Movie Review : Cloverfield (2008) starring Michael Stahl-David, Jessica Lucas and T.J. Miller. Directed by Matt Reeves.

Plot Shot : New York is attacked by a giant monster, wait this sounds oddly familiar. Amid the destruction, chaos and confusion Rob Hawkins and his band of not-so-merry buddies have to make it out of the city. Standing in the way is one really pissed off monster and their own stupidity. Will they make it out alive, will the monster be cooler than the 1998 "Godzilla", will Rudy Giuliani be able to spin "Cloverfield" into a campaign slogan they way he has 9/11? My review of wholesale destruction ensues...

Re-View As Rob Hawkins is sitting on his terrace over-looking Manhattan you can't help but hate this guy a little bit. He's got money; anyone that can afford NYC has to. Rob's not a bad-looking guy and the 5 minutes of character build-up let's us know he is on his way to Japan to start a new job as VP of some beverage company. Then a shockwave hits panicking everyone at his going-away party. An earthquake in New York, what the hell, that’s ludicrous? Moments later fiery debris showers his apartment forcing everyone to flee into the streets. Confusions reigns as he and his friends try to figure out what is going on. Those who know that they have just been attacked aren't too much help as they just offer tidbits like "It was alive" and "It was eating everyone". What is there to do but make the long trek to Brooklyn and safety, if only they can stay out of the way of whatever is playing it's personal game of "Rampage" in the city. What? No one remembers that game? Lizzy the Lizard, damn you stupid kids and your music. Okay, let me rephrase, if they can only avoid whatever is playing it's ode to "King Kong" in the city.

That's pretty much all I can tell you about the plot of "Cloverfield", not because more would give away any huge secret, but because there isn't much more to tell. Some friends have to run from a monster all the while filming what's going on with a video camera, you know for posterity. At first read it may seem like I am condemning this movie for being way too simplistic, however "Halloween" was about as simple a movie as can be and it is a masterpiece. As for which way I am leaning, keep reading, I ain't giving it up this early.

I should have added a disclaimer to this review saying it was written by someone who thinks the Toho "Godzilla" movies are absolute genius. Some dude in a rubber suit walking around a cardboard city battling a gigantic moth, who doesn't love that? However campy, corny and thoroughly enjoyable, the fun factor for those movies is a tepid thing. When the American movie machine got a hold of "Godzilla" they turned him from his rubber suited remnant of a lost world to a giant atomic iguana and made one hell of a shitty flick. It takes some semblance of skill to have a huge monster attack a city and be entertaining.

"Cloverfield" could be called a mix between "Godzilla" and "The Blair Witch Project" with some measure of accuracy. The entire movie is seen through the lens of a video camera, this gives the viewer a complete sense of immersion usually only seen in first person shooter video games. The entire time Rob and his crew are filming it seems as if you are right there with them. It is at times infuriating, wishing you could aim the camera at the monster instead of other spectators. However for the most part it is integral and groundbreaking way to film a movie like this. Yes, "Blair Witch" could be considered a pioneer for this method, but using it in the way it is in "Cloverfield" is unique. Instead of throwing around millions on a big budget monster movie producer J.J. Abrams (of "Lost" and "Alias" fame) and director Matt Reeves plop the viewer in the middle of a fight for their lives, all from the safety and relative comfort of a movie theatre seat. To let you know the sheer effectiveness of this device, I actually readjusted myself many times to see if I could peer around buildings to see what was attacking. I wasn't the only one so don't laugh.

Does this technique have it's downside as well, of course. It's probably going to give you a headache. The biggest flaw would be that these people are supposed to be dealing with this situation as realistically as possible. Since it is filmed on a camcorder and not same fancy HD rig it seems like this movie should be extra-realistic. While most of the action is, some of the character's reactions and dialogue seem pretty forced at times. For instance while doing something utterly insane; the guy holding the camera ("Hud") says something dumb which brings a scornful comment from Rob. Hud's response is "What do you want me to do, I have to talk about something". That line was probably scripted but seems like a testament to the filler material which it seems the movie is stuffed with. Some conversations seem a bit out of place, there is a lot of repetition the words "Rob" and "Dude" which gets really old really quick. This is especially the case when your name is "Robb".

