Eric D. Snider
Cloverfield
Movie Review
"Cloverfield"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: A-
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, January 18, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
The film-it-yourself YouTube generation has inspired its first monster movie in "Cloverfield," a short, intense, and scary flick that plays out the way "Godzilla" would have if it had been shot with a bystander's camcorder.
That is the central conceit of the film, which was produced by J.J. Abrams (mastermind of TV's "Lost"), written by frequent collaborator Drew Goddard, and directed by Matt Reeves. Someone is videotaping the events at a going-away party for a friend when a giant something-or-other attacks the city. We see only what the video camera sees, the footage apparently having been discovered by rescuers or clean-up crews after the fact.
Call it a gimmick if you must, but it works. Since we only know what the camera-wielder and his friends know, we're as terrified and nervous as they are. The scenario calls for naturalistic, improvised-sounding dialogue, too, which is rendered with complete authenticity by the small group of mostly unknown actors. In short, there is very little about the film to suggest it's not exactly what it claims to be. If it weren't for the dearth of news reports about New York City being attacked by a giant monster, you'd accept the film as a documentary.
The footage comes from a night in May when a group of twentysomethings are celebrating their friend Rob (Michael Stahl-David) and his new job in Japan. Rob's brother Jason (Mike Vogel) has thrown the party and put their comic-relief pal Hud (T.J. Miller) in charge of getting video testimonials from everyone. Jason's girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) is there; so is a girl named Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) whom Hud has a crush on -- and so is Beth (Odette Yustman), Rob's long-time friend and one-time hookup who has shown up at the party with another guy.
With those basic relationships established, we get to the heart of things when explosions and fires suddenly rock lower Manhattan. Through Hud's camera we see panic in the streets as buildings collapse and the Statue of Liberty's head comes soaring in from the harbor. Hud continues to film as much as he can, realizing immediately that people will want a document of this.
It is impossible to see amateur footage of crumbling buildings and fleeing New Yorkers without thinking of 9/11, and that connection is eerily (perhaps insensitively) established further when survivors begin walking across the Brooklyn Bridge. I'm tempted to read some deeper subtext into the filmmakers' invoking of those images -- something about how the monster represents all our fears, real or imagined -- but I don't think there's really anything more to the film than what's on the surface.
In a way, Hud's position as cameraman makes him the central character, though of course it also means we almost never see his face. The real protagonist is Rob, who argued and parted with Beth before the mayhem began and must now rescue her before the military locks down the city. Snippets of what was on the tape before Hud started recording over it show us Rob and Beth's prior relationship -- a truly ingenious storytelling device -- and we feel for them about as much as we ever feel for anyone in these kinds of movies.
Characterization is not the film's strong suit, but neither is it the point. I'm actually surprised that we get as much as we do, given the restrictions of the format: no flashbacks, no internal monologues, no tender, well-lit close-ups. It's also very intriguing to see the same types of characters and situations as these movies usually have, only from a you-are-there point of view.
"Cloverfield's" mission is to thrill us with creature-induced pandemonium, and it does that better than any American monster movie in years. We feel like we're there with Rob and his friends, susceptible to the same surprises and horrors, and trapped by the same limitations. And since the characters are just regular kids, not heroes or military personnel, we instinctively understand that the movie will not end with Rob firing the shot that kills the monster and then being given a medal by the president. It will end with Rob escaping the monster, or with Rob being killed by the monster. Those are the only realistic possibilities.
With that grim knowledge in mind, prepare yourself for a uniquely well-executed and unnervingly fun creature feature. Here's hoping the new season of "Lost" is even half as satisfying.
Grade: A-
Rated PG-13, some profanity, lots of scariness and tension, brief strong violence
1 hr., 24 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 53 comments
January 18, 2008 at 5:23 am
A question for anyone who cares to answer:
Is the camera work as headache-inducing as "Bourne Supremacy"? I want to see this movie, but not if it makes me sea sick or annoyed.
January 18, 2008 at 7:44 am
No, not to bad. The camera does move, especially when they're running like hell, but you get used to it, not like Bourne where they use it as a cheap tool for fight scenes.
January 18, 2008 at 8:14 am
Seconding John D's question...all of "United 93"'s poignance was overshadowed by the nausea. Thanks Paul Greengrass.
