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

Em said...

Posted on Feb 12 2008 13:35 Mi bro went to see it and his girlfriend said it was jumpy but she is a wuss and she is stupid

Report as inappropriate
Jack and Sam Know All said...

Posted on Feb 11 2008 21:13 Firstly we have noticed all the negative reviews, nice.
Jack: I enjoyed the film although i think i will have to watch it again in the future. Sam is sat next to me drinking vodka.
Sam didnt like the film. But he will tell you why in a moment.
I think as mentioned by some guy on here it is a breakthrough for Hollywood. Mr. Abrams or however you spell it is quite a genius. Oh and some one said on here how they didnt like the jumpy camera movement ITS CALLED RELAISM LOVE lol. Oh dear what a review. Sam just whoooped with laughter. Here is Sam.
Sam: Cloverfield is a homo.
Jack: Sam that is very constructive criticism.
I do reccoment this film but it had alot riding on it because it was a cult before it was even released. So there. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Love Jack and Sam.

Report as inappropriate
berty boy said...

Posted on Feb 11 2008 16:51 I hate these movies, cam jumping around everywhere, it makes you feel sick and is very annoying. Do directors think this is good directing?? The bourne ultimatum had a lot of this and I was very dissapointed as I loved the first 2. You expect it from crap like blair witch!

Report as inappropriate
Marcus Lazarus said...

Posted on Feb 10 2008 23:35 If watching a badly shot and edited home movie is your bag, then you'll be delighted with this effort. Plot is wafer thin and credibility is strechered off at half time. Stupid storyline about an indestructible creature descending on New York with the focus on a group of hapless 20 somethings running around filming themselves on the eve of destruction. "I don't know why this is happening!" is about as close to an explanation we are offered. although I'm not sure if this refers to the events unfolding on screen or the ;enght of time you have to sit through this garbage. I don't think anyone else spotted this at the end of the film though but an attempt was made to explain where this creature came from if you look close enough at the very last shot of the ocean from the amusement park - in the background you just see a .... well, I had to sit through it so you'll just have to do the same to find out.

Report as inappropriate
Sarah B said...

Posted on Feb 10 2008 22:22 The party at the start was one of the biggest disappointments of the film lasting for about 15-20 mins which was too long. The plot of Ron going back for Beth was completely unrealistic as you would assume she was dead after the message she left on Ron's phone. The people in the street looked fairly big when standing next to the statue of Liberty's head & if monsters were attacking you wouldn't really stand still looking around, you'd run for your life. When they got to Beth in the apartment she had a spike through her chest fairly close to the heart & magically came to after about 5 seconds. When they were in the subway Ron mother phones & there was no real emotion in his voice over Jason's death. Anyway they're walking on the subway tracks & rats start running under them & they stand there wondering what's going on when it's obvious the rats are running from something & suddenly as he puts night vision on & looks at the creature they suddenly attack. When the the girl explodes it's really pathetic & the guy being taken past with most of his body having a hole in it & him still breathing is stupid. Everybody seems to be in no initial shock & still walk/run around even after being crushed or cut on their legs. The camera makes you feel dizzy & sick as it goes upside down sideways & flung around. The camera & tape seems to be immune to explosions & any type of damage that would of destroyed a normal camera. I don't want to say it but when people died I didn't feel sorry for them, plainly the movie was ruubish & I only gave it one star to be nice oh & it was a disappointing ending too.

Report as inappropriate
Jonny T said...

Posted on Feb 10 2008 16:35 good film, but many flaws in it! like - why drop the crowbar? and the axe?! and how did 4 mid twenties people armed with nothing more than their bare hands fend off 4 spider things, but the army managed to get slaughtered?! i thought there was 1 too many similarites to Godzille also, other than that it was fine! Ohh, and i realise that adrenaline can make u forget pain, but if you get stabbed in the chest, i think your running capablities may be slightly diminished! and would anyone care to explain how in the helicopter crash, the pilot and co pilot and people who were in the back (not the main characters) all died?

Report as inappropriate
Munster said...

Posted on Feb 10 2008 14:52 This film was alright. Some parts were rather more impausible, such as the girl on the 38th floor or whatever being lifted from a spike she had been impaled upon. A quick makeshift bandage to sort it out! Also there was the matter of the little spidery creatures in the subway. I don't think 4 people could fend off even one of them, let alone 4. They definitely would have all been killed, I think the writers should have focused more on a 'close-shave' rather than an actual attack of those things. Also, they would not have lain in wait until the light shone on them. They looked far too quick and deadly for that. I enjoyed the films intensity and found that it held my attention well, it's just those little things that spoiled it a little. I mean how often do you hear of helicopters crash landing and survivors walking away unscathed? Silly really. Keefus is a pleb by the way.

Report as inappropriate
Roberta said...

