Customer Reviews

Cloverfield [Theatrical Release]

5 star:		(215)
4 star:		(151)
3 star:		(98)
2 star:		(77)
1 star:		(218)

 

 

Now that all the hype has die down I was able to give this film an objective look. I have to admit I was impressed. This movie throws out the music, set-ups, and cheap scares out the window - in a good way. Nothing in this movie tells you you're watching a movie of course. You're completely disorientated from start to finish, completely uncomfortable and on edge. And that is a hell of an achievement in today's de-sensitized movie environment. While I didn't jump once, I did find myself clutching the chair arms at various points.

I see why viewers would fine this derivative but every monster movie cliché is in there, and so it should be. The monster destroys landmarks. The military fight the monster. News reports advancing the plot. But it's delivered with such style and such punch that you can't help but be awed. You're seeing these events on an ant's eye level. There are no sweeping special effects shots of the White House being demolished by aliens, no aerial shots of buildings being destroyed - instead we get distant, unidentifiable bangs, fires obscured by the cityscape, an enormous leg moving behind a skyscraper - and a distant object which comes hurtling through the air, finally landing amidst chaos in a street, revealing itself to be the head of the statue of liberty.

This personal touch goes deeper - characters disappear from the story, and we (the audience) don't know their fate because the main characters don't. To be honest, I don't know whether I love this or like it but I was impressed. The subway scene was probably the best bit for me, and the ending slightly disappointed. I really wish they had elaborated more on the bites but I suppose that wouldn't really have been in-keeping with the point of the movie, same theory as 'Alien'- it's scarier when you DON'T see the monster. Not that I'm saying this movie is scary in any way. As a horror fan, it takes a lot to scare me also.

The effects, with one or two exceptions (the money shot of the monster at the end springs to mind), are seamlessly integrated. A lifelong "effects spotter", I found myself not even noticing when something that MUST have been CGI was on screen. Beside that it's a good film and I have to give thanks to those who had given me the extra push to finally watch this. Recommended to those who need to kill there curiosity.

I take issue with the claim in the review that this was an uninvolving movie. I don't think that's the case--if you watch the movie more than once. I would consider the first viewing to be NUMBING. I choose this word carefully. The filmmakers are consciously referencing 9/11, and viewed through that lens, I found the plot to be representative of the human need to come to grips with that horrible event--the rescue narrative, which can be easily dismissed as romantic drivel, to me reads as the poetic expression of the human need to say the things that tragedy prevented us from saying.

The complaints about the way the film is shot--with the handy cam--are valid and fair. I was not bothered by them.

Finally, I will say this for the film. Yes, when I saw it in theaters, it felt uninvolving. However, it was also haunting. There was something about it that I felt compelled to come back to. I have now seen it three times. The more I see it, the more I see INTO it. I think seeing this movie once and dismissing it is a mistake.

The handheld camera.. or at leased they make it feel like one(theres good picture quality, but it still feels like a homemovie).. in my opinion it puts the viewer right there with the characters in the movie. there are very few examples for this subgenre, if thats what you want to call it. Blair Witch Project and Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon come to mind.

this style of filming has been one of the best ideas in horror, because there are no other styles that make the terror and action feel so real. there were multiple times i got chills down my neck from this movie. its just.. intense.

but.. without the camerawork, it is little more than another monster movie, which isnt a bad thing. it would still be leagues above most in the genre.

it takes a little time to get to know the characters in the opening scenes. i found most of the characters very believable and engaging. i actually cared about their everyday lives, and past together.(the first time in a while a was fearing for characters lives. i usually like the "villains") it turns out one of our main characters is leaving to live in china or something for a while, and theres a surprise going away party for him. nows about the time to buckle your seatbelt..

simply put, this movie blew me away. the camera style locks you in for the ride, and wont let go till its over. my heart was racing throughout 90% of the movie. you really are right there with them, dealing with the situation in front of you.. it could be the wildest ride you ever have on the couch.

*** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ***
The origin of the Cloverfield monster is indeed hinted at,
during the final scene of the film!!
The scene where the two main-characters are on the ferris wheel.
Before the camera pans to the girlfriend, it's shooting the ocean horizon,
If you look closely (of if your television is the size of a space-station) you'll notice a comet/meteorite/satelite/something crash into the ocean in the distance.
I've extensively debated the point of origin (space or the ocean)on the horror forums,
and so far all signs could point to either.
(I personally believe it came from space,
because scientificly, the ocean wouldnt make sense.)
Here's why I believe this:
1. A satelite/whatever only now disturbing something that huge is implausible,
as underwater eartquakes would have disturbed it millenia ago.
2. Any earth-based creature breathes either air or water, has either lungs or gils, not both,
and the creature from Cloverfield was clearly breathing air,
which implies that it would eventually have to surface for oxygen.
And something that huge would be nearly impossible to miss once it surfaced.
3. There would have to be multiple creatures, for activities like...I don't know...reproduction.
Making their presence all the more obvious.
4. Not to mention that EVERYTHING that comes from the ocean requires fins, while this creature was clearly walking around on giant legs, a trait common to land creatures.
5. An alien origin would nullify any earth-based logic.

