Metascore
64 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 26 out of 37
  2. Negative: 4 out of 37
  1. Reviewed by: Olly Richards
    100
    A dazzling experiment that paid off immensely, this is cinematic pleasure at its purest. One caveat: If they ever make a sequel, we're taking two stars back.
  2. 91
    It puts human faces on the victims of mass destruction, faces that might easily have been yours or mine, staring down the maw of something we don't understand.
  3. We've never sat through anything with Cloverfield's subjective sting. You'd have to be tougher than I was not to be blown sideways by it.
  4. Reviewed by: Nathan Lee
    90
    Cloverfield never stops to identify the why, whence, or whereto of its rampaging meanie-this relentless thriller stops for nothing-but as for what to call it, behold . . . al-Qaedzilla!
  5. 89
    Cloverfield is the most intense and original creature feature I've seen in my adult moviegoing life, and that's coming from a guy who knows his Gojira from his Gamera and his Harryhausen from his Honda. Cloverfield isn't a horror film – it's a pure-blood, grade A, exultantly exhilarating monster movie.
  6. Cloverfield, a surreptitiously subversive, stylistically clever little gem of an entertainment disguised, under its deadpan-neutral title, as a dumb Gen-YouTube monster movie, makes the convincingly chilling argument that the world will end -- or, at least, Manhattan will crumble -- with a bang and a whimper.
  7. 83
    It's a sharp and vivid film, filled with moments of tremendous ingenuity and characterized by a persistent avoidance of the expected tropes. It's far scarier than the big-budget remakes of "Godzilla" and "King Kong," more engaging than "I Am Legend," more human than a sackful of slasher films.
  8. 75
    Mercifully, at 84 minutes the movie is even shorter than its originally alleged 90-minute running time; how much visual shakiness can we take? And yet, all in all, it is an effective film, deploying its special effects well and never breaking the illusion that it is all happening as we see it.
  9. It's dumb but quick and dirty and effectively brusque, dispensing with niceties such as character.
  10. 75
    There are a few surprises lurking in Cloverfield, and director Matt Reeves has an uncanny ability to time his jolts and scare when you least expect it.
  11. Manhattan has always been a fat target for apocalypse filmmakers, but with its 9/11-inspired imagery, Matt Reeves' breathlessly fast-paced Cloverfield is going to resonate with New York audiences in a way no other horror film has.
  12. Produced by "Lost" and "Alias" mastermind J.J. Abrams, Cloverfield has been one of the more interesting experiments in large-scale guerrilla filmmaking.
  13. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    75
    The genre may be old news, but the skillfully made Cloverfield offers a heart-racing experience with plenty of chills, thrills and exhilaration.
  14. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    75
    Cloverfield is content to be a creature feature; that's what makes it bearable and what keeps it from greatness. The genre, not the script, does the psychological heavy lifting.
  15. 75
    Cloverfield's gritty, in-your-face style is uncompromising. If you're looking for a nice, clean movie filmed with a steadycam, you'll have to look elsewhere.
  16. Reviewed by: Eric Alt
    75
    It's not the life-changing movie experience the intense viral marketing attention would lead you to think it is, but its decision to focus on ground-level humanism rather than epic disaster is what separates it from the pack.
  17. Cloverfield is an exercise in realism that lacks reality's broader and richer context. Or, put another way, the experiment is artful, but it ain't art.
  18. Reviewed by: Andy Spletzer
    75
    When the monster shows up, pretty early in the film, everything becomes much more interesting, as it smashes buildings in midtown Manhattan like some sort of Rudy Giuliani, 9/11 nightmare.
  19. It's been a while since we've had a good monster movie, and while Cloverfield probably won't give you sleepless nights, it will certainly keep you awake in the theater.
  20. Think "Godzilla Unplugged" -- with chillingly effective results.
  21. 70
    It's a thoroughly intense and mostly entertaining movie.
  22. 70
    Cloverfield is a vastly old-fashioned piece of work, creaking with hilarious contrivance. I was thrilled, for instance, to hear someone actually speak the line "It's alive!"
  23. 70
    The narrative conceit requires a fair amount of indulgence as the story progresses, but the fleeting, incomplete glimpses of the monster early on prove the old dictum of B movie auteur Val Lewton that a momentary image can have greater impact than a prolonged one.
