It’s going to be a while before I see Abrams’ “Cloverfield” (a combination of being sick like a dog for most of this week and hating crowds), but a lot of people have. Here are some reviews for “Cloverfield” by the critics, and you can add your own to the list in the comments section. The general critics score seems to be a solid B.
James Berardinelli gave the movie 3 (out of 4) stars:
The movie is interesting because it’s so damn different. It takes a worn concept and invigorates it by applying an innovative approach. The style will anger and offend some viewers but, if you’re able to accommodate the camera, the movie delivers. There are moments of high tension and the sense of danger feels closer and more real than in any recent motion picture. The missteps – the greatest of which is the interminable introduction – are forgivable because the payoff is strong.
Roger Ebert also gave it 3 (out of 4) stars:
Mercifully, at 84 minutes the movie is even shorter than its originally alleged 90-minute running time; how much visual shakiness can we take? And yet, all in all, it is an effective film, deploying its special effects well and never breaking the illusion that it is all happening as we see it.
The New York Post was the only review I could find to have some semblance of negativity. They gave it 2 (out of 4) stars:
Even the visuals, impressive as they are – an image of a bomber going to work is particularly searing – mostly just slap a new coat of paint on ideas borrowed from “Starship Troopers” or “The Hot Zone.” (I won’t describe the monster, since seeing what it is and what it does is the only point to the movie.) Writing does matter, even in an effects extravaganza, because scenes that rattle the visual part of your brain are being ridiculed by the reasoning part.
But nevermind the critics. What did YOU think of “Cloverfield”?