Cloverfield Reviews

Remember back in 2007 when Transformers came out, there was a preview for this movie that only showed a brief clip of a party going on and then came the attack and the Statue of Liberty's head being tossed across the street, and no name was given for the movie AT ALL? Now that's how you advertise for a found footage movie - you don't give anything away. All of us who watched this preview literally went crazy trying to figure out the premise of this movie and what JJ Abrams and the others were doing.

Plot: A big party is planned for Robert "Rob" Hawkins, who is leaving NYC to go to Japan as Vice-President until it is erupted with unusual but ground shaking roars as a creature attacks the city and is caught on tape as Rob and his friends try to escape Manhattan. Also, let's not forget the subplot where Rob also goes on a rescue mission to save his girlfriend who is trapped inside her home after the monster makes it's grand appearance.

Though it looks a little cliched with what they used in the story, the people behind this movie make it a little more interesting by adding the found footage style and leaving out any details about Clover's (the monster) origins.

Acting: I really didn't care so much for the acting, but I feel pretty mixed towards TJ Miller's character, Hud. Sure, he's the dude you turn to for comic relief in the worst case scenarios, but he kind of gets on my nerves sometimes. Michael Stahl-David should be in more movies like this, but I feel he's more comfortable with working on independent movies. Lizzy Caplan also did great as well, especially the scene where she is brought into quarantine. Really terrifying moment. So, I'd have to say the acting was so-so to good.

Cinematography: Looking at the movie a couple of times, it looked like a cinematic Hollywood movie more than found footage at first, but later became more fond of it when the camera keeps cutting away from the action, adding a more realistic look, as if you were watching through the perspective of a survivor.

VFX: I'm surprised nobody complained about the CGI in this movie. Excellent work with Clover, the parasites, and the destruction throughout this movie. Maybe up and coming directors who have an interest in making sci-fi movies like this or Transformers can learn from something like Cloverfield or The Matrix and so forth.

Directing: Matt Reeves actually did well in directing the movie. He really put a lot of hard work (JJ Abrams as well) into keeping Cloverfield a mystery and brought out genuine terror and real human emotion from the cast. Matt Reeves then went on to make Let Me In and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Excellent job, Matt!

Overall: This is one of the found footage movies I've actually enjoyed. I really wish that there was a sequel to this movie, showing it through the perspective of the military or how the monster was found. I also wish more found footage movies were marketed the way Cloverfield was, since it actually gives people plenty of thrills and curiosity for a long time rather than making it temporary and they get bored afterwards.

9/10!

This has to be one the worst films I have ever laid my eyes on. I'm flabbergasted to see all the high ratings, very absurd. If a continuous shaky camera and a really stupid beast that appears like once that is extremely unrealistic, despite it's not even remotely scary entertains people then I do not think people deserve to see anything more but this from now on. You can't understand anything, nothing at all is explained. Do not waste your time. Time becomes precious when it comes to rubbish such as Cloverfield.

I quite enjoyed this both times I saw it. Yes, the cast is full of some lesser known, to probably unknown, actors, and yes, the camera work is shaky, but that's because it's supposed to be shot by a guy with a handheld camcorder, who is filming as they are running for their lives. I really like that realistic touch, and anyone who moans about it, just doesn't appreciate why it was done.

Does the movie make 100% perfect sense? No. I would have liked more explanation, but seriously, everyone's busy running for their lives, not taking a huge chunk of time out to stop and explain exactly why what's happening is...happening. It's a great sci-fi/action flick, is very enjoyable, has a little bit of re-watchability (not much though), and is just good entertainment.

What can I say about Cloverfield?
The plot was suspensefull, I have to say that because there was so much destruction and mayhem and no sign of the culprit!!!
I understand the novelty of shooting a movie through to eyes of someone using a camcorder, but thats all I got out of my viewing experience.
At times I felt nausiated because of the instability of the camcorder, reminisant of a wedding video I watched not so long ago :(
Because of this, I found myself losing concentration, thus losing interest in the plot. This method of filming has been done before. Lets not do it again...Please.

