Movie Review: "Cloverfield"

It's been a long time coming and considering how long ago this incredibly hyped film was released, it's far too late, but I assume there must still be some people out there who haven't watched it. That and "Cloverfield", whether good or bad, deserves all the articles it can get. If for nothing else, then just for the movie it inserted into Hollywood.

So, you might not have seen it, but you've certainly heard about it. This was easilly the most hyped film after last year's "Transformers", maybe coming second only to "Iron Man".  For the people following the hype, it was the impressive and shocking return of the monster-movie genre, a genre rediculed or downright killed in the past few decades, but arguably one of the genres to forward the concepts of sci-fi and -to a lesser extend- horror in the '50s. That, on its own, made the film-makers' work all the more important.

The funny thing is that there is not that much to say about this film. There is no story beyond the fact that a giant monster of unknown origin pops up out of nowhere in New York and creates havoc. And there are no characters, no archetypes, no stereotypes (well, scratch that, they're all stereotypes, just not defined), no development, no exploration. It's all about clean-cut, straight-forward terror and action, with few pauses of superficial, simplistic, underplayed melodrama.

So, what the hell is there to like? This isn't a movie; out of the thousands of times I've bashed films for ignoring the basic principles of drama (coherent story and characterization), how can I find even one redeeming spot in this piece of work that not only lacks both, but gloats it's ommiting them? The ingenuity (though the word might be a little too strong) comes exactly from that; "Cloverfield" isn't a movie, not in the standard sense. It's a faux-documentary whose purpose is only to create feelings, not by forcing them through characterization, situations and music, but by the throwing shocking images at you. The entire movie is shot with a hand-held camera, from a first-person view. The camera is shaky, as expected, but just enough to pass the experience off as realistic. There is no story, because there is none to tell. It's not about the monster, who made it, where it came from and such; it's about seeing it and dropping your jaw. The characters are pretty, model-pretty and empty, entirely, with only glimpses of their lives that are so generic that they hit right on target. Because if you couldn't tell already, this faux-documentary's purpose can be described in one word: immersion.

Those of us who play games, especially first-person-shooters, can see right through it. The first-person-view and the lack of any characterization and story point exactly to that. The film-makers put the movie-goers in a position that guarantees familiarity (among friends, in the big city that looks safe, with family and the love of your life) and then takes it all away in an instant, placing them in the fearful post-9/11 world, though instead of terrorists or war, the threat is a monster. And it's unbeatable. 

The acting is entirely forgettable, though it'd be unfair to pin it on the actors; this is the point of the film, after all. If anything, they come off as natural as you'd expect them. But it's the writing , aside from the direction, that the film almost excels at. The dialogue is sharp and spot-on for the entire duration of "Cloverfield". It's true that the events that lead this "documentary" get predictable and a bit over-the-top toward the end (you can see what the end is, but the writer drags the inevitable annoyingly), but the dialogue makes up for these shortcomings. And that's because the lack of an actual story makes the movie nothing but pure dialogue; it's the writer's entire foundation. For well over an hour, we have nothing but continuous, down-to-earth dialogue, with the lack of any pompous and overwhelming lines that drama usually requires. In essence, what writer Drew Goddard has accomplished, is write an hour-long, non-stop conversation without missing as much as one word. In writing, that can be a very impressive feat. And indeed, with the visual aid from director Matt Reeves, impressive it is.

After its release, the film was met with much, much disappointment. It's not that it isn't an enjoyable experience, as much as it is that the hype killed it. It's ironic, but if it hadn't hyped itself so much, if it was less mis-advertised and the audience had an idea on what to expect, it might have been better-received. 

Overall, "Cloverfield" is a special case of a film. It's less about watching the film than under what conditions you watch it. Partly, the whole juice is in watching it in a theater, so you can experience first-hand the reactions of the crowd around you. Personally, I couldn't have enjoyed it on a big screen with three dozen people around me. I watched it at home, on my computer monitor, all alone. The movie is presented as a documentary, what you watch is that tape that recorded it all and was recovered by the military. And it was that which made it imperative for me that I watch it on a small screen, as I would watch a tape. Watch "Cloverfield"; no expectations. Let yourself be immersed. Don't think about it after it ends; there is nothing to think about. You won't be revisiting it anyway. It's a one-time deal and it's effective.

PS: That means NO NEED FOR A SEQUEL. What the hell is wrong with you people?

"Cloverfield" trailer: