Cloverfield Reviews

• I can sum up this film in three words: Image Stabilization Needed!

  
  By AZCDCO6KK2T81 on 2008-01-27
  I know it can be a clever gimmick to have someone document a crisis on his videocamera, but every single shot doesn't have to be in an earthquake!
  
  The plot, in short order, is nothing more than a group of young folks gathered together in a Manhattan apartment to say good-bye to a close friend who is being promoted to a position in his company that will require him to move to Japan. There is the usual angst about who is sleeping with who accompanied by one stereotype after another paraded out in dull fashion (the funny side-kick, the cool-headed one, the courageous hero, blah, blah, blah).
  
  Things serious change from the happy (but underlyingly moody party) to chaos when a sudden explosion and blackout hits New York City. What follows are some truly outstanding special effects that really look like a rampaging monster is tearing apart Manhattan and caught on video by an average Joe (actually, by the funny but hugely insensitive Hud). He documents their journey to find his friend's girlfriend in a broken down apartment building and their attempts to get out of the city alive or at least leave behind a videotape for others to see.
  
  Okay, now for what worked and what didn't, and for that I will go to my newest and admittedly easiest format of reviewing, my "Hits" and "Misses":
  
  The Hits:
  
  (1) The film sincerely and creatively looks like a real recording of a disaster as it happens. Much credit goes to the special effects team. Keep in mind that I am strictly talking about the LOOK of the film as being realistic and NOT the storyline or dialogue, hence, my praise to the special effects team.
  (2) A series of very memorable moments: (A) The Statue of Liberty's head bouncing down the streets of New York (B) The subway journey (C) The Helicopter ride
  (3) Some (and I mean just some) moments of really decent and believable acting by relatively unknown actors, most notably the role of Lillian.
  (4) A clever concept (even though it goes way overboard and ends up ruining a good idea --See Miss #1 below).
  
  The Misses:
  (1) After serious complaints about The Blair Witch Project video camera idea that included too much shaking, you would think Hollywood would be careful about this again. Sadly, not only did Hollywood NOT listen to those complaints, but they must have considered the idea to be so good that they amped up the camera shaking even more to the point where they make "Blair Witch" look like still life. I was fairly okay with that film, but I could clearly see how others could get sick from 90 minutes of a shaking camera.
  
  Hud, the video guy in this film, Cloverfield, seems to have Parkinson's Disease or something as he shoots EVERY scene as if he's standing on the San Andreas Fault line in California. Even the relaxed party shots are barely stable and that brings me to the invention that is ignored by this film: Image Stabilization. While it can't correct or compensate for EXTREME camera shaking, it does do an adequate job for the average videographer and is available on almost every camcorder post 1995. It is just overkill of a good idea.
  
  Besides myself and my family I did witness many in the theater either become sick and not look at the screen and/or literally leave the theater. I even had friends warn me that shaky camera usage would likely make me sick, but having been fine with the Bourne films and only a little annoyed with "Blair Witch", I really thought it was an exaggeration about how bad the shaking camera gimmick was in this film. I have to honestly admit that they were right and I was wrong. Yes, I'm sure this is ALL opinion and some will have no problem with camera shaking thing, but that's what a review IS, it is one person's opinion and this is mine based upon my experience.
  
  (2) Stupid use of video camera. Let's see, a good friend is seriously wounded, but instead of putting down the camera he wishes him luck, then feels bad and eventually agrees to drag him to safety while still never stopping the camera. This is beyond belief even if people do act weird under stress. In fact, this is just one of far too many scenes in which anyone would put down the camera or shut it off temporarily to help someone or do an everyday task. I mean, would anyone really record (look through their viewfinder) while leaping from one building or another?
  
  (3) No quiet moments (and no moments of the camera not shaking) for us to catch our breaths or hold down our popcorn with all the stomach turning induced filming. Even the best action films have slower moments that allow the audience to catch their breaths and absorb the action a bit. This film doesn't allow for that especially with the shaking camera concept. I think just a few well-placed quiet non-shaking camera moments could have made a real difference with the overall feel of this film.
  
  (4) Am I the only one to notice that ALL these young "professionals" all look like they haven't slept in weeks or had time to "clean up" even just a little. What is with the silly stereotypes of our young people all looking and sounding like surfer-dudes (in New York no less). All the guys have 2 day old beards coming in (didn't that go out with Don Johnson on Miami Vice?), uncombed hair to the point where they make Ryan Seacrest look well-groomed on his worst day, suits in desperate need of pressing as if that was ever in style, and speak like they are all still in high school. No one sounds like they are college educated or that they are a real vice president of a company (at 25???).
  
  (5) I grew up in New York and Manhattan is one big island, so why is it that EVERYWHERE these folks go, the monster is there? You want to debate with me the size of New York City, go ahead, but that doesn't justify how at every turn these folks make the monster is there like Jason stalking teenagers in those Friday the 13th films. It is just too much to swallow.
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  For me, this film had an excellent idea and an outstanding special effects team, but that just went out of control. Exaggerated video camera shaking, horrific and unbelievable dialogue, and a collection of look-alike stereotypical characters severely hamper this film. With some serious editing this could have been a much better film. Sadly, this was a very negative experience for me and my family as my daughter (11) seriously couldn't watch the film as the shaking camera was just too much for her, and my son (15) nearly threw up his popcorn and hated the whole film. We all left the theater with pounding headaches and that is NOT why we go to the movies. I still gave this film two stars for the "hits" I mentioned earlier, but it was a dud for me overall.
  
  FINAL NOTE: If you want camera shaking for the realistic quality it can bring to a film WITHOUT it making you sick, then try any of the Bourne films (The Jason Bourne Collection (The Bourne Identity / The Bourne Supremacy / The Bourne Ultimatum)). Camera shaking doesn't have to lead to a nauseating experience (or a family rebellion --lol). Hey, not everyone is going to agree on the value of a film and whether it made them sick or not and such, but that is why a review is a personal opinion. If you agree with my review, fine; that's nice. If you don't, and I know that many don't considering the film's popularity, then feel free to disagree with me and/or write your own review, but leave the personal assaults out of it. This review is just my personal opinion on this film and you are free to accept or reject it.
  
  

• Hud's Cam

  
  By A1TJPMB7N776WS on 2008-01-20
  Last year when "The Bourne Ultimatum" was released several reviewers commented that the hand-held camera movement made them dizzy. Well, I wasn't even aware of the camera in "BU" as the story and performances were so solid. But from the minute that "Cloverfield" began I was more than aware that the character Hud (would parents really name their son after a disrespectful, often vile cad?), who was capturing all the action with a digital camera, was indeed filming. By that I mean the Hud's camera jerks, flips, flops...just as it would when an amateur is filming. So far so good. The camera movements make sense on a real-life level but all the putzing around of the camera made me physically ill...to the point that I had to look away several times as I thought I would barf.
  On the positive side: the physical production is amazing and the use of pretty much unknowns sets up a situation in which the moviemakers have to do their homework with the script, character-development-wise in order for us to invest our interest and time.
  There is nothing earth-shaking about the story per se: a monster attacks and goes about demolishing New York City while focusing on a small group of good looking young Lower Manhattan types who take flight as the monster goes about its rampage: everyone is beautiful, everyone is sensitive, emotional and humane which sets this film apart from others of its ilk: these people are young but they are smart, upwardly mobile and more importantly care for each other. It's refreshing, really.
  "Cloverfield" is extremely well thought out and plotted. It is also stylistically sophisticated and well written. It's definitely worth the 10 bucks and an hour and a half of your time. Check it out.
  
  
  

• Entertaining, 'tho nauseating...

  
  By ANEDXRFDZDL18 on 2008-02-14
  I've wanted to see Cloverfield since the spots began to show during the previews of coming attractions last fall. The premise is simple: a group of 20 somethings are at a party, filming various party guests, when the city is attacked by a giant monster. The monster destroys many buildings and causes havoc. The friends flee across the Brooklyn bridge. The protagonist (Rob) receives a message from his gf. She has not managed to escape, and is still at the apartment bleeding. The protagonist returns to the city, despite the military occupation, the monster, and the scuttling spider-like baby monsters and takes along his friend, Hud (holding the camera), and two other gals wearing heels.
  
