Review: Cloverfield

Hello 2008.

Just watched this (£3 in HMV lol) and thought it was very good. Surprisingly good. The characters are risible, but that must have been on purpose so you don't get too attached.

I hope they don't make that sequel, it sits pretty well on its own.

Just watched this.
And it's exactly what you think it's going to be - monster smashes shit up, hero character struggling to save heroine, personal conflicts are resolved, secondary characters bite the dust, faceless army dudes with "Marines, we are LEAVING" all over them.
I liked the fact you didn't have the typical explanation for what and why yet everything else was formula for this genre.
But at the end of the day, it's nothing new. Enjoyable, yes. But reinventing anything or doing anything new? Nope.
Loud, noisy, hard to see at times but still just handsome twentysomethings in peril working through character beats in a thousand other monster-smash movies. Popcorn flick, which is fair enough but it's being hailed as something other than Abercrombie & Fitch vs Godzilla.
And do you really need 30mins of pretty people before shit gets smashed?
I dunno, I'm bored sick of Handsome Man in Peril. I want proper films about grown-ups, stories with meat to them that you can discuss rather than "Yeah, that bit with the building was cool...let's get pizza"
*shrugs*
And they wouldn't survive the helicopter crash.

Nope, me neither. Can't see Godzilla fighting Mechagodzilla without thinking 'there's two seriously sweaty guys thwapping bits of rubber at each other'. I blame the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.

BTW I can't stand those old Godzilla B-Movies. Two grown men fighting in rubber suits? Hmm nah.

The more I think about it, the more I liked this movie. It's odd - normally I'll settle for a compressed movie format if I'm watching on the PC, but I want to see this in as high quality as possible to compensate for the shaky-cam. Glad it wasn't too long either - you just see what the people would see, and it's goddam frustrating when they're stuck hidden away from the monster right in the middle. It makes up for it after that though. The use of casual technology was excellent.

A half-decent monster movie that doesn't patronise or insult. Who'd have thunk it eh?

Argh! Double postings!!

Apparently the actor holding the camera did about a third of the overall filming, half of which made it into the final film.

Apparently the actor holding the camera did about a third of the overall filming, half of which made it into the final film.

I like the idea that all these people are filming each other, but only one of them is the story we get to see.

If you stop and think about how it was done, it's really quite technically complicated. Was the actor carrying the camera? Was the cameraman the actor? How exactly do you frame and direct exact shots when using a handheld camera? Like I said, it feels weird that there was even a director.

I'll watch this again on DVD but I doubt it'll have the same impact as it did in the cinema.

Enjoyed this quite a bit. I can't get my head around how they did some of the shots though - epic effects through a grainy camera. Does it make it easier that they can lower the quality a tiny bit, or harder because the camera isn't fixed? Quite impressive.

Is this coming out on DVD? And when?

Wow, I hadn't come across anyone who didn't love this movie til now. I thought it was awesome; perfect in every way. It's put me off watching movies I know will suck, now - I want everything to be as good as Cloverfield.

Enjoyed it and I liked the monsters, but overall it was a bit ... average.

Plus I get motion sickness after about 40 minutes and had to keep closing my eyes during the boring bits.

Ignoring a couple of dumb decisions and coincidences (it is a giant monster movie after all) it's pretty fun and intense. Just like 28 Days Later though, there's a definitive cut off point and everything after that (the last five minutes, as mentioned) are surplus, which actually cheapen the movie IMHO.

"The fleeting shots of the monster (the bridge attack, the glimpse behind the building, the media footage) works brilliantly"

I agree on that and i agree that not showing everything works. I just think there wasnt quite enough hidden monster.

"your imagination fills in the gaps"

That only works to an extent. At some point you want to see the full scale of the carnage, it's only hinted at at the end when the camera is on the ground and you see whats left of New York behind.

"I didn't need to know where it came from"

I sort of agree with that. I did want to see how it ended though.

"I was just content in seeing it lay waste to NYC. Thought the camcorder device worked perfectly IMHO."

In terms of realism it worked brilliantly, and by realism i mean when you give a camcorder to an idiot and tell him to run, you're going to get a fucking annoying shakey-cam film. It was just like watching a family video. Little shits running around causing chaos while daddy drunkenly stomps around stopping only to shag the furniture.
The little creatures were vicious little fuckers. They got the biggest reaction in the cinema.

