2,494 reviews
- KatamarisWrath
- Apr 24, 2020
- Permalink
- nightswatch
- Jan 9, 2008
- Permalink
I agree with most of the comments I read, in that this film is definitely worth watching, BUT thought I'd mention a few things that others didn't.
The lack of a steady camera shot, even though it fits well with the plot, began to wear on me. I found myself relieved whenever the camera fell to the ground and gave the same view for a few seconds. It felt like I had on the wrong glasses - I was constantly trying to bring the scenes into focus and the continual motion, coupled with the random focus and quick glimpses of things I wanted to see clearly, made me feel stressed, strained and then annoyed.
Add to that the ending, which leaves so many issues dangling, and, overall, I found it very unsatisfactory.
Despite that I still gave it a 6. If you can handle triple rides on a roller-coaster then you'll probably really enjoy this film. If you get motion sickness easily then you may want to pause it every 10 minutes and focus on the wall!
The lack of a steady camera shot, even though it fits well with the plot, began to wear on me. I found myself relieved whenever the camera fell to the ground and gave the same view for a few seconds. It felt like I had on the wrong glasses - I was constantly trying to bring the scenes into focus and the continual motion, coupled with the random focus and quick glimpses of things I wanted to see clearly, made me feel stressed, strained and then annoyed.
Add to that the ending, which leaves so many issues dangling, and, overall, I found it very unsatisfactory.
Despite that I still gave it a 6. If you can handle triple rides on a roller-coaster then you'll probably really enjoy this film. If you get motion sickness easily then you may want to pause it every 10 minutes and focus on the wall!
- recklessron
- May 15, 2008
- Permalink
Some people have derisively compared this film to The Blair Witch Project because it was all told from the point of view of someone's shaking camera. Unless you have motion sickness, I don't think that's a bad thing. What matters is who's in front of the camera. While The Blair Witch Project featured annoying people screaming at each other, this movie actually made me care about the characters. In fact if it had continued with the romantic drama tone established during the first half hour, I STILL think it would have been worth watching and that's the biggest compliment I can give it.
Of course people will be watching this movie for the visceral pleasure and Colverfield delivers. Many thrilling visual and sound effects wowed me (there were a few times I yelled out in shock at a sudden scare). Any horror film will also benefit from a sense of entrapment and this movie pulls off the seemingly impossible feat of making New York City seem claustrophobic because there was seemingly nowhere to hide from the monster.
What is the monster? Whatever it is clearly is meant to be an allegory for the carnage 9/11 inflicted on New York, much the same way Godzilla was meant to be an allegory for the damage inflicted on Japan by the atom bomb. There are moments seemingly recreating the documentary footage from 9/11, and they give the film verisimilitude. Touching upon real life horror, plus creating characters that we can relate to and care about, and assaulting our senses with incredible sights and sounds leads to entertainment worth watching many times over. Perhaps the 80 minute run time will bother some people, but on the other hand I think that's better than a film wearing out its welcome. Great job J.J. Abrams and company!
Of course people will be watching this movie for the visceral pleasure and Colverfield delivers. Many thrilling visual and sound effects wowed me (there were a few times I yelled out in shock at a sudden scare). Any horror film will also benefit from a sense of entrapment and this movie pulls off the seemingly impossible feat of making New York City seem claustrophobic because there was seemingly nowhere to hide from the monster.
What is the monster? Whatever it is clearly is meant to be an allegory for the carnage 9/11 inflicted on New York, much the same way Godzilla was meant to be an allegory for the damage inflicted on Japan by the atom bomb. There are moments seemingly recreating the documentary footage from 9/11, and they give the film verisimilitude. Touching upon real life horror, plus creating characters that we can relate to and care about, and assaulting our senses with incredible sights and sounds leads to entertainment worth watching many times over. Perhaps the 80 minute run time will bother some people, but on the other hand I think that's better than a film wearing out its welcome. Great job J.J. Abrams and company!
