Good production values but flawed script.

Rating: 5/10 (22 January 2008)

I saw Cloverfield Saturday night and was a little disappointed. And to explain why I think it's necessary to reference JJ Abrams' television series Lost as an indication for those who have seen that series but not yet Cloverfield, as there are enough similarities that the viewer will know what to expect.
As with Lost, Cloverfield's cast is largely unknowns, which is not a bad thing. It keeps down the cost of hiring an a-list name that chews scenery and allows the audience to take a look at everyone on screen with an equal eye. However in Lost, viewers had several seasons to see relationships develop and personalities and motives explained in back story. In Cloverfield there is no time for any of that. The cast are attractive, 20-something social climbers that I felt little empathy for. Of course there was no indication of who would survive or die, but I really didn't care. Though the cast did provide a good performance of those caught in crisis, even if their lines were a little awkward and decisions unreasonable.
Now to the monster. Again referencing Lost, the show suggested there was a monster on the island but it was never shown. Instead you would see the rustling of trees or the reactions on the actor's faces when they saw this creature but the viewer would not be shown what they were looking at. Abrams takes a similar approach to Cloverfield. For most of the film the monster is not seen, save for brief glimpses on a news cast or a body part suddenly appearing. When the creature is finally shown it does look impressive but the scene is too brief. And really, with CG effects so prevalent in films now the wow factor really isn't there. If you're going to go to all the trouble of creating a kick ass monster you might as well feature it in more scenes and give the audience something to talk about on the way home.
OK, about the camera work. If one reads reviews of Cloverfield at IMDb and elsewhere there are two camps on this issue. One side complains of the shakiness giving them motion sickness while the other says shut up about it. Well shooting from the perspective of a hand-held camera is not a bad idea. It puts the viewer in the action and makes you feel as if you're experiencing the story first hand. The problem isn't that the camera shakes, it's that it shakes too much. Anyone who has ever held a minicam makes an effort to hold it steady, in fact many cameras feature technology to assist in providing a smooth picture. So I did find this an exaggeration, and some of the choices of what one would really train the camera on in the film seemed weird. If I had a choice of filming a giant monster or pointing the camera at my friends, you can bet I would choose to catch the beast on film, I'm sure most people would.
One point of inconsistency is that the monster lets loose small ones that run around attacking people. As shown in several scenes, it is quite easy to defeat them with a good swing from a heavy object, yet the main creature is impervious to the heaviest fire power the military can throw at it. The creature's origin is never explained, and that's fine. But if it was born on earth it must be some type of animal. Very unlikely it could withstand the barrage of tank and rocket fire it is subjected to. I know I know, Godzilla can. And the job offer in Japan is a reference to the land of the big guy.
But I do have to compliment the special effects used to portray Manahattan being blown to pieces. It really was believable and the saving grace of the film. So to sum up, if you do choose to see Cloverfield, don't set the bar too high on expectation and it will do fine. But really, before you drop your $10.50 on this check the paper to see what else is playing. Cloverfield is by no means a bad film but it certainly is not the best one currently on the big screen.