Theatrical Review of Cloverfield
" Clocking in at a very lean 90 minutes, this is perhaps the most substance free film released to mainstream media in the last decade.
Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.
With a viral marketing campaign hot on the heels of "Snakes on a Plane," the movie formerly known only as "1-18-08" sent internet fan boys into a tizzy. Websites, clues, checking background details in the promotional footage…an independent observer would have thought these people were nuts. But it is easy to understand the obsession: produced by "LOST" guru J.J. Abrams and written by Drew Goddard of the same program, there was a possibility the amateur-looking trailers were merely a tantalizing glimpse at something more than an American "Godzilla." Sadly, it doesn´t even live up to that low bar.
As Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) is about to relocate to Japan, his friends throw a going away party. During the get together, the apartment building shakes and the news claims a tanker has tolled over near the Statue of Liberty. But outside, with the head of Lady Liberty rolling down the street, it becomes abundantly clear a tanker is not responsible. Which then begs the question: what is?
Clocking in at a very lean 90 minutes, this is perhaps the most substance free film released to mainstream media in the last decade. Quite literally, nothing of any consequence happens in "Cloverfield." People run, they scream, they die, a giant monster smashes some buildings, there´s some more jumping and yelling…a bit of blood, some missiles and that´s about it. This is a movie built on the flimsiest of premises and supported with only scant creature effects--far less than a production of this kind usually entails.
One of the problems here is the creature, or rather, the lack of a creature. Don´t get me wrong: there is a monster which terrorizes the city. There are even mini-creatures scurrying through subway tunnels and into buildings. But because our field of vision is limited to what a home video camera captures, every glimpse of the attacker is fleeting. A moment here, a flash there. Even at the end when we see it from the air at daybreak, it´s never completely clear what we´re seeing. Are there multiple legs like a crab or arms or tentacles? Is that a beak, similar to a bird? And what are the small creatures which fall off the main one?
Much has been done in the past utilizing scant views of monsters. The original "Alien" and "Jaws" are masters of this type of filmmaking, whether intentionally or out of necessity. The complete figure of the alien is never seen until the finale in the escape pod while the shark was created with more music than practical effects. Director Matt Reeves tries to be clever regarding what we see of the monster. A tail sweeping across a bridge, gray-ish skin through a cloud of smoke in an extreme long shots. But because the camera is constantly shaking, we´re never given a good look at what these characters are up against.
Add to that the lack of characters with any depth, thereby negating emotional investment into them on the part of the screenplay or the audience. There is a half hearted attempt in the first twenty minutes at rounding out each of the party participants into broad stereotypes: the hard to get girl, the frat boy, the successful one, a female obsession, and so on. What the script forgets to do is create people we´re going to like, people with brains and common sense and savvy about the world.
Each time one of the pawns croaks, we´re reminded about how very little we know about them. There is only one moment of pure emotion for the audience in the film: in a subway tunnel, when Rob talks to his mother about a tragedy. It´s a brief scene, but it at least draws the viewer into the film in an active (as opposed to passive) way. Nothing else, from the beginning to the very end, gets us involved.
Especially the Hollywood-generated plundering of New York. Much has been made of the similarities between 9/11 and "Cloverfield." Critics gave mentioned how the events we see through the hand held camera borrows on imagery of that fateful day, putting us in the shoes of people trying to evacuate the city. It´s rubbish if, for no other reason, than we know planes are not flying into buildings. We know there is something else out there. No monster, imagined or created, can hold a candle to the terror of knowing humans are attacking humans. We expect a monster from a nightmare to terrorize; we don´t expect that behavior out of fellow homo sapiens. Besides, we are always cognizant of the fact we´re watching actors running from a threat purposely kept off screen. There is no threat level, no sense of dread.
If "Cloverfield" wanted to use our memories of September 11 effectively, the screenplay would have given us a situation grounded in reality. Instead, there is a half-hearted attempt to explain why a video camera is in operation instead of dropping it and saving lives (people are going to want to know how it went down, goes the argument). There´s no argument from military officers, nothing from other survivors and no second thoughts about such mundane things as battery life. (To be fair, though, Rob´s cell phone battery dies very early in the film, nodding to reality.)
The most annoying aspect to the film, though, has to be the conscious choice of shooting with a hand held camera. As alluded to before, it never allows us to focus on any one thing for a prolonged period of time. Moreover, it captures moments it has no reason to capture, such as brief quiet moments in the subway tunnel. If the true reason of keeping the camera running is to show the survivors how New York was destroyed, is anyone going to honestly care about the stories of the "little people," especially when the camera is more nauseatingly self-conscious than "The Blair Witch Project?"
Everything "Cloverfield" tries to do, it fails at. Create tension? Nope. Mimic reality? Sorry. Attention grabbing characters? Not a chance. Which is all a shock, considering the pedigree of the creative personnel. One of the most anticipated films of early 2008 lands with a resounding thud. A charitable 4 out of 10. Once again, marketing sells a movie not worthy of that sale.
Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.