January 18, 2008 at 8:49 am
John Doe, that's actually my biggest hesitation in watching this film. I survived and enjoyed "Blair Witch Project" but very quickly gave up on "Bourne Supremacy." I'm guessing that "Cloverfield" is less action-packed or fight and chase heavy, but the potential for leaving the theater with a headache and nausea is still there.
January 18, 2008 at 10:00 am
Wow, I didn't know the commenters on this blog were all 83-year old women! Eric, I thought you had quite a diverse blog here.
January 18, 2008 at 10:07 am
No, the camera work is fine. I didn't get sick, like I did with Blair Witch.
January 18, 2008 at 10:25 am
I thought it was cooler when this movie had no title.
January 18, 2008 at 10:52 am
Someone in fact did vomit in the midnight screening I went to. Sat in the back, and it didn't bother me. YMMV
Eric, I disagree on one point: "no flashbacks". There were flashbacks, or a near equivalent, and they did a good job establishing the relationship between Rob and Beth.
January 18, 2008 at 10:56 am
you said it yourself: "near equivalent," i.e., not actually flashbacks. they ingeniously serve the same purpose without violating the rules of the gimmick.
January 18, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I have to disagree with those who say the camera work was not problematic: I sat near the front and nearly lost my lunch -- and I NEVER get motion sickness. It was so bad I even got the pre-vomit mouth-watering. Gah! I found the camera-jarring to be twice as bad as any of Paul Greengrass's films, though it did calm down a bit (or I got accustomed to it) in the second half of the film.
NOTE: the end of this next paragraph contains info that could be regarded as spoilerish, but only by those who want to know NOTHING about the film before they see it.
What's more, I walked away from the movie quite dissatisfied. Eric correctly identifies the only possible outcomes, but that doesn't make either of those outcomes satisfying! Something can be thematically sound and still leave you frustrated and unfulfilled -- there's no catharsis, no resolution! I also found the acting to be quite wooden in moments where grief and sadness were supposedly being portrayed. One other note to those who have seen the film: wasn't there only one major monster (apart from the little ones)? If so, it seems like the filmmakers played it fast and loose on its size: one moment it was large enough to cover several city blocks and pull down planes from the sky, and the next it loomed over a person and seemed only thirty or forty feet tall. I call foul!
Add those things to the nausea, and I came out of the theater pretty upset that I had stayed up for a midnight show.
January 18, 2008 at 7:46 pm
"JUNK MOVIE AND NOT ENTERTAINING."
I went to see Cloverfield to see a moster eat some people and create some chaos.
Instead, I seen some people yelling and screaming..."FOR WHAT?"
I only seen one good shot of the so called monster and a lot of this..."CMON ROB.
ROB NO! ROB WHAT ARE YOU DOING? ROB THIS, ROB THAT."
Look, the original classic Japanese GODZILLA was ten times better than this "JUNK MOVIE." At least GODZILLA was "ENTERTAINING."
Cloverfield was not and I almost fell asleep. What about the acting? Man, what a "JOKE!" I could deal with the camera work but I just coiuldn't deal with the poor story and junk SFX. That's right. I said..."JUNK SFX!" Not even worth a DVD view.
Should have been rated G.
January 18, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I thought Cloverfield was amazing. I have to disagree with Cameron on it's size problem. And I have no idea what Jackk's problem is, I guess it can be summarized by what a person said behind me at the theatre 7 minutes into the movie- "When's it going to happen!" and he left equally disappointed. I thought the story was great and SFX were amazing! I almost stood up and clapped when the SFX people came down on the credits! Best disaster movies I've ever seen, 10x better than godzilla and Day After Tomorrow.
January 18, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Not worth your time. Really. So boring.
BORING.
Seems like it tries to be realistic, but nothing about the way the people talk or act seems realistic.
All monster footgage = boring.
**** SPOILER AT END (I guess)
People = boring.
And, yes, the camera-work is annoying. I still feel a little nauseated and I was in the very back.
But I can't really think of any monster movie that wasn't boring to me.
That Asian one from last year was better, but still boring.
Zombie movies (when it comes to "monster" movies) are way better than these movies with one monster and a small group of people who have to run all over town and do things that are supposed to be funny.
Crappy movie.
