Accidental lovechild of Godzilla and the Blair Witch

Rating: 8/10 (2 February 2011)

On the back of one of the most intricate viral marketing campaigns of all-time, Matt Reeves directs the contemporary monster movie Cloverfield, one for the 'YouTube generation', as some have described it. Generating immense hype through the posting of ambiguous images on the film's own spin-off website (1-18-08.com), it almost felt as if Cloverfield had grabbed the entire internet population by the throat, and forced it to uncover the mystery of what exactly has caused so much unexplainable damage to Manhattan. Ultimately, however, the exploits of those who attempted to unravel this enigma seemed more entertaining and fulfilling than the film itself.
The film pits a group of beautiful, rich New Yorkers we've never heard of against a giant beast bent on destruction, its motives unclear. In fact, the secrecy surrounding the monster itself was one of the few positives of the film. We never learn where the creature is from, what disturbed it, or even what it looks like in its entirety. Positively, this gets the viewer interested and constantly wanting more (a fantastic environment for a director to work in). Unfortunately, the 'more' never comes, and we are left dissatisfied in every other department.
Not only does Cloverfield end far too abruptly, but it does so without really offering any sort of climax. Now, I'm all for innovation in storytelling, and sometimes that can be achieved to great effect with a non-linear plot, but not in this instance. A film built around suspense and senseless action needs to wrap itself up accordingly. That's not just my opinion; its common- sense filmmaking. Because of the final scene, many have criticised the way Cloverfield blatantly plagiarises The Blair Witch Project.
I feel this to be a rash statement. Yes, the similarities are there, but one can, in fact, see the direction Reeves has taken in ending the film this way. He tried to create something unique and unexpected, and he succeeded, but for all the wrong reasons. And unlike Blair Witch, where we feel the same sense of terror as the characters (probably because it doesn't feel like a piece of fiction), there is no effort made by the protagonists in Cloverfield to incite audience emotion; the poor acting and lacklustre screenplay keeping us from suspending our disbelief.
And of course, there is the camera-work. Once again, I can appreciate the effort made to give the film a point-of-sale, but if the hand-held camera (which acts as our only window in for the entire two-hour run time) dosen't give you motion sickness by film's end, it will definitely annoy you. I fell into the latter category upon first viewing, but it must be noted that I didn't watch it on the big screen. I can only imagine the effect it would have had on people watching on a screen fifty times the size of mine, with no surrounding lighting to minimise the nauseating movement on-screen.
That is precisely the type of blunder that can damage a film's reputation even before release, in both a critical and commercial sense. No film can ever be considered a critical success if its falls below the expectations generated through an advertising campaign, and this is the case with Cloverfield.
*There's nothing I love more than a bit of feedback, good or bad. So drop me a line on jnatsis@iprimus.com.au and let me know what you thought of my review.*