Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1721 in DVD
• Released on: 2008-06-09
• Rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
• Format: PAL
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 81 minutes

Amazon.co.uk

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 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 their ex-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

Special Features

Customer Reviews

Marmite
My two cents. I feel quite protective of this movie. Rant alert!

There are a lot of people who didn't like this film because they got sick from the handicam work. I can understand this - I'd be a bit cross if I paid for my ticket and then watched a jerky movie that made me feel sick. Fair enough. I was lucky, I didn't feel sick.

However, there are also a lot of people who are rubbishing this film for a lack of character development or plot subtlety. I find this baffling. Er... guess what? This isn't a Merchant Ivory film. It's a monster movie. The poster with the decapitated Statue of Liberty covered in claw marks was a bit of a clue. I don't recall any criticism of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" based on its lack of rampaging monsters, now why was that? Ah yes, it was because "Four Weddings" was a romcom, not a visceral monster movie. There aren't any finely detailed and lovingly developed character relationships in Cloverfield because about 50% of the screentime the characters are screaming, or running, and the other 50% they are screaming AND running. I also object to the people saying "they're just whiney New Yorkers, I wanted to see them die". What??? What a lovely perspective! They're not that "whiney" - in fact they're pretty damn brave (I think I'd probably have a bit of a moan if a monster was inconsiderate enought to destroy London when I was in the middle of it and kill all my friends) and I loved the conceit of the cutting between the live "Cloverfield" footage and the historical footage on the camera of the couple on their one perfect day out together - it certainly tugged at my heartstrings, and offered a great contrast with the carnage in the present.

Then there are people who are just saying that this film is "bad". That makes me a bit cross. There are plenty of "bad" movies - try "Norbert" for example. That is a "bad" movie - cynical, poorly written, racist, poorly performed by has-been "stars" turning up for the paycheck, a McMovie aimed at the thickest, easiest-pleased lowest common denominator. "Cloverfield" is about as far from that sort of filmmaking as it is possible to get. For a mainstream movie, this is experimental film making - it's brave, it's unusual, it was launched at an unusual time for movies, it was marketed unusually and intelligently, it's an extremely carefully-constructed movie, a real labour of love (look out for the falling satellite in the very final shot!). It's short - really bucking the trend. It's obviously a much more important film than the inevitable indistinguishable three hour oh-so-worthy Oscar nomination vehicles with the same old stars going through the same old motions.

I'm happy to pin my colours to the mast: I'd rate Cloverfield as borderline genius and an important piece of filmmaking in that it pushes (arguably creating, certainly extending) a novel kind of genre. A zeitgeisty, "reality through the moviecam/mobile phone camera" style that captures the kind of images that really make the news nowadays. There will be many more movies like this, and so there should be.

I and my wife came out of this movie shaking. She - a lover of all things romcom and girly trash movies - announced after a minute or so of stunned silence that it was the best film she'd ever seen.

I don't know about that. But I can say this: Cloverfield is the second-best EXPERIENCE that I've ever had at the movies. And the best was Star Wars, when I was five. So my standards were a little simpler then.

Until we have virtuality, smellyvision and all the other interactive stuff that the future no doubt holds, this is the nearest we'll get to being right in the middle of a good old "monster crushes city" experience. It's exactly like being caught with a crowd of random strangers who are trapped and stunned right in the eye of the storm. Who cares if they're idiots? Who cares if they are in shock and do irrational things? It's totally irrelevant. What's relevant is that there's a gigantic monster somewhere out of camera shot that could come into camera shot at any second, and it wants to kill you.

The little creatures are straight rip-offs of the Starship Troopers bugs. This doesn't matter, because they're still really bloody scarey. The "result of the bite" sequence is unexpected, sudden, brutal and shocking. Wonderful, as punchy as the Godfather of such moments, the John Hurt Alien chestbursting moment. The Cloverfield monster itself is absolutely the best Godzilla style megamonster I've ever seen in a movie. Really, really, really grotesque and frightening.

It's a movie about a 500 foot high indestructible monster rampaging through Manhattan. It's clearly silly. But it achieves movie nirvana - it totally suspends disbelief. It feels real. It's traumatic. It's horrifying.

Absolutely freaking fantastic film and anyone who rubbishes it otherwise than because of subjective problems with motion sickness has a very strange notion of what is, or isn't, good cinema. That or they went in hoping for Hugh Grant to pop up and give someone a nice romantic kiss in the rain.