Latest headlines
Right now: Braveheart, Gladiator and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs on Blu-ray for $10 »
Nov 26, 2009
Kendra reality series comes to DVD on January 5 »
Nov 26, 2009
Amazon.com - Black Friday Day 3: Stargate Atlantis: The Complete Series Collection for less than $90 »
Nov 26, 2009
Amazon.com - Black Friday Day 2: Best picks including Robocop on Blu-ray for less than $9 »
Nov 24, 2009
This Week on DVD and Blu-ray - November 24th, 2009 »
Nov 24, 2009
Once in a New Moon »
Nov 23, 2009
Online Film Critics Society announces blog »
Nov 23, 2009
Most read
Amazon.com - Black Friday Day 2: Best picks including Robocop on Blu-ray for less than $9 »
Nov 24, 2009
This Week on DVD and Blu-ray - November 24th, 2009 »
Nov 24, 2009

Henning
February 2002
My links
View profile »View collection »
View wish list »
Jason Wrote in his review:
Empire Magazine (Very big UK Movie Magazine) wrote about Cloverfield:
I have yet to see it.
What did you readers think?
[Post edited by Henning on Jan 22, 2008 - CST 4:38 PM]
kucoloco
September 2007
My links
View profile »[Post edited by kucoloco on Jan 22, 2008 - CST 4:43 PM]
Nachtkriechen
December 2003
My links
View profile »View wish list »
I actually wouldn't mind seeing it one more time to see what I missed. It was a VERY intense movie. There are a lot of quick cut-away shots in which the few skewed shots of the monster are blurred, which was intentional to build suspense, and I must say, worked WELL!
Well done, I say.
- Josh
[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Jan 22, 2008 - CST 5:16 PM]
el_terrible
January 2008
My links
View profile »I would say it's probably going to be one of those movies that divide people right down the middle.
Movielover316
September 2006
My links
View profile »View wish list »
JJ79
January 2006
My links
View profile »View collection »
View wish list »
Fourth, there are casual mentions of the camera recording, but it doesn't strike anyone-including the military-as odd? Fifth, the military commander is giving these civilians information to help them get to Beth...on camera? Sixth, and perhaps most damning, for a monster movie, there's remarkably little of the monster.
Seventh, Beth's shoulder is apparently impailed yet in the climax, she is raising the arm and using it. Hurt or not? Pick. Lastly, when characters have a very clear "out" and they don't take it, I don't care about them. Monster, eat them all. Please.
Jason
Kilgard
October 2007
My links
View profile »If you want to see the guy Hud, the one who primarelly was holding the camera in the movie, as an actor , watch the show "Carpoolers" hes pretty funny in that show too.
Nachtkriechen
December 2003
My links
View profile »View wish list »
First off, no one said you had to like the movie. Secondly, you do have a point about the battery life of the camera involved, but, every film has it's factual flaws, and if you're looking hard enough, you can pick ANY film apart. Thirdly, aparantly you don't know much about cam-corders/video cameras. Video cameras have had some type of light source available to them for filming, almost since their inception. Fourthly, a "night mode" (in which a camera can film in low light) has existed on video cameras for around 10 years now.
The point is, if you're going to pick movies apart to that extent, you're rarely going to find a movie you'll enjoy. You have to look past some of the flaws and try to see the (pardon the pun) bigger picture. Some of the greatest movies in film history have their flaws and inconsitancies. "Cloverfield" is an 85 minute "Monster Movie". What were you expecting, "Lord Of The Rings"? Not every movie can be an award winner, but that also doesn't mean that it's complete crap, either.
Just my two cents.
- Josh
JJ79
January 2006
My links
View profile »View collection »
View wish list »
Did I come off as argumentative? I don't think I did.
But when it is shown quite clearly near the beginning that "Cloverfield" takes place in some semblance of the real world (Rob's phone battery dying, for instance) and then we're supposed to just accept the camera battery is fine the entire time? Maybe other people can look past that, but I can't.
And you're right, I don't know much about video cameras. Never owned one. However, I was under the impression in the subway there was no light, not low light. But I misheard in the movie, but I also thought a reference to infared was made. Again, maybe I'm wrong.
I agree I am far too critical some times. But other times, the small problems take me out of the story. This was one of those cases. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, right?
Jason
[Post edited by JJ79 on Jan 23, 2008 - CST 8:54 AM]
Nachtkriechen
December 2003
My links
View profile »View wish list »
No no, you're definitely entitled to your opinion. I may have misinterpreted your post. Your last post was well reasoned, and I'm not sure about the "IR" on some video cameras. I was in the Army, and we had that technology a LOOOOONG time ago, and a lot of the "hi-tech" cool stuff does start in the military and trickle down to the civilian market.
I guess I can be too forgiving with films sometimes, but, I don't exactly see that as a problem, I think it just allows me to enjoy more films. Not everybody shares my views or opinions, which is to be expected, but, my perspective is one of someone that has taken a "film studies" class in college. I'm not saying that makes me an expert on film, but, as such it gives me a better and broader perspective on the aspects and elements of movies, how they're made, and what goes on behind the scenes in directing, shot setups, scene setups, and the whys and hows of it all. If you've never taken a College level "Intro to Film" class, I HIGHLY recommend it! You'll have a whole new appreciation for films, and especially the "classics" and why they are classics.
Back on topic, I guess the reason why the whole "battery" issue (which I commented to my friends about in the film) is that, because, at times, the film had a lot of cut-aways, where suddenly we're minutes (or longer) later from the cut-away. I guess I assumed that he "Hud", COULD HAVE put a new battery in the camera durring those cut-aways, of which, there were MANY.
At any rate, I guess, when it comes to movies, (to re-use an X-Files phrase) "I want to believe". I want to follow the story and escape into the film as if I'm actually there experiencing what's going on. Some times (about half the time with today's movies) even I get taken out of the film by BLATANT inconsistancies, or flaws, or incorrect physics on CG characters or objects, or incorrect science or facts. But, I do tend to give the "benefit of the doubt".
- Josh