Nope, I'm sticking to my guns on this one. The reason I loved it is because it refused to show any more than it had to (until the last 5 mins). The fleeting shots of the monster (the bridge attack, the glimpse behind the building, the media footage) works brilliantly: your imagination fills in the gaps. I didn't need to know where it came from, I was just content in seeing it lay waste to NYC. Thought the camcorder device worked perfectly IMHO.

I dont need anything like that either. I like that the film was grounded in realism (as much as it could be) and if they could give another viewpoint that would add something, even if was just more of the media footage playing in the store. The camcorder, while it added panic and intensity, was also very limiting in it's viewpoint.

"Hi i'm JJ Abrams and i'd like to show you my monster"

That's my new favourite chat-up line.

I don't agree with your point about DVD extras being needed to fill in the gaps and give an explanation. I don't need that stuff. I've seen all that in a thousand movies before. I don't need to know it was leaked toxic waste that created the monster, I don't need to see an inept President sweating the decision, I don't need to see Bruce Willis quipping as he drives a taxi up the monster's legs. Leave the exposition to lesser movies: less is more in this case.

But yeah, I could have done without the last scene, in which JJ 'shows us his monster'. Overkill.

Well that was ... intense. I'm glad i didnt sit at the front of the cinema, it would have been sensory overload.
So what did i think of it? I'm undecided. I didnt walk out of the cinema feeling i'd been robbed but i didnt come out with a big smile on my face either.
There are two ways you can look at this film and neither really impress. Firstly you can look at it as a drama. The main 3 or 4 characters are never off-screen due to this being filmed entirely on camcorder and there story is ... well it's exciting but theyre not the most interesting bunch in any way. Another problem with the story is that it's incomplete. Essentially this film is a video-tape documentary, that means no explanations, no ending. Monster attacks, people run away, film ends when the tape runs out. This could and hopefully will be remedied by many many extras on the DVD showing things from another viewpoint. God knows shakey-cam was annoying as fuck by the end of the film and quite limiting.
Secondly you could look at it as a monster film, in which case it's a missed oppurtunity because the monster isn't on screen very much and when it is, it's obviously not filmed from the best angles, apart from a gratuitous "Hi i'm JJ Abrams and i'd like to show you my monster" shot at the end.
As for the monster itself, it's an ugly fucker but it will never rival King Kong or Godzilla because it's so non-descript. JJ supposedly wanted to create THE monster for the new century and on that front he fails. I see Cloverfield being forgotten about within 2 years because there is simply nothing to hold onto.
This strikes me as a film with an identity crisis and it comes down to this question. If you're going to make a film with a huge fucking monster that absolutely lays waste to Manhattan, do your audience really want you to focus mainly on a character story?
It's not a bad film, it's reasonably good at what it tries to do but you've got to ask whether what it's trying to do is worth it.

Eh, I'm the opposite. Got absolutely no belly for three hour long windfests at the moment. I'm sure TWBB is awesome, and I'll see it another day, but I need something more immediate at the moment. Cloverfield is just that. It's like someone hitting you in the face with a frying pan (only the frying pan has a picture of a monster on it).

Oh I've no doubt it's done well, I just seem to have lost interest in these event movies of late - no idea why. I stood there in Blockbuster looking at "Death Proof" and thought 'Nope, just don't care enough to watch'. There Will Be Blood - watching that tomorrow and holy lord am I excited. Monster-Smash is ok, just want something more right now

"seen it endlessly before"

Not like this you haven't. Read quite a good review recently that mentions the fact that, in general, people are now quite untrusting of professionally shot news footage - it's the shaky cameraphone footage taken from Ground Zero that really shows it like it is. It definitely taps into that feeling, that what you're seeing is raw and untouched and more real.

It won't change the world - it's just a really great monster movie.

I don't know why but I'm just not overly excited about a "monster smashes shit up" movie, seen it endlessly before. I am pleased I'm not Matt Reeves though, every review and net-nerd is talking about JJ Abrahms as though he directed, starrred and wrote it

I'm waiting to go and see this but i know those fuckwits from The Sun will put up big spoiler pictures before it arrives in UK cinema and ruin the whole thing.

Thought I might add this:
Click here

Post credits easter egg. Awesome.