I genuinely enjoyed this movie and found its concept to be interesting. However, I do know some other people who have not enjoyed the shaky camera style.
- jakens-40321
- Jan 7, 2022
- Permalink
It was nice to finally watch movie that didn't seem like anything I'd ever seen before. This, much like Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" and "Children of Men", completely immerses you in this incredible situation with absolutely no knowledge to comfort you. It's very disorienting, which adds to the experience; you never figure out what the hell is going on but you're so into survival that you put it past you. You're placed with a bunch of characters whom you get to know and eventually must join in their frenzied search for a friend while being subjected to some horrifying imagery and new threats.
The effects look great and realistic thanks to the hand-held camera, which isn't too bad-looking if you manage to get a seat further from the screen. The filmmakers came up with some really great creature designs that were menacing yet very much original. If you're bound to be upset over seeing a movie with a lack of music, then stay for the credits, during which a fantastic suite of music composed by Michael Giacchino titled "Roar! (Cloverfield Theme)" plays.
All in all, a fantastic time at the movies. A little more background on the monster would be nice, though the absence of this information is intentional. Everyone in the theater was rooting for a sequel; maybe a second set of footage is found elsewhere? Or perhaps there is more the the viral marketing -- what exactly were Slusho and Tagruato? Also be prepared to suspend some disbelief, but considering the movie is about a monster destroying New York City, that shouldn't be too difficult.
The effects look great and realistic thanks to the hand-held camera, which isn't too bad-looking if you manage to get a seat further from the screen. The filmmakers came up with some really great creature designs that were menacing yet very much original. If you're bound to be upset over seeing a movie with a lack of music, then stay for the credits, during which a fantastic suite of music composed by Michael Giacchino titled "Roar! (Cloverfield Theme)" plays.
All in all, a fantastic time at the movies. A little more background on the monster would be nice, though the absence of this information is intentional. Everyone in the theater was rooting for a sequel; maybe a second set of footage is found elsewhere? Or perhaps there is more the the viral marketing -- what exactly were Slusho and Tagruato? Also be prepared to suspend some disbelief, but considering the movie is about a monster destroying New York City, that shouldn't be too difficult.
- NormalViewCasting
- Jan 16, 2008
- Permalink
- CSBurningDestiny
- Jan 29, 2008
- Permalink
If you haven't heard by now Cloverfield is a film about a giant monster attacking Manhattan all seen through the perspective of a 20-something's hand-held camera. The film has been hyped for months via viral marketing, JJ Abrams fan boys, and media coverage/ monster speculation. Did it live up to the hype? The answer is OH GOD YES Cloverfield is by far the most intense monster film I have ever seen in my lifetime, after the initial 15 minutes of character introduction and whatnot the film does not go 5 minutes without a HOLY CRAP moment. Constantly driving you to the edge of your seat at every turn and it really pulls no punches, I was surprised to learn it was rated PG13. Now the film is entirely filmed in shaky cam since you cant really survive a monster attack pushing a trolley around and it just works, you may get motion sickness though so be warned. The camera itself becomes a character of the film as it IS the viewer making everything happening on-screen more and more realistic. Now the acting is amateur but thats for the best considering that the film would have made no sense if they had used big name actors/actresses, the characters are not that deep either and mostly serve as fodder, comic relief, moral guidance, panic, commentary, puzzlement, a little bit of annoyance, in other words they're people surviving a monster attack. The presentation is brilliant, the only music heard is in the party and at the ending credits and the special effects are some of the most seamless stuff you'll ever see in a film. The monster itself is actually not seen in its entirety only being viewed from different angles for the audience to piece it together as the survivors themselves are, you pretty much know as much as they do about everything going on making you actually feel like you're there. Critics compare the film to Blair Witch meets Godzilla but it is so much more than that, Cloverfield is the definitive American Monster Film, best if seen on the opening weekend just to hear the audience's reactions not to mention the presentation is far greater on the big screen, watch it again to see the things you missed or just to enjoy the ride again, admittedly the shock value will wane with multiple viewings but for what it's worth Cloverfield is an excellent piece of film and special effect engineering and is the first great monster film of the millennium. Its also downright scary at parts. 8/10
- Midgarmerc
- Jan 17, 2008
- Permalink
- stryker1121
- Jan 16, 2008
- Permalink
- pawanpunjabithewriter
- Jun 27, 2021
- Permalink
So, I went to a 5PM showing of Cloverfield today. It was pretty good. I found the characters to be very human and developed quite nicely over the course of the story. The special effects were excellent, with quite a few "oh $#!@" moments.
