Review: Cloverfield
Jan 15, 2008 by Vic HoltremanBy Vic Holtreman
Short version: Yes, it lives up to the hype – Cloverfield is a blast.
Where does one start a review of a movie that has been the subject of so much attention and hype for months on end leading up to its release?
Bigger than the speculation about what the monster in the movie would look like, the hunting for clues on viral websites, what “Slusho” has to do with the movie – has been the question: After all the hype, will it be a great movie or a huge letdown?
Well I’m sorry to disappoint all the naysayers, but Cloverfield rocked.
Will it win an Oscar or Golden Globe? Heck no. Was it fun and exciting to sit through? Hell yes. This is what the ridiculously weak American version of Godzilla that came out a few years ago should have been.
The following review will be free of any major spoilers – to the point where I won’t even say whether the images that have been making the rounds lately are accurate portrayals of the monster or not. 
Cloverfield opens with a color bar pattern on the screen (which did elicit some unintentional laughs from the audience), but after a few seconds cuts to a very official and government-looking title stating:
“Multiple sightings of case designate ‘Cloverfield’ camera retrieved at incident site U.S. 447 previously known as “Central Park”
Yes, this was shown in the trailer, but as the movie is just starting it impresses upon you that this is not going to end well.
When it cuts from there to a hand held digital camera’s eye view of the interior of a very nice high rise apartment in New York City, it’s quite surprising (and I thought, did not make sense). Here we meet beauty Beth (Odette Yustman) and the guy behind the camera who we presume to be her boyfriend, Rob. Rob (played by Michael Stahl-David) is the fellow for whom the going away party is being thrown due to a new job as vice-president of some company in Japan.
From there it seems that whoever is in charge of the camcorder likes to pretty much record anything and everything as it follows people walking down the streets of New York City and into Rob’s apartment which is being prepared for a surprise going away party for him. We meet Rob’s brother Jason (Mike Vogel), who has been tasked by his girlfriend Lilly (Jessica Lucas) with recording “testimonials” from all the guests at the party. Jason is not pleased and manages to hand off the job to Rob’s best friend Hud, who at first grudgingly takes up the task. Eventually Hud starts to enjoy it as the night goes on and he gets a bit drunk while faithfully filming everything that’s going on.
We also meet a young woman named Marlena (played by Lizzy Kaplan), who Hud has his eye on but can’t seem to work up the courage (or charm) to talk to properly. By this time the audience is finally getting absorbed into the whole camcorder point of view thing, but it does take a while. The official government opening of the film doesn’t quite jive with all this preliminary material, but eventually it does get to the point where Hud wants to keep recording because “someone should see this.”
As we all know already, it’s during this party that all hell breaks loose and when it happens it’s extremely effective. I found myself thinking of Asian horror films, where up until the stuff hits the fan they can be incredibly mundane and almost boring, which then makes for a much more jarring effect when things veer off into the bizarre.
There’s a lot of humor in the film, mostly provided by cameraman Hud (played by unknown T.J. Miller who is not seen a lot but whose presence is constantly felt). One thing I found funny in particular was moments after the initial attack, when the head from the Statue of Liberty ends up in the middle of a Manhattan street, while some people are screaming and yelling “Oh My God!” a bunch of folks gather around the head in the middle of the chaos to calmly take pictures of it with their cell phones and digital cameras.
I didn’t expect the film to be funny at all, but the humor was sprinkled throughout the film very effectively, at time relieving the tension of what was happening on screen. Cloverfield also has a much larger scale than I expected considering the hand-held premise, showing citywide vistas and long shots of the creature. On the flip side, if you absolutely HATE the “jumpy camera” film style I have to say this film is not for you. Well, maybe if you sit in the very last row.
Now when I say “larger scale,” don’t go in expecting some mega-production… Although the effects are, well, effective, it’s more of an intimate film where we get to know the five friends and experience what happens through their eyes in real time.
Yes, 9/11 did come to mind and yes, it did make me a bit uneasy. But what I liked was that in a way it was almost cathartic (just stay with me here): As the people on the street that day didn’t know exactly what was going on despite the fact they were witnessing it first hand, the characters in the film (and the audience) experience similar confusion in the face of disaster of a different sort here.
Regarding the viral marketing of this film: In the end, it fits the final product perfectly. It really is a small film about a small group of friends with the occasional “big” scene here and there.
The creature is very cool and had kind of an H.P. Lovecraft look about it, and it delivers a few surprises. The characters were believable and well acted for this sort of film and that was extremely important, because if you didn’t care about them you had nothing (cough, AVP-R, cough).
So for all you movie reviewer haters out there that think I don’t cut sci-fi movies (AVP-R) or TV shows (The Sarah Connor Chronicles) enough slack, Cloverfield exemplifies what a Screen Rant review is all about: In the end does the movie entertain the audience without insulting their intelligence?
If the answer is yes, it gets a great review from me.
Our Rating:
4.5 out of 5
Around the web:
Loading ...
I thought the dialog was perfect, that was one thing that it never seemed scripted yet you know it was.
