Cloverfield (2008)

[Lqv2015]

I thought it was OK. Didn't met my expectation at all.

Seem like someone just wanted to make a monster movie but didn't want a known creature (Godzilla). They felt lazy to explain what it is & where it came from, so why not make a movie from a camera's perspective. To dodge all those questions. Overall, it was too hype up for me & the ending sucked. I thought it was going to be the monster movie of all monster movies.

6/10

[remix17]

I thought the movie was excellent. Exceeded my expectations. Sound effects and cgi were amazing to say the least. The only thing that ruined an otherwise perfect experience is all the close-ups of the monster at the end. It kinda killed the suspense and made it a bit unrealistic.

The only thing that i was really upset about with this movie was when the monster grabbed Hud, i suppose it was just to give us an up close look at the monster, but it made no sense and would have been better without it. How does a monster the size of a sky scraper just "appear" on top of you.. doesn't make any sense

Completely agree with above :yes:

Also for people who've seen The Host, do you see any resemblance between the two monsters? I think they look awfully similar in many ways, especially facial features.

[Lqv2015]

I love monster movies like these but how bout a real movie next time? God I wanted to see more destruction on the city. :devil:

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Such a naive movie...

(N)

[NikkiRox]

i liked the monster. i didn't like the "POV" camera work... gave me a headache. i knew it'd be a disappointment :)

There were a lot of flaws in the movie and so many unanswered questions. the ending was stupid, people in the cinema were confused and waited about a minutes before they realised it was the end :/ i thought, 'at least the credits aren't shaking'.

3/10

[Hurmoth]

Such a naive movie...

(N)

How was it naive?

[BassRck4]

What is this?...Movie Poop-Chute.com! :laugh:

[_neutrino Veteran]

this explains it all to anyone that wants to see the monster.

[Ayepecks]

^

:rofl:

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

How was it naive?

- all those teen drama scenes, 90% of the movie really, although they depicted supposedly adults.

- the scene when they pulled the girl off the concrete with a metal bar sticking through her chest/shoulder. In real life she would lose consciousness because of pain and would bleed to death. In the movie she just stood up and walked away as if nothing happened.

- U.S. marine politely giving directions to a group of teens and letting them go after evacuation orders had been given.

- a few action scenes.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Zhivago

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

By the sounds of this movie review by fellow neowinians, and the adverage star rating of 2/5 on this, this movie sounds under-par, and was totally over hyped. Good thing I didn't rush out to waste my $10

[Hurmoth]

By the sounds of this movie review by fellow neowinians, and the adverage star rating of 2/5 on this, this movie sounds under-par, and was totally over hyped. Good thing I didn't rush out to waste my $10

The majority of "average" people who went to see it enjoyed it though: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfiel...views_users.php. Cloverfield has 68% positive review.

But this is more of a cult classic type of film. It isn't going to be for everyone.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

But this is more of a cult classic type of film. It isn't going to be for everyone.

Oh, come on. Pulp Fiction is a classic cult film. Matrix is a classic cult film. I just can't say the same about Cloverfield.

imho, Cloverfield is somewhere between Godzilla 3000 and any other teen drama or a parody movie like a Scary movie series.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Zhivago

[Hurmoth]

Oh, come on. Pulp Fiction is a classic cult film. Matrix is a classic cult film. I just can't say the same about Cloverfield.

A cult film is a film that has acquired a highly devoted but relatively small group of fans. Both Pulp Fiction and The Matrix are WIDELY popular films, which doesn't make them a cult classic.

[CloudEngineer]

the movie was alright

3.5/5 stars from me

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

A cult film is a film that has acquired a highly devoted but relatively small group of fans. Both Pulp Fiction and The Matrix are WIDELY popular films, which doesn't make them a cult classic.

The wikipedia arctile where you copied that first sentence from actually lists Pulp Fiction as an example of a cult movie.

As for the Matrix, it was targeted to a specific audience/age group, primarily for males under 30. And I don't know many 40+ year olds (or women) who actually liked the film. Imho, the Matrix fits the definition of a classical cult movie as well and box office success has little to do, imho, with it.

Kill Bill was a hit and it's another classical cult movie imho as well.

Do you really think Cloverfield is on par with these films?

[Hurmoth]

The wikipedia arctile where you copied that first sentence from actually lists Pulp Fiction as an example of a cult movie.

As for the Matrix, it was targeted to a specific audience/age group, primarily for males under 30. And I don't know many 40+ year olds (or women) who actually liked that. imho, the Matrix fits the definition of a classical cult movie as well.

I saw that about Pulp Fiction, but I disagree with it though. I personally don't view either of them as a cult classic, but that's my opinion. I view Garden State more of a cult classic than either of those films.

And I know quit a few people over 40 who liked The Matrix. Even my mother enjoyed it.

Do you really think Cloverfield is on par with these films?