That being said:
The movie's characters are soo believable,
and you get so immersed in their initial conflict that you forget you're about to watch a monster flick.
The shaky handi-cam adds to the realism, as does the lack of creature footage.
You see it, but you only get a vague sense of what it looks like.
You do however get a much better sense of what the spider-like flea-creatures that come off the behemoth look like,
though again, you only get a vague sense of how their bites work.
The character that is bit, is quickly ushered away before you get to see the outcome of the obvious infection.
It was a really good monster flick, but it definitely felt incomplete.
I know there's gonna be 2 more movies from different angles,
and knowing that makes this one seem all the better.
But all in all, very enjoyable.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
The bigger they are, the faster you should run!!

I was a little wary to watch this movie because I'd heard a few negative things about it. Nonetheless I kept an open mind and I am glad I did -- this movie is actually very good. Cleverly shot (think Blair Witch on steroids, but not so dramatic that it distracts), it also adeptly delves into the emotions of all the characters. I wasn't frightened so much as I was tense, and also invested in the fate of all involved. Above all else, it was a touching story.

I recommend this movie. And if you've heard anything negative about it like I had, forget about it -- you'll be pleasantly surprised.

"Cloverfield" is something of a novelty film: it doesn't really have much to add to the horror genre, but should definitely be watched nonetheless. According to the "making-of" documentary, the filmmakers were wanting to create an "American Godzilla." Well, they didn't. But what they DID do is create a film that is certainly a worthwhile watch, that does have something to say, even if it doesn't quite reach the expectations the filmmakers set out for.

The movie starts out at a goodbye party. A young man (names are inconsequential, we'll get to that in a moment) is heading to Japan (they didn't make their homages very subtle, did they?). A friend-who-is-more-than-a-friend shows up at his party (with another guy), then promptly leaves. While our main character is mourning, something happens. The earth shakes. They race to the top of their building. There's an explosion. They race down to the street. The head of the Statue of Liberty rolls by. They race to the Brooklyn Bridge. They race...

They race around. Except for an interesting sequence where they're stuck on a subway platform. But basically, they're racing. Which is good--because, if these characters stuck around anywhere for long, we wouldn't give a rat's petoot what happened to them. The acting wasn't all that bad, really--it's just, the characters weren't likeable. The movie started out like a soap opera, but that is a bit of a necessity--it MUST start out mundane, for us to realize the significance of what is going on. If only the characters were interesting...

Nevermind. The star here is the monster. And the cinematography. I've seen complaints that the camera work is too jerky; well, no kidding. In order to capture what this event would really be like (don't want monsters, okay, substitute a terrorist attack), we must see it through the eyes of the characters involved. Or, rather, the eyes of ONE character involved--in this case, Hud, a funnyman who is charged with filming the evening's events (then decides to document everything else when the proverbial you-know-what hits the proverbial fan). This is where "Cloverfield" earns its worth--it a horror story told uniquely ONLY from the point of view of the victims...and not even that, but a small group of victims, arguably ONE victim. It is a movie about a global event told through the eyes of a single character. If for that reason alone, "Cloverfield" will get your mind and blood racing. Just like its characters.

"Cloverfield" is about equal parts 9/11, "Godzilla" and "The Blair Witch Project", with the latter providing the technical model, the center film providing the manifest content, and 9/11 providing the questions that are put forward and left unanswered by the film.

If you haven't heard, "Cloverfield" is the story of a group of 20-something Manhattanites whose late night party is spoiled by the arrival of a monster in New York that goes around killing people, knocking over tall buildings, collapsing bridges and wrecking things a la Godzilla.

The production is cleverly modeled after Blair Witch Project, with the entire 90 minutes of goings on filmed by a hand held camera. The computer-generated scenes of monsters, wreckage and the headless Statue of Liberty (check out the scene that comes up with this title) are all done very well. I doubt they took the computer-generated scenes then filmed them a second time with a moving camera to get the ship on the rolling seas affect; it was compelling however completed.

The narrative story is full of exciting moments, one of which -- a moment where the hero has saved a damsel in distress and escapes midst up close warfare between the giant and the military -- left my heart pounding and my breathing accelerated when quiet returned in the theatre. The sound effects also work to the advantage of this actioner, which won't be very cogent when you see it on your television unless you have a screen at least 60 inches across.

