I have to agree with all you said. I eagerly went to Cloverfield with the glowing reviews from Aint It Cool News ringing in my head. When the movie was over I thought it was stunningly mediocre and made me realize that I gave WAY too much weight to some very amatuerish reviews.

Then I had to ask why the movie was praised as so magnificent. I think it probably has to do with the age of the viewer. I'm in my early forties and found the movie tiresome. The camera-work had the opposite effect on me than what (I think) was intended: Rather than draw me in and make me feel like I was part of the action, I felt distanced by the whole thing. I kept seeing the POV as a gimmick and couldn't help but notice how the camera always pointed at just the right action (jets blasting overhead, monster foot stomping tank, guy kissing girl, etc., etc.). Then there were the characters who were, frankly, boring.

I think if I had been younger and perhaps less demanding I might have enjoyed the film for what it was supposed to be--a first person, on-the-ground experience of something terrifying. It really is nothing more than that: Cloverfield attempts to provide viewers the feeling of actually being in a city under siege by a giant monster. That's it.

In effect, Cloverfield make you feel like you're watching someone else play a really cool video game. I need more from a movie.

John

Posted by John on Friday January 18, 2008 at 4:18 PM

I'm eighteen so i guess i haven't seen a many movies as u. but i went to see cloverfield to be entertained and i was really entertained. i thought it was awesome. the strong points of the movie were so ood to me that it made me forget the bad points. i reaally just thought u got your moneys worth with the movie. it was fun

Posted by daniel on Friday January 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Ewwww, handy-cam?? So it's just Blair Witch in NYC? No, thanks! Can you save me the $8 and 1.5(?) hr and tell me what the creature is?

Posted by Peter Y on Friday January 18, 2008 at 4:51 PM

I have to disagree, I loved it. In fact it's the first movie that really scared me in 10 years. The Handy-cam did get a bit old, but for me it added to the feel of the movie. Which for me was "I stumbled on to this historical document of an invasion," rather than watching a blockbuster like "James Cameron Presents KING KONG 08.

Posted by Jim Hall on Friday January 18, 2008 at 5:39 PM

I also disagree. The use of the cam added to the suspense and isolating knowledge - the viewer only knows what the characters know - really worked for me. It was a totally new way to tell a "monster movie" (which wasn't really about the monster, but you guys already covered that in the other review) and I bought it.

It wasn't life-changing, but it was a good movie and I'm not upset by the money I spent.

Posted by CV Rick on Friday January 18, 2008 at 8:29 PM

first of all let me express my discontent and dissapointment with the movie Cloverfield. Number one, whatever happened to good old movies that had a plot, conflict and a moral, whatever happened to scary movies that made you have nightmares at night? well they have been replaced by countless attempts of garbage called "movies" by directors and producers that feel the need to portray one of the greatest cities in the near future being destroyed(yes, I am a New Yorker). I AM Legend and Cloverfield to name a few recent ones. Cloverfield was a waste of film and waste of my money. Five minutes into the movie I felt like falling asleep. Half way through the movie, the camera shaking aggravated me because the movie wasn't going anywhere and made me dizzy. By the way, GREAT realism shown in this movie: I'm amazed at how one of the creatures stabs the girl in the arm and she shows no pain, and the female protagonist is stabbed with this sharp item, and after is pulled out manages to run at full speed. Good job J.J. Abrams. 99% of the people in the theatre were upset and dissapointed, calling it "garbage" and a "big waste of time."

Posted by Julisse on Sunday January 20, 2008 at 1:31 AM

If the film had revealed the monster's origin or had a more tidy sense of closure, it would have felt even more forced than those "unnatural" lines of dialogue used to convey story elements (which most every movie has anyway; it's just easier to pick out in some.) When a film has the frame story of being on a tape found in the area "formerly known as Central Park," it's probably wise to presume a tidy ending is not in the cards.

And on a side note, I've gotta get the type of camcorder used in the film. That thing has some durability and an awesome battery life.

Posted by DS on Sunday January 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Cloverfield Ending Credits

At the credits ending of Cloverfield, *Spoilers* the audio from the video cam says, "Help us!". But when played backwards, it says, "It's still alive!" This happens after the end credits of Cloverfield. Assuming the speaker was Rob, he suggests Cloverfield (the monster) is still alive. This also suggests a sequel for Cloverfield 2! *Spoilers*

The Japanese oil company TAGRUATO drops a satellite (Chimpanz III) into the ocean as part of viral marketing (shown at the end of the movie when Rob and Beth were on the ferris wheel). TAGRUATO works with SLUSHO (a slush company), as the main ingredient for SLUSHO is found at the satellite dropzone (deep ocean). While searching for satellite and ingredients, they woke Cloverfield (the monster).

