Egghub - Collect, organize and share your discs

Disc Info

Cloverfield

Cloverfield

Comments from members

teenlonewolf
posted
Great Film and Killer Special Effects
ajbatac
posted
It could have been better if it wasn't for the vomit-inducing camera movement.

Customer Reviews

Very good

Rating: 5/5

I love this movie. I can't believe how many people gave it a bad rating. The POV style filming made it so cool, and I wouldn't want it any other way. I don't really think this was meant to be a horror movie, just a thriller, so all the people complaining that it wasn't scary.. well, just ignore them. It's supposed to keep you on the edge of your seat and it does just that. Yes there is a lot of camera shaking while the characters run, but seriously, it's supposed to seem more realistic, and it wouldn't be very realistic if the characters stopped and steadied the camera while they ran. If you haven't seen this movie, at least give it a try. Don't worry about all the low ratings. Everyone has their own tastes, and I personally plan to add this to my favorite movies list.

Cloverfield (2008)-Good Sci-Fi Flick.

Rating: 4/5

Cloverfield (2008) was a good sci-fi flick that I rated at four stars. The animation work was very good including the creature effects. Especially good was that this creature design was unique and constantly morphing from one geometry to another, while the spirit of the design remained a deadly constant. Very frightening and well done.

Cutting edge grandiose horror

Rating: 5/5

Excellent view of the end of Manhattan thru the video eyes of two lovers who are filmed by themselves as this indescribable ghoul rips up everything. Don't miss it on horror-night!

Hectic Explosion

Rating: 1/5

Hollywood producers, repeat after me: the Blair Witch is not scary. The Blair Witch is NOT scary. THE BLAIR WITCH IS NOT SCARY! If we have that thoroughly learned (next time I'll make you write it on the blackboard in front of the whole class) then maybe we can get back to making movies and avoid schlock like this in the future. Whaddya say, hmm?

J.J. Abrams, master of wretched excess, produces, while Matt Reeves directs. You recall Matt Reeves, right? Me neither. Part of the selling point on this film was that cinematographers used cameras you could buy at Target. Perhaps this explains why the film is as noisy, visually hectic, and nausea-inducing as the footage of my best friend's kid's sixth birthday party.

Six intellectually vapid, morally dismal Manhattan friends gather to see one of their number off to Japan. We get hints of sex and alcohol, but before we see anything titillating, the building vibrates and the lights flicker. Outside in the street, the head of the Statue of Liberty rolls like a bowling ball. Then the carnivorous monsters appear. We only lack Sigourney Weaver.

We never clearly see the monster. This is fine at first; it took a while to see the Alien and the Predator, too. But the movie drags on, and all we ever see looks like an explosion at a taxidermy shop, always in soft focus, and I wonder how they spent the reputed $30 million budget. At least those other carnivorous creature flicks rewarded our patience with something visible.

The creature sheds fleas, which we see a little better. These fleas are as big as mastiffs, and if one bites you, the military shoots you in a subway tunnel. Huh? This movie does lots, but explains little. Nobody but Shirley Jackson has ever been able to maintain suspense while telling us nothing. Are you Shirley Jackson? Well are you? No? Then go sit at the back of the class.

With its human angle, its obvious evocation of 9/11, and its intellectual ambition, I think the creative team had a vision for this movie. Sadly, they lost that vision on the way to production. This whole film looks like it was shot to create a trailer. It's less a movie than a concept in search of a movie. And like the Blair Witch before it, it's not scary. Not a bit. It's just sloppy.

Cloverfield Movie Review

Rating: 2/5

The 2008 monster movie, "Cloverfield" stars Michael Stahl-David, T.J. Miller, Lizzy Caplan and Odette Yustman and is directed by Matt Reeves. The film is centered on a major monster attack in New York City that effect a group of young adults.

The film starts off with the group of young adults attending a going away party for their friend, Rob(Michael Stahl-David). At the party, Rob's friend Hud(T.J. Miller) is videotaping everyone's farewells to Rob. The movie, is told from Hud's video camera the entire time. During the party, things start to get out of hand when a huge monster strikes the city and chaos begins.

This movie was a disappointment for me. I for one, am not really into scary or horror type films, even though this didn't exactly fill that genre. I guess it'd be cateogorized more as a thriller, but even so I was disappointed. The ending was in my opinion, horrible. There was a huge buildup to nothing. A lot of characters came and went quite quickly that it was hard to care for them.

I did enjoy that it actually looked like it was filmed by this character Hud the entire time. I really really liked that aspect of it, because it made it more real and more exciting to the story. It felt like everything that was happening in the city and with these characters was real and genuine. But like I said before, it was hard to really care for these characters because some of them weren't in it for that long so I wasn't exactly sad to see them go.

The story was unique, it starts off as some sort of romantic drama with Rob leaving for Japan and also leaving the love of his life, Beth(Odette Yustman). They are best friends who love each other but of course neither of them know it, and on the camcorder there are videos of Beth and Rob having sweet conversations and having a really great time together but then disaster strikes and the audience is reminded that they are watching a monster flick. So, I really enjoyed seeing snippets of happier times through the camera and trying to understand their relationship.

I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys monster movies and anyone who can view 85 minutes of film on a shaky hand held camera. It was decent, but I definitely wouldn't watch it again.


Want to get the latest reviews and movie news? Visit www.diaryofamoviefan.blogspot.com