Cloverfield - Dark Publications

Location: Home » video » General » Cloverfield

Similar Items:

•	I Am Legend (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition with Digital Copy)
•	Jumper
•	There Will Be Blood
•	Rambo (Special Edition + Digital Copy)
•	10,000 B.C.

Editorial Reviews:

Product Description
When something unimaginable attacked new york six friends caught it all on camera. This is the firsthand account of their run-in with the rampaging horror called cloverfield. Studio: Paramount Home Video Release Date: 08/19/2008 Run time: 84 minutes Rating: Pg13

Amazon.com
One of the first things a viewer notices about Cloverfield is that it doesn't play by ordinary storytelling rules, making this intriguing horror film as much a novelty as an event. Told from the vertiginous point-of-view of a camcorder-wielding group of friends, Cloverfield begins like a primetime television soap opera about young Manhattanites coping with changes in their personal lives. Rob (Michael Stahl-David) is leaving New York to take an executive job at a company in Japan. At his goodbye party in a crowded loft, Rob's brother Jason (Mike Vogel) hands a camcorder to best friend Hud (T.J. Miller), who proceeds to tape the proceedings over old footage of Rob's ex-girlfriend, Beth (Odette Yustman)--images shot during happy times in that now-defunct relationship. Naturally, Beth shows up at the party with a new beau, bumming Rob out completely. Just before one's eyes glaze over from all this heartbreaking stuff (captured by Hud, who's something of a doofus, in laughably shaky camerawork), the unexpected happens: New York is suddenly under attack from a Godzilla-like monster stomping through midtown and destroying everything and everybody in sight. Rob and company hit the streets, but rather than run with other evacuees, they head toward the center of the storm so that Rob can rescue an injured Beth. There are casualties along the way, but the journey into fear is fascinating and immediate if emotionally remote--a consequence of seeing these proceedings through the singular, subjective perspective of a camcorder and of a story that intentionally leaves major questions unanswered: Who or what is this monster? Where did it come from? The lack of a backstory, and spare views of the marauding creature, are clever ways by producer J.J. Abrams and director Matt Reeves to keep an audience focused exclusively on what's on the screen. But it also makes Cloverfield curiously uninvolving. Ultimately, Cloverfield, with its spectacular effects brilliantly woven into a home-video look, is a celebration of infinite possibilities in this age of accessible, digital media. --Tom Keogh

Customer Reviews: Read 624 more reviews...

2 out of 5 stars

I can sum up this film in three words: Image Stabilization Needed! January 27, 2008
134 out of 290 found this review helpful

I know it can be a clever gimmick to have someone document a crisis on his videocamera, but every single shot doesn't have to be in an earthquake!

The plot, in short order, is nothing more than a group of young folks gathered together in a Manhattan apartment to say good-bye to a close friend who is being promoted to a position in his company that will require him to move to Japan. There is the usual angst about who is sleeping with who accompanied by one stereotype after another paraded out in dull fashion (the funny side-kick, the cool-headed one, the courageous hero, blah, blah, blah).

Things serious change from the happy (but underlyingly moody party) to chaos when a sudden explosion and blackout hits New York City. What follows are some truly outstanding special effects that really look like a rampaging monster is tearing apart Manhattan and caught on video by an average Joe (actually, by the funny but hugely insensitive Hud). He documents their journey to find his friend's girlfriend in a broken down apartment building and their attempts to get out of the city alive or at least leave behind a videotape for others to see.

Okay, now for what worked and what didn't, and for that I will go to my newest and admittedly easiest format of reviewing, my "Hits" and "Misses":

The Hits:

(1) The film sincerely and creatively looks like a real recording of a disaster as it happens. Much credit goes to the special effects team. Keep in mind that I am strictly talking about the LOOK of the film as being realistic and NOT the storyline or dialogue, hence, my praise to the special effects team.
(2) A series of very memorable moments: (A) The Statue of Liberty's head bouncing down the streets of New York (B) The subway journey (C) The Helicopter ride
(3) Some (and I mean just some) moments of really decent and believable acting by relatively unknown actors, most notably the role of Lillian.
(4) A clever concept (even though it goes way overboard and ends up ruining a good idea --See Miss #1 below).