^
I didn’t here the same scared “holy sh#t” or even “oh my god” over and over. It kept changing and it was totally believable. I thought Robs final words were VERY realistic and real….
Yea Morgan I’m with ya Bro, loved this film. I’m not to worried about reviews preventing people from seeing it. Allready word of mouth is on the street that some folks are getting naucious from the experince. I think this will actually help the film.
^
Spoliers. Ahead
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
Ok I’m warining you!
^
^
^
^
^
Yeah Marlene died quickly Morgan, she basically popped,,,I’m guessisng a full contact bite results in some type of blood reaction and its fatal….
^
Lily I don’t know if she made it but she was very convincing and attractive.
^
The helecopter crash scene was sooo realistic I was blown away…
^
We all agree (I’m pretty sure) that they crashed in Central Park I just want to see that again….
I’m deffinitly picking this up on dvd when its realesed.
LOL, yes Jersey, I do believe this is a record hre at Screen Rant.
I welcome the comments disagreeing with my review as long as we keep it civil.
Vic
This film deffinitly is stirring up controversy.
^
I love it!!
Steve,
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the dialog was perfect for being imperfect, and unpolished, if that makes sense.
Yeah, it’s stirring up controversy, but not the kind I imagined it would. I figured the 9/11 comparisons would be the source, not the divisiveness over how good the film was.
Remember how film makers scrambled after 9/11 to quickly edit their films so as not to show the twin towers, or even cancel films with explosions involving buildings for fear of bringing that day to mind? Here the parallels are much more obvious with that day, yet that’s not what people are arguing over.
Yes Jerseycajun, I totally agree with you the dialog was perfectly written imperfectly with a touch of nervious humor thrown in from Hud, simply Brilliant!!!!!
^
Yea the 911 similarites were there especally the buildings that were leaning up against each other when they went to rescue Robs girlfriend (I thought that was very symboic).
One thing I was thinking during that shot at the end, boy if the Twin Towers didn’t get destroyed on 911 they sure would have in this film.
^
Without insulting anyone concerning 911, I have to say this event was 20 times more horrific then 911. Of course if it would have been real obviously.
^
Trivia: in the pilot episode of the Spinoff X-Files show “The lone Gunman” a plane is almost flown into the towers. This episode of course was on a few months before 911 yet it was errie.
^
One thing I love about the orginal “Escape from NY” is that the Twin Towers will allways live on in that film………
I believe the biggest negative critique is the picture shakeyness.
It even made me a little quesy during that bridge scene.
But then something happened to one of the character and I missed it. So I had to force my way thru because it was just that compelling that you coundt take your eyes off the screen.
All this and there
wasn’t even a musical score.
The acting was so fricken good you believed it was real.
^
I think were going to see these actors in more movies soon because if they can do that they, then a regular film should be easy for them.
^
There was some music during the credits and it was kinda funny because it ripped off Godzilla and a couple other famouse monster films. It was obviously a injoke.
Friend of mine called me earlier tonight and said that Cloverfield was complety sold out til tomarrow night …. Sheesh!
I hope the profits from Cloverfield help Abhrams if he needs addtional funds on Star Trek!
^
Re: The photos at
http://www.1-18-08.com/
Did you see what happens if you grab a picture with your mouse and “shake it”? The thread about the marketing history told me a lot. I wasn’t aware of the ARG or any of that stuff.
Abrams reminds me of when the Beatles played around with fans by planting messages about Paul McCartney’s supposed death (and replacement by a lookalike).
I thought the movie was simply brilliant. Yes, it did take me a few moments to get acclimated to the shakiness, but it lent itself to the “authenticity” of the film. I felt like I was there with them. I also think that not being able to see some things, or the big picture in general, made the danger and horror all the more palpable. That it was the something-you-didn’t-see which was going to get you. At the end of the movie, I was still glued to my seat, spent from the experience. Good thing, too, or I would have missed the “little something extra.”
Spoiler:
I wasn’t sure what I’d heard at the end but got the impression that it was “It’s still alive.” I even commented about that to my buddy, who wasn’t able to make out anything. My son saw it today and all he was able to discern was breathing.
I also saw the sphere splash into the water but, like a dope, didn’t put two and two together.
Lastly, I was thinking about the movie for several hours after I’d seen it, and it occurred to me that the military response was suspiciously swift with an extreme amount of force brought to bear.
SPOILER!!!
[]
[]
I, too, missed whatever happened to the brother on the bridge.
Did M. explode? Wasn’t sure of that, or if a soldier shot her. My impression is that after being bit, a person either gives “birth” to, or becomes a Replicator, or Pitch Black creature, or Starship Trooper bug–sorry, these CGI critters all look the same to me.
SPOILER!!!!!
I’m warning you!!!!
Here it is:
The trailer and movie and clip all say the camera was found in central park, so that’s where it ended.
DONE!
heath
Rene, I liked your review…
^
One thing on the Military getting there so fast, if they were tracking the sphere object as they would have been, they could have deployed troops in adavnce.
^
The one thing that I found out of place a little was how concerned they were for civilains.
