Weak, Weak Flick--On the Level of a Sci-Fi Channel TV Movie

Rating: 2/10 (22 January 2008)

"Cloverfield" is a very weak movie no better than your slightly above-average Sci-Fi Channel Original Made-For-Television monster movie. It has so much in common with that kind of stuff--the bland, sub-par, no-name young actors; the same bland, lackwit dialogue; the same lame, clichéd, tacked-on love story; and the same halfway decent, but barely-glimpsed CGI monsters. The ONLY thing "Cloverfield" had going for it was the gimmick of telling the story through the "eyes" of a camcorder--and they blew that entirely. For that gimmick to work, you'd have to totally commit to the concept--ie, exactly what would this kind of thing look like if captured by an amateur with a camera? And this is the part at which the screenplay, producer, and the director totally fail. They mistake shaking the camera around for "realism." But "realism" is the exact opposite of the effect that the direction and camera-work of "Cloverfield" convey. The movie is supposed to look like someone shot this with a hand-held vidcam, but what it actually looks like is a movie shot by a guy wearing a camera on his head like a hat. "We see what he sees" is not what you would get if the cameraman is holding the camera in his hand. You'd get that only if he's holding the camera up to his eye for 90 minutes straightall the while running from a big monster, fighting off smaller monsters, climbing across debris, and jumping from one building to another. And he never drops the camera (though it does hit the ground a couple of times, though that's only because the guy holding the camera hits the ground. And the camera never breaks! That is some great damn camera! Must have a "super-grip" handle and be virtually indestructible! I want one!).
But that is not the only way that "Cloverfield" totally blows its own gimmick. The filmmakers also decided to put their little camcorder in the hands of a guy who, even though he is supposed to be a complete regular-guy dumbass, apparently has an innate gift for pointing said camcorder in exactly the right direction needed in order to catch each bit of clichéd dialogue and each clichéd reaction to said clichéd dialogue.
The people who made "Cloverfield" took a really lame giant monster story, cast it with your typical young Soap Opera actors, and knew that they would have to depend entirely on the "shot from someone's vidcam" gimmick to give the thing its oomph and interest. And they half-assed it all the way.
The trailer we all saw last summer was much more entertaining than the finished product.