The Misses:
(1) After serious complaints about The Blair Witch Project video camera idea that included too much shaking, you would think Hollywood would be careful about this again. Sadly, not only did Hollywood NOT listen to those complaints, but they must have considered the idea to be so good that they amped up the camera shaking even more to the point where they make "Blair Witch" look like still life. I was fairly okay with that film, but I could clearly see how others could get sick from 90 minutes of a shaking camera.

Hud, the video guy in this film, Cloverfield, seems to have Parkinson's Disease or something as he shoots EVERY scene as if he's standing on the San Andreas Fault line in California. Even the relaxed party shots are barely stable and that brings me to the invention that is ignored by this film: Image Stabilization. While it can't correct or compensate for EXTREME camera shaking, it does do an adequate job for the average videographer and is available on almost every camcorder post 1995. It is just overkill of a good idea.

Besides myself and my family I did witness many in the theater either become sick and not look at the screen and/or literally leave the theater. I even had friends warn me that shaky camera usage would likely make me sick, but having been fine with the Bourne films and only a little annoyed with "Blair Witch", I really thought it was an exaggeration about how bad the shaking camera gimmick was in this film. I have to honestly admit that they were right and I was wrong. Yes, I'm sure this is ALL opinion and some will have no problem with camera shaking thing, but that's what a review IS, it is one person's opinion and this is mine based upon my experience.

(2) Stupid use of video camera. Let's see, a good friend is seriously wounded, but instead of putting down the camera he wishes him luck, then feels bad and eventually agrees to drag him to safety while still never stopping the camera. This is beyond belief even if people do act weird under stress. In fact, this is just one of far too many scenes in which anyone would put down the camera or shut it off temporarily to help someone or do an everyday task. I mean, would anyone really record (look through their viewfinder) while leaping from one building or another?

(3) No quiet moments (and no moments of the camera not shaking) for us to catch our breaths or hold down our popcorn with all the stomach turning induced filming. Even the best action films have slower moments that allow the audience to catch their breaths and absorb the action a bit. This film doesn't allow for that especially with the shaking camera concept. I think just a few well-placed quiet non-shaking camera moments could have made a real difference with the overall feel of this film.

(4) Am I the only one to notice that ALL these young "professionals" all look like they haven't slept in weeks or had time to "clean up" even just a little. What is with the silly stereotypes of our young people all looking and sounding like surfer-dudes (in New York no less). All the guys have 2 day old beards coming in (didn't that go out with Don Johnson on Miami Vice?), uncombed hair to the point where they make Ryan Seacrest look well-groomed on his worst day, suits in desperate need of pressing as if that was ever in style, and speak like they are all still in high school. No one sounds like they are college educated or that they are a real vice president of a company (at 25???).

(5) I grew up in New York and Manhattan is one big island, so why is it that EVERYWHERE these folks go, the monster is there? You want to debate with me the size of New York City, go ahead, but that doesn't justify how at every turn these folks make the monster is there like Jason stalking teenagers in those Friday the 13th films. It is just too much to swallow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me, this film had an excellent idea and an outstanding special effects team, but that just went out of control. Exaggerated video camera shaking, horrific and unbelievable dialogue, and a collection of look-alike stereotypical characters severely hamper this film. With some serious editing this could have been a much better film. Sadly, this was a very negative experience for me and my family as my daughter (11) seriously couldn't watch the film as the shaking camera was just too much for her, and my son (15) nearly threw up his popcorn and hated the whole film. We all left the theater with pounding headaches and that is NOT why we go to the movies. I still gave this film two stars for the "hits" I mentioned earlier, but it was a dud for me overall.

