Cloverfield (2008)

Mike Matei / January 23rd, 2008

Cloverfield

Comments

  • A.Regular-Person

    April 12, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    Eh. I would’ve done better without the camera. I forgot the character holding the camera, but i thought he was pretty funny. If it’s a giant monster movie though, i’m interested. the camera was shaky and slightly annoying.

    I liked the parasites, they were pretty cool, but i’d like to have seen more of the monster.

  • Shikster

    April 27, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    I did not like this movie. It should have been called Blair Witch meets Godzilla.

  • djdeluxe76

    May 12, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I thought this movie was awesome. But I guess you really need a big screen TV and most importantly a good DTS surround sound. I may be biased hat way because this was the first movie I watched on my new 52 inch plasma screen with a completely new sound theater. Regarding my friends I’d say 2 out of 3 didn’t like it. Oh well at least it was ten times better than then Emmerich’s Godzilla.

    • January 26, 2014 at 10:59 am

      same for me i loved this movie and the bluray extras with the tracker! the whole block herd me watch this movie and thats the only way to watch the movie the sound is just amazing in it and alot of people dont even realize just watching that on a basic tv

  • iamspider

    May 20, 2010 at 8:12 am

    The movie was only ok…. I did find the constant hand-held camera throughout the whole thing nauseating over time. Then, after all the buildup and anticipation… you get to see the monster’s crotch. Right on. Kind of a waste of time. Remember Pumpkinhead? Remember how you got to see the monster; like the monster actually got screen time? Granted, it wasn’t a giant monster, but it was an underrated movie to say the least, and while the run time of the film was rather short, the monster features nearly about a fifth of that time, ever evolving and morphing. More interesting than the hype and poorly built suspense of Cloverfield, waiting to see what this terror of New York looks like, only to catch a two-second glimpse of the asexual monster’s crotch. The only thing less exciting than that is perhaps the monster’s motives… whatever they were.

  • kylenorthrup

    June 13, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    I respect your decision James, but personally, I loved this movie, it was so much fun, its even on my top 10 movies of all time, and I saw this on my tv, and at the time, i wasn’t aware of any hype.

  • that1person

    July 20, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    Well I can understand your opinion, but that was a great movie. It shows what most people would be during that kinda crisis. I love the ending and the begining when they say when and where the tape was found. I think it needs a sequel to explain what was going on with other people or what happens after the dood and the chick die. Another good idea for the sequel would be if they did the same concept of how they did Twister where the two scientist are trying to get as close as possible to the twister but in this case trying to get as close as possible to the monster. It would be cool if they had some news reporters trying to do a tracking report on the monster. While it was traveling around.

  • veyn

    August 8, 2010 at 2:31 am

    I liked the movie quite a bit, but I hated the central characters. I never really connected with any of them and the girl they were trying to save was just some bimbo from my perspective. She had no depth, which didn’t give me the incentive to want her to be saved.

    I do think it would have been better as a regular movie and not a “fake real” type movie. If it had the same kind of camera movement as District 9, I think it would have been greatly improved.

  • vertigoelectric

    August 14, 2010 at 4:40 am

    I skimmed over some of the comments here and noticed the complaints about “not seeing the monster” and poor character development. I think that’s one of the brilliant things about this movie, and I can explain why.

    Normally in movies we follow a handful of characters who, though perhaps may seem random at first, eventually and collectively make up the building blocks that is the story’s plot. As the movie progresses you follow these seemingly typical people and when it all comes down to it these people end up saving the day… or something like that.

    Well, think of a movie where the destruction of a city is at hand, and all of those no-name actors are running through the streets… extras… civilians. We never get their story. We don’t see it from their point of view. We follow the heroes… or villains. What happens to the little man?

    Cloverfield is the little man’s story. He’s no hero. There’s nothing special about him or the people he’s with. Cloverfield is not about the important characters. It’s about following the people you usually take for granted in movies like these.

    Additionally, Cloverfield is specifically designed and structured to be presented as though it were truly a real recording of actual events captured on some random guy’s camera. You don’t have character development because the characters are just common people without anything particularly special about them.

