MOVIE REVIEW: CLOVERFIELD

01/17/08

“I saw it! It's alive! It's huge!” I squirmed in my chair like never before! I tried very hard to not get over hyped about this movie. When I first saw previews long ago I could not help but be intrigued and drawn to the concept and the mystery of it. Well moviegoers, I was not disappointed at all. In my opinion, the hype for this film is valid. It is real, it is relentless, and it is stirring. Unfortunately after reading and hearing various reactions, I can see that this is one of those movies that you are either going to love or hate. There is very little grey area here. The most appropriate comparisons I can think of are Blair Witch Project and the latest Godzilla movie. If you liked either or both even just a little bit, you will truly enjoy this ride. Cloverfield is way better than either one or even both combined. Heck, this is Godzilla’s nightmare.

Okay, now for the warnings: if you’ve seen the previews or know anything about this movie, you most probably know that it is based on the everyday person’s hand held video camera point of view just like in Blair Witch. If this really bothers you or you are prone to motion sickness, don’t bother with this movie. If you are the type of moviegoer that is bothered by not having enough detail or explanation, don’t bother with this movie. If you are bothered by or very sensitive to scenes that are visually reminiscent to 9/11, don’t bother with this movie. If sci-fi movies bother you, don’t bother with this movie. If none of these warnings affect you then you are in for an experience. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, this is not for the weak-hearted. I’m actually a little surprised that it’s PG-13. This movie is intense.

I believe that what makes this movie so good is its realism. Two major factors that help in that regard are the hand held camera concept (like you’re watching someone’s home video) and the fact that the cast is not very well known so they seem like everyday people and not necessarily someone playing a role. Speaking of everyday people, that is the best and most concise way to describe the characters. There is some attempt to develop the characters in order to achieve some attachment but it is understandably weak due to the premise of the movie. How much character background can you get by watching a home video, right? You will find yourself becoming more attached to the plot than the characters. The performers did pretty good jobs of showing us these everyday New Yorkers in panic mode. Sub par performances would have cheapened the effect and that did not happen. They gave genuine looking shock and distress.

I’m not an expert in the movie making process but if I had to take a guess I would say that making good visuals and special effects in front of a hand held camera’s point of view would be that much more challenging. Well the special effects were extraordinary and the various sets, the lighting, and the angles were incredible. It was all put together seamlessly. My compliments to Director Matt Reeves, J.J. Abrams as Producer, and the rest of the crew for an exceptional production of an original concept based on existing older ones. This being Matt’s first major motion picture in over a decade, I sincerely hope we don’t have to wait that long for another product from him. It wouldn’t hurt to collaborate with Mr. Abrams again also. As far as you haters are concerned, I’m sorry, but I for one loved this movie and I want to see it again.

Review By Cine Marcos
cinemarcos@smartcine.com

People Movie Review Cloverfield

Dave

I attended a premier showing of the movie and was very dissappointed so much so that I walked-out after 30 minutes with a screaming headache from trying to follow the picture of the clown who was holding the video camera! What was the director thinking - a film shown thru the eyes of a video camera taking sideways and blurry pictures. Are the special effects that terrible that they don't want for us to be properly view the movie?

One of the worse movies I have ever seen...even if it was for a half hour. Spare yourself the aspirin and skip this one!

Jerred	30
I almost threw up the frist 5 minutes due to the camera moving all around. Over all not even worth the time wait for it on DVD

Karen	10
I was so excited to see this. The trailers made it look incredible. Unfortunately, it was a major letdown. Save your money.

Rob	80
Well I'm not quite as down as it as everyone else here. It is blair witch POV the entire way which takes some getting used to. The Special effects were great and it's a good watch. Nothing to hate, but nothing I really loved either.

Michael

IF one suspends the knowledge that it is just a film then this movie really works. The special effects are first rate, and one is completly transported to the point of view of ordinary people caught up in extraordinary circumstances they do not understand. The jerky camera can be irritating but it does stabilise at times, and the intensity levels are much stronger as a result of it. The filmmakers took a big risk and I think it works. The monster is really well done too. We don't see it
alot but what we do see is very effective.

