|
Cloverfield | 
| Director: Matt Reeves
Actors: Michael Stahl-david, Mike Vogel, Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, Odette Yustman
Studio: Paramount
This item is no longer available
Rating:  641 reviews
Sales Rank: 4944
Genre: Action
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: Video On Demand
Running Time: 85 Minutes
ASIN: B001AOKA3W
Theatrical Release Date: January 18, 2008
Release Date: November 4, 2008
| |
| Synopsis:
Five young New Yorkers throw their friend a going-away party the night that a monster the size of a skyscraper descends upon the city. Told from the point of view of their video camera, the film is a document of their attempt to survive the most surreal, horrifying event of their lives. |
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 636 more reviews...
 I can sum up this film in three words: Image Stabilization Needed! January 27, 2008
Steven Hedge (Somewhere "East of Eden")
134 out of 290 found this review helpful
I know it can be a clever gimmick to have someone document a crisis on his videocamera, but every single shot doesn't have to be in an earthquake!
The plot, in short order, is nothing more than a group of young folks gathered together in a Manhattan apartment to say good-bye to a close friend who is being promoted to a position in his company that will require him to move to Japan. There is the usual angst about who is sleeping with who accompanied by one stereotype after another paraded out in dull fashion (the funny side-kick, the cool-headed one, the courageous hero, blah, blah, blah).
Things serious change from the happy (but underlyingly moody party) to chaos when a sudden explosion and blackout hits New York City. What follows are some truly outstanding special effects that really look like a rampaging monster is tearing apart Manhattan and caught on video by an average Joe (actually, by the funny but hugely insensitive Hud). He documents their journey to find his friend's girlfriend in a broken down apartment building and their attempts to get out of the city alive or at least leave behind a videotape for others to see.
Okay, now for what worked and what didn't, and for that I will go to my newest and admittedly easiest format of reviewing, my "Hits" and "Misses":
The Hits:
(1) The film sincerely and creatively looks like a real recording of a disaster as it happens. Much credit goes to the special effects team. Keep in mind that I am strictly talking about the LOOK of the film as being realistic and NOT the storyline or dialogue, hence, my praise to the special effects team.
(2) A series of very memorable moments: (A) The Statue of Liberty's head bouncing down the streets of New York (B) The subway journey (C) The Helicopter ride
(3) Some (and I mean just some) moments of really decent and believable acting by relatively unknown actors, most notably the role of Lillian.
(4) A clever concept (even though it goes way overboard and ends up ruining a good idea --See Miss #1 below).
The Misses:
(1) After serious complaints about The Blair Witch Project video camera idea that included too much shaking, you would think Hollywood would be careful about this again. Sadly, not only did Hollywood NOT listen to those complaints, but they must have considered the idea to be so good that they amped up the camera shaking even more to the point where they make "Blair Witch" look like still life. I was fairly okay with that film, but I could clearly see how others could get sick from 90 minutes of a shaking camera.
Hud, the video guy in this film, Cloverfield, seems to have Parkinson's Disease or something as he shoots EVERY scene as if he's standing on the San Andreas Fault line in California. Even the relaxed party shots are barely stable and that brings me to the invention that is ignored by this film: Image Stabilization. While it can't correct or compensate for EXTREME camera shaking, it does do an adequate job for the average videographer and is available on almost every camcorder post 1995. It is just overkill of a good idea.
Besides myself and my family I did witness many in the theater either become sick and not look at the screen and/or literally leave the theater. I even had friends warn me that shaky camera usage would likely make me sick, but having been fine with the Bourne films and only a little annoyed with "Blair Witch", I really thought it was an exaggeration about how bad the shaking camera gimmick was in this film. I have to honestly admit that they were right and I was wrong. Yes, I'm sure this is ALL opinion and some will have no problem with camera shaking thing, but that's what a review IS, it is one person's opinion and this is mine based upon my experience.
