|
| Cloverfield [2007] | ![Cloverfield [2007]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51tpbZ4XcxL._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Matt Reeves
Actors: Michael Stahl-david, Lizzy Caplan, Mike Vogel, Odette Yustman, Jessica Lucas
Studio: Paramount Home Entertainment
Category: DVD
List Price: £19.99
Buy Used: £5.98
You Save: £14.01 (70%)
New (26) from £7.21
Avg. Customer Rating:  181 reviews
Sales Rank: 324
Format: Pal
Rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
Running Time: 81 minutes
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.4 x 0.6
EAN: 5014437943538
ASIN: B0014E9174
Theatrical Release Date: 2007
Release Date: June 9, 2008
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Condition: Mint Condition
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
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
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 176 more reviews...
 She screw me but I'm going to save her! October 10, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I have watched this movie months ago in the cinema. Yes, producents spent loads of money to create final effect, unfortunately this movie is nothing more than a waste of money. I have never experience such a stupid story! Come on, who the hell would go to save a girl traped in destroyed building, the girl he hardly knows and who came to a party with another guy? Ohhh and the first thing you would do running away from the monster is leaving a camera behind...
 Freaky October 6, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
This film is well good. I like how they captured it like its been done by a camcorder etc. It is freaky , no one can deny that. It has great little action moments and has a great story line that keeps you glued to the tv screen.
 Huge monster, short film October 2, 2008
9 out of 16 found this review helpful
Whatever else that can be said about CLOVERFIELD, one thing's likely to be consistent among words used to describe it : it's different. I've just watched the DVD and I reckon I could trash it, or I could say it's "OK" or I could even rave about it. That's not to say I can't make my mind up, or that it depends on what mood I'm in. It's just that pretty much every description of it can be taken seriously, positive or negative, and they would all count. There is no definitive verdict for this film.
The most talked-about aspect (I suppose) is the apparent use of a mobile or hand-held video camera for the entire length of the film. At first I found it a nuisance, and the best I could say is that I eventually tolerated it, but there's no doubt in my mind that I would have preferred a 'normal' type of film recording. The end credits were something of a highpoint for me because at long long last the picture wasn't bouncing about all over the place. And I think that when the length of the film is quoted as 81 minutes, this includes those credits in that figure. So no, I didn't like the reality-seeking hand-held filming style, but at the same time I was deeply impressed by what the film-makers managed to achieve in spite of it. Of course it's a scary-monster film and the un-named leviathan at the centre of it all would easily kill King Kong, Godzilla and every monster you can name with a single flick of its......well, I'm not sure what you would call them - hands? Claws? It was pretty scary to be fair, and all the CGI and technical effects were of a very high standard. I just wish that camera wouldn't jiggle about all over the place! But I accept that it was this specific decision that probably makes Cloverfield a whole lot better than it might otherwise have been, because it does create a sense of realism, that the viewer is right in the middle of the action at all times.
Although I watched it alone, I would imagine that at the cinema most of the audience would have gone "Huh?" at the end, because it was so sudden, so unexpected and I was left with the impression that there could have been at least another 15 to 20 minutes of the same, so I felt a bit short-changed there. It's a hard film to submit a reliable, objective opinion about, and I can now understand why one reviewer titled his summary 'Marmite'. You need to see it yourself to form a judgement; unfortunately you might hate it but that's the chance you'll have to take. Just as likely you'll enjoy it and be considerably impressed with it, but the least likely outcome is one of sitting on the fence. My main regret is that a lot of cash must have been invested in all of the special effects but as a viewer I didn't really see everything as clearly as I would have liked to, or for as long. Peter Jackson's cinematically loving portrayal of KING KONG of a few years ago was the opposite but of course it was flat and pointless despite that (or maybe because of it). With this film, the sound quality was a weak point but I have to admit that overall it was dramatic and involving - even if the motion-sickness left me with something of a headache afterwards.
Its a B Movie and thats it... October 1, 2008
2 out of 12 found this review helpful
Despite the decent special effects and the comparative newness of the film being shown from the viewpoint of a hand held video camera this is essentially just an old-fashioned monster movie. For me it only just merits 3 stars and heres why:
Good points:
The held held camera view was very effective in places and did give you a sense of the panic that can occur in disaster situations. The acting was decent and as already mentioned the special effects were well done.
Bad points:
The opening party sequence went on too long. All it was trying to tell us was that a couple had split up and that could have been done much quicker. After 10 minutes had gone by, in what is a short movie, I was beginning to wonder if I was watching the right film...
I accept that you have to suspend disbelief when watching films like this, but this had so many occasions when what happened lacked any credibility in reality (I'm talking about the Helicopter crash and the girl who was impaled on the steel pole to name two examples). I also got fed up with hearing people saying "oh my God" every 30 seconds. The hand-held camera use needed to be broken up. 84 mins was too long for a wobbly picture....
Having said all that it is worth seeing, as after the slow start its certainly an entertaining rollercoaster ride. But like I said at the start this is essentially a B Movie/Monster Movie, if you expect nothing else than you'll probably enjoy a fun movie. Expect any more and you might be disappointed
It Came From Outer Space September 28, 2008
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
This is a very artfully constructed film about the usual crowd of young hedonists who are typically slaughtered by serial killers; in this case they are dropped into New York City under attack from Something Big covered in nasty little bugs (the size of big dogs). To keep the chaos going the film is shot on a hand-held by one of the characters. It is a tribute to the pace that this conceit only annoys one two or three times in the film. Excellent driving pace once it kicks off, lots of hints and things going on in the background, and a monster seldom seen but always hinted at. A superior and enjoyable piece of hokum.
|
|
|
Learn how to have your own
Amazon Shop
Travel Maps and Guides
zeugma
| | Holiday Travel |
alpharooms.com for cheap holiday deals in spain and worldwide
Disneyland Paris for a great family holiday or short break.
Holday Cottages throughout Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland and France with Cottages4you
Hilton - need we say more, you will find Hilton Hotels in most areas throughout Britain, in cities and in the countryside.
Don't forget Travel Insurance
Airport Parking
|
|
|
|
