- Note: Blu-ray discs are in a high definition format and need to be played on a Blu-ray player. To find out more about Blu-ray, visit our Hi-Def Learn & Shop store.
- Important Information on Firmware Updates: Having trouble with your Blu-ray disc player? Will certain discs just not play? You may need to update the firmware inside your player. Click here to learn more.
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product details
|
Reviews
Amazon.co.uk Review
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 primetime 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 that now-defunct 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
Synopsis
A highly-classified video tape confiscated by the U.S. military shows the devastating effects of a monster attack on New York City. Crudely shot on handycam by a group of friends at a party, the film quickly evolves into a blow-by-blow account of the most surreal and terrifying ordeal of their young lives. The first 20 minutes or so could easily be mistaken for some glossy American soap opera, populated as it is by successful, good-looking people. As the camera clumsily weaves its way around the party guests, we're treated to snippets of conversations that provide a back story to the characters' lives. Suddenly and without warning, a series of earth-shattering tremors rock the city, causing mass panic in the streets below. It soon becomes apparent that this is no natural disaster as the city is ripped apart by some gargantuan and malevolent force.
Creature features such as this are often only as good as their special effects will allow, and Cloverfield scores very highly in that department. The visuals are simply stunning and so seamlessly executed that they'll have you ducking for cover. In fact, some of the effects are so uncomfortably realistic--buildings collapsing into plumes of smoke, bits of debris falling from the sky--that they will inevitably evoke painful memories of 9/11. The filmmakers were careful not to reveal the monster too early on in the film, as the anticipation of seeing it for the first time is half the fun. Instead, they tease the viewer with flashes of a giant tail or leg in between skyscrapers. This makes the final reveal that much more satisfying, as the unknown becomes known. But where the film tantalises, it also frustrates as it offers no answers to the most obvious questions; what is this thing? How did it suddenly appear out of nowhere? What's its beef with New York City? Ironically, it's this very inscrutability that makes the film so intriguing, as we are reminded that wanton acts of destruction--such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11--always leave questions unanswered. Shot in real-time in a cinema verite style similar to The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield's exploitation of the digital video format is a bold move that pays off handsomely.
Creature features such as this are often only as good as their special effects will allow, and Cloverfield scores very highly in that department. The visuals are simply stunning and so seamlessly executed that they'll have you ducking for cover. In fact, some of the effects are so uncomfortably realistic--buildings collapsing into plumes of smoke, bits of debris falling from the sky--that they will inevitably evoke painful memories of 9/11. The filmmakers were careful not to reveal the monster too early on in the film, as the anticipation of seeing it for the first time is half the fun. Instead, they tease the viewer with flashes of a giant tail or leg in between skyscrapers. This makes the final reveal that much more satisfying, as the unknown becomes known. But where the film tantalises, it also frustrates as it offers no answers to the most obvious questions; what is this thing? How did it suddenly appear out of nowhere? What's its beef with New York City? Ironically, it's this very inscrutability that makes the film so intriguing, as we are reminded that wanton acts of destruction--such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11--always leave questions unanswered. Shot in real-time in a cinema verite style similar to The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield's exploitation of the digital video format is a bold move that pays off handsomely.
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
30 of 33 people found the following review helpful
Format:Blu-ray
Many reviewers didn't love Cloverfield due to a lack of substance in the characters and others questioning why the guy didn't just drop the camera to begin with considering the situation. However, I can't help but feel when considering what sort of film we're witnessing, where is the harm in suspending one's belief system and allowing ourselves to believe and be absorbed? The hectic camera and the incredible special effects come together so well, I find it hard to believe that anyone could claim that Cloverfield, at the very least, isn't a ground breaking movie that pulls out all the stops. Cloverfield was never meant to be anything but a straight up monster film, and that's exactly what it is. Incredible from start to finish, and even better when watched in high definition.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Format:Blu-ray
Despite the mixed reviews, I'm glad I went to the cinema to watch Cloverfield. Once it got going I was hooked. It looked so real. 10 years ago they could have made it but it just doubt it would look so real as this does. If you're a monster movie fan it's a must. If not, it's risk but there's a 50/50 chance you'll love it too. It does take a little too long to get going - i.e the monster arrival.
When it came to the BD I was a little dubious at the start, since it is shot with a camcorder, that it just wouldn't be worth it. But I have been proved totally incorrect - it's stunning. The sound is actually amazing too - there really is debris falling outside your home!
When it came to the BD I was a little dubious at the start, since it is shot with a camcorder, that it just wouldn't be worth it. But I have been proved totally incorrect - it's stunning. The sound is actually amazing too - there really is debris falling outside your home!
237 of 290 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
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.
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.
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Most Recent Customer Reviews
A monster movie seen through the eyes of the people who scream and get...
Having scrupulously avoided Cloverfield for its veritable shopping list of things I hate about many modern movies - not least the obsession with shooting on shakeycam digital where... Read more
Published 17 days ago by Trevor Willsmer
Is this a film...?
I watched about 5 seconds from each chapter on the disc - it was enough for me.
The 'found footage' from down the back of my sofa I accidentally recorded on my phone was more... Read more
The 'found footage' from down the back of my sofa I accidentally recorded on my phone was more... Read more
Published 1 month ago by R. Atkinson
Monster Munch
A beast assails New York City, running rampant like Pacman. It has a hunger for concrete and steel. Meanwhile, we follow the fortunes of a bunch of air-headed twenty-somethings who... Read more
Published 2 months ago by Mr. Miles Robinson
Very novel story and filming = SPOILER ALERT
I really can understand why some people would object to the camerawork, It is a bit shaky and offputting. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Apple-eater
mystery scary monster film of the year
a totally brilliant film, starting as a normal day in new york with a best friends party. totally brilliant in the making. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Miss Sharon Burton
Not for me!
I can see why this disc is being offered so cheap. It is probably just me, I see many people rate this film but for me the word rubbish does come to mind. Read more
Published 4 months ago by Mr. C. G. Veitch
Good fun and nice change from the norm
This film combines the hand held shakiness of Blair Witch, with the monster invading thrills of.... um, ... another film about a monster invading NY! I really liked it.... Read more
Published 4 months ago by Neil Partridge
More suitable for teens
I think the best audience for this film would be someone aged 15-18, they would appreciate it more than an older viewer who has watched many horror movies. Read more
Published 5 months ago by C Breeze
wow what a movie
Cloverfield is a little gem.
I did not expect much from it, after hearing many negative reviews complaining about the shaky camera. Read more
I did not expect much from it, after hearing many negative reviews complaining about the shaky camera. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Mark Twain
1 out of 10
I love hand held camera in films eg. Husbands and Wives, Chungking Express, but in Cloverfield this effect was so overused and not used well either. Read more
Published 7 months ago by N. M. Heavisides
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192198663_.gif){kind=small}
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
