yoJan 21st, 2008 - 17:27:38

A lot of people were disappointed. The monster wasn't at all that exciting or original and there was no real 'secret.' You have no real connection to the characters. It was just ok.

Report this comment

SickJan 21st, 2008 - 17:58:12

I wish I could get my money back since I only watched the first five minutes of the movie. There should have been a warning about getting motion sickness. I basically only opened my eyes to see what the monster looked like.

Report this comment

TKJan 21st, 2008 - 18:25:06

The theater where I saw the film did post warnings about motion sickness--and offered refunds to those who had to leave because of it. Don't blame the movie, blame the theater.

This film was awesome. I love the thrill of monster movies but I hate the incredibly gory direction most action/horror movie directors seem to always take them. Cloverfield did a great job of delivering thrills, fun twists, mystery... and didn't have to slather the movie in globs of human entrails in order to do it. Yeah, there were a few icky moments, but they weren't bad.

Definitely a unique and fun twist on the old Godzilla trope. I'm not sure if a sequel would do it justice, but I definitely would go see Cloverfield in the theater again.

Report this comment

LuisJan 21st, 2008 - 18:25:56

'After months of build-up and a huge viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield was said to live up to the hype and received solid reviews from Internet film critics and genre fans.'

Not so, not so and not so. The film is below mediocre and only 'genre fans' of bad work could like it. THe 'internet film critics' are the same ones who say everything is a 'must see' and probably are paid by the distribution companies.

Report this comment

motion sicknessJan 21st, 2008 - 19:00:42

I heard if you sat towards the back of the theater the motion sickness aspect wasn't as bad. Still, I am going to wait for DVD on this one.
And you know with that much money on its opening weekend, a sequel will happen.

Report this comment

GoboJan 21st, 2008 - 19:50:35

I've seen it twice. No problems with motion sickness. It's a great movie, definitely worth seeing. I have no idea what people are talking about that call it 'below mediocre'... were we watching the same movie?

Report this comment

New FanJan 21st, 2008 - 20:05:54

Luis-
In truth, a great number of print and internet critics of ALL types gave the movie generally good marks. Check RottenTomatoes.com to see a rollup of 123 reviewers (yes - 123!) on 'Cloverfield' including 'pro' print newspaper reviews like the Boston Globe, the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago-Sun Times (those reviewers all gave it good marks). By contrast the Time Magazine reviewer gave it low marks as did many of the 'indie' reviewers.

Overall 'Cloverfield' scored 76% among all 123 reviewers (comapre this to 37% for '27 Dresses' or 18% for 'Mad Money') and a still-respectable 69% among 'top' (read: professional) reviewers. It's tough to find any other source that gives you the bottom-line from so many, many reviewers (not counting reader comments like ours). Just so you know: sci-fi routinely scores lower than 'serious' or 'family' films on the RottenTomatoes roundup of reviews.

As far as personal preferences go: I liked the movie, my wife did not (she gets motion sick easily and would have liked a refund). I agree that there was no real character development, no intriguing 'plot' beyond the basic premise of the movie, etc. That said, I enjoyed the limited scope the viewer was given and can forgive the general lack of character development: if I were in the same situation I would not stop and take the time to get to know my cohorts (just show me the way out!)

I thought the movie delivered on the premise of 'what would such a situation be like from the common individual's point of view' and I was impressed by the integration of set pieces and special effects on what was a 'low' Hollywood budget of $25 to $30 million. I'd see the sequal but I would go in with somewhat lowered expectations than I did for this film.

My overall score: B+

Cheers!

Report this comment

Detective BoobyJan 21st, 2008 - 21:17:39

What is anyone saying, 'not good'

QUE!?!

I though it drew you in, and being someone who doesn't get affected by this whole motion sickness thing, I was in shock for at least 20 minutes about how great it was. The last 40 or so minutes drew in genres like Half Life 2 Resistance Fall of Man and Gears of War all into a brooding reality.

Better then 300, since that was the last amazing movie I saw that made me go 'Whoa'

Report this comment

MaxJan 21st, 2008 - 23:01:02

Not a good movie, is just a soso movie

Report this comment

blito3Jan 22nd, 2008 - 02:23:05

i enjoyed the movie thourally....they missed a golden oppitunity to release 5 or more different films about the same event at once, each from a different group catching the event as they try to survive. imagine a completely different cloverfield at a few theatres near you.

Report this comment