Cloverfield Reviews

A unique look at the monster movie genre. Many will not like the film approach but i enjoyed it.

A experince like you have never experienced before. Highly original film that was famous from it's marketing campaign that teased people nearly to death. Speculations around this film are still filling the forums in internet. The Best thing where filmmakers succeeded with this one was that even after the credits, you are still not sure what actually just happened or what hit the streets of New York. They perfectly captured the idea of less is actually more.
Cloverfield is a near masterpiece and the best "monster" - film ever made. It is a stroke of genius from the minds of director Matt Reeves, writer Drew Goddard and producer J.J. Abrams. They have understood that what we in the audience don't see is often much more scarier than any special effect creation.
Matt Reeves seem to perfect choice for director here. He makes everything seem extremely authentic and while at times it has problems with logic, it still manages to walk out as a scarily believable film. From all of the found footage films, Cloverfield is easily the most effective. It has brains, it has innovative style and most of all it is highly entertaining. This is a wild ride so you better fasten your seatbelts before you go and see it.

J.J. Abrams produces a graphic, in-depth look at terror in the streets of New York City. With a new style of direction as well as level of sci-fi thrills, Cloverfield is a menacing picture that keeps you guessing and jumping. 4/5

Having recently watched (and thoroughly enjoyed) the latest of found footage film's in "Chronicle", I decided to look back at one of the sub-genre's most critically praised. Now, when "Cloverfield" was released in 2008, I could really give two shits. However, I feel that might have judged this film unfairly and wanted to go back and give it another chance. After all, director Matt Reeves and particularly producer J.J. Abrams have built a steady reputation on the back of this.
While documenting a friends farewell party on video camera, a group of New Yorker's find themselves videoing something else entirely. Their send-off is interrupted by an attack on the city as a massive and terrifying monster creates incredible havoc and tears the city apart.
As the film opens, we are given the gist straight away; middle-class yuppie-types with too much money and nothing to talk about. They have irritating mannerisms and deliver their dialogue in a resemblance of the kooky characters from the long-running TV show "Friends". In this, I wasn't sold. In fact, the only reason I persevered was just too see if any of them eventually got their heads ripped off. Thankfully, that wasn't too far from the truth. After the long and protracted opening, the film suddenly jolts you to attention as panic sets in on the realisation that New York is under attack from some foriegn entity. The allegory to 9/11 is very apparent. As is the comparisons with another monster classic "Godzilla". It's at this point that you realise the dull opening was forgivable. Deliberate even. This isn't a film about character development or even story. This is an unashamed monster/horror film about thrills and it's a fine one at that. I have often proclaimed my dislike to a lot of found footage film's and that particular style does become a bit irritating, not to mention disorientating here. However, it also works very highly in delivering the confusion and tension. The special effects are very impressive indeed and allow forgiveness for many of the film's shortcomings. As mentioned, I had a real problem with the grating and shallow characters but, like most film's of the found footage variety, you can imagine my delight at the realisation that there are very few, if any, survivors. That's not say that I didn't find myself rooting for them on occasion. I did, but that's down the creativity of the filmmakers. Matt Reeves, (who done "Let Me In" - the American remake of the Swedish vampire movie "Let The Right One In") does a sterling job in only his second directorial outing. He manages to mount the tension in abundance and he does it all, without the use of music. It was only after it was over and the credits were rolling that I realised my perception of this film had not been manipulated in any way, with an overbearing score.
You can see the clout that producer J.J. Abrams brings to the table here but his backing only allows a talented director to flourish. And that he does. This is a stylistically crafted, adrenaline filled, modern B-movie that commands your attention.

Loved it! Action-packed movie that has a good plot.