The main ingredient of Slusho apparently turns a tiny fish into a HUGE whale, which explains the size of Cloverfield.

Rob apparently was going to be the Vice President of TAGRUATO in Japan.

Source from: http://www.cloverfieldendingcredits.com

Posted by Smith Alana on Sunday January 20, 2008 at 11:53 PM

SPOILERS

Something splashing down into the ocean near the end of the movie I saw. But the monster is NOT a giant mutated whale. It just isn't. It's either a new species that lives under the ocean, yet can breathe out of it and complete with a seriously bad case of dandruff, or it's an alien create, also with bad dandruff. Seriously, you don't want to be anywhere near it when the 'flakes' fall off.

SPOILERS

Posted by jp on Monday January 21, 2008 at 7:18 AM

I loved this movie. I think the camcorder angle is brilliant, especially in the way it allows for the additional angle of giving us flashback material of what was previously recorded to the tape. Plus it's a rollercoaster ride that [perhaps counter-intuitively] gets to feel real. I enjoyed this movie immensely. 3 1/2 stars (out of 4).

Posted by Mervius on Monday January 21, 2008 at 7:33 AM

So...the reason they called the movie "Cloverfield" is?

NYC gets turned into a big patch of clover?

Posted by Fred Kiesche on Monday January 21, 2008 at 8:14 AM

I thought the film was great. I too have not felt my hart race during a movie for a long time. Too many movies now a day provide you with all of the answers within the first 30 to 40 minuets and then the rest of the movie is all pointless action as someone tries to save the world. Plus in most other movies you see what's attacking everyone.
This movie puts you into the position as the average person that has no idea of what's going on. Plus you only got glimpses of the creature for most of the movie.

Possible Origin:
During the movie the characters suggest many theories. One is that the creature was from outer space. At the end of the movie the Atlantic Ocean is in the background seen from Coney Island. On the right in the ocean is a yacht. If you look just past the yacht into the distance something streaks down out of the sky and crashes into the water. The time stamp on the tape is a month or two before the creature
attacks.

Posted by Orion9 on Monday January 28, 2008 at 12:43 AM

" quote from Julisse "
first of all let me express my discontent and dissapointment with the movie Cloverfield. Number one, whatever happened to good old movies that had a plot, conflict and a moral, whatever happened to scary movies that made you have nightmares at night? well they have been replaced by countless attempts of garbage called "movies" by directors and producers that feel the need to portray one of the greatest cities in the near future being destroyed(yes, I am a New Yorker). I AM Legend and Cloverfield to name a few recent ones. Cloverfield was a waste of film and waste of my money. Five minutes into the movie I felt like falling asleep. Half way through the movie, the camera shaking aggravated me because the movie wasn't going anywhere and made me dizzy. By the way, GREAT realism shown in this movie: I'm amazed at how one of the creatures stabs the girl in the arm and she shows no pain, and the female protagonist is stabbed with this sharp item, and after is pulled out manages to run at full speed. Good job J.J. Abrams. 99% of the people in the theatre were upset and dissapointed, calling it "garbage" and a "big waste of time." k long enough?

my response: It's called adreniline, you'd be surprised of the shit people can do when their lives are on the line. In fact I thought that this was another great realistic part of the movie. To be honest the part that surprised me was her going back for the cameraman rather than following her fear and running like hell considering what it'd be like to have your childhood under the bed monsters actually coming to life ;)

Posted by magicbeans on Friday February 01, 2008 at 2:26 AM

I saw the movie, and I was suprised at how interesting it was. It was very intense. It was worth the money, and the camera angles and special effects were not disturbing at all. DEFINETELY a movie to at least rent!

Posted by Bob on Saturday February 02, 2008 at 8:14 PM

I recently viewed the film "Cloverfield," this movie was BOMB! I truly fell in love. The beginning made me happy, if you know what i mean. The "sex scene" was so amazing. I cannot even begin to describe the happy place it brought me to. The rest of the movie only got better. This whole movie was a delight. Very very very hot. MUY DELICIOSO

Posted by Charlene on Saturday February 02, 2008 at 8:18 PM