**** SPOILER AHEAD
I thought it was funny that the spider creatures that dropped off this monster were so comparatively weak. I mean, they drop all kinds of bombs on this things (direct hits) and it keeps on ticking. But those spider creatures can be dissuaded with a few good kicks or smacks, or an ax. I just think that's lame. I mean...the big monster (wherever it came from) is like Incredible-Hulk tough. Possible, but...well, whatever.
January 19, 2008 at 8:51 am
What an awesome, awesome movie this was. Far and away fantastic compared to Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, and most of the other New- Yorkers-under-attack movies. It was all in the way it was filmed that sets it apart. Seeing it as they were, actually being there. The camera motion was annoying only for about 15 minutes but I quickly got used to it. Loved it.
January 19, 2008 at 11:44 am
I went last night to see the movie, I didn't get sick like blair witch and in looking at the movie and was able to put myself there in the thier shoes, I liked that. The monster ? what was it ?, I didn't have a clue, but it was somthing I never saw before along with the little bug creaters, and that was refreshing to see. The buildings and the damage looked very good and looked liked it really happened to JJ good movie,and well done. cant wait for the video to come out to add it to my collection next to my Godzilla movies.
January 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Phenomenal. I mean I can understand why people don't like it, it's very atypical for a movie with the style and focus of the film, but it is one of the better movies I've seen in a very very long time. I remember that I had to pee for almost the entire thing but I seriously couldn't get up, my legs wouldn't let me and wouldn't let me up for a while after, the second I stood I fell down.
It really did feel realistic, the emotions and the panic. People looking for a "monster movie" it's not what you're going to get. This is NOT a monster movie. That's possibly what makes this film so phenomenal. It's a real visual and emotional treat highly recommended for people who wanna see something that's not mainstream monster/thriller films.
January 19, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Saw it last night in San Mateo. Theater only 1/3rd full on opening night which surprised me. Pop Corn Delicious, got the Largest and it lasted 2/3rds of the movie.
Too many questions remain about the Horrible Monster and its falling more fragile Spider Like Minions. The creature (assuming its flesh and bone) seemed more impervious to American Fire Power than the Martians from War of the Worlds. Could this be a Giant Mutated BatMan?
I WAS waiting for Godzilla to make a Cameo Appearance and face off with the creature, maybe aided by King Kong, Freddie Kruger, Jason, Michael Myers, and of course Hell Boy.
Movie ends on a cliffhanger and begs for Cloverfield II.
January 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I've followed the critics' reviews as they've come out, and they've been mostly positive. Yet (as I believe I mentioned above) I have intense antipathy toward this film, and I've been at a loss to explain the divide until just a moment ago. So here's what I think: if you're going to this movie to "view a film" then it is a well-made, interestingly-crafted piece that rings thematically true and uses clever devices to accomplish its purposes. If, however, you are going to this movie to "see a flick" then I think you will come out highly disappointed. I know I did; I guess I was wearing the wrong hat.
The Del Taco I had right beforehand probably didn't help matters much, either. I get ill just remembering all the jarring shakiness on-screen.
January 19, 2008 at 4:48 pm
"If, however, you are going to this movie to "see a flick" then I think you will come out highly disappointed. I know I did; I guess I was wearing the wrong hat."
Or maybe if you eat Del Taco beforehand and then sit way up front you might have a bad experience....
I went to "see a flick" and was delighted by it. It entertained me. It excited me and scared me and made me laugh. Movie critics like to have fun at movies, too, you know. :-)
January 19, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Disaster movies always make me wonder what I would do in the same situation. Hopefully I wouldn't be stuck with a friend like Rob because I would have to shout "Rob! Hey Rob! Rob wait! RobRobRob!" 87 times before he paid any attention to me. There's no I in TEAM, Rob.
I sat in the back row and adjusted to the handy-cam pretty quickly. I was surprised to see that a few people intentionally sat in the first few rows, even though they had the option to sit further back. Maybe that's a new trend for thrill-seekers like wearing skinny jeans or sniffing KoolAid.
January 19, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I've noticed a theme among comments from several movies - not enough action, violence, gore, etc. That's because those people are morons. It's like bemoaning Gladiator for the story between fights. There's a great article by Bushman & Anderson (2001) about the effects of violence in the media on viewers that I think may explain some of the complaints. To summarize, they compare exposure to violence with exposure to smoking. After enough of it, you develop a tolerance and you need more and more in order to produce the same effect and so (my opinion now) you end up with Saw and Hostel. They're basically the equivalent of a 3 pack a day habit. The guy described in comment 12 who was already frustrated 7 min into the movie sounds like a perfect example of this ("Man, I need a cigarette!")