They were clearly in a war state and usually when that occurs the military are too preoccupied to rescue people. It hardly mattered anyway It was so compelling…
Hey Jim!
Spoliers…
^
^
^
^
^
Well we know Robs brother was killed by the tail of this “thing” hitting the bridge but I was closing my eyes during that very second because that was when the motion sicknes was hittin me hard. Haha.
^
also on Marlene (I think that was here name) she deffinitly exploded and I didn’t see a creature or hear gunshots. I think they were isolating her so that her contamenated blood wouldnt get all over the room.
^
Is this hardcore or what,
Totaly agree with ya Heath! But the area where they crashed was near the ocean.
I’ve been to Manhatten and Central Park is deep in the center of Manhatten and you cannot see the waterfront like it was shown in the film. IMO they should have crashed at Coney Island. That would have fit in better.
^
Maybe this issue will get an answer but for know its unsolved (IMO).
But this little point didn’t ruin anything for me.
Totaly agree with ya Heath! But the area where they crashed was near the ocean.
I’ve been to Manhatten and Central Park is deep in the center of Manhatten and you cannot see the waterfront like it was shown in the film. IMO they should have crashed at Coney Island. That would have fit in better.
^
Maybe this issue will get an answer but for know its unsolved (IMO).
But this little point didn’t ruin anything for me.
Thanks, Steve.
Spoilers…
^
^
^
There’s a body being carted out of the care area that seemed to foreshadow M’s fate. It looked like John Hurt after his spaghetti dinner in Alien. That may also have explained why the military was so concerned for the citizenry. If bitten people became hosts, you’d be wise to evacuate as many potential hosts as possible.
To me, this is the mark of a good movie. Something that isn’t dumbed down and completely spelled out for me. I’m left to draw my own conclusions and speculations.
Oh yeah good points Rene I didn’t think about that!
I think your right.
SPOILERS!!!
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
I saw what happened to Jason on the bridge. One of the bridge’s towers falls on top of him. My friend thought it was the tentacle of the monster, but it looked like collapsing bricks/cement to me. Rene, I also think the parasites were reproducing by biting humans and that one exploded out of Marlene when they were in the tent (much like Alien or its satirical sister Space Balls). Thus, the military would be concerned about civilians and keeping the monster from multiplying. I’ve decided I’m definitely going to see this movie again sometime this week. I’m such a nerd! lol
Whew! One of my buddies wanted to sit towards the back. If I had insisted on sitting up front, by a rail where I can prop up my feet, I might be one of the haters.
Any haters still lurking? Did your closeness spoil the fun for you?
VAGUE SPOILER
Does this mean anything? I know the “origin” of the company, but is this part a metaphor?
>>Everyone who tastes a SLUSHO! tastes Noriko’s dream, and becomes a small whale like Noriko, because you want to drink huge amounts of SLUSHO!<
The big whale/small whale thing caught my attention, since there are bigs and smalls in the movie.
Is there a link between Slusho, drinking Slusho, “becoming” something, etc.?
Just saw it in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia and can tell you that this was without doubt the worst film I have ever watched. Its the first time that someones hand phone was ringing and no one complained because it distracted them from the film. This film was a complete con and not worth the money or time spent on it. I think the early reviews were just a con put out to make you think it was worth seeing. Several people got seasick and complained to the manager as there was no warning about the effects of this hanheld movie crap
SPOILERS!
Bridge: It looked like two tentacles, and when we got our first full view of it, I knew it was the tail and I think the tail splits.
I wonder if the seabed nectar found in SLUSHO! created the monster?
heath
Richard,
I can assure you that my review was no “con.” It accurately reflects my opinion of the movie. I certainly don’t blame you for disliking it. I knew it would be a love it or hate it type of movie when it was over.
I would actually be curious about what your opinion is on other movies I’ve reviewed to see if this is a one-time disagreement.
Vic
Why do people believe that because they dislike a movie that critics like, that they must have been tricked in order to get butts into seats?
I’ll be the first to confess I sometimes don’t understand how a majority of critics and other film goers enjoy a film I find distasteful (Transformers springs to mind) but I don’t for a moment subscribe to the idea that critics were out to trick me.
On ABC’s top of the hour radio news, they mentioned Cloverfield’s success at the box office. They described it as “A Blair Witch-like science fiction movie.” (I would have said monster movie, but fine.)
They also said that some people have complained of “motion sickness.” How to prevent that, they asked. Then they said doctors advise people with a propensity toward this, to take a motion sickness pill before seeing the movie. This claim seems absurd to me, unless they sat in the Latecoming Losers Section. I didn’t like the jittercam, but it never made me the least bit nauseous–just confused.
WHY IS IT CALLED CLOVERFIELD? That’s not even a Magic Eight Ball answer.
Hey Jim, I believe the reason its called Cloverfield is because this film fell into the hands of the Military.
^
They like to choose one word terms for their joint opperations.
^
Clover: could be the alien life form
Field: could be Manhatten.
^
Just my guess
^
Its sounds better than “operation Shock and aw Sh*t”.