If you're looking for a great movie, keep looking. Just appreciate it for what it does offer.

Rating: 7/10 (24 January 2008)

I've never been a fan of JJ Abrams. Alias and Lost are both quite ridiculous, unfulfilling, pretentious and huge carrot-on-a-stick shows that have you keep on watching in the hope of finally ever making some real sense of it all, but that moment never really comes.
Anyway: People keep ripping Cloverfield for the "homevideo gimmick" that Cloverfield "stole" from Blair Witch for the sake of trying to be original. Who cares? It's just a technique a moviemaker can use to strengthen a certain feel. Most paintings are done in oil-paint, but sometimes a painting works better using acrylic paint or even crayons. It's all about what you are trying to achieve. And yes, the entire movie is filmed this way and sometimes you want to shoot the guy filming in the head for not pointing the camera where you want it to look and sometimes you do get a bit motion sick. But it didn't bother me really. Just that the shaking and pointing at the floor was a little over the top at certain times and could have been toned down for the sake of the viewer without sacrificing realism.
You can skip the entire first 18 minutes of the movie since nothing happens. It is supposed to set us up for the shock of when all hell breaks loose and enforce the feeling of realism of witnessing everyday life etc etc, but it's drawn out way to long and nothing interesting happens. 10 minutes max would have been really sufficient, or at least making this introduction more interesting and lively. It didn't even add much to the characters.
There is no obvious story during the entire movie, but what went on was entertaining enough, at least for me. The characters weren't fan-shrine material, but they did the job of pulling us along. Although, I didn't really care much about most of em. The guy holding the cam was funny and interesting and so was the first girl to get killed sadly.
The acting was..somewhat inconsistent. Some parts felt really good and natural, and other parts just made me sort of roll my eyes. (especially when certain people are hurt, they seem to be packing the magic Hollywood morphine which makes them ignore all pain and keep on flirting and laughing etc) It wasn't Oscar material tho.
The action, when it finally starts, is decent. Explosions, panic, soldiers fighting everywhere, people running for their life and loud noises. If you managed to stay awake past the 1st 18 minutes you will be on the edge of your seat for the most part. The CG and effects were very good and looked very real, but this is 2008 after all.
Now, the monster, the thing which all the hype is about. To me, the monster was a very big disappointment. It wasn't very scary or interesting. Not even when it flashes by in the background when our "heroes" are running across the street does it really cause any real scares. It simply wasn't terrifying, neither in looks nor in how it acted. It looked quite silly IMHO. The scenes with the monster also felt very secondary. It didn't feel all that present during the entire movie and as such killed a lot of the suspense, urgency, danger and claustrophobia.
All in all, it was a good movie and a breath of fresh air in many regards. But be warned, pretty much nothing is explained. You don't know anything about the monster, what happened to certain people, what happened to Manhatten, nothing! There is no real beginning nor an ending here. All it is, is a hour and a half (not counting the snooze worthy start) of being thrown into a ride of panic and apocalyptic visuals. It's more of an experience then a story.
Many people really hate Cloverfield and I can understand them. If you go in expecting a real suspenseful action or monster movie, you will be disappointed because of the lack of any real storytelling or closure. I also hated the fact that there was no real "ending" but I liked the rest of the movie for what it was.
7/10 for me. 7 because it is not super duper great, but it still stands above average.