As for the monster, trust me from the moment I saw this trailer pre-Transformers I have been wondering about what it would be. The hypothesis of what the "Cloverfield" monster is has haunted me for the last few months with my brain spitting out suppositions like word balloons in a comic strip. It couldn't be a primate; "King Kong" rules that out. They wouldn't make it a reptile like "Godzilla" or an insect like "Mothra". It has to have hands to toss the Statue of Liberty's head. My God, it must be a land shark! Alas it is not a land shark, try as you might there is no one that could come up with the correct guess. I liked the creature design and found myself pouring over tons of fake websites and other internet gems left by the filmmakers as clues.

The internet serves as an interesting marketing device for the film and as sort of a prequel. Anyone who has online capability has probably seen the now-seemingly iconic picture of Lady Liberty decapitated. However you may not now that a marketing blitzkrieg of sorts has been usurping the free time of dorks everywhere. Fake company websites, fake environmental group websites and even phony MySpace pages for the characters (complete with blogs and comments from other characters) have been on the net since the trailer premiered. These sites don't explicitly promote the movie but are more of a means to tell a story and hook people before the film even starts. There is not one mention of a huge monster but events that precipitated it's arrival in New York are clearly laid out. While it's a cool method to tell the story, the lack of an origin for people that just see the movie might turn people off. I know most people don't or won't care to sift through pages of company literature on "Slusho" the new Japanese energy drink whose parent company has hired Rob and seems to be hiding something dangerous. For those who like to investigate it's a cool little thing to do post-viewing but it could have been done in the movie. I don't know if there should have been a epilogue or prologue for that matter but the info contained in these sites while not being vital to the small-scale story is interesting. There were more than one of two pissed off moviegoers in our audience who didn't appreciate the fact the movie didn't revolve around the monster or the attack but around the characters. It is a character driven story and that leaves a lot to the viewer’s imagination.

In the end I liked "Cloverfield" for what it was, an exercise in movie making and a character-driven monster flick. The monster may not always be the star of the show but it's appearance outweighs the sometimes negative impacts of the characters. It may seem to be a small movie and to some incomplete but it's one of those films that I couldn't stop thinking about. My mind has been racing and trying to write this review as coherently as possible is difficult because of the constant theorizing as to origins and fates. The best compliment I can pay it is that it lives up to its hype.

Sequel Worthy? : The movie ends with sort of a resounding thud. It could have been wrapped up neatly but that may have made it seem like an exercise in laziness. I find myself wavering on whether I would have liked more of a finale or if I preferred the "viewer has a brain ending". There is a ton of room for a sequel which, stay after the credits, is hinted at. In the end I seem to have the same sense of frustration and awe I get after watching an episode of "Lost". I loved the movie but I kinda wanted more, but at the same time I glad I wasn't spoon-fed a typical Hollywood ending. It's a catch 22 but it's better than saying "I wasted an hour and a half of my life".

The movie cost about $30 million to make, I am not sure if that includes to almost non-stop advertising. To date (after 4 days) it has already surpassed $50 mill. I would say this movie will prove to be a cash cow. Would a sequel be welcome, I think it would however the audience seems to be very polarized between those who loved it and those who hate it. If I were the filmmakers I wouldn't go for a sequel, it's a dangerous proposition. They aren't going to get back the people that hated the first one and no new fans are going to show up. I think in the end it would turn out similar to "Blair Witch" (although I loved the second one) where it is a phenomenon you can't recreate. Director Matt Reeves has said that he would like to do a sequel which would involve other people's viewpoints during the attack and provide some backstory of the creature's origins. Apparently the studio agrees with Reeves and early reports are that "Cloverfield 2" should have no problem being green-lit.

To DVD or not to DVD : I think that the brains behind "Cloverfield" should pull out all the stops when it comes to the DVD. There should be footage from other cameras in the city, maybe a fake documentary on the attack and aftermath and an archive of the material from the various internet sites. It's not owed to those of us who helped hype the movie to almost mythical proportions or that patiently waited for what we hoped would be the next great monster movie. It would be nice to be rewarded for our interest. If those things are included I wouldn't hesitate to purchase the movie. If it's just a straight-up copy of the flick with some making-of featurettes I would go ahead and rent it.

Final Grade :

7 out of 10 Aliens