  I was interested in this film because of the plot. I'm a sucker for 'alien invasion' films, and this looked intriguing. The first 20 minutes of this film were really dull. Too much time spent establishing 'normalcy' of the main characters and various minor characters and their issues. I also found the camera angle, nauseating. I recommend not eating before going to see it. The film jiggles and shakes as characters run, and the characters swing the camera around.
  
  MINOR SPOILERS:
  
  
  I found elements implausible, such as how the seriously wounded gal manages to run despite being previously impaled, and how both gals insisted on wearing high heels while running, despite having opportunities to loot better stuff along the way. The unconcern the protagonists show for the gal who was bitten was ridiculous, as was the protagonist's desire to enter a city under attack by a giant monster and drag along his comrades when most people would be running the opposite direction.
  
  Overall, if they had made the filming technique a bit less nauseating and the beginning a trifle less dull, I would've given this another star. I was entertained.... But it had its flaws, and It wasn't worth feeling sick afterward.
  
  

• A problem in presentation

  
  By A3GJGBF7FO8WDJ on 2008-01-27
  The idea, conceived by producer J.J. Abrams, is brilliant, and the story told here is exciting, riveting stuff. It's tense and, at times, genuinely scary. If not for one little problem, I would have thoroughly enjoyed this film.
  
  The problem is in the presentation.
  
  Since the entire movie is supposed to come from a single hand-held camera, everything is in Shaky-Cam (or, as Roger Ebert aptly called it, "Queasy-Cam"). Hence, the movie quickly and continually induces vertigo in its audience; of the six members of my party, four reported some degree of motion sickness. Somewhere further down in the theater, we heard at least one person vomit.
  
  No matter how good a movie is -- and this one is, in its way, very very good -- it suffers when you can't bear to look at the screen. It's hard to appreciate the filmmaker's craft when you're trying to keep down the buffalo chicken sandwich you foolishly ate on the way to the theater.
  
  by Tom Knapp, Rambles.(net) editor
  
  

• The problem is in the presentation

  
  By A3GJGBF7FO8WDJ on 2008-03-27
  The idea, conceived by producer J.J. Abrams, is brilliant, and the story told here is exciting, riveting stuff. It's tense and, at times, genuinely scary. If not for one little problem, I would have thoroughly enjoyed this film.
  
  The problem is in the presentation. And it's a biggie.
  
  Since the entire movie is supposed to come from a single hand-held camera, everything is in Shaky-Cam (or, as Roger Ebert aptly called it, "Queasy-Cam"). Hence, the movie quickly and continually induces vertigo in its audience; of the six members of my party, four reported some degree of motion sickness. Somewhere further down in the theater, we heard at least one person vomit.
  
  No matter how good a movie is -- and this one is, in its way, very, very good -- it suffers when you can't bear to look at the screen. It's hard to appreciate the filmmaker's craft when you're trying to keep down the buffalo chicken sandwich you foolishly ate on the way to the theater.
  
  by Tom Knapp, Rambles.(net) editor
  
  
• Cloverfield is the next great monster movie!
  By AE9V37MS6QY8D on 2008-03-25
  I remember it well. Walking into the movie theater in summer of 1999 with friends and being so excited about seeing a little indie movie called The Blair Witch Project. When I had seen the trailer I thought how cool the concept was: to show a movie from a video camcorder perspective (so we're there with the frightened documenters). Well, that was the only cool thing about that movie. The story, character development and direction were the worst thing I had ever seen. I remember the movie ending and feeling cheated as well as if I had just lost 86 minutes of my life I could have been seeing something much better. "Blair Witch" was also a joke to me because I had been camping in those same woods (in Burkittsville, MD) as a younger kid and there definitely was no spirit or ghost or killer there. And then the one good thing that came out of the "Blair Witch" movie faded back into obscurity: the cool idea that a movie be shot from a character's perspective a la typical video camcorder.
  
  Then came J.J. Abrams (creator and producer genius of shows like "Felicity," "Alias," and "Lost"). While visiting in Japan promoting his movie directorial debut "Mission: Impossible III," with his son, he saw Godzilla toys and thought that America should have its own version of the infamous radiated lizard. He contacted his crew at his production company Bad Robot. They in turn hired writer extraordinare Drew Goddard (who's written TV episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel," and "Alias") and director Matt Reeves (who's only directed the David Schwimmer sleeper "The Pallbearer" and a few episodes of "Felicity," which he co-created with Abrams). I knew with Reeves, Goddard and Abrams involved that they would bring to their latest project -- entitled "Cloverfield" (named after the street near Abrams' office) or "01-18-08" (the movie didn't have an official title; even when the teaser trailer was shown before "Transformers") -- what was sorely missing in "Blair Witch." They were going to emotionally invest in the characters and have the audience feel close to the main characters with screen time.
  
  Like most trends, they hired a cast of unknowns or up-and-comers that hardly anyone has heard of: Lizzy Caplan (Mean Girls), Mike Vogel (2003's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), Jessica Lucas (ABC's cancelled Life As We Know It), Odette Yustman (ABC's October Road), the wonderful new comedian T.J. Miller (ABC's "Carpoolers"), and excellent leading man Michael Stahl-David (NBC's cancelled The Black Donnellys). The producers and writers did well with imbuing this film with palpable characters who remind us of ourselves and people we know. Each character in this movie has their own story (and relationship) which is introduced creatively well in the beginning by recordings (thanks to Miller's everyman character Hud) of each character's interaction at a going-away party for Rob (Stahl-David). Also, interspersed throughout the tape -- when the current party/disaster recording is turned off -- the audience sees previously recorded footage of Rob and his love interest Beth (Yustman) on a special day together. Just when you think the movie is going to continue with these relationships, then all hell unexpectedly breaks loose.
  
  The brilliance of this movie is its "Blair Witch concept" of showing the film as if it were merely found film footage (no credits at the beginning, only in the end). Of course, this film is on a much bigger scale than "Blair Witch," with a monster terrorizing Manhattan. And while that seems unrealistic, it's the only unrealistic thing about this movie. What the characters do and say, the way the movie plays out is completely realistic. Unlike "Blair Witch," even when there are no attacks or action sequences, "Cloverfield" keeps your eyes peeled to the screen; out of the entire packed audience I saw this film with, no one said a word, cracked a joke or even got up to go the bathroom. This movie is everything a disaster movie should be! A thrilling ride of adrenaline and a heart-wrenching story of survival and human emotion, "Cloverfield" strikes all the right chords from fright to bravery to even humor. It shows the horror of the event from the point of view of the common man on the ground who's merely trying to survive the catastrophe. Like Jaws (with the shark, throughout most of the movie) and the original theatrical release of The Empire Strikes Back (with the Wampa in the ice cave), where the "monsters" are not seen for a long time during their screen time, this movie uses that same approach of not showing the monster in its entirety or at all. And that works extremely well for building up the terror for the audience. I won't tell you what the monster looks like when you finally do see it, but I will say it looks nothing like Godzilla or any interpretation of it. Of course, there also has to be another monstrous threat and it comes in the form of what I can only imagine are the equivalent of "fleas" for the monster, but are our size and have very big jaws and teeth. When these monsters are introduced to the lead characters (and thus to the audience), it matches the same terrifying, pulse-pounding moment in Aliens when Bill Paxton's character holds up the alien locater and sees that the aliens have completely surrounded them in the tunnel and are soon going to attack.
  
