Paramount Pictures | Release Date: January 18, 2008
6.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 931 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
586
Mixed:
107
Negative:
238
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
MikeS.Jan 19, 2008
If you have to watch this abysmal film...sit in the very back...the constant shaking camera will make you puke...the monster is awesome...I wish it was filmed in an alternative style more complacent with my stomach cause I might have enjoyed If you have to watch this abysmal film...sit in the very back...the constant shaking camera will make you puke...the monster is awesome...I wish it was filmed in an alternative style more complacent with my stomach cause I might have enjoyed it otherwise. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
5
grandpajoe6191Sep 17, 2011
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.
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
5
SMcJul 21, 2008
Biggest pile of shit in my life, got to the point where it could have been a 7/10 then just falls over and dies.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
DaveM.Nov 28, 2009
Cloverfield is a Blair Witch version of a monster flick featuring a very silly looking monster. The viral marketing campaign was far more clever than the movie itself. Enough with these shaky-cam films already!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
kronMar 19, 2011
Clover field is what I call ok and boring. Its cliched and not that scary I mean the first 30 minutes of the movie was just love and drama. Although It does borrow some scary elements like not showing the monster it doesn't work. Rather thanClover field is what I call ok and boring. Its cliched and not that scary I mean the first 30 minutes of the movie was just love and drama. Although It does borrow some scary elements like not showing the monster it doesn't work. Rather than being creepy its annoying. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
WestSiderJan 23, 2008
Cloverfield has many good elements...but the camera work was not one of them. Perhaps they should have used some conventional angles to move the story along and show some of the bigger events in physical perspective? Also the Cloverfield has many good elements...but the camera work was not one of them. Perhaps they should have used some conventional angles to move the story along and show some of the bigger events in physical perspective? Also the characterization was nil...I agree with the Times review that at a certain point I was rooting for the monster...but that is what you get when you use all of 5-10 minutes to develop the main characters. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
GaryP.Mar 1, 2008
Cloverfield was a big dissapointment for me. The story begins with a farewell party which is extremely dull and gives no insight into the plot. You actually wonder if you came to the correct film. Although it gets much better when the actual Cloverfield was a big dissapointment for me. The story begins with a farewell party which is extremely dull and gives no insight into the plot. You actually wonder if you came to the correct film. Although it gets much better when the actual action seems to start, it is a poorly executed film in my opinion with too much expensive CGI and absolutely no plot. The idea is good, and the camera work would be realistic to that situation but it is extremely hard to follow the action at times, which defeats the point of watching it. It is basically people running around Manhattan manically trying not to get viscerated by the monster whilst giving you a visual assault on the eyes. It is one of those films that you desperately want to find something to get into story wise because it has some obvious quality, but when it ends you realise that there is no story and know less than you did when the film started. There is no beginning or ending and nothing to follow story wise through the film. A good film must convey it's message to the audience. Cloverfield did nothing. I really wanted to the monster to win because it would have seen some action, such is the lack of plot. Visuals: 9 Entertainment: 6 Plot: 2 Value for Money: 3 I would not recommend seeing this. It is destined for the £2.99 bargain bin at Morrisons. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
EzekialApr 6, 2008
Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla? It was entertaining but at the end you are left confused and somewhat angry. The movie leaves out way to many pieces of information for my liking. Decent overall though worth a rent.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChristineM.May 24, 2008
The camera work was very jumpy but that was to be expected. I was very dissapointed that in the end they offered NO explanation as to what happened even after it was obvious they found the video after the fact. It left to uch open to debate The camera work was very jumpy but that was to be expected. I was very dissapointed that in the end they offered NO explanation as to what happened even after it was obvious they found the video after the fact. It left to uch open to debate as far as what actually happened. I feel like watching this was a waste of my time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
CrisL.May 25, 2008
Visual affects brilliant although the story was very ordinary ,Left in suspense through the film and it just cut off with no ending. The first person's view I did not like.I walked away feeling "what a wast of my time".
