Cloverfield

9/10

J.J. Abrams intrigued us last year with a teaser trailer that gave no name, just an explosion in downtown Manhattan and the head of the Statue of Liberty rolling down the street and a date, that was all. Genius if you ask me, but the real question is, does it live up to all of the hype and speculation that followed? I can attest that the answer is yes, it does.

On an intellectual level Cloverfield should not work at all. What little character development there is comes from gaps on the tape where what was previously recorded comes through in between the current action, showing bits and pieces of the two main characters past relationship. The ending really shouldn't work either. It's abrupt and doesn't finish the story of the situation, but it does give closure on our character's part in the story. There is no explanation given to where the creature came from, what it wants or where it's going. You never really even get a great shot of what the thing looks like. And, to top it off, Cloverfield had a budget of less than $30 to $50 million. For comparison, Will Smith's I Am Legend had a budget of $150 million and for the record, I enjoyed Cloverfield much more than I Am Legend.

Only two small problems with the film. One, the movie is shot entirely with a hand held camera and if you are a regular reader of mine you know how much I hate the “shaky-cam”. But, I can forgive it this time as the premise and style make up for it although some people have complained of motion sickness due to the movement. Two, I know Manhattan is a small island, but still, the creature just happens to be everywhere our group is. I find that just a tad unbelievable, but then again, it is a monster movie.

I'm Mitch Emerson, and I approve of this movie.

Keep reading,

Mitch Emerson
mitch@comicbookbin.com