Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Cloverfield (2008)

Director: Matt Reeves

Time Out rating

Average user rating

109 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Six years after 9/11, the spectacular destruction of Manhattan is once again the premise of a Hollywood fantasy, though ‘Cloverfield’ is not your father’s disaster movie. Unaccountable trauma takes the place of scientific rationalisation; partial experience replaces the view from the war room; and the signifiers of the World Trade Center – fireballs, collapsing towers, dust clouds and drifting paper – are everywhere. Whether you find it all cathartic or exploitative is probably a matter of taste.

Following Steven Spielberg’s ‘War of the Worlds’ in presenting an ignorant, panicked, individuated response to armageddon, ‘Cloverfield’ takes that film’s single shot of fantastic carnage captured on a home video camera as its whole aesthetic.

The film is an ersatz relic à la ‘Blair Witch’, the purported contents of a camcorder discovered in the aftermath of a mysterious behemoth’s catastrophic rampage through New York. The camera belongs to Rob (Michael Stahl-David), a twentysomething about to move to Japan; his leaving party takes place on the night of the attack, and we follow his and a few friends’ experiences from dusk to dawn. Footage of an earlier, happier day out punctuatesthe main action.

The film is produced by JJ Abrams and, like ‘Lost’, it leaves the big picture vague while furnishing enough local information to keep the ride compelling. Though not without humour – our cameraman Hud (TJ Miller) provides goofy comic relief – this is at the gruelling end of the disaster movie spectrum, unabashedly mining its 9/11 resonances and neo-vérité grammar to considerable effect. The humans are ultimately pretty disposable, but the monster and the camera are worth attention.

Author: Ben Walters 2008-01-29 17:38:03

Time Out London Issue 1954: Jan 30 to Feb 5

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

Shefki said...

Posted on Mar 09 2008 11:37 This film was awful, the first person camera idea was good, but it went on for just too long, you couldnt see half the time what was going on. And it gave me and my girlfriend a head ache. The ending was poor and the monster looked ridiculous.

Report as inappropriate
Rosie said...

Posted on Mar 07 2008 16:13 i thought this was the worse film ive seen so far this year, it was pointless and the endin was crap! dnt even bother wastin ya time & money watchin it!

Report as inappropriate
jas said...

Posted on Mar 06 2008 19:46 i thought that it was a brilliant film, excellent.

Report as inappropriate
ayesha said...

Posted on Mar 06 2008 15:54 this film was the biggest disappointment ever. from start to finish and the ending was disgraceful!

Report as inappropriate
lou said...

Posted on Mar 04 2008 17:56 Absolutely fantastic. one of the best films i have seen in a long time.... Hope there's a second one in the making!

Report as inappropriate
bigme up said...

Posted on Mar 03 2008 22:32 (minor spoiler warning!) camera work was unnecessarily jumpy; yes, its meant to be hand-held, but just the same who wants to pay £6.70 to have his/her eyeballs bugging around the eye sockets like a ping pong ball on a pogo stick - for 85 minutes? apart from that (pretty serious) flaw, this is one heck of a cool film. taken as its meant to be, ie, a slice of life, it is exactly what is says on the box. the last five minutes were a bit unnecessary, i think the film would have been matchless if it had ended with the helicopter crash, but then we wouldn't have been masticated, would we? and compared to some of the cr*p that's being advertised, i think this is one of the few films worth watching in 2008. but don't go if you enjoyed any of the fantastic four films. this one's for grown-ups...

Report as inappropriate
nikki said...

Posted on Mar 02 2008 16:32 this film had no story line at all, it just ends...... dont waste yuor time!!!!!! its boring and looks like a 5 year old is running around with a camera it spent more time filming feet.

Report as inappropriate
mike said...

Posted on Feb 29 2008 19:20 this was by far one of the worst films ive ever seen. the acting was completely unbileveable, the character development was lacking. i honestly struggled to understand the directors intentions. was cloverfield ment to be a monster movie, a shocker, or what? the hand held camera and diary approach adds nothing to the experiance. it makes it incredably difficult to enjoy the wonderfull work done by the special effects crew. the monster design was fantastic, it was innovative and the destruction it wreaks on the city is incredibly beleiveable. but all that wonderfull work is completely destroyed by completely amature attitude to its presentation. so 6 out of 6 for the poor people making cgi but everyone else involved get nothing. seriously thought about asking for my money back due to feeling ill from motion sickness.

Report as inappropriate
M Chaloner said...

Posted on Feb 29 2008 13:22 I don't really know that I have the words to describe just how tense & gripping this film is. The start of the film lulls you into a false sense of security and then wham! The style of using a hand-held camera is not new but I've never seen it so effective since The Blair Witch Project and certianly never used on such a large scale. The special effects are truly special and the acting is really very good considering they're all relative unknowns. Would I recommend this film - definitely.

Report as inappropriate
Ferrero Rachelle said...

Posted on Feb 27 2008 15:01 Loved it! Not normally into sci fi movies and didn't think i could tolerate the home video style camera work but found it very believable and realistic. Would highly recommend watching it while its on at the cinema to appreciate the effects. Kept me gripped all the way through and could watch it again!

Report as inappropriate
byron said...

Posted on Feb 26 2008 21:55 I think this film could be great but some minor details are missing...overall I think the film was shit, because some events in the film just pop up and out of character with the rest of the film, its like two different people wrote it and they agreed to disagreed
If there is a sequel I would probably go to watch it but the writers have to come up with a better story line

Report as inappropriate
beate said...

Posted on Feb 24 2008 22:31 TOTAL CRAP!

Report as inappropriate
JEMMA said...

Posted on Feb 24 2008 12:03 O.M.G..........Zzzzzzz!!!! .LOL.

Report as inappropriate
alan said...

Posted on Feb 23 2008 18:24 Total rubbish.. How that woman survived after being stuck on a spike for ages I will never know!

Report as inappropriate
chthamsouth boi said...

Posted on Feb 22 2008 22:36 alrite not brill doe..see rambo instead. sly rules

Report as inappropriate