(2) Stupid use of video camera. Let's see, a good friend is seriously wounded, but instead of putting down the camera he wishes him luck, then feels bad and eventually agrees to drag him to safety while still never stopping the camera. This is beyond belief even if people do act weird under stress. In fact, this is just one of far too many scenes in which anyone would put down the camera or shut it off temporarily to help someone or do an everyday task. I mean, would anyone really record (look through their viewfinder) while leaping from one building or another?
(3) No quiet moments (and no moments of the camera not shaking) for us to catch our breaths or hold down our popcorn with all the stomach turning induced filming. Even the best action films have slower moments that allow the audience to catch their breaths and absorb the action a bit. This film doesn't allow for that especially with the shaking camera concept. I think just a few well-placed quiet non-shaking camera moments could have made a real difference with the overall feel of this film.
(4) Am I the only one to notice that ALL these young "professionals" all look like they haven't slept in weeks or had time to "clean up" even just a little. What is with the silly stereotypes of our young people all looking and sounding like surfer-dudes (in New York no less). All the guys have 2 day old beards coming in (didn't that go out with Don Johnson on Miami Vice?), uncombed hair to the point where they make Ryan Seacrest look well-groomed on his worst day, suits in desperate need of pressing as if that was ever in style, and speak like they are all still in high school. No one sounds like they are college educated or that they are a real vice president of a company (at 25???).
(5) I grew up in New York and Manhattan is one big island, so why is it that EVERYWHERE these folks go, the monster is there? You want to debate with me the size of New York City, go ahead, but that doesn't justify how at every turn these folks make the monster is there like Jason stalking teenagers in those Friday the 13th films. It is just too much to swallow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, this film had an excellent idea and an outstanding special effects team, but that just went out of control. Exaggerated video camera shaking, horrific and unbelievable dialogue, and a collection of look-alike stereotypical characters severely hamper this film. With some serious editing this could have been a much better film. Sadly, this was a very negative experience for me and my family as my daughter (11) seriously couldn't watch the film as the shaking camera was just too much for her, and my son (15) nearly threw up his popcorn and hated the whole film. We all left the theater with pounding headaches and that is NOT why we go to the movies. I still gave this film two stars for the "hits" I mentioned earlier, but it was a dud for me overall.
FINAL NOTE: If you want camera shaking for the realistic quality it can bring to a film WITHOUT it making you sick, then try any of the Bourne films (The Jason Bourne Collection (The Bourne Identity / The Bourne Supremacy / The Bourne Ultimatum)). Camera shaking doesn't have to lead to a nauseating experience (or a family rebellion --lol). Hey, not everyone is going to agree on the value of a film and whether it made them sick or not and such, but that is why a review is a personal opinion. If you agree with my review, fine; that's nice. If you don't, and I know that many don't considering the film's popularity, then feel free to disagree with me and/or write your own review, but leave the personal assaults out of it. This review is just my personal opinion on this film and you are free to accept or reject it.
 Hud's Cam January 20, 2008
MICHAEL ACUNA (Southern California United States)
64 out of 109 found this review helpful
Last year when "The Bourne Ultimatum" was released several reviewers commented that the hand-held camera movement made them dizzy. Well, I wasn't even aware of the camera in "BU" as the story and performances were so solid. But from the minute that "Cloverfield" began I was more than aware that the character Hud (would parents really name their son after a disrespectful, often vile cad?), who was capturing all the action with a digital camera, was indeed filming. By that I mean the Hud's camera jerks, flips, flops...just as it would when an amateur is filming. So far so good. The camera movements make sense on a real-life level but all the putzing around of the camera made me physically ill...to the point that I had to look away several times as I thought I would barf.
On the positive side: the physical production is amazing and the use of pretty much unknowns sets up a situation in which the moviemakers have to do their homework with the script, character-development-wise in order for us to invest our interest and time.
There is nothing earth-shaking about the story per se: a monster attacks and goes about demolishing New York City while focusing on a small group of good looking young Lower Manhattan types who take flight as the monster goes about its rampage: everyone is beautiful, everyone is sensitive, emotional and humane which sets this film apart from others of its ilk: these people are young but they are smart, upwardly mobile and more importantly care for each other. It's refreshing, really.
