"Cloverfield" Review - Written by TonyD

**** out of ****

Last time that I wrote about “Cloverfield,” it became something that I didn’t want it to be. It was me talking about the movie, instead of talking about what I liked about it. It was filled with enough spoilers to the point that you wouldn’t even have to see the movie. So, for the last time in the history of the month, I present to you, the final review of “Cloverfield” (well, at least my final review).

And tits on Bobby Lee, where do I begin?

First off, “Cloverfield” is one of the most extraordinary films that I’ve ever partaken in the theater. Each moment of the film kept me on the edge of my seat and begging for more. Rest assured it never let go of me. I was intrigued with the storyline right from the very beginning, and I’m sure you find it hard to believe when I say that a film that was hyped more than “Snakes on a Plane” can be that good. Since the unnamed teaser appeared in front of “Transformers,” I and many other online bloggers and film geeks paid attention to updates of a movie that was then titled “Untitled J.J. Abrams Project.” Our nickname for it was “Cloverfield.”

I learned earlier this weekend that they weren’t planning on releasing it as “Cloverfield,” but a different title that would have probably made no sense. We kept asking what the word meant. It was never repeated once in the movie, other than the beginning prologue. Even though that most people still consider the word to be the name of the monster of the film, they are seriously far off. My lucky ass went to go see “Cloverfield” opening night AND the next day, which made me one happy son of a bitch. I can assure each and every one of you that the film only gets better and much more frightening the second time around.

Now, I’m not going to be one of those people and say, “This is where I talk about the plot, because there isn’t any. All monster movies don’t have a plot.” Sorry to break it to you and your little dog too, but if you go into “Cloverfield” expecting a monster movie, you will be really disappointed. The “monster” isn’t on-screen for much, but there is a good enough reason for it, which I will explain later on in the review. But instead of telling you that there isn’t plot, I’ll let you know a few things about the movie.

First off, there is a plot, and for all of you people who are expecting a mindless movie where a big monster just destroys Manhattan, you’re out of luck. It’s more complex than your usual monster movie. But secondly, I won’t tell you the plot. I think there is a fine-line between letting the reader go into a film like this with an open mind and letting the reader knowing the entire plot of the movie. Basically, I’m telling you to go see it without knowing what the plot is. As much as I’d hate for you to think of it as a monster film before you see it, I’d hate you knowing that it has a plot that you shouldn’t know until you see it.

The reason that I say that “Cloverfield” is not a monster movie is because that the story isn’t told in the monster’s POV or the military’s POV. You shouldn’t be surprised by that while watching the commercials. But for all of you guys who don’t know about the film, it’s being shot through a camcorder in the POV of one of the cast members for most of the movie. We’re seeing it through the eyes of a guy who we know by Hud (T.J. Miller). It’s like that he is taking us through the city of Manhattan when we’re with him. Anyway, since it is in his POV, we don’t see the monster for a good percentage of the movie. It’s not until the end that we see it up-close and not from images on a television.

For most of the movie, the film being shot on a camcorder adds more emotion as to if it was shot on a studio video-camera. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see many people in Manhattan film themselves getting chased by a monster with a big Super 16mm camera. This camera is lighter, and let’s the cast run faster. When they’re running, the camera is supposed to shake for a reason. It’s not so the audience can get nauseated by the fact, but it’s to display how scared these characters are. Instead of the characters saying how scared they are, they imply it as the camera shakes back and forth.

The scariest moment of “Cloverfield” arrives halfway through the film, as four of our heroes walk through a dark tunnel. I don’t want to spoil it for everyone, but listen to the conversation these characters hold. The camera guy that we know as Hud talks about a completely different subject about old people burning in the subway. Most people can think of this as being a comedic relief, but I think this is more saying that they’re scared and they need to get their mind off of the entire idea of a monster attacking the city. Hud is a character that we stay by for the entire film, because he acts like us. He knows what to say in the situation like this, because he knows that we would be saying the same thing. He videotapes the incident because he wants to let people know what really went down. What he doesn’t know is that if Manhattan survived this attack, it would have been a miracle.

Most people will argue, though, that the most frightening moment of “Cloverfield” is when we first meet the monster. There are many moments that signal that producer J.J. Abrams wanted to show how we are still scared after the moments of 9/11. Taking place in New York doesn’t help either. The first moments of “Cloverfield” already signal something so ominous and frightening, as the tape is recovered at a place formally known as Central Park. Aside from the infamous headless Statue of Liberty, the monster destroys another important piece of New York – the Empire State Building. Smoke emerges through the streets and everyone runs away. They hide in a store where glass goes flying and everyone is begging for their lives.

The monster might be the most frightening monster since “Jaws.” While he’s still vicious, the film leaves us guessing what it is. We never get a clear shot of what it is, but it’s frightening enough. There is not only one big monster, but tons of little monsters that look like parasites and/or spiders. It’s tough, it’s mean, and it’s looking for something other than a place to call home.

During the second viewing, I was looking for at least one negative aspect of the film, and to tell you the truth, I couldn’t find one. It’s just a fun and basic watch. It’s a survival movie, something that Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, and Roland Emmerich (just because I like the remake of “Godzilla” as a guilty pleasure) couldn’t create. Remember Spielberg’s rendition of “War of the Worlds”? I’m one of those people that admit that it’s one of his best films, but compare the characters from both films and you will find Spielberg’s characters the weaker of the two.

“Cloverfield” is, without a doubt, an excellent way to begin January. This is usually the time of the year where studios dump out all of the shitty movies, but I think this may be the first year where January didn’t suck. I want to go on record, saying that when I list my favorite films of 2008, “Cloverfield” will definitely be up there, if not my favorite of 2008. And when there is a year of movies directed by Steven Spielberg, the Coen Brothers, and Bryan Singer being released, you know that means something.


Read Ben's take of "Cloverfield": http://www.filmarcade.net/2008/01/cloverfield.html

Read Tony's original review, filled with spoilers: http://www.filmarcade.net/2008/01/cloverfield-review-written-by-tonyd.html