 
Cloverfield
MPAA Rating:
 for violence, terror and disturbing imagesReviewed by: Thaisha Geiger Very Offensive
Moviemaking Quality:
Average
Primary Audience:
Teens, Adults
Genre:
Sci-Fi, Suspense, Action, Thriller
Length:
1 hr. 30 min.
Year of Release:
2008
USA Release:
January 18, 2008 (wide - 3,100 theaters); DVD release: April 22, 2008
           Relevant Issues
Extraterrestrial life
What does the Bible say about intelligent life on other planets? Answer Are we alone in the universe? Answer Does Scripture refer to life in space? Answer Fear
Fear, Anxiety and Worry… What does the Bible say? Answer Sex before marriage
Should I save sex for marriage? Answer How far is too far? What are the guidelines for dating relationships? Answer What are the consequences of sexual immorality? Answer
“Some thing has found us” While standing in line to buy my ticket, there were numerous warnings about the movie “Cloverfield” taped to the ticket windows: “Due to the filming method used for ‘Cloverfield,’ guests viewing this film may experience side effects associated within motion sickness similar to riding a roller coaster.” A roller coaster is an understatement. The movie’s jagged movements required me to close my eyes on several occasions. There was much hype about this film due to its shrouded secrecy. By the time I found out the secret, I couldn’t have cared less; I felt nauseous and annoyed. “Cloverfield” is a movie that involves video segments shot with a handheld camera. The entire movie is shown from this perspective and follows four characters trying to survive when New York City gets attacked by a mysterious monster. The movie begins with some text stating that the videotape being played is now classified material and contains footage from the location that was once known as Central Park. The disaster’s codename is “Cloverfield.” The film begins with Rob (a promising Michael Stahl-David) happily recording Beth (a beautiful Odette Yustman) as they plan on spending the day together. The film suddenly cuts to a month later where Rob’s brother Jason (Mike Vogel) and his girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas), are planning on throwing Rob a surprise going-away party. It turns out Rob received a job as a vice president in Japan. During the party, Rob’s best friend Hudson “Hud” (TJ Miller) takes over camera duty. He goes around the party having people wish Rob luck. Hud soon focuses his attentions on Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) and tries to initiate conversation with her. When Beth finally arrives at the party with a date, there is instant tension between her and Rob. After having a heated discussion, Beth soon leaves, while Rob confides in his friend that he loves Beth. Not much is spoken before New York City is suddenly attacked by a mysterious creature. The four characters run for their lives in this highly suspenseful movie. The movie is not original in its making. The writers combined the concept of an animal attacking a large city (“Godzilla,” “King Kong”) and a shaky handheld camera (“The Blair Witch Project”) to create “Cloverfield.” Unlike “The Blair Witch Project,” the monster is shown. I’ll not give away any details of the monster, allowing that secret to remain. However, I will say that director Matt Reeves gives the viewer only glimpses of the beast before his full emergence. It heightens curiosity, and the movie’s special effects are very convincing and effective. The camera movements were quite annoying at times. Even at the beginning, when there was no monster, Jason did not seem to know how to tell if a camera is on or off. We fall victim to his constant movements. When Hud becomes the new camera guy, we’re shown lots of feet, shaking, and chaos. The camera movements were mostly realistic in this film. The cinematography was excellent in making sure there were no lapses. Despite the staggering movements, the movie does nicely flow in nonstop action. From beginning to end, “Cloverfield” has a lot of moral filth. The movie begins with Rob waking Beth up in his bed. It is obvious she is nude (only her back is shown). Within the same scene, Rob is shown in his boxers, implying pre-marital sex. This is confirmed at Rob’s going-away party when Hud overhears Beth and Rob discussing it. Upon hearing it, Hud immediately begins to gossip and tell numerous people about their having sexual relations. One girl comments that maybe its Rob’s “going-away present” from Beth. Rob later justifies his having sex with Beth as a “spur of the moment” decision. Sex in this movie is shown as a casual event between unmarried persons and a fun topic of gossip. I did like how their sexual encounter only created negative results. In the beginning of the movie, they found temporary pleasure in their sin. A month later, Beth and Rob were still dealing with the consequences. At the going-away party, the scenes were teeming with alcoholic consumption. It leaves no room for imagination. Almost all of the characters, in every scene, are holding beers in their hands. In several scenes, the vast array of