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
NoahJan 18, 2008
Great monster, but the shaky camera ruined it. I understand that they were trying to make it look like it was shot on someone's home camera, but they couldn't ever keep the camera still for more than 2 seconds. I got motion Great monster, but the shaky camera ruined it. I understand that they were trying to make it look like it was shot on someone's home camera, but they couldn't ever keep the camera still for more than 2 seconds. I got motion sickness and had to spend about half of the movie listening with my eyes closed so that I wouldn't puke. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DarenM.Jan 19, 2008
Simply put, Blair Witch videography meets War of the Worlds alien attack action. If you can handle the nausiating camera angles and swings and the rediculously stubborn characters which will cause you to curse at them for their stupidity, Simply put, Blair Witch videography meets War of the Worlds alien attack action. If you can handle the nausiating camera angles and swings and the rediculously stubborn characters which will cause you to curse at them for their stupidity, then this is a flick worth seeing simply for it's special effects and occasional creepy shock value. With little gore (PG13) but acceptable suspense, surprises and alien attacks, it does satisfy a bored movie goer. I would rate this "wait for the DVD" and then watch it at home in the dark with the audio turned way up. "We've got a bite!" Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChrisK.Jan 23, 2008
Being a fan of this sort of thing I went to the opening midnight showing- it was so packed full I was stuck in the second row and after about 20 minutes was getting a headache from the hand held camera work. I stood in the back so I was glad Being a fan of this sort of thing I went to the opening midnight showing- it was so packed full I was stuck in the second row and after about 20 minutes was getting a headache from the hand held camera work. I stood in the back so I was glad it wasn't too long. This movie is Blair witch meets Godzilla narrated by a nerdy guy helping his friend try to save his girlfriend. If I actually believed this guy loved her then it might have worked. Special effects were OK but not enough monster. Personally I felt this film could've been a lot better if it used traditional filmmaking techniques - you barely see the creature(s?) and there is no soundtrack so much of the drama is missing. Has all the elements for a sequel which could be much better and answer a few questions. I'm glad to see monsters making a comeback instead of psychos like SAW. If I want psychos I can just turn on the news if I want giant creatures causing destruction I go to the movies so for that reason I gave it a 6. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AlbinGFeb 3, 2008
Firstly, Jay G. All the opinions which you dismissed had perfectly valid complaints. Just because it is handcam doesn't mean continuity can be cast aside. And The Blair Witch Godzilla aproject is a very good description of this movie. Firstly, Jay G. All the opinions which you dismissed had perfectly valid complaints. Just because it is handcam doesn't mean continuity can be cast aside. And The Blair Witch Godzilla aproject is a very good description of this movie. Home made feel footage but with a monster terrorizing a city. And the fact that you have dismissed all their opinions and pronounced that they can't be critics since they don't agree with you is just absurd. Now. I knew what this movie would entail before i got there. Hand held cam style footage of a group of people in the aftermath of a city destroyed bya monster. And i got just that. But it wasn't at all entertaining. Firstly, the only reason the story continued was one guys illogical and unreasonable need to go BACK into the city. I wonder how this will turn out? Couldn't they have stuck with a survival theme? Running from the monster to get out of the city? Instead the monster turns into a foot note in the plot. The camera work was bad. That is all i can say. Just because it's a handycam doesn't mean it can't be pointed at interesting things now and then. Unless one of the miriad plot points that were neglected explanation was that the camera man has a foot fetish. I lost count of the number of times we catch a glimpse of the monster only to have the camera pan and leave it hovering just off screen. Why is the guy carrying the camera to document this stuff if all he films is being scrambling down a roof? Just simple changes like having him pause to let others by and taking that time to record the monster doing something. ANYTHING. The jarring quality of the footage sent 2 of my mates out due to motion sickness. The shacky-cam gimmick became tedious and unnecessary after 10 minutes. The overly long intro did nothing to convince me of the important relationship around which the movie subsequently revolves. I honestly didn't care whether they achieved their goal or not. Nothing is ever answered about the monster. There were some positives. A few good scenes in the streets where we get to see that the monster is nearby and a genuine threat. Only then did i feel an urgency about their running. I can't get scared if i don't know what is happening. It showed that frantic shacky cam can work in short bursts, but not for a whole film. A better choice would have been either a first person perspective, seeing what they see, or film by a news crew, getting both the panic and realism whilst still SEEING enough to feel involved. If you have a phobia of shoes or pavements, you'll be scared out of your seat. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JimC.Feb 3, 2008
