"The film was meant to be something entirely different with a completely different title, and only while it was already in production did they decide to change certain things to make it a 'Cloverfield'—the worst idea they could have had: the film is not Cloverfield, but having Cloverfield in the title spoils everything that would have made it truly interesting. It was a real struggle to evaluate it; this time I preferred the narrow sleeve. I hope that with the rest of the comment I can explain what I really think of the film, because the transliteration of the work into numerical value in this case cannot really do justice to the movie.
If it had been done exactly as it was, with a completely different title, it would have been a thousand times better. Seriously, I found the title criminal, because in the end the film has good direction, at times excellent cinematography (in the outdoor sunset scene it's impossible not to recognize the appeal that the producer feels towards certain cinema of the 80s) and a plot that, with a different title, would finally have been something I wouldn't call new, but at least original for a thriller. And instead no, 'let's call it like that other film, but here 'Cloverfield' let’s say it’s just an address.' Well, too bad that just reading Cloverfield makes you think of aliens... damn, a beautiful suicide.
Such a shame, man, what a pity, it’s true that at times it tries to create a tension that even the director doesn’t feel, but it's also true that there were plenty of valid ideas (with another title) that the actors always believe in, that for every lackluster scene there are ten that are intense, that the initial accident is a slap in the face worthy of a ten and praise action movie, that building things with duct tape and bottles is just as cool as anything from the 80s, and a thousand other things.
Basically, I wanted to see the sequel to Cloverfield and I didn't, I could have seen a good thriller and they spoiled it for three quarters. The producers and distributors... But come on, really!
I also actually have something to say about the need to show at all costs that there was money for special effects, but what really disturbed me was the final scene (when she reaches the sign and turns right). What happens is fine, but to linger so much on the radio that says those things, and the shots of the signs, and the close-ups of her, and the radio calling for help, and the sign, and again her with that fierce look, while this scene started thirty seconds ago... come on, we got it! Didactic to the point of being disgusting, unnecessarily. Like all didactic things, by the way.
For everything else: one of the best thrillers I’ve seen this year (it’s also true that I hardly see anything at all anymore). For the umpteenth time: what a shame."