  24. Long on style and technique, short on substance and plot.
  25. 63
    Now that the fanboy hype has cleared, we can see Cloverfield for what it is: borrowed inspiration, trite screenwriting and amateurish acting all in the service of a ballsy idea -- that a horror movie could maybe, just maybe, have a soul.
  26. Much scampering, yelling, quaking and crying is required of the actors, and they acquit themselves well enough, even with oozing fake wounds and prop rebars piercing their shoulder blades.
  27. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    60
    Despite a first reel entirely devoted to establishing characters, Cloverfield is basically a line-'em-up, pick-'em-off horror movie that's effective without being either viscerally frightening or emotionally moving. Watching it is like going through a car wash: You come out of it thoroughly Cloverfield-ized, but essentially unchanged.
  28. 50
    Combines unpleasantness and stupidity to a degree that would be difficult to match unless you were stuck in bed with a case of the shingles while being forced to watch "The Ghost Whisperer."
  29. 50
    An efficient but shallow fright show.
  30. 50
    While the entertainment value of Cloverfield is highly negotiable, it's clear that Abrams has consciously aligned himself with those filmmakers who have used the template of a grade-B monster/invasion movie -- Don Siegel, George Romero, Steven Spielberg -- as a stealth vessel for social commentary.
  31. 50
    Adept at wringing maximum suspense and might have reached the heights of the Korean monster film "The Host" but for the limitations of the camcorder ploy. While it injects the film with a run-and-gun urgency, the device grows tiresome and ultimately leaves the film shortchanged.
  32. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    50
    Mind you, I don't begrudge the creators of even a junk-food movie like Cloverfield the fun they had demolishing New York one more time.
  33. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    Despite its indie-flavored shooting style, first-rate visual effects, reasonable intensity factor, nihilistic attitude and post-9/11 anxiety overlay, this punchy sci-fier is, in the end, not much different from all the marauding creature features that have come before it.
  34. No movie this year will better embody Macbeth's description of life itself: "a tale ... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
  35. 30
    It pretends to examine how self-absorbed we are as a culture, only to be consumed by its own self-absorption. It's also badly constructed, humorless and emotionally sadistic .
  36. Like too many big-studio productions, Cloverfield works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt. Rarely have I rooted for a monster with such enthusiasm.
  37. Reviewed by: John Anderson
    30
    Cloverfield is a relentless, I-thought-my-eyeballs-were-bleeding exercise in visual disorientation.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 701 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. I admit the movie was a crazy, thrilling ride. However, just because "Cloverfield" was filmed in first person perspective doesn't mean it is a good movie. Full Review »
  2. TimT.
    3
    I thought the special effeects were excellent, but i didn' like how the storyline was or the ending. I also did not like that the movie was a video cam and even the people behind me said it made them dizzy. Full Review »
  3. 7
    This right here is a very under-rated movie. It was a very cool and successful expeiriment that I thought did exceedingly well. It not only kept my attention and stayed interesting throughout the whole thing, it began a new era of film. It brought the idea of making the movie look like it was home videoed to the attention of the film industry. I also love the producer(J.J. Abrams) and the director did well with this movie too(Matt Reeves). So after all of that about how good it is your probably asking yourself, "why did he give it a 7/10?" Well the movie isn't completely perfect. I thought for one it could have been a bit longer. It only being like one hour and 10 minutes was kinda a let down. Also, I know it was like home videoed but there was a little too much zooming in and out and shaking of the camera. It didn't have the best angles either. It also was hard to see I feel like. The only time you can watch it is if your in a dark area because in a lot of the parts the glare makes it hard to see the screen and whats going on. One more thing is the actors. They didn't do the best job of acting in this. I guess most of them were just begginning actoras and actresses but they could have done a little better. The only one that did a professional job was Lizzy Caplin(Marlena). She was pretty good in it but then again she has been in a couple of movies before this one. She's not the best acteress though for sure. There is many others better than her, no defense Lizzy. I guess T.J. Miller(Hud) had done a prett y good job too. He had also been in a few movies before too. So those are a few things that this movie lacks and if they make a remake... add these please. So this movie is a pretty good movie with a good plotline and amazing special effects. I highly reccommend you see it. Full Review »