Mark	100
A very interesting and unique film. Unlike anything I have seen before. Hand held camera did not not bother me but instead brought viewer closer to the story. I give credit to producers of film for bringing a refreshing look to sci-fi genre. Go see it and it will stay with you and make you think.

Jim	10
Awful. I don't know what else to say. It's like an un-fun videogame, plus motion sickness. Don't get me wrong, I even kinda liked the Blair Witch...but this makes Blair Witch look like Hemingway. Just Awful.

Wretch

The marketing wing of your friendly neighborhood corporate overlords did a bang up job of surrounding this film with contrived hype. And the premise is that some yuppie jughead from Manhattan is going to take the time to record a sea monster gobbling up all of New York and his friends within in, instead of making running for his life his number one priority? Right. This rubbish is the product of youtube voyeuristic narcissism.

Susy	0
Terrible in every way........save your money! I was motion sick, had 911 PTSD, was totally a waste of money. Did they do the shaky camera thing to make all of us so sick that we wouldn't realize that the plot was stupid and the special effects were cheap???

Orlando

100

Obviously most these people arent big on films- I guess i can understand that the everyday moviegoer might not be used to such a film-

Because of this everyone should be thrilled- The acting was great, the special effects were very very good, the scenary was amazing, the 1st person camera made it authentic- At times i felt like i was on a ride at Universal- Which is very good and hard to achieve,

People need to realize that to acomplish all i mentioned above with just 25 million is in most cases near impossible, 10% chance- But they did it- By getting the great unkown actors, they saved 30-40 million dollars, the way it was shot another 30 million- and all of this ended up making the film better-

This is where you separate the people that understand film, to the normal person that goes to a movie for the actor, or for the special effects- You need to realize that they pulled this off and very well-

Needless to say i really enjoyed it, the guy holding the camera was funny and it brought your guards down at times which would set you up for future scenes-

Very good- if you cant handle a shaking camera then this film isnt for you- But besides that it is a great film and it actually makes the film better-

Hope you go see it

Angela	0
I've only walked out of two movies in my entire life. And this was one of them. It was pointless, manipulative, and it relies entirely on a gimmick (hand-held camera) which makes you physically ill. I'll never have that 45 minutes back. But you can save yourself. Don't go. And don't rent it or buy it when it comes out on DVD next week.

Jina

I decided to see the midnight screening of Cloverfield on a whim. I had heard all the hype, seen the trailer a gazillion times on Myspace and Facebook. I even had friends who aren't film buffs telling me how excited they were about seeing this movie. I have to say, I was NOT disappointed.

Since most of us knew that the movie was pretty much shot from the first person (even though three different people held the camera throughout the movie), I expected a lot of jerks and camera shaking. I felt it was very authentic. I loved how the audience was able to keep track of time in the film.

The acting was excellent. I am glad that this film did not have a bunch of celebrities. This movie required real actors. I have to say that Mike Vogel was excellent as Jason Hawkins (I recommend "The Deaths of Ian Stone"). Lizzy Caplan came a long way from "Mean Girls" and was probably the most believable character in the film. I also like T.J. Miller's Hud. He had me cracking up with his one-liners. Also, because he is the main cameraman, he is the one that asks all the questions that the audience is thinking. There is a terrific scene that he does and I thought that the stunt was amazing (I am not going to spoil the movie here). Michael Stahl-David and Jessica Lucas were also excellent.

The special effects were amazing. You don't get to see the monster a lot, but when you do get to see the little bugger a few times, it definitely looks grotesque. I also like how they were able to film Columbus Circle, Central Park, and the Lower East Side without the same hype as "I Am Legend." I could do comparisons of the Brooklyn Bridge scenes in both movies all day.

The one thing that I didn't like, but expected, was not having most of the questions answered. In horror movies, particularly sci-fi, I do need to have some questions answered as the movie goes along. I was still able to follow the story and felt that it was great.

"If you are the type of moviegoer that is bothered by not having enough detail or explanation, don’t bother with this movie." If I had taken this advice, I would have never been able to see one of the best horror films of 2008 (I know the year has just started, but come on...another "Saw"?). I think Matt Reeves and J.J. Abrams are trying to send a message to all horror/sci-fi directors to step up their game.