Not a complete waste...
Cloverfield, after all the exciting build up and 'clever' marketing it was only reasonable to expect that this film would be a great hit at the box office and maybe the potential to become a cult classic. Sadly I don't think that will be happening anytime soon.

The first section of the film is all a bit slow out of the blocks really, some might say it is intended to get to know the characters a little. I found it to be rather annoying and quite frankly boring, not only that but to my horror it is when the viewer first finds out that the film is actually going to be about a guy chasing after his true love (nothing ground breaking there!)

I did not mind the camera technique used (but then again i didnt like it either) The one thing that was annoying is the guy filming all the action, his comments are so silly its unbelievable...enough for you to be rooting for the monster at this point. Who nwould carry a camera around in this situation anyway! well the excuse given is to "document" the events that happen...

That leads us onto the monster, it is well created and i dont totally agree with other reviews which suggest you dont see enough of it...thats part of the mystery behind the film, not knowing what it is or why it is attacking New York. The length of the film is also quite annoying, it just leaves you wanting to see just that little bit more to justify the time you have invested to watch it.

Worth a watch if you get the opportunity...

Whats that coming between those skyscrapers?........Is it a monster?
Cloverfield can be taken , as indeed it has by many , as a straight up creature feature - a visceral collision ofThe Blair Witch Project [1999] and Godzilla (1998) with a smidgeon of The Thing [1982] thrown in for good. measure. Yet it is also as far as I'm concerned allegorical , tapping into America's post 9/11 vulnerability facing an enemy they do not understand and cannot easily defeat. There are also ( some would say tasteless and opportunistic ) allusions to the attacks on the twin towers , indeed the film makers make direct comparisons in the DVD extras.
Much has been made of the films use of a handheld digital camera. I didn't find it a problem but then i watched the film at home on a 32 inch widescreen TV so the vertiginous side- effects were nullified somewhat. The use of the camera is used as a clever device to insert little snap-shots of some of the characters back story and to help the audience understand decisions that characters make that otherwise would be difficult to understand What is difficult to understand however is why someone would continue filming while climbing across the roof of a disintegrating skyscraper but then if characters made decisions based on simple common sense we wouldn't have much of a movie would we? ( Some obviously think we haven't anyway)
The set up is simple Rob( Michael Stahl David) . is leaving for a new job as vice president of some company or other in Japan and his brother Jason ( Mike Vogel) and his girlfriend Lily ( Jessica Lucas) have thrown him a surprise leaving party . Amiable doofus Hud ( T J Miller) is tasked with filming video testimonials from party guests including the rather acerbic Marlena( Lizzy Caplan) who he has the hots for. Meanwhile Rob isn't the happy bunny he should be as the girl he is secretly in love with , Beth( Odette Yustman ), turns up at the party with another man. Suddenly something attacks downtown Manhattan and before you can shout decapitated the head of the Statue Of Liberty is crashing down their street. The attacker is huge , reptilian , more destructive than an over excited toddler and it would seem impervious to everything the military can throw at it. Not only that it is shedding voracious little beasties( these are parasites we are informed in the extras) with teeth like Janet Street Porter and the attitude to match.
Rob decides to go find his true love Beth after taking a distressing call on his mobile .This means heading towards the creature not away from it. Now logically anyone with this guy would wish him all the best and then carry on the other way to safety but this lot decide to go with him. Again we have a plot device that defies logic but ensures the film has a continuous narrative. This means lots of running around with Hud shouting hey dude/ man wait up .....a lot.
Despite it's sometimes preposterous plot and the fact it's first person perspective means we know as little about the creatures origins , or indeed it's denouement as them , i thoroughly enjoyed Cloverfield. Technically it's brilliantly conceived and some of the action is viscerally superb. The performances are good and even though the opening twenty minutes is dragged out too long the films curt running time ensures a pretty enthralling relentless thrill ride . The use of sound in the film -very much like that on The Blair Witch Project [1999], the film that invites most comparisons is outstanding .
The DVD has a directors commentary -rendered with huge enthusiasm by Matt Reeves and there is an option in the menu to have numerous supplemental files pop up throughout the film which give more background information to the films production .These can be very informative though one or two are a rather spurious.
Whether you view Cloverfield as a straight up creature feature in the same vein as the classics from the 1950,s( though they had cold war connotations) , or like me view it as distinctly allegorical the end result is still the same . A hugely effective satisfying cinematic experience that isn't hindered overly by the inherent stupidity of the plot. But then what's more daft than a giant lizard attacking New York anyway?