liquors and beers are shown at the bar area and on tables. There are also many people taking liquor shots in the background. Hud, the camera man, zooms in on a girl presumably passed out on the couch. Not surprisingly, she’s holding a beer in her hand. Among the most offensive content in this film is its profanity and using the Lord’s name in vain. They are uttered in almost every scene, and I had trouble keeping count. The film seemed to love using sh*t. I counted at least 27 uses. I also heard at least one GD. I cringed when I heard the misuse of the Lord’s name. “Oh, my God” was used without reservation throughout the film. It seems Hollywood cannot think of a better saying to show surprise or fear. In that regard, this movie lacked originality and had its characters bell it out in almost unbroken repetition. I counted at least 29 times of this misuse. The name of Jesus was also misused at least 7 times. I, however, do not doubt that there were many more. It was hard to count because many scenes involved loud commotion and chaos. It would have been nice if they actually were crying out to God. This movie, however, never made any references to God or his sovereignty. The blood and gore in this movie is intense. I usually have a some tolerance against gore, and I found myself getting a bit squeamish while watching “Cloverfield.” The movie shrewdly avoided an R-rating, for never remaining on a scene too long. However, it lingered long enough to get a reaction from the crowd of teenagers in the movie theatre. When one of the characters got bitten by a spider-like creature, Hud apparently took pleasure in zooming in on the deep gash. A man who had his gut ripped open was shown and zoomed in on. One of the most disturbing scenes was when one of the characters said she wasn’t feeling well. When the camera turned to her, she was horridly pale and bleeding from her eyes. The nurses quickly shouted something and pushed her into a tent, as she screamed. Upon entering the tent, she promptly exploded, an alien coming out of her. Her blood massively splattered on the tent. Although the actual explosion was not visually shown, the lighting allowed for the shadow to show everything on the wall of the tent. I found this very disturbing and gruesome. When one of the characters was impaled by a metal rod, the others lifted her up. The actual removal is not shown, the camera only showed her legs as she was lifted off of the rod. However, it was still mentally disturbing when she screamed in pain. With a monster attacking a city, one would expect much violence. The movie attendant warned that the movie was extremely loud. Her warning was not unfounded. This movie had more than its share of violence. There was a lot of gunfire and bombing, as the military tried to subdue the animal. In return, the monster viciously attacked the city, helicopters, and humans. Murders took place on screen. Spider-like creatures viciously attacked the main characters in an intense and scary scene. Looting was also shown. Instead of robbing for survival, these thieves had entirely selfish reasons. They were robbing an electronics store. Some could be seen carrying out TVs on their shoulders. Rob did steal a battery in desperation in order to re-establish contact with Beth. I did not find this offensive since he was genuinely concerned about Beth's safety. Amidst all of the chaos, blood, cursing and gore, the movie did have a couple of surprisingly good themes: self-sacrifice and love. After the monster first attacked the city, Rob immediately tried calling Beth. When she finally answered, Rob knew she was in trouble. She sounded in pain and said she couldn’t move. Without a second thought, Rob decided to go and save her. His friends ran after him. A powerful scene was when Rob was running the opposite direction of all of the terrified people. He never seemed deterred that he was the only one running back into the city. Against all possible odds, Rob was determined to save the woman he loved. Rob could have left the city and saved himself. This reminded me how Jesus went through excruciating pain at the cross bearing the sins all of mankind. He could have called angels to help him, but he never did. He loves us that much. When his friends finally caught up with Rob, they agreed to help him find Beth. They were putting their lives on the line for Rob and for Beth. It reminded me of the verse in the book of John when Jesus says in 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay one’s life for his friends” (NKJV). They were never selfish, despite being in a panic and in a literal life or death situation. Although the movie’s special effects and self-sacrificial themes were strong, I cannot recommend the film. The bloody, gory path the viewer is required to take isn’t worth it. It left me feeling queasy and unfulfilled. However, if you have a high tolerance for the hearing our Lord’s name in vain and a strong stomach against motion sickness, you might want to go see it. However, I strongly feel this movie is definitely not suited for children of any age. The theater I sat in embodied mostly teens. They reacted with disgust in almost every climatic scene. Children are a gift from God and should be raised holy. There is nothing holy or uplifting about this movie. My advice? Hop on that roller coaster and avoid this movie. Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Minor See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.   Comments below:
