Comments on: Movie Review: Cloverfield

By: Ronald Stepp

Ronald Stepp — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:12:34 +0000

I thought of the Ch’torr as well, sort of like this is the 1st wave of somebody ‘forming the earth into something they like to live in.

By: kaoticchick

kaoticchick — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:00:18 +0000

Cloverfeild made my month…the marks on the statue of liberty are just brilliant..looks like a flesh wound on metal..HUD’s character is the best ..TJ miller is the best stand up comic ive seen in a long time. check out his act

http://effinfunny.com/tjmiller

By: John de Michele

John de Michele — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:06:16 +0000

The wife and I saw it this weekend, and enjoyed the hell out of it. I thought the scenes that were reminiscent of 9/11 were very effective.

By: cybersekkin

cybersekkin — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:10:28 +0000

it stunk on ice. what a total waste of time and money.

By: Gernot

Gernot — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:33:05 +0000

I liked this movie, and for some reason, was very much reminded of the Ch’torr novels by David Gerrold back in the mid- to late- 80’s.

Anyone else? :)

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:38:39 +0000

Cloverfield was about what I expected. In terms of a “movie”, there’s not much there. However, it was a lot of fun to watch and I had a good time with it.

I think the big thing for me though about Cloverfield is that this is a movie that MUST be experienced in a theater. I’m happy to have seen this in a movie theater for the first time. I’d be pissed had I passed on seeing it in the theater and seen it on home video first. Yeah, I’ve got the whole HD setup and all, but it’s never the same as going to the theater.

Now, after saying all of this, I will say one more thing. Cloverfield is the exact type of movie that I’ll never wish to view again after seeing it for the first time. There are just some movies that I see it as being pointless to watch again…and this is one of them…

By: Xander

Xander — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:49:58 +0000

I just got back from seeing it and I really liked it, especially considering how most monster movies turn out.

I had read somewhere that the film was 2 hours and 24 minutes long (which seemed long), so the abrupt ending was even more surprising to me.

I saw it with a friend who said, “You can tell it’s a J.J. Abrams’ film because they don’t explain anything.”

By: sir jorge

sir jorge — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:24:37 +0000

wow…it was good?weird.

By: WordSlinger

WordSlinger — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:40:05 +0000

No, the monster is actually done pretty well, Still CGI-ish, but nothing they can really do with that. If I had to describe what it looked like… I would say it is a hybrid of a T-Rex, a praying mantis, and the huge Rancor from Return of the Jedi. Kinda sorta… not exactly, but that’s as close as I can get.

By: Cory OBrien

Cory OBrien — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:57:39 +0000

Great review, and I agree that “exciting” is a perfect word to describe the film.

I liked the ‘ground level’ story, and the focus on the people; as it added a new spin to the monster genre.

Definitely a good flick, though I think those shortcomings are going to prevent it from becoming a true classic.

By: Some Call Me "Tim"

Some Call Me "Tim" — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:47:09 +0000

Good review!
I’m NOT interested in this being a typical monster movie but I AM interested in the monster.
Man, I would have thought every fan-boy with a cellphone camera would have posted an image of it by now, but I STILL haven’t seen it yet.
Is it a cheap-looking monster, or WHAT?

By: The Rub

The Rub — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:04:36 +0000

This movie was a lot of fun, for sure. Yes, the stink of J.J. Abrams is all over this film (in a good way). Good stuff.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:58:35 +0000

“One thing is for sure, a first time viewing is an exciting ride.”
I think you said it best right here. Excellent review. I had fun with this one.