There was bad acting and the camera work was terrible. It got annoying after a while, but overall it was okay I guess. I liked the statue of liberty head flying off.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TimWFeb 4, 2008
Cloverfield was not a great movie. I was told there would be scares and jump-out-of-your-seat moments. I didn't jump once. Also, I found the characters unengaging. The party scene at the beginning was way too long and dull, populated as Cloverfield was not a great movie. I was told there would be scares and jump-out-of-your-seat moments. I didn't jump once. Also, I found the characters unengaging. The party scene at the beginning was way too long and dull, populated as it was by cardboard characters. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PaulJ.Feb 4, 2008
I thought it was ok although I got a bit seasick from the shaky camera. If they had a bigger budget perhaps they could afford a new tripod that has steady legs.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JayH.Apr 16, 2008
Sort of a Blair Witch meets Godzilla in New York. Although I have to admire the originality of the film, the camcorder filming gets nerve wracking. It has it's moments though, but I was never convinced, in spite of it's realistic filming.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarkDJun 9, 2008
I can just imagine the discussions between the writers and producers while making this film. ""This film's got no plot, shallow characters and is completly lacking in any original ideas or emotional content. What can we do?"" ""I know I can just imagine the discussions between the writers and producers while making this film. ""This film's got no plot, shallow characters and is completly lacking in any original ideas or emotional content. What can we do?"" ""I know why don't we film it in a camcorder style. That should cover up all the shortcomings and fool the reviewers into thinking we're making somthing clever and revolutionary. Well it worked for Blair Which."" Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BenC.Nov 10, 2008
Suspenseful, but not enjoyable. Clover itself is a pretty poor monster compared to say, some of the Godzilla movie monsters.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MikeN.Jan 18, 2008
I have a lot to say so I
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChadS.Jan 19, 2008
"Cloverfield" is a retarded art film. To put this ambitious gambit of a movie in perspective, you need to be a movie buff; not a snob(who only watches art-house fare); or a fanboy(who only watches mainstream junk); but rather somebody who "Cloverfield" is a retarded art film. To put this ambitious gambit of a movie in perspective, you need to be a movie buff; not a snob(who only watches art-house fare); or a fanboy(who only watches mainstream junk); but rather somebody who has seen it all. And let me tell you: I've seen it all, and "Cloverfield" is something new. It's like watching "Godzilla" directed by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne("Rosetta", "L'Enfant"); an event film that eschews Hollywood convention for avant-garde disconformity, most notably, the emphasization of form over content. "Cloverfield" is a film you want to cheer for because it brazenly invites audience polarization. We haven't seen a film in wide-release so willing to simulate an amateurish shooting style since "The Blair Witch Project". What "Cloverfield" lacks, however, are characters who act like people(the versimilitude of Heather Donahue's performance in the Eduardo Sanchez & Daniel Myrick film made the Sundance fave from 1999, an artistic and financial success). Paper-thin characters hamper this film's attempt to conjure up the 9/11 tragedy from a you-are-there perspective. We can take only so much of, "Oh, my God! Oh, my God!" Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
wutungJan 19, 2008
This movie is a mashup of godzilla, 28 weeks later, starcraft and the blair witch, all the events woven together in some cheesy love story. The monster/disaster movie from 1st person handcam idea works, but instead of reworking the cliches, This movie is a mashup of godzilla, 28 weeks later, starcraft and the blair witch, all the events woven together in some cheesy love story. The monster/disaster movie from 1st person handcam idea works, but instead of reworking the cliches, it should have at least tried to be original. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JCJan 21, 2008
Plot was horrible. Who would go back into a city with an undefeatable monster to save someone. Action was pretty good, but the camera sucked. This movie had way too much hype. The first 30 min at the party were absolutely terrible. I Plot was horrible. Who would go back into a city with an undefeatable monster to save someone. Action was pretty good, but the camera sucked. This movie had way too much hype. The first 30 min at the party were absolutely terrible. I don't recommend seeing this movie Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BobbyEJan 23, 2008
Interesting idea to have the whole movie from a camcorder point of view buts thats about it. Entertaining but only for a see it one time type of flick. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who is trying to watch a good movie or anyone Interesting idea to have the whole movie from a camcorder point of view buts thats about it. Entertaining but only for a see it one time type of flick. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who is trying to watch a good movie or anyone trying to watch a scary movie because it falls short in both of those categories. At the end of the day, if your just trying to pass time its not a bad idea to go ahead and watch this movie but don't be upset if you are happy at the end because it will not meet high expectations which this movie had for some reason. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ThekgvJan 31, 2008
