interesting

Rating: 7/10 (22 May 2013)

Rob, the lead character, was very identifiable for me. The direction was spot on all the way through keeping the tension at unbearably high levels for most of the time.
For me, some of the monster attack sequences, particularly one in a subway tunnel, were among the best edge of the seat moments I've witnessed in a theater since "Alien"'s re-release a few years ago.
I thought the movie had more substance than you'd expect it to, even beyond the obvious 9/11 overtones. I heard someone call this the "United 93" of monster movies and I agree with the assessment as this is a movie with of course a lighter tone but the same sense of relative realism and utter uneasiness which prevails throughout.
I disagree with those who say the love story was tacked on or shoe- horned into the script. Besides serving a crucial plot point, it was simply the emotional underpinning of the movie.
I thought the hand-held camera perspective was used far better here than uh... a certain movie released in 1999. "Cloverfield" is as creepy, scary, and relatively realistic as any 'giant monster attacks city' movie can be. It's also very well-written in comparison to many of those. I've read up on some alleged plot-holes and decided that it is unreasonable to expect us to get more closure and a deeper understanding of what was going on than the characters. This is a point of view movie with the leads being a bunch of twenty-somethings. What, did you expect a guy in a lab coat to pop up and explain everything? Perhaps an orangutan in an armchair would've been nice, right? Really, "Cloverfield" makes you feel like you're there. It's a formidable relatively low-budget sci-fi flick which delivers the goods. Frankly, the arguments against it are mostly due to unrealistic and silly expectations. It's thrilling, tense, and runs for just as long as it needs to. Plus, it's got a great ending.