Positive
Positive - This film was even better than anticipated! The movie really takes you into the heart of the battle—and you have to witness it on the BIG screen in order to get the full impact (although it seems odd that a little handheld camera could have caught this much raw power.) It is violent, it is disturbing at times, but I guarantee you, it is the best monster film you have seen in many years (especially after a very unexciting “King Kong” a couple three years back). Anyone 14 or older that enjoys this genre will love this movie. The language was a bit offensive at times, although not as explicit as many films you've probably seen this year. Positive - My husband and I enjoyed an afternoon showing of 'Cloverfield' today, and I admit, I was impressed with the film and enjoyed the intense and entertaining journey. What I enjoyed above all about 'Cloverfield' was the creative side of it. It was filmed with a camcorder by one of the central characters, which made the film seem more realistic—more believable than many sci-fi/thriller movies which are shot with a perfect, omnipresent point of view. The fact that the film is shown from one person's point of view builds the suspense. It's the thrill of not knowing. Positive - …I am a HUGE fan of monster movies such as “Jurassic Park,” the Godzilla movies, and old-school monster movies such as “Them” - so I had incredibly high expectations for this film. I had been anticipating this movie since I heard of it last year on the opening day of “Transformers,” thus that has also given me high expectations. Positive - Being a resident of NYC, I was really quite awed by “Cloverfield.” At first it seemed like a really mindless fun monster flick, but when I began to see the images of people in the streets running away from clouds of smoke and walking around disoriented I found a deeper respect for the film. In a way, “Cloverfield” was a satirical film of the fateful day when the real monster struck my city and our country. That monster's name was called “Terrorism.” Positive - …good, not excellent, because it kinda left you hanging. The camera work was really, really bad. I know they shot it that way on purpose, but O just think it should have been a little bit more steady. It left me feeling really nauseous. The acting was believable, and the plot was really good. A couple uses of the (s-word), no f-bombs, so that was good. All the talk about sex was not necessary. Positive - I give this film an “A” for originality. However, the shaky camera stuff almost gave me a migraine, and I had to look away several times to keep from getting sick. If you like science fiction, you will love this movie. If you like monster movies, you will love this one. No sex, no nudity, no f-bombs, but our Lord's name is profaned. The movie gets tense, people swear. Friends care about each other. Don't expect “The Passion…” here, or “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.” People die, it's a monster movie —remember that. Positive - …I saw this movie twice. I believe it to be one of the best films in the past couple years. I loved how real it was in the filmmaking and storytelling. As I myself am the one who video tapes all of the party's (birthday, going away, special events), I completely loved and enjoyed the realism of how aggravating it is to video tape over something and have to check it and then watch it back and have glimpses of the other video... that made me laugh. the other thing that I need to comment on after reading the review is that drinking is not a sin and all of the people at the party looked of age... not to say that getting drunk isn't a sin because I do believe that is subjective.. in this context it would be. Also when you are of that age 22-26 every party have some alcohol so I don't believe that was an issue in this movie as the movie is geared to older teens and young adults. The hint on the 'pre-martial' sex is a little on the offensive side if that offends you... but keep in mind in a normal movie there would've no doubt have been a quick shot of nudity or hardcore make-out scene, which we were thank God spared of. I also loved how real everything looked. Compared to another “monster”-like movie out now “I Am Legend” where the monsters looked like a video game; “Cloverfield” looked like at was an actual life thing. I, also, think the profanity is wrong, but we are humans and 90% of people, Christians included, will yell out a profanity in the happenings of life and death. Also, one thing the review stated was there was no positive note on God and His sovereignty, that is a lie. The last thing, Hud, the camera man, yelled out as he was near death was, 'oh God, I'm