Be warned: If Blair Witch Project made you nauseous, then I don't recommend Cloverfield. The *entire* movie is filmed in the "handy-cam" style of the trailer - but in my opinion, it works better here than in Blair Witch. It helped draw you into the movie and make you feel like you were in it, and it made the CGI more convincing.
Very intense film.
Be warned: If Blair Witch Project made you nauseous, then I don't recommend Cloverfield. The *entire* movie is filmed in the "handy-cam" style of the trailer - but in my opinion, it works better here than in Blair Witch. It helped draw you into the movie and make you feel like you were in it, and it made the CGI more convincing.
Very intense film.
- missslick48
- Jan 29, 2008
- Permalink
They needed Godzilla to fight that thing, not tanks or missiles!
Jokes apart, it's a well-acted and well-made found footage feature, no doubt whatsoever. However, I remember liking the movie much more when I first saw it in my teenage years. I vividly recall caring for the whole ensemble and the devastating tragedy that struck them out of nowhere.
More than a decade later, I cannot state the same, though. Perhaps it's the overexposure of the found footage genre in general or the fact I've now gotten habituated to such filmmaking and have seen much better works in the process. Whatever the reason, it did not resonate with me on the same level this time; I wish it did.
Jokes apart, it's a well-acted and well-made found footage feature, no doubt whatsoever. However, I remember liking the movie much more when I first saw it in my teenage years. I vividly recall caring for the whole ensemble and the devastating tragedy that struck them out of nowhere.
More than a decade later, I cannot state the same, though. Perhaps it's the overexposure of the found footage genre in general or the fact I've now gotten habituated to such filmmaking and have seen much better works in the process. Whatever the reason, it did not resonate with me on the same level this time; I wish it did.
- SoumikBanerjee1996
- Sep 3, 2023
- Permalink
- IamtheRegalTreatment
- Jan 16, 2008
- Permalink
When some New Yorkers are celebrating a leaving party the ground starts to shake , with blowing up happening anywhere . They decide to abandon the flat when a monster terrorizes the Great Apple , breaking buildings , and every to get in its ways. Various characters cross paths with the giant beast, and they attempt to escape along with a young carrying a hand-held video camera.
This eerie tale is plenty of thrills, chills, restless horror and suspense . Film itself takes place from point of sight of a cameraman , with camera over shoulders , displaying a documentary style filmed by photographer Michael Bonvilliam . In fact , during the first weekend of the release, many theaters posted signs warning guests that the hand held camera movements may cause motion sickness . The title "Cloverfield"; initially just a codename for the movie, is named for the boulevard in Santa Monica where the Bad Robot offices were located during the making of the film . Good but unknown cast as Michael Sthal , Jessica Lucas, Odette Yusman , Michael Vogel, among others . Well worth watching if you appeal shaky cameras , such as : ¨Blair witch project¨, ¨28 days/ Weeks after¨ or the classic Italian ¨Holocaust cannibal¨; and recently ¨Rec (2007)¨ by Paco Plaza and Jaume Balaguero and its American remake ¨Quarintine (2008)¨ by John Erik . The flick is a crossover between Gozilla picture , catastrophe genre and documentary with Steadicam camera . Lavishly produced by J.J.Abrams (Lost, Star Trek) and Bryan Burk with excellent special effects and monsters made by Phill Tippet studio . The motion picture picture was professionally directed by Matt Reeves . He's a writer, producer (Yards) and director for television (Felicity) and eventually for cinema ; furthermore , usual collaborator of J.J. Abrams . Rating : Interesing and spectacular , above average.
