A unique approach to a classic genre...

Rating: 8/10 (19 January 2008)

So, here I am, the day after seeing Cloverfield on opening night, having been able to "sleep on it" before expressing my views. So, here it goes...
I knew from the get-go that Cloverfield would be shot through the viewpoint of a camcorder, following a bunch of young adults around NYC as they attempt to survive a monster attack. Right away you can see where this could go terribly wrong, as I did, but nonetheless I reserved judgement until the movie spoke for itself. And did it ever.
In short, this is a very good movie, especially for a monster film. I honestly think this blows the 1998 American "Godzilla" movie out of the water. Why do I feel this way? For five reasons:
1. The movie's unique point of view (first-person via camera) and the video quality of said camera gives a very "realistic" look to the whole thing, like something you'd expect to upload and watch on YouTube. And just like would happen, the camera shakes back and froth, jumps up and down, and cuts in-and-out multiple times. Yes, this could get very annoying, but fortunately I think the movie captivates you enough that you really don't mind it so much in the long run.
2. The characters are interesting and believable. I must admit, the first twenty minutes of the movie, mostly shot during the going-away party, is not my cup of tea when it comes to settings and people, and I may have thought to myself at one point "anytime the monster wants to show, please do," but really it did good at giving us a feel for who these people are and where they're coming from. Hence, you come to either love or hate or just find annoying the people we end up following, just as you would in real life.
3. The monster was very interesting in design and though not the best looking beastie I've ever laid eyes on, I have to give him thumbs up for presenting us with an unconventional creature to rip apart the Big Apple. What especially works here is that we see very little of it, that we don't know what it is, nor where it came from, nor why it's attacking. That might sound frustrating, but think of all the cheesy plot lines the writers avoided by literally dumping us into the middle of a monster rampage: no long drawn out scientific explanation as to its origin and motives ("it's a product of nuclear testing and has chosen New York as a nest for its eggs"); it just IS.
4. The "gore" factor, though very limited, I thought left a powerful impression. I only recall three real "gore" scenes; shoots of wounded and dead in mall, girl explodes, and another girl impaled by rod. All are very brief and mostly "off screen" but the execution of them and the mood you're in by the time they arrive really adds to the horror and mystery of just how this creature operates. (Does it implant a parasite into a human host, ala Alien?)
5. The music. Wait... what music? Exactly! My favorite aspect of any movie is often the soundtrack. But alas! No music is to be found gracing this motion picture! But it works; never during the movie do we expect to hear any sort of soundtrack kick in and heighten the mood. Everything plays off very realistically. But even so, I must mention the end credits, for during them an actual orchestral piece composed as the monster's theme does play. And it's FANTASTIC! This composer--Michael Giacchino--never ceases to blow my mind away. His theme, entitled "ROAR!" takes you back to the classic 50s monster/alien B-movies and Japanese kaiju eiga--in fact, I think it'd do swell in a real (Japanese) Godzilla film! I give two big thumbs way up to this guy! Do yourself a favor and sit through all the credits--it's almost wroth the ticket price alone!
On a side note, I must mention that throughout the movie at various points my mind recalled all-too-clear images of 9/11; falling skyscrapers, cities and people covered in smoke, ash and dust, pieces of paper flying and falling through the air, buildings half crumbling full of the dead and dying, utter confusion and panic as the driving emotion... I also thought to myself: was this perhaps how the Japanese felt while watching the original Godzilla movie back in 1954? I don't consider such similarities to be a negative thing. True, such reminders may prove unpleasant for some, but they add two imporntant factors to the film: first, because we all "experienced" 9/11 we all feel that we can "relate" to it, or at least re-visit those past emotions; this brings you right into the film and gives it more realism. Second, for those same reasons, it helps to pass off an unbelievable idea as real by putting the impossible into real-life scenerios. And--as in the case of the first Godzilla movie--a third point stands out; it drives home the message and allogory of "monster=nuclear bomb/terrorist". However, I get the impression that Cloverfield wasn't meant to be a political statement, as Godzilla was, so this third point may be ignored.
So, in conclusion, I must admit that Cloverfield is not perfect. But it is different. It does not entertain. But it does exhaust you. It does not fall gently on your ears. But it will shake you up. The point is, if you're wanting to see a movie like King Kong, then go see King Kong, because you won't find it here.