  "Cloverfield" was a wonderful monster/catastrophe film and I could easily see it at least three more times in the theater ... if not more. Kudos to Abrams, Reeves, Goddard and crew who pulled off a groundbreaking new form of cinema that the folks attached to "Blair Witch" tried desperately to achieve, but painfully failed. The detail that went into the effects as well as the camerawork (some done by actor Miller himself) was so flawlessly executed that I felt as if I were immersed in watching an actual documetary. I'm sure plenty of knock-off straight-to-DVD movies will soon be surfacing with Cloverfield's success, but none will even come close. Everything works with "Cloverfield": the story, the acting, the character development, and the direction. If this seems like the kind of movie you're in to but still aren't sure about it, go see it without hesitation! I'm sure there won't be another like it that's this good in a very long time. I've never been so wowed by a movie of this genre and can't recommend it enough. SEE IT! However, there is one caution I must tell you: You'll leave the theater wanting more. More information about the characters, more follow-up, more movie (director Reeves even hinted at looking closely at the background at the very end of the movie for something in the Coney Island scene and staying until the very end of the credits for a voice clip from a radio transmission)! This movie is phenomenal! Like me, most viewers will want to see "Cloverfield" over and over again. And that's a true mark of any film's success.
  
  And for those skeptical that this DVD release will be what studios did for the DVD release of "Zodiac" and other blockbusters in the past -- releasing a regular version with no special features one month, then only to re-release a DVD loaded with special features 6-7 months later (this is referred to as "double-dipping") -- the special features for the upcoming DVD release of "Cloverfield" have been revealed by Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment as of March 18. Now let's just hope they go with some better, more cooler packaging than the stupid poster art; something that fits the style of the movie (I want a "top secret" government slip case and package to make it look like it's an actual piece of government evidence). Here are the special features:
  
  * Commentary: Commentary by Director Matt Reeves
  * Featurette: The Making of Cloverfield
  * Featurette: Cloverfield Visual Effects
  * Featurette: I Saw It! It's Alive! It's Huge
  * Featurette: Clover Fun
  * Additional Scenes: Congrats Rob
  * Additional Scenes: When You're in Japan
  * Additional Scenes: I Call That a Date
  * Additional Scenes: It's Going to Hurt
  * Additional Scenes: Alt Ending #1
  * Additional Scenes: Alt Ending #2
  * Easter Eggs: Slusho!
  * Easter Eggs: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 2
  * Easter Eggs: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 5
  * Easter Eggs: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 9
  * Easter Eggs: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 11
  * Easter Eggs: Rack 'Em & Pack 'Em
  * Easter Eggs: Fighting the X
  
  
• Stay away from this trash!.
  By APCHVFMSQZVY4 on 2008-04-18
  Cloverfield uses the hand-held video camera technique thats supposed to be innovative but its not, this technique of filmmaking has been used many times before so I don't really know what all the fuss is about. The film also combines elements of The Blair Witch Project and the 1998 Godzilla film which both sucked but if you liked those two films then go ahead and knock your self out you might actually enjoy this film, I just though it was awful. The visual disorientation caused by seeing this film through a lens of a shaky hand-held video camera was not a pleasant experience it was like torture. The film opens with a video camera being found in Cloverfield which is the area formerly known as Central Park and from the footage we get to see this horrible film, the footage consists of some people hanging around at an apartment partying and talking to each other wow very fascinating then all of a sudden a large crashing sound is heard and we get to see alot of screaming people on the streets running away from a 300 foot tall lizard monster or whatever (it did look pathetic), the film didn't really have a plot its just a few people looking for a friend who needs help and thats it. The cast looks like they were auditioning for MTV's the real world, they were absolute crap but I guess the director was looking for a more realistic point of view and the ending was very anti-climactic you could barely see what was going on and I just didn't find this film entertaining at all in fact it was one of the worst movies of 2008, I'm not exactly sure why I bothered watching this film in the first place I suggest you avoid this unless you liked The Blair Witch Project and Godzilla 1998.
  
  
• Monster movies don't get more real
  By A6DOCZ10B7JAJ on 2008-05-26
  Brilliant. Inventive. Flat out scary. This is pure chaos inflicted with incessant rage and unbridled suspense. I loved it! It's like Godzilla meets Blair Witch Project, done with stylized perfection.
  
  I read nothing but bad reviews for Cloverfield. I can understand the detractors. There are no steady-cam shots. The images are rarely centered. There are plenty of long takes that seem improvised. There is no clever dialogue. But the simplicity and amazing special effects make this feel all too real. For people who prefer a standard, regurgitated storyline with famous actors, this isn't for you. This one takes a chance.
  
  About the first twenty minutes take place in a NYC condo. A group of friends are throwing a surprise farewell party for their friend who is leaving for Japan. They are videotaping the events, but get much more than they bargained for.
  
  The lights go out. The ground shakes. Earthquake? They converge to the rooftop and soon see an large explosion several blocks away. Terrorist attack? The camera keeps rolling, only to soon see the cause of the mayhem--some terrifying monsters on a destructive rampage.
  
  Nothing is ever explained. There is just furious action and overwhelming panic as everyone scrambles for safety. Cloverfield is just an entertaining thrill ride that hits close to home. Don't miss it! Unless you prefer to be spoonfed a traditional Hollywood tale.
  
  
• The Monster Mash
  By A139ZF7CJVVTJU on 2008-01-25
  The real goal of any movie worth its salt is to draw us head-first into a reality that is not our own. To help us inhabit new places, sometimes fantastic, sometimes harsh and gritty, but always powerful. Stories are really beside the point. So are easy answers and resolutions. No movie that has ever made a truly lasting impression on anyone did so solely because it had a cool plot or a nifty twist at the end. There's always something more there; something that makes you lose yourself for a moment and become someone else, somewhere else.
  
  The world has grown so jaded, and people so skeptical, that this isn't easy to do. J.J. Abrams, of Lost and Alias fame, is a man with weird and wonderful ideas, and he has created in "Cloverfield" a movie that isn't deep or profound, but which resonates with powerful humanity, which ripples with very believable terror. I haven't felt this enraptured and excited by a film since I was thirteen years old, back when I didn't care so much how meaningful and thoughtful a movie was, as long as it managed to grab me without letting go.
  
  I will say this right now: shame on you if you whine about the shaky camera work. Boo to you if you moan about the lack of a plot. And go soak your head if you complain about the frustrating lack of clear images or action scenes. By now, you should already know that this flick is filmed documentary-style, through the lens of a single camera carried by one very confused and harried citizen of New York as that city undergoes attack from some unknown thing or things. Those of you with tender tummies and a susceptibility to vertigo should stay away.
  
  Too bad for you, because you're missing one hell of a ride. Universal Studios makes millions out of roller coasters designed to make us feel like we're in a movie. Reality television shows have spent years pretending to showcase real people at their worst and best. "Cloverfield" bypasses all of that with the most gorgeous ease, seducing you into a young man's going away party (he's leaving on the morrow to work in Japan, a clever nod to the Godzilla inspiration this movie banks on and surpasses), and then completely knocking the socks off of you with a series of horrific moments that are captured in the queasy, quake-y quaver of a handheld camera.
  
  It's a monster movie, first and foremost, but it's done in true J.J. Abrams style, with a flippant attitude toward anything but the common sense and scalding fear of the characters who are holding the camera. There may be some who might harp about how unlikely it is that a single man would videotape the systematic destruction of New York for seven straight hours while his life is on the line; in a world where every cell phone has a camera and most people are dying for their chance to be in the frame, where news reporters place themselves on the frontlines of major wars just to catch a scoop, where websites like Youtube fester with millions of snippets of people being everything from goofy to grotesque, I say the movie rings quite true. Besides, I say again, it's a monster movie.
  
  Like no monster movie I can recall seeing, "Cloverfield" provides what they all wish they could: the fear of really and truly being there. The panicked confusion. The hasty shock and dust-soaked amazement. Monster movies of yore have tried to scare us silly by giving us the horrific grand view of things, when few besides superheroes and dictators ever experience life with the grand scheme of things in mind. We are individuals, with our precious loves and single lives, and when New York rumbles with fireballs and fear, what really scares us is the threat to us and our loved ones.
  
  "Cloverfield" sidesteps the grandiose issues of military might or radioactive origins. It doesn't give us harried politicians wondering what's to be done. It even pointedly avoids discussions of longterm, worldwide impacts. "What is that?" one of the characters screams. The cameraman, in one of the movie's best lines, dismisses the question by simply saying, "It's a terrible thing."
  
