The most fun I've had almost vomiting

Rating: 6/10 (13 August 2010)

This movie almost made be vomit. So before I get into this movie, there's something I'd like to convey to any and all current and future filmmakers who might, by odd happenstance, read this review.
ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN SHAKY-CAM!!!
When the whole sliding, shifting, wandering camera shot first came into common use well over a decade ago, it was a neat innovation. It gave a documentary air of authenticity to fictional tales. It helped audiences think they were seeing something different than the stories they've seen before. However, shaky-cam doesn't do any of that any more. It is now just another cliché.
You've probably heard Cloverfield described as "The Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla". It seems somewhat belittling to label a truly clever idea like that, but it is accurate. This is the story of a group of 20somethings with a video camera who are stuck in the middle when a giant monster invades New York City and the most important thing to know about the movie is that, outside of a few times when the camera calms down to give the audience a clear look at the special effects, Cloverfield is filmed like a drunk guy with a hand held video camera trying to shoot a wedding reception in the middle of a war.
The image on the screen spins and shakes and tilts and weaves and it goes on and on and on. In the theater, I only lasted about 30 minutes before I had to walk out. If I hadn't left, I absolutely would have vomited on the person in front of me. I made it through the entire thing, watching the DVD at home, but I had an upset stomach and headache by the end. If you get at all motion sick, avoid Coverfield because it is worse than Blair Witch or any other film shot in this style.
If you've got a stronger constitution, though, Cloverfield's a decent film. Beyond the basic concept, it's an utterly pedestrian monster moviebut the concept is strong enough to carry you through the entire 84 minutes. Yeah, it is pretty short but it fits with the pure roller coaster idea of the film. No one really wants to ride a 20 minute long roller coaster. It just becomes too much and I'm not sure Cloverfield would have been improved if they'd spent another 20 or 30 minutes trying to make the story better and the characters more interesting. Ironically, the more engaging the story was and the more you cared about the characters, the more you'd probably get annoyed and angered at the hand held video stuff getting in between you and the story.
I do think the filmmakers missed the point of the giant monster genre, however. Giant monster movies are supposed to be fun, but this film embraces a post-9/11 understanding of urban catastrophe that is everything but fun. Watching a giant monster destroy a skyscraper is enjoyable as a mindless spectacle. Watching the traumatized survivors wander about in the rubble afterwards is not that pleasant. Cloverfield also doesn't seem to understand the significance of the giant movie monster. It's such a ridiculous concept that you need to ground it with some real world analogy, the nuclear bomb origins of Godzilla being the most well known, but even the King Kong films can be seen as metaphors for the folly of Man thinking he can control and master the natural world. The Cloverfield monster doesn't have any significance. It's the destructive aftermath of the colossal beast movie in which the movie is interested.
The monster itself, when you finally see it, is kind of goofy. However, you sort of have to give the filmmakers a pass on that. By now, it's become incredibly difficult to create any sort of creature that doesn't look like something seen in a previous movie or TV show and anything 350 feet tall starts to look a little silly.
Does Cloverfield live up to the hype? No. It doesn't set some bold, new standard for the monster movie, but it is a well-executed, clever idea. That definitely makes this a movie worth seeing, unless you're a easy puker.