This eerie tale is plenty of thrills, chills, restless horror and suspense . Film itself takes place from point of sight of a cameraman , with camera over shoulders , displaying a documentary style filmed by photographer Michael Bonvilliam . In fact , during the first weekend of the release, many theaters posted signs warning guests that the hand held camera movements may cause motion sickness . The title "Cloverfield"; initially just a codename for the movie, is named for the boulevard in Santa Monica where the Bad Robot offices were located during the making of the film . Good but unknown cast as Michael Sthal , Jessica Lucas, Odette Yusman , Michael Vogel, among others . Well worth watching if you appeal shaky cameras , such as : ¨Blair witch project¨, ¨28 days/ Weeks after¨ or the classic Italian ¨Holocaust cannibal¨; and recently ¨Rec (2007)¨ by Paco Plaza and Jaume Balaguero and its American remake ¨Quarintine (2008)¨ by John Erik . The flick is a crossover between Gozilla picture , catastrophe genre and documentary with Steadicam camera . Lavishly produced by J.J.Abrams (Lost, Star Trek) and Bryan Burk with excellent special effects and monsters made by Phill Tippet studio . The motion picture picture was professionally directed by Matt Reeves . He's a writer, producer (Yards) and director for television (Felicity) and eventually for cinema ; furthermore , usual collaborator of J.J. Abrams . Rating : Interesing and spectacular , above average.
Right, Let it be known, this film is f****n quality! Genuinely, i watched it with no expectations- the cheeky marketing of it revealing very little worked perfectly in my instance. The opening 5/10mins meets characters, and almost tricks you into a false sense of calm and normality.
When 'events proceed', the camcorder style filming instills a genuine realism to events, and the films definitely feeds off the mass concern and shock at global events/terrorist attacks/disasters, and the disjointed way news feeds through.
I will say no more but this- watch this film. Don't go finding too much out, just watch, and get taken to a place most fiction movies aren't able to transport viewers to. Intense has been said a lot in other peeps reviews its exactly that. Proper Rocks.
Out
When 'events proceed', the camcorder style filming instills a genuine realism to events, and the films definitely feeds off the mass concern and shock at global events/terrorist attacks/disasters, and the disjointed way news feeds through.
I will say no more but this- watch this film. Don't go finding too much out, just watch, and get taken to a place most fiction movies aren't able to transport viewers to. Intense has been said a lot in other peeps reviews its exactly that. Proper Rocks.
Out
- megacito99
- Feb 28, 2008
- Permalink
And the monster is out of the bag.
Thickly veiled in secrecy and fueled by the hype surrounding it, "Cloverfield" is the result of "Godzilla" and "The Blair Witch Project" after having a one-night stand. Without saying much, the film revolves around a group of twenty-somethings who hold a farewell party for Japan-bound Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) when a monster attacks New York City.
It's a great marketing ploy, actually, and the J.J. Abrams-produced film, directed by Matt Reeves, certainly looks interesting on paper. Written by Drew Goddard, a frequent collaborator with Abrams, the film unfolds through the perspective of a hand-held camcorder as recorded by someone, mostly by Hud Platt (T.J. Miller). The first few minutes is spent introducing us to Rob and his girlfriend Beth McIntyre (Odette Yustman) waking up one morning, accidentally recorded over with interviews of a bunch of other people we're going to hang out with as mayhem starts.
