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. (04/07/2016)

Cloverfield is an obvious mix of The Blair Witch Project and Godzilla, taking the best and the worst from both of them. The entire film is shot with a handheld camera, so those who hate shaky images need to consider whether they should invest their time in it at all before watching it. The film's running time is perfectly adequate – an hour and a quarter – and I wasn't actually bored, why the 3* then? To be honest, I was a bit more annoyed with our famous "cameraman" who filmed everything, everyone and everywhere, but then again, there would have been nothing to watch. I didn't like the script either, but the look of the monster and the CGI action scenes were excellent. In short, a film that no doubt deserves a large fanbase, but I didn't find my way to it, which in this case is a shame. (07/01/2011)

When they were handing out original ideas, J.J. Abrams and his gang were ahead of the game. How else can you explain that a story from a worn-out genre, filmed using a proven technique dating back to 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 so tangible that it didn't let me sleep properly on the day I saw it. (02/22/2008)

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] (01/28/2008)

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)