Posted on Feb 10 2008 14:33 At the end of the film i stood up to hear a man say "the most resilient cam corder i've ever seen" I just laughed because i think of all things wrong with this film that stands out most. I agree with this critics of Darren like how Beth was able to pelt it down a road after having a massive rod through her chest.
I didnt like how little the creatures falling of the monster played a part, and how it seemed the girl that got bitten just exploded? without any explaination? But i liked the occasional witty humour of Hud, but he seemed to always be filming the most inaproprate things that realisitcally would be missed when your running from a giant monster.
Otherwise i thought it was entertaining, a big improvement over films like the blair witch project!

Report as inappropriate
Darren said...

Posted on Feb 10 2008 12:58 The concept of the film is good by focusing on a group of people caught in the event, rather than your all action hero Will Smith type saving the day and all that god bless america rubbish. However I was dissapointed with the film. Dont worry if you arrive late because the first 20 minutes are really dull, nothing happens, and the nausea sets in, as you try and get used to the handycam perspective. Then the action kicks in, and the real camera shaking kicks in which does give you a sense that you are there, but it does add to the nausea value. The plot is wafer thin really, and little things about the film annoy you. Examples are the subway being totally deserted...you would have thought some people would have been around!! Did the guy holding the camera have an endless supply of batteries? No handycam I know lasts that long. When they rescue there friend, she is conviently located on the floor where the other buildings roof is level with, add to that she has a serious injury but for the rest of film seems to run ok with no problems and no bleeding. Then there is the helicopter crash where amazing the helicopter does not explode. Then the cameraman gets eaten, well swallowed and spat back out really. I also thought the statue of libertys head was bigger that that?? but then again I have never been to it, so trust the judgement on that. All in all I wish I had spent my £6.80 on a better film

Report as inappropriate
mike hunt said...

Posted on Feb 09 2008 20:38 is it worth watching then?

Report as inappropriate
HayleyR08 said...

Posted on Feb 09 2008 17:39 I went into the cinema, not knowing what to expect.
I came out of the cinema not knowing anything about the film! the beginning is terribly boring, with 15-20 minutes about the party which is irrelevant. Effects were ok, music and sounds sometimes a bit too loud though. i hated the ending, it was such a pointless film to watch when you don't find out anything about the monster and the end! don't bother going to see it!

Report as inappropriate
Nocker said...

Posted on Feb 09 2008 16:39 A very clever concept believable in parts but not perfect,still worth seeing although the handheld photography can be a tad annoying, three stars.

Report as inappropriate
keefus said...

Posted on Feb 09 2008 14:54 IF YOU LOVED ALIEN VS PREDIATOR YOU WILL BE A BIT DISSAPOINTED!!
ITS A GOOD FILM I THINK THE BEGGINGIN @ THE PARTY WENT ON FOR 15/20 MINS & PEOPLE DID LEAVE THE CINEMA AS IT BECOMES BORING & WHATS THE POINT IN VIEWING THAT MUCH TIME OF THE PARTY IT WENT INTO A WORLD OF IRRELIVANCE,THEN THE MOVIE STARTED!!!
THE EFFECTS ARE VERY GOOD & THE MONSTER IS VERY DIFFERANT & IT SCARRED THE HELL OUTA ME,DUE TO THE NATURE OF HOW THE CAMCORDER IS HELD YOU GET THE SENCE ITS REALY HAPPENING,I COULDNT STOP THINKING THROUGHOUT THE FILM "WHY WOULD ANYONE HOLD THE CAMERA FOR SO LONG & WHEN THEY CLEARLY NEED BOTH HANDS AVAILABLE"? I'D GIVE IT 7/10 IF THEY HAD OF SHOWN MORE OF THE ALIEN IT WOULD OF GAINED ANOTHER POINT,IF THEY HAD SHOWED SOME REASON WHY OR WHERE THE ALIEN CAME FROM ANOTHER POINT,IF THEY HAD OF GIVEN SOME HISTORY TO THE ALIEN/PLOT I'D OF GIVEN IT ANOTHER POINT,ITS SIMPLY A GOOD WATCH & YES I WOULD WATCH IT AGAIN!!!

Report as inappropriate
u r losers said...

Posted on Feb 09 2008 11:01 This film is one of the greatest films i have seen, For the guy who said the monster wasnt scary, ITS NOT MEANT TO BE SCARY!! its not a horror film! if you knew anything about hollywood and film production ud realise this is a breakthrough (as was blair witch project) and is an amazing film.
THe story isnt about the monster, its about Rob and his mates trying to find beth. incase you didnt notice there is no scientist that pops up and explains evrything as in godzilla, thats why this film is so good
ive seen it twice and loved it, has u on the edge of ur seat and works amazingly!! i give it 6 stars go and see it, best film of 2008!

Report as inappropriate
Saskia said...

Posted on Feb 09 2008 00:51 It was awful, absolutely terrible! There was a barely there cheap plot, no decent scares and the monster was the most depressingly unscary thing i have ever seen, Why did it get such brilliant reviews??? the only decent idea (the smaller bug things) were not exploited to their full potential: they appeared like twice. There was simply not enough happening in the film, i loved the style and the idea but they showed the monster in full at least three times yeah well done on keeping the mystery people. It was the biggest dissappointment in my cinema-going history since Sunshine (another promising film that went horribly wrong).

Report as inappropriate