Have fun at the movies!

Ashley	30
Got sick!! the acting was not bad,,,,but the motion sickness took over, had to walk out!!

Buff	none
Good actors but the movement of the camera was so bad one could not enjoy the film. the film had potential yet that was destroyed by bad camera motion.

Andy	50
The acting in the movie was fairly good. The sepcial effects were fantastic. The shaky cam effects ruined the entire movie in my opinion. I understand what the director was trying to do but it got really old after the first 10 minutes. Hopefully there will be a DVD version that uses a steady cam.

George

100

Oh My God. Amazing flick/ride... whatever you want to call it. Ever ride one of those motion rides at a theme park? It felt like that but like you were with the characters running from that huge monster and other little things. It put you right there on the street, sometimes a block from the monster while it's chasing everyone. The sound was great too.

I swear everytime it settles down a little bit, something's turning in ur stomach and u can feel something's wrong then BAM! Cloverfield throws something at you. This movie really delivers. Not for the faint of heart or those that get motion sickness. This movie gives viewers a totally new and fantastic reason to go to the movies, to get the full experience. Action/Sci-fi to a whole new level. Love it.

Pinoy Boy

I just saw the movie an hour ago and guess what? I still have a headache. I think it was great that the story was in POV mode and the effects were awesome. However, they didn't have to have all that "shakiness" throughout the movie. During the film, I could see people leaving bc of the nausea.

The story was GREAT. The side effects were GREAT. The acting was GREAT.
Just too much "shaking." It would've been better if they explained certain things. Especially what "Cloverfield" means.

Dave

Well Lets see. I think this movie was something like an IRS Audit.... It left me fealing violated, frustrated, confused, with less money in my pocket for no apparent reasont and I was just happy when it was over. It had no plot deveolptment beyond "BIG MOSTER ATTACK CITY PEOPLE DIE" It had absolutely no character development at all. It's the first movie I have seen where I did not care that they died one bit. And ultimately it explained nothing.
It was billed at being so great but it so wasn't Don't waste your money, if you saw the preview, you saw the movie.

Emily

Just saw it last night! wow! what an amazing ride. They left out a bit of closure for me, which is why i gave it a 90. I for one, knew that they used a video camcorder the whole time, and it didn't bother me at all, I was pulled into all the action and everthing going on. People, if you knew that the whole movie was shot on a camcorder, and you get motion sickness, why would you have went anyway just to waste your money and leave early?
Great movie!

REVilo

The name 'Cloverfield' was used to keep the movie a secret (they did a good job didn't they?). It is the name of a street close to J.J. Abrams' office.

Sequel? You bet. Depending on how successful it is this weekend, you can expect to see a sequel shot from a different camera during the same attack. And maybe to finally get some answers many of us were asking during the movie. Where did it come from? What exactly is it? Is all of NY destroyed? Any survivors?

This is not your typical sci/fi flick. But Abrams has definitely raised the bar with its special effects and budget (only $25 million to produce--GENIUS!)

WARNING: If you get motion sickness or nauseous easily, then this movie is NOT for you. Just like the aforementioned reviews, it is like a roller coaster ride. You'll either hate or love this movie!

Cody	80
Went and saw the movie the day it came out, wasn't as good as I thought that it was going to be. I think that the only reason that the movie was good is because we went to a beer and a movie theatre, the more beer you drank, the better the movie was, just like beer goggles, definitely a movie I wouldn't pay to see again

Karen M	40
Did like the idea of the movie and the actors, but like others said the motion of the camera made me sick. I did not know it was going to be filmed 80 minutes by a camcorder. I was disapointed because of that and I believe that if it would of had some parts of the movie from other points of view it would of been a great movie.

Want Money Back	0
Everyone in the theater wanted thier money back. My 13yr old son could have made a better movie. The only thing positive out of this is?????........... now the 1980's movie "Firebirds" has some that is just as bad as it did.

Mark 2	0
Godzilla in the 1950s was an Acadamy Award Winner compared to Cloverfiled. No Character Development - who cares who dies don;t know them anyway - Cinemark said they are giving lots of people their money back and lots of vomit - Waste of Time and Money!!!