I went with 3 friends to this movie expecting to either love it or hate it, and instead came out of the theatre feeling underwhelmed by the experience. This feeling was also shared by my friends as well. Now before you decide to classify us I went with 3 friends to this movie expecting to either love it or hate it, and instead came out of the theatre feeling underwhelmed by the experience. This feeling was also shared by my friends as well. Now before you decide to classify us as 1) uncultured philistines (because we don't love the movie) or 2) Sundance Diretor wannabes (because we do love the movie) I should let you know that as a group, we have seen movie of all genres and have had dissenting opinions of movies, so we aren't clones and individually we do have different tastes in movies. All 4 of us felt that the camcorder thing was way overdone (maybe a little more steadiness?) and none of the 5 w's regarding the monster were answered (even if they had answered three of the five w's it would have satisfied us). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChrisJ.Feb 2, 2008
Overall little substance but this film does manage to evoke a range of emotions including dizziness from its sledgehammer approach. There are also a few genuinely creepy moments. Overall enjoyable but can't help but think it could have Overall little substance but this film does manage to evoke a range of emotions including dizziness from its sledgehammer approach. There are also a few genuinely creepy moments. Overall enjoyable but can't help but think it could have been better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SeanC.Mar 31, 2008
Pretty cool idea but the camera style is annoying. Two reasons for that is it creates a false sense of action especially when no real plot development is evident. The second reason, the movie made half the theatre so sick they couldn't Pretty cool idea but the camera style is annoying. Two reasons for that is it creates a false sense of action especially when no real plot development is evident. The second reason, the movie made half the theatre so sick they couldn't even watch most of the film. Not so cool when you pay 9 bucks for a film. The sequel, which is already in development, better not be anything like the camera style in the first one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ModestusQ.Apr 23, 2008
I knew within the first 5 minutes of 'Cloverfield' that this would be the kind of entertainment that truly polarized audiences. The opening party scene is forgettable and doesn't really do anything to give the main players I knew within the first 5 minutes of 'Cloverfield' that this would be the kind of entertainment that truly polarized audiences. The opening party scene is forgettable and doesn't really do anything to give the main players more than one dimension. However, once the action explodes...um, literally, 'Cloverfield' becomes a fascinating experiment, despite the fact that it's also a bit frustrating. I'm not sure that the actors truly sold a significant "I'm here! This is happening!" perspective. Rather than implanting an impression of realism and reactive instinct, I found the performances to be too self conscious and modulated, more theater than verismo. The premise is fantastic. The 'things left unseen' approach works for most of the film. And, I think the action was accessible enough to carry the film through the lulls. Whether the 'camcorder' photography remains a novel or gimmicky approach, it's a bit of a toss up. Despite the flaws, including a deep lack of story momentum, I found the film entertaining. And, that is that! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PaulW.Apr 6, 2008
What could have been a great contribution to the film's genre, is frankly wasted almost right from the start. Once again (like in War of the Worlds) some ill conceived group of people, who are so unlikable, air-headed and preposterously What could have been a great contribution to the film's genre, is frankly wasted almost right from the start. Once again (like in War of the Worlds) some ill conceived group of people, who are so unlikable, air-headed and preposterously good looking, you could swear they were from another movie, is thrown at the audience as if to say: 'Hi folks, these are your protagonists for this evening's entertainment. We apologize for any inconvenience.' Why do we once again have to suffer through the most impressive collection of jawdroppingly dumb yuppies, whose existence somehow seems to revolve around spewing the most vapid conversation around like if it was a sport. Cloverfield has some very impressive and convincing CGI, but when are we finally going to get treated to this art-form in a movie together with a great story and on par dialog? Transformers, another CGI wonder, was nearly unwatchable for the exact same reason. I realize that it's a cliché when I say that this movie could and should have been SO much better. Not in gritty realism, it covers that bit quite well (although I would have preferred some sort of mix of steady-cam and not-steady-cam footage, but rather through a decent plot, a decent (and relevant) build-up and a feasible script. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful