Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No… It’s a giant thingamajig!!!
I suppose the biggest compliment that I can bestow on “Cloverfield” is that it is as good as a film like this could possibly be. It is a monster movie… plain and simple. No explanation. No excuses. No subtext. It exists only to thrill — and it accomplishes that modest goal with sublime ease.
Essentially, “Cloverfield” is a recovered 75-minute video made by a group of Abercrombie & Fitch models who, while attending a farewell party in New York City, capture the footage of a devastating attack by a massive Godzilla-like creature. The panic, the chase, the devastation — all recorded as a small group of these sexy Manhattan-ites dash through the city looking for one of their friends.
Rob, Marlena, Lily and Hud form our heroic quartet as they search for Beth — the love of Rob’s life who is hurt and immobile at her apartment. The nature of the premise relies on the hand-held video technique that has become so simultaneously popular and loathed in recent years. The painfully obvious comparison combination is “The Blair Witch Project” meets “Godzilla”.
The same thing that works for this film is also its most major flaw. I really appreciate the fact that “Cloverfield” doesn’t strive to be anything more than a scary roller coaster ride. It is a visceral and authentic depiction of the chaos that would ensue if something this absurd were to actually happen. For such a ludicrous premise, it still manages to maintain a semblance of reality.
Consider a failed 2007 film with similar motivations — “The Mist”. Again, a monster movie that generated some thrills. Unfortunately, it tried a little too hard to have emotional impact and a meaningful message. That miserable film dwindled into a ludicrous exercise in melodrama. Intense emotions are hard to blend with silly monsters — it feels false.
“Cloverfield” does not presume to become anything more. It is what it is… no layers. While that results in a streamlined and exciting blockbuster, it also, by definition, is rather hollow.
Perhaps it appears unfair to criticize a film for the same thing that makes it work… But that is the nature of monster movies. They have a hard time aspiring to anything more than surface entertainment. When they do try, they typically fail. When they don’t try, they lack ambition and depth.
Nevertheless, “Cloverfield” gets my solid recommendation as one of the very best movies in its genre. It reminds me a little of “The Host”, a great Korean fright-flick that garnered worldwide attention in 2007. I had a really good time… I will watch it again… But I can’t say that it will hold up as a classic. We will all forget about it when the next big monster epic comes out — probably “Cloverfield 2: It’s Still Alive” in 2010.