The storyline, as we know from films just like this one made half a century ago, isn't about an actual monster; it's about the war on terror. Just like the dinosaur that invaded New York in the 1953 sci-fi classic, "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms" -- which was a metaphor for communism -- the monster that invades New York this time is the reincarnation of the 9/11 terrorists come for a return visit.

That beast from the 1950s was killed by the military and we were all saved from the ravages of communism. Here, the outcome is less clear. Because of the way the story is told, it is clear in the filmmakers mind that terrorists are winning this war, or at least making a dent in our way of life. Because of the way the movie ends, it is unclear if they think we (members of the good old U.S.A.) are making headway against our 21st century worldwide adversary.

Even without the metaphor, "Cloverfield" is an exciting afternoon at the theatre and, for people prone to seasickness, a wild and dizzying ride. If you choose to see this film, and discount the supplementary metaphor, this movie won't make much sense and will leave you frustrated. When you put all the parts together, you'll see it's a contemporary story told pretty well in the clothes worn a half-century in our past.

Cloverfield focuses on a group of friends just prior to and after an attack on Manhattan by a giant monster. The entire film is presented as seen from a handheld video camera. As a viewer, you only see and hear what the friends and their camera does, so confusion and ignorance are the order of the day, just as the producers intended.

Many of the basic concepts of Cloverfield were well conceived. Keeping the focus on a small group and seeing things from their perspective helps build suspense and mystery. When you do see it, the monster looks great and is as powerful as you could ask for. There's never any doubt that this thing is incredibly dangerous and scary, and it is not a clone of any previous monsters.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie left a lot to be desired. The video camera is always in motion, often spinning wildly around and around, bobbing, pointing at the ground, pointing at someone's shoes, out of focus, bouncing, and generally doing anything but just letting you lose yourself in the movie for more than a few seconds at a time. The cast is equally annoying as they are both stupid and unlikable even before the attack. The party scene at the beginning drags on for far too long and does little to make viewers care about the group. Once danger starts, they consistently put themselves in harm's way and do things that only a moron would consider.

I wanted to like Cloverfield. I grew up on old monster and always loved them even though I was frustrated by the obvious low quality. I was hoping that Cloverfield would be a breakthrough for its genre just as Jurassic Park (Widescreen Collector's Edition) was for dinosaurs but no such luck. When the movie ended, most of the audience laughed and many were commenting negatively on the way out.

I just watched this the other night, and..... it was actually pretty good.
It reminded me of a nightmare I used to have as a kid--- your classic "what if a monster came and started ripping up the city" sorta dream. It's kind of like the director put a face on an earthquake, or a tidal wave, or a terrorist attack. There was some good detail to the havoc, and when you could'nt catch a glimpse of the creature, it was like it was some kind of natural disaster--- buildings falling, people running, death, destruction, madness, and mayhem. And then we're reminded of the creature.... I would say if you haven't seen this, give it a try-- it's worth a 3 dollar rental...

"Cloverfield" is not only much better than I was expecting, it is, in fact, an extremely clever, well-executed, and scary movie. Kudos to the team that produced this film, as it could have gone wrong in so many ways.

Without providing spoilers, I will describe the premise of "Cloverfield" as follows: what if a monster movie were real? Now, that may seem like a trivial premise, because any work of fiction attempts to create a sense of reality. But think about it: there are fictional movies about "real stuff" (i.e. Howard's End, The Right Stuff, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc.) and there are fictional movies about "not-real stuff" (i.e. Godzilla, Star Wars, Fahrenheit 911, etc.) Well, what if there were a monster in a "real stuff" movie? The effect would be, and is, quite unsettling, and this is what "Cloverfield" attempts, through the device of an unedited home movie that presents, in large part, the mundane material of which most such movies are made.

For this reason, "Cloverfield" reminds me a bit of Shyamalan's "Signs", which I felt attempted to do the very same thing (and which was also very effective). It also reminded me of Stephen King's "The Mist" (the novella, not the movies) mostly due to the nightmarish collision of unreality and reality that both share.

One thing that impressed me is that the device used in the film could have easily become contrived or gimmicky if not handled with extreme finesse; everything was spot on. I found myself grinning as the film really got going, enjoying what the filmmakers were doing. The grinning soon went away, as the movie is actually pretty scary.

"Cloverfield" leaves you wanting more, and with many questions unanswered. (Although, as with other J.J. Abrams works, some answers are there if you look closely enough...) If you love scary movies, and are not a TOTAL BABY about shaky, hand-held camera footage, you will love "Cloverfield!"