of all, don't expect linear storytelling with all of the holes plugged. Nothing concrete is revealed about the monster (although there is speculation). Is it from outer space? From deep in the ocean? Why is it in New York? What are its capabilities? What eventually happens to it? By confining the action in the film to what's on the videotape, Cloverfield eliminates the need to talk to these points. In fact, we never get a completely clear shot of the creature (at least not in the sense one would expect from a traditional motion picture), although there is a very nice close-up headshot late in the film. Still, the movie follows the Jaws rule that monsters are usually more intimidating when they are shown infrequently and only in brief glimpses. Even having seen the movie, I would be hard-pressed to give a coherent description of the thing. All I can say is that it's big and it's ugly.

The disaster wrought upon New York raises shadows of 9/11. How could it not? A scene in a street where a skyscraper collapses and the dust cloud rolls toward the characters is a carbon copy of one of the most horrific images from that real-life tragedy. Cloverfield also offers the destruction of icons: a decapitated Statue of Liberty and a devastated Brooklyn Bridge. There are plenty of landmarks to go after in New York without having to touch the Empire State Building. That place has already had enough attention over the years from King Kong. One has to wonder whether the filmmakers went too far in so forcefully evoking 9/11. Then again, to tell this story in this way, was there an alternative?

What does the handheld camera bring to Cloverfield? There's a sense of immediacy that couldn't be obtained in any other way. We're in the trenches with these characters, not looking at them from a safe distance. There's an intensity that couldn't be achieved in any other way. Consider, for example, the scene in the subway when Hud turns on the camera's night vision. No other approach could have yielded that result. In fact, today's viewers might be more willing to accept this perspective than those who booed The Blair Witch Project after it made the leap from art houses to multiplexes. It is, after all, the point-of-view presented by many video games - the so-called "first person shooters." And there's something else to consider: make Cloverfield conventional, and how is it different from the 1998 version of Godzilla?

The movie is interesting because it's so damn different. But try as he might, director Matt Reeves (making his first feature in a dozen years) cannot develop his human cut-outs into three-dimensional people, and that's what keeps Cloverfield from being truly memorable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

eva3si0nApr 29, 2022

Cloverfield is a good budget thriller for its years. Cloverfield makes good use of the suspense technique. The story is linear and simple, most of what is happening is realistic. Perhaps this feeling develops primarily due to the manner ofCloverfield is a good budget thriller for its years. Cloverfield makes good use of the suspense technique. The story is linear and simple, most of what is happening is realistic. Perhaps this feeling develops primarily due to the manner of shooting everything that happens on camera and the short timing of the film. And of course, the understatement of what is happening and the open final can be called a good side of Cloverfield.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

FilipeNetoMay 3, 2020

This film is based on the appearance of a gigantic and monstrous creature in the middle of New York. It is not a horror film in the strict sense of the term, it is more within Sci Fi and thriller. Directed by Matt Reeves, who ensures anThis film is based on the appearance of a gigantic and monstrous creature in the middle of New York. It is not a horror film in the strict sense of the term, it is more within Sci Fi and thriller. Directed by Matt Reeves, who ensures an effective and interesting direction, the film works very well.

There is much in this film that is not evident. The film plays on it a lot to create more atmosphere and dramatic tension. The creature's origins are never revealed, its real appearance is only shown in very specific moments and the whole film is essentially a race in a besieged city and in great life peril.

Filmed using the odious technique of "found footage", it works incredibly well, in spite of the shaky image, cinematography knew how to give perspective in the first person and transport us, to the place and to the action. The actors are complete strangers, and this allows us to better identify with the characters and view the film as a true "found footage". Personally, I would highlight the good work of Jessica Lucas, Mike Vogel and Michael Stahl-David. The problem is that the characters are so poor that they could be any anonymous face in that crowd, who we really don't care about. The sets and costumes are also very good, especially in the tough task of reconstructing the destruction caused by the monster. Finally, a word of great merit for the special, visual and sound effects, as well as for the effective CGI that was used in the film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

LORDtroldemort1Jun 22, 2019

Thanks to a creepy atmosphere and lots of edge of your seat thrills, this film is shore to entertain most viewers... even if the ending dissapoints.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

HIChereskovJan 18, 2021

Looking back at this film in 2020 I appreciate the raw feeling the setting provides and the fact that this type of movie was successfully pulled off in the year 2008. It's storyline is dead which is where it hurt the most but otherwise greatLooking back at this film in 2020 I appreciate the raw feeling the setting provides and the fact that this type of movie was successfully pulled off in the year 2008. It's storyline is dead which is where it hurt the most but otherwise great atmosphere!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

MalwareLordJul 7, 2023

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

infraReconMay 15, 2023

I watched this before 10 Cloverfield, this one is slightly worse, but it is ultimately a good watch.

I think it's the story and the way things are filmed, that bump it down a bunch. So the story is a wild goose chase as they say. The wayI watched this before 10 Cloverfield, this one is slightly worse, but it is ultimately a good watch.

I think it's the story and the way things are filmed, that bump it down a bunch.

So the story is a wild goose chase as they say.

The way it's filmed, huh, I dislike it a bit here because most of the time the camera is shaking. What this film reminds me of is the Goliath scene from Resistance 2 if anyone remembers.

If the Resistance film would have still been in production maybe we could have gotten something like this and more, too bad.

So a 7/10 for this one is not bad at all.

