So I saw “Cloverfield” this morning. As I am sure you are all intensely waiting for my opinion, I will hold back no further.
It was decent. It was exactly what I expected, except maybe the ending was a little better than I had anticipated. Although it was shot in hand cams, it was still thoroughly watchable. I think if you are fan of horror films, or more specifically monster movies, like Godzilla, you will love it. It is about a implausible monster romping through New York. It was good because it didn’t try to be anything more than it was, a fun movie. There was no religious parable, no big brother like conspiracies, and no delusions of grandeur.
According to an review by Kurt Loder:
“Cloverfield” is a nifty update of the ’50s schlock monster movie, mercifully unadulterated by delusions of contemporary relevance or nitwit nudge-wink irony. The picture is what it is: A group of people whose chances of survival wouldn’t appear to be much of a betting matter encounter a rampaging behemoth from who knows where and spend the rest of the film trying not to attract its sustained interest. It’s a movie that aspires only to be scary, and succeeds.
While I am giving it a generally good review, and thought Kurt Loder summed it up well. There is one part that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Visually it is strongly reminiscent of 9/11, which is understandable since buildings are falling and people are running. But there are more than a few shots that look like cheap imitations of CNN footage, and there are comments about a possible terrorist origin of the attack when they first witness it. I guess to seem realistic, a bunch of New Yorkers watching buildings explode and fall are going to wonder if it is terrorists. But it seemed a little exploitative.