So just like a smoker loses their sense of taste and can't appreciate the subtleties of flavor in food like someone who has abstained, exposure to violence will not only lead to not being able to appreciate the subtleties of action but also not being able to sit through a movie that doesn't play like Halo without squirming. Thus we end up with a movie like Transformers that had no quality but definitely made sure that every second was big and loud which is all you need when you've lost your sense of taste.
I can't quote any studies but I'd wager the same thing happens with exposure to sexual material but that's a discussion for another movie.
BTW I loved Cloverfield. (And maybe morons is too harsh. Just...desensitized)
January 19, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Look, if you want some great entertainment go see..."There Will Be Blood."
Yes, it is in the same catagory...It's a movie and I go to the movies to be entertained. Maybe those kiddies in Cloverfield could get a lesson in acting from Daniel Day-Lewis. Oh, that's right we don't care about the acting. We only want to see 15 seconds of the monster in Cloverfield.
January 19, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I took my pregnant wife to see Cloverfield tonight.
We had to leave 4 minutes into the film. She didn't actually throw up, but if we'd stayed another 30 seconds I'm sure we could've angered some patrons.
Eric, you know people -- can I get my money back? Thanks in advance.
January 19, 2008 at 11:10 pm
It's all hype.
We sat near the front. 90% of the time, I was distracted by the camera movement. It got to the point where I just wanted to sleep but was hoping that something - anything - would turn my opinion around regarding the movie.
To give it credit though, it did have some genuine/gritty moments but the majority of the time, it felt like watching an improv show where everything was staged with actors just running around the city doing just that, acting.
I never felt an emotional connection to them so I never really cared if they died or not.
I went to the movie to be entertained, to be lost in the world of "Cloverfield" but I never got into the movie.
I don't believe the hype. I am part of the Youtube generation. But no, I didn't like this at all.
January 19, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Just to respond to another poster here, no, I don't think I was desensitized.
It didn't matter if there was less violence, etc., etc.
I have seen better movies that had less of the things PyschNerd mentioned and have actually enjoyed it. I was expecting to go to a movie that would thrill me, scare the living daylights out of me and still leave me with some satisfaction.
Last week I saw The Orphanage and thought that was one of the best suspense/thriller films I've seen in years (and it had less gore than this movie).
Ah well, to each its own. If you liked this movie, great. We all have our opinions.
I just expected so much more considering everyone was giving this movie such high reviews.
January 20, 2008 at 11:00 am
[SPOILERS]
basically, IT SUCKED HORRIBLY! I just saw it today and...no storyline to it. Where did it come from? Why'd it attack the city?I MEAN, WTF?! They all died at the end which is sad, of course and even though it had violence--including the bitten women that exploded in the hideout--nothing else was interesting.MANY PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THIS COMMENT AND SAY,hey, he's right. whoever else sees this, throw popcorn at the screen lol.
January 20, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Tyler the idea is that you see what the people on the ground see. If you think about it that way it would've been horribly lame if the some how the army told them where it came from the ocean and it was coming to lay eggs in Madison Square Garden. That sounds like a crappy monster movie I've seen before
January 20, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Nicole - Spot on! Such a boring movie. Couldn't get into it either. Characters/Actors/Lines failed to engage me at all. All seemed cheesy, like it was trying so hard to be special.
I definitely don't fit the "desensitized" category either.
This movie was just boring.
Not scary.
Not interesting.
Incredibly boring (or just "off?") acting.
I think I'm getting old.
January 20, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I really enjoyed this movie. The almost flashbacks were an extreamely clever way to explore the back story. I also thought it effectively caught what normal people would do in such an unlikely situation. The dialogue did include to many "Hey Rob"s, but what can you do?
All I know is that I'm looking forward to what J.J. Abrams does to the Star Trek universe.
January 20, 2008 at 8:46 pm
One of many appropriately negative reviews on this film:
http://ae.charlotte.com/entertainment/ui/charlotte/movie.html?id=1008884&reviewId=22844&startDate=NEXT7
January 21, 2008 at 7:13 am
I left, with a vomity taste in my mouth, after 10 minutes. My husband stayed to watch it, but had to watch with one eye closed the whole time, and felt nauseous the rest of the day.