I have no problems with the shaky camera nor the awkward camera angles. In fact, it helps with the realism and if only for those factors, plus the clever editing, the movie works. Still, the film doesn't present itself as anything more than a cheap catharsis for a post-9/11 New York. One is smacked in the middle of the events yet it doesn't generate the requisite urgency. There are few moments of genuine tension but those fragments never form into a consistently gripping product. You hang out with these people, but you never find the sympathy to care for them, when their motivation is anchored on manipulative gimmickry and their interaction fueled by amateur acting and a hackneyed script best suited for the emo populace.
"Cloverfield" is a clever trick but nothing more. It's the big-screen treatment of a YouTube video, only here the gimmick is more conspicuous, and what usually lasts for about 10 to 15 minutes is stretched to 80 minutes or so.
Thickly veiled in secrecy and fueled by the hype surrounding it, "Cloverfield" is the result of "Godzilla" and "The Blair Witch Project" after having a one-night stand. Without saying much, the film revolves around a group of twenty-somethings who hold a farewell party for Japan-bound Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) when a monster attacks New York City.
It's a great marketing ploy, actually, and the J.J. Abrams-produced film, directed by Matt Reeves, certainly looks interesting on paper. Written by Drew Goddard, a frequent collaborator with Abrams, the film unfolds through the perspective of a hand-held camcorder as recorded by someone, mostly by Hud Platt (T.J. Miller). The first few minutes is spent introducing us to Rob and his girlfriend Beth McIntyre (Odette Yustman) waking up one morning, accidentally recorded over with interviews of a bunch of other people we're going to hang out with as mayhem starts.
I have no problems with the shaky camera nor the awkward camera angles. In fact, it helps with the realism and if only for those factors, plus the clever editing, the movie works. Still, the film doesn't present itself as anything more than a cheap catharsis for a post-9/11 New York. One is smacked in the middle of the events yet it doesn't generate the requisite urgency. There are few moments of genuine tension but those fragments never form into a consistently gripping product. You hang out with these people, but you never find the sympathy to care for them, when their motivation is anchored on manipulative gimmickry and their interaction fueled by amateur acting and a hackneyed script best suited for the emo populace.
"Cloverfield" is a clever trick but nothing more. It's the big-screen treatment of a YouTube video, only here the gimmick is more conspicuous, and what usually lasts for about 10 to 15 minutes is stretched to 80 minutes or so.
- Jay_Exiomo
- Jan 28, 2008
- Permalink
I thought that this movie would have its best scenes in the trailers, so when I went in I did not expect too much. But I did expect that it would be different given JJ Abram's influence on Alias. Well, if you're not much for jumpy cameras and are prone to motion sickness, you probably will not stay too long in the theater. But if you can focus wide and not get caught up too much in the details, you are in for an intense and unique take on the monster hits a major city (New York) genre. Where does it come from? What is it? One can speculate, but the movie is really dealing with the trauma of a small group of party goers and their encounter with the extraordinary! The effects are amazing, the acting by relative unknowns, hits on all marks; making the movie all the more convincing to the very end. Not for the faint of heart or the under-aged; under 17s might be up nights with the shakes, definitely don't take preteens! Way better than, "The Mist," a must see for giant monster fans everywhere!
I will firstly state I only give this movie 3 stars, because of the CG effects. if you enjoyed Blair witch project...don't see this movie. If you like monster flicks...go see it, and be disappointed. The actors in my opinion were extremely low grade, the approach of "Realism" failed because of horrible acting skills. Was the entire movie scripted, or partly improvised? Either way, it was badly done.
The ending is horrible, no matter how you look at it. It looks rushed, and the actors fail at their jobs once again. It was such a generic "Thiller" flick I was sitting there thinking "Are they ever going to hit us with something unexpected?", sadly they never did.
I really love Lost and all...but J.J...you've failed me this time.
The ending is horrible, no matter how you look at it. It looks rushed, and the actors fail at their jobs once again. It was such a generic "Thiller" flick I was sitting there thinking "Are they ever going to hit us with something unexpected?", sadly they never did.
I really love Lost and all...but J.J...you've failed me this time.