First of all, this comment does contain MAJOR SPOILERS, so turn back now if you don't want to know what happens!
While you're deciding whether to read further, what can I say that won't spoil it? "Cloverfield" has been summarized as "Godzilla" meets "The Blair Witch Project", and that's a fair description. The hand-held camera documentary effect does hark back to TBWP. That may be something fairly new to much of the film's target audience, but it's really not. Whether it's innovative or simply annoying is a judgment call, although it does help set the tone of the film. I saw the film with my adult granddaughter who is subject to motion sickness and although she liked it, she doesn't particularly want to see it again. That doesn't bode well for its box office "legs". I'd also like to add that I'm past 60, so ignore what others may say about this not being for folks over 30-35.
*** Spoiler Pause ***
Still here? OK, here goes... I should qualify my first comment with the fact that I don't necessarily consider the spoilers all that major. The opening titles set up the biggest spoiler, so it wasn't really that unexpected.
So what is new and/or fresh about it? The answer is point of view (POV). Most traditional monster films have central characters who are scientists or military people engaged in battling and/or understanding the monster. The monster's victims are traditionally part of the background. "Cloverfield" turns this around... There are no scientists in sight and the military personnel are all secondary characters. The protagonists are some of the same people you see simply running and screaming in a traditional monster film. The scant plot is simply their trying to survive and save friends and loved ones. The hand held video is simply a plot gimmick to facilitate this unique POV.
Some have criticized the characters as being vapid, self-absorbed twenty-somethings, which I don't think is entirely fair. It's largely true of the party group at the beginning, but then once we shift the focus from scientists and high-ranking military types to everyday people, you can't really expect everyone to be all that interesting. The audience doesn't need to admire them, only to identify with them and/or like them at some level. The core group at the focus of the film may not be heroic or deep thinkers, but they are types we all know and are mostly likable enough.
So, what's not to like? Again, just as with TBWP, many people won't like the jerky hand held camera work. So that much is a matter of taste - I find it mildly annoying, but that's just me. What's more troubling (here come the spoilers) is that almost everyone dies! OK, that's not too surprising in a modern horror film. And again, this is foreshadowed in the opening credits. As they rolled, I was prepared that some or most of the characters would die, but not all of the most sympathetic ones! Doing it this way is arguably more realistic. But, since the whole premise of any monster film is unrealistic, my gut reaction is that if I wanted to see a show with a really depressing ending, I'd watch a documentary and learn something in the process. Once I've spent the whole time investing some feelings for the characters, having them killed off seemingly at random may be realistic, but it doesn't leave me with a good feeling as I leave the theater. This may also affect the film's box office "legs".
I also have to add that this is one of the most intense films I've ever seen. It's only about an hour long yet leaves you wrung out, feeling that it was a much longer film. In addition to being nauseous from the camera work, my granddaughter was sore from tensing her muscles and generally felt like she'd been through a real workout by the time the final credits rolled.
Conditionally recommended with significant caveats... (However, my all-time favorite giant monster movies are "Gojira" (the original Japanese version), "Godzilla vs. Destroyer", "Godzilla: Final Wars", "Gorgo", "Mighty Joe Young" (the original version), and both the original and Peter Jackson versions of "King Kong").
While you're deciding whether to read further, what can I say that won't spoil it? "Cloverfield" has been summarized as "Godzilla" meets "The Blair Witch Project", and that's a fair description. The hand-held camera documentary effect does hark back to TBWP. That may be something fairly new to much of the film's target audience, but it's really not. Whether it's innovative or simply annoying is a judgment call, although it does help set the tone of the film. I saw the film with my adult granddaughter who is subject to motion sickness and although she liked it, she doesn't particularly want to see it again. That doesn't bode well for its box office "legs". I'd also like to add that I'm past 60, so ignore what others may say about this not being for folks over 30-35.
*** Spoiler Pause ***
Still here? OK, here goes... I should qualify my first comment with the fact that I don't necessarily consider the spoilers all that major. The opening titles set up the biggest spoiler, so it wasn't really that unexpected.
So what is new and/or fresh about it? The answer is point of view (POV). Most traditional monster films have central characters who are scientists or military people engaged in battling and/or understanding the monster. The monster's victims are traditionally part of the background. "Cloverfield" turns this around... There are no scientists in sight and the military personnel are all secondary characters. The protagonists are some of the same people you see simply running and screaming in a traditional monster film. The scant plot is simply their trying to survive and save friends and loved ones. The hand held video is simply a plot gimmick to facilitate this unique POV.
Some have criticized the characters as being vapid, self-absorbed twenty-somethings, which I don't think is entirely fair. It's largely true of the party group at the beginning, but then once we shift the focus from scientists and high-ranking military types to everyday people, you can't really expect everyone to be all that interesting. The audience doesn't need to admire them, only to identify with them and/or like them at some level. The core group at the focus of the film may not be heroic or deep thinkers, but they are types we all know and are mostly likable enough.
So, what's not to like? Again, just as with TBWP, many people won't like the jerky hand held camera work. So that much is a matter of taste - I find it mildly annoying, but that's just me. What's more troubling (here come the spoilers) is that almost everyone dies! OK, that's not too surprising in a modern horror film. And again, this is foreshadowed in the opening credits. As they rolled, I was prepared that some or most of the characters would die, but not all of the most sympathetic ones! Doing it this way is arguably more realistic. But, since the whole premise of any monster film is unrealistic, my gut reaction is that if I wanted to see a show with a really depressing ending, I'd watch a documentary and learn something in the process. Once I've spent the whole time investing some feelings for the characters, having them killed off seemingly at random may be realistic, but it doesn't leave me with a good feeling as I leave the theater. This may also affect the film's box office "legs".
I also have to add that this is one of the most intense films I've ever seen. It's only about an hour long yet leaves you wrung out, feeling that it was a much longer film. In addition to being nauseous from the camera work, my granddaughter was sore from tensing her muscles and generally felt like she'd been through a real workout by the time the final credits rolled.
Conditionally recommended with significant caveats... (However, my all-time favorite giant monster movies are "Gojira" (the original Japanese version), "Godzilla vs. Destroyer", "Godzilla: Final Wars", "Gorgo", "Mighty Joe Young" (the original version), and both the original and Peter Jackson versions of "King Kong").