Lots of other people left, like I did, and the theater posted warnings about motion sickness on the door after that.
Even if you can make it through without throwing up, I don't think it's great enough to be worth it. My husband didn't like it. We were both disappointed, after reading all the great reviews.
And sick.
January 21, 2008 at 7:15 am
I actually thought it was pretty good, not great. I did get a big kick out of the very begining, the way the movie starts, at least a third of the filled theater, were yelling out, "Hey what's wrong, is the film broke"? LOL
I do have a question for anyone who happened to sit all the way to the end through the credits, there was a bit of garbled, static dialog and I didn't hear it because of those still in the theater that were complaining about the ending, rather loudly.
I went to a 10:55pm showing that was filled and the group behind us brought their own adult beverages with them, so you can imagine.
January 21, 2008 at 8:11 am
I went to the movies saturday and ended seeing National Treasure (which was ok but not outstanding.
When i read that Cloverfield was done with that jerky home video style i gave it a pass.
from the comments i've read I'm glad i did!
January 21, 2008 at 11:29 am
I think that, for the target audience, this movie is a great example of a neat little gimmick executed with minimal frills. A fundamental change in brain chemistry occurs in your mid 20s which renders you more susceptible to dizziness and motion sickness. I got used to the camera within the first couple of minutes of the movie.
It's a great little Twilight-Zone-type self-contained story and nothing more. Nothing that you'll want to buy on DVD but great if it's your bag. I think the negative reviews are missing that.
January 21, 2008 at 11:31 am
I guess we missed it when we watched it last night, but what is the name "Cloverfield" refering to? If it was from the very begining of the movie, that would explain it. A lot of people were yelling about the begining and thought the movie was malfunctioning or broke, even though it was DLP and there was no film to break.
January 21, 2008 at 11:39 am
I thought I might also mention something regarding the camera work. I myself do have motion sickness. Boat=Puke, Tilt-A-Whirl=Puke..
After the first few minutes of the movie, I got used to the camera movements and it became somewhat less destracting. I actually was a bit worried about feeling sick watching it, but it never bothered me.
I think it was partly do to the fact that I found the movie very engaging, thus I tended to notice the camera movements less as the movie went on.
That was one seriously good performing battery on that camera, they even used the built in light at one point.
January 21, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Before reading posts on this site, I never even knew there WERE people who felt sick while watching "The Blair Witch Project." I mean, really? (To be fair, I've never felt even remotely dizzy during a film, Jason Bourne or not, and as so am always puzzled by other peoples' vertiginous reactions to these kinds of movies.)
Anyway, I really liked "Cloverfield." And regardless of your feelings about its potentially annoying viral marketing campaign, you have to admit it was effective.
January 21, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I'm amazed that so many people complain about the Bourne movies here. For me, there is literally no other movie that has the visceral impact on me as the second two Bourne flicks. I guess I'll have to throw out those comments when deciding whether to catch Cloverfield in theaters.
January 21, 2008 at 10:21 pm
From what I've noticed, the people who didn't like Cloverfield (aside from people who had problems with motion sickness) didn't like it because it was either A) not graphic and bloody enough, or B) nothing was explained. It seems to me that both of those complaints can be attributed to a lack of imagination.
I personally find that not knowing what a noise is, or what's around a particular corner, is much scarier than a villain wielding a sledgehammer and graphically splattering brains on walls. It's the unknown that is the most frightening, because my imagination can come up with much more terrifying possibilities than a movie can.
There was a LOT about Cloverfield that I would love to have had explained (why did the one chick blow up? Did the bug thing lay eggs when it bit her? Was it just a particularly nasty poison? etc), but the NOT KNOWING made it that much more intriguing for me. It's a movie that I'll probably be thinking about for a long time, which is an impressive feat in my book. Lots of movies these days can be forgotten the moment the end credits start to roll.
Anyway, it was just an interesting thought that came to me. I'm sure that not everyone who disliked the movie suffers from a lack of imagination, but it wouldn't surprise me if the people with the aforementioned complaints do.
January 22, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Well, apparently the Cloverfield-induced nausea is a phenomenon: http://www.koco.com/news/15112533/detail.html
I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on the sign's necessity, but a warning notice about motion sickness before a movie just cracks me up.
January 22, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I knew this'd be an audience-divider, and I want to enjoy the way it inspires sputtering rage in so many people, but it just makes me kinda sad, like the Blair Witch backlash did.