Like everyone else, I heard about the hype surrounding this movie and I was rather curious about it. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good. Basically, it follows the same concept as 'The Blair Witch project', the big differences are that they replaced the witch with a monster and, this time, it takes place in New York instead of a forest. Otherwise, the style was really identical and it is a style that you rather dig or not. Since I loved 'The Blair Witch project', the directing style didn't bother me, in the contrary, but this time, it didn't feel really original. Eventually, what I really liked about this flick is how they suddenly shift gears. Indeed, it starts out as a romantic drama/comedy but suddenly (very suddenly), it becomes a disaster movie. Personally, I thought that the actors provided some decent and believable performances and it was a good thing that they were not some famous actors since it helped to identify more with the characters. I also liked the way the movie was directed in the sense that they were no heroes and you could really feel their despair. I guess, the main issue was probably the lack of originality. Eventually, when you think about it, they just gave a new look to some very old story that we have all seen 100 times before. Still, I think it is a very well made and entertaining flick and it is definitely worth a look, except if you really cannot stand the shaky cams.

i worked and worked well - the rough camera work added to the feel of the movie as appossed to annoying the life out of the viewer. Good story - well worth eye balling.

As a movie that apparently wants to achieve the same level of authenticity as The Blair Witch Project did through its documentary-style filmmaking method, Cloverfield isn't very successful. The story we get on the characters during the first 30 minutes in order to get us to care about them is as gimmicky and movie-conventional as it gets. This would maybe be okay if after those 30 minutes elapsed, it no longer focused on that, but the film insists on continuing to jam that storyline down our throats, all the way till the last few seconds of the film. This makes it feel like we're just watching a regular movie, rather than one that is supposed to exude a "real-life" feel.

Where The Blair Witch Project was relentlessly creepy, Cloverfield is unsuccessful at manufacturing any feeling of suspense. As most people are aware, one of the best decisions the makers of Blair Witch made was to NOT show us what it was that was haunting the protagonists. Cloverfield takes the opposite path, by giving us plenty of blatant glimpses at the "monster" (which, if you really are curious about it, there's nothing special about the specimen - nothing you haven't seen before). I totally saw coming everything that happened in the last couple of minutes, and it hardly had any impact on me, which is the opposite of what I can say about the horrific last few seconds of Blair Witch.

I did get motion sickness, but I don't know that that's necessarily a fair thing to reference to call Cloverfield a bad movie, because all it means is that at least the camera aspect of it is realistic. So, though I did feel dizzy at times, I can't really hold that against the movie, but its lack of believability in virtually all other aspects is definitely a detriment.

great diferent movie!
I want a second one

Cloverfield is one of the silliest films that I have ever seen in my whole life but it is one of the best filmed films of all time. I think it is only the visual effects that are good in this film and that are it. The story is very stupid and very badly thought film but it was amazingly filmed which is why I have an average rating and review for this film. I found this film hard to watch because of the way it was filmed. Don't get me wrong, it is filmed brilliantly but I think it is a film that can make some people feel quite sick particularly in the cinema because it is like watching a video from a video camera. I did like how the actors, director and producers wanted the audience to approach it. It was like they wanted the audience to feel thrilled to feel like they were really there. It is a good film but is bad as well. The ending of this film seems like there is going to be a sequel.


The acting was pretty bad to be honest because I found some of them so annoying I wanted them to be killed off by the monster. Not knowing what the monster is and what it looks like is a terrifying mystery but problem is that the character never added any spice to the quality of the story. Yes, it is a pretty stupid film but the acting should be good at least but this film failed at the acting.


This film was brilliantly directed which was the best quality of this film. It was directed like it was really happening but I think the lack of believability within the film was the biggest flaw within the film due to its realistic filmmaking. The script was pretty lame and that was another thing that made Cloverfield a very unrealistic film.


The visual effects on the film were the only good thing in this film and the filmmaking itself was good too but wasn't a very realistic film to watch. Cloverfield was a film that received 5-stars only because of the filmmaking but not on the actual story, acting and screenplay of the film which is where this film is overrated. I don't like it any less because of that. I neither hated nor liked this film really. I would only recommend it to people who look films that are tense and scary but if you're looking for a masterpiece with fantastic filmmaking and fine qualities you might not be in luck because the acting and screenplay doesn't mix with the excellent direction at all. It is one of the most disappointing films of 2008.

What's wrong with everybody?
This movie was crap! I'm glad I didn't watch it on the theatre otherwise I'd have lost money in addition to time.

Pure crap.