Lynn

The Myth continues……….

The much-anticipated release of “Cloverfield” (supposedly named after some street near “Bad Robot” Productions) would appear to be a monetary hit for it’s producer and Production Company, but shouldn’t you give your audience something for their money? Whatever happened to artistic integrity?

First, I’ll let you know that you don’t see “the Monster” until a few minutes left in the film (and you still don’t really see him). Oh, you see glimpses and erratic shots of it, but no real visible evidence of a monster in my opinion. Sort of like a UFO. This is why you see a lot of different interpretations (artists renderings) of “the Monster” on the Internet. My take is that it’s a man, with a tail, with eagle feet and hands, turtle head, shark teeth, fish gills and it looks to be Gray in color or that maybe because they were still trying to hide him with some dust or something. Whatever!!!

The movie itself was a cross between the “Blair Witch Project”, with a lot more of the camera laying on it’s side or just shooting nothing at all and “Scary Movie” (one of them but not scary either). Little monsters were falling off of the big monster and eating everyone (although you never really see this either) and they sort of looked like an elongated fish head with feet and shark teeth. One girl in the movie got bitten by one of the little monsters and was taken behind a white
sheet by some army dudes in camo and some doctor’s in blue bubble
suits (that effect must’ve cost, damn $9.99) and exploded I guess because someone threw red paint on the white sheet to make it look like she exploded.

Everyone filming the event in the movie as it happens in the movie dies! End of story and my end of buying a ticket to another “Bad Robot” or J.J. Abrams film,

MetalMad Steve

Wow! I have never heard so many whiny wusses in my life.

Were there times that I would have liked the movie filmed in a conventional way? Sure. But I totally appreciated the effect. There was just enough character development. How much do you need in a freaking monster movie. It's about the monsters. It amazes me that people are so fearful when it comes to something different.

Of course I can't wait for a sequel and of course I hope it has some answers. But thats just it. After seeing this one I am dieing for more more more!!!!!

Ty	10
Interesting story line and creative to some extent, but the 'shaky cam' / 'blair witch' POV made 2 out of 5 of us ill. And we were all kind nauseaus after leaving the movie. We saw quite a few people leave the film in the middle due to motion sickness or they just didn't like it. With all of the hype I would have expected so much more. Save your money and buy a different DVD...

Evam

Possibly the worst movie ever made more than Glitter and Norbit! The hype is overrated, the acting sucks, no plot or story and a million unanswered questions. And you will experience the worse motion sickness imaginable even moreso than being next to the engine room at the bottom level of a cruiseliner in the Bermuda Triangle. What were these filmmakers thinking when making this POS? Abrams is definitely clueless and LOST; I wish I could get my $11.50 back along with the rest of my unhappy moviegoing friends last night. And please readers, don't believe the critics and the positive user reviews as they were all paid to build up the hype, sad but true.

Tony

Come on people. Do you all really need the conventional movie experience? This was a well put together 1st person experience. Guess what, it was shot by the people running through New York, what happens if they die? You don't get answers? Duh. That was the premise of the movie, there were no other cameras showing you side stories and landscape shots. They gave up plenty of info. As for the motion sickness, that is a problem for some people but put yourself in the shoes of the person holding the camera, how steady would you be?

I thought it was an intense ride, and finally a movie had my attention the entire film. Seriously do we need more AVP or gore flicks, this was a welcomed change from the status quo.

So to all you haters out there I am sorry you did not enjoy this film but I seriously think your expectations on what it would be were wrong to begin with. I hope people that have not seen this make up their own minds to experience this film and not listen to the zombie like masses that need $200 million dollar status quo productions.

If you haven't seen this film do yourself a favor and see it for yourself and make your own opinions.

Sal

none

Man . . . this was such a bad movie. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and mine is that this movie is such a disappointment for several reasons. First, we paid top dollar to see this travesty, just to watch 20 minutes of previews and only about 70 minutes of the movie. Note to JJ Abrams, you were supposed to film a motion picture, not a 1-hour, made-for-tv episode. No wonder it "only" cost $25 million it was half of a film. Paramount should publish an apology to movie goers and offer to show it for free - it's that bad!!!

