Cloverfield: What Did You Think?
Cloverfield (2008) Movie — By Nix on January 18, 2008
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”?
Leave a Reply
Note: Commenting on BeyondHollywood.com is a privilege, not a right. Do not engage in ad hominem attacks against other commentators, the author, or the site. Failure to follow this rule will result in your comment being deleted and possible banishment. You have been warned.
50 Comments
Cloverfield has to be the worst waste of use of film i have ever seen in my life. How anyone could give that movie a good review is beyond me. Maybe they are in denial of the fact that they just got ripped off for 10 bucks. The theater i saw it at, people were booing when the movie ended and the lights came on. J.J. Abrams should be charged with a crime for making that movie.
I wouldn’t call Cloverfield the worst movie ever made. But, JJ the Blair Witch left a long time ago. I would have to agree with the 2 out of 3 stars. This is the simple fact that Abrams and company took a block buster and made it into a B-movie. The actors are all very strong and the acting was very real and can or could grab you. However, that was overshadowed by the dizzy camera work. The worst thing about the dizzy work is that my 13 year old son has a steadier hand then Hud did. I am also wondering how the camera stayed in that good of shape. I would really like to know where it was purchased.
All in all, it has or has potential. The biggest wish I had when I walked out of the theater was for more movie. I sat through all the shaky camera work, but was real disappointed in the length of the film.
JJ, I hope Star Trek turns out to be a better film or the trekies of the world will end your career.
Joe
Almost everyone I saw it with missed where it came from….don’t blink. The very end tells the story but……come on….she was impailed two foot onto a piece of rebar…….she ran faster down that street than the camera man. I
Almost everyone I saw it with missed where it came from….don’t blink. The very end tells the story but……come on….she was impailed two foot onto a piece of rebar…….she ran faster down that street than the camera man. I concurr mess up the Trek and aarrrggg you be walkin the plank….
I would agree with others. this film had so much potential. it was the BIGGEST hype for a film to date, than to come around and dissapoint like this is terrible. The whole dont blink thing is an understatement, I was one of the ONLY people in the movie theaters to see it drop from the sky at the end. NOBODY else seen it. i believe it is because they were so dissapointed in the movie its self that they were glad it was almost over. Agreed? and mess up with star trek and jj’s career will be like hiroshima, burned to the ground with nothing left. giving this movie a B is more of pitty i think. DONT SEE IT. WAIT AND GET A BURNT COPY, LET SOMEONE ELSE WASTE THEIR MONEY ON IT!!! just trying to help the rest of the world.
Hasn’t Star Trek been messed up enough times for you Trekkies? I concur!
Loved it. Got applause about 4/5ths of the way in (during a break in the action). How often does THAT happen?
The ending was a real as the rest… sorry gang, but innovation requires breaking some rules. Want pure hollywood? Go somewhere else. They kept it real.
I am good with the ending…
I went to see this movie and thought it was rubbish and crap.
the only problem i had with this movie was the obvious brain deficiency of the camera man and the constant shaking of the camera. however, i think it was a great movie. once you get past the camera that is.
also, did anyone else notice scenes from They, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and King Kong?
I went to see Cloverfield last night and I thought it was terrible. The Blair Witch style camera work (My main complaint) made the movie very difficult to watch. I realize that this approach was meant to immerse you in the action, but people were leaving the theater because they were becoming nauseas. Also, the plot was quite weak. It’s just another King Kong / Godzilla type monster movie. I’ve been reading blog after blog about this “new” and “different” style of shooting. But in the end I think it may have been a better movie if it had been shot in the traditional over the top blockbuster style. Save your money and wait for the DVD.