Realism

One of my favorite aspects of Cloverfield was that they didn’t give a lot away in the previews, so I’m going to try and review it without giving a lot away as well, because I think that you should go see it with as little information about it as possible.

Thus, a brief synopsis:

(Warning: Though I’m trying not to, this may contain some small spoilers, so if you want to go in with a pure mind, I suggest you read this after you see the film.)

The Good:

• Like I said, I knew little to nothing about this film going in, because they decided to go with vague trailers as opposed to the current trend of using the trailer as a mini-version of the movie.
• The ‘Blaire Witch’ style camera work added to the sense of realism, and kept you on edge the whole time.
• The pace and tone of the film was so good that for an entire hour and a half, no one in my theater spoke a word. No one. I can’t remember the last time that happened.

The Bad:

• The monster had a bit of a scale issue. One minute it’s tearing down building; the next it’s going after individual people. Perhaps it just changed tastes half way through, but it seems like it couldn’t pick a size.
• They don’t explain much. Where did the monster come from? Why is it unaffected by our counter-monster measures? Why is the film named Cloverfield?

All in all, I’d say it was about as good as a monster movie can get. They kept you on the edge of your seat the whole time, they kept things somewhat believable, and they didn’t oversell any of it. While I don’t think that this was the ‘Movie of the Year’ by any means (and I’ve already basically give that nomination to Juno), it was a very entertaining film, and I definitely suggest going to see it.

Grade: B+
Theater Worthy: Yes

Note: For a great article on how Cloverfield advertised without advertising, check out MTV’s coverage of the Cloverfield viral-marketing campaign.

[Cloverfield]

[MTV - Cloverfield Viral-Marketing]

[Rotten Tomatoes - Cloverfield]

{ 0 comments }