Decent but nothing to write home about

Rating: 7/10 (18 January 2008)

I had extremely high expectations for this movie (as I'm sure many other fans did). They were not met, but that doesn't mean that the movie was a complete flop. I jumped in my seat many times and I appreciated the unique way the movie was filmed.
The movie succeeded at creating a realistic feel. The acting was better than the average movie and the CGI wasn't too bad either.
Without spoiling anything, the monster looks kind of weird. Some people will like it, others will not. I am on the fence. It was unlike anything I've seen before, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. One thing I am sure of is the fact that I wish I saw more of it (as well as the destruction that it left behind).
I think, in this case, a bigger budget would have yielded a more satisfying result. I am also not too sure that the hand-held camera approach added a whole lot. The way the wide angle shots were set up was pretty clever though.
One thing that really bothered me was the product placement. There is one shot in particular when the camera hovers over some candy for no reason whatsoever. There were embedded ads for Nokia, Dunkin' Donuts, Juicy Fruit, Mountain Dew, and others. Call me old-school, but, like David Lynch, I don't think that product placement has any place in true cinema. I expected better from Cloverfield.
Overall, I think this movie was on par with Godzilla. Godzilla had better CGI and way cooler shots of the monster but a weak plot and pretty bad acting. It just depends what you value. Since I am a sucker for cool action sequences and good special effects, I would probably prefer watching Godzilla. At least I wouldn't have a headache when it was over.
Speaking of the ending, I liked it. I have heard a lot of complaints, but I think it was appropriate and well done.
7 out of 10