Terrible storytelling, horrible cinematography, poor CGI: Cloverfield is over-hyped and overdone

Rating: 1/10 (3 February 2008)

I went to see this yesterday. I actually regret doing it. The moment it ended there was general booing and disappointment in the theater. Not a single applause. Throughout this film, I got to see more than 10 people walking out of the theater. I left after the credits ended with a terrible headache and the nausea of a lifetime. It got so bad that I actually had to take a Dramamine pill when I was back at my place.
I didn't like this clichéd film. I believe it is a flawed exercise about character perspective and documented realism. However, the special effects were poor but some of them passable; the editing kept an appropriate rhythm; the performances were regular, with the clear exception of T.J. Miller who played the obnoxious camera man, Hud. He did an awful job.
My main dislikes with this film were the camera movement and the argument overall.
First, the camera moves excessively all time. Even during the party sequence, all the scenes are horribly captured. Hud wasn't running from a monster then, was he? I get the filmmaker's intention, but I felt more nauseated than afraid because they went too far with their movement. The moment I dissociated myself from the movie and started feeling trapped inside a really expensive handy-cam, I knew the original intention had gotten lost. In that respect, the Blair Witch Project (which I also didn't like, but for other reasons) is superior by far. Its technical proposal does help convey a profound emotional impact; whereas Cloverfield's camera trembling doesn't. Consequently, the characters on Cloverfield remain mostly aloof, which really makes some silly elements in the plot to stand out.
SPOILERS START NOW: That brings me to my second main dislike: the argument. Were they joking? I don't even mean the monster. It's a monster movie, so I won't even go there. Everyone goes to save Beth, the romantic interest of Rob, who is beyond logical salvation. Sure, Rob's friends try to stop him from going to his certain death, but they all end up joining him anyway (!) Consequently, "Beth" becomes more of a cheap plot device than a character.
But I mean Marlena joined them? From what we know of her, she wouldn't. That's character inconsistency right there. So, let's assume she had her psychological reasons to do it. She's after all supposedly human and complex. But throughout her time on the screen nothing happens to shed any light as to why she is with them. So, there's no depth to her. No need for her, expect to save Hud's life once.
Also, the love story between Rob and Beth rests so much in what some people say of them and a few lines between the wretched lovers, that it becomes shallow and boring. Sure, some say he's been in love with her forever and they do share a wonderful day at Columbus Circle and Coney Island. Of course, she has got to be the love of his life. I'm not cynical, and I actually enjoy romantic themes, but this was an insult. I mean, the whole story rests so much on this supposed doomed love that it ought to have been better explored. The performances were so flat in this category, that they didn't help either. Again, the love story turned into yet another sort of plot device.
When the friends "rescue" Beth from her building, she is severely injured, and yet she can walk and even run. At the end, when they arrive to the evacuation area, despite her bleeding injury, Beth is not the first one to climb into the helicopter. In fact, she has to wait for another helicopter to take her out because the soldiers offer the only seat to Lily, who is physically well. It is ridiculous. Obviously, the real reason the filmmakers did that is so that the lovers, Rob and Beth, could remain together until the end. Have I said plot device before? Cheap and trashy plot device? And there's more, much more rubbish like that throughout the film.
SPOILERS HAVE ENDED.
Also, the fact that Hud was filming everything -even in the party- almost every private moment, is ludicrous. The filmmaker's choice of the handy-cam as the true narrator is too limited, so he naturally had to use it to an unbelievable degree. The consequence is that the purpose of capturing a sense of realism is defeated, and Cloverfield ends up being an absurdly unrealistic movie in its own monster-destroying-New-York-movie context-.
In Cloverfield, the filmmakers ask you to accept too many things just as they tell you they are. However, the movie consistently fails to provide you with valid reasons for doing so. They keep forcing on you a story of the poorest quality. It's almost offensive.
Weak screenplays do that. And when they do, one at least expects something in return, whether a feeling or a memorable moment. Something that would justify the torture. Unfortunately, with Cloverfield one ends up empty-handed, jerky camera movements aside.
I don't recommend this film at all, especially if you value the use of a tripod or the meaning of storytelling. In any case, if you're going to see it, please don't expect anything great and try not to eat or drink liquids for a couple of hours before and while watching it. In all honesty, it can make you feel physically (as well as mentally) nauseated.