Cloverfield: Was it a Monstrous Flop?

Movie Review

By D. K. Hinton, published Jan 22, 2008
Published Content: 12  Total Views: 1,903  Favorited By: 3 CPs
Rating: 3.0 of 5
Going into the theater, I didn't know very much about what producer J. J. Abrams (LOST, Alias) had in store for viewers other than that something huge, probably some sort of monster, had begun to attack New York City.

My first thoughts were that the movie was probably another Godzilla or King Kong remake flaunting a cheesy 2008 makeover.

Fortunately, I was pleasantly mistaken.

With the fictionalized documentary feel akin to The Blair Witch Project, the tale unfolds by means of the characters' documentation on a handheld camera over the course of about 7 hours. It starts at the surprise going away party for Rob (Michael Stahl-David) who is headed to Japan for a new job.

The music plays, the party-goers are happy, and overall, things are well inside the posh New York apartment - until there is what they think is an earthquake (which, of course, isn't) and they all venture outside to see what's up...

From then on begins the thrilling and suspenseful ride!

Because of the documentary style, I was a little concerned that the whole movie was going to give me motion sickness; after awhile, though, I was so caught up in the action and intensity of the movie that it was hardly distracting anymore.

The shaky and unclear shots were a necessary and realistic display of the characters' struggle for survival. With this technique, I felt that I was completely involved in their wins, loses, and fight for dear life, which really helped to suspend disbelief.

This documentary style of filmmaking provided for scenes of intense emotion, revolutionary special effects and scenic design, as well as a brilliant and effective form of storytelling.

Another thing that was interesting to see was the level of comedy contributed by Hud (T. J. Miller), the cameraman, and even love in the movie. This just added to the complexity of the characters and their incredible situation. It also served as much needed relief from the intense action sequences.

Of course we as the audience couldn't sit through 84 minutes of running for dear life without some sort of plot, right?

Did You Know?
The movie had a budget of $25 million, but was shot as if by homemade video.
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
 
 
I didn't like it, too much hype and to be honest it sucked donkey balls.

Posted on 01/29/2008 at 7:01:15 PM

 
i love your review, but i did not care for this one too much. there were some cool scenes though.

Posted on 01/23/2008 at 3:01:30 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
 
Most Commented On