FINAL NOTE: If you want camera shaking for the realistic quality it can bring to a film WITHOUT it making you sick, then try any of the Bourne films (The Jason Bourne Collection (The Bourne Identity / The Bourne Supremacy / The Bourne Ultimatum)). Camera shaking doesn't have to lead to a nauseating experience (or a family rebellion --lol). Hey, not everyone is going to agree on the value of a film and whether it made them sick or not and such, but that is why a review is a personal opinion. If you agree with my review, fine; that's nice. If you don't, and I know that many don't considering the film's popularity, then feel free to disagree with me and/or write your own review, but leave the personal assaults out of it. This review is just my personal opinion on this film and you are free to accept or reject it.

4 out of 5 stars

Hud's Cam January 20, 2008
64 out of 109 found this review helpful

Last year when "The Bourne Ultimatum" was released several reviewers commented that the hand-held camera movement made them dizzy. Well, I wasn't even aware of the camera in "BU" as the story and performances were so solid. But from the minute that "Cloverfield" began I was more than aware that the character Hud (would parents really name their son after a disrespectful, often vile cad?), who was capturing all the action with a digital camera, was indeed filming. By that I mean the Hud's camera jerks, flips, flops...just as it would when an amateur is filming. So far so good. The camera movements make sense on a real-life level but all the putzing around of the camera made me physically ill...to the point that I had to look away several times as I thought I would barf.
On the positive side: the physical production is amazing and the use of pretty much unknowns sets up a situation in which the moviemakers have to do their homework with the script, character-development-wise in order for us to invest our interest and time.
There is nothing earth-shaking about the story per se: a monster attacks and goes about demolishing New York City while focusing on a small group of good looking young Lower Manhattan types who take flight as the monster goes about its rampage: everyone is beautiful, everyone is sensitive, emotional and humane which sets this film apart from others of its ilk: these people are young but they are smart, upwardly mobile and more importantly care for each other. It's refreshing, really.
"Cloverfield" is extremely well thought out and plotted. It is also stylistically sophisticated and well written. It's definitely worth the 10 bucks and an hour and a half of your time. Check it out.

3 out of 5 stars

Entertaining, 'tho nauseating... February 14, 2008
47 out of 76 found this review helpful

I've wanted to see Cloverfield since the spots began to show during the previews of coming attractions last fall. The premise is simple: a group of 20 somethings are at a party, filming various party guests, when the city is attacked by a giant monster. The monster destroys many buildings and causes havoc. The friends flee across the Brooklyn bridge. The protagonist (Rob) receives a message from his gf. She has not managed to escape, and is still at the apartment bleeding. The protagonist returns to the city, despite the military occupation, the monster, and the scuttling spider-like baby monsters and takes along his friend, Hud (holding the camera), and two other gals wearing heels.

I was interested in this film because of the plot. I'm a sucker for 'alien invasion' films, and this looked intriguing. The first 20 minutes of this film were really dull. Too much time spent establishing 'normalcy' of the main characters and various minor characters and their issues. I also found the camera angle, nauseating. I recommend not eating before going to see it. The film jiggles and shakes as characters run, and the characters swing the camera around.

MINOR SPOILERS:

I found elements implausible, such as how the seriously wounded gal manages to run despite being previously impaled, and how both gals insisted on wearing high heels while running, despite having opportunities to loot better stuff along the way. The unconcern the protagonists show for the gal who was bitten was ridiculous, as was the protagonist's desire to enter a city under attack by a giant monster and drag along his comrades when most people would be running the opposite direction.

Overall, if they had made the filming technique a bit less nauseating and the beginning a trifle less dull, I would've given this another star. I was entertained.... But it had its flaws, and It wasn't worth feeling sick afterward.

3 out of 5 stars

The problem is in the presentation March 27, 2008
34 out of 62 found this review helpful

The idea, conceived by producer J.J. Abrams, is brilliant, and the story told here is exciting, riveting stuff. It's tense and, at times, genuinely scary. If not for one little problem, I would have thoroughly enjoyed this film.

