Movie Review: Cloverfield
Published January 20, 2008
Squeamish people should also stay away. The gore factor is surprising, easily pushing the limits of a PG-13 rating. This is not blood tossed in for the sake of shocking the viewer. It’s effective in giving scale to the story outside of the five characters the film follows. Brief segments that show news stations covering the ongoing disaster increase the believability.
Action always delivers an intense, tension-filled run (and without musical accompaniment). It’s unquestionable that the effectiveness would have dropped substantially if this had been directed in a traditional manner. While the audience would have been given an epic attack film, it would have been one without the intimate feel the handheld camera provides. The monster, an inspired, unique creation to say the least, is given enough screen time to satisfy the curious. A few contrived meetings always have the cast in the wrong place at the wrong time (the final screen appearance stretching things to the breaking point), though you’ll likely be involved to the point where won’t notice.
Some daring special effects showcase a devastated New York in broad daylight, along with monster. CG shots are done in the dark, though night vision, and limited lighting. It’s an impressive variety for what became a “cheap” production given the massive scale of the story as presented.
Those who wish to learn more should carefully watch the final seconds of footage, and stay after the credits. Not only is there potential for a sequel, it’s not hard to imagine an alternate take on this same story from a different perspective. Cloverfield could be taken in a number of directions from here.
Some will come away frustrated by the camera work. Others will be annoyed by the lack of answers as to what “it” is. The rest will be engaged and unable to move from their seats as they witness an innovative take on an overlooked sub-genre. Those who put the most into it will get the most out Cloverfield.
Matt Paprocki is the former reviews editor for Digital Press. The deep game collection, which spans nearly 30 systems and 2,000 games, lines his walls for research purposes. Matt strives to bring credibility to video game journalism, and to aid the industry in becoming respected with all forms of entertainment media. He currently freelances for GameArgus.com and MultiPlayerGames.com.- Movie Review: Cloverfield
- Published: January 20, 2008
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Action, Video: Adventure, Video: Drama, Video: SF
- Writer: Matt Paprocki
- Matt Paprocki's BC Writer page
- Matt Paprocki's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
It cost $30 million, and you apparently haven't seen many movies if this was the worst.
I want to see this movie and I think I will enjoy it. Rob, can you make a movie and then I will compare it to Cloverfield, cheers.
dont fight like girls. respect each others opinion.
Don't fight like GIRLS? Classy. Sexist.
And, no, I don't think that statement was due to me overracting.
For $100k, you don't buy even a single camera. The director doesn't step on set. For $100k, everyone works for free using a TV-quality camera. So that's just a hyperbolic statement intended to convey displeasure. And "worst?" Sorry, no, that's still To Die For.
movie was good
the ending ruined it though
the camera man made the movie better, he was funny as out
I thought it would be good as the Lost series; but the movie started my head-ache within the first minute cuz it was 'moving' so much. Movies are like photographs, you LOOK AT THEM. If you can, you even do 'SLO-MO' to get the details. The whole F*!#ING movie was MOVING ALL THE TIME! Story was terrible also. A few people 'Boo-ed' when it ended cus it was really BAD! It was a waste of $10 and time!
this movie was so incredibly bad, it had a horrible plot and was so pointless. waste of money
Worst movie of all time. The whole crowd in the theater sat there after the movie waiting for something else to happen. The usher had to come in and tell everyone that the movie was over. I am still stunned that this made it to the big screen.
I thought the camera was double edged, on the one hand it made the movie more intense and more credible, you don't question the fact the guy is running a digital camera while jumping across buildings. It also made everyone feel sick at some point though. My biggest problem is that you never know what the monster is without reading the whole internet. Was it made? Was it woken up? Is it a weapon? Is it deliberate? What are the smaller things? Are they part of? Just answering a few would of made the film a little more engaging.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/73054)
worst movie ive ever seen ,must have cost at least one hundred thousand to make