If you have an imagination and like unconventional cinema, watch it. But if you want a plot handed out on a plate, miss it.

Rating: 9/10 (13 February 2008)

After reading with much delight the bitter criticism of this movie I felt the urge to try to set the doubters straight.
This film was a cinematic experience not felt since Jurassic Park, and you actually believe it's authenticity throughout. For a monster movie - a tired cliché, yes - it somehow was pretty gosh darn believable. Like those dinosaurs were back in '93.
People have slammed Cloverfield for being vague and leaving them in a confused and/or unsatisfied state. Well, those easily entertained may as well go and watch something unoriginal like an episode of Scooby Doo to have all those loose-ends tied up so that it all makes sense in the end. 'In the end' sums all that up, as with this movie there is no obvious linear format. Folks with a blinkered view that you should never sway from the typical, tired conventions of a story or film will be disappointed.
Generally the detail is breathtaking and is presented simply as a moment in time and opts for the point-of-view, naturalistic approach which frankly many directors haven't had the guts to attempt in modern mainstream Cinema.
Yes it may be a cliché that New York is the subject, but what a place for a monster to roam given the bustling population of the City. If you can imagine a 'thing' the size of those buildings and something that can nonchalantly topple them to wreak huge danger to civilian lives; that is a pretty scary prospect if you are witnessing this live, which is why you are placed in the middle as a viewer for the devastating effect. There are some parallels of the 9/11 attacks and are even touched on in the film when they question if the monster was created as part of a government conspiracy - like 9/11 was rumored to be.
The editing is very-well done, complete with all those pointless, terribly-framed and 'amateurish' scenes you get when pressing 'record' and 'stop' on a home camera. These fill the gaps between the cuts and action to add further verisimilitude and plausibility.
It's also what you don't see for much of the film that intrigues as the camera-guy constantly tries to get a shot of the monster as he knows this is an unprecedented situation. The realism is spot-on and you DO NOT need a 'hot Hollywood star' like, I don't know, Jake Gyllenhaal limping around for an Oscar as the good-natured protagonist who single-handedly destroys this evil monster, gets the girl, and everyone can happily breathe again as they kiss, laugh and hold hands whilst walking through Central Park unscathed and undaunted. For those who say the script was terrible, was there really a complete script? If it was so obviously scripted, then instantly, the realism would dramatically wane. Would JJ Abrams really want cheesy Spielberg-type dialogue and one that gives us a complete insight into all the characters since birth??
Cloverfield would have been another awful flop had it been YET another obvious, beginning-middle-end, good-prevails, moralistic, everybody's happy, action blockbuster... but it isn't. This is the most dynamic and daring film for a long time and I strongly advise those who feel intrigued to watch it to get the cinematic experience while it is still running. It is fresh, tense, innovative and isn't over-the-top - as it could easily have been. The balance and presentation are near perfect. For me and many others, the creators have achieved the best monster movie in decades. This isn't that hybrid of Godzilla, Blair Witch and Predator 2 some have called it. All that is wholly unjustified criticism by people who simply do not understand the film.
Oh, and 'Cloverfield' is the best title this could have had. Imagine the idyllic, tranquil nirvana of a Cloverfield and somewhere you would long to be. Then look at the debris of New York in the film.... Juxtaposition at it's best.
This will be one of those cult, defining films in years to come. No question.