  Terrible it is. Let the movie hold your hand, and it will usher you into that powerfully personal wonder and horror that so many of us forget can still exist. Viewing this movie, I got sick, I was disoriented, I squinted to see through the fuzzy frames and the agonizingly distorted camera work. It was hard to watch.
  
  I would turn around and watch it again in a second. And I'd probably love it just as much.
  
  
• Skip it, you're not missing much.
  By AHYL7D3HJEO9I on 2008-04-21
  Seriously. I've seen many movies in my day, but none of them (including a certain one about a witch) made me ever look away because I though I'd be nauseous. Seriously, when you have to close your eyes to stop them from straining, something is wrong.
  
  With crappy hand-held realism aside, the movie characters and story were a letdown. I know a lot of it was about this viral marketing rah rah, but who cares ultimately when the movie is dumb?
  
  First of all, the initial scene at the party feature some of the most crappy dialog and scenes to date. I almost fell asleep with how dumb it was. Then when things got moving, the people who we follow on their stupid quest through the city get even dumber! They feel it's perfectly fine to go towards the destruction and to walk under a mega-huge creature that's killing people left and right.
  
  The guy running the camera is one of the most annoying characters in history. He kept saying "Rob! Rob! Rob! Rob! Rob!" over and over. I wanted him to be slapped repeatedly. When they finally get to their final destination, the story keeps up with it's dumbness. A girl impaled? Oh she's fine!
  
  The movie utterly crappy elements could not be redeemed, for me, by anything they put on screen.
  
  
• Good idea, bad camera
  By A2H56YN65JAJY on 2008-02-14
  The whole idea of having a point of view from a small group is very interesting, indeed. However, the way they conduct their "amateur" camera seems worst than any 3-year-old child holding a camera. I guess it's a wrong idea thinking that an amateur camera could mean a thought like that. At end, I could see only 3 or 5 minutes of this film. The result is awful.
  
  
• Put down the camera and run!
  By A2YM3KILJ1G0YJ on 2008-03-24
  First and foremost, the buzz created by Cloverfield is well deserved. There will be people who dislike the acting, cliffhangers, or even the filming techniques. What can't be denied, however, is the epic nature of this movie, and the way in which the viewer is drawn into the chaos.
  
  Cloverfield starts off with the beginnings of a surprise party for Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David). Everyone is getting together in his swanky Manhattan loft to see him on his way to a new career opportunity in Japan. His friend Lily (Jessica Lucas) and his brother Jason (Mike Vogel) are playing hosts, and it is a joyous event throughout. Then Rob's love interest Beth (Odette Yustman) shows up with a date.
  
  The party continues on, but it's clear that Rob is not himself. It's evident because the film's humor source, Hud (TJ Miller), is filming every detail of every guest, and happens to catch a fight between Rob and Beth. Aside from that, Hud keeps gravitating towards Marlena (Lizzy Caplan), a girl in which he's extremely interested. They have evidently met several times before, but Marlena doesn't remember Hud, and definitely doesn't want anything to do with his company or the camera.
  
  And then all hell breaks loose.
  
  Manhattan shakes. The ground rumbles, and the tremors are palpable throughout the city. Lights go off, screams ring through the air, and it's too close not to remember the events of 9/11. The residents are frightened out of their minds. Despite initial reports of an earthquake, in no time at all, we learn that not only are the massive sounds and tremors not earthquakes, but instead they are the ear-splitting footsteps of some gigantic monster attacking the city, destroying everything in its path.
  
  The party-goers dash for the street, where they see fireballs, massive chunks of buildings being ripped from hinges, and the Statue of Liberty's head come flying down the street like the view from pins at giant's bowling alley.
  
  An epic battle ensues in which the group goes into the heart of the battle, as Rob, Lily, Hud, and Marlena go to find Beth, who left for her apartment after the fight. They brave the unknown, monsters that are beyond imagination, and darkness through which nothing but fear can be felt. Drawing perfectly upon fear of the unknown and the loss of sense and perception, the group makes and incredibly dangerous and scary decision to travel through the shutdown, blacked-out subway tunnels. As they're making their way through the city, they are caught in the middle of heavy fire; the military has brought countless troops, artillery, rocket launchers, and jets to saturate the monster's surroundings with bombs. It becomes clear in no time that the military is losing the battle.
  
  The true genius of this movie is in its concept from beginning to end. The buzz leads to the anticipation; the usage of a handheld camera for the entire movie's filming style leads to the realistic chaos. In fact, the shaky, spastic, sometimes confusing camera shots are perhaps the movie's strength and weakness at the same time. While lending towards credibility, it leaves the audience wanting to see more, changing a point of view for the hopes of a split second's more viewing time. I wanted to scream a Hud - despite his diligence - to focus a bit more on the action, to ignore the fear for even a split second so I could see the monster and the destruction. The panic and fear are both understandable and realistic.
  
  The ending leads to a desire for more. The viewer is left wanting, needing to find a more complete resolution. When I watched it at the theatre, perhaps 50 people waited through the entire list of credits for a hope of an extra scene, maybe a hint about the actual ending, even the slightest bit more information. Don't be fooled into thinking this is just another monster movie, or a cheesy Godzilla movie shot through a handheld camera. It's incredibly intense and provides shock, suspense, fear, and surprise around every corner. It's wonderfully mysterious, completely original, and sets a new standard for the horror movie genre.
  
  
• "Godzilla" collides with "The Blair Witch Project"
  By A2UUP58XPQW3GF on 2008-01-18
  When one thinks of "Cloverfield" the awesome "hyped-up" trailer comes to mind. The teaser trailer was very well-marketed and does grab our attention. J.J. Abrams (Mission Impossible, Lost)definitely knows how to arouse the curiosity and attention of moviegoers. Now, the only problem with hyping up a film so much is that it either works or it doesn't. Hype can definitely work in putting people on theater seats but once word gets out that the film is "anything but...". Well, again, kudos to the producers who thought of the gimmick.
  
  The film's premise is looked at from the scope of POV of a DV camera during the farewell party for one bound for Japan executive Rob (Michael Stahl David). Suddenly, an unknown force rocks Manhattan. Wild fear and panic ensues as the military attempts to stop the gigantic menace on its path of destruction. Rob and a group of partygoers attempt to navigate through the city to save Rob's one true love; Beth. They find little hope as the rampage of the "unknown" force blocks all exits.
  
  "Blair Witch Project" anyone? Yes, the film takes on the camera style of the hugely successful horror film. Director Matt Reeves uses a single DV camera to take the audience into the heart of a monster film. Cloverfield is an ambitious film, it tries to escape from the usual clichés and stereotypes that have plagued monster films before. Sadly, while the style did work for "Blair Witch", this film came off a little short. I do commend the producers for trying to widen the scope of a very limited premise in resorting to the video camera to emulate raw panic and fear. What made "Blair Witch" stand out was its ability to delve into the emotion of the unknown and the unexplained. "The Mist" already explored the unknown and while the "Cloverfield" does have a lot of emotions involved in the proceedings, I tend to look at things a bit differently. The gigantic monster is shown from time to time through the camera, and frankly it looks like the monster came from "The Mist". Even the once-again, spider-like creatures looked like they came from the aforementioned film by Frank Darabont.
  
  "Cloverfield" does attempt something different, the routes it took seem so ineffective. The film tries to give the viewer the feeling of REALITY through the video camera, but somehow, it fumbles its premise halfway through. It still fell to the usual clichés inherent in a sci-fi monster film: display of military might, evacuation and panic, a love-sick hero with unexpressed love, dwindling hope, death and destruction, the usual heroics. The film employs obvious editing tricks to attempt to give the backstory of Beth and Rob's romance with the camera acting screwy that it rewinds from time to time. The film tries its best to make something so groundbreaking with a monster premise and while its producers/directors' hearts are in the correct place, the film's execution becomes nauseating. Quite frankly, the DV camera feels more like a "GIMMICK" than a REAL INHERENT part of the film. In "Blair Witch", at least, the characters are lost in the woods and they wish that a DV camera may give some light to what happens to them, which makes the video camera relevant.
  
