Cloverfield

After watching it a second time several years later, I'm raising my rating because I appreciate above all the fantastic demonstration of the implementation possibilities. Goddard politely circles around genre clichés but manages to profile the protagonists, and Reeves takes the whole thing to a new level with a clever POV, showing only as much of the titular monster as the audience needs, though we’re certainly begging for more. Fantastic special effects and a perfect soundtrack move the film into top form. At a time when polished CGI is the standard, the flying head, the iconic bridge, and the leaning building look like a technical treat from a time yet to come. 4 ½. (07/04/2016)

An exemplary demonstration of terror and mob psychosis. If there’s any film that the "amateur" POV documentary style suits and looks good on, it's Cloverfield. The *SPOILER ALERT* depiction of the destroyed town and the gradual culling of more and more of the main characters *END OF SPOILER* is truly brilliant. I was exceedingly pleased with how realistic it manages to feel (and at the same time such total bullshit, as a classicist would say). (24/10/2017)

It is a blast, but sometimes the excessive effort to push for authenticity at all costs can be bothersome. After all, there are simply moments when even the toughest journalist, reporter or cameraman wouldn’t be able hold the camera and would run to save their own life. So besides the fact that director, Matt Reeves, basically shouts to the world “look how realistically I filmed this” thanks to these scenes, the film does not suffer from any significant shortcomings. The characters behave quite believably, the chaos and confusion are excellently portrayed, and the sense of unpredictability is brilliant. Only the clichéd subplots of the story (except for the rampage of the monster and the rescue of the loved one – as later revealed) get a bit boring, but among all the explosions, shooting, and falling buildings, there is not much time for it anyway. (23/06/2008)

When original ideas were being distributed, Abrams and his gang were ahead of the game. How else can one explain that a story of a worn-out genre, filmed using a technique proven since the forests of Maryland, can transform into a perfect hit only with the help of a veil of mystery, attracting crowds who gladly devour it? An amazing experience that, with its suggestiveness, didn't let me properly sleep on the day of the screening. (22/02/2008)

A demonstration of an ineffective effect. For most of the short runtime of the film, I felt that I was witnessing the realization of a typically sparse screenplay of a disaster film, which was cleverly wrapped in refined technical means and served to the audience raw. Unfortunately, this does not change the fact that under the raw packaging, Cloverfield is baked, in some places even burned. In fact, the technical design must also be seen in the context of the time period - just look at the extent to which the handheld camera dominates, for example, in contemporary American series. From this perspective, producer J. J. Abrams perfectly found the pulse of the time period and presented the audience with a film with a familiar appearance and content that fully suits the current obsession of people with feeling threatened. Unfortunately, Cloverfield is no more than wrapping, and even this wrapping only plays on the first signal. This film is only image and sound. Bad characters, affected actors, no content. Although this is undoubtedly a quality genre film, the way in which the film's carelessly obscured conventionality shines through disappointed me. Despite my modest expectations... [6/10] (27/01/2008)