Cloverfield
Mike Vogel, Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas
Revolves around a monster attack in New York as told from the point of view of a small group of people.
DVD Released: April 22, 2008
Recommend it
Add to Favorites
Your Rating
Top Flixster Reviews
-
May 29, 2009pleasantly surprised. with all the mixed reviews and hearing alot about how it was hyped up i avoided seeing it in the cinema and never bought it. fortunately my uncle leant it to me and i enjoyed it ninety percent of the runtime. in some ways it's original and others not. the wa... ...( read more )
-
-
April 7, 2009OK this is how Godzilla should have been, a more mature and tense affair which actually feels like a disaster movie. Lets not get carried away though, its not superb, its good and very exciting which due to the handheld cam idea really makes you feel the tension big time haha. Bu... ...( read more )
-
February 15, 2009WOW! Intense and highly entertaining... Cloverfield is an awesome viewing experience if you just let yourself become immersed in the disaster aspect of the film. From the hand-held filming to masterful FX, Cloverield will capture your attention and not let go until the end. (... ...( read more )
-
January 23, 2009To describe this film as strange would probably be the understatement of the century. I'm not too sure if it was another King Kong film or a zombie film or maybe a mixture of both or even something in between.
Filming it with a handheld from the view a small group of friends def... ...( read more ) -
July 4, 2009its good but the idea of someone carryin round the camera is annoying cos half the time u cant tell whats goin on
Critic Reviews
View more
Cloverfiel...
reviews at RottenTomatoes.com
January 23, 2008
Armond White, The New York Press
January 22, 2008
Anthony Lane, The New Yorker
Under the modern flummery, behind the faux amateurism and the handheld shudder, Cloverfield is a vastly old-fashioned piece of work, creaking with hilarious contrivance. full review
January 18, 2008
Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com
Maybe we now live in a world where we record the moment first and feel it later. If that's the case, Cloverfield leaves us waiting to feel. full review
January 18, 2008
David Edelstein, New York Magazine
We've sat through that kind of movie again and again, but we've never sat through anything with Cloverfield's subjective sting. You'd have to be tougher than I was not to be blown sideways by it. full review
January 18, 2008
Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle
An efficiently gripping sci-fi/horror romp. full review
January 18, 2008
Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
Now that the fanboy hype has cleared, we can see Cloverfield for what it is: borrowed inspiration, trite screenwriting and amateurish acting all in the service of a ballsy idea. full review
January 18, 2008
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
An effective film, deploying its special effects well and never breaking the illusion that it is all happening as we see it. full review
January 18, 2008
Claudia Puig, USA Today
A surprisingly gripping thriller. Employing a pseudo-documentary handheld camera style, it offers a fresh spin on the monster movie genre. full review
January 17, 2008
Colin Covert, The Minneapolis Star Tribune
It's the end of the world as captured on an unsteady camcorder, a YouTube panic attack. full review
Comments
-
April 14, 2009Did anyone notice there was a monster in this movie?
what a disastor of a film -
January 6, 2009i thought it was fucking shit :L
the camera was annoying and made me feel dizie , it had crap acting, and i wont be watching the sequal :L -
July 26, 2008i enjoyed the film. i liked the fact that we get to see it from the peoples perspective.
i was just wondering at the end of the film during the credits what does it say?
if any1 knows what is says could you let me know i think it said "what now" but im not quite sure
Natalie xoxoxoxo -
July 12, 2008hated it, shit story line, shit ending. Not looking forward to the sequel and when it comes out i will not see it.
this movie was way to predictable! -
June 17, 2008It was okay, worth a watch but it didn't really live up to expectations. Maybe it was because everyone was making so much of it? The party bit was a little bit long, but it was alright.
-
June 13, 2008i thought the first few scenes at the party was too long and could have been shorter, maybe more action with the millitary, and the ending wasnt too brilliant, not a bad movie but also not the best one either
-
June 7, 2008look , i was wondering thinking about , how ?? i mean how does he do ?? 1 camara , all the movie . it is cool , the actions is just in the right moment , it was not what i was waiting for but anyway , Matt Reeves keep that idea . I'm waiting for your next movie (directing) . good
-
May 13, 2008After reading some of the comments on here, I have to day this film is much more effective if you watched it in theaters (as in comparison with the DVD). Personally, I can't compare it to The Blair Witch Project (seeing that I haven't seen it), but the intensity of the film is what I responded to, and how surreal it all seems. If they do make a sequel, I hope its on the origin, somehow, and maybe with less video camera style, and rather make a more traditional piece.
-
April 27, 2008I should have taken some motion sickness tabs in watching this film. A Blair Witch Wanna Be film with the filming method of a jerky video camera which was so distracting. Some scenes very illogical which resulted in injury and death to some of the people in the film. I felt the characters in this movie were not smart in that every move they made was a bad one. On the othr side of the coin, why do friends follow one person who seems to lead them right into harms way. Perhaps individuality survival scenes would have been better. It is just like if one person jumps in the river everyone jumps in. There seems to be a possibility that there may be a Part 2. I think those who haven't seen it should wait and see it on cable TV.
-
April 27, 2008Cloverfield was better than what I expected, and although, the camera work got a little tough to deal with, I couldn't see this movie work any other way.
What I found irritating though, how the film followed just one group of people. How far could they have traveled in the course of one night? But the monster was always right where they were. A little too coincidental. But according to the extras on the DVD, the monster is just a baby that was confused and scared and that's why it was rampaging across New York. It would have been better if it was shot from different people with cameras, maybe.
But since seeing this, now I'm kinda interested in knowing more. Where did it come from? If it was just an infant monster, where was the parent/s and why was it dropping those smaller monsters? Secrets for the seqeuls, I guess.
Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com
Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)
Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)
All Rotten Tomatoes content is used under license from Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes, Certified Fresh, and the Tomatometer are the trademarks of Incfusion Corporation, d/b/a Rotten Tomatoes, a subsidiary of IGN Entertainment, Inc.
![[Rec]](http://content6.flixster.com/movie/10/52/28/10522876_tmb.jpg)