  After all, who can hold a camera while your friends are being attacked? Why pick up the camera again after you drop it after you get attacked? (A metal bar would be more viable) Why hold on to the camera when you are scaling a tipped over rooftop? What kind of MORONIC stupidity is it for someone to keep on recording what is happening under the shadow of raw panic and hysteria? What kind of insensitivity is it to keep a dumb camera in play in the face of your friends' suffering? In REALITY, time is of the essence and the survival of your friends are the most important. REALITY dictates the video camera to be thrown aside for survival. After all is said and done, in this situation, the video camera is a useless piece of recording; for in REALITY, the whole world would know when a 200+ ft. monster is attacking a city. The camera needed to be turned off!
  
  To its credit, at the very least, there are some intense and scary moments in the film that are reminiscent of classic invasion films. The special effects are nicely done and the movie is indeed loud. The explosions are felt and pure destruction does save parts of the film. There is also some blood and gore. (although some of it happens off camera) I sure wished that the military encounters with the giant creature and the spider things were more explored. Actually, it would have done well if it was a reporter's first-person perspective who captured the footage of a heated encounter. Unfortunately, the director depends on crude humor and serious attempts at a sob story to generate sympathy. The film requires a large suspension of disbelief that contradicts its atmosphere to emulate a feeling of reality.
  
  Ultimately, "Cloverfield" could have survived without the single video camera gimmick. It could have just stuck to the basics of a monster film and still turned in a generous box-office take. Its attempts to emulate "REALITY" in the first person view may be its strength but its execution is also its greatest weakness. The pure "gimmick" of a single video camera tries to give the viewer a first-person view and/or spectator's point of view is an attempt to hide the hollow plot that it could have just as well be a spin-off of the far superior film; "The Mist". If you think about it, "Cloverfield" is what is happening in New York when "The Mist" took place in that small town. I am certain that this film will have its following who will say there is a deeper context and hidden subtle details where there is none. It does have the message of "seizing the moment", life is short, and love is powerful.
  
  But the next time someone says it is so original and groundbreaking, ask yourself this: How would I feel if a friend kept running around shooting a camera while we're running for our lives? Just enjoy it for what it is, a typical monster flick and it happens in New York again.
  In truth, The Korean hit monster-family film; "The Host" and Darabont's "The Mist" is a lot better. Heck, at least, "Cloverfield" was better than the U.S. made "Godzilla" movie....
  
  It's ok, nothing spectacular but will definitely appeal to some. [3 stars]
  
  
  
  
  
  
• This Film Is So Rotten I Got My Money Back!
  By A3DGVB3T5QJNRE on 2008-01-19
  That's a first for me, and I've been going to the movies for close to 40 years!
  
  The film jerked around almost constantly throughout the entire movie! It was so bad that a warning was posted all over the place at the movie theater that I attended. The sign read: " Warning! This film will can cause motion sickness similar to that of a roller coaster ride!" I have to admit, I thought at first the theater must be kidding, but when I ended-up having to close my eyes through 75% of the movie, the warning was a gross under statement! And it was unbearably annoying!
  
  Then the acting was terrible! Everyone came across as two-dimensional cardboard, with a pretty face! The beginning of the story reminded me of a dull soap opera until the monster strikes, then it reminded me of a cheap, Made-in-Japan, 1950's style, monster movie! How dull and tedious can you get?
  
  I guess the worst part was how much the destruction was made to remind anyone without amnesia how horrible the 9/11 disaster was! What a filmmaker will do to make a buck! Members of my own family missed being killed or injured by the skin-of-there-teeth or from dumb luck! Do I, and tens of thousands of other movie goers, who were directly affected by 9/11 need to be reminded of this real life horror when we go out to be entertained? Memo to future filmmakers: Try and have a little imagination and wreck a different city next time!
  
  And to think the director of this film, J.J. Abrams, is the same director working on the new Star Trek movie. I can just imagine what a muddled mess he's going to create if Cloverfield is the best he can do!
  
  This is, without a doubt, absolutely one of the very worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life! What ever you do - don't bring your children, or someone with post traumatic stress issues, an inner ear infection or prone to migraine headaches to this movie! You'll be doing them a very big favor, indeed!
  
  Your Movie Sucks
  
  
• cloverfield
  By A2UEX8CPJ7NR2T on 2008-01-18
  I just saw the movie. I donot like this movie. The camera angels where bad. It was not anywhere near as good as Godzilla. Not much action just a lot of running and seeing threw the eyes of the camera. You did not see the monster destroy buildings. You did see a little bit of the monster now and than. I think this movie was made to see just how bad a movie can be made. If I could give a negitive in the stars I would. If the movie was shown buy the Army or Monster point of view it would have been a lot better. Poor writing, Poor Camera angels. One long boring Movie. Save your money and get a real action dvd. Like anything else.
  
  
• Here we go again.. the double dipping continues.....
  By A3PX6I2Q1XA1JQ on 2008-03-21
  Unless I am totally missing it, this is going to be another bare bones 1 disk craptacular release. I assume by late summer or Christmas we will get the "REAL" release of this movie with a multiple disk version with tons of extras.
  
  I have lost track of the number of movies I have had to re-buy because the delayed better version is always out later... Zodiac and Sin City are two recent ones that come to mind.
  
  RARE is the sign that the movie studios actually care about our buying choices... like American Gangster and Master and Commander have had basic one disk versions out on the same day as the multiple disk deluxe versions.
  
  Oh well...
  
  
• I was rooting for the monster..
  By A2J57EQ9KPGXR9 on 2008-05-12
  There are so many things wrong with this film, its hard to pick where to start.
  The Monster - I liked the monster, too bad the writers did'nt bother to provide any back story, origin, explanation, etc..
  
  The Characters - A bunch of stupid, self-absorbed yuppies do not make very sympathetic central characters for a film. The main character is the worst of all; only someone named "Hud" would be stupid enough to go along with a guy trying to find his ex-girlfriend in the middle of a giant monster attack. I was waiting for him to say "I'll get my best friends to safety, but I will go back later for my ex-girlfriend, after I stop by the local hardware store and grab a few shotguns, some flashlights, some walkie talkies if anyone is coming with me, hardhats, maybe some climbing gear..", but that never happened.
  
  The Scene in the Subway Tunnel - Try fighting a large animal with razor sharp claws and teeth, in the dark, with your bare hands. You will lose.
  
  The Military - Wow. Did they even talk to ANYONE in the armed services before writing this screenplay. I was waiting for the AC-130H Spectre to show up (105mm Cannon,40mm and 25mm munitions) - the thing is DESIGNED to take out targets in an urban environment, from high up. Then there's the assortment of air/gas bombs and laser guided munitions that a fighter could carry. My jaw dropped to the floor when I saw infantry SHOOTING at this 10-story monster with M4s and AR-15s..RIFLES?? Then it dropped again when I saw a mobile howitzer (I think it was a M109A6 Paladin) shooting at the monster?? Hmm, let's see, I can deploy the Spectre with its 105mm Cannon or put troops on the ground with a mobile howitzer and its 155mm cannon - to get stepped on..Unbelievably stupid..
  
  More Military Problems - Why would the evac chopper pilot fly low over a free fire zone directly across the monster's path?? That was completely stupid. This screenplay needed alot of work..
  
  I say, don't bother watching this insult to human intelligence.
  
  
• A lot of action...but no answers
  By A1ZTE3K3EN4TS3 on 2008-01-18
  I have to say I wanted to like this movie. Since I saw the first trailers last summer this has been on my "must see" list. The viral marketing was interesting and I really thought this would be an incredible hit. Unfortunately, it just doesn't fly like it should have.
  
  Yes, the idea of a movie shot entirely from someone's video camera is a good one...but then you reach those points in the movie when you know there's no way on earth you'd sit there and keep filming while this stuff was going on. Any normal person would drop the camera and run for their lives. And yes, the monster was unique, I'll give points for that. But the point of going to a movie like this is to find out some simple answers: where did the monster come from? Why did it choose New York? What made it attack? These are the questions you START the movie with. They are the same questions you'll END the movie with. The movie ends with such abruptness you'd think the director just said, "Ok, that's the budget, let's go home."
  