sorry' over and over again thus showing his knowledge and acceptance that God real. I believe that as Christians we focus on the amount of negative when really I believe Jesus would've sat right in that theater and had a blast with me... popcorn and all. Also, if you have read any of Wild At Heart boys have this warrior inside of us, …and to take that away strips our society of its manhood and only weakens us. So, I don't believe the violence and blood should've been taken out of the movie. All in all i believe this movie was phenomenal. Positive - This movie was amazing! I absolutely enjoyed it. I have seen it twice already it and will probably go see it again and definitely buy it on DVD. I thought it was one of the best monster movies I have seen in a very long time. I was expecting a lot from this movie considering all of the hype it has producing and I think it has delivered extremely well. The camera movement was not at all as bad as some people claim it was. There were times that I forgot all about the camera movement. It was very loud, but then again it is a monster movie, what are you expecting, Beethoven? I liked how suspenseful and thrilling it was without being so much that it had hints of horror in it. I thought that the movie showed just the right amount of the monster at just the right times. It was very well put together. For those of you who haven't seen it and even for those of you who have yet did not notice it, if you pay attention in the last scene just to the left of the cruise ship you can see something fall from space into the ocean. Also, stay till the end of the credits. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Positive - As soon as I saw the words 'in what what used to be Central Park,' flash across the screen I knew that everyone was going to die. Unlike the monster movies of old, this movie asks the question, 'What would happen if one day, with no explanation, an indestructible monster started terrorizing New York City'? No explanation whatsoever. Don't go into this film expecting a happy ending. I will say it is seen through the eyes of a recovered video camera so the film is a bit shaky but not near as bad as some others I've seen (“Blair Witch Project,” anyone?) I will say to watch for the hidden messages throughout the film, what is on the TV in the background? And here's a biggy, in the last scene, (a flashback) WATCH THE SKY! Positive - Be prepared for a short, intense film unlike any other you may have ever seen. Yes, the movie runs as though someone shot it personally with their handheld camera. Yes, it is often jerky. Yes, the film often jumps from scene to scene rather disjointedly. Keep in mind, this movie is to be treated as 70 min. worth of someone's home video footage, so overlapping footage from multiple dates are to be expected. Having said all this, plot aside, this is an interesting film cinematically speaking just because the makers cast their dice on these non-traditional techniques... and pulled it off.
The film starts off as what seems the usual teen-targeted soap opera that crosses state lines into grindhouse celluloid. The dialogue is a tad sluggish and all too personal, a steady stream of rhetoric akin to most drama-themed reality tv shows of today. Now that's just my take. To the regular, social out-going partygoer, this sort of vernacular may be all too second nature. So... in the midst of this seemingly interminable gossip-oriented night life, whammy! The movie starts.
Intense? I felt like I was there. Pending your suspension of disbelief, you'll feel like you're there too, caught up in the midst of the destruction and chaos, and it is terrifying. Halfway through, I found myself squarely positioned in my seat, eyes bugged out, head pooched forward.
Praise: the creators opted to follow the smart strategy of revealing the monster slowly, bit by bit. Nice touch guys. And... I love this... they went with the anti-film climax. What's that you say? I'll explain, since I love this sort of film, and I use the term frequently these days. An 'anti-film' is a film in which the climax ends without your generic ending. It may be sudden, offbeat, and grossly lacking in closure. That, ladies & gentleman, is what makes a good movies these days. Why? Because so MANY movies follow some formulaic... well... formula. Variety is the spice of life, yah? :)
As far as content goes, it's the usual adult-themed stuff you'd find in a PG-13 film. The language is hardly noticeable, but that's just me. After nearly 7 weeks at Lackland, you'd understand why. ;) It's the violence and terror that (in my humble opinion) should've made this flick an R-featurette. It was appalling to see young children in the theater last night. I don't know what parents think these days. :_( Alas, the MPAA shares in their blame. There are many PG-13 movies that should be rated R and the same can be said of the converse. 4 ratings is much too restrictive in today's broad spectrum of objectionable content, and until the MPAA reforms their system, movies like Cloverfield will continue to fall in between the cracks.
