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”?
Digg It
Stumble It
Tweet It
delicious
RSS
50 Comments
Um, why exactly is everyone complaining about the Camera work? Were you surprised that it was shot like that? I figured the trailers would have clued all of you in.
The movie was the most fun you could have at the theater in a long long time. It was tense, scary and just a wild ride. One of the most interesting flicks from the passed few years.
And as for people complaining about the ending, how could you end the movie? And didn’t you kind of see it coming, what with the whole “Camera found at Central Park” thing?
The intro seemed too long until the action really started, and then the intro was forgotten. This might be best described as Godzilla from the viewpoint of someone under his toes. The most annoying thing about the camera work was not the occasional shaking, it was the almost constant slant. How much did the camera man have to drink that day? I can see some possibilities for a sequal, perhaps in a similar style. Don’t they put helmet cams on some troops? That would be another interesting viewpoint, where more–but not all–questions could be answered. The last time I saw an audience react to a movie like this was at a first-week viewing of Alien–dead silence, stunned, at the end of the movie. It may be a long time before I would want to see this again, but it is a movie with incredible impact.
Well, I am a big fan of well done SciFi. I so anticipated this movie that I was very let down. The shaky camera was way too much, tended to make my stomach queezy. The movie had a lot of potential, but just didn’t deliver. This is a movie that I wont even rent when it is available. I understand the position of making it seem as though it was created as it was happining, but there was just too much camera movement. No explanation as to where it came from , or why. The ending left you with no closure. I would be interested in the sequel, if the camera work could be viewed. Like I said , it had potential, the acting was believable.
I overheard a lot of people saying the movie was crap and how bad it was and etc, but I never heard any reasons. To hate the film becuse of the camera work is perfectly fine with me (and I wasn’t even affected by it) since it’s not easy staring at a huge screen that jerks around like that for almost 80 minutes. But allow me to defend the movie for a moment.
The camera work was damn shaky, there’s no denying it, but think of it this way. If you were in the middle of all that, how steady could you possibly stay while trying to hold a camera at the same time? I think most of the jerkiness was justified, and actually it could have been worse at times.
This was NOT a Godzilla/King Kong movie by any means. The monster was original, did original things, and had believeable physics applied to it. It didn’t unleash beams of energy like Godzilla and it didn’t throw around people—who lived through it—like King Kong. Its lack of known origin is fantastic; sometimes limited points of view are the best, otherwise you risk its credibility.
The ending was good for the film. A typical Hollywood film would have killed the monster and the main characters would be mostly uninjured. Not every movie needs a happy ending, and I am actually glad when the occasional movie has a sad or negative ending.
I think it’s amusing that those three aspects are the only ones used to claim the film is bad. It’s certainly better than most of the monster films that have been filmed in the past. Not the best, but it’s somewhere up there. Perhaps some popular websites need to make a top ten list pretty soon…
The movie wasn’t the greatest, but it wasn’t the worst movie either. The camera work, plot and ending is what’s best for me. It really adds up the aesthetic quality of the whole film as what the makers probably intended to do.
Yes, the shaking of the camera does make you go dizzy. But towards the middle of the film, as everything gets all intense, you don’t even feel the shakiness anymore.
I like the film because it made you feel (at least 80% of it) what it would be like if you where in their situation. Another thing i love about the movie is the casting. I love it on how everyone is not the “celebrity” look at all. All the cast are perfect for this film because they’re “real type” individuals. I feel like I’ve met Melina and Lili before down Silver Lake here in Los Angeles.
So yea, if you criticize too make and expect the “usual” hollywood style filming, then you’re guarantee to hate it. BUT – if you let the movie tell you the story as suppose to you judging everything while you’re watching? Then you’ll love it! I know i did!
I think they need to make sure that damn camera man never works in hollywood again ( or New York ). And they need to give out motion sickness bags!!!
Don’t buy any popcorn or soda before the movie. You are going to puke. I’m epileptic and this movie left me having seizures!!! (no warnings at all for this) The concept and special effects were awesome, but the dizzy camera was really unnecessary.
The movie was okie but just a little disappointed,2 out of 4 i would say.The camera and ending was good but they didnt really tell us where and how the monster came from and theres really something missing in the film but i cant say what it is.Oh and people who has motion sickness, if you’re going to watch this film try to get sits furthest to the screen if not you are going to puke!Be warned
I went to see the movie as well. I HATED the shaky camera too. and felt the action dragged in the begining but you really felt like you were running around the NYC like a chicken with it’s head cut off. There was certainly a stretch with the woman that was injured running so quickly and not bleeding to death but I was screaming like a banshee in the end with the crash. I really enjoyed and felt like a rollercoaster ride by the end of the movie. I’d give it a B-.
dissapointing…all the hype…then disappointed in the end….Camera shakiness made me sick also …very short movie, blair witch was way better than this why even compare…