  There are good qualities too. The movie is genuinely suspenseful at times. The jerky camera movements can give you a headache after a while, but it really gives authenticity to the experience. You feel like you're a part of a real disaster occurring around you. Still, the ending just ruins the movie for me. I felt like I'd watched an episode of a great television show, and I'd be hyped for next week's episode...except there isn't one coming. Makes me a little leery about how Lost is going to end now.
  
  See it if you'd like, but don't expect perfection.
  
  
• 3.5 stars -- do the terrorists win this time?
  By A2T049UQONS0OY on 2008-01-21
  "Cloverfield" is about equal parts 9/11, "Godzilla" and "The Blair Witch Project", with the latter providing the technical model, the center film providing the manifest content, and 9/11 providing the questions that are put forward and left unanswered by the film.
  
  If you haven't heard, "Cloverfield" is the story of a group of 20-something Manhattanites whose late night party is spoiled by the arrival of a monster in New York that goes around killing people, knocking over tall buildings, collapsing bridges and wrecking things a la Godzilla.
  
  The production is cleverly modeled after Blair Witch Project, with the entire 90 minutes of goings on filmed by a hand held camera. The computer-generated scenes of monsters, wreckage and the headless Statue of Liberty (check out the scene that comes up with this title) are all done very well. I doubt they took the computer-generated scenes then filmed them a second time with a moving camera to get the ship on the rolling seas affect; it was compelling however completed.
  
  The narrative story is full of exciting moments, one of which -- a moment where the hero has saved a damsel in distress and escapes midst up close warfare between the giant and the military -- left my heart pounding and my breathing accelerated when quiet returned in the theatre. The sound effects also work to the advantage of this actioner, which won't be very cogent when you see it on your television unless you have a screen at least 60 inches across.
  
  The storyline, as we know from films just like this one made half a century ago, isn't about an actual monster; it's about the war on terror. Just like the dinosaur that invaded New York in the 1953 sci-fi classic, "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms" -- which was a metaphor for communism -- the monster that invades New York this time is the reincarnation of the 9/11 terrorists come for a return visit.
  
  That beast from the 1950s was killed by the military and we were all saved from the ravages of communism. Here, the outcome is less clear. Because of the way the story is told, it is clear in the filmmakers mind that terrorists are winning this war, or at least making a dent in our way of life. Because of the way the movie ends, it is unclear if they think we (members of the good old U.S.A.) are making headway against our 21st century worldwide adversary.
  
  Even without the metaphor, "Cloverfield" is an exciting afternoon at the theatre and, for people prone to seasickness, a wild and dizzying ride. If you choose to see this film, and discount the supplementary metaphor, this movie won't make much sense and will leave you frustrated. When you put all the parts together, you'll see it's a contemporary story told pretty well in the clothes worn a half-century in our past.
  
  
• Smart Marketing.. A Selfish Brat, A Solid Monster, and An Indestructible Camera.
  By AN8M401S8Y6DA on 2008-04-27
  From a Marketing aspect Cloverfield was a huge success. It cost 25 mil to make it and on opening weekend it grossed 40 mil domestically, which broke the record for a January release. It dropped strongly after that and went on to gross 80mil in the U.S.
  
  The film is all about Rob, as one reviewer on here mentioned (Puzzle Box), Rob could've been taken from the cast of the real world. We see more of Rob in the film then we do of the huge cool monster that decapitates the statue of liberty. At the beginning we see Rob with a hot girl, but, oh dear, now at his going away party a month later she shows up with another guy. They have a little falling out and the hot girl and her guy Travis leave, while Rob's last words are good luck tonight Travis. Rob's brother, his brother's girlfriend, and his best friend (who holds the camera) try to cheer him up, because even though all these people came to his party he is going to sulk in a corner and then go into his bedroom, this becomes a theme.
  
  All of a sudden Manhattan is attacked by the big cool monster mentioned above, and you guessed it Rob just can't let those be the last words he said to the hot girl. In a nut shell it goes like this: Dude, I like have to get to her dude. Everyone feels so much pity for the little drama going on nobody seems to help anyone around them that could have glass in their grills. SPOILER ALERT. Rob's brother dies, he kind of looks upset for a second but quickly focuses on the hot girl again. To console his brothers girl he says at least you didn't say good luck tonight Travis to him. Oh, there is another hot girl that gets bitten by something, Rob doesn't want to let her finish a soda because he's got to get to this girl he hooked up with once, soon her eyes start bleeding and she has to be killed by the military. Rob's best friend is upset cause he wanted to hit it but Rob basically tells them, um dudes we gotta go to my girl, so they go and feel sorry for him along the way, not thinking at all about their parents or the big picture.
  
  The best friend delivers corny one liners seconds after family members deaths and right after the hot girl he's trying to have sex with just got half eaten by a thing spawned from the beast. That's basically it, oh, and the girl he's gotten everyone killed trying to get too (even though there was a single file line out of the city by the military) was with another guy cause he didn't call her for months after they hooked up.
  
  The acting was actually good, but, was about a self absorbed, selfish guy who likes to say dude. The monster and the mayhem were also cool. If the movie didn't try to be so serious and went a 50s monster movie throw back with a real feel, then ok. Or, if you want to make it serious give people that are somewhat likable, which can be done with little or no words, less words would have worked better.
  
  Instead of Cloverfield or what should have been called Rob and it's hour and 15min run time I'd suggest another recent release, the black and white version of The Mist (Two-Disc Collector's Edition). It's wrapped in a 50's and 60's style monster movie along the lines of Night of the Living Dead (Millennium Edition), and is filled with metaphors for much deeper issues and characters you care about.
  
  
• Tedious
  By AY2MW9P28HQ5G on 2008-05-07
  For a movie that's under 90 mins this POS takes forever to end. Basically following around a bunch of unlikable NYC yuppies panicking and crying with a shaky cam. The monster is pretty much irrelevant and the whole thing could have been done with a natural disaster as the backdrop instead of the monster because ultimately it's just a story about what uninteresting people do during an emergency.
  
  
• Is this what the Black Smoke Monster really looks like?
  By A2MZEL71YTFJFX on 2008-01-18
  This is by far the most over-hyped movie I've seen ever. No wonder they made this movie mysterious in the beginning of last year. There's no real story here. I thought this movie was going to be a spin off of Lost series after the SWAN hatch imploded at the end of season 2 possibly releasing a part of the "Black Smoke Monster". A lot of other Lost fans thought so also. But I highly doubt that. It's just another re-hashed monster flick where some giant creature trashes Manhattan Island. Instead of the perspective of Army and Marine grunts, Air Force pilots, and scientists, it takes the perspective of a bunch of young yuppie New Yorkers as they try to survive the monster and fight off it's bug like minions They're probably like remoras on sharks or small birds on rhinos. We don't get an explanation of what the monster is or what its little bug looking minions are doing when they bite someone. The monster doesn't even look like the old Japanese Godzilla or the new American Godzilla from 1998. It's not H.P. Lovecraft's Call of Cthulhu or Voltron. Everyone has seen this type Monster movie before. There's nothing new in this film. It'll probably end up in the Svengoolie show on Saturday night. So don't waste your money on this movie in the weekend. In the later half of the movie after we discover that it was indeed a monster, I was rooting for it to eat the people up, bite their heads off, and tear up the L-trains and subway trains like King Kong and eat the transit riders up like a bag of Jelly Beans and M&Ms. The ending was very ridiculous. At least Beth and her ex-boyfriend should have survived and live happily ever after. The title was also corny. I thought "Cloverfield" was the code word for the movie not the actual title. They should have came up with a better title like "Escape from New York part 2", "Mars Attack 2: their pet left behind", or "It Came from the Sewers".
  
