Customer Reviews
Freaky - By: David Byrne, 06 Oct 2008 
This film is well good. I like how they captured it like its been done by a camcorder etc. It is freaky , no one can deny that. It has great little action moments & has a great story line that keeps you glued to the tv screen.
Huge monster, short film - By: one-eyed Jack, 02 Oct 2008 
Whatever else that can be said about CLOVERFIELD, one thing's likely to be consistent among words used to describe it : it's different. I've just watched the DVD & I reckon I could trash it, or I could say it's "OK" or I could even rave about it. That's not to say I can't make my mind up, or that it depends on what mood I'm in. It's just that pretty much every description of it can be taken seriously, positive or negative, & they would all count. There is no definitive verdict for this film.
The most talked-about aspect (I suppose) is the apparent use of a mobile or hand-held video camera for the entire length of the film. At first I found it a nuisance, & the best I could say is that I eventually tolerated it, but there's no doubtin my mind that I would have preferred a 'normal' type of film recording. The end credits were something of a highpoint for me because at long long last the picture wasn't bouncing about all over the place. And I think that when the length of the film is quoted as 81 minutes, this includes those creditsin that figure. So no, I didn't like the reality-seeking hand-held filming style, but at the same time I was deeply impressed by what the film-makers managed to achievein spite of it. Of course it's a scary-monster film & the un-named leviathan at the centre of it all would easily kill King Kong, Godzilla & every monster you can name with a single flick of its......well, I'm not sure what you would call them - hands? Claws? It was pretty scary to be fair, & all the CGI & technical effects were of a very high standard. I just wish that camera wouldn't jiggle about all over the place! But I accept that it was this specific decision that probably makes Cloverfield a whole lot better than it might otherwise have been, because it does create a sense of realism, that the viewer is rightin the middle of the action at all times.
Although I watched it alone, I would imagine that at the cinema most of the audience would have gone "Huh?" at the end, because it was so sudden, so unexpected & I was left with the impression that there could have been at least another 15 to 20 minutes of the same, so I felt a bit short-changed there. It's a hard film to submit a reliable, objective opinion about, & I can now understand why one reviewer titled his summary 'Marmite'. You need to see it yourself to form a judgement; unfortunately you might hate it but that's the chance you'll have to take. Just as likely you'll enjoy it & be considerably impressed with it, but the least likely outcome is one of sitting on the fence. My main regret is that a lot of cash must have been investedin all of the special effects but as a viewer I didn't really see everything as clearly as I would have liked to, or for as long. Peter Jackson's cinematically loving portrayal of KING KONG of a few years ago was the opposite but of course it was flat & pointless despite that (or maybe because of it). With this film, the sound quality was a weak point but I have to admit that overall it was dramatic & involving - even if the motion-sickness left me with something of a headache afterwards.
Its a B Movie and thats it... - By: S J Buck, 01 Oct 2008 
Despite the decent special effects & the comparative newness of the film being shown from the viewpoint of a hand held video camera this is essentially just an old-fashioned monster movie. For me it only just merits 3 stars & heres why:
Good points:
The held held camera view was very effectivein places & did give you a sense of the panic that can occurin disaster situations. The acting was decent & as already mentioned the special effects were well done.
Bad points:
The opening party sequence went on too long. All it was trying to tell us was that a couple had split up & that could have been done much quicker. After 10 minutes had gone by,in what is a short movie, I was beginning to wonder if I was watching the right film...
I accept that you have to suspend disbelief when watching films like this, but this had so many occasions when what happened lacked any credibilityin reality (I'm talking about the Helicopter crash & the girl who was impaled on the steel pole to name two examples). I also got fed up with hearing people saying "oh my God" every 30 seconds. The hand-held camera use needed to be broken up. 84 mins was too long for a wobbly picture....
Having said all that it is worth seeing, as after the slow start its certainly an entertaining rollercoaster ride. But like I said at the start this is essentially a B Movie/Monster Movie, if you expect nothing else than you'll probably enjoy a fun movie. Expect any more & you might be disappointed
It Came From Outer Space - By: Charles Vasey, 28 Sep 2008 This is a very artfully constructed film about the usual crowd of young hedonists who are typically slaughtered by serial killers;in this case they are dropped into New York City under attack from Something Big coveredin nasty little bugs (the size of big dogs). To keep the chaos going the film is shot on a hand-held by one of the characters. It is a tribute to the pace that this conceit only annoys one two or three timesin the film. Excellent driving pace once it kicks off, lots of hints & things going onin the background, & a monster seldom seen but always hinted at. A superior & enjoyable piece of hokum.
What the hell....? - By: Ms. Natasha K. Hinds, 24 Sep 2008 
I was little bit frustrated by watching this cheap film from start to finish...all thingsin a film are a little bit off to see what happen but this guy holding a camera, filming from his camera...
I didn't enjoy this film but it could of been better without video camerain front of him.
This is why I'm putting a 1 star rating.
How disappointing.
