Cloverfield

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. (06/23/2008)

Or How to effectively combine a classic monster movie with the modern tradition of found footage horror. It's no wonder that Reeves and Goddard are building such promising Hollywood careers thanks to this. Cloverfield is a superbly constructed recreation of a nightmare, focusing on the immediate circle of a group of hapless heroes. The story unfolds rhythmically in regularly changing locations, cleverly subverting the audience's expectations just by cramming into the foreground more genre tropes than the viewer would expect from a film with a giant monster devastating New York. I will probably need a second screening for maximum satisfaction, when the originality and narrative certainty will surely affect me even more strongly. EDIT: The second screening induced maximum satisfaction. 90% (08/07/2018)

Cloverfield is a very effective goose-bump-inducing movie, if a little forgettable. Someone was finally able to take the idea from The Blair Witch Project to another level. Half of the budget went to visual effects, the other half to Skywalker Sound. Dolby sound is a must. But don’t expect anything serious. The monster and the (great) “Overture” by Michael Giacchino in the end credits seem to come straight out of a 1950s sci-fi flick. (01/21/2008)

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. (04/07/2016)

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. (02/21/2008)