Yeah, the characters were annoying and the acting was nothing special, but , people, I've got five words for you: Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Or maybe four--"Keanu" isn't a real word.
And the complaints about the premise are just hilarious. Of COURSE Hud wouldn't've kept the viewfinder to his eye the whole time. Great catch; too bad the only way to address your critique is to reduce the film to a series of YouTube clips. Look, it's like this, okay? Suspending disbelief when Jeff Goldblum gives the alien mothership a computer virus: unjustified. Suspending disbelief when a film's very existence relies on you doing so: justified.
I love that someone on this thread gloated about having seen National Treasure instead. As a devotee of the lowest of lowbrow genres, it's not often I get to feel like a film snob.
January 23, 2008 at 5:07 am
Having read all of the comments so far I thought I would add my comment so....
I don't normally like monster type movies but I have Cloverfield firmly listed on my all time favourite movies list as I can't think of any other movie in which I felt such a part of, it felt SO real even down here in New Zealand and I liked everyone in fact I could not think of a better bunch of people to experience a monster attacking New York with.
As for the shaking camera it didn't bother me and I've seen it twice.
Also I'm surprised by some reviews I've read on the internet that they do not include Odette Yustman in the cast list, to me she was the star of the movie.
January 23, 2008 at 11:26 am
To answer my own earlier question: YES. I'm somewhat susceptible to motion sickness so I sat near the back, but even so, I was nauseous for the whole movie (as were several others in my group of friends).
That said, the movie was awesome. Good monster movie told in a very original, believable way. That's exactly what the facebook/youtube generation would do if a monster attacked New York--run like crazy and make sure the camera's still running. (the generation gap is probably why Manohla Dargis misinterpreted the entire film: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/movies/18clov.html?scp=1&sq=cloverfield&st=nyt)
If I weren't so sick while watching it, I'd give it an unqualified thumbs up.
January 24, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I notice this is getting some of the same criticism Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds' got (the storytelling, not the shaky camera)- from many of the same people hehe. I guess some people just can't comprehend the idea of a movie focusing on a certain personal perspective rather than an omniscient one. In movies like this, I think the strength is the different level of fear reached when the characters and audience DON'T know everything. You just know what they see and hear. I really liked War of the World's too, it gave me a more realistic vibe despite the absolutely crazy stuff happening. When I walked out of the theater I remember looking at cracks in the cement a little differently ;). I haven't seen this movie yet, but it sounds like the same number.
January 25, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Geez, why is it suddenly so possible to get motion sickness from movies? Disease, yes. Roller coasters, I guess so. But...movies? I mean, do these people shield their faces from ping pong balls and exaggerated hand gestures when they watch something in 3D?
I can understand a pregnant woman feeling awful, but she could've gotten sick just as easily if she'd gone to see 27 Dresses or some equally fluffy movie that's out right now.
Anyway, this looked awesome from the ads. Now I think I'll sit down to this one with a giant bucket of popcorn, just to see if I can handle it.
January 29, 2008 at 6:49 am
I almost got sick from the hand-cam at the beginning of "I Am Legend" when Will Smith is jumping over cars chasing deer. If that was too much for me, I'm pretty sure I'd blow chunks watching Cloverfield. Not for me, thanks.
January 30, 2008 at 4:38 pm
remeber when they were on the bridge?? what was the thing that attacked them? is there 2 monsters.that really made me think.but anyways i did not think the camra moving around alot botherd me at all. but on the other hand my mom had to put her head between her knees! this is a really good movie but a horrible ending in my opion. to me at the beginning where it said they found this tape during the clean up, (or something )they found the tape.that just told me that the peolpe died at the end.but also the good thing is at the end is you can get a better view of the monster........ once the movie was over everyone was booing! then a guy yelled out that he just wasted his money .CLOVERFIELD WAS OK i would rate it 3.5 stars.