Positive - I noticed that there weren't any positive comments from the young people. I feel obliged then, to give my two cents worth: I think the reason that many people didn't like the movie was because not only the shaky camera, but the fact that it was a very different sort of movie. Everything was tied to the characters and once the characters reached the end of their plot-line, the movie ended. It seemed less about the actual monster attacking New York than about watching the character development of real people living a nightmare, and seeing how they coped. Everything seemed absolutely real to me, and that can be a good thing or a bad thing. Positive - Some of my friends were going to the movies, and weren't sure what to see yet. All we knew was, we were going on Friday, the 18. Eventually, we decided on “Cloverfield,” though I really wanted to see “27 Dresses.” In fact, not knowing anything about the movie made me feel even less inclined to see it (you know, the secrecy?). But, I thought this looked interesting, so I went. And, guess what? It was amazing. Positive - “Cloverfield” was what I expected it to be: intense and very realistic! It's true that the style in which they chose to film it was very jerky, but, to me, it gave the movie more personality and made it a lot more interesting. The actors were very good and so were the visual effects! Very creepy. Very real. The only thing I disliked was the bad language and.. sad to say... the ending! The rest of “Cloverfield” however, was excellent! I'd recommend this movie to my friends… particularly to people who ARE NOT prone to motion sickness...! But if you certain folks do decide to go see it and SOME how end up getting sick, don't complain! Because now you know what you're getting yourself into! Positive - This movie wasn't your average movie. It was something of its OWN!. Not only in how it was filmed, but in the way the story and plot is structured. This movie was just kind of scary in it's own entertaining way. There were a lot of 'oh, s_ _ _' and 'Oh my God!' There also is some immoral themes going on like sex before marriage and drinking. These themes are only expressed for a small portion of the film, but that still does not make the right. But other than that, the movie did a great job keeping you interested, and trust me, you'll always be guessing WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT. Also, the acting is very good, and it is believable from BEGINNING TO END. And to add to that, the monster in the film (don't worry, I'm not going to say what it is) is never really shown fully for quite some time, which is neat cause you're wondering what is that thing, just like the characters in the movie. I do advise parents that only let your kids see this movie if they are very MATURE, because there is disturbing parts and as mentioned before, some language and immoral themes. Positive - This movie was just plain crazy. I loved it though, saw it with my Dad, and it was pretty clean for the most part,the only mildly uncomfortable part was when Hud went around telling people that Rob an Beth had sex. I’m usually scared pretty easy, but this movie didn’t bother me at all really. It’s really suspenseful, but overall just a really fun movie that I recommend for mature 11 and up. Positive - The second best movie I have ever seen! Only “Freedom Writers” was better. I did not feel motion sickness at all and had no problems with the camera. I loved the style. I was truly astounded by the brilliance of the story and method of making this movie.… Neutral
Neutral - Last night we went to see the movie “Cloverfield.” Let me begin from a Christian perspective. The film contains a lot of profanity, which is not something I like to hear being a Christian. It wasn't way over the top though. There's no sex in the movie but it is talked about. There was nothing that I noticed that related to God or Jesus. I don't even recall anyone praying. Although, with the shaky camera work it was often hard to tell what was going on. More on this later. For a Christian I guess the film would rate as offensive. On a secular rating it would probably be average or below for being offensive. Neutral - I went to see this with my 17 year old son and his friends. WARNING: If you are prone to motion sickness, you might be careful. Most all of the film is done with a constantly moving, often jerky camera. All of the teenagers felt slightly nauseous afterwards. Neutral - A lot of people were anticipating this movie for a long time. I went and saw it and thought it was pretty good overall until the ending. I won't explain why in detail for those who have not seen it, but it leaves you with a feeling of 'Oh...'. The plot was great, and I think the actors did a good job. The special effects and the monster were awesome, however the movies was too short. For those who give a negative because of some 'loose morals' and 'drinking' (Oh no, not that); seriously, you can't make a movie without portraying the real world. As far as some of the cursing, I find it hard to believe that many people would not use those choice words if the Statue of Liberty's head came flying down the road, huge spider-like creatures were attacking people, and a monster the size of a skyscraper was attacking your neighborhood. This movie is a monster movie. What do people expect? The name of the movie was not “Attack of the Monster: The Story of Jesus Saving a City and Then Splitting Bread and Fish Again.” If it looks questionable, don't go see it. Negative