For those of you who want to be entertained (like most people who go to movies), don't go see it. And don't let the two people who actually liked Cloverfield try to make you feel like you're stupid because you didn't like it either. It's okay to want to be entertained for your hard-earned money rather than paying for the honor of "appreciating what the director and producer were trying to do with this film."

Keith

100

A perfect movie that restored my faith in movies. If you're on a steady diet of Hollywood cheese, you won't like this. But if you've seen it all before and now have at least some standards (you know, like you refuse to watch sequels, movies with puns in the title, or anything with Will Smith), then you'll probably love it, too. All you whiners go home and watch your Nicolas Cage DVD collection until you feel better.

Kyle

100

Everything that your review said was exactly how I would put it. There are so many haters to this type of filming and acting but I'll tell you what it is one of the greatest movies I've ever seen I love how realistic they make this and for the people who walked out before the action starts, SHAME ON YOU it was phenomenal u made a huge mistake. I love this movie and I love how many questions it leaves you but all the clues it gives out too. I love it love it love it. BREATHTAKING!!!! YOU CANNOT GET MORE REAL AND UNIQUE THAN THIS!!!!!!

Dizzy	0
The worst movie ever. First time in my life I left the theatre after 15 mins. Really didn't care about the storyline coz my head was spinning and I felt sick due to the camera movement. Nobody shoots a cam that way not even amatuers... please gimme a break!!

Want my $$ back	0
Ya the movie is making TOP DOLLARs because everybody was curious hoping for a Blockbuster.. Not even making through the middle of the movie Lots of people walked out w/ dissapointment, I'm pretty sure they want their money back too.. If they minus all $$$ fr viewers who walked out, they can file for bankruptcy!!!!

Ashley	0
I'm still dizzy and with the biggest headache I ever had, the worst movie experience, I thought the movement of the camera would end, but never did, I I took my children, and they were dissapointed too. When I complain to the manager on duty at the Foothill Regency about my headache, the rude individual told me to watch the trailers next time before buying my ticket.

Rob

This morning I actually called somebody and asked them to do something
with me.
I know. A sign of the apocalypse, right? Well ... yeah ... in this case a really big monster tromping across Manhattan. That would be "Cloverfield," the new J.J. Abrams disasterama that stormed into theaters Jan. 18.

"Cloverfield" has been promoted the last six months - rather coyly I might add. The first few trailers never mentioned the movie title. The principal actors all have fake MySpace pages treating them as real people (search for "Robert Hawkins" and see what I mean).

The hazard of such an approach is that the movie may not live up to the expectations. Does "Cloverfield"? Read on. ...

So I called Kris, a friend of many years now and a computer expert, which has nothing to do with anything, and asked if he'd like to come hold my hand. He agreed - not to the hand-holding part. By the way, any eligible ladies out there? Kris is looking. I'll hook you up.

We met at Sun Plaza on a bitterly cold, rainy/sleety/overall yucky afternoon. The tickets were free thanks to Andy, who had been guilted into buying me a Regal gift card ... but I don't feel so bad because Andy is living rent-free so he's got money to burn, except on getting the window to his Jeep fixed (fix the damn window, Andy).

Once Kris and I got situated in the theater and finished comparing cell
phones, Kris revealed that Erik and his wife would be joining us. Join us they did. Then Joe from Kennedy clan fame dropped by to say hi. They were in the next theater. Then John Evanko joined us. John is a movie stunt man and documentary filmmaker, just back from Cambodia after filming a piece about land mines. He's been hobnobbing with John McCain's nuclear family, Clint Eastwood, etc. etc. (Yes, I'm name dropping. Ain't it great?). John's next movie is "Bait Shack." Be sure to check it out.

Anyhoo, the trailers started and I lusted after Jamie Bell in "Jumper." What a little hottie. He can "jump" into my life anytime. Then, off we went into "Cloverfield."

I don't want to spoil the movie for you ... oh hell, yeah I do. So I'll talk freely. If you don't want spoilers, stop reading.

The cinematography will leave traditional movie fans sick to their stomachs. It's shot entirely from a handheld videocam and there are almost no moments of visual calm. Think the last five minutes of "The Blair Witch Project." And it's an incredibly loud movie. The hearing aid crowd will like that.

