Wonderfully executed... but you better be into that sort of thing

Rating: 8/10 (12 February 2008)

Following one of the best anti-marketing campaigns in recent history, one could be forgiven for thinking "Cloverfield" has no chance of living up to its own hype. In many ways, it doesn't... but what it does is give us one of those truly great little B-grade gems that you can appreciate time and again.
Much discussion has been made of the film's Blair Witch-inspired format. I work at a cinema, and have had many complaints, but the first thing I always do is let people know what they're getting. Most go in knowing it's going to be jerky, helter-skelter hand-held, and if they come out and complain about that... I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy. You really should've listened to me to start with.
Anyway, this is a great film (without actually being 'great'). The threadbare story starts with a group of twentysomethings at a farewell party for main character Rob, and very quickly moves into the monster attack we've all been waiting for, captured by Rob's dopey camera- carrying best-friend, Hud. As they move through Manhattan, first trying to leave, and then going back for one of their number, they find themselves caught in the front-lines of the attack, and the military's strike-back.
The handling of the visual effects sequences in the medium is awesome, and the crew has worked hard to establish the camera not just as a framing device, but also as a storytelling tool (at many points in the film, the camera flips over to VTR or playback mode, showing us the existing footage already there; some of the onboard tools come in handy as well). Hud as a character does become a little annoying at times- seriously, the guy doesn't shut up- but the playing out of the action, and working it in with the filming, makes for very visually cool cinema.
I have also heard many complaints about the film's construction (one review I read here asked questions about how the camera or the tape/SD card can run for 8 hrs or so without change-over; why, the answer is simple: he DOES switch the camera off a LOT during the film, often for great big long chunks of time, and the film's on-screen action lasts for just on 80 mins- and there are definitely 80 min tapes out there, the Sony BCT64HDL to name but one eg.)- to those, I ask: whatsamatter, never heard of a niche film? Experimental cinema? Something DIFFERENT, you remember that concept? Sure, the general idea is old as the hills, but the execution is one of the freshest things I've seen in a long time. Sure, it's no classic, and the script and acting left much to be desired, but check it out, if only out of curiosity (get it on DVD if you can't stomach the format on the big screen), and I promise that, at the least, it's gonna be different to all the paint-by-numbers every-shot-perfect blockbusters you'll come across.