The problem is in the presentation. And it's a biggie.

Since the entire movie is supposed to come from a single hand-held camera, everything is in Shaky-Cam (or, as Roger Ebert aptly called it, "Queasy-Cam"). Hence, the movie quickly and continually induces vertigo in its audience; of the six members of my party, four reported some degree of motion sickness. Somewhere further down in the theater, we heard at least one person vomit.

No matter how good a movie is -- and this one is, in its way, very, very good -- it suffers when you can't bear to look at the screen. It's hard to appreciate the filmmaker's craft when you're trying to keep down the buffalo chicken sandwich you foolishly ate on the way to the theater.

by Tom Knapp, Rambles.(net) editor

5 out of 5 stars

Cloverfield is the next great monster movie! March 25, 2008
32 out of 53 found this review helpful

I remember it well. Walking into the movie theater in summer of 1999 with friends and being so excited about seeing a little indie movie called The Blair Witch Project. When I had seen the trailer I thought how cool the concept was: to show a movie from a video camcorder perspective (so we're there with the frightened documenters). Well, that was the only cool thing about that movie. The story, character development and direction were the worst thing I had ever seen. I remember the movie ending and feeling cheated as well as if I had just lost 86 minutes of my life I could have been seeing something much better. "Blair Witch" was also a joke to me because I had been camping in those same woods (in Burkittsville, MD) as a younger kid and there definitely was no spirit or ghost or killer there. And then the one good thing that came out of the "Blair Witch" movie faded back into obscurity: the cool idea that a movie be shot from a character's perspective a la typical video camcorder.

Then came J.J. Abrams (creator and producer genius of shows like "Felicity," "Alias," and "Lost"). While visiting in Japan promoting his movie directorial debut "Mission: Impossible III," with his son, he saw Godzilla toys and thought that America should have its own version of the infamous radiated lizard. He contacted his crew at his production company Bad Robot. They in turn hired writer extraordinare Drew Goddard (who's written TV episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel," and "Alias") and director Matt Reeves (who's only directed the David Schwimmer sleeper "The Pallbearer" and a few episodes of "Felicity," which he co-created with Abrams). I knew with Reeves, Goddard and Abrams involved that they would bring to their latest project -- entitled "Cloverfield" (named after the street near Abrams' office) or "01-18-08" (the movie didn't have an official title; even when the teaser trailer was shown before "Transformers") -- what was sorely missing in "Blair Witch." They were going to emotionally invest in the characters and have the audience feel close to the main characters with screen time.

Like most trends, they hired a cast of unknowns or up-and-comers that hardly anyone has heard of: Lizzy Caplan (Mean Girls), Mike Vogel (2003's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), Jessica Lucas (ABC's cancelled Life As We Know It), Odette Yustman (ABC's October Road), the wonderful new comedian T.J. Miller (ABC's "Carpoolers"), and excellent leading man Michael Stahl-David (NBC's cancelled The Black Donnellys). The producers and writers did well with imbuing this film with palpable characters who remind us of ourselves and people we know. Each character in this movie has their own story (and relationship) which is introduced creatively well in the beginning by recordings (thanks to Miller's everyman character Hud) of each character's interaction at a going-away party for Rob (Stahl-David). Also, interspersed throughout the tape -- when the current party/disaster recording is turned off -- the audience sees previously recorded footage of Rob and his love interest Beth (Yustman) on a special day together. Just when you think the movie is going to continue with these relationships, then all hell unexpectedly breaks loose.