    Honestly, it’s hard to explain, but I think a lot of the things people count as flaws in this movie are not really flaws at all, but rather realistic elements that makes a movie like this so great. It’s a movie that isn’t supposed to look like a movie, so the normal expectations of what a movie ought to have (or not have) have to be trimmed away in order to appreciate it for what it is meant to be.

  • August 18, 2010 at 1:30 am

    I’m a monster movie kind of fan. Especially GIANT monster’s. This movie disappointed me, and I can’t say I didn’t expect it because of the previews. I like these kinds of movies following the monster around, watching what he does as he does it. I’m not quite so interested in the humans. I wanna see the monster break shit, not look at the after math.

    I can tell you this. The point of the movie that REALLY killed it for me is when retard Mc. Spacky pants said “HEY LETS GO SAVE MUH GIRL”.
    A) Not a super hero movie.
    B) Fucking retard who gives merit to the sterilization of the criminals and insane people.
    C) Shoulda been abandoned by the rest of the folks.

    Now, that part of the movie wouldn’t have been so bad if on their way they got eaten by the monster or it’s lice. And then the movie focused exclusively on the monster.

  • WatchmenFTW

    September 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Film was okay, not briliant. I’d give it a 4/10.
    But the monster created was pretty interesting, kinda like that spider/insect thing from Star Wars Episode II.

  • March 21, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    these fucking adds are killing me

  • SpiritSoldier

    June 16, 2011 at 12:41 am

    Great movie, one of my favs, and would be great if there is a sequel, ive read the monster ties in with Cthulhu mythos, so that would be cool.

  • fenrir1179

    August 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Uuuughhh. cloverfield was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
    I guess it was the shithole dialogue.. sooo dumb…
    Now I do agree with James that the movie somewhat needed to be made.
    Well what would have made this movie 90,683 times better is if they would have brocken up the bullshit monotony of the 1st person view with a 3rd person perspective now and then.
    Yes it was supposed to be all 1st person, but why did it have to be all crap.
    I’m glad it in NO WAY tied in with H.P. Lovecraft . it’s just a brokeback godzilla rip off.
    This is one of very few movies that made me pissed off when I left.
    —F

  • Cyclopess

    January 9, 2012 at 7:32 am

    You bring up dialogue but not the awful acting ?

  • HorazStCruz

    March 21, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    Some of the shots were really well made.
    It has a lot of flaws, but it has at least, some great intensity feeling. And if had to pick between US’s Godzilla and Cloverfield, well… sums it up pretty much.

  • Senna4ever

    May 21, 2012 at 5:06 am

    So bored of these “found footage films” now, they are all the exact same film.
    Screaming idiots running around in the dark with a wobbly camera where you can not see what is going on.
    It’s inane.

    No characters to enjoy, you can’t see anything.
    Why do people want to watch a movie where you can’t see anything. Does that not negate what a movie is about?

    There is only one found footage movie that was even halfway decent and that was the one that started the genre in the first place…

    Cannibal Holocaust. (uncut)
    A little controversial yes. But at least it had characters and you could SEE what was going on.

    And I bet you thought I was going to mention Blair Witch…which was another inane film with screaming idiots that run around in the dark where you can’t see anything.

    My advice to people that watch these films.
    Save yourself some money and buy a camera yourself, then just run around in the dark with it and scream while recording.
    Then play it back. It’s cheaper then going to the movies to watch nothing and you can make as many as you like.

  • Iron65

    October 12, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Nice point of view.. Hey James/Mike, what the hell with all those spammer upstairs?! they just came to botter in your page!

  • October 25, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    …James I have one simple reqwst why wnte you show eney footieg

  • November 1, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    I liked the movie so much!

  • CrimsonTHRAK

    October 12, 2014 at 3:32 am

    The movie was pretty good. I enjoy found footage films. Never understood the hype that was apart of this, but it seemed to be a good way to promote the movie. I’d wish that they showed more of how the monster looked in the movie.
    Btw, have you ever seen the movie Enter the void? It is a point of view film, but its about death. The camera work is amazing. Very trippy movie.

Leave a Reply

Around the Web