I've heard a lot of good things about this movie, but never have I actually met someone who liked it. A lot of people at my school have called it one of the worst movies they've ever seen. I think that's way too harsh considering that movies like Jaws 4 and Batman and Robin exist. I watched the movie and I liked it. I liked how the beginning focuses on introducing characters and setting the groundwork for the movie. I actually liked the films slow start which is something rare for me. Believe me, when the monster shows up and shit hits the fan, it gets really intense. The shaky cam gives you a more realistic feeling to the whole situation and made the experience more engaging. During the scenes of destruction, the monster isn't the only thing to worry about. When the Brooklyn Bridge falls apart I was like "Monster? I'd be more concerned about those thick wires waving around, getting hit by one of those would hurt like hell." New York is just a complete mess in this movie and it just goes to show whenever something threatening comes to Earth, its first target is New York. I don't know what it is about the Big Apple being under attack all the time. (Be honest, you can name about 30 movies where New York is under attack.) An occuring theme in Cloverfield is not showing the monster and I liked that a lot. Only showing bits of it only builds up the audiences anticipation of seeing what it looks like. I really liked the design of the monster too. If I were to see something like that staring me down, a trail of piss would be following me as I run away. My only problem with the movie is the shaky cam. I did like it for making the movie realistic and giving the illusion everything was real, but there were times where it was shaking so much that I actually almost threw up. It was nauseating in some scenes, but in the end Cloverfield is a solid monster movie that has really intense scenes, great effects and I actually wanted the characters to survive the whole ordeal. That's what I need in a monster movie.

The actors play this perfectly as they battle and actually genuinely act as if "Hud" is actually filming it with a crummy camera that flips back to the past when they are happy and the BIG contrast with present. This really shows what we WOULD do in this type of scenario.

Crank up the sound, dim the lights, and be immersed in this tense, riveting, and stark vision of a Godzilla-like invasion through the eyes of its victims. Greatly enjoyed it (I wasn't the few that got dizzy from its shaky camera work). The CGI was stunning.

OK this is how Godzilla should have been, a more mature and tense affair which actually feels like a disaster movie. Lets not get carried away though, its not superb, its good and very exciting which due to the handheld cam idea really makes you feel the tension big time. This also makes you feel kinda sick after time and you find when the action kicks in so does the person holding the cam.....sooooo the picture is flying about all over the place. This is of course deliberate but you feel like your missing whats going on, its all moving too fast for you to focus. Effective in short bursts but for a whole film it becomes tough going on the eyes.

The actors are all very good and due to their unknowness it does feel very real, the effects are top notch and clearly 9/11 was used for homework on the destruction effects through the city, huge clouds flowing through the streets brings back an eerie chill, as for the monster, its pretty good, its certainly a mixture of possible ideas from different creatures and it does work and look menacing.

There are little facehugger style creatures too which does feel abit copied but they look good. In all its very good, afew silly bits like managing to find the lost girlfriend in a building torn apart, rather easy and convenient and I'm not too sure about the ending. Its original and shows that the whole event is actually a recording from what took place maybe days before, so its after the disaster basically, but the final scene with the leads I find hard to work out, was it a huge bomb blast from the military or the creature? still very well done.

Cloverfield is an extremely complex piece of work. A very, very clever monster movie. The alien's design is terrifying enough as its children are too(we presume that's what the smaller creatures are when were watching). The most amazing thing about it though is that it never breaks the illusion that what were watching is real.

Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project, and somewhat inventive in the way it tells its story. Extra points for T.J. Miller, who does most of his acting off camera, using only his voice. But where Cloverfield goes wrong is when it shows us the monster. The horror might have been more effective had we only seen arms and legs, and long shots from above, because when we see the face, all we can ask is "What is it?" or "What is that supposed to be?"; and unfortunately, the inventive, "first-person narration" doesn't give us access to this kind of exposition. Combine this misstep with way too much "Omigod!" in the script, and you've almost got a low-budget stinkbomb for the ages; thankfully, the premise - that this camera belongs to the victims - is enough to carry you most of the way home.