"Cloverfield" is extremely well thought out and plotted. It is also stylistically sophisticated and well written. It's definitely worth the 10 bucks and an hour and a half of your time. Check it out.
Entertaining, 'tho nauseating... February 14, 2008
Lady Naava
47 out of 76 found this review helpful
I've wanted to see Cloverfield since the spots began to show during the previews of coming attractions last fall. The premise is simple: a group of 20 somethings are at a party, filming various party guests, when the city is attacked by a giant monster. The monster destroys many buildings and causes havoc. The friends flee across the Brooklyn bridge. The protagonist (Rob) receives a message from his gf. She has not managed to escape, and is still at the apartment bleeding. The protagonist returns to the city, despite the military occupation, the monster, and the scuttling spider-like baby monsters and takes along his friend, Hud (holding the camera), and two other gals wearing heels.
I was interested in this film because of the plot. I'm a sucker for 'alien invasion' films, and this looked intriguing. The first 20 minutes of this film were really dull. Too much time spent establishing 'normalcy' of the main characters and various minor characters and their issues. I also found the camera angle, nauseating. I recommend not eating before going to see it. The film jiggles and shakes as characters run, and the characters swing the camera around.
MINOR SPOILERS:
I found elements implausible, such as how the seriously wounded gal manages to run despite being previously impaled, and how both gals insisted on wearing high heels while running, despite having opportunities to loot better stuff along the way. The unconcern the protagonists show for the gal who was bitten was ridiculous, as was the protagonist's desire to enter a city under attack by a giant monster and drag along his comrades when most people would be running the opposite direction.
Overall, if they had made the filming technique a bit less nauseating and the beginning a trifle less dull, I would've given this another star. I was entertained.... But it had its flaws, and It wasn't worth feeling sick afterward.
The problem is in the presentation March 27, 2008
Tom Knapp (Lancaster, PA USA)
34 out of 62 found this review helpful
The idea, conceived by producer J.J. Abrams, is brilliant, and the story told here is exciting, riveting stuff. It's tense and, at times, genuinely scary. If not for one little problem, I would have thoroughly enjoyed this film.
The problem is in the presentation. And it's a biggie.
Since the entire movie is supposed to come from a single hand-held camera, everything is in Shaky-Cam (or, as Roger Ebert aptly called it, "Queasy-Cam"). Hence, the movie quickly and continually induces vertigo in its audience; of the six members of my party, four reported some degree of motion sickness. Somewhere further down in the theater, we heard at least one person vomit.
No matter how good a movie is -- and this one is, in its way, very, very good -- it suffers when you can't bear to look at the screen. It's hard to appreciate the filmmaker's craft when you're trying to keep down the buffalo chicken sandwich you foolishly ate on the way to the theater.
by Tom Knapp, Rambles.(net) editor
A problem in presentation January 27, 2008
Tom Knapp (Lancaster, PA USA)
32 out of 44 found this review helpful
The idea, conceived by producer J.J. Abrams, is brilliant, and the story told here is exciting, riveting stuff. It's tense and, at times, genuinely scary. If not for one little problem, I would have thoroughly enjoyed this film.
The problem is in the presentation.
Since the entire movie is supposed to come from a single hand-held camera, everything is in Shaky-Cam (or, as Roger Ebert aptly called it, "Queasy-Cam"). Hence, the movie quickly and continually induces vertigo in its audience; of the six members of my party, four reported some degree of motion sickness. Somewhere further down in the theater, we heard at least one person vomit.
No matter how good a movie is -- and this one is, in its way, very very good -- it suffers when you can't bear to look at the screen. It's hard to appreciate the filmmaker's craft when you're trying to keep down the buffalo chicken sandwich you foolishly ate on the way to the theater.
by Tom Knapp, Rambles.(net) editor
|
|
|
Thank you for shopping at the Depot.com online shopping depot.
©2009 Depot.com | |