Negative - I was admittedly intrigued by the previews, and so I invested my afternoon in this adventure in filmmaking. I watched the movie with two teens; one had seen it the night before and said how scared he had been when it was over. He also mentioned how people had thrown up during the movie, due to motion sickness. I was all the more intrigued. Enough said. To me, the movie is one big gimmick. The plot is the same old monster-takes New York-good guy tries to save girl-incidental characters get decimated BUT the ending ends with a upbeat, if not ironic note. Yet, it is vague, and as an audience, there was a sense of “that's it?”. I hope handheld video isn't the new wave in filmmaking. My stomach got queasy with the unsteady camera waving, which dampened any concentration on the thin plot. Who can handle a roller coaster motion for over 90 minutes? I wasn't impressed, especially with the over emphasis on the party scene and loose morals with the main characters. I will say there is noted admiration how the friends tried to stick together and genuinely helped one another. Thankfully, there wasn't as much profanity as there could have been, yet there is plenty of gore and violence. Not for the squeamish, and definitely not a movie for young kids. Negative - I went along with my husband to see this movie. He was really looking forward to it and I tried to get caught up in the anticipation. I wanted to enjoy this movie, but I simply could not. While, some viewers were excitedly awaiting the appearance of the monster, I thought that everything was very predictable. The monsters always made a very formulaic appearance. You know, when the main characters are all outside, or one person seems to be put in a vulnerable situation, or everyone is in the dark. These are all the obvious opportunities for a monster to attack, and true to the formula, it does! Negative - If you are allergic to camera shake, avoid this movie. It's essentially a monster movie (although the title sounds like a brand of English butter) told through the eyes of a group of thoroughly annoying young people. It asks us to believe that a young man, having started taking a home movie on a video recorder during a farewell party, should keep it running as he flees from the monster and assists in rescuing survivors. He even films the monster attacking him - some feat! He should get an Oscar!< Negative - This movie was absolutely horrible from a moral standpoint, as well as a cinematic one. In the beginning scenes, we see a couple who, although the actual act isn't seen, have obviously slept together. At a party, we hear a couple arguing after the man's girlfriend hears about it. Also, at that party, we see the booze flowing freely. While no F-words were used, the language was still very rough, with at least one use of GD and other profanities. Now, on to the movie's cinematic faults. The acting was terrible. The script, which could have been at least marginally interesting, was duller than an overused caseknife. The cast, made up of people I had never heard of before, came off as nothing but a bunch of amateurs. And, perhaps this films worst point, the camera work was HORRIBLE. If this movie had gone on one second longer, I might have developed a serious case of motion sickness. If you want to see a good movie, don't even begin to consider this. Comments from young people
Negative - To start off we would like to say the that footage was extremely well done and the special effects were absolutely amazing BUT… Negative - This was the worst thing to see in a theater. I got a refund. This movie is filled with blood guts and gore. I'm sorry to say I saw this horrendous film, but my friend dragged me along. Nobody famous starred in it. …One of the actors doubled as the camera guy, and you'll know what I mean if you see it. The camera was shaking, and it was done like a documentary. I saw more feet in this movie than I did faces. You couldn't tell what was happening because there were no camera guys, but just one guy holding a camera. This new take on filming is a complete failure. I stayed 1 hour then left the theater about to puke because I was so dizzy. I only stayed so long because I thought they would start to film it with a camera team. NOPE!!
!! …The characters had loose morals... drank and it was implied that they had intimate relationships in the past. (opening scene) Negative - Me and some of my friends went to see this movie and I hope that you don't make the same mistake. It was a horrible movie, and I can't believe that I wasted my money on it! Biblically there was nothing very offensive, except what would be in normal movies like the usage of God's and Jesus' name in vain—but with cussing in all, the only words I heard were God's name in vain and s***. With gore there are a few parts, and if you can't stand blood or deep cuts and holes in peoples body then don't see it. I don't recommend this movie for anybody in the reason that it is pointless. It made me very dizzy and cross eyed in the point that the whole movie takes place like a homemade film....(filmed by one of the groups friend by a home video camera). I thought, most of my group too, that it was stupid... and one of my friends that doesn't get things right away didn't even get any of it. Sexually, there is only one scene, at the beginning. It doesn't make sense what so ever. Please just trust me and don't go see it! It is not worth the money! Negative - My 12 year old son and I watched this and thought it was the worst movie we ever saw. No plot or ending. Not sure what they were going for. I'm sure none will see it twice. |
E-mail this page to a friend