Cloverfield is actually a incredible sci-fi film and is very scary and good. The storyline is just about a group of people trying to find the protagonists girlfriend, but I honestly could care less about the story, what I did care about was that they had a great opening of us getting to know the characters and remembering them for the film, and I was impressed that they did that. The cast is good, they gave the movie a good mood and I liked them a lot. The special effects were good too, I just thought that this film did not need to be on a camera like The Blair Witch, it would've been perfect just like a regular film I think, but hey maybe i'm just the person who hates shaky cameras. I really enjoyed this movie, and fully plan on watching it again as soon as I can.

I haven't seen anything like thing before. Pretty amazing in my personal opinion. The Reality feeling is like beyond highest possible. And very nice long, well-choreographed uncut scenes with a lot happening. Nothing is predictable and there was a lot of unexpecting things. You get kind of a headache from whaching the camera move...but the way it's done is just great. And the ending was perfect followed by really great music on the credits

From the creator of the recently-ended TV series LOST (who is now known as the director of later films STAR TREK and SUPER 8, as well), CLOVERFIELD is the thrilling point where THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, and GODZILLA all meet. The use of the similar "cinéma vérité" and "found footage" styles are prevalent to the film's plot, as it enhances the believability of the disaster which the story is centered on. At first, I didn't think it was going to be that great of a film, as it began with a light-hearted mood, but by twenty minutes into it, once the whole disaster started to take place, I was thrilled. Also, the ending was not that great, and it left me flummoxed by how complex it was, but think of the endings to other films made in "found footage" style--especially THE LAST EXORCISM--if you may: they were the same way. Overall, I thought this was a fantastic film. To create yet another monster was a brilliant idea, and for once well-tackled. But if there's one thing about CLOVERFIELD that really goes beyond expectations, it's the cinematography and how ingeniously every action is captured--even if it's on home video.

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-cam camera angles. It isn't a traditional thriller, but as a cool experiment, its about as good as it could have possibly been.

"I had a good day."

I remember when I saw the teaser trailer for 'Cloverfield' at the cinema. Having Lady Liberty's head thrown to the streets of Manhattan. Wow. At the same time, advertisements of 'Cloverfield' started to take over the web. Little did they tell about the movie but I guess it worked cuz the audience found the movie.

I basically knew nothing of Matt Reeves, the director, but I guess everyone knows who J.J Abrams is. The man behind 'Lost' and the amazing 'Star Trek' reboot and as his latest film 'Super 8'. All you need is one talented name in the production and the interest level goes way up.

'Cloverfield's' 15-20 first minutes focuses mainly on the main characters. Character development shown thru flashbacks found on the camera recorder and the "live" development going on at the party and voila. There you got the assembled characters for things to come. I consider these first minutes prior to the main event important, cuz if you'd have like no interest in the persons, the film would not work at all. Some may look at this as something very dull and useless but they don't know shit...

After the Statue of Liberty scene, the viewer is put straight to the core of the action. The viewer knows and sees just as much as the characters. Answers like "what, why and how" aren't answered. You have to experience them yourself. Things aren't explained at any point, not even during or after the credits. The film starts as an evidence clip found on the site "formerly known as Manhattan". This leaves a good "aftertaste" when the film has ended.

The richness of 'Cloverfield' lies in its technical execution. Some may feel the shaky handheld camera as annoying or whatever but I think that this is the stronger parts of 'Cloverfield'. This documentary like feeling works nicely and I couldn't think of any other way on how the filmmakers would have shot the film.

Use of the lesser known performers is also a good thing. It makes 'Cloverfield' look more "realistic". I really wouldn't wanna see any of the Baldwin brothers or any other B class has-been screaming in panic on the screen. The performers do a good job but then again it's mostly just panic like fear and screams displayed on screen. But I have to mention once more that it all seems so realistic.

'Cloverfield' isn't the most profound movie out there but it does have some fine, intensive and exciting scenes. It does have some illogical things here and there but as a 80 minute thrillride it works perfectly.

