So so (possible spoilers)

Rating: 5/10 (24 January 2008)

The film "Cloverfield" seems to have a polarizing affect on most; people tend to love or hate it. Reading through the comments and reviews the past week, it seems that a lot of the folks who love it made up their mind before they even saw it. The folks who hate it all seem to list the same reasons such as the motion of the hand held camera, the ending, the lack of any sort of exposition, or elements they found improbable (i.e. surviving a helicopter crash, the battery life of the camcorder, or the survival of the video after the bombing). I didn't have a problem suspending disbelief for most of the film. I found most of it quite believable save for one element. The character Hud is videotaping the exploit because he feels it is important and people will need to see it later. This makes sense. The movie took place over a 7 to 9 hour period with Hud turning the camera off and on during this period and actually only recording less than 90 minutes of the experience. Apparently, nothing important happens at any time when the camera is shut off and the camera is shut off 90% of the time. And the camera is always on BEFORE something important to the story happens. I found this form of narrative extremely forced and felt it didn't work. Although I appreciate the effort to try something different, it isn't really original as it had been done in "Blair Witch Project". On the other hand, I found the novel way they mixed what was already recorded on the tape and the events being recorded over it to be extremely clever and interesting. That's the highest praise I can give the film, though. I thought most of it was a little dull and, being a fan of the genre, was really disappointed with it. It's understandable how the ending frustrates so many but most will realize how it will end at the beginning of the movie. So I'm one of the few who neither hated it or loved it. It's somewhere in the middle.