The brilliance of this movie is its "Blair Witch concept" of showing the film as if it were merely found film footage (no credits at the beginning, only in the end). Of course, this film is on a much bigger scale than "Blair Witch," with a monster terrorizing Manhattan. And while that seems unrealistic, it's the only unrealistic thing about this movie. What the characters do and say, the way the movie plays out is completely realistic. Unlike "Blair Witch," even when there are no attacks or action sequences, "Cloverfield" keeps your eyes peeled to the screen; out of the entire packed audience I saw this film with, no one said a word, cracked a joke or even got up to go the bathroom. This movie is everything a disaster movie should be! A thrilling ride of adrenaline and a heart-wrenching story of survival and human emotion, "Cloverfield" strikes all the right chords from fright to bravery to even humor. It shows the horror of the event from the point of view of the common man on the ground who's merely trying to survive the catastrophe. Like Jaws (with the shark, throughout most of the movie) and the original theatrical release of The Empire Strikes Back (with the Wampa in the ice cave), where the "monsters" are not seen for a long time during their screen time, this movie uses that same approach of not showing the monster in its entirety or at all. And that works extremely well for building up the terror for the audience. I won't tell you what the monster looks like when you finally do see it, but I will say it looks nothing like Godzilla or any interpretation of it. Of course, there also has to be another monstrous threat and it comes in the form of what I can only imagine are the equivalent of "fleas" for the monster, but are our size and have very big jaws and teeth. When these monsters are introduced to the lead characters (and thus to the audience), it matches the same terrifying, pulse-pounding moment in Aliens when Bill Paxton's character holds up the alien locater and sees that the aliens have completely surrounded them in the tunnel and are soon going to attack.

"Cloverfield" was a wonderful monster/catastrophe film and I could easily see it at least three more times in the theater ... if not more. Kudos to Abrams, Reeves, Goddard and crew who pulled off a groundbreaking new form of cinema that the folks attached to "Blair Witch" tried desperately to achieve, but painfully failed. The detail that went into the effects as well as the camerawork (some done by actor Miller himself) was so flawlessly executed that I felt as if I were immersed in watching an actual documetary. I'm sure plenty of knock-off straight-to-DVD movies will soon be surfacing with Cloverfield's success, but none will even come close. Everything works with "Cloverfield": the story, the acting, the character development, and the direction. If this seems like the kind of movie you're in to but still aren't sure about it, go see it without hesitation! I'm sure there won't be another like it that's this good in a very long time. I've never been so wowed by a movie of this genre and can't recommend it enough. SEE IT! However, there is one caution I must tell you: You'll leave the theater wanting more. More information about the characters, more follow-up, more movie (director Reeves even hinted at looking closely at the background at the very end of the movie for something in the Coney Island scene and staying until the very end of the credits for a voice clip from a radio transmission)! This movie is phenomenal! Like me, most viewers will want to see "Cloverfield" over and over again. And that's a true mark of any film's success.

And for those skeptical that this DVD release will be what studios did for the DVD release of "Zodiac" and other blockbusters in the past -- releasing a regular version with no special features one month, then only to re-release a DVD loaded with special features 6-7 months later (this is referred to as "double-dipping") -- the special features for the upcoming DVD release of "Cloverfield" have been revealed by Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment as of March 18. Now let's just hope they go with some better, more cooler packaging than the stupid poster art; something that fits the style of the movie (I want a "top secret" government slip case and package to make it look like it's an actual piece of government evidence). Here are the special features:

* Commentary: Commentary by Director Matt Reeves
* Featurette: The Making of Cloverfield
* Featurette: Cloverfield Visual Effects
* Featurette: I Saw It! It's Alive! It's Huge
* Featurette: Clover Fun
* Additional Scenes: Congrats Rob
* Additional Scenes: When You're in Japan
* Additional Scenes: I Call That a Date
* Additional Scenes: It's Going to Hurt
* Additional Scenes: Alt Ending #1
* Additional Scenes: Alt Ending #2
* Easter Eggs: Slusho!
* Easter Eggs: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 2
* Easter Eggs: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 5
* Easter Eggs: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 9
* Easter Eggs: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 11
* Easter Eggs: Rack 'Em & Pack 'Em
* Easter Eggs: Fighting the X

Powered by Associate-O-Matic

T-shirts, Posters

Pentagram T-shirts, bags, etc...

Gothic Posters