Not bad, but not good. One of those middle movies that are whatever. I thought the filming techniques were pretty cool though.

A not only incredibly entertaining but very unique monster movie. Exciting, tense and at times terrifying

It amazes me what you can do with a crappy video camera and a lot of special effects and some decent acting. Cloverfield proves that a whole lot can be done. Maybe it can be used to film a going away party, maybe your wife, but eventually it'll be used to film the demise of New York City by a well done computer generated 'Godzilla' type creature. Now who would have thought an obese man named Hud would be the one to capture all of this?

During a going away party at night in New York City, the lights suddenly shut off, the ground starts shaking, we hear panicking and screaming. Someone turns on the news, unpredictable earthquake just occurred. When people go outside, it's a dusty mess, we hear a loud sound. Five seconds later we sight something soaring through the air right towards them, which turns out to be the head of the statue of liberty. We then have a case of classic government agents who tell people to go this way and won't give any information, which leads to the death a large amount of people, including the main character's brother. At first they think it's terrorism, but once they see the creature, they realize it's much worse.

When I first saw this trailer during the opening day of the first Transformers movie, I was really confused for two reasons: I had no idea what was going on and there wasn't a title, all it said was 1-18-08, which puzzled me and made me want to know more about this 'mystery film' that soon became Untitled J.J Abrams project, which was actually directed by Kick-Ass director Matt Reeves and was later named Cloverfield. Seeing that it was a handheld camera shot film, I was even more excited because I haven't seen a handheld shot film since 1999's horror hit The Blair Witch Project.

The CGI is outstanding in this film, considering it's a JJ Abrams inspired film, I guess it's not surprising mainly because he'll usually have big budgeted productions like LOST, that is known as the most expensive television pilot ever aired. Along with that Abrams directed the Star Trek reboot, which was one of the biggest budgeted films of that year. So Cloverfield was a pretty huge deal. Back to the subject, the film's CGI for the monster. I really loved the way the monster was designed and acted, and that's not because I a sucker for monster movies. It's because I was seriously impressed and was visually believable. Probably the biggest aspect that made me love the monster was that it actually scared me and gave me chills, which is something that doesn't happen that often with movies nowadays. In conclusion, Cloverfield is a fun ride worth watching.

Monster movies are cool, and, at times, so is the cinema-verite handheld meta film genre, a la The Blair Witch Project, Diary of the Dead or Paranormal Activity. Blending the two provides a unique opportunity for a disaster film that captures the events sporadically, and is very reflective of society's growing obsession with filming seemingly everything then uploading it for all to see.

I like how the film is presented as recovered found footage, and that it includes some intermixed events from previous thigns recorded on the camera. These intercutting provide some background and development, as well as some commentary and irony given how they are edited into the rest of everything.

Much like 3D, the use of handheld shaky cam can be effective at times, but is not appropriate for everything, and runs the risk of being needless or overdone. For this though, I thought it was quite effective. It didn't really bug me like it did for some people. Also, I liked how there was no real explanation for things, and what the auidence is seeing unfolds for them the way it unfolds for the characters. That's a good way to try to get the audience to connect with the characters.

The concept, and production design, and yes, even the camerawork, are great. I do have some gripes though. There could have maybe been a little better character developent, as it was hard to identify with them at times. I liked how this film, like Jaws, follows the rule that it is more effective and scarier the less the auidence sees the monster, or sees it in full. I mostly liked the creature's design, but the weird things around its head looked a little silly. Also, while the creature is a menace, the little parasites that drop from it were far more intense ans scary. The big one should have been a little more like that.

As a 'regular' film, this is a curiousity piece, and mayeb not that great. As an experiment that comments on the current state of things, using contemporary technology and events as reference points, this film really shines. It's not a fun movie per se, but it is enjoyable, and worth at least one watch.