But overall I thought "Cloverfield" was just freakin' terrific. The new age cinema verite style worked perfectly. It looks just like the videos you're accustomed to seeing on the Internet. A story is present - maybe told in untraditional ways but there just the same. CGI is at a blessed minimum - or artfully disguised by the poor image quality.

Most effective, I thought, was the lack of explanation. Normally a movie like this would demand tons of backstory. But the form of the film seems to negate that - this is simply a camera's eye view of what happens to a group of people. William Faulkner did that in "The Sound and the Fury," so don't complain.

Oh, and what about that monster? Well, he's OK. Despite all you've heard about not getting to see it, you do get a couple of good looks. This is straight from the filmmaking school of Ridley Scott and "Alien." What you don't get is a tension-killing taxanomical display.

I'll probably see this again. And when the DVD comes out, I'll buy the damn thing.

A really cool movie.

Migrane	0
Never in my life had I gotten the worse headache and dizzines from watching a movie, DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY, a 3 year old could have held the camera better than these people. The movement and shaking of the camera gives you the worse motion sickness.

Jimmy

none

The movie looked kinda good from whatever I saw when I wasn't closing my eyes and trying hard not to throw up my popcorn. That was the first time I had ever left in the middle of a movie. The idea of watching from the characters' viewpoint sounded like a great idea, but when the entire movie is shot with shakiness and rapid movement, its kinda hard to enjoy when suffering from motion sickness. My popcorn bag almost became my barf bag. Would I like to have finished the movie? Yes, but I'll wait for the DVD. Hopefully it will be easier to cope with on a smaller screen.

Sue	none
I walked out from the theatre after 30 minutes. It was the worse movieI ever watched... I totally not enjoy watching it!! Waste time and money... unique BUT unpleasant shooting technique!

kyoko	0
THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE IN HISTORY! i wish i was warned on how awful this was gonna be. I felt sick due to the camera moving all around. IF anybody is reading this, and is deliberation on whether or not to see this...DON'T. After the movie was over, i went to constumer service and got my money back!

Danny

100

this movie was truly refreshing. the whole camera perspective added more substance leading to the belief that it was actually happening. Cloverfield was one of the best movies i've seen in a long time. The whole griping about the camera and getting motion sickness sounds like a personal problem and stunted peoples experience with this movie. Complaining about the actors, special effects, or the way that there was no catch phrase is just idiotic. It's true what they say "People love to hate". The story just left you wanting more and a sequel would hopefully give many answers. The whole setup of this movie was great but if your into the hollywood routine of movies then i guess you can stick to your same routine. This was an awesome movie!

Bamboozled

Well it BLEW! Say what you want. It sucked baad. By the way to those that say im a "Hater". There are alot more people that agree with us than you. All the name calling of people that didn't like it by those that did should serve as a testimony of the maturaty level of those who say they liked it. I mean calling names cuz we have some standards. Whatever. It's my opinion that you are that percentage of the population that these Hollywood morons rely on to endure any piece of crap that gets put on film. You're more than likely the reason crap like American Idol is still on the air.

Carol	none
I tried very hard to watch this movie but got sicker with each minute that passed. After 20 minutes I had to walk out because of a splitting head ache and dizziness. Blair Witch Project was not even close to this movie.

DJ	0
I am not so sound in film technology as i was reading few reviews about this movie in terms of graphics, but as a i was watching i had this strange feeling of catching hold of the director and give him hit on his face - i have seen many boring movies but this is the first time watching an irritating movie.

Crowe192

WOW..... I agree with a lot of people on this review. This movie had tons of hype to it which worried me a bit. I cannot say that is was the worst movie of all time as it had huge potential but it was big let down.

About the only thing I can really knock is the really bad camera action. Some of the best shots of the monster could have been taken when the characters were right next to it but the director decided to have the camera pointed at the remaining characters during the attack scenes. Did the guy holding the camera not say on the bridge that people are going to want to know how it all went down? If that were the case what was he doing pointing the camera down to the ground when he should have had more than a fleeting image of the monster. Then the director decided to throw in mini-monsters..... Come on, do something better than go after cheep scares. At least give me a good quiet scene and then have a cat jump out or something. If M Night can give us that so can JJ.