Next up, Cloverfield Paradox< I hope it's better than this movie at least.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

EzekialApr 6, 2008

Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla? It was entertaining but at the end you are left confused and somewhat angry. The movie leaves out way to many pieces of information for my liking. Decent overall though worth a rent.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DarenM.Jan 19, 2008

Simply put, Blair Witch videography meets War of the Worlds alien attack action. If you can handle the nausiating camera angles and swings and the rediculously stubborn characters which will cause you to curse at them for their stupidity, Simply put, Blair Witch videography meets War of the Worlds alien attack action. If you can handle the nausiating camera angles and swings and the rediculously stubborn characters which will cause you to curse at them for their stupidity, then this is a flick worth seeing simply for it's special effects and occasional creepy shock value. With little gore (PG13) but acceptable suspense, surprises and alien attacks, it does satisfy a bored movie goer. I would rate this "wait for the DVD" and then watch it at home in the dark with the audio turned way up. "We've got a bite!"… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ChrisK.Jan 23, 2008

Being a fan of this sort of thing I went to the opening midnight showing- it was so packed full I was stuck in the second row and after about 20 minutes was getting a headache from the hand held camera work. I stood in the back so I was glad Being a fan of this sort of thing I went to the opening midnight showing- it was so packed full I was stuck in the second row and after about 20 minutes was getting a headache from the hand held camera work. I stood in the back so I was glad it wasn't too long. This movie is Blair witch meets Godzilla narrated by a nerdy guy helping his friend try to save his girlfriend. If I actually believed this guy loved her then it might have worked. Special effects were OK but not enough monster. Personally I felt this film could've been a lot better if it used traditional filmmaking techniques - you barely see the creature(s?) and there is no soundtrack so much of the drama is missing. Has all the elements for a sequel which could be much better and answer a few questions. I'm glad to see monsters making a comeback instead of psychos like SAW. If I want psychos I can just turn on the news if I want giant creatures causing destruction I go to the movies so for that reason I gave it a 6.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JayH.Apr 16, 2008

Sort of a Blair Witch meets Godzilla in New York. Although I have to admire the originality of the film, the camcorder filming gets nerve wracking. It has it's moments though, but I was never convinced, in spite of it's realistic filming.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

MikeN.Jan 18, 2008

I have a lot to say so I

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

wutungJan 19, 2008

This movie is a mashup of godzilla, 28 weeks later, starcraft and the blair witch, all the events woven together in some cheesy love story. The monster/disaster movie from 1st person handcam idea works, but instead of reworking the cliches, This movie is a mashup of godzilla, 28 weeks later, starcraft and the blair witch, all the events woven together in some cheesy love story. The monster/disaster movie from 1st person handcam idea works, but instead of reworking the cliches, it should have at least tried to be original.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ChrisJ.Feb 2, 2008

Overall little substance but this film does manage to evoke a range of emotions including dizziness from its sledgehammer approach. There are also a few genuinely creepy moments. Overall enjoyable but can't help but think it could have Overall little substance but this film does manage to evoke a range of emotions including dizziness from its sledgehammer approach. There are also a few genuinely creepy moments. Overall enjoyable but can't help but think it could have been better.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ModestusQ.Apr 23, 2008

I knew within the first 5 minutes of 'Cloverfield' that this would be the kind of entertainment that truly polarized audiences. The opening party scene is forgettable and doesn't really do anything to give the main players I knew within the first 5 minutes of 'Cloverfield' that this would be the kind of entertainment that truly polarized audiences. The opening party scene is forgettable and doesn't really do anything to give the main players more than one dimension. However, once the action explodes...um, literally, 'Cloverfield' becomes a fascinating experiment, despite the fact that it's also a bit frustrating. I'm not sure that the actors truly sold a significant "I'm here! This is happening!" perspective. Rather than implanting an impression of realism and reactive instinct, I found the performances to be too self conscious and modulated, more theater than verismo. The premise is fantastic. The 'things left unseen' approach works for most of the film. And, I think the action was accessible enough to carry the film through the lulls. Whether the 'camcorder' photography remains a novel or gimmicky approach, it's a bit of a toss up. Despite the flaws, including a deep lack of story momentum, I found the film entertaining. And, that is that!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ED.Jan 22, 2008

The concept was good, but the home movie scenario definitely was not a plus. The party segment was way too long and very boring. The characters in the movie were tedious to say the least. By the end of the movie I would have liked to have The concept was good, but the home movie scenario definitely was not a plus. The party segment was way too long and very boring. The characters in the movie were tedious to say the least. By the end of the movie I would have liked to have killed them myself. It is a shame they didn't have decent cinematography, and maybe included a military look at trying to destroy the monster. Overall: a missed opportunity to make a good horror movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DennisS.Feb 16, 2008

1/6 shaky boredom, 5/6 shaky tenseness. Nice effects, shallow story. It's probably a Marmite-film and you'll either hate or love it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

PaxsterOct 16, 2010

The effects and story are really good and this could of been the perfect monster movie if it hadn't been spoilt by some bad acting. It is really sensationalist and completley unbelieveable. The Movie gets a 6 for effects alone but betterThe effects and story are really good and this could of been the perfect monster movie if it hadn't been spoilt by some bad acting. It is really sensationalist and completley unbelieveable. The Movie gets a 6 for effects alone but better casting would of been nice.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

asylumspadezNov 19, 2011

Eh it was ok. Really just a typical movie if you look past the whole Shakey Cam thing. It was interesting and entertaining enough to keep you watching though so thats a plus but thats about it. Also its rather boring in the begining.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Cloverfield

User Reviews