Not worth the hype, but entertaining all the same.

Rating: 7/10 (24 February 2008)

It's obvious that Cloverfield had a bout of over-hyping, mainly due to the innovative ad campaign which basically equates to the idea that anything hinted at in a trailer sends internet fanboys in a flurry of excitement and speculation. The downside is that all the anticipation can result in a resounding thud (Star Wars, but hopefully not the upcoming Indy flick). Thankfully, this film geek chose to acknowledge yet ignore all the internet madness and wait for the flick to be released. That means none of the meticulous freeze framing of the trailer to get a gander at the antagonistic 'thing' that decapitated the statue of liberty and the like.
So, was Cloverfield worth all the brouhaha? Well, yes and no. The fact is, the premise is not revolutionary and nor is the style, it's most obvious comparison being The Blair Witch Project which debuted 9 years ago to a similar fanfare (we had the poster in our common room before we even knew what it was). The main pull here is the use of character and perspective as we follow a group of New Yorkers desperately trying to survive in the wake of a monster attack. Despite reviews to the contrary, these characters are pretty well realised compared to conventional fare such as Godzilla in which we are given a linear and straightforward introduction to them, whereas here, we are treated to fragmented pieces of overlapping footage to tell the story so far.
The way the film has been shot, as if on DV camcorder, feels authentically like a home movie, which at the beginning is to the film's detriment, but it becomes obvious why the first act needed to be as it was once disaster hits. It may take a little getting used to, but it's worth it. The CG is integrated almost perfectly, glimpses here and there and feels more real than any of the robots or web slingers of last year that Hollywood offered us. In fact, the weakest point of the film is seeing the creature in full, whereas the aforementioned flicks would have thrived on that very thing.
So the point is not inherently in the idea, but the execution which is pretty effective. At one point I found myself holding my breath when dust engulfed the characters and gripping the seat when several memorable shocks presented themselves, the most notable instances involving a tunnel and later a helicopter. At the end of the day, whether you care about the characters or not is irrelevant because director Matt Reeves and exec producer JJ Abrams don't care whether you do or not. Each is expendable, however painstakingly they are established and it's this anti-Hollywood, anti-cliché attitude towards a very Hollywood idea that gives Cloverfield it's uniqueness and entertainment value. If all this seems like tosh to you, that's all very well, we can't agree on everything, but you can't deny that Cloverfield, if nothing else, is a fun night at the movies and isn't that what we missed in the summer of threequels?