In my opinion I would say that the biggest fan base of this movie will be people between the ages of 13 to 21. This was a fun film and I did enjoy what little I saw of the monster but let’s get real, this is in no way a horror movie. At most it’s Godzilla on a very good day.

Don C

The movie was exactly what I thought it would be. The viral advertising was almost as entertaining as the LOST materials seeded in the world wide web. JJ Abrams did exactly what he planned to do. If nothing else, he gets high points for execution. What people are forgetting is that the viral trailer material is just as much a part of the movie as the actual film.
The way the story itself was told reminded me of the first Godzilla where the whole move was pretty much about what was happening on ground level. It was the human carnage and the secondary horror that exists in any "natural" disaster that this movie was about. I give it a 90 for effort, but I took away 10 points failure to tie in the viral trailors effectively with the film itself. This could have and should have been a continuing story. Almost there, but not quite.

The performances were pretty darned good overall. This was despite the necessary hand-held, shakey, reality camera work throughout. (That was done in post folks.)

Brandon

Ok i will agree that you dont need to wast your money on this at the movies,but it would work for you to rent it. No its not a great movie nor a real good one but its worh seeing. Its got a pretty good story line even know it takes like a hour to start to speed up and the end of this movie compleatly sucked. Yes I will compleatly agree with how crazy the camra was but it didn't get any one sick were I went. The only thing i can really say is to wate for the movie to come out and rent it and then make your own consuption on it. welps see yea.

STFU

100

For all of you people who are complaining about how bad the camera work was, I want you to try to film something when you're going through all of that. It was that bad for a reason. In addition, no one can say they don't like a film if they only see the first 20-30 minutes, so stop you're complaining. Yes, the movie is different, but it is a new and innovative way to shoot that defnitiely makes things more up close and personal. I personally was quite terrified. Also, maybe you people should look into a movie before you go see it if you're so damn picky.

Fieldman	100
WOW! this was just amazing . truly unique. effects were great. reccommend it.

lmao

how could you say this movie is bad? it was the best. you can't walk out of the movies during the first 20 minutes!!!!!!!!! wow, but overall, this movie was worth paying for. it had me holding on to my seat. for all the people who haven't watched it, well you should definately go. and to those who walked out cuz they got sick, well take a barfbag with you and go watch it again. Cloverfield was the best. can't wait for the sequel!!!!!! well, see ya.

Ray	90
Really great and realistic experience from 1st person view, like we are at the scene. However, too bad a great movie spoilt by over shaky video. For a second I was distracted in the movie, wondering my girlfriend would vomit.... She then spending 45 minutes complaning about her dizzyness after the movie. I give 90, but video technique 10

Shannon

I would say that the pre-hype of the movie was overrated.

although there were some suspenseful and frightening parts, the effects overall appeared cheap and the characters were dull and un-relatable. it was also very cliche how it was set in nyc and that was the only place the monster was located.

also, it was a good approach aiming for something different like the camera point of view, but this movie did not pull it off. another thing was that it ticked off everyone in the audience because every single person realized at some point throughout watching the movie that the camera would either run out of battery or tape, or would be broken from all of the commotion that was going on.

also, they tried way too hard to make the character that was the camera-man the comical relief for the movie. it didn't work and he just added to the animosity of the audience towards the characters.

cloverfield did not live up to its expectations. j.j. abrams had a chance to really make a landmark movie, but he didn't. they contridicted themselves in that they were aiming to make it believable that that could happen by shooting it with the camera that they did, but then went and made so many outlandish things take place like the main character being able to make calls on his cell phone and get in touch with his girlfriend for whom the main characters then go on a search-and-rescue mission. don't see it.

Steve	100
wow for all of you who say you don't like it because of it being shoot from a hand held camera did you not see the trailers and did you not know what the movie was supposed to be about. facts about the movie. The movie was amazing don't go see if it if you are going to complain about the camera the en

MOVIE REVIEW: CLOVERFIELD 01/17/08

People Movie Review Cloverfield

MOVIE REVIEW: CLOVERFIELD

01/17/08