Absolutely. But that's me. It is just as good, but on a different level. Like my local little league team is fantastic in the same league, but they obviously can't beat the NY Yankees (oh wait... :laugh: ).

I don't think you can really compare Cloverfield to those films. But you can compare it to other monster movies such as Godzilla, King Kong, etc. and I personally believe it beats those hands down.

What exactly do you not like about the film? That seems like an appropriate question to ask.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Absolutely.

Interesting :)

How would you compare Cloverfield to the Day After Tomorrow?

What exactly do you not like about the film? That seems like an appropriate question to ask.

Well, the use of a salvaged tape was quite original, I must admit that. However, they used too much of it and many people compained about headaches. They actually warned people about it at the box office.

The director did the right thing to play on human emotions to captivate the audience. Unfortunately, it was really poorly executed. 90% of all dialogues is garbage. And it gets really tiresome to listen to the same thing over and over thing (she loves me, she loves me not sort of thing). After all, I came to watch an action/apocalypse type of movie, not one about teen drama.

The acting was pretty poor too.

And they could give at least some info about the creatures! I suspect they saved it for a sequal.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Zhivago

[Hurmoth]

That's difficult to say. I personally was interested in the idea of that film, but to be honest I didn't really like the film. It was to "Hollywood" for me.

[d3bruts1d]

How would you compare Cloverfield to the Day After Tomorrow?

I wouldn't. First, DAT is about a guy trying to save the world from Global Warming. Cloverfield is about friends trying to save one person, during a monster attack.

Well, the use of a salvaged tape was quite original, I must admit that. However, they used too much of it and many people compained about headaches. They actually warned people about it at the box office.

But the whole idea of the movie is that you are watching a video that someone recorded during this whole situation. That's like saying my home videos are too much like a home movie.

After all, I came to watch an action/apocalypse type of movie, not one about teen drama.

Again, this wasn't an action/apocalypse type of movie, it was a love story where a monster shows up. Think of Cloverfield more like The Titanic, the iceburg just happened to be there.

And they could give at least some info about the creatures! I suspect they saved it for a sequal.

Yes, because we should expect that everyone knows everything about an unknown creature from who knows where that all of a sudden attacks a city. Might I add, all during a relatively short period of time. They gave you all the information they had about the monster during the movie. "All we know is it's winning."

[The_Observer]

Just got back from the preview opener and was pleasantly surprised by the film. Its not great but it does have its moments. I think this is a perfect bookend for people who enjoyed The Blair Witch project. As such the shaky cam gets old quick, especially when the operator spends a good portion of the movie running and doing very fast pans.

If you need to see a disaster hit NY, I'd recommend this one over that other movie, I am Legend.

I was disappointed that it appears he just made up the monster and isn't from an established canon. (at least I can't place it until I see some high quality stills). I enjoyed the Lovecraft/Dagon theory the most going in. That you leave the theater still not sure what it was seems sort of a copout to me, though I guess we got exactly what the trailer gave us, a lot of teasers. It isn't a monster movie as much as a backdrop for the drama of the main characters. I enjoyed the camera man part at the end thoroughly.

I am Legend (FTW)

[Lqv2015]

90% of all dialogues is garbage.

The acting was pretty poor too.

But I thought they were trying to make it as real as possible. Hence from a camcorder. You don't expect great dialogues or acting from YOUR home movies do you? Wasn't that the point?

[pdmcmahon]

Just out of curiosity, did they ever explain what caused the huge fireball in the center of the city that we first saw right after the party/power was disrupted? And what were the little fireballs that were coming off the main explosion?

[R-Flex]

It was a film that stands out, as a completely different method of filmmaking. A great movie overall. I didn't mind the ending. What did you expect, the same ending that bears itself at the end of every movie? It was different, somewhat realistic, and the ending didn't need more to make it complete. It was obvious how it ended, and the film worked as the viewpoint of only a select group of people- Not the military hero who saves the day, but the average person who is in terror and escaping. If there could be a monster, it was nearly entirely realistic. The film left with mystery, of where this came from. But we didn't need to know how this came. I enjoyed the bit of intrigue, and how the movie remained the product of these partygoers, not an overall picture.

Four stars out of five for me. It had excellent suspense, where we wondered what would happen next, without resorting to cheap horror thrills of a monster that suddenly enters our view and makes us jump- No, it was enjoyable of a fearful situation without the typical Hollywood suspense. The irreverent nature of Hud was the only comedic part of the film, and it was all it needed. It didn't need the large comedy relief of other movies, but only a few lines that occurred naturally. That being said, the remark that Hud said about "flaming hobos" was one of the best parts, along with the death of Darlene. It was an exciting and interesting death.

[Hurmoth]

Just out of curiosity, did they ever explain what caused the huge fireball in the center of the city that we first saw right after the party/power was disrupted? And what were the little fireballs that were coming off the main explosion?

Yes, that was in the news report while still at the party. It was an oil tanker (barge? whatever they're called).