  
• The Monster Takes Manhattan
  By A18G7GG53G2X8A on 2008-01-18
  There are monster movies and then there's "Cloverfield," a film that many have correctly described as a cross between the "Godzilla" films and "The Blair Witch Project." Rather than conventional movie cameras and conventional movie camera tricks, a handheld camcorder is utilized for this film, meaning that the visuals are effectively reduced to shaky close ups, choppy cuts, and problems with lighting and focusing. But camera tricks are only part of what makes "Cloverfield" so incredible: here's a film that reinvents the grade-B atomic films of the 1950s, first be eliminating the cheesy science fiction of outer space aliens, undersea creatures, and genetic mishaps, second by including a plausible and tense character story. This movie is not about camp--it's all about panic, fear, and the terror of a monstrous giant destroying New York City.
  
  The film's real genius is in its mystery. Much like the characters, we too are completely in the dark about the situation, and we remain so even after the film ends. What exactly is this creature? Where did it come from? Why is it attacking? Since these questions are never answered, your guess is as good as mine. And that's exactly the way it should be, since the science-related explanations of films like "Godzilla," "Them!" "Mothra," and "It Came from Beneath the Sea" are so worn out and ridiculous. We don't even get a real sense of what this creature looks like, although we are treated to some brief glimpses and a silhouetted long shot near the end of the film. I'll spare you a description, simply because I want this review to be just as elusive and enticing as the film's ad campaign.
  
  The human story is appropriately simple and insignificant, given the fact that we only care about the action. Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) has received and accepted a job opportunity from Japan; his friend, Lily (Jessica Lucas), and his brother, Jason (Mike Vogel), see him off with a surprise party, one that would have been a blast were it not for Rob's would-be girlfriend, Beth (Odette Yustman) showing up with another man. Assigned the task of capturing testimonials with a camcorder is his friend, Hud (T.J. Miller)--he quickly forgets his assignment and begins filming everything, including the inevitable fight between Rob and Beth. Hud also begins following a girl named Marlena (Lizzy Caplan), who doesn't know anyone at the party that well and doesn't seem too comfortable with Hud or the camera.
  
  Everything comes to a grinding halt when the ground momentarily shakes, causing the power to fluctuate and an oilrig near the Statue of Liberty to collapse. The news reluctantly speculates that an earthquake has struck New York City. But the truth is quickly revealed, and at that point, all hell breaks loose; an explosion across the river sends up a massive fireball, forcing everyone at the party to run out of the building. Soon after, the head of the Statue of Liberty comes skidding down the street, and that's immediately followed by the collapse of a massive skyscraper. The resulting cloud of dust and debris engulfs everything, forcing Hud, Rob, Jason, Lily, and Marlena to take refuge in a convenience store. While there, Marlena says something to the effect of, "I saw it! It's alive!" No one has a moment to question her because ground-splitting footsteps are shattering the windows.
  
  This is only the first in a series of terrifying events documented by Hud, who never once switches the camera off. The Brooklyn Bridge is destroyed as thousands attempt to cross it. Smaller, scorpion-like creatures fall off the giant monster and begin attacking; we eventually learn that being bitten by one of them isn't a good thing. Military units are swamped, not only because of their depleting manpower, but also because of the number of injured civilians. As the city crumbles, Rob gets a frantic cell phone call from Beth, and he realizes that she's trapped within the city. Feeling guilty over the fight they had earlier, he vows to find and save her, no matter what. Hud and the others follow more out of fear than anything else, which is understandable since the thought of being separated in the middle of a disaster is horrifying.
  
  Some of the most frightening moments take place underground, with the main characters traveling through New York's subway system. Who knows what could be lurking in the dark corners of the tunnels, away from the noise and chaos on the surface? And even if they do make it, what will they find when they emerge? Will there be anything left to find? Will something be waiting to find them? It's this maddening sense of uncertainty that makes "Cloverfield" more than just a monster movie rehash: there's genuine suspense coursing all throughout, and for once, it's BECAUSE of the gigantic monster, not IN SPITE of it. You know this is true when Beth's apartment building is finally revealed--it's leaning against a neighboring building like a domino ready to fall.
  
  We occasionally see bursts of old camera footage showing Rob and Beth at Coney Island, which was effective given their current emotional drama. It was also effective for the movie as a whole; I instantly recognized the escapist potential of this film when I saw its first teaser trailer back in July, but even after months of insider rumors and speculation, I never once thought that I'd be using words like "brilliant" to describe it. But the reality is that it is brilliant: brilliant as a horror film, brilliant as a thriller, and brilliant as a reinvention of the monster movie. "Cloverfield" may actually be one of the greatest monster movies ever made, a taut, unnerving, and completely original fright fest that doesn't lose itself to campy science fiction. It's set a new standard: The monster movie that subsequent monster movies will be compared to.
  
  
• Extremely Compelling Monster Movie
  By A34D4KCP94ACJZ on 2008-01-25
  There are many things being said about Cloverfield and most of them are good. I don't want to retread many of the points other people have made, but because I saw this last night and absolutely loved it I'm probably going to cover some things that have already been said. Suffice to say, Cloverfield, along with perhaps the South Korean monster movie gem The Host, is without a doubt the best monster movie to come a long in a very long time. Were it not for the persistent "shaky" camera work criticisms it's getting, I would expect Cloverfield's reputation to enter the Jaws echelon in the coming years. It had reached that degree of horror and suspense for me but time will tell.
  
  Cloverfield is intentionally framed in a very unique way. The audience becomes aware that what they are watching is supposed to be real recovered footage taken on the film's main character's camera. His name is Rob Hawkins and some of the earlier footage on the camera shows him with his girlfriend Beth. The more recent footage shows a surprise going-away party in Manhattan that Rob's friends and his brother Jason threw for him after he got a promotion. He is ultimately relocating to Japan. We find that Rob is no longer with his girlfriend at the time of the party, and just as Rob's friend Hud (the guy filming most of Cloverfield) and his brother talk him into patching things up with Beth, something goes very wrong in Manhattan. What happens after we meet these people, and maybe even begin to care about them for 84 minutes, is where the horror begins. I'm not going to say anything else about the film, because it is entirely worth seeing without knowing anymore than I have already revealed.
  
  The comparison's to the William Castle-like marketing gimmicks of The Blair Witch Project a decade ago are fair comparisons in many respects, but given that movie's long-term unpopularity I think it is important to step in and acknowledge that Cloverfield is far different in many ways as well. I firmly believe it will have great longevity. It uses this sort of Cannibal Holocaust/Blair Witch Project style not as a way to market it to us as if it is real, but to merely place a monster movie in as realistic a frame as possible. For that, it does work. I don't think great acting was as necessary here for me because I wanted to believe it was real, so some of the acting that may have been bad was forgivable enough to forget. Although, Lizzy Caplan who played one of the main characters Marlena was actually very good. Call me a thrill-seeking cinephile searching hard for a scare, but I wanted to buy into Cloverfield and I was sold to it very quickly and very easily. No reason to be cynical when all I came to see was a fun monster movie. It is more than fair to say I got what I wanted.
  
  Many critics are also mentioning the parallels with the attacks on 9/11. I think it was Ebert who said the film "evokes" 9/11 and that is right on point. It does evoke feelings during those attacks and I'm not sure if Cloverfield would have been filmed the same way without it. For many young American's the only similar large scale tragedy we have seen was thru the lense of a news camera on the day of those attacks, and Cloverfield uses that effectively to force us to empathize with a city under attack by a gargantuan monster. In Cloverfield we get the news coverage, the exploding buildings, the frantic behavior in not knowing what is happening and what could happen next, the poisonous dust from collapsed buildings filling the streets, and perhaps most iconic of all was the destruction of another New York landmark, the Statue of Liberty, which is handled by this monster in the exact same way Conan the Barbarian handled Thulsa Doom.
  
  So there is more than one way to put this monster movie formula into a convincing paradigm and the makers of Cloverfield are quite resourceful in doing so. The film also somehow managed to tell a nice little story. There was a lot happening in Cloverfield and certainly more than enough to keep you very entertained for an hour and a half. It was a great cinematic experience and I offer my highest recommendation.
  
