In the many months leading up to its release, “Cloverfield” has built up an insurmountable set of enormous expectations. Capitalizing on the strength of a tantalizing, high-impact trailer and the reputation of its popular architect, “Lost” creator and media golden-boy J.J. Abrams, it’s safe to say this spectacle has reached gargantuan proportions. However, among other things, it begs the question: Can any average film withstand this kind of hype?
The answer, at least in this case, is clearly, no.
Ever since 1999’s “The Blair Witch Project” popularized the hand-held, camera-operator-as-a-character-technique it’s been absolutely done to death. At this point, we’ve all adapted to the trick and trained ourselves how to carefully watch for what’s about to jump out of the shadows and also to expect it. The one thing “The Blair Witch Project” had going for it was that the shakey-cam bit was magnificently built into the premise. Due to a brilliant and experimental filmmaking concept, much of the fear caught on camera was, at least to some degree authentic, since the cast of unknown actors had been hired on the cheap to go out into the woods and be messed with (by the filmmakers) in order to create a new kind of scary movie. Consequently, that film had a lot to live up to in the hype department as well, but in contrast, it succeeded in being both frightening and innovative.
While we may all have been hoping that Abrams could reinvent the monster movie, it simply doesn’t happen here. Without the benefit of real fear or nuanced visuals - although admittedly the film does pack some quality CGI - and without the anxiety device to end them all - a much-needed musical score -“Cloverfield” ends up lacking punch and betting the farm on a one-note gag that feels too much like the ingenuity of the previous decade.
I could spend time picking apart the film but if you imagine what a movie shot entirely in hand-held camera style - often while moving - about a small group of friends running for their lives in New York City as it has once again come under siege from a massive and noisy beast, you’ve got all there is to tell in your pocket already.
Classic monster movies never needed much in the story department to get the job done, but “Cloverfield” is extra stingy on the monster details. Of course, if you’re so inclined, you can seek out the missing information on any number of websites - official and otherwise -devoted to the mysteries which are conspicuously not found within. Obsessive fans and episodic-television-junkies may jump at the chance to rummage for more clues and bonus info on their computers, but most movie fans will come away from this one wondering why the hell they have to do more work for a disappointing film that apparently couldn’t be bothered to cough up the relevant goods where it counts - on the big screen.
Sadly, this highly anticipated monster movie fails to deliver in both departments, neither the monster or the movie are all that impressive. I, for one, would have enjoyed the film if it had conveniently turned out to be another Godzilla or King Kong movie, at least then the picture would have had a memorable twist.
In the end, “Cloverfield” may most notably only serve to take a big whack at J.J. Abrams’ lofty place in the cultural zeitgeist, much the way the “Matrix” sequels punted the Wachowski Brothers in their then solid-gold feathers.
Ultimately, “Cloverfield” is a deflating and nausea-inducing experience, one that is as uninspiring as its title (honestly, I like “Untitled J.J. Abrams Project” better). It is a film born in novelty that proves itself unable, or unwilling, to rise above the hype that helped to create it and become more than just pure novelty.
Usually, we have the comments posted under the print reviews, but we started the “Cloverfield” comment page after the first advance screening, so check out all the divisive opinions from everyone who has seen it and talk about spoilers all you want here: http://www.scene-stealers.com/blogs/spoiler-alert-cloverfield-screened-last-night-what-did-you-think/
Cloverfield.what a joke…why did they waste all that perfectly good film and not even give us dramamine with an alka seltzer chaser ???? Yeah, ok, so they warned us it would be shaky ! But jeez they didn’t say godzilla was stomping on the room !
RIP Cloverfield
I thouroughly enjoyed Cloverfield. It was fun and fast paced, although the fast paced part doesn’t really start until your into a third of he movie. And please don’t give me any of that “its a horrible movie becasue the camera shakes too much” crap. This article doesn’t even give any reasons WHY Cloverfield was bad. I give this review a rock fist wayyyyyyy down.