February 21, 2008 at 2:47 pm
i thought it was scary, you felt like it was you because of the way it was filmed and that has an effect on the audience, similar to the blair with project! very entertaining, the hype was great and no boring parts to the movie. I love Lizzy caplan as an actress she is so versatile playing an alternative rocker in mean girls to an obsessive stalker in smallville to this! great acting aswell
April 25, 2008 at 7:14 am
People who don't like Cloverfield were generally expecting a blockbuster-style movie that fits into a defined genre like a horror, monster or end-of-the-world action movie. What most people don't understand is that it DOESN'T fit into any genre and just because you like Lost or Godzilla doesn't mean you'll like Cloverfield. I went into this with no real expectations, and it blew me away. I thought it was a fabulous artistically done piece of work and the second time you see it is actually better because you start to see those tricky little elements they planted that you missed the first time (such as the thing dropping into the water at the end of the movie where rob and beth are talking about it being a good day.) Just don't expect Cloverfield to be this or that and it's great. I loved this step away from mainstream movies. don't know if I'd buy to watch again and again, but its well worth the $5 movie rental.
June 17, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I loved this movie a lot. I thought it was excellent and thrilling.
In regard to the motion sickness...
The first time I saw this movie, I was sitting fairly close to the screen (in the theater) and didn't have my glasses yet, which I had just recently discovered that I needed. About 30 minutes into it, I was sweating and felt like I was going to puke. I walked out of the theater for about 10 minutes and regained control of my body. My shirt had been half-soaked through with sweat. I went back in and watched the rest of the movie in the entrance aisle, where I wasn't as close and could leave if I had to.
The second time (theaters), maybe a week and a half later, I was sitting in the back-mid part of the theater with my glasses on. I felt fine the entire time.
I also watched it a third time, but on DVD.
It's much better in theaters.
June 18, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I found out about this great website just a couple of months ago and have found Eric's reviews to be well thought out and generally in line with my own movie preferences. As a result, I generally will check out Eric's grade on a movie before I watch it (to see if it's going to be worth my time) and then can hardly wait to read his review to see how much we agree. With an A- grade for "Cloverfield," I was giddy with excitement when I rented this DVD and plopped down on the sofa with friends to watch it. Not only were we bored spitless (we found nothing intense or frightening about the movie), but we could barely stay awake until the end. What a disappointment! I certainly saw nothing that everyone who raved on and on about the 'greatness' of this movie saw. Clearly we all have our own opinions. My recommendation to anyone who has not seen this movie and is considering it is to skip it.
June 23, 2008 at 7:21 am
I just saw this movie movies-on-demand, and wish for my money back. I have nothing against movies that make you use your imagination, but come on, I feel like I was doing their job...so many unbelievable things...First anyone notice that the Statue of Liberty's head was far from scale, got some news for you folks, if her head was sitting in the street, it would be alot bigger than that, second, the character Hud kept this camera to his eye better than any cnn news camerman could in a real battlefield, and your forced to watch this jerky crap and try to guess what your seeing..., I think that was more to cover up the crappy sfx then to engage your imagination...
The military suddenly appears with an entire arsenal, even stealth bomber but its bullet proof, but its off spring apparently can be brought down with a swift kick or punch, axe to the head..whatever..then the "leaning building " where they climb to the top of one and cross over to the other one, despite that its leaning at a 45 degree angle, the electricity is still on, and only robs stupid one night stand girlfriend is there, one minute she is inpaled by a metal rod that they pull out of her, the next minute she is running fine, A monster that is tall as the moon one minute, only 30 feet tall the next...surviving the helicopter crash (didnt even check on the military personal, just themselves) this chic getting bit then later blowing up in a red mist behind a curtain, wow...this movie was a mess, the story was weak..and pointless, the only way you could watch this movie was if you had an imagination, because you were constantly overlooking the stupid "there is no way in the world this could happen" vrs the crappy special effects hidden behind the jerky camera movements. It was pointless and stupid. I am not unhappy because of the lack of violence or whatever, im unhappy with the trash that put together and had enough nerve to call this short flick a movie. It's one thing to watch a movie that inspires your imagination, another to have to use your imagination to fill in the blanks because they were too lazy to do it for you. Pathetic, It sickens me all the sheep that claim this was a good movie..you wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and bit you on the keester. I have to imagine that I didn't waste my money on this trash and that I have those 88 minutes back to do something real imaginative like watch the paint dry. Next time I'll just stare at a blank wall and Imagine a studio that employees producers that know what they are doing. If you enjoyed this movie, perhaps you were one of those kids in preschool that imagined that the square block fit into the round hole..if so you'll believe anything..tools!
July 3, 2008 at 1:09 am
Dude, I've been in the Statue of Liberty's head. It's not very big at all.