  
• FROM WENCE CLOVERFIELD CAME!!!!!
  By A26PEFWHKUHN7O on 2008-06-05
  *** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ***
  The origin of the Cloverfield monster is indeed hinted at,
  during the final scene of the film!!
  The scene where the two main-characters are on the ferris wheel.
  Before the camera pans to the girlfriend, it's shooting the ocean horizon,
  If you look closely (of if your television is the size of a space-station) you'll notice a comet/meteorite/satelite/something crash into the ocean in the distance.
  I've extensively debated the point of origin (space or the ocean)on the horror forums,
  and so far all signs could point to either.
  (I personally believe it came from space,
  because scientificly, the ocean wouldnt make sense.)
  Here's why I believe this:
  1. A satelite/whatever only now disturbing something that huge is implausible,
  as underwater eartquakes would have disturbed it millenia ago.
  2. Any earth-based creature breathes either air or water, has either lungs or gils, not both,
  and the creature from Cloverfield was clearly breathing air,
  which implies that it would eventually have to surface for oxygen.
  And something that huge would be nearly impossible to miss once it surfaced.
  3. There would have to be multiple creatures, for activities like...I don't know...reproduction.
  Making their presence all the more obvious.
  4. Not to mention that EVERYTHING that comes from the ocean requires fins, while this creature was clearly walking around on giant legs, a trait common to land creatures.
  5. An alien origin would nullify any earth-based logic.
  
  That being said:
  The movie's characters are soo believable,
  and you get so immersed in their initial conflict that you forget you're about to watch a monster flick.
  The shaky handi-cam adds to the realism, as does the lack of creature footage.
  You see it, but you only get a vague sense of what it looks like.
  You do however get a much better sense of what the spider-like flea-creatures that come off the behemoth look like,
  though again, you only get a vague sense of how their bites work.
  The character that is bit, is quickly ushered away before you get to see the outcome of the obvious infection.
  It was a really good monster flick, but it definitely felt incomplete.
  I know there's gonna be 2 more movies from different angles,
  and knowing that makes this one seem all the better.
  But all in all, very enjoyable.
  
  MORAL OF THE STORY:
  The bigger they are, the faster you should run!!
  
  
  
• Not overhyped, just underplanned.
  By A3E6QUA6PSIK31 on 2008-01-28
  The giant alien rips off the head of the statue of liberty from downtown manhattan. Downtown Manhattan, and not ellis island. The seemingly invincible giant alien/monster spews little clones of the arachnids from starship troopers which are not invincible. Add to that the fact that the movie seems like it was filmed by a fish flopping around on dry land, and we have a movie. The holes in time with no holes in story, the lack of story anyway, as the whole movie is based on character reaction, and the classic runny nose "I'm sooo scared" scene from the handheld camera, and we have a legendary source for bad-movie jokes.
  
  Aside from all that, the movie was ambitious. It was creative and outside the box. It attempted to show power and emotion in reality as opposed to romanticizing a story, and it's use of effects of taping over a previously recorded tape was a nice way to add to development.
  
  I say it's a completely bad movie, but it's still much more worth your admission price than several of the multiple oscar winners of the last few years. The kind of movie they attempted here should be watched, and remembered for their ambition to make a good movie that doesn't follow the standard formula. It shows that there are still good movies to come. I did enjoy it.
  
  
• SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!!
  By A2669LVTJJ4RJ on 2008-01-18
  Whatever you do, don't believe the hype. "Cloverfield" is a truly terrible movie, a piece of absolute garbage. The only reason I gave it one star is that Amazon's rating scale doesn't allow you to give negative (as in below zero) ratings.
  
  The worst part of the movie is the cinematography. "Cloverfield" is shot documentary-style through the point of view of some guy with a video camera. Not only does it make it impossible to see much of anything clearly, but the camera jerks around so much that it will give motion sickness to even those with the strongest of stomachs. Whoever thought that such an approach was a good idea was horribly, horribly mistaken.
  
  Even if they had used "normal" cinematography, the plot is non-existent. People bash the 1998 Matthew Broderick version of "Godzilla" all the time, but at least there was some semblance of a plot and some sort of explanation for why the monster existed at all. "Cloverfield" offers none of that. Worse still, there is no attachment between the viewer and the characters--you don't care whether they survive or not, and you know they won't from the very way the movie opens.
  
  All through the movie, I kept thinking, "Maybe the monster itself will be cool." Wrong. It takes forever for them to show a good shot of it, and when they do, even that is a major disappointment. All in all, I wish I could recover the money and the hour and a half of my life that I wasted on this movie.
  
  
• One of the Worst Movie I have seen - period - and I got sick
  By A2JF2VBIYDNJ1I on 2008-01-27
  I just finished watching this movie at the UA Cinema in Hong Kong. I left about half way. My wife stayed. The entire movie was shot with a camcorder (or envisioned to be) so throughout the entire movie you are watching - constant shaking and upside down images, it was someone walking and running with the camcorder on. Not a good way to make a movie that anyone would be able to watch without getting sick. I tried to watch this movie and got sick due to the perceived "motion" of the camcorder. The story is poor and the actors are all novices. I thought the National Tresures movie I recently watchere in this same Cinema was bad, but this one is much much worse. Totally lack of story and lack of any conclusions. I would not recommend anyone with a sound mind to have to sit through this bad movie. It is not worth 5 cents.
  
  
• WTF!
  By A28VGWU4UGZ89H on 2008-03-26
  First of all, this was a blatant rip off of the Blair Witch Project. Every second of this movie was a consistent irritation to my visual senses. It was excruciatingly painful to even try to watch this movie with the camera shaking and panning all over the place. America is so hooked on reality tv that this was just the next logical step that shouldn't have been taken. When the Blair Witch opened I ran to the theater with expectations of cinematic greatness. What resulted was a splitting headache and severe stomach cramps. There were actually a couple girls in the audience that puked right behind me and several people who walked out cursing like a sailor at a brothel. Fast forward to Cloverfield, this time we spend three quarters of the movie wondering what the hell was attacking New York City and the last quarter of the movie silently wishing to God I had spent my $8.50 on Alvin & The Chipmunks. Don't get me wrong, there were really cool parts to this movie, the creatures were pretty cool... whenever you see them, and the action was intense at times, but the camera! I would have had a great time if I had the ability to shake my head with enough velocity to match the jittering camera sequences as they were running through the streets dodging debris and other deadly obstacles, instead I had to look at the floor or close my eyes and listen to the dialogue because the filming techniques caused severe headache and stomach cramps. And the ending...OMG! The one cool thing about this movie was the way the director illustrated that the content of the movie was actually the recording from the video camera that one of the actors is carrying and using during the attacks by the mysterious super-monster. Apparently the camera is found after the attacks are over and viewed from a television in the war room of a military installation. At any rate I left the theater extremely pissed off at Hollywood and cursing the writer's strike and promising myself that I will never purchase the DVD unless an alternate "non-stomach churning/head-splitting version" of the movie is released. Enjoy.
  
  
• BIGGEST CON GAME!!
  By ABFK1S664HIPU on 2008-04-24
  I just watched Cloverfield. I'm not saying it's the worst movie I have ever seen, but I can't remember when I hated one more.
  Why the film makers thought it was a innovation to film it with a hand held camcorder(BLAIR WITCH PROJECT) is beyond me.
  But, I guess my main objection is one of us isn't "getting it".
  In the "monster" movies of the past, there was a reason. Atomic bomb, bad experiments, etc. etc.. In this movie, there are no why's, from where(?) and how come.
  Also, is it a law that only stupid people can be in the modern horror movies. You know, the ones who go back for cat, or piece of jewelery or something insignificent worth risking your life for.
  One other final note. The movie is 83 mins.( way to long), but 11 mins are the credits.
  I wonder if people would flocked to the theaters or rent the movie if they're told the truth. "This movie was shot on a camcorder, you hardly ever see the monster, you get to watch a bunch of stupid people run around NY for 72 mins."
  
  
  

• Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem (Unrated Edition)
• Jumper (Single-Disc Edition)
• Rambo (Special Edition + Digital Copy)
• 10,000 B.C.
• There Will Be Blood (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)